Cherokee Freedmen Discussion

[BlackWolf]

I think Rattlebone's made his case.  Don's just taking things out of context ( As usual ).  Anyone that has kept up with Rattlebone's post, (not just here but on other topics) would know that he's clearly not a racist.  I think that most people on here can clearly see how Don is once again trying to twist the facts to suit his own agenda.   

[BlackWolf]

I think the Treaty of 1866 should be looked at and the CN's side of the story should be taken into consideration regarding this Treaty. Many people have only heard one side of the story in regards to the Treaty of 1866.

 http://freedmen.cherokee.org/Portals/13/Docs/Briefing%20on%20History%20and%20Cases.pdf

Why Freedmen Descendants Without an Indian Ancestor Listed on the Base Rolls Are Not Eligible for Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation

I. Summary
The Cherokee Nation's opponents in current federal litigation and certain Members of Congress continue to misstate and twist the facts about the history and law – in addition to ignoring prior Congressional acts -- concerning Freedmen descendant citizenship. These opponents and Members of Congress are trying to punish the Cherokee Nation because they disagree with legitimate and lawful actions it has taken in determining its citizenship laws.
This briefing clarifies the confusion created by the Cherokee Nation’s opponents. As a matter of right, Cherokee citizens have allowed only those who can trace their Indian ancestry to the base rolls taken by federal government in 1906 to become citizens of the Cherokee Nation. As explained below, the above-mentioned requirement for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation fully complies with the 1866 Treaty and the subsequent Congressional acts that modified the Treaty.
The Cherokee Nation has the power to define its tribal citizenship. Congress exercised its plenary power by superseding the 1866 Treaty in 1902 and 1906. As a result, the claims of citizenship in the Cherokee Nation by Freedmen descendants and others were extinguished. Since 1906, the Cherokee Nation itself has exercised the legitimate and lawful right of determining its citizenship – a basic right exercised by more than 500 other Indian tribes in the United States.

II. Article IX of the Treaty of 1866 Between the United States and the Cherokee Nation and Its Meaning
Article IX of the 1866 Treaty states: "They [the Cherokee Nation] 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 Cherokee."

The U.S. Court of Claims in 1896 interpreted the following language in Article IX of the Treaty: "and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants …"
The Court ruled that the language was:
. . . intended for the protection of the Cherokee Nation as a limitation upon the number of persons who might avail themselves of the provisions of the treaty, and consequently that they referred to both the freedmen and the free colored persons previously named in the article; that is to say, freedmen and the descendants of freedmen who did not return within six months are excluded from the benefits of the treaty and of the decree, and that this period of six months extends from the date of the promulgation of the treaty, August 11, 1866, and consequently did not expire until February 11, 1867.

Whitmire v. United States, No. 17209, 46 Ct. Cl. 227, 1910 WL 930, *4 (1910), citing decree of Feb. 18, 1896.

The Court’s interpretation, in addition to Congress superseding and clarifying the 1866 Treaty, is part of the foundation for the Cherokee Nation’s position that descendants of Freedmen are not entitled to Cherokee Nation citizenship just because they have a Freedman ancestor. The Freedmen were defined as a class and described by the 1866 Treaty as including only those former slaves, "free colored persons" and their descendants who resided in the Cherokee Nation as of February 11, 1867.

III. The Cherokee Nation Constitution of 1866

The 1866 Treaty never gave citizenship to the Freedmen; however, the Cherokee Nation amended its Constitution in 1866 to grant citizenship to several classes of people that had a legitimate connection and presence in the Cherokee Nation.

All native born Cherokees, all Indians and whites legally members of the Nation by adoption and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as freed colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants, who reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation.
Cherokee Nation Const., art. III, Sec. 5 (1839 as amended 1866) (emphasis added).
Through their Constitution, the Cherokee people decided to confer citizenship upon non-Indian Freedmen descendants and others. Only two entities could change that
decision: Congress pursuant to its plenary power and the Cherokee people by amending their Constitution. It is a well-settled legal and historical doctrine that Indian tribes can decide for themselves who can and cannot be members of their own tribes.

By the early 1900s, Congress took the matter into its own hands, forever changing the citizenship status of the Freedmen and their descendants within the Cherokee Nation -- by superseding the wording of Article IX of the Treaty and limiting the class defined as Freedmen. This is an historical fact that has been willfully ignored by the opponents of the Cherokee Nation.

IV. Congressional Act of July 1, 1902

To prepare for the liquidation of the Cherokee Nation assets and allotment of its tribal lands, the Act of 1902, among other things, provided that “entitlement to tribal enrollment no longer existed for any person born after September 1, 1902.” According to Section 26 of the Act, “The names of all persons living on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and two, entitled to be enrolled as provided in section twenty-five hereof, shall be placed upon the roll made by said Commission, and no child born thereafter to a citizen . . . shall be entitled to enrollment or to participate in the distribution of the tribal property of the Cherokee Nation.”1 This meant that, for all intents and purposes, as of that date, the rolls for those who had citizenship or property claims in the Nation were closed for all, including Indians, Freedmen descendants, and Intermarried Whites.

V. Congressional Act of April 26, 1906, also known as The Five Tribes Act, Changed the Meaning of Article IX of the 1866 Treaty

The Five Tribes Act of 1906 further superseded the language of Article IX of the 1866 Treaty and removed any lingering doubt about who was included in the class defined as Freedmen. Certain Members of Congress and non-Indian Freedmen descendants wrongly rely on this Article of the 1866 Treaty for Freedmen descendant citizenship claims in the Cherokee Nation.

Specifically, Congress moved the term "and their descendants" from the end of the paragraph closer to the description of those who qualified under the Freedmen Roll, further clarifying whether Article IX referred to only Freedmen descendants then living or to those in perpetuity. The Five Tribes Act provides:
The roll of Cherokee freedmen shall include only such persons of African descent, either free colored or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual personal bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August [11, 1866], or who actually returned and established such residence in the
 Act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 716, chap. 1375). (Emphasis added).

Cherokee Nation on or before February [11, 1867]; but this provision shall not prevent the enrollment of any person who has heretofore made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or its successor and has been adjudged entitled to enrollment by the Secretary of Interior.
The Five Tribes Act, §3.

VI. Controlling Federal Case Law Supports the Fact that Congress Unilaterally Superseded Article IX of the 1866 Treaty by Passing the Five Tribes Act
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the changed meaning of Article IX in the wake of the Five Tribes Act. The court said:
[T]he benefits of citizenship were conferred only upon free colored persons, or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11th, 1866, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation within six months from that time.
United States ex rel. Garfield v. Lowe, 34 App. D.C. 70, No. 1913 1909 WL 21538 at *4 (D.C. Court of Appeals 1909), aff'd. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher 223 U.S. 95 (1912).
The appeals court held that the Five Tribes Act revised the meaning of Article IX and that the claimants in that case were not entitled to any treaty benefits (including enrollment as citizens) because neither they nor their ancestors had been bona fide residents of the Nation within the required time frame. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In 1912, the U.S. Supreme Court further held in another case that, “The right of each individual to participate in the enjoyment of such property depended upon tribal membership, and when that was terminated by death or otherwise the right was at an end. It was not alienable or descendible.” Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U.S. 640 at 642 (1912) (emphasis added).
Freedmen were a defined and limited class. The class was limited to “former slaves or freed Negroes” associated with the Cherokee Nation who resided in the Cherokee Nation prior to 1867. Federal law has clearly stated and courts have unequivocally held that no right of Cherokee citizenship or property inured to the descendants of that class. In essence and, as the 1902 federal statue clearly provided, after 1902, no child born of Freedmen, Intermarried Whites, or foreign Indian tribes was entitled to citizenship in or property of the Cherokee Nation. Therefore, today’s Freedman descendants, by virtue of their Freedmen ancestry, have no right to Cherokee citizenship.

VII. Restoring the Cherokee Nation as an Indian Tribe Consisting of Indians

For more than 30 years, the Cherokee Nation has worked hard to rejuvenate its heritage and to restore its cultural identity. It set out to heal the damage done by more than two centuries of federal policy designed to forcibly assimilate Native Americans, to terminate tribal governments, and to strip the identities of tribes as communal nations. In the midst of this effort, the Cherokee people considered what it meant to be Indian, a Cherokee, and what requirements were necessary for Cherokee Nation citizenship. The Cherokee people determined that the Cherokee Nation should return to what it had been since time immemorial – an Indian tribe made of Indians, a family of families and a community of communities held together by common ancestry.
Pursuant to their inherent authority, the Cherokee people voted in favor of this principle three different times in recent history. Most recently, in March 2007, a Constitutional amendment expressly codified the principle that, to be a Cherokee citizen, one must be able to trace to an Indian ancestor listed on the base rolls. This Constitutional amendment passed with 77% of the vote; non-Indian Freedmen descendants and Intermarried Whites also participated in this vote. The amendment has no effect on Freedmen descendants and Intermarried Whites who have an Indian ancestor on the base rolls. For example, there are more than 1,500 Freedmen descendants who are Cherokee citizens. Regardless of appearance, color or race, if a person has an Indian ancestor on the 1906 base rolls, he or she is granted Cherokee Nation citizenship; regardless of appearance, color, or race, if a person does not have an Indian ancestor on the 1906 base rolls, he or she is denied Cherokee Nation citizenship.

VIII. Conclusion
One hundred years ago, Congress -- and not the Cherokee Nation -- extinguished by statute any entitlement to enrollment or property in the Nation by descendants of Freedmen. The federal courts have held the same. Today, the Cherokee Nation's opponents in current federal litigation and certain Members of Congress are attempting to coerce the Cherokee people to grant to non-Indians something to which they are not entitled: citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. Although these issues were resolved in favor of the Cherokee Nation 20 years ago in the case of Nero v. Cherokee Nation, 892 F.2d 1457 (10th Cir. 1989), non-Indian descendants of Freedmen are re-litigating the same issues in federal and tribal court. Let the courts decide. The Cherokee Nation has always adhered to the rulings of the courts. Will Congress do the same?

[E.P. Grondine]

My thinking is that it may be possible you are dealing with large numbers of people of Kushita (Creek), Chicasa, Choctaw, or descent from other eastern peoples who have assumed Cherokee descent because the Cherokee are the only people they know of.

Most of these people lack the ability to trace their own geneology, and lack the money to hire a geneologist.

The problem with the others is that there is no way to know for sure how many there were that weren't found/didn't go.

This is true.  You can really only talk in general terms.  

I did a very rough quickie on those that can't be accounted for from the TOT. I think that about the absolute best one could hope for today from them would be around 20,000.

Your 20,000 number is high but I'm not going to argue about that.  I think the general idea is established. We can say a best case scenaro is this number, a most likely scenario is that number and this number is pure fiction ( meaning the 500,000+ number).  Now of course there are also other factors such as how many offspring did a Cherokee man or woman produce, and how many offspring did those offspring have etc, etc.  What we can say without a doubt is that most of the hordes of people in Georgia and a few other states who claim Cherokee heritage are bogus claims.  One would just have to look at history to understand that.  Some states that probably do have people with some legit claims of being Cherokees are Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas.  A few settled there and thus lost their Cherokee citizenship, so there are probably at least some people there who are Cherokee by blood.  The problem now is that even there its hard to sort out the fakes from the legit claims.

[Moma_porcupine]

Don

So make no mistake about this I am not anti Indian, anti white, anti black, I am seeking justice and justice has no colour or tribe.

If that is true why is your own focus so passionately on only the freedman descendents who are no longer Cherokee citizens. There is lots and lots of people who wannabe Cherokee citizens who get told they don't have the required documentation, and the large majority of those people are mainly of White ancestry.

It may not be fair in every situation, but the general principle seems simple to me.

People are required to prove they are Cherokee by blood as recorded on the Dawes roll in order to be a citizen of the CNO.

I understand that any requirement people must meet to be eligible for tribal membership, isn't always fair to everyone, but the reality is, as soon as you create a definition of who is eligible for tribal membership in any tribe, using any definition, there is going to be people who find themselves excluded because they find themselves just slightly on the wrong side of that line. 

The CNO draws the line at requiring people to be descended directly from someone on the Dawes roll who was recorded as having Cherokee blood. I don't understand why you seem to think black people should get special privlidges and not have to prove this via the Dawes rolls same as White people?   

There is lots of White people of who say their ancestors had Cherokee blood but were not recorded on the Dawes rolls for various reasons they also feel are unfair. Lots of people claim their Cherokee ancestor wasn't recorded as Cherokee because of them hiding out of fear of what would happen to them if they revealed they were Indian , or because they didn't want to cooperate with the non native government.

Whatever the story may be, and whether or not some of these stories may be true , the fact remains if an ancestors Native blood wasn't documented, it isn't documented, and there is no way of knowing who may have had native blood and who didn't. In the big picture, I can't see how it can be workable to open up tribal enrollment to anyone- white, black ,red or yellow , who might have some Native ancestry that would make them eligible for enrollment but can't prove it.

One thing I notice is that although the CNO has a less exclusive enrollment policey than any other tribe , rather than gratitude for being so generous,  the CNO gets constantly attacked by tons of angry people who feel unfairly excluded from enrollment, seemingly much more so than tribes that require a 1/2 or 1/4 BQ.... So it seems a more generous and inclusive membership criteria doesn't actually result in more happy people , but instead in more angry people who feel that with such an inclusive membership policy , they also should be included . This makes me think that no matter how inclusive a tribe is, there is still going to be people who feel unfairly excluded. So there probably isn't any point in feeling guilty for not accomadating these demands.

And Don, thinking Freedman descendents with no documented Cherokee blood on the Dawes rolls should have membership privlidges in the CNO that is denied to White people with no documented Cherokee blood on the Dawes rolls , does seem like nothing more than trying to get your way by accusing people of a racial bias which doesn't really exist , and unfairly trying to make people feel guilty.

[BlackWolf]

My thinking is that it may be possible you are dealing with large numbers of people of Kushita (Creek), Chicasa, Choctaw, or descent from other eastern peoples who have assumed Cherokee descent because the Cherokee are the only people they know of.

Your right.  The term Cherokee was a generic term for "Indian" in the 1800's.

Most of these people lack the ability to trace their own geneology, and lack the money to hire a geneologist.

Well, if being Cherokee is so important to them then thats up to them to either come up with the money or do the research themselves.  Many people who claim Cherokee descent and can't prove it already have done research.  Sometimes with no luck.  If the ancestor is not there, your not going to find one.  There probably are legit claims where somebody can't find an ancestor because they just didn't look good enough, but most attempts to find an ancestor will be futile because the ancestor is not there.

I know of some cases of people in Oklahoma that have found that their ancestors were on the list of white intruders while all the while they thought that they were Cherokee.  And they remain steadfast in defending their "Cherokee heritage".

If your idenity has been Cherokee for your whole life and has  been passed on to you by parents and grandparents, nothing is going to change that because you can't prove it.  We're talking about people who for their entire life have had this idenity of being Cherokee.  They were told this by their family.  If people on this site can imagine what it must be like for people who have had their life long idenity questioned and thus proven to be a lie, then you can only imagine what it could be like and how difficult it could be for these people to accept it.

[E.P. Grondine]

MP,

However any nation sets its enrollment is up to them.

But as I have mentioned before, every nation is also going to have to look at "ancestry associations" or some such mechanism, for those who do not meet enrollment requirements but have do have heritage, if we ever hope to bring an end to the frauds exploiting these people.

What the Cherokee Nation intends to do I do not know, nor would I even try to suggest an answer; as I also mentioned before, while I can state the questions, the answers are not mine to give.

The only thing I can suggest is at least listening to their concerns with an open heart.

[Moma_porcupine]

 Looking at the number of people reporting a family story of an Indian great grandma on their maternal line, and then looking at the number of mtDNA results * in North America * which show a indigenous mtDNA type, generally shows there is about 10 stories of a distant Native ancestor on the maternal line for every mtDNA result that actually confirms this. On the other hand, there is almost no one getting an mtDNA result showing a maternal line that is indigenous, when they always thought great granny was completely non native....


http://www.kerchner.com/cgi-kerchner/mtdna.cgi

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_start.asp?uid=

You have to read through a lot to get the picture, as a lot of people are just reporting European results and family history, but if you do, the pattern that emerges is very clear.

The numbers show a lot more stories a gr gr grandma was an Indian than there was gr gr grandma's who actually were Indian - of any tribe.
  
My own theory is that a lot of people have gr gr gr gr gr aunts or uncles who married someone who was Native and after a few generations that got turned into "someone back there" which people assumed was their own ancestor, when it wasn't.

(edited to add *in North America* as Hispanic people have a much larger percentage of indigenous maternal lines )

[BlackWolf]

I understand that any requirement people must meet to be eligible for tribal membership, isn't always fair to everyone, but the reality is, as soon as you create a definition of who is eligible for tribal membership in any tribe, using any definition, there is going to be people who find themselves excluded because they find themselves just slightly on the wrong side of that line.

Good point Moma porcupine.  No tribal Rolls are flawless and it’s a shame that some people were left off of them whether they be some freedmen with valid claims of being Cherokee or others with valid claims.  I have even heard of some cases of people who have the siblings of their grandparents on Tribal Rolls, but "their" grandparent wasn't on the Rolls because they left the boundaries of their Nation. There are even people who can without a doubt claim descent from other Cherokee Rolls, but aren't able to enroll with one of the 3 Federally Recognized Tribes.  However these are “our” Rolls, and other Tribes have "their" Rolls.  If exceptions are made, then one can only imagine the Can of Worms that would be opened up, not only for the Cherokee Nation, but for all Tribal Nations.  Tribal Nations are not Heritage Clubs, but are sovereign entities that have a government to government relationship with the United States.

[BlackWolf]

You have to read through a lot to get the picture, as a lot of people are just reporting European results and family history, but if you do, the pattern that emerges is very clear.

The numbers show a lot more stories a gr gr grandma was an Indian than there was gr gr grandma's who actually were Indian - of any tribe.
 
My own theory is that a lot of people have gr gr gr gr gr aunts or uncles who married someone who was Native and after a few generations that got turned into "someone back there" which people assumed was their own ancestor, when it wasn't.

I"ll admit that I haven't really explored the DNA issue as most of my research and information is from Historians, anthropologist and genealogist.  I"ve also done my own research and looked a lot at the Rolls/censues, and also looked at some of the migrations of Cherokees that have left or stayed beind. American Folklore also plays a big part in this whole puzzle.  So what you have found out does not suprise me in the least. 

What your saying is exactly right.  The fact that most of these claims are bogus seems to be a secret.  I can tell you now that its not a secret amongst a lot of Cherokees in Oklahoma.  In a way the CN  made a mistake in not addressing this issue before.  As we see, we're paying the price now. The CN has to be politically correct as their official stance has always been not to question people's claims of being Cherokee.  But we are in a "dire situation" now where the truth needs to start to emerge about this. 

[Don Naconna]

Stereotypes are generalisations and all prejudice is based on sterotypes. What does black on black crime statistics have to do with the freedmen.Are all black people genetically predisposed to be violent? Is that what you're implying? Are people who are Indian not violent? And again what the hell does a national crime statistis being used to prove about the freedmen? If you believe that after 140+ years as members of the tribe that because they are black they are violent, they are now a threat to the tribe? Because, everyone knows black people are violent. When I policeman does that and stops a black person, its called racial profiling and its illegal. Again what does that have to do with the freedmen, I'd expect to see that on Fox News from Russ Limbaugh, but here, its a surprise. What does the black crime rate have to do with the freedmen?

[Rattlebone]

Stereotypes are generalisations and all prejudice is based on sterotypes. What does black on black crime statistics have to do with the freedmen.Are all black people genetically predisposed to be violent? Is that what you're implying? Are people who are Indian not violent? And again what the hell does a national crime statistis being used to prove about the freedmen? If you believe that after 140+ years as members of the tribe that because they are black they are violent, they are now a threat to the tribe? Because, everyone knows black people are violent. When I policeman does that and stops a black person, its called racial profiling and its illegal. Again what does that have to do with the freedmen, I'd expect to see that on Fox News from Russ Limbaugh, but here, its a surprise. What does the black crime rate have to do with the freedmen?

If this is what you are resorting to in order to prove your point about the Freedmen, then your argument here is a extremely weak one, because the things you are saying now were never said in this thread or even in private.

[earthw7]

I was wonder where that came from too,

[Don Naconna]

Please tell me what black on black crime statistics have to do with the Freedman? Its about as relevant as the number black basketball players in the NBA, proving that black people are better players than white people. Is that prejudical statement relevant to the Cherokee Freedmen.  No its more like since black people are more violent the CNO should deny their citizenship, which wasn't a problem since 1866. Why do think I responded with an article about Indians and doimestic violence, to prove my point. If a group practiced racial slavery, fought a war to preserve racial slavery and lost, then segregated former slaves by law an practice and then a tiny minority who bothered to vote, expell people who have been tribal members for 144 years. Maybe those people might be motivated by their history of racism. Particularly  when someone who supports that decision, supports their claim by contending that black people are genetically predisposed to violence, which sounds like it came from Russ Limbaugh. Its these views that are so transparent, thats why the CBC took up this issue, because racism does effect all black people, voters and taxpayers. Black voters/taxpayers have a right to urge the congressmen and senators not to allow their taxes to go to a group who discriminate based on race. As long the type of logic that ties the freedmen to black on black crime, clearly an example of racial prejudice, the CBC will demand that CNO abide by the 1866 Treaty.
If I'm so pro black,why don't you look at what I've had to say about so called black Indian phonies, I've started threads to expose Jerry Monroe, the Binay,Tecumseh brown Eagle, the Moorish science temple, Washitaw/Nuwabians. Memories that are convenient are usually wrong, especially when they are motivated by biases.

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

Just because I'm confused.. I'm clarifying to myself here that this black on black crime report/statistic was only in response to a private message where Don was citing Indian violence, and Rattlebone replied showing statistics of Black violence in order to show the differences in statistics..

And now, Don is bringing it over and over into the thread as though the crime statistics have something to do with the conversation here, when in fact, they only had to do with his mouthing of Indian crime statistics..  

To be honest, I enjoy the clear and clarifying posts that everyone has posted but I get very confused trying to read Don's because he keeps bringing in things that have nothing to do with anything that other people are posting, or is a twisting around of what someone else said.  It's very confusing to read his words.  Very little of what he says seems to have anything at all to do with the information being provided. 

Just wanted to say.  

[BlackWolf]

Don Naconna said

As long the type of logic that ties the freedmen to black on black crime, clearly an example of racial prejudice, the CBC will demand that CNO abide by the 1866 Treaty.

I think I've already made the case as to why the Cherokee Nation is in complicane with the Treaty of 1866, since "Congress exercised its plenary power by superseding the 1866 Treaty in 1902 and 1906".  But if you want to play that game Don, then let me ask you this.  Would you be in favor of the Federal Government abiding by the more then I can count Treaties that the Federal Government and states have broken with the Cherokee Nation for over 200 years?  I've listed some of them below.



Treaty with South Carolina, 1721 
Ceded land between the Santee, Saluda, and Edisto Rivers to the Province of South Carolina.

Articles of Trade and Friendship, 1730 
Established rules for trade between the Cherokee and the English colonies. Signed between seven Cherokee chiefs (including Attakullakulla) and George I of England.

Treaty with South Carolina, 1755 
Ceded land between the Wateree and Santee Rivers to the Province of South Carolina.

Treaty of Lochaber, 1770 
Ceded land in the later states of Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky to the Colony of Virginia.

Treaty of Augusta, 1773 
Ceded Cherokee claim to 2,000,000 acres (8,100 km2) to the Colony of Georgia.

Treaty with Virginia, 1772 
Ceded land in Virginia and eastern Kentucky to the Colony of Virginia.

Treaty of Sycamore Shoals, 1775 
Ceded claims to the hunting grounds beween the Ohio and Cumberland Rivers to the Transylvania Land Company.

Treaty of DeWitts’ Corner, 1777 
Ceded the lands of the Cherokee Lower Towns to the States of South Carolina and Georgia.

Treaty of Fort Henry, 1777 
Confirmed the cession of the lands to the Watauga Association with the States of Virginia and North Carolina.

Treaty of Hopewell, 1785 
Changed the boundaries between the U.S. and Cherokee lands.

Treaty of Dumplin Creek, 1785 
Ceded remaining land within the claimed boundaries of Sevier County to the State of Franklin.



Treaty of Coyatee, 1785 
Made with the State of Franklin at gunpoint, this treaty ceded the remaining land north of the Little Tennessee River.

Treaty of Holston, 1791 
Established boundaries between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. Guaranteed by the United States that the lands of the Cherokee Nation have not been ceded to the United States.


Treaty of Philadelphia, 1794 
Reaffirmed the provisions of the 1785 Treaty of Hopewell and the 1791 Treaty of Holston, particularly those regarding land cession.
Treaty of Tellico Blockhouse, 1794 : Peace treaty with of the United States with the Lower Cherokee ending the Chickamauga wars.

Treaty of Tellico, 1798 
The boundaries promised in the previous treaty had not been marked and white settlers had come in. Because of this, the Cherokee were told they would need to cede new lands as an "acknowledgement" of the protection of the United States. The U.S. would guarantee the Cherokee could keep the remainder of their land "forever".

Treaty of Tellico, 1804 
Ceded land.

Treaty of Tellico, 1805 
Ceded land, including that for the Federal Road through the Cherokee Nation.

Treaty of Tellico, 1805 
Ceded land for the state assembly of Tennessee, whose capital was then in East Tennessee, to meet upon.

Treaty of Washington, 1806 
Ceded land.

Treaty of Fort Jackson, 1814 
Ended the Creek War, demanded land from both the Muscogee (Creek) and the Cherokee.

Treaty of Washington, 1816 
Ceded last remaining lands within the territory limits claimed by South Carolina to the state.


Treaty of the Cherokee Agency, 1817 
Acknowledged the division between the Upper Towns, which opposed emigration, and the Lower Towns, which favored emigration, and provided benefits for those who chose to emigrate west and 640-acre (2.6 km2) reservations for those who did not, with the possibility of citizenship of the state they are in.

Treaty of Washington, 1819 
Reaffirmed the Treaty of the Cherokee Agency of 1817, with a few added provisions specifying land reserves for certain Cherokee.

Treaty of Washington, 1828 
Cherokee Nation West ceded its lands in Arkansas Territory for lands in what becomes Indian Territory.

Treaty of New Echota, 1835 
Surrendered to the United States the lands of the Cherokee Nation East in return for five 000000 dollars to be disbursed on a per capita basis, an additional half-000000 dollars is for educational funds, title in perpetuity to an equal amount of land in Indian Territory to that given up, and full compensation for all property left in the East. The treaty is rejected by the Cherokee National Council but approved by the U.S. Senate.