Congress and Cherokees

[WhoMe]

Does Congress have the right to tell the Cherokee Nation to allow Freedmen into their tribal membership or else they will consider terminating the Cherokee Nation - as a federally recognized tribe?

[Josiah]

Here is the really funny part about this issue
Congress is saying that the Cherokees are not complying with the Treaty of 1866!
I was like wow!
Your kidding right

[Joe G]

Here is the really funny part about this issue
Congress is saying that the Cherokees are not complying with the Treaty of 1866!
I was like wow!
Your kidding right

Yeah, this episode gives a whole new meaning to the word HYPOCRISY!

[NorthofAda]

Let's see if I've got this straight, because I've been reading about this issue off and on for a while now.

If the treaty they're referring to was 1866, then that was before Oklahoma statehood. The freedmen were given "citizenship" because they lived in Cherokee territory, not because they were NDNs.

They were plainly listed on the Dawes rolls as being freedmen, not Cherokees by blood, because they WEREN'T NDNs...

Isn't there a difference between citizenship as in physical location versus citizenship by nationality, if you will? If my family had been living on the Dine rez when it was formed, they wouldn't have become Dine by residency.

The federal government supposedly gives NDN nations the right to draft their own constitution and their own rules regarding enrollment. I don't think the feds have any right to dictate how a tribe enrolls its own.

If they succeed in terminating the CNO, then will the other "civilized tribes" be next? The Chickasaw nation had freedmen numbered among their rolls, but they cannot be enrolled as Chickasaw these days if they don't have an ancestor on the By Blood rolls, too.

[Str8Dancer49]

terminating the Cherokee Nation - as a federally recognized tribe?

Well, first, that's not really what's happening w/ the proposed legislation. The legislation specifically cuts federal funding, but does not necessarily "terminate" CNO in the sense of the 1950s termination policies. CNO can operate just fine w/o those federal funds. Sure, it will be an inconvenience, and people are gonna have to look long and hard at budgetary issues, but THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION DOES NOT "TERMINATE" ANYBODY!

In fact the only people who have been terminated in the strict, quanifiable, legal sense of that term (namely, they have been removed from the Federal Register's list of federally recognized tribes, and are therefore ineligible for any government to government interaction with the US or OK state governments - note that this goes well beyond simply eligibility for federal funds) are the DELAWARES!

Here is the really funny part about this issue
Congress is saying that the Cherokees are not complying with the Treaty of 1866!

The 1866 treaty wherein the Freedmen were named as citizens is also the one that lists the Delawares and Shawnees as citizens. Funny how Chad Smith can say the 1866 treaty is irrelevant when it comes to the Freedmen, but when it comes to the Delawares, it is in full force and effect, resulting in the TERMINATION of the Delawares as a tribal government distinct from CNO.

Personally, I agree that Congress is way off - it's not like they haven't broken this treaty as well. But Smith has proven that the fed gov't doesn't have a lock on hipocrisy...

They were plainly listed on the Dawes rolls as being freedmen, not Cherokees by blood, because they WEREN'T NDNs...

That's not exactly true either. Many of the Freedmen listed on the Dawes roll w/o a blood quantum actually did have blood quantums listed on earlier federal census rolls. Why is that? It's because the Dawes allotment policy was specifically designed to take land away from Native people. Under the allotment system, anyone who was 1/2 or more native blood had their land put into trust for a minimum of 12 years because it was thought - according to the Victorian racialist and evolutionist ideologies of the day - that they were mentally and legally "incompetant." For those listed as "freedmen" on the Dawes rolls, their land was held in trust for only 6 years, making it available to non-Indians (through sale, outright theft and murder, condemnation via imminent domain, etc) much sooner. Hence, it was in the financial and real-estate interests of the federal government, acting on behalf of white settlers, to ignore the prior calculations of Indian blood quantum for anyone who appeared phenotypically "black" and simply list them as Freedmen. Certainly there were "freedmen" who had no Native blood, but to say ALL of them "WEREN'T NDNs" is at best ignorant, and at worst straight racist.

It's not like this is some kind of secret info either. Check out Circe Sturm's book Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. She discusses all of this stuff in lots of detail, with detailed references SO YOU CAN CHECK IT OUT YOURSELF. Given that this information is out there and easily accessible, it's no wonder that people have to propagate half-truths on BOTH sides of the arguement. AGAIN, to say all of the Freedmen WERE NOT INDIAN is plainly false, and to say CNO will be terminated is wrong. To say EVERYONE listed on the Dawes rolls should be eligible for CNO citizenship is also a complety unsupportable position, keeping in mind the Delawares, Shawnees, intermarried whites, and so-called freedmen with out prior census documentation of Cherokee blood.


What do I think about the freedmen issue? Well, beyond what I wrote above, I really don't know. But I do know that the positions of the Smith admin, the Freedmen plaintiffs, and the federal govenrment are all pretty much EQUALLY flawed. Talk of termination is just an ill-informed knee-jerk emotional reaction that doesn't help solve anything.

[NorthofAda]

Certainly there were "freedmen" who had no Native blood, but to say ALL of them "WEREN'T NDNs" is at best ignorant, and at worst straight racist.

How about calling me "uninformed", rather than ignorant? And don't you dare insinuate that I am racist.

I would tell you what I really think of you and your post, but I have better manners than that.

[timmy tiger]

Certainly there were "freedmen" who had no Native blood, but to say ALL of them "WEREN'T NDNs" is at best ignorant, and at worst straight racist.


Okay, first of all, the term "Freedmen" wasn't just used for the purposes of the Dawes Rolls. That was a term from the gov describing the Free'd former Slaves and there are records out there that list "The Freedman Bank Accounts" and that does not have anything to do with Cherokee's but actual former slaves.

As for the Dawes Rolls, and I have looked at the actual census cards and do know where I speak on this one, anyone who had Cherokee Blood, even if it was mixed with "Black" was listed as Cherokee By Blood on the Dawes Rolls, so the Freedman were mostly the former slaves of the Cherokee people who were to be given citizenship by the tribe at that time and for the MOST PART they did not have Cherokee Blood. Now, with human error the way that it is and the fact that these rolls were done by HUMAN BEINGS to say that there wasn't a mistake or two or even more would be kidding ourselves here. However, for the most part the "Freedman" had no Cherokee blood in them, that was the way that it was supposed to have been.

[WhoMe]

Well, first, that's not really what's happening w/ the proposed legislation. The legislation specifically cuts federal funding, but does not necessarily "terminate" CNO in the sense of the 1950s termination policies. CNO can operate just fine w/o those federal funds. Sure, it will be an inconvenience, and people are gonna have to look long and hard at budgetary issues, but THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION DOES NOT "TERMINATE" ANYBODY!.

Str8,

I stand my my comment on termination:

"Members of the House introduced H.R. 2824, a bill to terminate the Cherokee Nation and eliminate nearly $300 million of funding, and related amendments to zero out federal funding to tribal citizens in all appropriations areas, such as healthcare (in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, H.R. 1328) and housing (in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act, H.R. 2786), to punish the Cherokee people for their vote."

[Str8Dancer49]

How about calling me "uninformed", rather than ignorant? And don't you dare insinuate that I am racist.

I would tell you what I really think of you and your post, but I have better manners than that.

Ignorant adj 1 a: destitute of knowledge or education; also: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence 2. unaware, uninformed

So, I did call you uninformed. As for insinuating that you are a racist... well, I apologize as that was not my intention at all. You just happened the be the one who I quoted - unfortunately, the seniment that you expressed has indeed been thrown around with clearly racist intent during the Cherokee and Seminole Freedman debates.

As for the Dawes Rolls, and I have looked at the actual census cards and do know where I speak on this one, anyone who had Cherokee Blood, even if it was mixed with "Black" was listed as Cherokee By Blood on the Dawes Rolls... However, for the most part the "Freedman" had no Cherokee blood in them, that was the way that it was supposed to have been.

I've spent plenty of time looking at those original Dawes application cards too.... and I've seen firsthand examples of people listed with Cherokee blood quantums in earlier federal documents and then listed w/o a blood quantum on the Dawes Freedmen rolls. There's also the Wallace and Kern Clifton rolls, which I think are the "bank accounts" you mention; these rolls were compliled in 1890 and 1897 respectively and list no blood quantum precisely because their intent was to settle claims regarding Cherokee per capita distributions to Delawares, Shawnees, and Freedmen (ahh, that 1866 treaty again!) as a way to facilitate the implimentation of the Dawes allotment process. Again, Circe Sturm (among numerous others) has pretty thoroughly documented how the Dawes applications were handled, particularly in regard to how people who were phenotypically "black" were dealt with. The Dawes commission wanted it to look like the freedmen had no Cherokee blood, so their land would be more easily accessible to settlers and the emerging territorial/state government in OK. Do we really want to just write it off to "human error" when greed and avarice were clearly and documentably much stronger motivating factors for those agents writing down people's genealogical info on those allotment application cards?


Soooo.... does any of this mean that congress can or should step in and dictate CNO citizenship? NO! Should Rep. Watson's IGNORANT legislation be passed? NO! I personally like what Justice Leeds has to say on her blog about it: Tsalagi Think Tank: Cherokee Nation's Report to International Forum Basically, she says its an internal matter that must be handled internally. (She also takes note of the "intellectual dishonesty" that has emerged from CNO, to which I would say there's plenty of that to go around...)
------------------------------

WhoME..... Ok, I may stand corrected... thanks for quoting that specific language, though it looks like it came from a media/journalistic source (and an op/ed from Ben Nighthorse Campbell at that... maybe TheHill.com? hmmm?). If so, what is the exact language of the bill itself? Inquiring minds want to know from our guy in DC.... Certainly Campbell calls it termination, but what is the actual text of the law, cause that, more than Campbell's opinion, is what matters.

[timmy tiger]

ve spent plenty of time looking at those original Dawes application cards too.... and I've seen firsthand examples of people listed with Cherokee blood quantums in earlier federal documents and then listed w/o a blood quantum on the Dawes Freedmen rolls. There's also the Wallace and Kern Clifton rolls, which I think are the "bank accounts" you mention; these rolls were compliled in 1890 and 1897 respectively and list no blood quantum precisely because their intent was to settle claims regarding Cherokee per capita distributions to Delawares, Shawnees, and Freedmen (ahh, that 1866 treaty again!) as a way to facilitate the implimentation of the Dawes allotment process. Again, Circe Sturm (among numerous others) has pretty thoroughly documented how the Dawes applications were handled, particularly in regard to how people who were phenotypically "black" were dealt with. The Dawes commission wanted it to look like the freedmen had no Cherokee blood, so their land would be more easily accessible to settlers and the emerging territorial/state government in OK. Do we really want to just write it off to "human error" when greed and avarice were clearly and documentably much stronger motivating factors for those agents writing down people's genealogical info on those allotment application cards?

Okay: I would like to know what federal records that you are refering to. I know about the federal records and the Dawes were done in 1898. The Kerns and Wallace rolls are about the "Freedmen" not Cherokee's and there is no blood quantium listed on these rolls.

And no the Freedman banks were NOT those, they were in the East and other places as well and NOT, I repeat NOT affiliated with any Native Tribe (that I have found)!

I totally disagree with the Dawes wanting to make the Freedman look like they had no Cherokee blood--but that's my opinion verses yours and we will get NOWHERE 'cause you won't change my mind and I don't care to change yours at this point.

As for writing off human error--then what do you propose be done about that? How do you propose that it be corrected and fixed? Don't just give me words here, how about some actions that could be good to benefit all people.

[NorthofAda]

Ignorant adj 1 a: destitute of knowledge or education; also: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence 2. unaware, uninformed

So, I did call you uninformed. As for insinuating that you are a racist... well, I apologize as that was not my intention at all. You just happened the be the one who I quoted - unfortunately, the seniment that you expressed has indeed been thrown around with clearly racist intent during the Cherokee and Seminole Freedman debates.application cards too....

While the textbook definition of "ignorant" may include "uninformed," in everyday usage it tends to have the more derogatory meaning.

I accept your apologize on the racist point. I am far from that, knowing that I have ancestry of at least 3 races. I didn't expect that kind of response from a fellow Chickasaw/Cherokee.

[Str8Dancer49]

The Kerns and Wallace rolls are the Choctaw Rolls (primarily)--this is about the Cherokee's.

Check out this site which says:

Wallace Roll ~ 1890 History Cherokee Freedmen
Of Cherokee Freedmen in Indian Territory of Cherokee freedmen created by Special Agent John W. Wallace. Individuals on the schedule were entitled to share with the Shawnee and Delaware in the per capita distribution of $75,000, appropriated by Congress in October 1888, and issued under the supervision of his office.

Kern Clifton Roll ~ 1897 History Cherokee Freedmen
Census of the Freedmen and their descendants of the Cherokee Nation taken by the Commission appointed in the case of Moses Whitmire, Trustee of the Freedmen of the Cherokee Nation versus the Cherokee Nation and the United States in the Court of Claims at Washington, DC;
The Kern Clifton Roll came about due to the Cherokee Nation disputing the number of freedmen included in the Wallace Roll... yet the Kern Clifton Roll actually increased the number of people eligible for payment.


Did these also include info on the Choctaws? Cause it seems they are dealing with the Cherokees and the claims arising from the 1866 treaty.

And no the Freedman banks were NOT those,

OK, I stand corrected....

I would like to know what federal records that you are refering to.... I totally disagree with the Dawes wanting to make the Freedman look like they had no Cherokee blood.

It'll take a while for me to go back and find those records (as I merely went through some of those things at the Nat'l Archive center in Fort Worth in the course of doing other research, and as such did not make copies - basically I was wanting to see if some of the things I had read elsewhere were correct), though, as I noted above, Circe Sturm and several other authors have already compiled that documentation and written convincingly on the motives of the Dawes agents, so rather than waiting for me or trusting me, check out her book. Here's a link to the publisher's site.... See especially chapters 4, 5, and 7.

As for writing off human error--then what do you propose be done about that? How do you propose that it be corrected and fixed? Don't just give me words here, how about some actions that could be good to benefit all people.

I honestly don't know.... Maybe those whose ancestors are listed on the Freedmen roll should be given an opportunity to use any legal documentation (federal censuses, taxation records, probate documents) to show that their ancestors were indeed of native ancestry. Of course, that could be of benefit more broadly if it allows Cherokees whose blood quantums are calculated incorrectly based on Dawes to get things straightened out.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree on alot of these particulars. However, I think we probably agree more on the bigger picture - that the Watson legislation is stupid and intrusive and undermines well-established principles of tribal sovereignty going back to the Martinez v. Santa Clara supreme court case. For me, I always go back to the issue of Delaware termination and Chad Smith's position on that - how can the 1866 treaty apply in one case but not the other? For me, if the treaty applies to the Delawares, then it should apply to the freedmen - cause as the US Constitution says, "treaties are the supreme law of the land." If it doesn't apply to the freedmen, then the Delawares should be restored to federal recognition.

--------------

I think what could be a lively, entertaining, and educational debate in person is turning kinda antagonistic due to the humorless voice of the internet. I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight w/ NoA, timmy,or any one.... and apologize if it comes across that way.

[Josiah]

Dang finally a Honest debate about this complex issue without calling each other racist!!!
Because after all we are talking about race here

The main issue as I see it is the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" allowed to self determine enrollment?

I say yes
If we are to say that any Native American Nation has limited sovereignty and allowed to determine membership outside of oversight by the BIA.

Should it have been the Freedman
Well lets just say they picked low hanging fruit and picked a group that from the outside were not very strong

Was this wrong thing to do
Yes

I dont agree with some of the policies that our native government has done but I do agree with other things.
Just like the federal government not everybody agrees with everything and all policies it does.

Who should determine this

Courts

It is a judicial issue

NOT Legislative!!!

[timmy tiger]

Okay, if you look at those rolls, and I did many times and just re--skimed them and they are NOT actual Cherokee Rolls.

There were the Drennen Rolls of 1851 and then there was a Roll in 1880 which I have and it does NOT list blood quantium on the pages that I have and the actual roll records are in the NARA on microfilm. Then came the Dawes. Now the Kerns and Wallace--that website that you are usuing is FULL of errors and I have seen them and I have seen that website and it is NOT one that I ever use because of the errors in it. The name claiming that they are Cherokee Rolls--well they are "Freedmen" Rolls, there are no other Cherokee's on them other then the Freedmen, that I have seen.

Okay, I've read about the Dawes Commission and the Miller Commission and the Baker and many of those. It's the same crap different day. But that is what many of the tribes use for enrollement. If you can prove your NDN blood through any Federal documentation then you go before the Tribal Counsel and that is up to them. So I don't see the problem there anyway.

I can agree to disagree and yes they are Idiots and have no say what the Cherokee's do.

The Dawes Rolls covered ALL 5 "Civilized" Tribes, not just the Cherokee's. So yes, they are covered through there. Many people refer to the Cherokee name because that is the biggest Tribe and the most well known of the 5.

[timmy tiger]

Okay, I looked at that book that you listed, although I didn't read it chapter 4 that you mention above is listing a time frame of 1907-2000, the Dawes rolls were done 1898-1914 and the Treaty that is being mentioned here was done in 1866, so in what way does that book or chapter prove that the "Freedmen" of 1866 had any Cherokee Blood?

Now, did you actually read the book or just skim the parts like I did?

If someone else were to do the same research and find the same things, it could be a totally different out come, some times. That's what the whole point of perception is all about. And we all have ours. Now unless there are actual documents out there that state that specifically, which I don't see happening and I know alot of people who are a mixed of "White"/"Cherokee"/"Black" who are enrolled and still enrolled and NOT listed as being on the Freedmen rolls and some with no "White" in them the same way. So that's why I stand where I do---'cause I know the actual people who are there and their Cherokee blood stands.