Cherokee Indians: We are free to oust blacks

Personally I think the decedents of conquered people should not get any special treatment, sovereignty or tax payer money. Conquered people and their descendants should be integrated with the rest of the population. Besides that how are they going to demand sovereignty when they are getting tax payer money?

Cherokee Indians: We are free to oust blacks - US news - Life - msnbc.com

The nation's second-largest Indian tribe said on Tuesday that it would not be dictated to by the U.S. government over its move to banish 2,800 African Americans from its citizenship rolls.

"The Cherokee Nation will not be governed by the BIA," Joe Crittenden, the tribe's acting principal chief, said in a statement responding to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Crittenden, who leads the tribe until a new principal chief is elected, went on to complain about unnamed congressmen meddling in the tribe's self-governance.
The reaction follows a letter the tribe received on Monday from BIA Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk, who warned that the results of the September 24 Cherokee election for principal chief will not be recognized by the U.S. government if the ousted members, known to some as "Cherokee Freedmen," are not allowed to vote.
The dispute stems from the fact that some wealthy Cherokee owned black slaves who worked on their plantations in the South. By the 1830s, most of the tribe was forced to relocate to present-day Oklahoma, and many took their slaves with them. The so-called Freedmen are descendants of those slaves.
After the Civil War, in which the Cherokee fought for the South, a treaty was signed in 1866 guaranteeing tribal citizenship for the freed slaves.

Hmm, seems to me if the Cherokee signed a legal treaty giving the decendants of the Cherokee's black slaves tribal citizenship, then they are bound by that treaty and have to let their "Cherokee Freedmen" vote. If they violate the treaty, the the other signatory of the treaty, the USA, can now consider ALL covenants of that treaty, including the granting of sovereign Cherokee land, null and void.

I don't think the Cherokee want to press Uncle Sam on this issue. They won't like the way it turns out.

DiAnna said:

Hmm, seems to me if the Cherokee signed a legal treaty giving the decendants of the Cherokee's black slaves tribal citizenship, then they are bound by that treaty and have to let their "Cherokee Freedmen" vote. If they violate the treaty, the the other signatory of the treaty, the USA, can now consider ALL covenants of that treaty, including the granting of sovereign Cherokee land, null and void.

I don't think the Cherokee want to press Uncle Sam on this issue. They won't like the way it turns out.

Click to expand...

Indian law is extraordinarially complex....I wouldn't be so quick to make snap judgments.

Pinkie said:

Indian law is extraordinarially complex....I wouldn't be so quick to make snap judgments.

Click to expand...

What Cherokee law allows the tribe to kick out their black members? Did the make a law that sucks screw the treaty? is there some loophole?

DiAnna said:

Hmm, seems to me if the Cherokee signed a legal treaty giving the decendants of the Cherokee's black slaves tribal citizenship, then they are bound by that treaty and have to let their "Cherokee Freedmen" vote. If they violate the treaty, the the other signatory of the treaty, the USA, can now consider ALL covenants of that treaty, including the granting of sovereign Cherokee land, null and void.

I don't think the Cherokee want to press Uncle Sam on this issue. They won't like the way it turns out.

Click to expand...

did that treaty guarantee the descendents of the black slaves would be found tribal members or only that those slaves at the time of the treaty were to be found tribal members?

the irony. a federal agency complaining that it is the Indians breaking a treaty

jamesrage said:

What Cherokee law allows the tribe to kick out their black members? Did the make a law that sucks screw the treaty? is there some loophole?

Click to expand...

the Cherokee nation gets to determine for itself what it considers enrolled tribal membership to be

The Cherokee Nation is a sovereign nation. What they do concerning tribal membership is ultimately the tribe's business.

BIA = Bossing Indians Around.

Risky Thicket said:

The Cherokee Nation is a sovereign nation.

Click to expand...

If its a sovereign nation then why do they get US tax payer money?

anyone ask how black people got there in the first place?

edit: nvm i didn't read carefully.

"Conquered people" and "Sovereign nations" are foreign terms to me. While I understand the benefits of slavery, I think it is wrong. I believe in liberty and that it is best to emancipate mankind and look for solutions that are better our lot rather than being parasitic dictators.

justabubba said:

the Cherokee nation gets to determine for itself what it considers enrolled tribal membership to be

Click to expand...

So the treaty doesn't matter to them? Okay. I'd like to take a peek at the entire treaty, to see what the USA gave the Cherokee in return for the promise of tribal membership to all black Cherokee slaves and their decendants. I mean, if the Cherokee... as a soverign nation... gets to ignore the treaty, then the USA... as a soverign nation... is free to do the same, yes?

Antiderivative said:

"Conquered people" and "Sovereign nations" are foreign terms to me. While I understand the benefits of slavery, I think it is wrong. I believe in liberty and that it is best to emancipate mankind and look for solutions that are better our lot rather than being parasitic dictators.

Click to expand...

There are no societal benefits of slavery...i think most people here agree that slavery is ****ed up, so I'm really unsure as to the point of this post. What exactly is it you're trying to say?

DiAnna said:

So the treaty doesn't matter to them? Okay. I'd like to take a peek at the entire treaty, to see what the USA gave the Cherokee in return for the promise of tribal membership to all black Cherokee slaves and their decendants. I mean, if the Cherokee... as a soverign nation... gets to ignore the treaty, then the USA... as a soverign nation... is free to do the same, yes?

Click to expand...

the OP cite i read said the treaty provided for the recognition of the slaves to be identified as members of the tribe
saw nothing which indicated that the descendents of those slaves would also expect to be recognized as tribal members
but i welcome your showing me information which would evidence the treaty expressly intended those slave descendents to also be found members of the Cherokee tribe


and again, there is more than a little irony about the federal government charging an Indian nation with violation of a treaty

I don't know why we continue to allow these indian "nations" anyway. When has another conquering society EVER allowed the conquered to maintain enclaves of their own society which are NOT required to follow the rules and laws of the conquering nation? That's just bad politics and military theory, boys and girls.

DiAnna said:

So the treaty doesn't matter to them? Okay. I'd like to take a peek at the entire treaty, to see what the USA gave the Cherokee in return for the promise of tribal membership to all black Cherokee slaves and their decendants. I mean, if the Cherokee... as a soverign nation... gets to ignore the treaty, then the USA... as a soverign nation... is free to do the same, yes?

Click to expand...

US treaties are BS. We only obey to them when it is in our best interest. Unlike tyrants, I believe that Native Americans have the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, many Americans hate this American principle and use dumbass sophomoric analysis to justify atrocities.

You are nothing but a redcoat and a King George lover.

StillBallin75 said:

There are no societal benefits of slavery...i think most people here agree that slavery is ****ed up, so I'm really unsure as to the point of this post. What exactly is it you're trying to say?

Click to expand...

America was founded on self-determination, yet we will not grant this same principle to Native Americans.

In my world, I call this hypocrisy.

Antiderivative said:

America was founded on self-determination, yet we will not grant this same principle to Native Americans.

In my world, I call this hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

They do not need US tax payer money, reservations(Oklahoma has no reservations), and separate sovereignty for self-determination.

Antiderivative said:

America was founded on self-determination, yet we will not grant this same principle to Native Americans.

In my world, I call this hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

America was founded by militarily defeating the British Empire. The Native Americans would have a lot more standing in my mind if they'd been willing to put aside their own differences and band together to drive the White Men off of their continent in the 17th Century. They didn't. Just like the Scots and the Irish, they were more interested in their own internal quarrels than in banding together to get rid of the bigger threat. In the end that cost them everything, or at least it should have.

I have great respect for the traditions and society of the Native American tribes. However, I do have a major problem with the idea of allowing "foreign entitites" inside of our borders, whether they're Foreign Embassies/Consulates or the Native American Nations. In my mind these individuals should have been brought into the societal circle of AMERICANS and allowed to maintain their ethnic heritage just as the French, German, Irish, etc.... immigrants to this country have been.

justabubba said:

the OP cite i read said the treaty provided for the recognition of the slaves to be identified as members of the tribe
saw nothing which indicated that the descendents of those slaves would also expect to be recognized as tribal members
but i welcome your showing me information which would evidence the treaty expressly intended those slave descendents to also be found members of the Cherokee tribe


and again, there is more than a little irony about the federal government charging an Indian nation with violation of a treaty

Click to expand...

If you didn't bother to read the OP's link, I shouldn't have to bother to bring the pertinent passages to you. However, I shall do so.

The U.S. government said that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed that the slaves were tribal citizens, whether or not they had a Cherokee blood relation.

The African Americans lost their citizenship last month when the Cherokee Supreme Court voted to support the right of tribal members to change the tribe's constitution on citizenship matters.

The change meant that Cherokee Freedmen who could not prove they have a Cherokee blood relation were no longer citizens, making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits.

Besides pressure from the BIA to accept the 1866 Treaty as the law of the land, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is withholding a $33 million disbursement to the tribe over the Freedmen controversy.

Attorneys in a federal lawsuit in Washington are asking a judge to restore voting rights for the ousted Cherokee Freedmen in time for the September 24 tribal election for Principal Chief.

Click to expand...

What we have here is a treaty and Cherokee Law upheld for nearly 150 years recognizing 2,800 current Cherokee Freedmen, descendants of Cherokee African slaves, as tribal members suddenly being revoked when the Cherokee's decided to change their constitution, throwing out tribal members that could not prove they had Cherokee blood, and doing so to prevent them from voting in the next tribal election.

It's kind of like if the SCOTUS decided to toss out that pesky "all men are equal" part of the USA constitution, then decide that no black in America could vote unless they could prove they had "white" blood in their veins.

Which shows that the Cherokee nation is not above using law to promulgate racism, vote rigging, breaking international commitments, and corruption. Kinda like every other government on the planet. But certainly it should not be rewarded for such outlandish behavior, and it won't be. They won't get the $33 million dollar disbursement... which I supposed we call "foreign aid". Fine with me. I don't think we should be sending taxpayer money to support any foreign governments.

jamesrage said:

If its a sovereign nation then why do they get US tax payer money?

Click to expand...

They pay taxes too you know... They're kind of semi-sovereign. Whether the power to abrogate whatever treaty they supposedly made including these folks is one they have or not I don't know. As Pinkie correctly pointed out, Indian law is extremely complex and not all that intuitive. I couldn't even begin to hazard a guess whether that was legal or not.

That said, I certainly do oppose any group anywhere trying to exclude people from their community based on their race of course.

teamosil said:

That said, I certainly do oppose any group anywhere trying to exclude people from their community based on their race of course.

Click to expand...

Even when that community is based entirely ON Race? So you would suggest that all the Black Student Unions on college campuses should be forced to allow whites and asians to join?

jamesrage said:

They do not need US tax payer money, reservations(Oklahoma has no reservations), and separate sovereignty for self-determination.

Click to expand...

You are right. They do not need to receive US taxpaying money when they self-determinate. However, they have the right to self-determination. In fact, any state has this right.

Unfortunately, when people exercise this basic human right it is met with violence.

Tigger said:

Even when that community is based entirely ON Race? So you would suggest that all the Black Student Unions on college campuses should be forced to allow whites and asians to join?

Click to expand...

Its different to expel people that have already been in the group for generations than to form a group based on race.

DiAnna said:

If you didn't bother to read the OP's link, I shouldn't have to bother to bring the pertinent passages to you. However, I shall do so.



What we have here is a treaty and Cherokee Law upheld for nearly 150 years recognizing 2,800 current Cherokee Freedmen, descendants of Cherokee African slaves, as tribal members suddenly being revoked when the Cherokee's decided to change their constitution, throwing out tribal members that could not prove they had Cherokee blood, and doing so to prevent them from voting in the next tribal election.

It's kind of like if the SCOTUS decided to toss out that pesky "all men are equal" part of the USA constitution, then decide that no black in America could vote unless they could prove they had "white" blood in their veins.

Which shows that the Cherokee nation is not above using law to promulgate racism, vote rigging, breaking international commitments, and corruption. Kinda like every other government on the planet. But certainly it should not be rewarded for such outlandish behavior, and it won't be. They won't get the $33 million dollar disbursement... which I supposed we call "foreign aid". Fine with me. I don't think we should be sending taxpayer money to support any foreign governments.

Click to expand...

it seems you missed my point
here is what was agreed:

... The U.S. government said that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed that the slaves were tribal citizens, whether or not they had a Cherokee blood relation. ...

Click to expand...

now, please identify for us how many of those black slaves are still living among the Cherokee tribe
my guess is zero
that aspect of the treaty was properly met by the tribe
you - like the BIA - want that treaty to have agreed to things other than what was actually provided. i do not find any provision that the DECENDENTS of those slaves were to also enjoy classification as tribal members
but as i offered before, i very much solicit your showing me where such language exists in that treaty
if/when you do, i will re-evaluate my position
until then, it appears the Cherokee nation is well within its sovereign rights, consistent with its treaty obligations, to find that the descendents of those identified black slaves, who are without Cherokee blood, are hereafter rightfully denied recognition as enrolled members of the Cherokee nation


and no surprise that the federal government withholds that which it has agreed to provide to the Cherokee nation as a means to unilaterally revise its treaty obligations
that is a very old practice
our tribe has come to expect it