Cherokee.org: The Freedmen Issue
I have spoken on this blog in the past about the Cherokee Freedman controversy (click here to read past posts), but tonight after reading some crap on the Cherokee Nation’s website feel like I need to say more about the matter.
As I understand it, the basic facts of the situation are this…
The Cherokee (along with many other Indian tribes) owned slaves prior to their removal in the Trail of Tears. In the removal, the Cherokee brought their slaves with them to their lands in what would someday become Oklahoma.
During the Civil war, the Oklahoma tribes were split as to who they would support North or South, but a sizable number allied themselves with the South. After the war, the North used the fact that some tribal members fought with the South to justify harsh reconstruction treaties in which the tribes lost about half of their lands.
However, a good result from reconstruction was the abolition of slavery among the Indian tribes. The Union insisted that the tribes either adopt their former slaves (the new “freedmen”) as tribal members, or they would be required to give the freedmen substantial financial settlements and full emancipation. Most of the tribes (including the Cherokee) went with the first option.
In later years, the Cherokee have tried to renege on their treaty obligations (ironic, since it is normally the white man that breaks Indian treaties) by kicking the freedmen out of the tribe. This to me is wrong. The Cherokee were wrong (as were non-Indians of the South) when they owned slaves. But they did commit this great wrong. The Freedmen have now been part of Cherokee society for over 100 years as free Cherokee people. To kick them out now, is no different and no less wrong that what the Southern states did when they enacted Jim Crow laws to put their former slaves into virtual slavery and subjugation. And it is
Being an Indian is certainly about blood ties, but it is more than that. It is culture, it is tradition, it is language. To me the Freedmen suffered alongside the Cherokees and even under the Cherokees. To kick them out now is the ultimate insult.
I’m not surprised to see the current tribal administration defend their actions on their website, but I do find it particularly ironic to see them do so while displaying this little graphic on their website…
The Cherokee were sent on a genocidal death march by the US Army. That flag was carried by the troops who took the Cherokee to Oklahoma, and that flag flew over the White House where racist President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and ordered the Indian removals to continue.
But now, the great Cherokee Nation is willing to sell itself out and have their children be used as a propaganda tool in favor of disenfranchising the Freedmen, by playing to the presumed “common values, common ground” between racist pro-exclusion Cherokees and the dominant white culture.
I am proud to be Cherokee (I’m not a citizen though because my Cherokee ancestor wasn’t allowed to sign it by her white husband, but that doesn’t change my heritage), but I’m not proud of what the Cherokee nation is doing.
I stand with the Freedmen and will continue to stand with them. There is a move by members of the Congressional Black caucus to take away federal funding for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. (Here is the Cherokee Nation’s response to this (PDF download). I hope it doesn’t come to this, but if the Cherokee nation will not back down then I think the funding should be yanked. I don’t think it is right for the Federal government to aid and abet racism, and if the Cherokee nation will not live up to its treaty obligations to the Freedmen then I don’t see what the alternative is.
Let me say it one more way. The Cherokees action to take away tribal citizenship and to take away the Freedmen’s right to vote, is no different than the US deciding to repeal 14th and 15th Amendments.
Cross-posted at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/0948/38477/736/484367
Also there is a poll running on Dailykos on this topic…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/0948/38477/736/484367
“Do you support the Cherokee Nation’s action to disenfranchise the Cherokee Freedmen?”
So far the vote is
4 yes, 37 no, 5 maybe
Cross-posted here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_j__m__br_080325_cherokee_nation_sell.htm
http://newsok.com/article/3210629/1204352011
NewsOK: Freedmen say their concerns are ignored
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/local/local_story_060234708.html
Muskogee Phoenix: Demonstration seeks help on freedmen issue
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7513849
NPR.org: Cherokee Tribe Faces Decision on Freedmen
This really spells it out pretty clearly from the 1866 treaty…
” ARTICLE 9
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 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. ”
Taken from: http://www.cherokeebyblood.com/blackindians.htm
To violate this treaty is no different than if the US government decided to suspend the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution.
The Freedmen are Cherokees and will forever be Cherokee. The CN of Oklahoma has no legal or moral right to break this treaty.
Here’s the full text of the treaty (thanks to Scott for sending me the link)…
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/KAPPLER/VOL2/treaties/che0942.htm#mn5
Ordinarily I agree with your opeds, JMB. But you’re reciting some selective facts. Too, since the Treaty of 1866, enumeration, allotment and statehood are 3 of the unilateral treaty violations and sovereignty breaches that impacted Cherokees. At some point, a People has to say, “We’re not going to let you hold us responsible for YOUR Dawes segregation retrofits even if you threaten $300 million in shutdowns over 800 people.” If all 240,000 Cherokees had as much political mojo as every Freedman Descendant, (800 controlling 300 million dollars averages out to roughly $333,333 per person)… but they don’t. Instead, it averages out to about $1,000 of federal service a person per year. Cherokee Nation puts a *lot* more than that into the local schools, fire departments, water lines, roads and law enforcement.
There was a time when it wasn’t a big deal and folks didn’t feel this way. But when the CBC started using economic duress, from the very government that failed to protect the Cherokee Nation from the Civil War and broke a treaty in doing so in the first place, I think Cherokee Nation is drawing a line against the bullying.
I work for Cherokee Nation and my opinions are my own. I was Bernice Riggs pro bono Attorney in the first Freedmen case. So, I’ve seen this issue evolve and feel like I have a balanced understanding of both the Freedmen human element and the Cherokee Nation’s reasons for not submitting.
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for your comment. What you said was probably the most influential in my own mind, as I know that you know all sides of the case pretty well. I still very much want to see the CNO change its policy, but I agree that bullying will only make the CNO have a more entrenched position.
You said:
Ordinarily I agree with your opeds, JMB. But you’re reciting some selective facts.
I Say!
Well KCW, I thought you had given up on hawking smith’s blatant line of pure BS, but I guess not! If you are talking about Mr Branums post on oped Titled CNO Sells out, see my response to him over there, and you can see my reponse to his mind change here on this site. and there as well.
You said:
Too since the Treaty of 1866, enumeration, allotment and statehood are 3 of the unilateral treaty violations and sovereignty breaches that impacted Cherokees.
I say!
You are a lawyer KCW, and you know better than this crap. The 1866 Treaty was a reconstruction treaty we were on the loosing side of a war, and were actually allowed to negotiate the terms of this treaty, the enumeration you want to call a treaty breach was not, it had absolutely nothing to do with the 1866 Treaty…
The enumeration was the creation of the Dawes Rolls, The Commission, authorized by the United States Congress in 1893 The Dawes Act, that would enumerated the Citizenship of the Cherokee Nation for the SOLE purpose to determine who would get an allotment of their own land the Government had just stolen, to prepare for the state of Oklahoma, and there was such an objection to the enrollment, the US Congress passed another Act called Curtis Act (of June 28, 1898), ch. 517, 30 Stat. 495. Section 28 of the Curtis Act provided that on July 1, 1898, “all tribal courts in Indian Territory shall be abolished” and it most assuredly did not except the Cherokee Nation as Smith wants the world to believe, and sadly some of us aid and abet with some recognition by the use of the Term of Cherokee Nation with out their complete name that includes “of Oklahoma” : Thus (CNO)!! And this was the act that rendered the Indian Nations totally helpless and at the mercy of the Dawes Commission, The Cherokee were enrolled many full-bloods against their will, my Maternal Grand mother was one. Then KCW, Statehood was granted on the backs of the Indian nations in Oklahoma, none of this had a dang thing to with the Treaty of 1866…
Then KCW During the process of making Indian Territory into Oklahoma, a State of the Union, the Fed Gov realized the Indian Governments were needed in place to be further skrewed over legally, so Another Congressional Act took place and said:
Joint Resolution No. 7 of March 2, 1906, 34 Stat. 822, and by Section 28 of the Five Tribes Act of April 26, 1906, ch. 1876, 34 Stat. 148.
The tribal governments therefore were extended indefinitely by the act…
BUT the thing to note is the exec, and legislative sections NOT the Judicial…
The Creek Nation was the first to challenge the issue in a case styled Harjo V Kleppe, 420 F. Supp. 1110, 1118-1131 (D.D.C. 1976), aff’d 581 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the court held that the Five Tribes Act of 1906 continued the executive and legislative authority ONLY.
In 1936, Congress enacted a distinct statute, the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (OIWA), that authorized any recognized tribe or band of Indians residing in Oklahoma to organize for its common welfare and to adopt a constitution and bylaws. Section 3, 49 Stat. 1967, 25 U.S.C. 503. To include a judiciary, and this was the only action that could negate the crippling effect of the abolished Nations, and each Nation must organize individually, as did the Creek, Choctaw, and the Chickasaw, the Seminole and Cherokee Did NOT, and one entity can NOT ride the coat tail of another as the CNO tries with the Creek litigation, and claims they are covered, they are BOGUS, and most assuredly NOT the Cherokee Nation, simply (CNO),
Then you said!
At some point, a People has to say, “We’re not going to let you hold us responsible for YOUR Dawes segregation retrofits even if you threaten $300 million in shutdowns over 800 people.” If all 240,000 Cherokees had as much political mojo as every Freedman Descendant, (800 controlling 300 million dollars averages out to roughly $333,333 per person)… but they don’t. Instead, it averages out to about $1,000 of federal service a person per year. Cherokee Nation puts a *lot* more than that into the local schools, fire departments, water lines, roads and law enforcement.
I say!
NO KCW, what smith is saying not the Cherokee People, and you supporters regurgitate the BS, in complete ignorant babble such as this post.
You said:
There was a time when it wasn’t a big deal and folks didn’t feel this way. But when the CBC started using economic duress, from the very government that failed to protect the Cherokee Nation from the Civil War and broke a treaty in doing so in the first place, I think Cherokee Nation is drawing a line against the bullying.
I say!
Dang KCW simply more complete ignorant BS, and by a lawyer, that I know knows better, All a person has to do is read the CBC Bill by Watson, line by line with an understanding of law, obtainable by documentation that can be found at http://www.cornsilks.com along with Watson’s Bill at the top of the page.
You said:
I work for Cherokee Nation and my opinions are my own. I was Bernice Riggs pro bono Attorney in the first Freedmen case. So, I’ve seen this issue evolve and feel like I have a balanced understanding of both the Freedmen human element and the Cherokee Nation’s reasons for not submitting
I say:
NO, you do not work for the Cherokee Nation, you work for the “Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma“, and yes you were barrister of record in the Riggs case, and pitifully so I might add, you took a high paying job at CNO, to let the case languish, it did, and the crooked judges of CNO ruled in the dark, with out ever notifying the plaintiff, though they did ruled She had Cherokee blood, but that was inconsequential, because she was a freedmen and not a Cherokee…And that was NOT the First Case, one Reverend Nero file a case prior to Riggs, in federal Court and it was kicked back because he had not exhausted Tribal court remedies, and a sad racial picture was painted in the halls of CNO at the Council meeting it was announced it was kicked back, there was an uproar, and one Sam Ed Bush a councilor and a flunky of swimmer bellowed out “Now we wont have to see no N*****S in the hallways of the Nation“, SICK, KCW…
Then Came Lucy Allen, with my Son a NON lawyer Representing her as a Lay Advocate beat the skuzzy lawyers of the CNO, See the RULING HERE
John Cornsilk
PS: Mr. Branum if you want to believe anything this person says, then I feel for you!!
On the main Topic CNO Sells Out, I made a response to Mr. Branum’s posting over on opeds, I f you haven see it here it is:
You said:
Tonight after reading some crap on the Cherokee Nation’s website feel like I need to speak out.
I say!
And you spoke out quite well I must say!
You said:
As I understand it, the basic facts of the situation are this…
The Cherokee (along with many other Indian tribes) owned slaves prior to their removal in the Trail of Tears. In the removal, the Cherokee brought their slaves with them to their lands in what would someday become Oklahoma.
I say!
So far so good, with a slight error, they did not bring their slaves with them, the slaves were rounded up right along with the Cherokee like livestock and penned up for the forced death march, and the slaves gladly accompanied the only family they knew and continued to serve them on the march, many were actually Cherokee Children of the Cherokee slave holders..
You said:
During the Civil war, the Oklahoma tribes were split as to who they would support North or South, but a sizable number allied themselves with the South. After the war, the North used the fact that some tribal members fought with the South to justify harsh reconstruction treaties in which the tribes lost about half of their lands.
This is sort of misleading an plays into what Chief Smith and Cronies try to feed the General public as fact of law…
First though let me say not being an authority on treaties I will just make a couple of points that might help with the question of harshness with the Treaty of 1866, treaties were quite common between the US and Indian Nations. Treaties with other Nations hay have happened happen more for purposes of ending wars or as peace treaties. In any case there always seems to be one side that is forced to accept the terms of the other or face violent consequences. I t has to be understood there was a war and the Cherokee was on the loosing side, and the validity of a treaty has to be measured by the compliance by the parties. After negotiations yes there were negotiations with skilled negotiators on both sides, and the treaty can be said to be harsh, but a necessity for the Cherokee to be able to get on with their lives after a devastating war.
There has been claims by many over the years, and that is one of the lies the perpetrator of this genocidal act by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s claims today, and simply is not so, it very well could be said to be harsh but considering the era I believe the Cherokee fared rather well.
As I said Some Cherokee People have always tried to claim the Freedmen were forced on the Cherokee Nation, the Cherokee Nation attempted to prove that the Treaty of 1866 was “forced” upon the Nation. That was proven false in a case before the Indian Claims Commission (Cherokee Nation v. United States). The records created at the time of the Treaty show that the Freedmen question was not of much concern to the . The legal negotiators were more concerned with the attempts by the illegitimate Southern Cherokee delegation who were there claiming a right as a separate Cherokee Nation attempting to divide the Nation into two tribes, using the efforts of railroad companies efforts in negotiations for right of way through the Nation.
The mythology regarding the Treaty of 1866 and its provisions concerning the Freedmen being forced upon the Cherokees was begun and perpetuated by the Group of Southern Cherokee, who lacked any authority at the negotiations. Those who perpetuate it today are descendants of the southern illegal delegation do nothing but carry on the evil deeds of their ancestors in their renewed effort to destroy the Cherokee Nation by trying to divide us once again.
You said:
However, a good result from reconstruction was the abolition of slavery among the Indian tribes. The Union insisted that the tribes either adopt their former slaves (the new “freedmen”) as tribal members, or they would be required to give the freedmen substantial financial settlements and full emancipation. Most of the tribes (including the Cherokee) went with the first option.
I say!
Yes abolition of slavery was a good result of the Reconstruction era, and the Treaty… I don’t believe your scenario quite fits the Cherokee, simply be cause in 1863 a good 3 years before the signing of the Treaty of 1866, the Cherokee Nation passed an emancipation act freeing their slaves from bondage See it here http://www.jalagi.org/1863emplaw.gif which was a way to protect their family members that were black and would be seen as freed slaves. And then to reiterate the fact the Cherokee were all for treating the freed black people fairly as the Law of the Treaty specified, they amended their click here 1839 Constitution see Article III section 5, in the same year of the signing of the treaty making the freed blacks citizens of the Cherokee Nation irregardless of blood.
You Said:
In later years, the Cherokee have tried to renege on their treaty obligations (ironic, since it is normally the white man that breaks Indian treaties) by kicking the freedmen out of the tribe. This to me is wrong. The Cherokee were wrong (as were non-Indians of the South) when they owned slaves. But they did commit this great wrong. The Freedmen have now been part of Cherokee society for over 100 years as free Cherokee people. To kick them out now, is no different and no less wrong that what the Southern states did when they enacted Jim Crow laws to put their former slaves into virtual slavery and subjugation. And it is
I say!
If you are talking about this try of kicking out the freedmen, you are correct, and in 1880 the Cherokee did a Census enumerating all Cherokee Citizens at the time you can see it here http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/cherokeecensus.php?chercensusPage=419 It will give you the listing of the Cherokee and their Citizenship status i.e. Adopted Delaware, Shawnee, Creek, white people, and African, that were not family members, black family members were simply enumerated as Cherokee. And were all Cherokee Citizens equally so.
You said:
Being an Indian is certainly about blood ties, but it is more than that. It is culture, it is tradition, it is language. To me the Freedmen suffered alongside the Cherokees and even under the Cherokees. To kick them out now is the ultimate insult.
I say!
True with some Indian Nation, BUT not the Cherokee, blood is of absolutely NO consequence, we, quite a while prior to all this, became a Nation of Nationals/ Citizens no different than all other nations including the USA…Example we are NOT American citizens by blood, are we??
You said:
I’m not surprised to see the current tribal administration defend their actions on their website, but I do find it particularly ironic to see them do so while displaying this little graphic on their website…
Here are these beautiful Cherokee children with their hands over their hearts (presumably reciting the pledge of allegiance) while one child is holding an American flag. Pardon me while I barf.
I say!
I agree give me my barf bag as well, if we are going to be Cherokee lets be Cherokee, being American is a happenstance because we lost the war!
You said:
The Cherokee were sent on a genocidal death march by the US Army. That flag was carried by the troops who took the Cherokee to Oklahoma, and that flag flew over the White House where racist President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and ordered the Indian removals to continue.
I say!
Yes you are right, American Indians are all to quick to forget this flag flew over many, many atrocities against the indigenous of this land, we ask for no more than what is ours and our rights by the LAW of the land TREATIES!!
You said:
But now, the great Cherokee Nation is willing to sell itself out and have their children be used as a propaganda tool in favor of disenfranchising the Freedmen, by playing to the presumed “common values, common ground” between racist pro-exclusion Cherokees and the dominant white culture.
I say!
You are right they are willing to sell out, BUT there is the fallacy in your statement it is not The Great Cherokee Nation that throws its people to the dogs, it is the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, see their Constitution here http://www.cornsilks.com/1975constitution.html the title clearly gives you there Name! And that my friend is another complete Story, if you have an interest in learning the truth, you can go to http://www.cornsilks.com click the CNO is bogus banner, then the LINK the story begins here.
You said:
I am proud to be Cherokee (I’m not a citizen though because my Cherokee ancestor wasn’t allowed to sign it by her white husband, but that doesn’t change my heritage), but I’m not proud of what the Cherokee nation is doing.
I say!
Maybe you need a pro to connect you!
I stand with the Freedmen and will continue to stand with them. There is a move by members of the Congressional Black caucus to take away federal funding for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. (Here is the Cherokee Nation’s response to this (PDF download). I hope it doesn’t come to this, but if the Cherokee nation will not back down then I think the funding should be yanked. I don’t think it is right for the Federal government to aid and abet racism, and if the Cherokee nation will not live up to its treaty obligations to the Freedmen then I don’t see what the alternative is.
I say!
You are absolutely right, and this has gone on absolutely too long and needs to be halted and it must come to this ASAP, for Chief Smith to be put in his place, he seems to think he is above the law, and attempts to place all Cherokee People above the law, we already lost the war, and we have no means to wage another, the only course is obey the law.
You said:
Let me say it one more way. The Cherokees action to take away tribal citizenship and to take away the Freedmen’s right to vote, is no different than the US deciding to repeal 14th and 15th Amendments.
I say!
And the 13th amendment as well, and to get an understanding of the law all one has to do is read Watson’s Bill Here http://www.theucfi.com/2824watson.html and while you are there reading it, you can find documentation there on cornsilks.com to corroborate the facts of law she lays out.
And the for a little bit of history on the Freedmen I had an article published on oped titled “The Freedmen Story” and reading of this will give a little more understanding and clarity on the fact, the Freedmen are Cherokee.
See the article at THIS URL
John Cornsilk
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Member!
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Judicial Appeals Tribunal (JAT) ruled against Bernice Riggs under the cover of darkness. Mrs. Riggs was never notified of the ruling by her attorny, Kathy Carter-White now Tibbit and the JAT did not notify her either. I was working and living in Tulsa and was not notified until 2001, at which time I immediately informed Mrs. Riggs. The ruling was made in 1999 only a few months after the election of Chad Smith as Principal Chief and his appointment of Darrell Matlock to the court. None of the judges who ruled on the case, Matlock and Joe Byrd-appointee Darryl Dowty, had even heard the case. All of the justices who had heard the case were not reappointed. During the time before the collapse of the court duirng the Byrd administration and the election of Smith, I tried several times to get Kathy to file a motion for a ruling, to my knowledge she never did, even though that would have been in the best interest of her client. And to add insult to injury another freedmen case being represented by Kathy was also abandoned. That was the enrollment appeal of Ronnie Denson of Muskogee, Oklahoma. He had filed for membership and was encouraged by Kathy to sue in tribal court when his application was rejected. Denson’s case was dismissed by the JAT for lack of activity after Kathy was employed by Smith to work for the CNO. Denson did not know his case was dismissed for at least a year. And while I do not believe that Kathy is responsible for the actions of her father, he was one of the carriers of the constitutional amendment petition against the freedmen. He was subpeonaed to testify in the case against the petition filed by Vicki Baker, a freedmen descendant from Chelsea. We alleged fraud in the gathering of the signatures he submitted. The JAT dismissed the subpoenas because we did not pay the witnesses $12 each for expenses. Kathy’s father then refused to testify. In fact, only four people out of nearly 50 witnesses stayed to offer their testimony. Even though they did not support the rights of the Freedmen, they believed in truth and are heroes in my mind. With just those four witnesses we were able to show that the petition was full of fraud and forgery. Yet the majority of the justices, serving illegally under an unrecognized and illegal constitution, ruled in favor of the petition and the election. Kathy has been and remains my friend. But her actions in the early days of the Smith administration regarding Bernice Riggs and Ronnie Denson will always remain a blight upon her character. And for anyone who might be interested in reading what scholars have said about the Riggs case, I direct your attention to the following books:
1. Slavery in the Cherokee Nation by Patrick Menges
2. Blood Politics by Circe Sturm
(response to John Cornsilk, comment #11)…
Very good points. I don’t have time to go into detail in response right now (I will later), but I guess the main thing I want to make clear is that while I think it is essential to keep fighting for justice for the Freedmen, I’m not sure if defunding is the answer as I think it tends to force the CNO into a corner and make it take more and more obstinate of stances.
I’m hoping that maybe if there was a temporary moratorium on the defunding push, that it could be seen as an opening of a door to come back to the bargaining table.
But I could be wrong, and maybe defunding is the only way to force the issue forward. I’m not really sure.
Well Mr. Branum I can understand your concern, but I am afraid you may be buying into the propaganda of the Smith Junta. Smith is a devious and desperate person, and sadly so, demonstrates the characteristics of a Sociopath, he has absolutely no feeling for anyone but Smith, CLICK HERE then click Smith between the eyes for a story on what I mean, any supposed man that would do that to people he supposedly loves would have not an ounce of compunction about skrewing over a class of His supposed people, and he does the Cherokee Freedmen!
Smith and his deviousness is another complete saga in itself…
BTW, I just recieved notice from OpEd my second part of the Freedmen Story was accepted and supposed to be on the oped news site but the link dont work yet they supplied me with a copy and you can SEE IT HERE
John Cornsilk
Cherokee Member of CNO
Oops I keep forgetting my new Html editor drops the “l” on the extention
the link is http://www.jalagi.org/freedmenpart2.htm
John Cornsilk
Cherokee Member of CNO
Good to hear your font, JC. On many points I agree with you. On others, I disagree. For instance, you are correct about Nero– it was brought in Federal Court and I believe that jurisdiction was declined saying that Indian Nations are the exclusive determinants of their citizenship rolls. I should have added more detail, and said that Riggs was the first Cherokee Freedman case brought in a justiciable jurisdiction.
However, you should read the John Ross letters during the Civil War and its runup. They give a better sense of how the Cherokee Nation was a pawn, with Confederates in Arkansas threatening, demanding and cajoling. They show Ross in letter after letter to both sides saying, “This isn’t our war. We will remain neutral.” Eventually, the pressure builds and Chief Ross is all along asking the Army to come in and protect the Cherokee Nation. I think there was a Confederate cross-country drive coming from Choctaw lands. People were being terrorized. Before that, slaves were freed and docked at Fort Gibson under military protection until it was marginally safe to walk across Kansas. It was a mess. They were just abandoning their furniture and large possessions along the way because it became to burdensome. Another diaspora, brought to you by the government that has made unkept promises. There were border raids. The Cherokee National Council split or closed, and the unofficial fake Southern Cherokee Nation convened at Webbers and formed a Confederate outlaw government totally unconstitutionally. Richard Fields and many, many (read Emmett Starr)Cherokees joined the Army. Cherokees by far were Unionists. Slavery is not a Cherokee value, as evidenced by the pin movement. Real Cherokees were never slaveholders, but some assimilated Treaty Party citizens brought their white ways with them. Some Cherokees like Stand Watie joined the Confederacy and burned downtown Tahlequah, and rode with the guerillas who deconstructed for mischief.
JC, it was someone else’s war and it came at us like a hot wind. When Ross fled, he never really came back and governed and was Chief from the East Coast. I believe that if the Army had fulfilled its promise to protect Cherokee borders, the Cherokee Nation would not have signed a Reconstruction Treaty.
I don’t hold my citizenship as so stingy that I would oppose adopting Freedmen Descendants. I feel there is a bond. But ya know, the government needs to offer some reconciliation to the Cherokees and admit that THEY were the ones who imposed segregation on us. It started when they put slaves and slave descendants on a different list, and then unilaterally expropriated commonly-held lands to give out in kind as a social experiment in forced capitalism, because Senator Henry Dawes felt that human greed was the natural state of mankind. He admitted that there was not a pauper anywhere among our people. But see, we were not giving the railroads enough “opportunity” so they decided to break down the common bonds of the people.
And it is still happening today, JC. You know that. If the Cherokee Nation loses $300 million then I don’t know what the future brings. But sometimes I think it is best to take nothing, and give up every thing that the government can use to hurt us.
We are at our best and our most resourceful when we don’t waste our time and energy trying to get along with Oklahoma or with the federal government.
David, I just read your March 30th criticisms, and I am surprised that you feel like giving up several decades of friendship and collaboration on important social and environmental issues in order to make me look bad.
Riggs was fully argued and awaiting final decision when I went to work for Cherokee Nation in 2000. I can’t breach privilege to answer your claims, so I guess you could say anything and I am defenseless. But disappointed.
It was good while it lasted. We stopped nukes and saved darters and righted a few wrongs. But I’m not with ya on sic’ing the federal government on your own people. Its violent.
Only one thang to say KCW, pathetic equine manure of smith, and you babble it so well, I guess the big pay-day makes the nights go better for sleepin!
Sad, I thought you to be one of the exceptions in barristerness, like Leeds and Birdwell! NOPE seems not so!
BTW you know David better than that, it is sad but some times the truth hurts, for the sake of friendship!ANIT? He is willing to over look what you stand for, if you refuse it’s your loss, I can-NOT over look!
John C.
Kathy said:
David, I just read your March 30th criticisms, and I am surprised that you feel like giving up several decades of friendship and collaboration on important social and environmental issues in order to make me look bad.
David replies:
As I said, you will always be considered my friend. I am not “trying to make” you look bad. I am only reciting what I believe to be the facts of your actions following the restoration of the JAT. If, by pointing out what I believe to be an error on your part, and one that has the appearance of being intentional and politically motivated, costs me a friendship, so be it. It would not be the first time that I have made tremendous personal sacrifices for the cause of justice for the whole Cherokee people or lost a friend because of it. It will be my loss to suffer on behalf of a righteous battle for truth and justice on behalf of a benighted people, the Freedmen, now being used as pawns by Chad Smith to make a 140 year old point. Your decision not to file a motion for a decision may have cost the Freedmen several years of continued expatriation until the Allen case was decided in 2006.
Kathy said:
Riggs was fully argued and awaiting final decision when I went to work for Cherokee Nation in 2000.
David replies:
The Riggs case languished in the JAT following its final arguments before Justices Ralph Keen Sr., Dwight Birdwell and Philip Viles. At least 18 months passed before two of those justices retired from the court after the final arguments and the case was taken under advisement. I believe those men intentionally did not rule on the case, as they had ample time and opportunity, even though the Byrd constituitonal fiasco was raging at the time. The tremendous amount of controversy Chad Smith and his followers have stirred up regarding the citizenship of the Freedmen shows why anyone would be reluctant to rule on it. Their reluctance to rule revealed for me a character flaw in two men I highly respect in many other areas. It was during that 18 month period that I pleaded with you to file a motion for a decision at least twice. After you went to work for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the JAT, with two new justices who had never heard the case, ruled and the Riggs case was lost.
Kathy said:
I can’t breach privilege to answer your claims, so I guess you could say anything and I am defenseless. But disappointed.
David replies:
My friendships are separate from my politics and my environmental activism. If you had told me you don’t give a nip about the Freedmen when I approached you to take the case, I would have been disappointed in you, but that would not have affected our friendship. And the fact that I believe you let Ms. Riggs and the Freedmen down does not affect it either. If you look bad Kathy, its because of your actions, which, I might add are not protected by attorney client privilege. Your involvement in the Freedmen case is now a part of history and as an historian, with some opinion thrown in, I simply recite history. If you vigorously fought for your clients Riggs and Denson by filing records which would be public, then say so. But the evidence, which is all we have, speaks otherwise.
Kathy said:
It was good while it lasted. We stopped nukes and saved darters and righted a few wrongs. But I’m not with ya on sic’ing the federal government on your own people. Its violent.
David replies:
It is not me or the Freedmen who have ‘sic’ed the federal government on the Cherokee people. It is Chad Smith and his blatant efforts to destroy the rights of a class of Cherokee citizens without regard to the harm he is doing to them, the Cherokee Nation or our federal relationship. The Freedmen have the right, under the terms of the Treaty of 1866, to seek congressional help to protect their rights. As an attorney you surely are aware how important it is to secure one’s rights and how easily they can be lost if the proper steps to exercise them are not taken.
Kathy you will always have a special place in my heart. We have worked on many projects together and perhaps one day will again, who knows. I will always appreciate the help you gave me in my battles with the CN Housing Authority and your help in getting my family through my divorce, something for which I cannot begin to express my gratitude. While friendship is a two-way street, at least for now, I suppose, the road only travels in one direction.
See What I mean KCW, any friendship loss will be on your head as a fool of CNOT!!
Hey I just got another Article published on OpEDNews.com, I am sure you have read the 16 points of pure equine manure on the CNOT website the NON indian section, what a disgustin crock-a CRAP it just seems impossible you could be a part of that!
Anyway SEE MY ARTICLE HERE KatnCart, and pick on each of my truths if you dare! BTW, there’s another in the hopper, and one waitin in the wings!
John C.
Well KCW, what happen did Smith order you to shut up, an refrain from making him look more stupid than he is?
BTW, I got some of Davids writings published at opednews.com you can seem them here http://www.cornsilks.com/johnarticles.htm
As I tell all CNOT-suckin fools read Watson’s Bill, it is at the top of the page a http://www.cornsilks.com also you will find documentation there that corroborates the laws cited in Watson’s Bill!
John C.
To Kathy Tibbetts,
I have some empathy for you as David Cornsilk’s friend. I had a similar relationship with Mark Maccaro of the Pechanga before Casino days. It’s difficult to tell a friend they may be wrong when their are people who you know have ill will towards your friend telling them the same thing. A good friend will tell you when you still have part of your lunch hanging off your chin before your enemies are able to take a picture of it and publish it in the school newspaper.
There are several completely sovereign solutions that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma can take to alleviate this problem, one is included in a suggestion you made, which is to rebuke any state or federal recognition and exist as a self-determined autonomous entity. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma requesting to be removed from domestic dependant status by the federal government will probably also result in having it removed from the federal registry of recognized Native Nations.
The other resolutions include the authority of the Principal Chief to repeal the constitutional amendment as a treaty violation, which executive officers are typically empowered to do regarding treaties.
The Tribal Council acting as a legislative body could draft laws repealing the constitutional amendment, resolving the conflict by the rule of “the last law is the prevailing one”
The courts could resolve the issue by interpreting the Indian Civil Rights Act and finding the constitutional amendment in violation of it.
They could also invite federal attorneys into Cherokee courts to argue their position regarding the 1866 treaty. This would also allow those Cherokee who dispute that the treaty is being violated to state their case.
Finally, the Cherokee citizenry could re-visit this issue with another referendum vote and repeal the constitutional amendment, now that most citizens are aware of the results of that amendment they may decide that was not what they intended with their original vote.
It’s true that the U.S. has bullied Native peoples, they bullied all sorts of nationalities in order to fullfill Manifest Destiny, but somehow holding your former slave descendant citizens, or any of your citizens for that matter accountable for the bullying of the likes of Andrew Jackson is distorted and maliciously displaced. There is no basis for comparing Diane Watson to Andrew Jackson
There is no set number of people required to constitute a concern for a human rights violation. One person suffering a violation is enough to take action, that’s why the courts have the principle of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” for each individual. Not to say that it has be adhered to as it should.
The U.S. drew racial lines that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is using today as an excuse to justify the 3/3/07 amendment. You may argue that the U.S. is equally culpable of this racist line- drawing but one thing for sure is that the Cherokee freedmen descendant are not responsible for it for them the issue is one of nationality and not of race. Citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, not genetically or racially defined Indians.
For me, I think nothing short of a Little Rock, Ark. 1957 is in order, though I doubt Obama would have the heart of Eisenhower to take the same action.
I remember reading in Civil War history where Confederates considered it an unbearable insult to have to fight gainst Black soldiers. I’m wondering if some Cherokee are more offending by the fact that it is not just U.S. action against their government but the fact that Blacks whom some deem to be their inferiors are the ones taking the action?
Allen L. Lee
If I could address one other topic, that is the premise that somehow the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is being punished by being forced to take care of it’s slave descendant citizens.
Their slave descendant citizens, like those that are not slave descendant citizens have a right to expect equal protection of the states laws and equal access to the states provisions. How is that a punishment to the state? The slave descendant citizens also have both an equal responsibility and an equal authority with the non-slave descendant citizens to strengthen the state through both personal and public contribution, including the authority and right to vote and serve as a public officer. Native Nation citizens are no more wards to be cared for by their nations than Native Nations are considered to be wards of the U.S..
Citizens in free nations are not wards to be cared for or punishments to be burdened with. Citizens in free nations are the nation.
Allen L. Lee