Here's an entire article on this subject:

http://www.afrigeneas.com/forume/index.cgi?noframes;read=12038

[from]: www.cherokeephoenix.org September 2006

African-Native American Genealogy Forum

Marilyn Vann Published in the CNO paper!

Posted By: John Cornsilk

Date: Saturday, 7 October 2006, at 10:43 a.m.


Q and A from the Freedmen perspective

By Marilyn Vann
Descendants of Freedmen Association President

What are the Dawes Cherokee Rolls? The Dawes Rolls were made by the U.S. government around 1900 to destroy the tribe by requiring allotment of tribal land to tribal citizens and ending the tribal government.

Who are the Cherokee Freedmen? The Cherokee Freedmen were listed as Cherokee Nation citizens on the "Cherokee Freedmen Dawes Roll" by the federal authorities known as the Dawes Commission. Included were former slaves of Cherokees and their descendants as well as people of Cherokee blood mixed with African ancestry, many of who already had citizenship guaranteed by the 1827 and 1839 constitutions. The Dawes Commission refused to list blood degrees for Cherokee Freedmen citizens. The CN and the U.S. agreed through the Treaty of 1866 that former slaves of the tribe and free blacks living in the Nation prior to the Civil War would be taken as citizens of the tribe. Afterward, the Cherokee people proposed an amendment to the 1839 Constitution officially adopting the Freedmen as Cherokee citizens.

Opponents of Freedmen citizenship claim that Freedmen citizens were removed from the tribe when the Dawes Commission placed them on a separate roll. This is not correct. Each Dawes enrollee, including Freedmen, received a citizenship certificate as well as a Dawes Roll number proving them to be a citizen of the CN. Between 1907 and 1912, Cherokee Freedmen received all of the same payments as every other Cherokee citizen and shared again in the 1962 per capita payment as tribal citizens and had voted in every tribal election up to 1983.

Opponents of Freedmen citizenship would have the Cherokee people believe that all Cherokee Freedmen have no Cherokee blood. This too is false. Many Cherokee citizens listed as Freedmen have Dawes testimony or census cards showing they had Cherokee blood or an Indian parent. Numerous Freedmen received the 1908 Guion Miller payment from the U.S. government, which only went to citizens who documented Cherokee blood and whose ancestors had crossed the tragic and now infamous Trail of Tears. A majority of Freedmen have actually documented Cherokee blood, some even doing so in court. The court case "Sango" emphasizes that a Dawes-enrolled Freedmen may have Indian ancestry and Indian parents but was not permitted to record their blood because of their African ancestry and the desire of the Dawes Commission to free up Indian land for sale to whites.

Why were mixed African-Cherokees listed as Freedmen along side former slaves lacking Indian blood? Driving the placement of mixed African-Cherokees as Freedmen (even though such people had been identified on earlier rolls such as the 1880 Cherokee roll as "native Cherokees" or "native coloreds" or whom had been listed as emigrant Cherokees on the 1852 payment census) was the fact that an act of Congress required that Freedmen allotments be unrestricted four years earlier than "Indians" listed on the Cherokee-by-blood roll who had degrees of blood listed. White settlers prized unrestricted land because it came on the open market much easier and quicker than the restricted lands of an Indian citizen. In other words, if an Indian with some Negro ancestry could be classified as a Freedman, his or her land was unprotected. It was to the advantage of the Dawes Commission and whites that Cherokee Indians be classified as Freedmen.

Opponents of Cherokee Freedmen claim that removing the Freedmen will create an "all Indian tribe." The Cherokee-by-blood roll is not exclusively a list of Cherokee blood Indians. The roll includes adopted whites, adopted Creeks, Natchez, Shawnees, Delaware, as well as native Cherokees. Adopted whites, with no Cherokee blood, will retain Cherokee citizenship while Freedmen with Cherokee blood will be removed if the proposed constitutional amendment passes. Ancestors of some adopted whites listed on the Cherokee-by-blood roll, paid cash for tribal citizenship according to Dawes testimonies. The proposed constitutional amendment is not designed to protect tribal citizenship for Freedmen with Cherokee blood, yet will protect whites who paid their way into the tribe.

Has the Cherokee tribal court ever recognized that people listed as Freedmen have Cherokee blood? Yes. Bernice Riggs, whose Cherokee ancestor served in the Indian home guard during the U.S. Civil War, was recognized by the Cherokee courts in 2001 as having Cherokee blood, although her Dawes enrolled ancestor was listed as a Cherokee Freedmen. She and her descendants and other family citizens will lose tribal citizenship if the proposed constitutional amendment is passed. Bernice Riggs is not alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Cherokee Indians, unjustly classified as Freedmen in 1902, will lose their citizenship if the amendment passes.

Weren't the Freedmen forced on the tribe? Why should the tribe continue to accept Freedmen? No. The Indian Claims Commission and the U.S. Court of Claims cases determined that Freedmen were not forced on the tribe. In the Lucy Allen case, our own courts determined that the U.S. government did not force Freedmen citizenship. The Chickasaw Nation is an example that tribes were not required to adopt Freedmen within their treaties and never granted Freedmen citizenship. Historical letters by former slave owners are evidence that Cherokees urged Freedmen to return to the CN to be properly listed as tribal citizens.

Did the Lucy Allen case give the Freedmen citizenship? No. The Lucy Allen case determined that the Cherokee Freedmen already had citizenship rights under the 1975 Constitution (and prior to that constitution) as Dawes enrollees or their descendants. They decided the Tribal Council did not have the authority to strip citizenship from any descendants of Dawes enrollees as was done to Freedmen during the 1980s.

Did the Cherokee Freedmen ever vote or participate in office as Cherokee citizens? Yes. Between 1866 and 1907, several people identified as Negroes by Dr. Emmett Starr's "History of the Cherokees" served on the National Council. These tribal leaders served the Cherokee people, even though they were listed on the Dawes Roll as Freedmen. The most prominent was Cherokee Freedmen Joseph "Stick" Ross of the Tahlequah District.

Democracy did not exist in the CN between 1907 and 1970. No Cherokee citizens were permitted to vote during that time. Freedmen did vote in every Cherokee election between 1971 and 1983 as tribal citizens prior to the adoption of a rule designed to bar Freedmen from voting in the 1983 election. Later, Tribal Council ordinances requiring all Cherokees to be able to receive CDIB cards based strictly on the blood degree listed on the Dawes Rolls continued to block the Freedmen at the polls. Freedmen both with and without Cherokee blood were stripped of their citizenship and civil rights.

Won't the CN be the only tribe to have non-Indian tribal citizens if Freedmen people are not banished? No. The Kiowa and Comanche tribes' base rolls list captives of white, Mexican and Negro ancestry, who are classified as full bloods by their respective tribal enrollment offices. These tribal citizens were listed on "captive rolls" separately from "Indians" before 1906. Although these people have no treaty rights to tribal citizenship and have no Indian blood, their tribal citizenship has continued. Also the Seminole Nation has Freedmen tribal citizens. Why should the Freedmen be accepted as equals when in the past they were not? An 1824 Cherokee law barred marriages between Indians and slaves. The 1827 and 1839 constitutions forbade Negroes from holding office. During the 1820s, many intermarried white men received voting rights in the Cherokee Nation and were the driving force behind such laws. Children of white women and Cherokee men were NOT recognized citizens until the 1820s.

Miscegenation laws barring marriages between Indians and whites as well as between "Negroes and whites" existed in various states during the 19th century and until 1967. Do the Cherokee people really want to return to the racist environment of the 19th and early 20th centuries? Will Cherokees today repeat the actions of Andrew Jackson who defied the courts, caused the Trail of Tears and illegally abused what to him were "inferiors" by using the power and might of the U.S. government? Is it morally or ethically right to strip people of their citizenship? Where will that stop? Will you be next? "

-snip-

See that same link for another comment written by Marilyn Vann,
President of Descendants of Freedmen Association