Cherokee Freedmen Discussion

[Don Naconna]

The fact is that that black people who have the right to enroll have systematically been denied enrollment, while people with little or no blood who are in fact white have been enrolled. It is a historical fact, tribes who practiced racial slavery continued to practice racial discrimination after the civil war and that mean keeping people who were blood Indians with black mixture out of tribes. Racial discrimination is not the sole preserve of white people. The CNO for example has no relies soley on the Dawes Rolls, and everyone knows that Dawes was a pro white racist and a supporter of the majority white Cherokee leadership.
I have Cherokee blood, but do not claim to be an Indian, because I am not an American and frankly have no connection with Americans Indian, black or white. I am an an anti racist activist and a Canadian. That means that I am opposed to racism from Indians, white and black people.

[BlackWolf]

The fact is that that black people who have the right to enroll have systematically been denied enrollment, while people with little or no blood who are in fact white have been enrolled. It is a historical fact, tribes who practiced racial slavery continued to practice racial discrimination after the civil war and that mean keeping people who were blood Indians with black mixture out of tribes. Racial discrimination is not the sole preserve of white people. The CNO for example has no relies soley on the Dawes Rolls, and everyone knows that Dawes was a pro white racist and a supporter of the majority white Cherokee leadership.
I have Cherokee blood, but do not claim to be an Indian, because I am not an American and frankly have no connection with Americans Indian, black or white. I am an an anti racist activist and a Canadian. That means that I am opposed to racism from Indians, white and black people.

I'm assuming your talking about the Cherokee Nation.  There's no evidence that Freedmen who were also Cherokee by blood were systamatically NOT put on the by blood rolls.  What evidence do you have of this?  I'd like to see it?  There is no evidence of this.  There are over 1500 Cherokee citizens who are also listed on the Freedmen rolls.  If it did happen, it was the exception to the rule.   



Also, about the Dawes Roll

[BlackWolf]

The fact is that that black people who have the right to enroll have systematically been denied enrollment, while people with little or no blood who are in fact white have been enrolled.

There's no evidence of this either.  This is a Cherry picking fallacy Don. As a matter of fact, why do you think so many people who applied to Dawes were denied??  Because a lot of them were white folks trying to pass for being Mixed blood Cherokees so they can get allotments. Thats why.   Over 250,000 applied to Dawes and only about 100,000 were accepted.  These were probably some of the first wannabees and exploiters.  The Cherokees are one of the most documented people on earth.  Even if officals were bribed, to put someone on with no blood,  it would have been hard to get on the by blood rolls without evidence.  If this did happen, it was extremely rare.  What evidence do you have of this?  that whites got on the by blood rolls? There's no evidence of this.  The Dawes Rolls were extremely accurate in regards to who did and did not have Cherokee blood.  Cherokee familes have been documented since the 1600's.   

Why do you keep bringing up the BQ issue??  Your either Cherokee by blood or your not.  You seem to advocate for the black freedmen "No blood quantums", while always bashing the mixed blood low BQ Cherokees of white ancestry.  I have never heard you bash the Cherokee citizens of predominaly black ancestry.  You seem to be quite the hypocrite Don.


After reading many of your post, I'm starting to get the sense and feeling that far from being the anti racist you always claim to be, your in fact a racist againts whites and mixed blood Cherokees of white ancestry.  Thats just my opinion!  am I wrong?

The entire Dawes Roll is public record.  Show me some evidence about the freedmen, and the so called whites with no Cherokee blood getting on the Dawes. Show me the evidence Don.  Put up or shut up. And if you show me some evidence that can convince me, then I'll shut up.   

[bls926]

And the 2007 election that took Cherokee citizenship away from the Freedmen also took citizenship away from whites. Plain and simple . . . You have to have an ancestor on the Dawes Roll, listed as Cherokee by Blood. No Cherokee blood = not a citizen. Doesn't matter if you're black or white.

[Don Naconna]

Why can a white person with 1/264 Cherokee blood be enrolled and a black person with 1/16 blood cannot, as is the case with many freedmen. Why can't you admit that Indians are just as racist as any other Americans? I am not an American and have no desire to be identified as anything other than a Canadian, but I do have problems with any people who are in denial. Slavery, Jim Crow even apartheid were part of the history of the 5 tribes, why are you all in such denial. When racism is part of your history and you deny it you will never overcome it. As I have said before, I remember the civil rights movement fighting segregation in the CNO in the 60's, so be honest, no different than Selma and the Birmingham Alabama.

[Rattlebone]

Why can a white person with 1/264 Cherokee blood be enrolled and a black person with 1/16 blood cannot, as is the case with many freedmen.

 Do you have one shred of proof this is true?

I have to agree with Blackwolf about you. I do believe you are an advocate of blacks with no Indian blood staying on the rolls, and though claiming to be non racist; you are racist against mixed bloods with white blood and not against mixed bloods with mostly African blood since you say nothing about them.

 In several threads in which this topic has came up, I have questioned you about disenrollments going on in other tribes, and much much more.

 On each and every occasion, you ignore my questions and give no answers.

 Maybe this is because in all due fairness, you know if you answer them it will hurt your arguments in favor of the Freedmen.

[Don Naconna]

As I have said before, I have no dog in this fight. I am not an advocate for anyone, I do not identify with any race or ethnicity, that must be very puzzling to ethnocentric people. My ethnicity in trircial and my loyalties are to NO race or ethnicity, merely my country, Canada. If I had any pro black prejudice why would I spend so much time and energy exposing black frauds and phonies.  I have also stated that I believe in justice and truth. I believe that the action taken by the CNO were unjust and wrong, as well as being a violation of the 1866 treaty. I have known freedmen who like Marilyn Vann can document her blood quantum and she was summarily disenrolled.
The Cherokee held slaves based on race, is that not correct. They fought for the slave owning confederacy and still many support the confederacy, so called "flaggers". They practiced racial apartheid after slavery. Black Cherokee had to live in black towns and even after 1954 schools were still segregated in violation of the federal law. Public accomodations in the CNO were denied to black Cherokee, freedmen and all black people who came to the reservation. That was not segregation by the state government, that was CNO law. If you check you will find that the NAACP was involved in desegregation during the 50's an 60's in the CNO.
What seems to confuse people is that at the end the civil war the Reconstruction was establised to bring the former slaves to full citizenship. Indian slave holding nations signed treaties which conformed to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. That meant conferring full tribal franchise to former slaves. Those black people regardless of status or blood quantum were given second class citizenship in the CNO which was removed in 06. That violated the 1866 Treaty and woul be no different than if the state of Georgia revoked the 14th and 15th amnedments, taking away black citizens citizenship and franchise. NO DIFFERENT.
I have heard this nonsense about Indian masters being kinder than whites, please if you take someone's liberty and labour, the ethnicity of the enslaver in not relevant. What aboout the 1842 Cherokee Slave Revolt and the brutal repression that followed. Slavery in the US after 1800 was entirely racially based, an it was in the 5 Nations. The reality is that if you great grandparents were eracists, then they taught you grandparents to hate the dsecendants of slaves, and the next generation. Racism is not genetic but like religion is taught. Why are folks in denial! It appears that many people have a convenient view of history that makes all their ancestors saints and all others devils.
Now that the 32 million black Americans have significant political power they are determine to use that power to right the wrongs of the past and restore what is rightfully theirs.  Will the CNO survive I doubt it this may establish a whole new paradigm.
Question if you believe that Indians should be compensated for the loss of lands. should black people not be comnpensated for their ancestor's labour? Justice is cannot abe a double standard, can it...

[Rattlebone]

Question if you believe that Indians should be compensated for the loss of lands. should black people not be comnpensated for their ancestor's labour? Justice is cannot abe a double standard, can it...

  The US government honoring treaties that promised they would do certain things in exchange for the loss of land is not compensation in the same way as giving reparations to blacks.

 The vast majority of reservations both then and now were put on places in which you could not farm, or most other things to survive or make a living on. The government and the Indian nations put on those lands knew it then, and they know it now.

 To leave those lands as bad as they may be to this very day, for the most part means acculturation and assimilation into the mainstream American society. To me that means extinction of an entire people.

 In my eyes those things that government does in honoring those treaties, though they do it very badly; are one of the few things preventing extinction today.

 So I really don't see a comparison between reparations to black people alive today over slavery back then in the same light as I do upholding treaties provisions that provide things that can not be obtained on tribal land because to this very day, many are on lands that a barely livable.

 The United States government has never ever gave any sort of reparations to the Black man, and yet it's congress and the CBC within it believe that the Indian should do what the white man never has???

  Now don't get me wrong here, I am not in favor of disenrolling the Freedmen. If the Cherokee Nation wants to be seen as Nation, and not just some domestic dependent; it is probably better of them to honor the 1866 treaty which gives the Freedmen citizenship.

 By definition, a treaty is a signed agreement between two sovereign nations. So in that regards the CNO as a Sovereign power should uphold the treaty with another nation, even if that nation is as guilty as sin of breaking treaties. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 However I do notice you saying how the tribes here are not really true nations etc etc, and yet you do constantly bring up the treaty of 1866.

 Considering how the definition of a treaty is a signed agreement between two sovereign powers, that still makes you a hypocrite for wanting a treaty honored by a group of people who you say are not really a nation.

  You claim to be not be for any group, and yet you still ignore my questions in regards to the CBC and the dis enrollments of NDN's all over the US. If you, like the CBC, has nothing to say in regards to that issue while harping on this Freedmen issue; then I still think Blackwolf's notion that you just might be racist might still be true.

 I have yet to ever seen you speak on other tribal disenrollments, just like I have never seen anyone from the CBC speak on it. Ironically, unlike you, the champion of putting the crackdown on the CNO has tribes in her own state guilty of dis enrollments; yet she has never made a issue out of that as far as I know.

[Don Naconna]

I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US. Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.
Would you agree that unless a "nation" has complete control of all activities within its boundaries it is not truly sovereign. The US has no power over the governing of my country, except economic pressure, nor does Britain, France or Russia. Canada is sovereign, we are an independent nation, does any Indian nation have that sovereignty. No, you are all Americans  and American and state citizens. Indian sovereignty comes from the federal government and it can be taken away by the federal government. You cannot renounce your citizenship and still live in the US without a green card. I know I was born in the states and lived there on a green card because I gave up my US citizenship when I became naturalised here.
The fact that Indians are such a small part of the population, and that the vast majority of Americans are not bound by the guilt of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their ancestors came through Ellis Island, not on the Mayflower. It would be politically naive to suggest that the relationship between tribes and the federal government will continue. Most voters, black, white and Latino don't believe that they have an obligation to less than 2% of the population. The same is true here, there are more people who were born outside of Canada than the entire aboriginal, Metis and Inuit population.
Black voters have made their feelings quite clear through the CBC, they are tired of seeing Indians with as they see it special rights and its their taxes that pay for those priviledges. And as they see it the CNO uses federal money to practice racial discrimination in violation of federal law and treaties. If the tea baggers, white right wingers, are any indication of public opinion, tax dollars to special interest groups including Indians will end sooner rather than later.
As to the comment about me being a racist, that is pure nonsense. Some folks use that word to describe anyone who has a different opinion than you. My wife is French Canadian and Wendake (Lorretteville, Quebec) , my family is so racially mixed that none are identifiable as any race other than mixed. We speak 2 languages in our home and I have been active in the human rights movement for over 40 years. However people who cannot recognise that not everyone in their race or ethnicity is not a racist and have not enslaved people an been racially prejudiced in the present, is a racial chauvinist. If you believe that all things that Inians have done were good and all things than non Indians do is bad who is the racist? I don't and never have been a racist racially prejudcied or a national or racial chauvinist. I have the same problems in black groups where folks believe that everyone who has any black blood has to hate whites, which is basically the same they call me a racist when I criticise black folks. Bferoe I use a word as loaded as racism you should really read Webster Dictionary definition.

What will tribes do, how many can continue to exist without federal funds? Simple rule in democracies the majority rules and the majority are not Indian. The same was true when black people were denied political power, but now they have it.

[critter - a white non-ndn person]

I could be really wrong here, but from what I understood and observed of the Menominee are truly sovereign. And I suspect others are as well.  They have their own laws, courts. 

As for compensation to blacks, I think that's entirely different than the treaty issue.  And I don't agree with it, with compensation.  Might as well compensate women too then, for the time when the general mindset was that women were 'property'.   

I don't know why always going on about the racists things people did or didn't do.  I don't know what point is trying to be made here.  I don't recall ever reading anywhere on here that someone thinks all things that ndn's have done were good.. obviously the ndn's who're now making money on selling culture are not doing something good.. 

I just don't understand why you're always writing on the *same* subject.  People have been racist, and some are still racist, and probably some future people will be racist too.  Not sure what is supposed to be done about it here?  Or what the point is?  That it is brought up again and again?  I personally have no clue why.. what you are trying to get, or wanting out of it.  But apparently it's important to you.. so..  never mind my interruption..

butting out now.. I just wanted to mention what I personally observed of Menominee.. and that they are sovereign. 

[Don Naconna]

As far as reparations I am not an American and its not my taxes. But if you don't see that enslaving people, stealing them from their homeland,forcing them to work without pay for generations, raping their women and then after they were "liberated" forcing them to live in a Jim Crow world is not tantamount to losing the land. That's a double standard!
I didn't support reparations when I lived in the states because I understand economics and social dynamics. It would be a physical impossibility to pay reparations without bankrupting the national economy. It would be an entirely unworkable situation and would alienate the millions of Americans who did not benefit from slavery. The lowest estimate I've seen was over 100 trillion dollars.
I really doubt that the current status quo will continue for just those reasons, population and lack of political and economic power. Every large ethnic group has political power base on their numbers, except Indians. There is a Hispanic Caucas and a black caucas in congress and they represent their ethnic groups interests, who represents Indians? To go into this century expecting that evut racerything would continue is simply unrealistic.
And no many people, in fact most people where I live and even in the US are not racists. A small and vocal minority are, however. To say that people will always be racist is simply wrong. Just as you learn to be a racist, education destroys the ignorance that allows racism to fester. If people cannot change how did segregation end, PEOPLE CHANGED! They had more education and more contact with other people and races making them see that their stereotypes were rooted in lies and prejudice. I went to integrated schools, grew up with kids of all races, learned 2 languages before I graduated from high school, married interracially and raise 2 kids without race, because I was never isolated. Prejudice grows in isolation and is fed by ignorance of others.

[Rattlebone]

I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US. Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.
Would you agree that unless a "nation" has complete control of all activities within its boundaries it is not truly sovereign. The US has no power over the governing of my country, except economic pressure, nor does Britain, France or Russia. Canada is sovereign, we are an independent nation, does any Indian nation have that sovereignty. No, you are all Americans  and American and state citizens. Indian sovereignty comes from the federal government and it can be taken away by the federal government. You cannot renounce your citizenship and still live in the US without a green card. I know I was born in the states and lived there on a green card because I gave up my US citizenship when I became naturalised here.
The fact that Indians are such a small part of the population, and that the vast majority of Americans are not bound by the guilt of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their ancestors came through Ellis Island, not on the Mayflower. It would be politically naive to suggest that the relationship between tribes and the federal government will continue. Most voters, black, white and Latino don't believe that they have an obligation to less than 2% of the population. The same is true here, there are more people who were born outside of Canada than the entire aboriginal, Metis and Inuit population.
Black voters have made their feelings quite clear through the CBC, they are tired of seeing Indians with as they see it special rights and its their taxes that pay for those priviledges. And as they see it the CNO uses federal money to practice racial discrimination in violation of federal law and treaties. If the tea baggers, white right wingers, are any indication of public opinion, tax dollars to special interest groups including Indians will end sooner rather than later.
As to the comment about me being a racist, that is pure nonsense. Some folks use that word to describe anyone who has a different opinion than you. My wife is French Canadian and Wendake (Lorretteville, Quebec) , my family is so racially mixed that none are identifiable as any race other than mixed. We speak 2 languages in our home and I have been active in the human rights movement for over 40 years. However people who cannot recognise that not everyone in their race or ethnicity is not a racist and have not enslaved people an been racially prejudiced in the present, is a racial chauvinist. If you believe that all things that Inians have done were good and all things than non Indians do is bad who is the racist? I don't and never have been a racist racially prejudcied or a national or racial chauvinist. I have the same problems in black groups where folks believe that everyone who has any black blood has to hate whites, which is basically the same they call me a racist when I criticise black folks. Bferoe I use a word as loaded as racism you should really read Webster Dictionary definition.

What will tribes do, how many can continue to exist without federal funds? Simple rule in democracies the majority rules and the majority are not Indian. The same was true when black people were denied political power, but now they have it.

I do not believe that there are any truly sovereign nations within the borders of the US.

 Then that makes you a hypocrite because you continue to cite the 1866 treaty, and a treaty is a signed agreement between two sovereign nations.

 Of course in reality, the tribes today are domestic dependents. This does not mean they are not sovereign or true nations. Domestic dependent is sorta like being a child, you are your own person but have a parent overseeing some of what you do. Hence the word "dependent" within the phrase.

 This is no to say however that the tribes could not totally manage themselves without the US government stepping in. At this time my tribe is 98% independent of the US government, and so we need very little from them.

Also the federal government does have the power to simply remove recognition just as it has denied recognition to many legitimate tribes in the past.

 The United States can send troops into Canada if it wanted, just as it has Iraq and other places and do so with just about the same ease.

 Sure the United States can eliminate a tribal government with the stroke of a pen, but would that action be any more just or unjust as in an outright invasion of another country?

 It would surely be subject to damnation by other nations and the UN just the same.

 Of course in regards to you bringing up plenary power of the US government over the tribes, that is just you trying to further reach a way to argue in favor of the freedmen by expressing the power of the United States.

  It's almost as if you are bragging about the US and it's ability to commit such an injustice since you do not believe in the power of the tribes to exercise their sovereignty. You almost sound like a far  right winger when you say things like this.

Would you agree that unless a "nation" has complete control of all activities within its boundaries it is not truly sovereign.

 Actually, I would not agree.

 The concept of a nation state with an ethnic group all nice and tightly fit within a specific border is a European notion.

 Though the United States does not have one specific ethnic group within it's borders, the idea in which you are pushing here is still a very European minded notion. There are many nations in places like Asia in which there might be a central government recognized by other nations and the UN, there are still tribal nations and groups  within those borders. They do in fact exercise a large degree of autonomy and self rule. If other nations across the world have existed like this, and still are; then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it can not be done in Canada and the United States.

 Furthermore, long before the coming of the European the nations here did have our territories, and I see no difference in them and the territories held by nations today.

 However many tribes had areas that were neutral and shared by more then one nation. So again your notion of a nation can not exist within a nation is still a false one of European mindset.

The US has no power over the governing of my country, except economic pressure, nor does Britain, France or Russia.

 At any time with some international incident, as I said earlier, the United States could very much put more then just economic pressure on your nation of Canada. Even just economic pressure can be hard on a country. Just look at the devastation caused on countries like Cuba that have suffered decades of embargo.

does any Indian nation have that sovereignty.

 Again, your ideas about sovereignty are European in nature. Furthermore nations like Iran have full sovereignty, and yet the United States believes it has the right to tell them if they can posses nuclear weapons or not. The only difference between Iran and an Indian nation is the size of the land mass, the population, and the presence of a military.

 These are just degrees in sovereignty, and you are just using them in ways to argue that the sovereignty of tribal nations does not exist, when in fact they do.

No, you are all Americans  and American and state citizens.

I know Canadians with dual Canadian and American citizenship. That of course makes this aspect of your argument invalid.

 As member of domestic dependent nations, we are full members of both our tribal nations and the United States.

Indian sovereignty comes from the federal government and it can be taken away by the federal government.

 Completely and totally wrong!!

 The tribes posses what's called inherent sovereignty, which by definition means having always been sovereign This is no different then any other nation that has always been sovereign.

 So the federal government can not give what a nation has always had. Now since the tribes have been invaded and now are administered as domestic dependents, and that is not unlike if the US invaded another country and occupied it indefinitely while still allowing that particular nation some degree of autonomy.

The fact that Indians are such a small part of the population, and that the vast majority of Americans are not bound by the guilt of the 18th and 19th centuries. Their ancestors came through Ellis Island, not on the Mayflower.  

 Well with that argument in mind, then that would mean that the majority of Americans owe black people nothing for slavery.

 That is unless you chose to continue to be a hypocrite and think that Indians should be paying for things you now are here claiming the vast majority of Americans are not responsible for.

Most voters, black, white and Latino don't believe that they have an obligation to less than 2% of the population.

 Again, another fallacy on your part with this argument.

 The vast majority of voters used to be in support of segregation and other Jim Crowe laws, but did that mean they were just in supporting that???

 Do you believe that the majority of people do not need to own up to obligations their country gave to anther group of people when it committed genocide upon them and took their land and resources?

Black voters have made their feelings quite clear through the CBC

 In actuality, most black voters are not even aware of this issue. Those that have heard it are just as misinformed and wrong about it as you are.

 You can't claim the Cherokee Nation is racist over the Freedmen issue when it has open enrollment and more people of black majority blood then it has people who are full blooded Cherokee. These blacks Cherokee in tribe are in no danger of losing citizenship whatsoever.

What we have here is Diane Watson and others in the CBC being hypocritical for getting involved in this issue, when Watson has tribes in her own back yard that are guilty of disenrolling members, and yet she says not a word.

 To me that is Racism.

they are tired of seeing Indians with as they see it special rights and its their taxes that pay for those privileges.

  How do you know this, have you spoken to every black person in the United States about this issue? Most blacks in the United States that I have ever talked to, have been very supportive of Native Americans since our histories are similar.

 The Freedmen issue might cause a stir in some that hear about it, but when it is pointed out that there are thousands of black Cherokee in the nation in no danger of losing citizenship.

 YOU yourself continues to point out how you do not think the tribes are actual nations.

 If what you say is true, then what are tribal governments then? I would assume then that going by your logic they are entities of the Federal Government created to be social services for those with Indian ancestry.

 It that is true, then going by your argument; Indian tribes are social services reserved for Indians and therefor not intended for people without a certain ancestry. If blacks need social services, or reparations for having slaves as ancestors, then those should be taken care of by the federal government with things such as social security, welfare etc....just like any other American in this country.

they see it special rights

 If anyone see's what is the US government upholding treaty stipulations as special rights, then they are surely ignorant and need an education.

Furthermore, if these black people you claim are tired of seeing Indians get so called special rights, then by all means why are we even having this argument when the same one would fall against blacks and what has happened to them.

 In that regards, nobody owes blacks in this country a single penny.

What will tribes do, how many can continue to exist without federal funds?

 You need to educate yourself about tribes in the United States, and not argue based on stereotypes. There are many tribes today that receive very little from the federal government, and do not need much from them.

 If it were not for the federal government making sure the tribes that are dependent on them remain that way, the vast majority would have needed next to nothing from them as well.

[Al's note: Split thread, retitled it, and moved it to Etc.

[Don Naconna]

It appears that once again people seem to have a rather distorted view of the historical context of these documents. Remember the Cherokee fought for the defeated confederacy. In fact the Cherokee Braves commited atrocities against the freedmen at Cabin Creek after the treaty at Appomattox. I am not a racist but I can tell you that many people in the CNO ARE! People who owned slaves were racists slavery in the US was based on race entirely after 1783. But further people who segregated black people after slavery were racists and people who excluded blacks from citizenship because of race are racists. I can tell you that many freedmen have more than 25% blood quantum and were still excluded. As to the issue of Diane Watson and disenrolled California Indians, that is as far as I know in the courts.

Treaty of 1866 is the equivalent of the 14th and 15th amendments, and this treaty was abrogated by the CNO. The Dawes list didn't exist in 1866. So to apply the Dawes list as the sole source for citizenship is in fact in violation of the treaty signed by the CNO in1866. While some may argue that the 06 decision was motivated by anything other than race is simply absurd.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13th Amendment
Slavery was an institution in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Southern states, with their agricultural economies, relied on the slavery system to ensure the cash crops (cotton, hemp, rice, indigo, and tobacco, primarily) were tended and cultivated. Slaves were not unknown in the North, but abolition in the North was completed by the 1830's. In 1808, the Congress prohibited the slave trade, not a year later than allowed in the Constitution. A series of compromises, laws, acts, and bills tried to keep the balance between the slave states and the non-slave states. For a more thorough history of slavery, see the Slavery Topic Page.

South Carolina voted to secede from the United States as a result of Abraham Lincoln's election to the Presidency. Lincoln had, over time, voiced strong objections to slavery, and his incoming administration was viewed as a threat to the right of the states to keep their institutions, particularly that of slavery, the business of the states. More states seceded, eleven in all, forming the Confederate States of America. The secession movement led to the Civil War. In the waning days of the war, which ran from 1861 to 1865, the Congress approved an amendment to abolish slavery in all of the United States. Once the CSA was defeated, approval of the 13th Amendment was quick in the Northern states. By the end of 1865, eight of the eleven Confederate states had also ratified it. Proposed on January 31, 1865, it was ratified on December 6, 1865 (309 days). Eventually, all of the CSA states except Mississippi ratified the 13th after the war; Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14th Amendment
The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to readmit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.

The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15th Amendment
The last of the Reconstruction Amendments, the 15th Amendment was designed to close the last loophole in the establishment of civil rights for newly-freed black slaves. It ensured that a person's race, color, or prior history as a slave could not be used to bar that person from voting. Though a noble idea, it had little practical effect for quite some time, as the Southern states found myriad ways to intimidate blacks to keep them from voting. The Congress passed the amendment on February 26, 1869, and it was ratified on February 3, 1870 (342 days).

Though ratification of the 15th Amendment was not a requirement for readmittance to the Congress of the Confederate states, one of the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts required that the states include a provision in their new constitutions that included a near-copy of the text of the 15th. All of the CSA states except Tennessee, which was immune from the Reconstruction Acts, eventually ratified the 15th Amendment.

 
 

[BlackWolf]

Know the Truth About Cherokee Citizenship
 
The Facts on Cherokee Citizenship

MYTH: You need to have a large degree of Cherokee blood to be eligible for citizenship.
FACT: The Cherokee Nation requires no blood quantum. To be considered a Cherokee citizen, you need one Indian ancestor listed on the 1906 federal census of our people, known as the Dawes Rolls. With that one Indian ancestor, a person is part of our Cherokee family regardless of what other heritage he or she might have. For eligibility information, please visit http://www.cherokee.org/Services/Registration/146/Default.aspx.
 
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation is kicking African-Americans out of the tribe.
FACT: The Cherokee Nation is among the most diverse of Indian tribes with thousands of citizens who share African, Latino, Asian, Caucasian and other ancestry, including more than 1,500 descendants of former slaves. All have at least one Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. African-Americans with an Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls have been, and will continue to be, citizens of the Cherokee Nation. See for yourself --  watch a video of Cherokee Nation citizens.
 
MYTH: The March 2007 Cherokee Constitutional amendment election allowed adopted whites with no blood quantum listed on the Dawes Rolls to remain citizens.
FACT: First, the Cherokee Nation has no blood quantum requirement. To be a citizen, one must have a single Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls. Second, the Constitutional amendment affects the citizenship of all non-Indians who were granted citizenship rights under a 2006 tribal court ruling, regardless of their ethnic background. This means that, in addition to affecting 2,867 descendants of those who were originally enrolled as non-Indian Freedmen, the amendment also affected nine descendants of Intermarried Whites
 
MYTH: Non-Indians who have long been Cherokee citizens are now being “disenrolled.”
FACT: The March 2007 Constitutional amendment only affected certain people who were granted tribal citizenship under a 2006 tribal court ruling, which came down just one year before the amendment passed. This vote affirmed the people's passionate belief that you need one Indian ancestor listed on the base roll to be a Cherokee. Since the amendment's passage, in May 2007, Cherokee tribal courts temporarily reinstated those who had been affected by the amendment pending the outcome of the litigation over this issue.   
 
MYTH: It is unfair to rely on the Dawes Rolls as the base roll of the Cherokees to prove Indian ancestry.
FACT: The Dawes Rolls are not perfect, but they are the best, most authoritative historical document we have to determine who our Indian ancestors were, going back 100 years.
 
The Truth About Our History
MYTH: The Freedmen and other non-Indians who were affected by the March 2007 Constitutional amendment had long been part of the Cherokee Nation.
FACT: The non-Indians who were affected by the March 2007 amendment became citizens only following a 2006 tribal court ruling. Since 1975, the Cherokee people have spoken several times that, to be a citizen, one must have one Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls.
 
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation is expelling all the descendants of their former slaves.
FACT: There are more than 1,500 descendants of former slaves who are Cherokee citizens today because they can find an Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls. The Cherokee Nation is offering free genealogical expertise to assist any descendant of Freedmen who wants to research whether they can find such an Indian ancestor and thus become a permanent citizen. That said, slavery was a grave injustice and a painful chapter in our nation's history, when 2% of Cherokees owned slaves. It should be noted, however, that the Cherokee Nation voluntarily freed these slaves in 1863.
 
MYTH:  The Cherokee Nation has broken the Treaty of 1866.
FACT: The Cherokee Nation has fully honored its treaty obligations.  Based on the history and the law, today's Freedmen descendants who cannot find an Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls have no right to Cherokee citizenship. Subsequent congressional action in 1902 closed the Cherokee rolls as of that year, limiting enrollment to those already born as of September 1, 1902. It was in 1975, with the new Cherokee Constitution, that the Nation sought to rejuvenate itself and once again define itself as a tribe made of Indians. Regardless of what anyone believes, federal and tribal courts are currently reviewing these issues.
 
The Truth About Legality
MYTH: The special election that the Cherokee Nation held on March 3, 2007 was illegal.
FACT: The election was legal, and not one complaint was filed in tribal court about its conduct. The Cherokee people cherish our democratic freedoms, and we paid dearly for them. These include the right to vote and to determine for ourselves the meaning of our Indian identity. The record turnout for this constitutional vote proved that Cherokee identity is an issue that is close to the heart of the Cherokee people.
 
MYTH: Voter turnout for the special election was extremely low.
FACT: More than 8,700 people voted, which was a higher turnout than the vote for the Cherokee Nation's Constitution in 2003.
 
The Truth About Our Motives
MYTH: Cherokees are motivated by racism to only want full-blooded Indians in the tribe.
FACT: This is a vicious lie. The Cherokee Nation welcomes every eligible Cherokee citizen regardless of his or her other racial heritage and embraces its thousands of citizens who share African, Latino, Asian, Caucasian, and other ancestry.  Race has nothing to do with citizenship. If you have one Indian ancestor on the Dawes Rolls, you are eligible to be a Cherokee citizen.
 
MYTH: The Cherokee Nation wants to keep more gaming revenues for itself.
FACT: This issue has nothing to do with gaming revenues or other resources. The Cherokee Nation is one of the few Indian tribes that do not distribute gaming revenues to individuals. Instead, the money benefits the entire community beyond the Cherokees, as we invest gaming revenues in services like health care, education and public roads and bridges. Overall, this is about weaving together a great, multi-ethnic nation through one common thread – a shared connection to our Indian ancestors.
 
The Truth About the Political Context
MYTH: The March 2007 amendment was orchestrated by Cherokee Nation Chief Chad Smith and tribal leadership.
FACT: The amendment got on the ballot properly through a citizens petition with 3,000 signatures, according to tribal law. Cherokee Nation officials took no official position on either side of the vote, and the government never sought to influence anyone's vote. The Cherokee people exercised their cherished democratic right to determine for themselves the meaning of their Indian identity.

http://freedmen.cherokee.org/FactsAboutCherokeeCitizenship/tabid/730/Default.aspx

[Don Naconna]

Very good article from a conservative group that supports the freedmen. These are not my views, nor do I agree with much of what in on that site...
http://www.cosmicconservative.com/weblog/?p=1696