Cherokee Freedmen

[Don Naconna]

Believe me if any other ethnic group had to prove what their long lost ancestors were to be citizens of the US almost everyone would be an illegal immigrant...

There is a difference with being racially and culturally NDN with being an enrolled member of a Federally Recognized Tribe.  Nobody is saying that NDNS that can't prove their heritage can't celebrate it and be proud of it.  Of course they can.

But as far as nations go, I'd like to see you enter the United States without a US passport.  Thats why we have to prove we are US citizens, because we are Citiziens of a Soverign Nation.  Same goes for NDNs who are citizesn of a Sovereign Nations.  And thats what our cards are all about.

Can we be realistic.There is no such thing as a sovereign nation within the US, that is just a label. Unless you have renounced your national citizenship and are no longer an American citizen as I did, you are still an American citizen and subject to US laws. The Lakota have triedtodo that and ifyou accept the BIA control you are hardly an alien. Sounds great, but it is not  sovereignty, and the US will never accept actual sovereignty on US soil. Indians gave up their sovereignty in 1924. I know that it sounds good,but there is no such thing. Indians are in the US military are they not. When you cannot be a sovereign nation and serve another nation.I am a citizen of a sovereign nation Canada and we are not bound by US laws or any other nation's laws So until you renounce your US citizenship you are an American if you were born there
Canadian aboriginals are Canadian citizens who vote in our elections, go to our schools, get the health insurance that we all do. So the whole illusion of Indian sovereignty is simply not applicable.Until a "nation"has the power to make and sign treaties, form alliances  and be accepted and recognised by other nations its is not sovereign. To have the BIA in control of a "nation's" finances, clearly means that those "nations" are not sovereign. Canada does not have to go to the London to pass our laws, because we are a sovereign nation within the Commonwealth of 50+ nations who share our institutions and language. But if you are an American Indian and an American citizen,you are not sovereign.
As far as the fact that the Confederacy being treason,what the hell else would you call it when states refuse to accept the will of the majority and takeup arms because they don't likethe results of a democratic election. I don't care what race you are or what you call yourself but everywhere in the world to rebel against the lawful government is treason. Therefore those who rebelled were traitors and under our laws here in Canada then would have been hung as traitors.
If the Cherokee Nation held slaves in violation of federal law it is treason and they did  for 3 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and the atrocities at Cabin Creek where Stand Watie's troops massacred freedmen and black Union soldiers. That is a war crime. Mike Graham, and all the confederate flags. Isn't it time to be honest. Sorry but the only sovereignty that the Cherokee Nation had was treason to the rest of the to the majority of American states called the Union with whom they did have a treaty. They werbeing controlledby the very dsame white politicians who had seized the land in the 1830's. Sovereignty for slave holders, not for slaves!
The only difference between the CNO and the Echota is which goverment recognise them.How can a "nation"that fought against the legal government i.e.the federal government of the United States accept that they control every aspect of that communities life.
If anyone believes that tribes should truly be sovereign send back your passports, refuse to accept any aid or welfare from any American government agency and have an members of the US military resign. Or stop even using the word sovereign! History is not convenient but it is true. My question is how do you perceive the future through the past as it appears, which is where it appears or in a world and nation where race and ancestry is only a foot note.
BTW I support the Watson Bill because I be;ieve that the CNO is in violation of the the 1866 treaty and should not receive any taxes from the federal government. Isn't it time? Or pay the descendants reparations and let them have the same stautus as Indians or to return to Africa where they have been offered Ghanian citizenship. Your country not mine but lets be realistic this is not the 19th century, what wilL lhappenin the future NOT IN THE PAST.It appears that no one thinks about the future but lives in the past...

[Al's note- changed title and split thread.]

[bls926]

If the Cherokee Nation held slaves in violation of federal law it is treason and they did  for 3 years after the Emancipation Proclamation

Don, some of your facts are faulty. Slavery was abolished in the Cherokee Nation approximately six weeks after it was abolished in the United States. Where'd you get three years?

The Emancipation Proclamation  - January 1, 1863
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

Cherokee Emancipation Proclamation - February 18-19, 1863
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primaryWEST/cherokee-emancipation-proclamation-1863


And this really isn't a discussion about slavery, the Freedmen, or the Watson Bill. However, I do think CNO has a right to determine who their citizens are. Just as the three legitimate Cherokee Tribes have a right to determine who is and isn't Cherokee.

[Don Naconna]

If the Cherokee Nation held slaves in violation of federal law it is treason and they did  for 3 years after the Emancipation Proclamation

Don, some of your facts are faulty. Slavery was abolished in the Cherokee Nation approximately six weeks after it was abolished in the United States. Where'd you get three years?

The Emancipation Proclamation  - January 1, 1863
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

Cherokee Emancipation Proclamation - February 18-19, 1863
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primaryWEST/cherokee-emancipation-proclamation-1863


And this really isn't a discussion about slavery, the Freedmen, or the Watson Bill. However, I do think CNO has a right to determine who their citizens are. Just as the three legitimate Cherokee Tribes have a right to determine who is and isn't Cherokee.

I would like to correct myself.I was refering to Treaty of 1866, which the CNO has broken with regard to the freedmen. Why were SE tribes called the civilised tribes  because they were most assimilated and had adopted slavery among other racist practices. As long as the CNO is part of the US and dependanton the federal taxpayers they must observe US laws.As I posted earlier,if you want to be sovereign  do not depend on the federal government for anything. There are 40 million black Americans and most vote and less than 800,000 Cherokee. 40 million voters and taxpayers who object to the CNO do the math...
BTW this treaty is not very different than the rest of the confederacy had to sign to rejoin the union, tthe 14th amendment. It was part of the first Reconstrcution acts.
 The CNO can no more deny citizenship to former slaves than Georgia can. Again the CNO cannot break the treaty without consequences any morethan Georgia could revoke the 14th and 15th amendment. This treaty is very clear as is the Watson Bill, if they chooseto abrogate the treaty they will lose their recognition. Does that change anything, yes, black taxpayers will not be paying for racial discrimination against black people.

1866 Treaty with Cherokee Nation

Articles Pertaining to African Cherokee Citizens

and Ending Slavery in the Nation

July 19, 1866. Ratified July 27, 1866.  Proclaimed Aug. 11, 1866

ARTICLE 4.

All the Cherokees and freed persons who were formerly slaves to any Cherokee, and all free negroes not having been such slaves, who resided in the Cherokee Nation prior to June first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, who may within two years elect not to reside northeast of the Arkansas River and southeast of Grand River, shall have the right to settle in and occupy the Canadian district southwest of the Arkansas River, and also all that tract of country lying northwest of Grand River, and bounded on the southeast by Grand River and west by the Creek reservation to the northeast corner thereof; from thence west on the north line of the Creek reservation to the ninety-sixth degree of west longitude; and thence north on said line of longitude so far that a line due east to Grand River will include a quantity of land equal to one hundred and sixty acres for each person who may so elect to reside in the territory above-described in this article: Provided, That that part of said district north of the Arkansas River shall not be set apart until it shall be found that the Canadian district is not sufficiently large to allow one hundred and sixty acres to each person desiring to obtain settlement under the provisions of this article.

ARTICLE 5.

The inhabitants electing to reside in the district described in the preceding article shall have the right to elect all their local officers and judges, and the number of delegates to which by their numbers they may be entitled in any general council to be established in the Indian Territory under the provisions of this treaty, as stated in Article XII, and to control all their local affairs, and to establish all necessary police regulations and rules for the administration of justice in said district, not inconsistent with the constitution of the Cherokee Nation or the laws of the United States; Provided, The Cherokees residing in said district shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of other Cherokees who may elect to settle in said district as hereinbefore provided, and shall hold the same rights and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as those who elect to settle in said district under the provisions of this treaty; Provided also, That if any such police regulations or rules be adopted which, in the opinion of the President, bear oppressively on any citizen of the nation, he may suspend the same. And all rules or regulations in said district, or in any other district of the nation, discriminating against the citizens of other districts, are prohibited, and shall be void.

* * * * * *

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 said tribe alike. They further agree that all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: Provided, That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive any compensation or pay for the slaves so emancipated.

ARTICLE 10.

Every Cherokee and freed person resident in the Cherokee Nation shall have the right to sell any products of his farm, including his or her live stock, or any merchandise or manufactured products, and to ship and drive the same to market without restraint, paying any tax thereon which is now or may be levied by the United States on the quantity sold outside of the Indian Territory.

Source: Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II (Treaties). Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1904.

 

 

[bls926]

Don, I'm not going to debate the merits of the Freedman issue, the meaning of the 1866 Treaty, or the Watson bill. I will only say, again, that the CNO has the right to determine who their citizens are.

[Don Naconna]

I don't remember what Tribe, but there are Fed. Tribes that use this classification. I didn't thunk it up. Members have all of the same rights as Citizens do except that they can't live on the rez or receive monies.

 <There are no other Cherokee Tribes> Yes there are,,,  Get you head out of the sand. you just don't like it. I understand that. I also understand that there are those (The Task Farce) that may be trying to change that FACT but I don't think they will be able to do that.

<They are not citizens of the Cherokee Nation>
Nor do they want to be. The sad FACT is they the CNO as much as they would like it are NOT the only Cherokee Tribe.

And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it. It's a step in the right direction.

I think you missed the point I was making. Nation/Tribe vs Club. Someone is a citizen of their Nation, a member of a Club. You are born a citizen and will die a citizen, unless you renounce your citizenship. You join a club and as long as you continue to pay your dues you will remain a member. There are three legitimate Cherokee Nations. There are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs.

No, Paul, there are not any other Cherokee Tribes. As stated above, there are hundreds of Cherokee Clubs, heritage societies. Some do this in a respectful way, others aren't so respectful. Those are the facts. What I don't like is all these other groups pretending to be Cherokee Tribes. They give all Cherokee descendants a bad name.

If the Echota Cherokee don't want to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation, why are they pretending to be part of it? The term Cherokee Nation refers to the historic Nation. I never said CNO was the only Cherokee Tribe. I know that the Cherokee Nation is now the EBCI, CNO, and UKB.

Please explain what you meant by "And FYI the CNO does have 2 type of CLUBS, as you put it."

Are you saying that federal recognition determines who is and who isn't Indian? Is your tribe recognised by the federal government? If not are you a member of a club? I don't think the Echota want to be identified with the CNO or want federal recognition, and I think that is a moot point. In fact I doubt that the CNO will be federally recognised unless it complies with the 1866 treaty. The issue will have far reaching consequences and will determine how the federal government deals with all Indian tribes. I believe that many Americans are simply tired of what they see as abuse of taxpayers money, and the CBC has called the CNO on the freedmen. 40 million black people vote and they will not vote to see their tax money spent on what is as most black people see it as blatant racial discrimination.
What I don't understand is why its even debatable. I also don't understand why someone being on a racially inspired roll that favoured white mixed over black mixed determines who is and who isn't Indian. If I were 1/264 white I would claim to be a white person or 90% of black Americans would be white and 90% of Mexicans would be Indians.

[Don Naconna]

The US Congress has the right to end recognition, because it represents all of the people, and the majority of black citizens support the Watson bill, so all of this discussion about the CNO is purely academic. The CNO has only one choice to accept the freedmen or lose recognition. The CNO may be applying for state recognition very soon and closing down its casinos.

[Moma_porcupine]

Can we be realistic.There is no such thing as a sovereign nation within the US, that is just a label. Unless you have renounced your national citizenship and are no longer an American citizen as I did, you are still an American citizen and subject to US laws.

I guess you can make that argument if you want to. But it could also be argued that no sovriegn country is an island and even when Nations are sovriegn they have their ability to do what they want modified by the need to get along with surrounding Nations. The US is a powerful nation, and what you are saying about indigenous nations not really having control of their own affairs is probably true for every small nation on the planet in relation to the US or other big nations. It doesn't follow that these nations should stop imagining they have any sovriegnty or suffer the indignity of having someone suggest they don't even deserve the degree of sovriegnty they still enjoy. As you are doing here.

 

So until you renounce your US citizenship you are an American if you were born there Canadian aboriginals are Canadian citizens who vote in our elections, go to our schools, get the health insurance that we all do. So the whole illusion of Indian sovereignty is simply not applicable.

This paragraph doesn't even make sense , but from other stuff you are saying I gather you are overlooking the fact many people have dual citizenship in order to strengthen your anti sovriegnty argument....

Until a "nation"has the power to make and sign treaties, form alliances  and be accepted and recognised by other nations its is not sovereign.

Indigenous Nations have this right. It isn't there fault bigger more powerful Nations have not kept their end of the agreements, and I don't agree with your conclusion indigenous leaders should just give up trying to maintain their rights because of this.

.

.... the atrocities at Cabin Creek where Stand Watie's troops massacred freedmen and black Union soldiers. That is a war crime. Mike Graham, and all the confederate flags. Isn't it time to be honest. Sorry but the only sovereignty that the Cherokee Nation had was treason to the rest of the to the majority of American states called the Union with whom they did have a treaty. They werbeing controlledby the very dsame white politicians who had seized the land in the 1830's. Sovereignty for slave holders, not for slaves!

I don't know a lot of the details of this history but I have read where a lot of people feel some injustices have occured and are occuring to the people who have African and Cherokee ancestry. I sympathize with your anger over this, but unless the Cherokee governments prejudiced against Africans has something to do with why the echotas got seperated from the main groups of Cherokee people, this subject is completely off the topic of this thread.

I have read where lots of people over on Indianz.com find mike graham's ideas offensive  - including many Cherokee people. That you would point to this one person and use their extremeism to try and discredit the rights of everyone represented by the CNO seems unfair.

Every Nation has a few extremists. If every Nation with some problems lost it's right to sovriegnty , no Nations would have this. And no Nations would need this if other Nations respected their boundaries. So it seems you are just making excuses and justifications for wannabes to disrespect the boundaries of the 3 real Cherokee nations and you are encouraging wannabes to just take what they want by force. Like bls926 says, this attitude and behavior gives all descendents a bad name.    

The only difference between the CNO and the Echota is which goverment recognise them.

It has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread that the difference is the continuity of culture and tribal government. I have no idea why you seem so determined to ignore the obvious and try to discredit the soveriegnty of the 3 real Cherokee Nations with off topic arguments.

[Don Naconna]

Because the Watson Bill is about justice for people who have been segregated, discriminated against, are denied what was guaranteed to them and their descendants. I am not a freedman descendant, but I cannot deny that the 1866 Treaty is very clear and to abrogate it is purely racial. There are many whites and PODIAs(some of whom are white racists like Mike Graham) who have little or no Cherokee blood who are members of the CNO. That's a double standard based on race. That is a violation of the 1866 treaty and of the rights of the freedmens descendants. If you want black taxpayers money, comply with the laws of the US, its simple. Or become a state recognised tribe like the Echota...

[Moma_porcupine]

If some of what is being said in this thread doesn't make a lot of sense, it's because people are replying to some of what was said in the topic of the Echota Cherokee , and some of the off topic replies were moved to their own thread , which is now here.

The conversation began in the link below
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2344.135
Echota Cherokee

[Don Naconna]

Do any Indian nation meet these criteria?

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
This is the definition of national sovereignty. The fact that another nation, i.e. can terminate a tribe or nation, means that that nation is not sovereign. The crown cannot take away Canada's sovereignty, nor France take away Haiti's. Indian nations are part of the US and governed by Congress and although they may have limited powers of self government, they are subordinant to federal law,as are states, counties and municipalities. Example, raising hemp, which violates federal drug laws or homeland security and border tribes, or the US post office or passports or the power to make and break treaties. No Indian nation has those powers and are not included in the constitution under elastic powers given to the states. The founding fathers saw Indians as children i.e. the "great white father in Washington" not capable of self government. In Canada the Indian Act made aboriginal people "wards of the state", NOT sovereign nations within nations. Today we recognise the First Nations as one of the 3 nations in our one country, however the Indian Act is still in force. The 3 nations are Quebec and francophonie,(10 million) First Nations (3 million) and Anglophone/Allophone Canada (18 million) all within the nation of Canada. First Nations are recognised in our constitution as a nation within Canada, however not sovereign or independent.

[Paul123]

I would point out that the HR2824 bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

This may never come back before Congress. I think that every one is waiting for the CNO's Supreme Court to decide on this issue. in the mean while ALL of the disenfranchised Freedman have been reinstated. 

[earthw7]

whatever..........................
our nation have the right to say who belong to us. that is finally

the problem with the cherokees is they allowed too many people who have no
culture, language and way of life to belong to them that was their first mistake
they were open with who they were now look at the mess.

They (cherokee) will cause more problem for the rest of us Native Natives.

Because the United states declaired we are domestic Independent nation within a
nation that is legal defination we use.

don't tell me I am not a nation my people have always been a nation. We were a nation before those
lost people came into my country and still are a nation.

As for the United States Citzenship that was forced on us in 1929 not by choice.
we are member of our nation we are Native first always.

Th

[earthw7]

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

yes we do all of these things plus have a seat in the United Nations.
Sound like you need more edcuation.

[Don Naconna]

That definition is from a political dictionary, not mine.

[Don Naconna]

You must be a member of the Lakota. Other nations are quite different in terms of their relationship to the federal government. I still assert that you cannot be a sovereign nation and be dependant on another nation i.e. the US government. If all federal monies were cutoff how viable would those nations be?