Highly specific exceptions?  Exceptions to what? 

Let's be honest here.  Looking back, I don't think the topic was even well defined.  I do not blame you, or myself, for this, but I think it is true.  The post I responded to, it seems to me, went through several points: 
"The only other thing you could be objecting to is the land itself being stolen from natives, but that doesn't hold up either. The various native tribes in North America did not have a state in the modern sense, and thus could not have had any meaningful diplomacy with the European colonial powers; the difference in the level of political organization was too great. Given how sparsely populated it was, especially after the outbreaks of disease, the New World was terra nullius for all intents and purposes. The right of conquest was universally recognized for almost the entirety of human history up until 1945, so you're going to have to vilify a lot more people than just white Americans if you want to push irredentism."

I will attempt to summarize what I see as your main points below.  Feel free to correct and clarify, since the object of what I am doing right now is to do exactly that (clarify). 
On the topic of land being stolen from Indians: 
a.  Diplomacy was not practicable due to differences in societal/cultural/diplomatic development/complexity, therefore whites had little recourse other than brute force.  (In my eyes this ignoring the widespread existence of, and breaking of, treaties.  One case of particular note is the fact that Britain more or less honored their agreements until the Revolution, but in their settlement with the new USA, they pretty much ceded Indian lands without notice to or negotiation with the affected tribes.  America ran roughshod over them.) 
b. None of the tribes, individually or in combination, amounted to having a state anyway.  (If we go down this path I'd like to clarify what qualifies, and what the relevance is if the European/Euro-American powers agreed at the time that there were organized entities that treaties could be negotiated with.)
c.  Disease essentially depopulated the continent to the point that whites were practically moving into empty territory.  (I'd like to know what sources you derive this claim from.  There seem to have been too many wars with Indians to justify it for me, pending your evidence.) 
d.  "Might makes right" has been the way of the world up until 1945.  (I think it had been going out of fashion quite a bit before then.)
e.  If we're being asked to give the land back, there are a lot more ancient territorial disputes to go around. 

What, exactly, is the point you are trying to argue here?  That it was okay to seize Indian land because they couldn't be negotiated with?  That it was okay because they weren't a real country?  That it was okay because they weren't even there?  That it was okay because everybody else was doing it too?  And who was even suggesting that the land should be "given back" to anyone, as if that was realistically possible on either the giving or the receiving end? 

Other than that, I think following arguments can mostly wait; however, there is one thing I really want to follow up on, regardless of whether it is made irrelevant to the main discussion:  your point that over 90% of them were killed by accidental disease, not deliberate extermination.  That is indeed one figure given for the initial wave of epidemics after first contact, and I won't dispute it in that context, but in the following centuries, do you have evidence to point to this as the single most impactful factor regarding the plight of the natives?  (Disease felled more Civil War soldiers than battle, but I think it would be pretty fatuous to minimize the impact of battle casualties as a result.) 

Don't mind me, just celebrating the anniversary of yet another person running away from a debate once asked to clarify their machine-gunned arguments.

P.S. As for "dropping my anti-white bias", I don't believe I ever claimed that Africans or Chinese would have behaved any better given the same opportunity.

What happened to my lovely picture?

I know this is late, but since this thread got bumped regarding this post, I'd like to point out at The Cherokee Nation had an alphabet, newspaper, and system of government.

Sequoyah moved west to Arkansas and continued his work.  Finally, after  twelve years of labor, ridicule and abuse he finally reduced the complex language into 86 symbols, each representing a unique sound of Cherokee speech.  In 1821, after a demonstration of the system to amazed tribal elders, the Cherokee Nation adopted his alphabet, now called a 'syllabary'.  Thousands of Cherokees learned to read and write within a few years. 

In 1824 the Cherokee National Council at New Echota, Georgia, honored him with a silver medal, which he proudly wore for the rest of his life, and later with an annuity of $300, which his widow continued to receive after his death.

By 1825, the Bible and numerous religious hymns and pamphlets, educational materials and legal documents and books of every description were translated into the Cherokee language. 

In 1827, the Cherokee National Council appropriated funds to print the first Indian newspaper published in the United States.

https://www.manataka.org/page81.html

During 1898–1906, beginning with the Curtis Act of 1898, the US federal government all but dissolved the former Cherokee Nation's governmental and civic institutions, to make way for the incorporation of Indian Territory into the new state of Oklahoma. From 1906 to 1938, the structure and function of the tribal government was not clearly defined. After the dissolution of the tribal government of the Cherokee Nation in the 1900s and the death of William Charles Rogers in 1917, the Federal government began to appoint chiefs to the Cherokee Nation in 1919. The service time for each appointed chief was so brief that it became known as "Chief for a Day." Six men fell under this category, the first being A. B. Cunningham who served from November 8 to November 25.^[3] The short service times were often just long enough to have one sign a treaty, usually to cede more land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation