By Requesting FREEDMEN Stories and Information Cherokee Nation Embraces BELONGING for their Slave Descendants

 

Well Done Chief Hoskins.  THIS is the way a leader should act after wrongs are righted.  Inclusion of your tribe's slave descendants, the Cherokee Freedmen to their rightful place in the tribe, and adding THEIR stories, which are Cherokee stories is priceless

From the tribal website ANADISGOI

Cherokee Nation officials want to provide a better understanding of the history and perspectives of Cherokee Freedmen throughout tribal history. The tribe is seeking community input to share the stories of Cherokee Freedmen, their families and their communities.

The Cherokee Freedmen History Project is collecting stories, photographs and memorabilia to help elevate the voices of Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants.

Cherokee Freedmen Advocate Marilyn Vann Falls Short in First Election Bid

 From the ELECTION COMMITTE of the Cherokee NATION:

According to the EC, the other At-Large candidates were Marilyn Vann with 543 votes (22.06%); 

A good first attempt by Marilyn Vann who got THOUSANDS of Freedmen their rightful place ion the tribe.  Curious that she cold only get 543 votes.   You'd think her number would be over 1,000.   Shame that once people are in the tribe, they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote?

Marilyn Vann Announces Candidacy for Cherokee Nation Tribal Council At Large Position

After leading the charge to victory for the Cherokee Freedmen in their landmark treaty rights case, Marilyn Vann has announce her candidacy for an AT LARGE Council position for the Cherokee Nation.

So happy to hear this news.  I've "known" Marilyn for over a decade online and I help support her fight for the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen.

Marilyn Vann  Cherokee

IF you are a Cherokee citizen and are NOT registered, there is still time, Registration closes in March. If you are a Freedmen descendant, is this NOT the perfect choice for you?

Stay Tuned for more information as it comes.

Cherokee Principal Chief Bill John Baker's Commemoration of Trail of Tear IGNORES the SLAVES THEY DRAGGED AS PROPERTY

Image from Vocativ.com

Baker's commemoration without a mention of their slave descendants is in full at INDIANZ.com  I have a few excerpts here.


On March 24 we commemorate the 180th anniversary of the end of the infamous Trail of Tears with a National Day of Remembrance.

On this day in 1839, the last detachment of our ancestors’ forced removal from their homelands in the southeast region of the United States occurred as they marched to Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. We remember and honor the sacrifices and untold hardships of our ancestors. Those who completed the trek and those who perished on that brutal journey will always remain in our hearts and in our minds.
AND
During the Trail of Tears, an estimated 4,000 Cherokees perished along the way, which represented about one quarter of our tribe. The grit and determination of our ancestors allowed them to not only survive adversity, despair and grief, but it empowered them to thrive. That sense of where we come from and who we are is deeply rooted in who we are as Cherokee people.
Their slaves ALSO PERISHED, and those who survived had despair and grief and yes, they thrived and fought their battles to VICTORY, 150 years after the Trail of Tears.  Read about the Cherokee Freemen History here and here 

Cherokee Freedman Champion MARILYN VANN to Be HONORED by STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CONGRATULATIONS to Cherokee Warrior Marilyn Vann who is one of the honorees  recognized for making a significant contribution to human rights.  The event is held in conjunction with International Human Rights Day which is recognized on Dec. 10 each year.




Marilyn Vann is president and a director of the nonprofit Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association, which educates the public on the history, culture, and political rights of the African Indian peoples of the 5 Nations (Five Civilized Tribes).

A citizen of the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma, Vann is president of the African Indians Foundation. She is a litigant in two Federal lawsuits that recently upheld enforcement of the 1866 treaty rights of the Cherokee Indian Freedmen Peoples tribal membership rights. 

Vann received a Statesman Award from the Cherokee Nation for her volunteerism as a Cherokee tribal member.

Are tribes losing their credibility as Nations? Cedric Sunray: Tribes are becoming Disenrollment Clubs PART ONE

I'm moving this post up from 2011 as the disenrollment issue is gaining traction. 

Cedric Sunray's column in Indian Country Today has a strong argument that tribes are becoming more "social clubs" that the nations they purport to be.

Since the Cherokee Freedmen have been in the news this past month, his column focuses on them, righfully so. Here is what one Cherokee person who is 1/256th Cherokee has to say:

This is not a club; you can’t just claim to be Cherokee and show up and be included,” says Cara Cowan Watts, a vocal member of the Cherokees’ tribal council.

The Cherokee Nation is the largest of three federally recognized Cherokee tribes.
“This is absolutely something that we have to defend. And the Cherokee people overwhelmingly voted in the Constitution that we want to remain an Indian tribe made up of Indians,” Watts says.

“It appears that Marilyn Vann [one of the leaders of the Cherokee Freedmen] is a non-Indian insurgent terrorizing Cherokee nation families, children, elders and leadership. She and her allied terrorists attack the Cherokee people with weapons of mass disinformation and falsehoods. Marilyn is aligned with anti-Indian sovereignty groups and inside self-serving malcontents who seek to destroy the Cherokee Nation if the Cherokee Nation doesn’t give them what they want…her fellow Indian Freedmen allies want $50,000,000.00, allotment land, and apparently the right to operate gaming facilities

Cedric points out:

Sovereignty.. a word that many of these tribe’s officials couldn’t spell ten years ago, much less manipulate into its current genocidal form. Sovereignty demands ethical practice for it to hold any merit.
We continue to stand on the sidelines when we define disenrollment as an internal issue. “Internal Issue” has become the coined phrase for the removal of many people who have been generationally involved in their tribal communities. These removals are not paper resolutions batted around in the council chambers of various tribes regarding which new firm to hire for the new “addition to the casino”. These decisions directly impact the social, cultural, and at times economic well-being of actual people. If the decision of Indian country is to place sovereignty over humanity, then we all stand condemned.

OP: Our California Senator's Boxer and Feinstein have steadfastly refused to get involved, even using the term "internal matter" in correspondence back to constituents. One of our commenters wondered what their position was on South Africa? Did they side with the white Botha government against Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu? Or were their vocal about the issues of THAT SOVEREIGN NATION? The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians practice apartheid practice apartheid on their reservation and what do we hear from Boxer and Feinstein? Crickets chirping


Read the article at the link above. The list of tribes that have stripped the citizenship from their people is painfully long. They are not worthy of your respect, nor the respect of the U.S. government. And certainly, they should not recieve government funds when they use sovereignty like a club to batter the weak and helpless.

Dept. of Interior SIDES WITH Cherokee Freedmen in Summary Judgement Request

The U.S. Department of the Interior has requested a summary judgment in a long-standing lawsuit over the tribal citizenship eligibility of the Cherokee Freedmen descendants.

In a motion filed late Friday, the department argued the Treaty of 1866, which guarantees "all the rights of native Cherokees" to Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants, extends to tribal citizenship, despite a vote to the contrary by the tribe.

"The Cherokee Nation should be enjoined from denying tribal membership rights to descendants of those individuals listed on the Freedmen portion of the Cherokee Dawes Rolls," wrote acting assistant attorney general Robert Dreher.

About 3,000 Freedmen descendants are currently enrolled in the tribe after a 2007 vote amending the Cherokee constitution restricting Cherokee Nation citizenship to direct descendants of individuals of the Dawes Rolls.

"Interior agrees that Cherokee Nation is a sovereign entity that retains powers of self-government," Dreher wrote.

"These retained powers include, as a general matter, the power to define its own membership. However, tribal authority, including the right to define tribal membership, can be constrained by treaties or other laws. In this case, through Article 9 of the Treaty of 1866, Congress has constrained the nation's authority to determine tribal membership."

Original Pechanga's Blog Wishes You a Merry Christmas and New Years Wishes for the END of Tribal Disenrollments

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL

May the New Year bring positive results for those of us who are struggling to retain or regain what is rightfully ours. 

May those who are harming their people see that doing the right thing, IS the right thing to do.

May we have others join our fight for justice

Paulina Hunter
PROVEN Original Pechanga
By Pechanga's Hired Expert

Tribes that have shamed their ancestors include:  The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, The Enterprise Rancheria, Redding Rancheria, Nooksack, Pala Band of Luiseno Indian, Mixed Blood Uinta Utes, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, San Pascual, Berry Creek Rancheria, there are more, please check the blog out and share......

Cherokee Freedmen and CNO Seek Resolution To Dispute of Citizenship for Descendents of Their SLAVES.

The Cherokee Nation and descendants of black slaves once owned by its members are asking a federal court to sort out their longstanding dispute over tribal citizenship rights.

The rare, seven-page request by both parties filed Friday in a Washington federal court follows more than a decade of nasty legal battles between the descendants, known as freedmen, and the Cherokees over whether the freedmen should have citizenship rights in Oklahoma's largest tribe.

Freedmen have long argued that the Treaty of 1866, signed between the U.S. government and the Tahlequah-based Cherokees, gave them and their descendants "all the rights of native Cherokees." There are around 3,000 freedmen descendants today.

"The parties to this action, in the interest of reaching a final resolution of this longstanding dispute, have agreed to jointly petition this court to resolve by summary judgment the core issue in dispute in this action — whether the freedmen possess a right to equal citizenship in the Cherokee Nation under the Treaty of 1866," the filing explains.

Attorneys also included a proposed schedule on when the court might begin accepting documents in the case, suggesting opening motions due by Nov. 29 and oral argument in April 2014.

"This is very important to us; this is our identity, who we are," said Marilyn Vann, president of the Oklahoma City-based Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. "These are our ancestors that came on the Trail of Tears, and to now have people say you're not a part of us, get out, we feel outraged.

"We are looking forward to our day in court," Vann said in an interview Monday.
Cherokee Nation Attorney General Todd Hembree said Monday that after "years of litigation and legal expenses, it appears that we will finally be able to ask a judge to decide the main issue of this case which is, 'What, if anything, did the Treaty of 1866 grant the freedmen and their descendants?'"

While many white Americans owned black slaves until after the Civil War, so did some Cherokee tribesmen — but the practice generally ended with the 1866 treaty that afforded freed slaves the same rights as native Cherokees.

Leaders of the Cherokee Nation, one of the largest and most influential American tribes, have been trying to change that policy by declaring that the descendants should not be considered Cherokee citizens unless they can show proof of Indian blood.

In 2007, more than three-quarters of Cherokee citizens voted to kick out descendants of freedmen and other non-Indians. The dispute has been in and out of the courts ever since.

Descendent of Cherokee Slaves' Freedmen President Marilyn Vann to Speak at Humboldt State

If you are in Northern California TUESDAY OCTOBER 9th  5:30-7 p.m.

The Native Pathways Speakers presents Ms. Marilyn Vann, who will speak on the Cherokee Freedmen.

Marilyn is President of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association, a non-profit that educates the public on the history, culture, and political rights of the African Indian peoples of the 5 nations (formerly known as the Five civilized Tribes) whose ancestors were enrolled as “freedmen” tribal members by the US government Dawes Commission approximately 100 years ago. She is also President of the African Indians Foundation, a 501c3 Corporation. She is lead plaintiff in a Federal lawsuit against the US government department of interior, Vann et Al Versus Norton, which deals with the enforcement of the 1866 treaty rights of the Cherokee Indian Freedmen Peoples in accordance with the Cherokee Nation constitution.

Marilyn has written articles pertaining to the Indian freedmen issue which have been published in the Native American Times, the Muskogee Daily Phoenix newspaper and the Oklahoma Eagle newspaper. Marilyn has also been featured in the Los Angeles Times and Wired Magazine, the Daily Oklahoman newspaper, the New York Times, and www.indianz.com. She has also participated on various panels sponsored or co-sponsored by different universities and non profit or civic organizations pertaining to Native American issues, including two on Cherokee freedmen issues which were sponsored by Congresspersons Diane Watson and John Conyers at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Conference in September 2007 and September 2008.

The Native Pathways Speaker Series is a student run initiative sponsored by Many Tribal Nations, the Department of Native American Studies, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and the Associated Students.

Cherokee Freedmen, Descendents of the Slaves the Cherokee Dragged as Property, Anticipate Regaining Citizenship Rights

Area Cherokee Freedmen descendants gathered July 14 at the First Missionary Baptist Church to discuss the latest development in their fight for Cherokee Nation citizenship, saying justice would soon be served on their behalf. 

On July 2, the Department of Interior filed a counterclaim against the Nation to obtain a declaratory judgment that the 1866 Treaty between the CN and United States provides Freedmen descendants with certain rights and privileges, including tribal citizenship. 

The counterclaim is now part of a lawsuit filed in 2009 by the CN against five Freedmen and the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in Tulsa. No hearing dates have been set for the suit or the counterclaim.

“It’s been a long time coming. We’ve been waiting for justice to be served for the Cherokee Freedmen,” said Kathy Washington, one of the Freedmen defendants in the case. 

She said many of her ancestors are on “all the Cherokee rolls” and her great-great-great-great grandfather was a by-blood Cherokee named Mose Mackey.  

“We come from a long line of Cherokee history and to be told that our history no longer matters, it really does hurt. It deeply hurts,” she said. “We came across the Trail (of Tears) and suffered along with the Cherokee and helped build the Nation.”

A Sept. 2, 2011, injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia allows Washington and approximately 2,800 other Freedmen to have CN citizenship while the case is pending. 

Washington said she’s praying that soon other Freedmen would be able to enroll in the CN, too. 

CN citizen David Cornsilk, a supporter of Freedmen citizenship, spoke to about 50 Freedmen who attended the July 14 meeting. He said he believes with the Interior’s counterclaim Freedmen are “close” to victory and the CN would soon start processing Freedmen applications that have been in the Registrar’s Office since March 2007. 

On March 3, 2007, CN voters amended the tribe’s constitution requiring a citizen to have an ancestor with Indian blood on the Dawes Roll. 

“I’m not trying to speak for the chief (Bill John Baker)…it just makes sense to me that if people have been denied the ability to be registered in the tribe for as long as you folks have, they need to take special steps to go ahead and get those that have been sitting there waiting through the process,” he said. 

Cornsilk walked Freedmen through the registration process and provided tips for getting citizenship applications processed with minimal delays. 

Freedmen are basing their rights to CN citizenship on the 1866 Treaty, which was signed after the Civil War. The treaty dictated terms to the CN because it allied with the Confederacy.

In support of its countersuit, the Interior alleges Article IX of the treaty provided, and the CN agrees, that all Freedmen “who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owner 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 Cherokee…” Also in November 1866, the CN amended its constitution to comply with treaty. 

The Interior is also asking the court to rule that the treaty provided Freedmen and their descendants with “all the rights of native Cherokees,” including the right to citizenship; that the Five Tribes Act and other statutes did not repeal the 1866 Treaty; and that the March 3, 2007, Cherokee constitutional amendment is “inconsistent with the treaty.”

In May, CN Attorney General Todd Hembree filed for a declaratory judgment against the Interior, asserting the treaty “did not guarantee to Freedmen and their descendants eternal, unimpeachable rights to citizenship within the Cherokee Nation.” Additionally, Hembree’s complaint seeks a judgment declaring that the treaty “does not bestow upon…Freedmen a right to citizenship within the Cherokee Nation that cannot be altered by the Cherokee Constitution.”    SO THEN:  Just because the Federal Govt helped with healthcare doesn't mean they have to....keep giving it? 

Hembree said he looks forward to having “all interested parties in the same courtroom and getting a definitive resolution to this matter.” 

Attorney Jon Velie, Cherokee Freedmen attorney, Fighting for the Individual Indian's Rights

Attorneys litigating the ongoing Cherokee Freedmen case spoke during a law symposium held March 1 at the University of Oklahoma College of Law in Norman, Okla.

Freedmen attorney Jon Velie spoke first and said along with representing the Freedmen he is championing individual Indian rights. Those rights have come in direct conflict with sovereign tribes as they gain more power “than they’ve ever had,” he said. OP: The question is WHY isn't the Native American Rights Fund helping the individual Indian with their civil rights struggles against CORRUPT tribal councils?

He said the question he has been asking is how is that power being used and how is that power affecting individual Indian people’s rights? OP: Many councils have abused their power and ignored the will of their people

Velie explained to the audience who the Cherokee Freedmen are and why they have been in litigation with the CN. He said the Freedmen are Cherokee Indians of African descent, are descendant’s of slaves “that were held by Cherokee masters” and were part of the slave industry that was regulated by the CN.
There are likely 25,000 Cherokee Freedmen descendants today. About 2,800 are officially registered with the CN, and the rest “are on the outside looking in,” he said.

“We have the Cherokee Nation in probably its most lucrative time period, and we have people really suffering on the financial side who do not get to participate in that,” Velie said. “And that’s just on the benefits side. More of them are frustrated by the loss of their identity – being able to be Cherokee.” OP: Chad Smith could fly in a private jet, yet he successfully got rid of his slave descendents.

Velie also explained what the CN is today, and said it is the largest or second largest tribe in the country comprised of ethnic Cherokees, Shawnees and Delawares. He added because the CN chronicled its history better than other tribes it is known that the Cherokee Freedmen once held political power in the tribe including positions on the Tribal Council.

“We see these people have been very important and have been a part of this tribe for a long time,” he said.

Cherokee Freedmen derived their rights from the 1866 Treaty between the CN and the United States following the Civil War, Velie said. The CN had sided with the Confederacy and the treaty allowed the CN to rejoin the union following the war with some stipulations, which included giving rights of Cherokee citizens to former slaves and Freedmen living within the CN.

In 2003, a group of Cherokee Freedmen sued the CN to regain those rights, which they lost in 1983. Even though the U.S. had stated the 1866 Treaty was in “full force and effect” when it came to the rights of Freedmen citizens, Freedmen were not allowed to vote in the 2003 CN election.
Velie said the Freedmen sued because they were denied the right to vote, and after initially taking the position that it would not recognize the 2003 election, the federal government reversed its decision.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was paid nearly $120,000 by Cherokee Nation Enterprises (now Cherokee Nation Businesses) to lobby on the tribe’s behalf, influenced the U.S. government’s reversal, Velie said.

Vann v. Norton was the Freedmen lawsuit filed in 2003, but the defendant’s name has changed over the years as the Secretary of the Interior’s name has changed. Last November, a federal judge dismissed the eight-year-old case, at the time called Vann et al v. Salazar, and transferred the last remaining lawsuit involving the Freedmen, Cherokee Nation v. Nash, back to the U.S. District Court in Tulsa where it waits to be heard.

In 2006, Freedmen gained back their citizenship and the right to vote following a Cherokee Judicial Appeals Tribunal ruling in Allen v. CN Registrar. However, the following year, Cherokee voters, in a special election, voted to amend the tribe’s 2003 Constitution and the Freedmen lost their citizenship rights again. The amendment required CN citizens to have an ancestor with Indian blood on the Dawes Roll. Many Freedmen did not meet this requirement.

Velie explained the federal government never approved the 2003 CN Constitution that was amended in 2007 to prevent Freedmen citizenship.

Through a May 2007 court injunction, about 2,800 Freedmen currently have citizenship and voting rights while they wait for the Nash case to be heard.

The Nash case involves five random Cherokee Freedmen and the Secretary of the Interior who have been sued by the CN. Velie is representing the Freedmen involved.

Velie said it “preposterous” that an Indian nation is suing its own citizens in federal court for standing up for its rights.

He added the CN’s position in the Nash case under the leadership of Principal Chief Chad Smith was “very dangerous” because the tribe’s attorneys were prepared to argue the 1866 Treaty was “abrogated” or repealed by the U.S. If that is so, then the other components of the treaty – the re-establishment of government to relations between the U.S. and CN and the establishment of tribe’s current boundaries are also abrogated.

“It’s not just dangerous for the Cherokee Nation but also dangerous for all Indian tribes because treaties sit as this relationship between nations,” he said. “A nation without a treaty has less power than a nation with a treaty, and you don’t see tribes argue against treaties very often.”

However, if the Cherokee Freedmen win the case it could have implications for all Five Civilized Tribes that includes the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee Creek and Seminole Nations because those tribes all had slaves and subsequently their Freedmen were given citizenship rights in 1866, Velie said. Each of the five tribes also has a Freedmen roll as part of their Dawes Roll.

Though the Redbird case of 1906 gave the five tribes the right to determine their tribal citizenship, it did not allow the tribes to ignore treaties that established citizenship rights for its Freedmen members, he said.

Velie added time and time again in the late 1800s and early 1900s the courts reaffirmed the Freedmen’s civil rights, yet Freedmen are again being forced to return to court to fight for their rights.

He said the questions in court could be: should a tribe have a right to determine its own citizenship and what gives an individual election official, a temporary elected official, the right to take away the birthright of another individual Indian?

“It’s something that should be thought of by people that govern Indian tribes. Think about this membership thing. Do we really want to have the absolute right to kick our own people out of our own nations?”

OP: Read this article on Tribal Citizenship: http://www.originalpechanga.com/2012/03/loss-of-tribal-citizenship-is-wrong-and.html

Cherokee Nation Election Officials Begin Counting Today, Results Due Wednesday

The election for Cherokee Principal Chief is over and counting begins today.   Cherokee officials, which failed to provide adequate election results in the last election, say they will have votes counted by Wednesday.

On Friday, Cherokee Freedmen protested outside the BIA in Muskogee as many freedmen had not recieved their membership cards.

Marilyn Vann said they still have their 1866 Treaty Rights.     She drove 320 miles to exercise her right to vote and her committment to the process.

The Cherokee Freedmen Issue: A History YOU Should Know

Our Friend Marilyn Van put together a history of the Cherokee Freedmen, whose ancestors were dragged as property on the infamous "Trail of Tears".  You've heard the story of the Cherokee forced to leave their homes...but have you heard the story of their slaves?     Here it is

Cherokee people with African blood have been members of the Cherokee nation on some basis since the first people with African blood came into the Cherokee areas of the SE United States. The majority of the people with African blood living in the Cherokee nation prior to the Civil war lived there as slaves of Cherokee citizens or as free black non citizens, usually the descendants of Cherokee men and women with African blood. (Children of Cherokee women tribal members were tribal citizens regardless of race of the father – This is clear in the Cherokee constitution of 1827 and 1839).

In 1863, the Cherokee government outlawed slavery through acts of the tribal council. In 1866 , a treaty was signed with the US government in which the Cherokee government agreed to give citizenship to those people with African blood living in the Cherokee nations who were not already citizens. (see 14 Stat. L. 799). The 1839 constitution was amended by the national council on November 28, 1866 so that its provisions would be in line with the 1866 treaty. Between 1866 until the end of the end of tribal government, about 1907, African Cherokee people participated as full citizens of that nation, holding office, voting, running businesses, etc. This time of tribal peace and harmony began to come to an end, however when the Dawes Commission, under Acts of Congress came to the Cherokee nation and registered almost all of the people with African blood as “Freedmen tribal members”; not recording “blood quantum’s” for African Cherokee people .
The tribal citizens could not decide how they were to be classified – such classification was the prerogative of the Dawes commission. (It must be emphasized that even the blood quantums of non freedmen citizens were mere guesses and were only meant to be used for land restrictions; ie whether or not a tribal member could sell his allotment without government approval. Rolls of citizens prepared by the tribes prior to the 1890s had no “blood quantums”). In 1907, “Jim Crow Laws” were passed by the white majority in the state of Oklahoma, which created legal distance between the Freedmen tribal members and the rest of the tribe. Between 1907 and 1975, the Cherokee Freedmen tribal members received the same per capita payments as other tribal members and intermittently accessed benefits as tribal members. Under Title 25 section 991, members of the Cherokee nation listed on the “final rolls” of the Dawes Commission. were entitled to receive a Judgement fund payment during the early 1960s. CHEROKEE FREEDMEN AS TRIBAL MEMBERS RECEIVED THIS PAYMENT. In 1907, Freedmen represented about 10 to 12% of the tribe, according to US government records.

In 1971, the Federal government authorized the Cherokee nation (CNO) to once again establish its own government. Cherokee Freedmen voted in elections in 1971, 1975, and 1979. A constitution was voted on by the Cherokee people, including some freedmen in 1975 which indicated that Dawes enrollees and their descendants were entitled to membership in the Cherokee nation. The constitution made the tribe subject to all of the laws of the United States and required that the tribe receive the permission of the President or his designee before adopting new constitutions or constitutional amendments. However, the Cherokee Freedmen were blocked at the polls, beginning in 1983 under the orders of Chief Swimmer (now special trustee appointed by President George W. Bush who also served as BIA head during the 1980s under President Reagan) because they supported a rival candidate for Chief , Perry Wheeler who was Deputy Chief at that point.

Subsequently, the tribal council, under the direction of chief Wilma Mankiller, later passed an Act requiring that all tribal members be able to provide a Certificate of Indian blood Card (CDIB), based strictly on the Degree of blood listed on the Dawes Rolls for themselves or their ancestor. Since that roll did not list a degree of blood for Freedmen tribal members, this effectively removed all Freedmen and their descendants from tribal membership, even though a large number if not the majority could provide a degree of Indian blood from their Dawes testimony, Guion Miller payment roll testimony, Henderson payment Roll, death and heir ship documents of the US government , etc. This action of blocking the freedmen from tribal membership was not done under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), for BIA Muskogee officials Dennis Springwater and Joe Parker had met with tribal officials in 1983, and emphasized that the Cherokee constitution as well as the treaty of 1866 granted citizenship to the Cherokee Freedmen and their Descendants. The tribe was told the Freedmen should be allowed to vote. Affidavits of the longstanding BIA position are a part of the Nero case file. See also: BIA’s Solicitor’s Opinion, October 1, 1941, 1 Op. Sol. On Indian Affairs 1076 (U.S.D.I. 1979), where the BIA reaffirmed that the Cherokee Freedmen voting and membership rights were fixed by treaty and formal tribal actions .

The press took note of these matters, especially when a Reverend Nero and several other Freedmen filed a lawsuit against the Cherokee nation and the BIA in 1984. Then Chief Swimmer stated in the Oklahoma Eagle newspaper that it was “easier for the registration department to process tribal memberships of people with CDIB cards (at that time, the tribe did not have a contract with the BIA to process CDIB cards), which must raise the question of why Cherokee citizens must be deprived of their rights in order to make the job of registration easier for tribal employees on salary. The Baltimore son reported on July 29, 1984 that then Deputy Chief Wilma Mankiller told the Baltimore Sun that Cherokee Freedmen should not have tribal membership since such membership should be for “people with Cherokee blood”- words which must clearly be seen as an effort to prejudice the Cherokee people as well as the general American people that people with African blood cannot document Cherokee blood and are not Cherokee Indian people, and perpetrating those old “one drop of blood” standards that people with African blood have no other blood and must be kept as a people completely apart unlike any other people. Cherokee nation attorney Wilcoxen during the Nero case appears to have clearly attempted to prejudice the judge against the Cherokee freedmen plaintiffs by wrongly proclaiming that the “Freedmen did not have Cherokee blood”, and that the 1975 constitution only allowed “Cherokees, Delaware, and Shawnee” to be tribal members”; although the Constitution does not say that. (Bands of Delaware and Shawnee Indians were adopted into the Cherokee nation after 1866, whose individuals are not required to also have “Cherokee blood” to be Cherokee citizens). The Nero lawsuit was dismissed by the judge in 1989 over jurisdictional issues; that for example the case should have been tried in the court of claims due to the amount of dollars the plaintiffs were requesting.

In 1998, the Cherokee nation justices heard a citizenship case by a descendant of Cherokee Freedmen, Bernice Riggs . (Bernice Riggs Versus Lela Ummerteskee, Acting Registrar of the Cheorkee Nation (JAT 97-03-K) In 2001, The tribal justices ruled that the testimony and records provided that Mrs Riggs indeed had Cherokee blood. However, they held that this Cherokee ancestor, a man named Rogers was deceased at the time of the Dawes enrollment; - had he been alive at the time of the Dawes enrollment, she would have been able to become a Cherokee citizen based on his degree of Cherokee blood but that since his descendents were listed as Freedmen by the Dawes Commission, she did not have an ancestor with a Dawes Final Roll number from whom she could obtain a CDIB card. The tribal justices determined that the Cherokee nation is a sovereign nation and could grant membership to whomever they wished. (It must be noted that individuals with Caucasian mothers and dead Cherokee fathers were not excluded from being enrolled as “citizens by blood by the Dawes Commission” and that the descendants of such individuals are not barred from Cherokee membership today.).

In 1999, the Cherokee nation prepared a new constitution to submit for BIA approval. The BIA, under Kevin Gover, rejected the new constitution, partially under the grounds that the Cherokee nation would not allow Cherokee Freedmen to vote on it, and that the new constitution would not allow Cherokee freedmen to hold office. According to the official Cherokee Phoenix tribal newspaper (Spring 2001), the CNO attempted to take the new constitution directly to president Clinton, but he would not sign it either. According to the tribal newspaper, they determined to request instead that the BIA agree to remove requirements of federal government approval of constitutional amendments and new constitutions. A decision was made to wait for a “friendlier administration”, in the words of the Cherokee Phoenix tribal newspaper. The same tribal newspaper article also carried a statement from Attorney And Cherokee citizen Ralph Keen, that it is not the tribal constitution which bars freedmen and their descendants from voting on the constitution but a tribal statute.

In 2002, BIA head Neal McCaleb was approached with a request to allow a referendum by Cherokee voters on a constitutional amendment removing federal approval. Neal McCaleb wrote a letter in March 2002, stating that the Freedmen must be allowed to vote on the amendment and that no amendment of the Constitution could eliminate the Freedmen from tribal membership. In April 2002, another letter, with Neal McCalebs signature said he did not write the first letter; the second letter did not say anything about the Freedmen being required to vote on the constitutional amendment. Note that this second letter was completely opposite of all BIA policy since the 1940s. The Cherokee nation government, under Chief Smith, held various meetings around the Cherokee nation, encouraging people to approve the referendum and also the proposed constitution, which has no provision for federal approval of constitutional amendments and did not make the Cherokee nation government subject to US law.

In May 2003, a referendum was held regarding the constitutional amendment, and a vote was held in July 2003 on the proposed new constitution. Both were passed by those individuals who were allowed to vote. Descendants of Cherokee freedmen who tried to participate as voters were not given voting cards, or absentee ballots, and were given “challenged ballots” at the polls if they tried to vote in person.

In June, 2003; several descendants of Cherokee Freedmen, through the law firm Velie and Velie; contacted the Department of the Interior, challenging the 2003 elections, based on the rights of the freedmen in the 1866 treaty, the 1975 constitution, and the Seminole nation versus Norton cases of 2001 and 2002 where Judge Kolar Kotelly had upheld the treaties of 1866 for the Seminole freedmen and their voting and membership rights in the Seminole nation. Several prominent Cherokee nation individuals such as then Deputy Chief Hastings Shade also sent a letter to the BIA questioning the validity of an election when the Cherokee freedmen were not allowed to vote. Various letters went from Chief Smith to the BIA accusing the BIA officials of “having a bias against the self government rights of the Cherokee nation”.

Agreement Reached to Allow Freedmen's Votes To Count in Special Election

Just as a federal judge was about to get involved, the Cherokee Nation reached an agreement Tuesday to allow descendants of slaves once owned by the Oklahoma tribe's members to vote for its principal chief.

Attorneys for the slave descendants, called freedmen, said the agreement calls for extending balloting for this Saturday's special election until Oct. 8 so that those qualified to vote can be notified and participate.

The agreement came during a hearing in federal court in Washington, where U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy was poised to deliver his ruling on whether Saturday's election could continue without the freedman participation. Freedmen attorney Jon Velie asked the judge for a 15-minute recess to negotiate over a proposal made by the tribe. After more than an hour huddling in the hallway with his clients and discussing the proposal with other attorneys, Velie returned to court to announce the deal.

Kennedy gave the parties until 10 a.m. Wednesday to submit a written agreement.

The agreement is a temporary reprieve in the long-running debate over whether the freedmen should be given full membership rights in the one of the country's largest tribes. But the lawsuit brought by the slave descendants — to keep their right to vote and other tribal benefits after tribe members voted to cut them off — will continue in federal court

BIA's Larry Echohawk: We Disagree with Action Against Cherokee Slave Descendent's Citizenship

In another example of inconsistency, The Bureau of Indian Affairs has come out against the expulsion of the Cherokee Freedmen.   They were silent on Pechanga disenrollments, stood up for a Cheyenne woman in her disenrollment action and again, were silent on Picayune disenrollments , SUPPORTED Robinson Rancheria terminations and rewarded the Enterprise Rancheria with a casino, a tribe which violated the civil and human rights of its people.  Let's hope this correct move can make a difference.

I urge you to consider carefully the Nation's next steps in proceeding with an election that does not comply with federal law," Assistant Interior Secretary for Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk stated in a letter to S. Joe Crittenden, the tribe's acting principal chief.

"The Department's position is, and has been that the 1866 Treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation vested Cherokee Freedmen with rights of citizenship in the Nation, including the right of suffrage."

Echo Hawk also stated the agency disagrees with a recent tribal court's decision against freedmen citizenship.

He said the tribal court's decision appears to be based on a misunderstanding that changes made in the tribal constitution in 2003 and 2007 that would make freedmen ineligible for citizenship are valid.

"The Department has never approved these amendments to the Cherokee Constitution as required by the Cherokee Constitution itself," Echo Hawk stated.

Although the requirement for such approval by the department was removed in 2007, he said, that decision is not retroactive.

Last month, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court reversed and vacated a district court decision in the freedmen case, terminating the tribal citizenship of about 2,800 non-Indians.

The 4-1 ruling states that because a 2007 referendum that amended the Cherokee constitution to exclude freedmen descendants from tribal citizenship was conducted in compliance with the tribe's laws, the court does not have the authority to overturn its results.

Claiming a lack of jurisdiction for either court, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court also terminated all temporary injunctions in the case and instructed the district court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Cherokee Nation District Judge John Cripps had ruled in January in favor of the freedmen descendants, citing an 1866 treaty between the United States and the tribe that granted equal rights to the freedmen - former slaves who had been owned by Cherokees.

The tribe's supreme court maintained that citizenship was extended to the freedmen by an 1866 Cherokee constitutional amendment - not the treaty

Read more from this Tulsa World article

Cherokee Nation Tribal Supreme Court Kicks Out Black Freedmen Tribal Members

The Cherokee Nation, who once dragged their slaves on the Trail of Tears as property, now a hand-selected Chad Smith court sends their descendents on their own trail of tears.


A Press Release from the Cherokee Freedmen:

On August 22, 2011, the Cherokee nation tribal Supreme Court ruled that changes to the tribal constitution which effectively removed tribal citizenship from Cherokee freedmen in 2007 were valid.

The Cherokee Supreme Court’s Decision to eliminate the Cherokee people who were granted freedom and citizenship under the Treaty of 1866 is bad law done for a bad reason and is being delivered to assist a former chief just beaten in an election, to eliminate most of the black people from voting in the new election, says Marilyn Vann, a Cherokee Freedmen, whose citizenship has just been terminated based on this ruling. Now, I, nor any Cherokee Freedmen can vote in the next chief election next month. This is timely for Chad Smith, who lost the election and the recount, but was granted a second chance for election by this same Supreme Court. It should also not be forgotten, that following the Cherokee Nation’s highest court, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal’s decision that the Freedmen were entitled to citizenship in 2006, Chad Smith, then Chief, dismantled the Court and established this Supreme Court in its place and selected new judges. It is obvious this decision is the tool he is using to regain his position as Chief and deliver the blow to eliminate my citizenship and other Cherokees who have held this status since 1866.” Despite Federal and Tribal Court rulings stating the Freedmen enjoy all the rights of Cherokee citizenship, The Smith administration has kept out 90% of the Freedmen. Only about 2,800 citizens have been holding on by a thread. As the tribal Court ordered principal chief election nears, the remainder of Freedmen, understandably not Smith supporters, have been stripped of citizenship and will not be able to vote and affects rights to services such as NAHASDA (Indian Housing) services under HR 2786 passed in 2008.

The most troubling statement in the Cherokee Court case, according to Jon Velie, attorney for the Freedmen in two still ongoing Federal lawsuits in Washington D.C , is the statement “the Cherokee Freedmen were never afforded citizenship in the Cherokee Nation by the Treaty of 1866.”   This language conflicts with the undisturbed line of Federal Court cases from 1895 through now. Velie represents Marilyn Vann and several other freedmen in one of the Federal court cases. In July 2008, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held in Vann, “The Cherokee Nation simply has no interest in protecting sovereignty concerns that have been taken away by the United States..The Thirteenth Amendment and the 1866 Treaty whittled away the Tribe’s sovereignty with regard to slavery and left it powerless to discriminate against the Freedmen ……. “
Marilyn Vann added, Mr. Smith’s hand selected Courts decision to do whatever it takes to reinstall him as Chief is dangerous for all of Indian Country as it holds the people of a nation can simply vote the rights of a Treaty away. Does that mean US citizens could vote away our treaty rights or Oklahomans could vote Cherokees out of state citizenship rights?  My nation and the nation of my ancestors has expelled us on our trail of tears, over a century after our ancestors carried baggage on the original Trail. It is a dark day for Cherokee Nation, for Indian Country and for mankind. The freedmen will continue to fight for justice.

Emergency meeting for Cherokee freedmen and their supporters is set for Saturday August 27th, 2011 at the Martin Luther King Center, 627 N 3rd, Street, Muskogee, Okla. at 2pm.

Cherokee Freedmen and supporters will demonstrate outside the Bureau of Indian Affairs Building, Friday September 2, 2011, 3100 West Peak Boulevard, Muskogee, Okla. 2:30pm. Freedmen and supporters will also publicize their plight during the Cherokee Holiday on September 3rd during the morning parade.

Freedmen Descendent to host Black History Program on their History

The Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association and their Supporters will host a Black History Program focusing on the History of the Freedmen of the 5 Civilized Tribes on Saturday February 12, 2011 at the Martin Luther King Center, 627 N 3rd Street in Muskogee Oklahoma.

The program will begin at one pm central time and is free and open to the general public.

Special speakers are retired educator Mrs Shirley Ballard Nero and Conners State Professor Jimmie White. Meeting attendants will learn about black towns as well as leading citizens of Indian Territory prior to Oklahoma Statehood. Attorney Keen will also brief meeting attendants on recent events in the Cherokee nation tribal court.

For more information contact: Mrs Vann (405-227-9810) mkvann@hotmail.com or Mrs Brown: 918-683-2753 king605874@sbcglobal.net . The organization website is: www.freedmen5tribes.com

Freedmen Association Meeting: Sept. 18.

The Descendants of Freedmen Association and their supporters will host their next meeting on Saturday September 18 2010 at the First Missionary Baptist Church, 429 Denison Street, Muskogee Oklahoma. The meeting is free and open to the general public. An update will be given on recent fiings in the Federal courts to enforce 1866 treaty rights of the black freedmen of the 5 Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw) . The black freedmen currently face discrimination in tribal enrollments, accessing tribal services funded by the US taxpayers for members of Indian tribes. For more information , contact Mrs Vann at: 405-227-9810 or Mrs Brown: 918-683-2753. The organization website is: www.freedmen5tribes.com

Oklahoma Court Sends Cherokee Freedmen Case to Washington DC.

NORTHERN DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT OF OKLAHOMA SENDS CHEROKEE FREEDMEN CASE (Cherokee Nation Vs Nash et al) TO WASHINGTON DC TO SAME COURT AS CHEROKEE FREEDMEN FEDERAL CASE (Vann et al v Salazar) BEING TRIED SINCE 2003 On July 2, 2010, the Honorable Oklahoma Northern District Court Judge Terrance Kern issued an order transferring the case Cherokee Nation Vs Nash et al (09-CV-52-TCK-PJC), filed in February 2009 by the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma to Washington DC. The Oklahoma filed action will be tried along with the Cherokee freedmen case Vann et al Versus Salazar(1:03CV-1711-HHK) filed in August 2003 in the Washington DC District court of Honorable Judge Henry Kennedy. Issues in both cases deal with the rights of Cherokee Freedmen tribal members (descendants of free mixed African Indians and blacks enslaved with the protection of Cherokee nation government policies prior to the end of the Civil War) based on the 1866 treaty between the US government and the Cherokee nation which guaranteed citizenship to persons of African descent living in the Cherokee nation at the beginning of the Civil War. In the Washington DC case, defendants are the Department of Interior and Cherokee Chief Chad Smith while in the Oklahoma case, defendants are 5 individual plaintiffs who are registered as Cherokee freedmen tribal members as well as the US Department of Interior. In the Oklahoma case, both legal counsels for the US Department of Interior as well as the Cherokee freedmen tribal members had filed motions requesting that the Oklahoma case be transferred to the Washington DC Federal court. OP: Chad Smith said "slaves were treated well" Marilyn Vann, President of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association and Band Chief of the Freedmen Band of Cherokee Nation states: “We are extremely happy with the decision of the Northern District Court that permits the 5 freedmen which were sued by their own nation the ability to fight for justice in DC where the Freedmen Band which has been prosecuting the same issues in the Washington DC court since they were denied the right to vote and run for office in 2003. We eagerly await the day when all descendants of Dawes enrolled Cherokee freedmen can register/reregister as Cherokee nation tribal members, vote and run for tribal political office as promised our ancestors by the US government and tribal officials in 1866. Just as the US government owed protection of citizenship rights to descendants of blacks in Mississippi who had been enslaved by US government policies, so does the Cherokee nation owe protection of citizenship rights to descendants of black persons whose ancestors were forced to endure chattel slavery under the blessing and protection of Cherokee nation government policies. Jon Velie, lead Counsel for the Cherokee Freedmen in both the Oklahoma and Washington DC filed cases states that: “The Northern District decision to transfer the case brought by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma against 5 individual freedmen turned on the fact that that the case had essentially the same issues as the case brought by the Cherokee Freedmen Band and several individual freedmen in Washington DC which was the first filed case. Another matter of interest was the court’s finding that the tribe had waived sovereign immunity by filing the case especially while the DC court action was still pending. The DC court of Appeals has previously held in 2008 that the 13th amendment and the treaty of 1866 have whittled away the tribe’s right to discriminate against the freedmen”.