 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: JohnInKansas Date: 03 Mar 07 - 04:51 AM This is a difficult subject to bring up, and I see several possible conflicts over how and why it could be classified as folklore/cultural material, and conversely why it's simple politics. I'm starting it off as a BS thread, simply because it remains to be seen whether our people will find it just another bit of politics, or whether it has value as an episode with significance in the cultural history (perhaps some few years hence) of some of us. A Washington Post article reports that on March 2, 2007, the Cherokee Nation was to vote on whether to eject black members of the tribe. The measure was, as of my reading of the article, expected to pass. The Cherokee, and other tribes involved, who held black slaves, fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War, and in a treaty at the end of the war were tasked to absorb black slaves held by them into the tribes. Relatively few of the black Cherokee, called Freedmen in the treaty and by tradition since, have applied for recognition of Cherokee heritage, but potentially their descendants could be numerous. Cherokees, along with Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Seminoles, were long known as the "Five Civilized Tribes" because they adopted many of the ways of their white neighbors in the South, including the holding of black slaves. Tribe's slaves became citizens Many of the Cherokees' slaves accompanied the tribe when it was expelled from its traditional lands in North Carolina and Georgia and forced to migrate in 1838 and 1839 to Indian Territory, in what is now Oklahoma. Thousands of Cherokees died during the trip, which became known as the "Trail of Tears." It is not known how many of their slaves also perished. The tribe fought for the Confederacy. In defeat, it signed a federal treaty in 1866 committing that its slaves, who had been freed by tribal decree during the war, would be absorbed as citizens of the Cherokee Nation. I would strongly urge reading at least the full WP article before venturing conclusions about what's right and what's wrong here. I'm afraid that I've had enough NA friends to recognize the difficulty many of them have in feeling ownership of their own traditions, but far too few such friends to be able to see what the real motivations for this action might be. Maybe if someone who knows more of what's going on could give us a song, I'd understand better. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: katlaughing Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM Phew, what an incredible issue. Thanks for letting us know about it, John. I did find one tribal member's take on it at the Cherokee Observer. Also, there are several boards which one might want to peruse on THIS PAGE. More to read HERE So many aspects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: John O'L Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM Can you legislate to correct a stuff-up, or just stuff it up more? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: pdq Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM ...the measure being voted on today (MAR 3, 2007) says: "A vote "yes" for this amendment would mean that citizenship would be limited to those who are original enrollees or descendants of Cherokees by blood, Delawares by blood, or Shawnees by blood as listed on the Final Rolls of the Cherokee Nation commonly referred to as the Dawes Commission Rolls closed in 1906. This amendment would take away citizenship of current citizens and deny citizenship to future applicants who are solely descendants of those on either the Dawes Commission Intermarried Whites or Freedmen Rolls." At the time of this post, the vote is 76% for, 24% against. A yes vote was predicted but probably not this strong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:50 PM It's a good day to be ashamed of the human race. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:51 PM But I guess we have lots of days like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Mar 07 - 11:38 PM No one wins in that election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: dianavan Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:11 AM A typically vague ammendment with confusing wording. Normally, yes, would indicate inclusion. No generally means exclusions or limitations. I know its the other way around but English can be very tricky and difficult to interpret at times. White man speaks with forked tongue. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:49 AM What are the consequences of being voted out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: folk1e Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:06 AM Did the "Cherokee" not already agree to incorporate freedmen into the tribe? This is a bit like the English saying they will vote the Welsh out of being Brittish! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Bill D Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:08 PM I have 1 (one) Cherokee ancestor (great-great-great grandmother)...does this mean the Caucasians can vote me out? Will the Cherokees have to take me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: pdq Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:33 PM {edited by me - important content only} TAHLEQUAH, Okla.A Cherokee Nation Constitutional amendment restricting membership to descendants of Indians listed by blood on the Dawes Rolls has passed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: wysiwyg Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:46 PM I don't get it. Slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation became citizens of the US-- the nation in which they resided (were owned). If they resided in the Cherokee Nation (were owned there), how is it that it could be justified not to include them as part of that Nation, if they wanted to be counted there and be governed by its tribal law? Did the Freedmen also get US citizenship? What was and has been their legal status? Did they have any options after slavery as to cotizenship choices, or since then? Have they been governed by tax law as it pertains to Native Americans? I understand that the treaty designating the former slaves as included in the Cherokee Nation was imposed upon the Cherokee by duress.... I understand the paradigm of citizenship by blood... Is the Cherokee Nation saying that there was no "intermarriage"? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: pdq Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:03 PM Did the Freedmen also get US citizenship? Yes, of course. Have they been governed by tax law as it pertains to Native Americans? Yes. I understand that the treaty designating the former slaves as included in the Cherokee Nation was imposed upon the Cherokee by duress... No, it was probably not. It was in 1839, I believe, if you want to do some research. Is the Cherokee Nation saying that there was no "intermarriage"? No, but there are some people who simply moved onto the Indian lands because of the various benefits. Now that Indian gaming is providing the Cherokee Nation with 22 billion dollars a year, that number quickly grows. Is the Cherokee Nation saying that there was no "intermarriage"? No, but I believe there is a "one fourth blood" standard to get full bebefits, such as living free on tribal lands.
[PDQ--you really need to close italics with the 2nd 'i' - like this </i>- otherwise it won't work] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:37 PM Yes, and some of the people on The Trail of Tears with the Cherokee people wetre Black people. This is, IMO, a back-stabbing worthy of Machiavelli. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:38 PM Nothing to do with the Casino profits I'm sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Kaleea Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:41 PM This is a subject which has been brewing for decades. I'll use the term "Indian" as that's the term most folks use. There are many issues which weave in & out that it is almost impossible to explain without asking you to read the complete history and lineage of the entireity of all the Indian Nations of the USA, but this has become a symbol of the "Indian" wondering what else can they possibly take from us? But, the basis of this goes back to the greed of the rich non Indian. After peoples of various tribes had been given allotments of land--land which was supposed to be theirs "forever," it was discovered that something was under the land. Therefore, a mad scramble ensued, especially in the region of Oklahoma (where I come from) to become "Indian" in order to get land, & hopefully the oil underneath, & everything else which could be grabbed. Therefore, many people went downtown, or to various "Indian" agencies, claimed they were of whichever tribe (no documentation needed), & got a little card which made them become "Indian"--what came to be referred to as an "instant indian." Fastforward several decades & non-indian people have discovered that a few bands of some Cherokee tribes have a little bit of benefit(& I do mean little! Very little US government funding still trickles down these days as most programs for needy folks were axed by congress in the past several terms), such as medical or other programs. They say, "hey, was'nt great grandpappy a little bit Cherokee? Well, let's go to & research the Dawes rolls & find out if we can get in on some of the stuff they're giving away." My grandad told me that his Aunt & Uncle did not want to admit that they were Choctaw, as back then the Choctaw people were considered to be especially dirty "Indians." Therefore, the Aunt & Uncle became instantly Chickasaw roll members on the Dawes Rolls. This is to some an oversimplification, as questions such as those of the Freedmen come up, yet at some point a decision needed to be made, therefore-right or wrong-the vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: pdq Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:41 PM I don't get it. Slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation became citizens of the US-- the nation in which they resided (were owned). If they resided in the Cherokee Nation (were owned there), how is it that it could be justified not to include them as part of that Nation... Well, here is a mini timeline: "Trail Of Tears" relocation: 1838-1839 Emancipation proclamation: 1 JAN 1863 Oklahoma (the part of Indian Territory where Cherokee were relocated) becomes state: 16 NOV 1907 The point of moving the Indians was to provide lands for a self-sufficient nation outside the United States rather then inside the United States. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: katlaughing Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:46 PM Kallea's right. There hasn't been much to the "benefits" for a long, long time. My daughter's paternal grandmother is on the Dawes rolls. We don't know, for sure, if she was 100% or 50% Cherokee, but we do know she was Cherokee. She and her offspring never received anything. Of course, they chose not to live on the Reservation, too, though she was born there. She also never said much about her heritage. We all wished'd she had. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 04 Mar 07 - 05:02 PM There is a lady who tried to bring an injunction against the vote. Her request was denied. She will now I expect be able to take the decision to court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:19 PM Excerpt from African-Native American Genealogy Forum Re: Freedmen Roll DOES indicate "Indian blood" Posted By: Marilyn Vann Date: Sunday, 28 January 2007, at 2:16 p.m. http://www.afrigeneas.com/forume/index.cgi?noframes;read=13769 ..."The Descendants of Freedmen Association has hosted several genealogy workshops in central and Eastern Oklahoma which has focused on the Dawes Rolls and we have been instrumental in assisting many persons in obtaining Certificates of Indian blood cards (CDIB) and tribal memberships in various nations. Some of the Cherokee Freedmen Dawes enrollees who the Dawes Commission records document Indian ancestry are: Rachel Walker - Census Card 1046 - Cherokee Indian Father - Jim Martin Mary Lynch Kelly-Census Card 3631-Cherokee Indian Mother-Cynthia Lynch Solomon Baldridge-Census card 825-Shawnee Indian mother-Nancy Baldridge Reed Vann - Census card 1047 - Cherokee Indian Father - John Vann Andrew Lynch - Census Card 1228 - Cherokee Indian Mother - Cynthia Lynch Louisa Gaskins -Census Card 1067 -Cherokee Indian Father- Robin Webber Ellen Nave - Card 1075 - Cherokee Indian Father - Robin Webber Malinda Sanders- Card 1122 - Cherokee Indian Father - George Welch Susan Downing - Card 1086 - Cherokee Indian Father -William Downing Maria Rider - Card 1031 - Cherokee Indian Father - Charles Lowrey This is just a small sample of persons whom former Deputy Chief John Ketcher and Chief Smith appear to be publically stating have no documented Indian ancestry and whose descendants are merely talking about having "Indian princess" ancestors. (Mr Ketcher was deputy Chief under Wilma Mankiller who told the Baltimore Sun in July 1984 that Freedmen had no Indian blood and should not be members of the Cherokee nation). I personally have never met a Descendant of a freedmen tribal member of any Indian nation who claimed their grandmother was an "Indian princess". Indeed, earlier this year, I was looking at historical documents along with members of the Baldridge family who not only could show their ancestor listed on the 1871 roll of Loyal Shawnee immigrants to the Cherokee nation but had information on their Indian ancestors prior to immigration to the Cherokee nation. I also sat several months ago and personally reviewed documents with a member of the freedmen association who is a descendant of Cherokee Indian Nancy Ward and a member of that society, and her Nancy Ward Society certification showed her Indian ancestry back to the 18th century, prior to the birth of Stephen Hilldebrand, the Cherokee Indian who is listed by the Dawes Commission as the father of Freedmen Francis Hildebrand McNac. No part of that discussion dealt with talk of an "Indian princess grandmother" either. The Tulsa World in November 2006 ran a story regarding one descendant of Nancy Ward, Mrs Havanna Vann who is facing tribal disenrollment due to "lack of proof of Indian ancestry" - at least that is what is claimed by current or former tribal officials leading the freedmen dis-enrollment movement: http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/message/1164388743/ The only thing established by the Dawes Commission in putting a person on the freedmen roll was that the person had some African ancestry, was a member of the tribe, and that they preferred that his allotment be unrestricted in 1904 so that it could be stolen by settlers as quickly as possible since those tribal members listed with degrees of blood had restricted allotments until at least 1908. I dont believe that anyone is saying that every single freedmen in every single tribe had an Indian parent or grandparent or made such claim to the government or tribal officials. I dont know of any freedmen descendant who is saying that those who dont have Indian ancestry should not have their treaty rights to tribal membership honored. I do know that the main argument used by tribal officials to exclude from tribal membership those whose ancestors were listed as freedmen is that such people have no documents to prove Indian ancestry. The Dawes rolls were made to destroy the tribal unity, the tribal government, and the federal government was successful in that some individuals began to believe (or pretended to believe) that the actual "blood quantum fraction" listed, or what section of the dawes roll a person was placed on should determine whether that tribal member or their descendants should retain tribal membership or be a second class tribal member so far as benefits, holding office, etc. (1/4 blood quantum is required in the Creek nation currently to hold office.)" -snip- See the entire post at the link provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:30 PM Cherokee Freedmen Facts - by Marilyn Vann – President – Descendants of Freedmen www.freedmen5tribes.com [this link does not appear to work] 1) Who are Cherokee freedmen and their descendants? Cherokee freedmen are people of African descent who have rights to Cherokee citizenship since 1866 (and in some cases prior) based under a treaty between the US government and the Cherokee nation, the amended 1839 constitution and the present 1976 constitution. The freedmen were either former slaves of the Cherokees or were free mixed black Cherokees who generally did not have citizenship rights prior to 1866. 2) Who has the right to Cherokee citizenship now?All persons who were listed on the Dawes Rolls and their descendants, during the early 1900s have the right to Cherokee citizenship based on the 1976 constitution. The Dawes rolls of the Cherokee nation have several sections – Delaware, Cherokee by blood, Cherokee Freedmen, etc. 3) Didn't the Freedmen lose their tribal membership and voting rights for a few years? In 1983, the freedmen people were voting against Chief Swimmer, the registrar sent out letters canceling their tribal membership cards and the freedmen were blocked from voting at the polls. In 1988, under Chief Mankiller, the tribal council approved the registration policy of requiring all tribal members to have a CDIB card to keep tribal membership. A tribal court in 2006 ruled that the tribal council could not pass additional requirements to bar any segment of Dawes enrollees fromreceiving tribal membership cards or voting. 4) If most of the freedmen have Cherokee blood, why cant they get a cdib card? The current BIA policy is to only give the card based on the blood degree listed on the Dawes Rolls. The Dawes Commissioners had the sole authority to place people on any part of the Dawes rolls they wanted to. Because Congress had decided that people listed as Freedmen would have unrestricted allotments, Commissioners were encouraged to list as manypeople as possible as Freedmen with no blood degrees listed rather than as Cherokees with blood degrees even if the person was listed on previous rolls as blood Cherokee or received payments earlier from the US government as a Cherokee by blood. An example was Perry Ross who had a Cherokee mother and black father. Perry Ross, was listed on the 1852 Drennan Roll proving Cherokee by blood, received a 1908 Guion Miller payment for having Cherokee blood, but yet was listed as a freedmen citizen on the Dawes Rolls. Some Freedmen did get CDIB cards in the past based on other records, but theystopped giving them out. The tribe never kept degrees of blood records and anything on the Dawes Roll is just guesswork so far as a true degree of blood. To determine blood degrees for freedmen one must look at Dawes testimony and other records. 5) Chief Smith and Councilman Jackie Bob Martin have called for a special election to see if the freedmen people should keep their tribal membership rights. What's wrong with that? Whats right about it? There something wrong about trying to take away the rights of people who have had them for more than 100 years. The court held that the people had been wronged, and now, instead of accepting that, these people are to be more wronged? Would you not fight a president who wanted to put the US citizenship rights of Cherokee people on a ballot to the people? Whose next to lose rights? Also, the people who are being asked to vote on the freedmen citizenship rights are not being told that the freedmen have had rights since at least 1866, have served on the tribal council, generally have Cherokee blood, and voted between 1971 and 1983 (between 1907 and 1971 there were no elections at all). When did Cherokee people ever kick people out of the tribe? And why kick out only freedmen who came before Delaware and Shawnee – all 3 have treaty rights to citizenship? Does anyone sitting here wonder if the movement to kick out the freedmen is fear that they maynot vote for some people now serving in office? Hardly any freedmen will be able to vote in such election because of the slow process to register tribal members and even freedmen people with old 1970s membership cards must reregister. Is this justice? Is it right for Cherokee leaders to break the promises made to these people by previous chiefs such as Lewis Downing and WP Ross – just as the whites have broken their word to the Cherokee people time after time? What if the white people say, if the Cherokees can break their treaty at will, we will do so too and demand back the Arkansas Riverbed money? 6) Won't the freedmen take away from the rest of the Cherokees so far as benefits?The Chief and the tribal council can request additional funds from the US government and supposedly are working hard oneconomic development. Stop and think – Would you want your US citizenship rights to be taken away because white people don't want you to have rental assistance or such the same as them? Freedmen wont cancel medical insurance to go to I H S. 7) Did Freedmen get the same rights as Cherokees by blood previously? Yes, all citizens including freedmen received 110 acres of tribal land equivalent when tribal lands were allotted, they received the 1912 payroll, and the per capita payment given out in 1962. Freedmen held office between 1866 and 1907 – One freedman Frank Vann even served with Redbird Smith on the council. Another freedmen councilman was Stick Ross. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:oxVnRwIl8RgJ:www.freedmen5tribes.com/cherokee%2520freedmen%2520facts.doc.pdf+marilyn+vann+f |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:36 PM 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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:43 PM "Court challenges by freedmen descendants seeking to stop the election were denied, but a federal judge left open the possibility that the case could be refiled if Cherokees voted to lift their membership rights." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:20 PM Part-whites- intermarrieds- also barred. It is the right of every Indian nation to determine who is a member of the nation and who is not. Allowing intermarrieds and freedmen membership (with their many descendants) would destroy the nation. Marilyn Vann, a spokesman for the few freedmen who have claimed rights, threatens federal court action. If successful, this could threaten the right of any native group to determine its membership. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:43 PM Allowing intermarrieds and freedmen membership (with their many descendants) would destroy the nation. Q, The fact is that the Dawes roll segregated those persons of African descent from other members of the Cherokees nation including pure blood Cherokees, Cherokee/Whites and Whites who were adopted into that nation {or paid to be included into that nation}. Freedmen have been citizens of the Cherokee nation for 100 years or more. Some would think from reading your statement that the Cherokees were considering granting citizenship to folks who had never had it before. Your statement about the rights of any native group to determine its membership sounds lofty. However, imo, material greed and racism are the two reasons for taking citizenship from Cherokee Freedman whose ancestors were listed on the Dawes roll, and the 'part whites' whose ancestors weren't listed on non-Freedmen Dawes roll. In case you didn't read it, I'll repost these quotes from my previous posts to this thread: "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." -snip- "...the people who are being asked to vote on the freedmen citizenship rights are not being told that the freedmen have had rights since at least 1866, have served on the tribal council, generally have Cherokee blood, and voted between 1971 and 1983 (between 1907 and 1971 there were no elections at all). When did Cherokee people ever kick people out of the tribe? And why kick out only freedmen who came before Delaware and Shawnee – all 3 have treaty rights to citizenship? " -snip I'll answer Marilyn Vann's question about why kick out Freedman and "others"-greed and racism, that's why. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:00 PM Here's an excerpt from http://www.tolatsga.org/Cherokee2.html that provides some background information about the Cherokees: "...On the eve of the Civil War in 1861, the Cherokee Nation was controlled by a wealthy, mixed-blood minority which owned black slaves and favored the South. The vast majority of the Cherokee did not have slaves, lived simple lives and could have cared less about the white man's war, especially the Old Settlers. John Ross leaned towards the South, but mindful of the divisions within the Cherokee, refused the early offers by Albert Pike to join the Confederacy. When Union soldiers withdrew during the summer of 1861, the Confederate army occupied the Indian Territory. The Cherokee Nation voted to secede from the United States in August, 1861, and a formal treaty was signed at the Park Hill home of John Ross between the Cherokee Nation and the new Confederate government. Four years later, this agreement was to cost them very dearly. Americans are usually surprised to learn that the Civil War was bitterly contested between the Native Americans in Oklahoma. For the Cherokee, it was very much a war of brother against brother. 3,000 Cherokee (usually New Settlers) enlisted in the Confederate army while 1,000(Old Settlers) fought for the Union. In the east 400 North Carolina Cherokee, virtually every able bodied man, served the South. Cherokee Civil War Units included: First Cherokee Mounted Rifles (First Arkansas Cherokee); First Cherokee Mounted Volunteer (Watie's Regiment, Cherokee Mounted Volunteers); Second Regiment, Cherokee Mounted Rifles, Arkansas; First Regiment, Cherokee Mounted Riflemen; First Squadron, Cherokee Mounted Volunteers (Holt's Squadron); Second Cherokee Mounted Volunteers (Second Regiment,Cherokee Mounted Rifles or Riflemen); and Cherokee Regiment(Special Service). Cherokee units fought at Wilson Creek (1861) and Pea Ridge (1862). There were few large battles in Oklahoma, but these were brutal. In November 1861, a combined force of 1,400 Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Texas cavalry commanded by Colonel Douglas Cooper attacked a refugee column of 4,000 pro-Union Creek trying to reach safety in Kansas. Over 700 refugees were killed during the three day battle before reason took hold. After two assaults against the Creek, the Cherokee refused to participate in a third and withdrew. Meanwhile the Cherokee allegiance to the Confederacy faltered. Following the Confederate defeat at Pea Ridge, John Ross switched sides to the Union. Actually Ross allowed himself to be captured in 1862 and spent the rest of the war in Philadelphia. John Drew's Mounted Rifle regiment also deserted and was reorganized as a regiment in the Union army, but other Cherokee units under Stand Watie remained loyal to the Confederacy. The fighting in Oklahoma degenerated into the same vicious guerilla warfare that prevailed among the white settlers of Kansas and Missouri. Stand Watie, who became a Confederate general, was a leader of the Treaty Party and personally hated John Ross. After Ross switched in 1862 and went east, Stand Watie was elected principal chief of the Cherokee Nation in August. He captured the Cherokee capital at Tahlequah and ordered Ross' home burned. The fighting produced hatreds that, added to the earlier differences, endured long after the war was over. Many Oklahoma Indians fled north to escape the fighting. Kansas eventually had more than 7,000 refugees from the Indian Territory which it could not house or feed. Many froze to death or starved. Heavily involved in the fighting throughout the war, the Cherokee Nation lost more than 1/3 of its population. No state, north or south, even came close to this. On June 23, 1865, Stand Watie was the last Confederate general to surrender his command to the United States. Afterwards, the victorious federal government remembered the services of General Stand Watie to the Confederacy. It also remembered the 1861 vote by the Cherokee legislature to secede from the United States. These provided the excuse to invalidate all previous treaties between the Cherokee and United States. John Ross died in 1866, and in new treaties imposed in 1866 and 1868, large sections of Cherokee lands were taken for railroad construction, white settlement (1889), or the relocation of other tribes. The Cherokee Nation never recovered to the prosperity it had enjoyed before the Civil War. As railroads were built across Cherokee lands, outlaws discovered that the Indian territory, especially the Cherokee Nation, was a sanctuary from federal and state laws. Impoverished by the war, the Cherokee also began to lease lands to white tenant farmers. By 1880, whites outnumbered the Indians in the Indian Territory. In 1885 a well-intentioned, but ill-informed, Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts decided that holding of land in common was delaying the progress of Indians towards "civilization." Forming an alliance with western Congressmen who wish to exploit Indian treaty lands, he secured passage of the General Allotment(Dawes) Act in 1887 which ultimately cost Native Americans 2/3 of their remaining land base. The Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma were exempt from allotment, but came under tremendous pressure to accept it. Until the 1880s, cattle from the Chisholm and Texas trails routinely grazed on the lands of the Cherokee Outlet before going to the Kansas railheads. The Cherokee earned a good income from this enterprise until it was halted without explanation by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1890. It should also be noted that the Oklahoma Territory was organized that same year from the western half of the Indian Territory, and there may have been some connection! After the Cherokee were forced to sell, the land was made available for white settlement. The Dawes commission attempted to get the Five Tribes to accept allotment in 1893, but they refused. This led to the passage of the Curtis Act (1895) which dissolved tribal governments and forced allotment during 1901. Grafting(swindles) of Indian lands became a massive and unofficially sanctioned form of theft in Oklahoma. Of the original seven million acres granted the Cherokee in the New Echota Treaty, the Cherokee Nation kept less than 1/3 of 1 percent. As compensation, the Cherokee became citizens in 1901 and were finally allowed to vote. An attempt by the Five Tribes to form their own state of Sequoyah in eastern Oklahoma failed in 1905, and the Cherokee Nation was officially dissolved on March 3, 1906. The following year Oklahoma was admitted as the 46th state. The present government of the Cherokee Nation was formed in 1948 after passage of the Wheeler-Howard Indian Reorganization Act (1934). In 1961 the Cherokee Nation was awarded $15,000,000 by the U.S. Claims Commission for lands of the Cherokee Outlet." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: lennice Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:00 AM to whoever said the point of the relocation to Oklahoma (my birthplace) was to move them to a self-sustainable place outside the U.S.: The part of Oklahoma that was Indian Territory couldn't sustain much more than chiggers at the time. There were 2 points: (1) greed - many of the Cherokee Nation, as previously mentioned, had large land holdings and were quite prosperous, and whites, especially poor whites resented it, felt threatened by it, and wanted that wealth in white hands, and (2) they had recently acquired a written language and the Cherokee newspapers that were being distributed were written and read by educated, well-to-do people who knew the constitution, wanted equal rights, and were seen as a rising political as well as economic threat. Solution: do what we always did, take their land away from them and send them off to some godforsaken hell hole where they will probably die. Nobody knew about the oil, of course. regarding the recent vote: I live in Massachusetts now and purposefully do not watch television or keep up with the news, so I don't know what the H is going on. However, when I read the actual wording of what was voted on, I saw that, at least according to the wording, it was not directed specifically at blacks. The point may have been, sounds like it from what ya'll are saying, but there is more to the native identity question than just the black issue. Some have pointed out the possible economic benefits of being card carrying natives, but today the social cache of being native is a huge problem. I call them the Wannabe tribe - people who take on cute native names and study shamanism and have a "sweatlodge" in their back yard. The woods here are full of them, all claiming with a Boston or Bronx accent that their great-great-great grandma was Indian. I can't say whether any particular person is or isn't of native descent, and it kind of doesn't matter, because the real problem is the sheer numbers of people claiming to be native, and in particular claiming to be Cherokee because it is the easiest to claim. In my gradeschool in Tulsa in the 1950's the teacher went around the room and everybody said what their heritage was. Every single person but me was native, and almost everybody was some combination of Cherokee and something else - Creek, Osage. EVERYbody I knew growing up was part Cherokee except me, and that includes my half-sister who is half Cherokee. (and who is no more culturally native than I am, except I do talk more ;)). Recently I discovered my grandmother was probably at least part Cherokee, so I have rethought the question and come up with the same answer: I have no claim to Cherokee CULTURAL IDENTITY. I was raised thoroughly whitebread. Speaking as a cultural anthropologist trained in Oklahoma, the question of cultural identity for members of the Cherokee Nation is a very important one. At a wild guess there are 10,000 Wannabees for every person who has some real connection to their native heritage. I think it is a disservice to the people who are full or 1/4 (or even an 1/8 but raised with some connection to their heritage) to be forced by OTHERS to share their "identity" with us clueless whitebreads. If you go by blood, it's been mixed up so much I believe anybody who's family goes back more than 2 generations in this country has at least some native and black ancestors. For all those who get upset and say "one ancestor a long time ago does not make me black", I answer: neither does it make you Indian. If anybody with a drop of Cherokee blood can claim to be Cherokee, than what does it mean to be Cherokee? How can they keep their tenuous hold on what little cultural heritage remains? As I said at the outset, I know nothing of the current issue, and if the point is to disinfranchise those with some black ancestry, than that is deplorable, of course. And if, as speculated, it is being used as a political or economic weapon and the vote was influenced by a deliberate misinformation campaign, even worse. But before we get holier than thou about it, think what "whites" have done to take their heritage away from them. I'm not saying it's OK, I mean really think about it before you cast any stones. They have had to fight hard against a lot of ugly mean stuff to maintain what little they have. I personally know older native people who were sent away to boarding schools and beaten if they spoke their own language. A guy I know, my age, in Pawnee Oklahoma in 1959, watched as his 3 year old sister was set on fire (and burned to death) for being a "dirty Indian." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: dianavan Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:40 AM "There is a lady who tried to bring an injunction against the vote. Her request was denied. She will now I expect be able to take the decision to court." - Peace I hope you're right about that, Peace. Seems to me that once included, thats it. You don't get voted out later just because the others don't want to share. Its not a club or something. You either is or you isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:10 AM Thanks for your post, lennice. I agree with you that "there is more to the native identity question than just the black issue...and "the social cache of being native is a huge problem." You asked "How can they [members of the Cherokee nation] keep their tenuous hold on what little cultural heritage remains"? If the members of that nation had voted to exclude from citizenship in the Cherokee nation all persons who could not provide documentation that they had an ancestor who was listed in either Dawes roll, then I would have supported that {not that my support or lack of support matters one bit}. However, the Cherokee voted to repeal the citizenship of person who had ancestors listed on the Dawes Freedmen roll, no matter what documentation they have or did not have of those ancestors' Cherokee blood. At the same time, there were persons listed on the non-Freedmen Dawes roll who had no Cherokee ancestry at all since they were 'adopted Whites'. Therefore, no matter what other valid or invalid reasons that Cherokees and others have been offerred for this recent vote, in my opinion, racism did play a large role in the structuring of the question to be voted upon, if not the actual vote of the majority of Cherokees. I believe that greed probably played a larger role, but it seems to me to be factual that racism was definitely in the mix. This should not come as too much of a surprise since racism [against people of African descent] is so heavily a part of Cherokee history. I agree that this vote is an attempt to redefine who is and who is not Cherokee. And while I appreciate the fact that for reasons of greed or for "social cache" {as you phrased it} there are a lot of Indian wannabees out there, this recent vote certainly appears to me to most negatively impact Black Cherokees who can document their Indian [and African] ancestry. Unlike some White people with Cherokee ancestry, some of these Black Cherokees had never denied or played down their Indian identity. This may in part because they truly treasured their Indian heritage. This may also be partly true because among many African Americans, having Indian ancestors has historically been considered and currently is still considered something to brag about. Be that as it may or may not be, there are a lot of real Cherokees with African ancestry who must be both sad and angry at this recent vote to discount their identity. As an outsider {meaning someone who has no Cherokee ancestry or other Indian ancestry that I can prove}, I am also very disheartened at this recent Cherokee vote because of its impact on Black Cherokees and because I believe it to be a demonstration of the Cherokees nations racism and greed much more than a real attempt to determine who is really Cherokee. I also believe that there are also some Cherokees without African ancestry who also recognize that this vote does not speak well about their nation. In my opinion {and I don't think that it's a holier than thou position}, the Cherokee nation should have done much better than this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: lennice Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:22 AM sorry, Azzizi and everone. I ramble, and I rambled away from where I thought I was heading - as I said, I know nothing about the question being voted on, just meant to comment on the difficult problem of identity - when I started remembering very unpleasant stuff I veered off into moralizing about holier-than-thouers and really wasn't thinking about the actual subject of the thread. From how you and others describe the vote, it certainly does stink of racism at it's worst. BTW, the first (and until Philadelphia the only) hostile aerial bombing in the continental US took place in Tulsa, which was basically Cherokee HQ. It happened in the 20's, I think, during Tulsa's largest race riot. Some idiot actually bombed the black part of town from an airplane, I believe at the request of the mayor. Sigh. Cherokees are people, and people are horrible to each other. Where can I hand in my resignation from the human race? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:15 AM lennice, thanks, for both of your postings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:33 AM Yes, lennice, thanks for speaking. It IS surely a complicated matter. I wish peace to all concerned. Speaking of Wannabes, it's not limited to tribal yearning. That phenomenon/mindset is something that some of the folks in our area talk about when we're trying to help some poor ex-suburbanites settle into the rural life they think they've moved to our area to enjoy. I can't really blame them-- the tone of the real estate marketing portrays the romantic ideal, not the smell and mire of mud season in dairy country. :~) We try to tell newcomers to see to their boots, water supply, and emergency utilities arrangements before filling their credit limits with big-ticket toys. But I digress. It may indeed be that wrong decisions are being made.... Boy, self-determination is a bitch-- I wish them well in continuing to pursue it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:21 PM As WYSIWYG says, it is a complicated matter. Tribal leaders never consented to the Dawes Commission findings. Tribal leaders refused to negotiate, and an act of Congress (Curtis Act, 1898) authorized the Dawes Commission to proceed with enrollment allotments without tribal consent (The real purpose was to take over tribal lands and dole out 40-acre plots to those on the inflated list). The Dawes Committee opened land offices within each tribal nation. A single commissioner with a large staff operated from 1898 to 1914. The experiences of the Chickasaw Nation with the commission bear repeating (Littlefield, D. F., "Chickasaw Freedmen," Greenwood Press is a useful reference for part of the story). When the Chickasaw emancipated their slaves in 1866, they were given the option of enrolling former slaves as citizens, but if they did not, the United States agreed to remove the Blacks from Chickasaw territory. The Chickasaws refused to adopt the freedmen, but the United States did not keep its agreement to remove them. The Curtis Act abolished enforcement of the laws of the Indian tribes and enrollment proceeded. The number of freedmen enrolled ballooned as descendents and false claimants were added; by October 1898 there were more freedmen than Chickasaws. General G. M. P. Turner, a Creek addressed the Dawes Commission in these words: "Egypt had its locusts, Asiatic countries their cholera, France had its Jacobins, England had the black plague, Memphis had the yellow fever ......, Kansas had its grasshoppers, but it was left for the unfortunate Indian territory to be afflicted with the worst scourge of the Nineteenth century, the Dawes Commission. When God, in the medieval days of His divine administration, first conceived the grand idea of building worlds, making governments and creating judiciaries, He never contemplated the Dawes Commission. If He had, He would have shrunk with horror, quit His job and left the world in chaos." In reports of the time (June 17, 1897), the Muskogee Phoenix editorialized: "... Those conversant with exact conditions of affairs in the Cherokee Nation do not hesitate in admitting that in the event of an agreement, breaking up tribal autonomy, there will in all probability be assassinations and bloodshed and riots far-reaching and disastrous in their effects." There are feelings of resentment now towards outsiders, but they will be repressed and controlled, limited to legal means to try to regain control of the 'rolls.' I haven't seen later data, but by 1914, the list of applications had ballooned to over 100,000. The Cherokee Nation is trying to restore some sense to the 'rolls.' I wish them luck and favorable courts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:54 PM Error- The final Dawes roll had ballooned to 292033, not the 100,000 plus given above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:07 PM Here's a news article which indicates that about 8,400 people voted in the election last Saturday that took away Cherokee citizenship from the descendants of Freedmen and others: CHEROKEE KICK OUT FREEDMEN By S.E. RUCKMAN World Staff Writer 3/4/2007 "Final results show 77 percent of voters want tribal membership to be determined by blood. TAHLEQUAH -- Cherokee Nation voters overwhelmingly chose to remove freedmen from their tribal rolls in a special election Saturday. Complete results late Saturday show 77 percent of the voters supported the proposed amendment to the Cherokee Constitution. About 8,700 votes were cast in the tribe's 14-county district. The question put to voters proposed a constitutional amendment to require that only descendants of "by blood" tribal members on the 1906 Dawes Rolls would remain in the tribe, excluding about 2,770 freedmen descendants, who were affirmed by the tribe's high court as tribal citizens in March 2006. The vote was 6,693 for the measure to 2,040 against. The amendment also removes non-Indian descendants of "intermarried whites," according to the ballot wording. Members of the Shawnee and Delaware by blood rolls, who also are Cherokee Nation citizens, will remain on the rolls. The amendment excludes from Cherokee tribal rolls the descendants of freed Cherokee slaves categorized as freedmen. Freedmen often intermarried with the tribe and lived within the Cherokee Nation boundaries. The special election was set by Principal Chief Chad Smith after the tribal court approved a protested initiative petition in November. Tribal officials said the results of Saturday's vote are theoretically effective immediately, but no action will be taken to formalize the amendment until after a protest period ends March 12. During that time, if a challenge is presented, it will go before the tribe's Supreme Court. Smith, who said he was neutral on the issue, said the vote was a statement on self-government. "The number of voters who turned out to vote on the constitutional amendment was actually more than the number who originally voted on the Cherokee Nation Constitution four years ago," he said. "I think that reflects the idea that this is an issue that has been close to the heart of the Cherokee people and an issue they have thought about carefully before voting." Meanwhile, opponents of the constitutional amendment were disheartened by the result. Marilyn Vann, president of the Freedmen Descendants Association, had pushed tribal and federal court challenges to the initiative petition calling for a vote and also was unsuccessful in securing an injunction to halt the special election. "It's hard to win against the Cherokee Nation; the Delaware lost and the UKB (United Keetoowah Band) lost," she said. "I never wanted to put anyone out of the tribe; I want everyone who has ancestors on the Dawes Rolls to stay in the tribe, including me and the freedmen." One tribal councilor, at-large representative Taylor Keen, said he was concerned about the implications of removing tribal members from the rolls. "With this vote, the Cherokee Nation will start into motion the violation of the 1866 treaty, a severing of the nation's legal continuum with the United States, and perhaps our very precious sovereignty as a federally recognized tribe," he said. The same constitutional amendment question is on the ballot of the tribe's regular election scheduled for June 23. The regular election is for principal chief, deputy chief and council members. " http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070304_Ne_A1_Chero67589 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 05 Mar 07 - 07:12 PM As background to that historic vote, see this article: Judge won't stop Cherokee election on Freedmen Thursday, February 22, 2007 "Citing respect for tribal sovereignty and the democratic process, a federal judge on Wednesday refused to halt a Cherokee Nation election that could deny citizenship to the descendants of former slaves. But Judge Henry H. Kennedy in Washington, D.C., expressed concerns that the outcome of the vote -- the disenfranchisement of thousands of Cherokee Freedmen -- might draw him into an area normally considered off-limits by the courts. Tribal elections are rarely the subject of federal lawsuits. "The crux of this court's decision is to respect the sovereignty ... of the Cherokee Nation," Kennedy said from the bench. Yet he wondered why the tribe would proceed with an election and "invite this court, or some other court, to intervene." That's exactly what six Freedmen wanted Kennedy to do. Earlier this month, they filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the March 3 election, saying it violates the Treaty of 1866, which ended slavery on the Cherokee Nation, and the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which outlawed slavery. "That is the badge of slavery that having this election will place over the Cherokee Freedmen," argued Alvin Dunn, an attorney for the plaintiffs. Speaking in opposition was Diane Hammonds, the attorney general for the Cherokee Nation. Although she plans to vote against the disenfranchisement of the Freedmen, she said court intervention would trample on tribal rights. "This is strictly an intra-tribal matter," she told the judge. "Everyone here is Cherokee." Melanie Fourkiller Knight, the tribe's secretary of state, attended the hearing. Taking an unusual position was Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, the named defendant in the case. Government attorneys did not oppose the Freedmen's motion for the preliminary injunction but they didn't support it either. "The United States does not inject itself into elections, in intra-tribal matters," said Catherine Blanco of the Department of Justice. The stance drew a curious response from Kennedy. "I've read your papers," he told Blanco, "but I don't know that I understand the position of the United States." In a closely-related case, the Interior Department did take a position when the Seminole Nation voted to deny citizenship to its Freedmen. The Bureau of Indian Affairs refused to recognize the leadership of the tribe and cut off all federal funding until the Freedmen were restored. Why the Bush administration isn't doing the same -- or threatening to -- in the Cherokee case puzzled the attorneys for the Freedmen. In the past, a regional BIA official in Oklahoma questioned the tribe's moves and Jim Cason, the top Interior official in charge of Indian affairs, had warned the tribe about potential consequences. But by taking the odd position in court, Dunn said the federal government is failing to abide by the treaty. "In the middle of the deal, they flip-flop," he argued. "Here we have two governments that are turning their back on that treaty," he added. Despite the court's refusal to halt the election, Kennedy has previously ruled against the tribe. In December, he joined the tribe as a party, citing a history of marginalization of the Freedmen by the Cherokees. In that ruling, he said the 1866 treaty and the Thirteenth Amendment waived the tribe's immunity from suit. As a preliminary matter in yesterday's ruling, he reaffirmed that the court has jurisdiction over the tribe. The Freedmen also won a critical ruling before the Cherokee Nation's top court. In a 2-1 decision in March 2006, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal said tribal citizenship is open to anyone who can show his or her ancestor appeared on the Dawes Roll. The roll includes Cherokees, Delawares, Shawnees and Freedmen. But the upcoming election would only deny citizenship to the Freedmen because it would require them to prove they have Indian blood." http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/001496.asp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:56 AM It would appear to my numb little mind that although the sovereignty of the Cherokee nation must be respected, US courts can find cause for intervention of a sort. If the Delawares or Shawnees should decide to withdraw from the Cherokee Nation and to act independently as a "separate nation" or nations, that would not necessarily exclude them from benefits (don't laugh) promised by the old treaties, or from the benefits of later "contracts" with local jurisdictions. The agreement/contract/treaty was made with certain persons, acting together, and separating them into disjointed groups does not necessarily prevent their continued participation in contracts/agreements/treaties entered into when they were one more coherent group. Exclusion of the Freedmen from the Cherokee Nation does not necessarily prevent their sharing in any "benefits" promised them by earlier agreements, ... without the consent and agreement of the US as a party to the treaties, or in the case of the very lucrative casino franchises, the consent of the States who entered into the contracts to permit at least the off-reservation casinos. The Freedmen might be able to associate as a "separate tribe" and attempt to assert their participation in the earlier agreements, based their being part of "the Nation" at the time the agreements were made. Chances of successfully pursuing that line of argument probably are in the "snowball in hell" range, as far as odds of success; but US law with regard to contracts, associations, etc., are full of pockets and holes and loopholes, with lots of vagaries that might be exploited. The claim that the casino profits might bring out one or two hundred thousand descendants of Freedmen seeking to claim a share would seem rather puny if my impression is correct that there are probably several million "descendants by blood" who have dropped out of the NA society who could also make the same kind of claim. I have no solid numbers to support that supposition; but the number of "blood Indians" I've known who were nonparticipants and who claimed that they "qualified by blood" but just weren't interested outnumbers those I've met who did claim to be enrolled. If one looks at the exponential expansion in any genealogical "tree," the numbers of currently registered participating "members of tribes" just doesn't support any claim that "they were all at the election," whether Freedmen are included or not, and suggests that the "bloods" who didn't show up might vastly outnumber the descendants of Freedmen. Buckets of worms, no matter how one looks at it. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: dianavan Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM "The Freedmen might be able to associate as a "separate tribe" and attempt to assert their participation in the earlier agreements, based their being part of "the Nation" at the time the agreements were made." I think you are right. How can you be a part of "the Nation" and then be voted out for no good reason. Its not as if the Freedman have committed some kind of crime. It seems their only crime is being former slaves. This is discrimination at its worst and should not be tolerated by the U.S. or any other tribal associations. I still wonder about the wording of the ammendment. Seems to me it was meant to deceive the voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM Yes, a can of worms. Some points which could be contested in the courts: 1. The Dawes and Curtis Acts were forced on the tribes. 2. The government was supposed to remove the freedmen following emancipation. This was not done- could this invalidate their claims? (most did leave on their own- can they and their descendants claim rights 'in the Tribes'?). 3. The Dawes rolls had ballooned to over 200,000 by 1914 as people with questionable claims were added. The rolls were closed (status of consequent claims?). As John in Kansas notes, by this time the descendants would be astronomical in number. Any claims they made would be worthless financially, as John and others have pointed out. 4. It is my understanding that the Delawares have withdrawn from the Tribes. What would be the Courts response to claims arising with regard to them? 5. There have been court decisions, and tribal decisions on matters of tribal membership, all over the United States and Alaska. These decisions (precedents) must be considered (Don't bring up the subject of Hawaiian monies held by the Federal government). Who gets royalties on oil recovered on what was once tribal lands? The answer is those who were lucky in their 40-acre allotments, and oil was/is considered to be from wells on their property, or drawn from under their property (this is much simplified). In any case, anyone who cannot trace their ownership has no claim. I am certain that Indians across North America will support the right of the Tribes to control membership. Attempts to limit what is perceived as their right will be fought. Casinos? Some of them are controlled by the Tribes, but how the monies are handled or entailed is outside of my knowledge. The State will certainly fight any attempts to reduce their take. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:50 PM Q, et. al. In many states, the Tribes are about the only ones who can get permission to operate a casino or much of any other gambling. The majority of states have pretty strong laws, if not constitutional clauses, with prohibitions against gambling in general. Although few of the legislators seem to know it, their ability to exempt the tribes and allow them to be exceptions to the law ultimately is derived from the fact of them "being a foreign nation" and on the concept that a "consular property" can apply the laws of the foreign nation and can be exempt from most local ones. The casinos can be, and often are, "owned" by individuals or small groups of tribesmen, but the "treaty" allows them to operate under "diplomatic protection," much like the caterer at the embassy (conceptually). It's academic in many cases anyway, since many of them hire "Las Vegas Item 2 above perhaps ignores that at least some of the Freedmen, at the time of the old treaty, considered themselves part of the tribe; and the treaty did reflect that, although it also reflected the Dawes belief that "black is different." As to the oil rights and profits, apparently a purpose of the Dawes actions was to make individual tribe members the owners of individual parcels of land rather than having the land owned by the tribes at large, in order that the land could be sold (or stolen) a piece at a time. (Some accounts say that individual tribal leaders did a lot of the "stealing" from Freedmen.) In some cases at least, the oil rights are leased from the individual land owners, and payments to the tribe in general are just a "tax for the zoning permit" - a common feature of "white man's law" in lots of places. If the land ownership isn't in question, it doesn't matter much whether the tribe accepts the owner, although there's often a pretty heavy "tax" to be distributed. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:54 PM I decided to do some further research on my daughter's paternal grandmother. I found the following at The National Archives and thought it quite interesting: The Dawes Commission rejected nearly two-thirds of the applications for enrollment. Those who were rejected also have census cards and application jackets available for research. NARA's Fort Worth facility has indexes available on microfilm for those rejected as Cherokee or Choctaw. Fort Worth also has the applications of those who applied to the Dawes Commission in 1896, all of which were declared invalid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Sorcha Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:49 AM Personally, I think this sucks. One drop of 'black' blood...and yer out. 7/8ths Cherokee, 1/8th black. Yer gone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: GUEST,meself Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:15 PM This is a sad and sorry business ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: GUEST,Cherokee Freedmen Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:45 PM A great number of Freedmen are not non-Indians. The Dawes Rolls documented, because of the racial attitude at that time, individuals based on appearance. When the Dawes Rolls were taken if you looked black, even if you had Cherokee ancestors, you were placed on the Dawes Rolls as Freedmen. On the Dawes Rolls my grandfather is listed as FREEDMEN. On the 1910 and 1920 US Census he is listed as Black. But on the 1930 US Census he is listed as INDIAN! What changed? You tell me. THE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT RACE!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM I e-mailed and have received nothing back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: GUEST,meself Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:42 PM The poisonous combination of greed and racism often seems to be clothed in some such lofty principle as, "the right of the Tribes to control membership". I hope to be convinced that that is not the case here. So far, I am not convinced. As for certainty that "Indians across North America will support the right of the Tribes to control membership", I am certain that most of the many Native people I have known - in Canada - would find the idea of people being expelled from their Nation on the basis of race to be disturbing, to say the least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:50 PM I hope so, memyself. It is certainly repugnant. I recall an artist in the NWT. His grandfather had come from Japan and ended up in the settlement where I lived for two years. He was a complete member of the tribe. His grandmother was Slavey and his mom and dad were Slavey with some White and Slavey with some Qwitchen. I can't do the math, but I do know he was 100% a member, respected for his know;ledge of history and his art work. I have encountered many other similar situations in my years with various First Nations people, and despite me being White, I also was fully accepted on one Reserve and could likely have remained there for the rest of my life had I so chosen--without treaty rights, of course. The situation with that vote is about greed. Nothing more, nothing less. I wrote to a 'catter and told that person that the results of the vote made me feel sadder than at any time of my life excepting two occasions. I still feel that way. I hope the Freedmen take it to court and nail the Cherokee Nation right between the eyes. Big time. Trail of Tears indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM Peace, what does "Slavey' mean? And is "Qwichen" a referent for a particular First Nation ethnic group? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: folk1e Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM Here in the U.K. it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race, is it not so in the U.S.A.? Eather way it diminishes the whole society, not just the perpetrators! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: GUEST,meself Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:51 PM The Feds are in an awkward position here - they have a duty to prevent discrimination "on the grounds of race" in matters such as this, but they also have a duty to respect the hard-won jurisdictional rights of Native bands/tribes/nations. In this instance, it looks like they do not want to be seen once again marching into Indian country to enforce their will, and they do not want to be accused of breaking another treaty. They're probably hanging back till the issue wends its way through the courts ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: GUEST,Bill MItchell Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:43 PM Journalists are taught, when faced with a confusing picture, to follow the money. I suspect that casino profits may play some part in the whole deal. My question for Chad Smith and others like him, is whether the tribe is willing to surrender federal benefits due to its abrogation of the treaty. It seems only fair to do so. You can't be a sovereign nation and a dependency at the same time, can you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: ragdall Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:41 AM Azizi, From http://www.google.com/ - slavey I couldn't find "Qwitchen", but I think this may be the way it is spelled now, Gwitchin. rags |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Azizi Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:51 AM Thanks, ragdall. It's an interesting world we live in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: fumblefingers Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:32 PM There are a lot more Cherokees than just those whose names appear on the Dawes Roll. This seems to be limited only to those who can claim their ancestors were driven to Indian Territory along the "Trail of Tears." Here is a little background on the subject from my cousin, Chief Red Bear, of the Florida Cherokees--I forget the actual tribe name apart from Cherokee. He and I are of the same extraction and the same amount of Cherokee blood--something that is nearly impossibe to figure. I have been avoiding a direct confrontation with the answer to your question, what percent Cherokee blood was so and so? I have to go back over 1500 years to answer this. Leaders of the Cherokee have realized for many years that being Cherokee is a state of mind and oral family history more than a fact that someone can support with. "proof" . I can legally prove that I am of Cherokee blood lines, but lets go back and examine Cherokee culture and history. Our biggest problem is that the Cherokee apparently always were a matriarchal society. Property descended in the maternal side of the family. Which makes sense because you might not know who your father was, but your mother is obvious. Selection of a mate was also the prerogative of the females. When captives were brought back from battle, the eligible females could choose a mate from them, the rest were usually made slaves or killed. When a woman decided she was tired of a mate, all she had to do was to move his things out of the domicile. She kept the property and children and if she was inclined to, she went looking for a new mate. Being a male wasn' t all that bad, all they had to do was hunt, fish, sit around the fire with the other males, in a square, flaking spear and arrow points, swapping lies, and to procreate on demand. The women maintained and kept the house, and planted, cultivated, and harvested the crops. They also were responsible for the training of the children but the saying that, It takes a village to raise a child started with them. Another problem we have in our blood quantum search is that a male must not marry a member of his own clan or village. Every marriage was mixed marriage. The male left his own clan or village and became part of the female's clan or village. Now that we have established the ground rules for the Culture, we can take up the History. Some time before or early during the first millennium (000 to 999 AD), the Ani Yunawiya, the Principal People, as they called themselves, arrived on the West coast of what is now South America. They were very like the Ainu, the original people of Japan, before the Chinese invasion, of whom there are only a few left on an isolated island, Hokkaido, off the Northern Japanese coast. Kitty, our son Charlie, and I visited them for a week in 1989. There is museum there with arrow and spear points, and pottery, very similar to that found today in North Georgia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee. They look somewhat Caucasian, like us. There are legends of them in Peru, Guatemala, Yucatan, Mexico, Monterey, Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, as they traveled North. Intermarrying as the went, they picked up new blood and left Ani Yunawiya behind. The new millennium, 1000 AD, found them on the East bank of the Mississippi River where the Missouri River enters from the West. Here the priests of the areas they had passed thru, who had been absorbed into the Nation, gained ascendancy and kept them overworked, building mounds larger than any other anywhere else. About 1250 AD, they decided they had had enough and, killing their priests, moved East. They intended to settle along the Atlantic coast, but the Delaware people would have none of it. Retreating to the Appalachian mountains, a large number broke away from the major group and went North to establish the Iroquois nation in what is now New York state. The similarity of the languages exists today. Intermarriage with the other Nations continued and when the European people came, they intermarried with them. There is no secret as to why the Cherokee were, by far the largest Native group when the Arawac natives discovered Columbus, wandering around lost in the off-shore islands in 1492 AD. -- Chuck Red Bear Smith, Retired Chief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: Peace Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM Sorry. The Q was a typo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: gnu Date: 24 Aug 11 - 07:11 PM It should be combined, I dunno why my search came up empty??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: michaelr Date: 24 Aug 11 - 11:52 PM OK, where did today's thread get disappeared to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cherokee Vote on Freedmen From: michaelr Date: 24 Aug 11 - 11:55 PM Never mind, it's here. |
