informative and gives you the perspective of some members(not all) of the Cherokee
nation. Though i don't always trust wikipedia, the entry on Cherokee freedman is pretty
good and gives you the other perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Freedmen
Cherokee freedmen controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cherokee Freedmen)
The Cherokee Freedmen Controversy is an ongoing political and tribal dispute between the
administration of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and descendants of the Cherokee
Freedmen. After the American Civil War, the Cherokee Freedmen were made citizens of the
tribe in accordance with a treaty made with the United States government in 1866. The
Freedmen were Cherokee citizens until the early 1980s when the Cherokee Nation's
administration stripped them of voting rights and citizenship for more than two decades.
In March 2006, the Cherokee Nation's courts ruled that the descendants of the Cherokee
Freedmen were allowed to register and become enrolled citizens of the Cherokee Nation.
Principal Chief Chad "Corntassel" Smith, one of the most vocal opponents of the
Freedmen's citizenship, wanted an election to amend the constitution. A petition for a vote
to remove the Freedmen descendants was circulated and Chief Smith held an emergency
election, rather than including the issue on the June 23, 2007 ballot.[1] The Freedmen
descendants were removed from the Cherokee Nation due to the election, but they have
continued to press for recognition.[2]
This issue concerns the continual membership of the descendants of the Cherokee
Freedmen within the Cherokee Nation.
Contents [hide]
1 The Cherokee Freedmen
2 History
2.1 Slavery among the Cherokee
2.2 Treaty of 1866
2.3 Rolls
2.4 Loss of membership
2.5 Activism of the 1940s-2000s
3 Current issues
3.1 Reinstatement and loss of citizenship
3.2 BIA controversy and temporary reinstatement
3.3 Introduction of Bill H.R. 2824
4 Feelings on the controversy
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit]The Cherokee Freedmen
"Freedmen" is one of the terms given to African slaves after slavery was abolished in the
United States. In this context, "Cherokee Freedmen" includes African slaves and former
slaves of the Cherokee Nation before and after the Trail of Tears, and the offspring of the
slaves, former slaves, and tribal members. Some members of the Cherokee Nation claim
there are an estimated 2,800 members of the Cherokee Nation considered to be Freedmen
descendants.[3] However, the New York Times reports that there are as many as 25,000
Cherokee Freedmen descendants.[4]
After they were granted citizenship and "all the rights of native Cherokees" by the Treaty
of 1866, the Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants remained wholly accepted as a
legitimate part of the Cherokee Nation for many decades. Some have been active in the
tribe, voted in elections, attended Cherokee stomp dances, knew Cherokee traditions and
folklore, and even served in tribal council. One freedman councilor, Joseph "Stick" Ross,
has several companies and landmarks named after him including Stick Ross Mountain in
Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Leslie Ross, Stick's great-grandson, says "He knew sign language
and spoke Cherokee and Seminole. He was a trapper and a farmer and a rancher. And he
was sheriff at one time, too. He was pretty renowned in Tahlequah."[5] The civic position
for Freedmen increased after the Dawes Commission in 1907, and in 1971 the Freedmen
participated in the first tribal elections for the office of principal chief since the Curtis Act
of 1908.[6] In spite of the historic connection, more recently some Cherokee freedmen are
ambivalent about their ties and no longer see being Cherokee as part of their personal
identity.[7]
[edit]History
[edit]Slavery among the Cherokee
In oral tradition, Cherokees saw slavery as the result of failure in warfare, and as a
temporary status pending adoption or release.[8] In colonial times, the British took
Cherokee slaves, but from the 1830s to 1860s, some Cherokee began to hold a more
British view,[9] and Cherokees held the greatest number of slaves of any group in Indian
Territory.[10] Slavery was a component of Cherokee society even prior to European
contact,[11] and in the early 1800s some Cherokee plantation owners in the American
south took slaves.[12] The 1809 Meigs Census counted 583 "Negro slaves" of Cherokee
owners,[13] while in 1835 that number was 1,592, with 7.4% of families owning slaves.[14]
Owning slaves was less common among full blood Cherokee.[15]
The nature of slavery in Cherokee society often mirrored that of white slave-owning
society. The law barred intermarriage of Cherokees and blacks, whether slave or free.
Blacks who aided slaves were punished with one hundred lashes on the back. In Cherokee
society, blacks were barred from holding office, bearing arms, and owning property, and it
was illegal to teach blacks to read and write.[16][17] There were slave revolts, such as the
Cherokee Slave Revolt of 1842 in which 25 Cherokee slaves owned by Joseph Vann
rebelled and tried to escape to Mexico, but were captured. During the American Civil War,
the Cherokee Nation, represented by Chief John Ross, was largely conflicted between the
north and the south[18], and on June 25, 1863, two years before the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, all slaves within the limits of the Cherokee
Nation were emancipated by an act of the Cherokee National Council.
[edit]Treaty of 1866
After the war, the factions of Cherokee who supported the Union and those who
supported the Confederacy continued to be at odds. Those supporting the confederacy
largely felt that the freedmen should be removed from Cherokee Country, while others felt
that they should be adopted into the tribe [19]. Federal officials pushed for equal status
between tribal members and freedmen, and on July 19, 1866, the Cherokee Nation signed
a treaty with the United States extending Cherokee citizenship to the freedmen and their
descendants (article 9). The treaty also set aside a large tract for freedmen to settle if they
desired (article 4) and granted self-determination within the constraints of the greater
Cherokee Nation (article 5). The Southern Cherokee Nation was given the Canadian District
"The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three,
by an act of the national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and agree
that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation
otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all the members of said tribe alike. They
further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former
owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the
commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within
six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: Provided,
That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive any
compensation or pay for the slaves so emancipated." -Article 9 of The Treaty Of 1866 [20]
Other tribes of the Five Civilized Tribes such as the Choctaw and Creek had similar treaties
made with the United States government concerning their respective Freedmen.[21] The
Cherokee Nation Constitution was amended in a special convention on November 26,
1866.
"All native born Cherokees, all Indians, and whites legally members of the Nation by
adoption, and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former
owners or by law, as well as free colored persons who were in the country at the
commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within
six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants, who reside within the
limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be, citizens of the Cherokee
Nation."[22].
[edit]Rolls
Cherokee Freedmen Enrollment Notice
The 1866 treaty did not, however, lead to full acceptance of freedmen in the Cherokee
Nation. This resistance was largely due to economic factors. In 1880, a census was
compiled in order to distribute per capita funds related to recent land sales. In the same
year, the Cherokee senate voted to deny citizenship to freedmen who had failed to comply
with the 1866 treaty by returning to the Cherokee Nation within six months. However the
1880 census did not even include those freedmen who had never left, claiming that the
treaty granted civil and political rights, but not the right to share in tribal assets.[23]
Cherokee Chief Dennis Wolf Bushyhead (1877-1887) opposed this action, but was
overridden by the Council. The federal government intervened, passing a bill in 1888
mandating that adopted citizens of the Cherokee nation share in tribal assets, and
compiled what was known as the Wallace Roll in 1889 to count those who were included
(including 3,524 freedmen).[24] The freedmen won the claims court case that followed,
Whitmore v. Cherokee Nation and United States (30 Ct. Clms. 138(1895)). The Cherokee
had already distributed the funds, and the U.S. as co-defendant in the case, was to pay
the award. The Kern-Clifton roll completed in 1896 listed 5,600 freedmen who received
their portion of the funds in the following decade.[25]
In the midst of all of this, the Dawes Act of 1887 was passed, which converted tribal lands
to individual ownership, which was to some degree an attempt at assimilating the Indians.
As a part of the act and subsequent bills, the Dawes Commission required a roll which
listed people in the Indian Territory under the categories, freedmen, intermarried whites,
and Indians by blood. Freedmen were put on the Freedmen Roll regardless if the man or
woman had Cherokee blood or not. The Dawes Rolls of 1902 listed 41,798 citizens of the
Cherokee Nation, 4,924 of them freedmen. The 1908 Curtis Act authorized the Dawes
Commission to allot funds without the consent of tribal government (both the Dawes and
Curtis Acts are seen as great restrictions on tribal sovereignty), and allowed the federal
government to extract taxes from white citizens living in the Indian territories. Allotments
were distributed, although there have been many claims of unfair treatment,[26] and as
the Cherokee Nation was officially dissolved and Oklahoma became a state (1907), by and
large the freedmen had self-determination. There were 1,659 freedmen listed on the
Kern-Clifton roll were not included in the Dawes Roll[27] who were not given Cherokee
citizenship rights. Some have criticized inconsistencies of the Dawes Rolls themselves. For
instance, freedwoman Gladys Lannagan in the testimony of members of the Cherokee
Freedmen's Association before the Indian Claims Commission on November 14, 1960
reported, "I was born in 1896 and my father died August 5, 1897. But he didn't get my
name on the roll. I have two brothers on the roll by blood--one on the roll by blood and
one other by Cherokee freedman children's allottees." She stated that one of her
grandparents was Cherokee and the other black.[28] Other cases of black Cherokee with
at least 1/4 of their grandparents being full Cherokee not being listed as Cherokee by
blood have been presented as well.[29]
In 1924, Congress passed a jurisdictional act, which allowed the Cherokees to file suit
against the United States to recover the funds paid to freedmen under the Kern-Clifton
Rolls in 1894. The result of this suit held that the Kern-Clifton Rolls were only valid for
that one distribution, and were superseded by later rolls. The Indian Claims Commission
Act of 1946 again stirred interest in the status of the 1,659 freedmen included in the
Kern-Clifton but not the later roll.
[edit]Loss of membership
In the 1970s incentives instituted by the United States government such as free health
care lured many descendants of Indians by blood Dawes enrollees to join the Cherokee
Nation. These were extended to the Freedmen as well. However, as the makeup of the
Cherokee Nation shifted, the sentiments of those in power shifted as well. Efforts to block
the Freedmen descendants from the tribe started in 1983 when Ross O. Swimmer,
Principal Chief Of The Cherokee Nation at the time, passed an act stating that all Cherokee
citizens must have a Certificate Of Degree Of Indian Blood (CDIB) card in order to vote.
Since the Freedmen Rolls had no record of Indian blood like the other Dawes Rolls, they
were effectively removed from the tribal polls. The controversy surrounding this was that
the freedmen descendants were supposedly voting for another chief candidate and not
Swimmer. Although they were Dawes enrollees, and had received funds from the nation
resulting from recent land sales, and had voted in 1979, they were turned away from the
polls and told that they did not have the right to vote. Another act was passed years later
by Swimmer's successor, Chief Wilma P. Mankiller, stating that all enrolled members of the
Cherokee Nation must have a CDIB card. This act cemented the Cherokee Freedmen
descendants' disenfranchisement from the Cherokee Nation.
[edit]Activism of the 1940s-2000s
In the 1940s, the Cherokee Freedmen's Association was formed of over 100 freedmen
descendants of freedmen on the Wallace, Kern-Clifton, and Dawes Rolls. The group filed
petition with the Indian Claims Commission in 1951, which were denied in 1961, since the
claims were individual in nature and outside of the jurisdiction of the Indian Claims
Commission. Appeals stretched to 1971, but all were denied. The Cherokee Freedmen's
Association was faced with two issues. On one hand, the Dawes Rolls, a federally
mandated tally, were accepted as defining who were legally and politically Cherokee, and
on the other hand, the courts saw their claims as a tribal matter and outside of their
jurisdiction. [30].
On July 7, 1983, Reverend Roger H. Nero and five other original enrollees were turned
away from the polls. He along with others sent a complaint to the civil rights division of
the Department of Justice, and on June 18, 1984. The freedmen descendants filed a class
action suit against Principal Chief Ross Swimmer, the tribal registrar, a tribal council
member, the tribal election committee, the United States, the Office of the President, the
Department of the Interior, the Office of the Secretary, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
three BIA employees claiming discrimination on the basis of race. The suit sought nearly
$750 million and wanted the last election to be declared null and void. That case and an
appeal heard in 1989 both were resolved against the freedmen on account of jurisdictional
issues such the case should have been made in the court of claims due to the amount
asked in the lawsuit.
In 2001, Bernice Riggs, a Freedmen descendant, sued the tribal registrar Leia
Ummerteskee for citizenship in the case of "Riggs v. Ummerteskee". It was ruled by the
Judicial Appeals Tribunal (Now The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court) that Riggs did indeed
have Cherokee blood, but was denied membership because her Cherokee ancestors are
Freedmen on the Dawes Rolls.
Marilyn K. Vann, president of the Descendants Of Freedmen Of The Five Civilized Tribes
organization, and Freedmen descendants filed a case with the United States Federal Court
over the Cherokee Nation's disenfranchisement of the Freedmen. Efforts to dismiss the
federal case or move the case out of Washington by the Cherokee Nation have been
denied so far. The federal case is still ongoing.
[edit]Current issues
[edit]Reinstatement and loss of citizenship
On September 26, 2004, Lucy Allen, a Freedmen descendant, filed a lawsuit with the
Cherokee Nation Supreme Court over the acts that barred the Freedmen descendants from
tribal membership being unconstitutional in the case of "Allen v. Cherokee Nation Tribal
Council". On March 7, 2006, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court ruled in Allen's favor in
a 2-1 decision that the descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen are Cherokee and were
allowed to register to become enrolled citizens of the Cherokee Nation.[31] This was based
on the facts that the Freedmen were listed as members on the Dawes Rolls and that the
1975 Cherokee Constitution stated no language that the Freedmen were not members and
no mention of a blood requirement for membership in the tribe [32] This ruling overturns
the previous ruling in "Riggs v. Ummerteskee" and over 800 Freedmen descendants have
enrolled in the Cherokee Nation since the ruling was made[33] -- out of up to 45,000
potentially eligible people.[34]
Principal Chief Chad Smith stated his disapproval of the ruling days after it was made and
wanted the ruling overturned via constitutional referendum petition or convention to
amend the constitution to restrict tribal membership [35]. The Cherokee Tribal Council
agreed with Smith, and on June 12, 2006, voted to "exclude Freedmen from the tribe's
rolls" in a 13-2 vote[36]. The council denied a motion to have a special election by
Novermber, 2006 over the issue, but supporters of the special election, including John
Ketcher, former deputy chief of the Cherokee Nation, and Cherokee citizens siding with
Smith, circulated a petition for a vote to remove the Freedmen descendants[37]. Chief
Smith announced that the issue of the membership for Cherokee Freedmen was being
considered for a vote regarding proposed amendments to the Cherokee Nation
Constitution. Freedmen descendants opposed the election, and one descendant, Vicki
Baker, filed a protest in the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court over the legality of the
petition and allegations of foul play involved in the petition drive [38]. Though the
Cherokee Supreme Court ruled against Baker, two justices in Cherokee Supreme Court,
Darrell Dowty and Stacy Leeds, filed two dissenting opinions against the ruling. Justice
Leeds wrote an eighteen-page dissenting opinion concerning falsified information in the
petition drive and fraud by Darren Buzzard and Dwayne Barrett, two of the petition's
circulators. Leeds wrote, "In this initiative petition process, there are numerous
irregularities, clear violations of Cherokee law, and it has been shown that some of the
circulators perjured their sworn affidavits. I cannot, in good conscience, join in the
majority opinion" [39]. Despite the dissent and the removal of 800 signatures from the
petition, the goal of 2,100 signatures was met.
On December 19, 2006, Federal Judge Henry H. Kennedy ruled that the freedmen
descendants could sue the Cherokee Nation for disenfranchisement [40]. However Judge
Kennedy ruled against the Freedmen descendants' motion to halt the upcoming election.
After a few delays, the tribe voted on March 3, 2007 whether to reject the 1866 treaty or
to allow the 2006 decision to stand.[41]. Less than a year after the Cherokee Freedmen
descendants were reinstated in tribal court, they were once again removed from the
Cherokee Nation with a 77% (6,693) to 23% (2,040) margin out of 8,700 total votes cast by
registered voters[42]. The Freedmen descendants protested their ouster from the tribe
with demonstrations at the BIA office in Oklahoma and the Oklahoma state capital [43]
[44]
Due to the election that resulted in the ousting of the Freedmen descendants, the
Cherokee Nation has come under considerable fire from various political circles such as
the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Congress Of Black Women. On March 14,
2007, twenty-six members of the Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter to Carl J.
Artman, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, urging the Bureau Of Indian Affairs to
investigate the legality of the March 3rd election [45]. The election has also drawn focus to
potentially illegal constitutional issues, as the election took place under a constitution that
was not approved by the Secretary of Interior as acknowledged during an April 2007
Cherokee Nation rules committee meeting[citation needed].
[edit]BIA controversy and temporary reinstatement
On May 22, 2007, the Cherokee Nation received notice from the BIA that the Cherokee
Nation's amendments to the 1975 Cherokee Nation Constitution was rejected because it
required BIA approval, which had not been obtained. The BIA also stated concerns that the
Cherokee Nation had excluded the Cherokee Freedmen from voting for the 2003 (1999)
Constitutional amendments, since they had been improperly shorn of their rights of
citizenship years earlier and were not allowed to participate in the constitutional approval.
This is considered a violation of the 1970 Principal Chiefs Act, which requires that all tribal
members must vote. According to Chief Smith, the 1975 Indian Self Determination Act
overrides the 1970 Principal Chiefs Act and removing the Freedmen descendants was in
accordance to the former act. Smith also stated that the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court
ruled that Cherokee Nation could take away the approval authority it had granted the
federal government and that the Cherokee Nation will abide by the Supreme Court's
decision. [46] [47]. However, the issue with the amending removing federal approval was
once again placed on the ballot for the June 23, 2007 election. Cherokee voters approved
of the amendment again in a 2-1 margin, but the BIA still has to approve. A letter to Chief
Smith from Jeanette Hanna, director of the BIA's Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, stated
that the regional office has recommended approval of the vote on removal of Secretarial
oversight.[48]
On May 15, 2007, Cherokee District Court Judge John Cripps signed an order for the
Cherokee Freedmen descendants to be temporarily reinstated as citizens of the Cherokee
Nation while appeals are pending in the Cherokee Nation court system. This was due to an
injunction filed by the Freedmen descendants' court appointed attorney for their case in
tribal court. The Cherokee Nation's Attorney General Diane Hammonds complied with the
court order. However, some have stated that this move was a reaction to the Freedmen's
ongoing federal case and the BIA's complaint that the freedmen were not allowed to vote
[49]. Marilyn Vann and six Freedmen descendants filed a motion in federal court to halt the
upcoming election, but Judge Henry Kennedy denied the motion. On June 23rd, Chad
Smith was reelected as Principal Chief with 58.8% of the vote.
[edit]Introduction of Bill H.R. 2824
On June 21, 2007, US Rep. Diane Watson (D-California), one of the 25 Congressional Black
Caucus members who signed a letter asking the BIA to investigate the Freedmen situation,
introduced H.R. 2824. This bill seeks to sever the Cherokee Nation's federal recognition,
strip the Cherokee Nation of their federal funding (estimated $300 million annually), and
stop the Cherokee Nation's gaming operations if the tribe doesn't honor the Treaty Of
1866. H.R. 2824 was co-signed by eleven Congress members and was referred to the
Committee Of Natural Resources and the Committee Of The Judiciary.
Chief Smith issued a statement saying that the introduction of this bill is "really a
misguided attempt to deliberately harm the Cherokee Nation in retaliation for this
fundamental principle that is shared by more than 500 other Indian tribes". The National
Congress Of Native Americans (NCAI) have expressed their disapproval of the bill. [4]
[edit]Feelings on the controversy
Cherokee Freedmen descendants feel that they have been gradually pushed out of the
Cherokee Nation, and that the process has left each generation less aware of its rights and
its history. Much of the geographic and demographic information for the U.S. states,
counties, and cities came from the data on the site. The data is not totally accurate due to
various polling errors, but it is a very good estimate. See the Bureau's website for more
information. The data were used for the following topics: geographic areas (total, land,
and water), population and housing unit densities, demographic spreads across race, age,
sex, and income. The data are indexed by state, county, and place FIPS codes. See also
Race (United States Census) for a list of the definition of race according to the U.S. Census
Bureau. As of July 11, 2007, census data can be accessed here</ref>. Communities in this
part of northeastern Oklahoma are largely segregated.
Individual Cherokee and Freedmen have in the past been ignorant about the issue all
together. As Freedman activist Reverend Roger H. Nero said in 1984, "Over the years they
[Cherokee Nation officials] have been eliminating us [Freedmen] gradually. When the older
ones die out, and the young ones come on, they won't know their rights. If we can't get
this suit, they will not be able to get anything" [50]. And Circe Sturm (1998) reports that
more recently, many Freedmen he interviewed are vague in their remembrance of a
connection with the Cherokee, and are ambivalent about getting recognized[51].
Recognized Cherokee, too, are often in the dark. Cara Cowan Watts, a tribal council
member who is against the freedmen being tribal members, admitted that she didn't know
anything about the Freedmen or their history before the case[52], while Chief Chad Smith
admits that "a lot of Cherokee don't know who the Freedmen are," saying that he himself
didn't know while growing up[53].
People who are against the Freedmen descendants being tribal members support Chief
Smith's stance that the Freedmen are not Cherokee citizens based on their ancestors being
on the Freedmen Roll of the Dawes Rolls and not on the "By-Blood" Cherokee Roll. Other
claims from Smith and likeminded citizens include that the Freedmen and their
descendants have not been active in the tribe for 100 years, that the Freedmen were
compensated for slavery with their Dawes land allotments and not tribal membership, that
they were forced on the tribe due to the Treaty Of 1866, and the claim that they are solely
after or not entitled to the tribe's resources and Cherokee Nation's federally funded
programs [54]. People who are "Pro-Freedmen" feel that the Freedmen descendants do
have a rightful place in Cherokee society based on the Cherokee Freedmen's long history
in the tribe before and after the Five Civilized Tribes' forced removal, Freedmen who have
been active members of the tribe, and documents such as the Treaty Of 1866, the 1894
Supreme Court case of "Cherokee Nation vs. Journeycake" [5], and the 1975 Cherokee
Constitution. Some Cherokees by blood have also pushed to garner full citizenship for
Freedmen. David Allen Cornsilk, editor of the independent newspaper the Cherokee
Observer and founder of the Cherokee National Party, was the lay advocate for the Lucy
Allen case and sees the issue of honoring the 1866 treaty as an issue of sovereignty. Other
non-White Cherokee have expressed solidarity with freedmen due to their similarities of
religion (Southern Baptist) and the sense of community (albeit African American) found
among freedmen [55].
Certain issues have risen from the controversy. One is the issue of blood. Historians have
mentioned that the Cherokee have included members without Cherokee blood. The
Shawnee and Delaware tribes, two non-Cherokee tribes, are members of the Cherokee
Nation by treaty. Another issue is the issue of a tribe breaking a treaty which is protected
by Article Six of the United States Constitution. Dr. Daniel F. Littlefield Jr., director of the
Sequoyah Research Center at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock, stated that the Treaty
Of 1866 grants freedmen their rights as citizens and the case shouldn't be made into a
racial issue [56]. In a June 2007 message to members of United Keetoowah Band Of
Cherokees, Principal Chief George Wickliffe expressed his concern about the Cherokee
Nation ignoring the Treaty Of 1866 and threatening government-to-government
relationships [57]. Race is another issue. Taylor Keen, a Cherokee Nation tribal council
member, said "Historically, citizenship in the Cherokee Nation has been an inclusive
process, It was only at the time of the Dawes Commission there was ever a racial
definition of what Cherokee meant. The fact that it was brought back up today certainly
tells me that there is a statute of racism" [58]. Cherokee Nation citizen Darren Buzzard,
one of the petition circulators, composed a letter to Councilwoman Linda O'Leary that had
many statements that were deemed racist and bigoted. This letter was circulated on the
Internet and it was quoted in many articles on the Freedmen case[59] [60].
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, catpurdy@... wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but I agree with Dee - this is outrageous.
> http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=9456
>
> Congressional Black Caucus Attacks Sovereign Status of Indian Nations
>
> 4/12/2008
>
> By Tim Giago (Nanwica Kciji)
>
> The Congressional Black Caucus, in attacking the sovereign status of the
> Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is placing in question and in jeopardy, the sovereign
> status of all Indian nations. At least that is the conclusion drawn by many
> tribal leaders across America.
> In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the CBC, of which
> Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is member, demanded that he support their efforts
> to deny federal funding to the Cherokee Nation. The letter reads:
>
> When H. R. 2786, the Native American Housing and Assistance and
> Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007, was considered and passed the House
Members
> of the Congressional Black Caucus and others insisted that the bill include a
> provision that would prevent the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma from receiving
> any benefits or funding under the bill until the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is
> in full compliance with the Treaty of 1866 and recognizes all Cherokee
> Freedman and their descendants as tribal citizens.
> We understand that the Senate may be considering a version of this bill that
> does not include these critically important requirements. We are writing to
> advise you that the members of the CBC will not support, and will actively
> oppose, passage of a NAHASDA bill that does not include this limitation. We must
> send the unequivocal message to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that failure to
> provide full citizenship rights to the Cherokee Freedmen will have severe
> consequences.
>
> This is probably the first time in history that a Congressional Black Caucus,
> or any other Black organization for that matter, has severely threatened not
> only the sovereign status of an Indian nation, but also the withholding of
> funds that could cause widespread damage to the citizens of an Indian nation.
> The people of the Cherokee Nation exercised their democratic rights when 70
> percent of them voted to extinguish the tribal citizenship to the Cherokee
> Freedmen. The Freedmen are former Black slaves that became a part of the Cherokee
> Nation under the provisions of the Treaty of 1866.
> The bill was introduced by Representative Diane Watson (D-CA). Tribal leaders
> across America feel that this bill could threaten Indian housing nationwide.
> They also believe that this action by the Congressional Black Caucus could set
> a precedent where any Indian legislation could be threatened by any special
> interest group.
> In a memo sent out by Indian activist Ron Andrade it was noted that Obama is
> also a member of the CBC. “Someone needs to ask him how he can reconcile his
> support of the Congressional Black Caucus and his rhetoric about supporting the
> sovereign status of tribal governments,†Andrade wrote.
> The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of
> North Carolina met on Wednesday of last week in a joint tribal council meeting.
> At the meeting they denounced legislation that would cut federal funds to the
> Cherokee Nation unless the Freedmen are restored to citizenship. The Eastern
> Band of Cherokee would not be affected by the legislation.
> A joint resolution issued after the meeting reads, “This alarming,
> inappropriate and unacceptable overreach could set a precedent that undermines the
> sovereign tribal governments throughout Indian country. These proposed legislative
> actions threaten to turn back the clock on hard-won rights and to cease a
> nation’s right to exist.â€
> It should be noted that California is one of the worst states in the Union
> where tribes are systematically removing and denying citizenship to members.
> Rep. Watson represents a voting district in that state. What has she done about
> this problem in her own district? And what about the rest of the Congressional
> Black Caucus? Are they not concerned that Indian people are often removed from
> tribes in California without even a democratic vote? Or will they only speak
> up when Black Americans are involved?
> And the final question: What gives the Congressional Black Caucus the right
> to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign Indian nation?
> These are all questions that every Native American leader and citizens should
> be asking every member of the CBC including presidential candidate Barak
> Obama who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
> And isn’t ironic that the very word “Caucus†is derived from the Algonquin
> Indian language and meant, “A group of people united to promote an agreed â€"
> upon cause.â€
> When the CBC begins to use its power to go after some of the tribes of
> California for ejecting and denying citizenship to their members then, and only
> then, will their actions against the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma have the
> appearance of justice or otherwise their objectivity will always be in question to the
> sovereign people of the Indian nations.
>
> © 2008 Native American Journalists Foundation, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
> listings at AOL Autos.
>
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder