[Senate Hearing 117-527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-527
SELECT PROVISIONS OF THE 1866
RECONSTRUCTION TREATIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND OKLAHOMA TRIBES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
50-076PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada STEVE DAINES, Montana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 27, 2022.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Lankford.................................... 53
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 51
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 2
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 1
Witnesses
Burrage, Hon. Michael, General Counsel, Choctaw Nation........... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Chaudhuri, Hon. Jonodev Osceola, Ambassador, Muscogee Creek
Nation......................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Greethman, Stephen, Senior Counsel, Chickasaw Nation............. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Hoskin, Jr., Hon. Chuck, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation........ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Johnson, Hon. Lewis J., Chief, Seminole Nation; accompanied by
Hon. Brian Thomas Palmer, Assistant Chief...................... 16
Joint prepared statement..................................... 17
Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Vann, Marilyn, President, Descendants of Freedmen of the Five
Tribes Association............................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Waters, Hon. Maxine, U.S. Representative from California......... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Appendix
Grayson, Hon. Rhonda K., Chairwoman and Band Leader, Muscogee
Creek Indian Freedmen Band, prepared statement................. 67
Letters submitted for the record
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Hon. Michael Burrage........................................... 82
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to:
Hon. Michael Burrage......................................... 82
Hon. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri............................... 72
Hon. Chuck Hoskin Jr......................................... 83
Hon. Lewis J. Johnson and Hon. Brian T. Palmer............... 73
Marilyn Vann................................................. 77
Simmons, Esq., M.Ed., Damario Solomon, Managing Partner of
SolomonSimmonsLaw, prepared statement.......................... 61
SELECT PROVISIONS OF THE 1866
RECONSTRUCTION TREATIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND OKLAHOMA TRIBES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Committee's
Oversight Hearing on Select Provisions of the 1866
Reconstruction Treaties between the United States and Oklahoma
Tribes.
In the 1830s, the U.S. forcibly removed the Choctaw,
Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muscogee Creek, and Seminole nations from
their ancestral homelands in the southeast to Oklahoma on the
Trail of Tears. At the same time, individual members of the
Five Tribes enslaved Black people, continuing to do so through
the Civil War. In 1866, the Five Tribes signed treaties with
the United States which further reduced their landholdings and
contained provisions about emancipation of enslaved peoples who
were collectively referred to as the Freedmen.
Now, for the first them in the history of the United States
Senate, these sovereign signatory tribes, Freedmen descendants,
and the Administration have an opportunity to present their
views on the 1866 treaties for the record. I understand and
acknowledge that this is a difficult conversation, because this
issue at its core involves injustices perpetrated by the United
States Government more than a century ago against both Native
Americans and African Americans.
It is emotionally charged for many and for good reason.
Years-long litigation and disagreement over citizenship status
of Freedmen descendants among the Five Treaty Tribes has
divided communities and even divided individual families.
But disagreements cannot get resolved in silence. So we
will soon be hearing from tribal leaders and representatives
for each of the Five Tribes who will speak to their nation's
treaty provisions with respect to Freemen descendants;
Representative Waters, who has fought for Freedmen descendants'
rights for years, particularly in her leadership of the House
Financial Services Committee, as well as Marilyn Vann, whose
advocacy through her organization has raised awareness for
Freedmen descendants of all Five Tribes.
Later this afternoon, I look forward to a deeper dialogue
with individual leaders of Freedmen groups.
So it is our goal today to start a respectful dialogue, to
listen to different perspectives, both in a formal setting and
informally among members of Congress, tribal leaders, and
Freedmen advocates, and to educate the Committee and the public
with informed accounts relating to our Nation's two greatest
failures: the removal of Native peoples from their traditional
homelands and the enslavement of Black people. Descendants of
both, many here today, still carry the pain of those grave
injustices.
I look forward to a respectful conversation that takes into
account the historic importance of this hearing.
I will now recognize Vice Chair Murkowski for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for convening today's very, very important and as you have
noted, historic hearing. I apologize that I am not there in
person, but COVID is keeping me here in Alaska for this week.
The history of the post-Civil War reconstruction treaty
tribes, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee, and
Seminole nations, often referred to as the Five Tribes, and the
Freedmen, the lineal descendants of African American slaves
owned by the Five Tribes, is part of a history that perhaps
many Americans are not familiar with, nor do they fully
understand. It is a complicated history of injustice and of
sorrow, for both Indian tribes and African Americans.
As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, this can be an
uncomfortable discussion. It can be uncomfortable to talk about
what was brought on by the Federal Government's own policies of
forced removal of Native peoples from their ancestral
homelands, and the enslavement of African peoples.
I understand that each of the Five Tribes has a very unique
history of treatment based on separate treaties with the United
States. So I am interested in learning more about what these
treaties entailed, and the obligations of both the tribes and
the Federal Government to Freedmen descendants.
So I do want to say how appreciative I am that the Indian
Affairs Committee is examining this history, and that the Five
Tribes and the Freedmen descendants are here along with the
Department of the Interior to have a constructive and again, a
respectful dialogue about how we might move forward together.
This is indeed long, long overdue.
I agree with the Chairman that we should task the GAO, the
Government Accountability Office, with investigating what
Federal services the Freedmen received and should receive in
the future from the Federal Government.
With that, I turn back to you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank
you for convening this very important and very substantive
hearing. For the many witnesses that are there in person today,
thank you for traveling to be before the Committee on a very
important topic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Vice Chair Murkowski. We
wish you a speedy recovery and look forward to seeing you soon.
Are there other members of the Committee wishing to make an
opening statement? If not, we will turn to our first witness,
who is a towering figure in history enough so that she
comprises her own panel.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We are pleased to introduce the Honorable
Maxine Waters, U.S. Representative for the 43rd Congressional
District in California. Congresswoman, your full written
testimony will be made a part of the official hearing record,
and we look forward to your remarks.
Please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAXINE WATERS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Chairman Schatz, Vice
Chair Murkowski, and members of the Committee.
Today I am here to discuss an issue I care very deeply
about, that has been ignored for far too long. Many remain
unfamiliar with the history of those who came to be known as
the Native American Freedmen, and the ongoing plight of their
descendants. The Freedmen were Black individuals who were
enslaved by five formerly slave holding tribal nations, and
were forced to walk and suffer on the Trail of Tears, alongside
their slave masters.
The year after the Civil War ended, the Five Tribes agreed
to abolish slavery and accept Freedmen and their descendants as
full tribal citizens under the 1866 Treaty Agreements they made
with the United States Government. Specifically, the 1866
Treaties required the Five Tribes to abolish slavery and to
agree to treat and accept formerly enslaved individuals and
their lineal descendants as equal tribal citizens.
For example, the treaty signed by the Cherokee Nation
reads: ``All Native-born Cherokee, 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 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 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.''
The four other tribes all signed similar treaties.
Despite the fact that these treaty obligations still exist
and are binding on the Five Tribes, beginning in the late
1970s, and early 1980s, the tribes began to take formal actions
to take away the citizenship rights of descendants of Freedmen.
For instance, in 1983, Freedmen were prohibited from voting in
Cherokee Nation elections and received letters informing them
that their citizenship had been canceled.
In 2007, the Cherokee amended their constitution to limit
citizenship to only individuals who were ``Cherokee by blood.''
These actions led to years of litigation that was finally
settled in 2017, when a Federal district court judge ruled in
favor of the Freedmen and their right to citizenship.
In this ruling, the judge stated, ``In accordance with
Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty, the Cherokee Freedmen have a
present right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation that is
coexistent with the rights of Native Cherokees.'' Following the
court decision, which the Cherokee Nation accepted as binding,
the tribe has taken actions to comply with the decision and
ensure that descendants of Freedmen are treated as equal
citizens.
Before my committee, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck
Hoskin testified that these actions have made the Cherokee
Nation ``a better nation for having recognized full and equal
citizenship of Freedmen descendants.'' Despite the actions of
the Cherokee to right the wrong inflicted on its Freedmen, the
descendants of Freedmen of the other four tribes continue to be
denied tribal citizenship and other basic rights associated
with citizenship like equal access to federally funded
affordable housing.
My committee even heard testimony last year that Freedmen
have even been denied access to lifesaving vaccines during the
ongoing pandemic. It was this testimony that prompted even the
Biden Administration to designate all Seminole Freedmen as
eligible for healthcare services, including the COVID vaccine,
through the Indian Health Service. However, this decision only
applies to Seminole Freedmen and not Freedmen from the other
tribes.
We know that equal access to housing sits at the heart of
many of the racial and economic injustices we continue to see
across the Country today. As chairwoman of the House Financial
Services Committee, I recognize that Native communities face
some of the worst housing conditions in the United States. It
is also important to recognize that the legacy of land and
culture disenfranchisement has created and maintained these
circumstances.
That is why I propose providing $2 billion for affordable
housing in tribal communities in my Housing Is Infrastructure
Act, and why I am moving to reauthorize NAHASDA with language
that ensures that descendants of Freedmen have equal access to
these resources, as the 1866 treaties promised.
When Barney Frank, my predecessor, was Chairman of the
House Financial Services Committee, he recognized the plight of
the Freedmen and was a staunch advocate for their rights. I
worked closely with him on legislation to prevent tribes from
disenfranchising their descendants. As Ranking Member and now
Chairwoman of the Committee, I continue that fight for justice
for the descendants of Freedmen. Currently, there are tribes
that are implementing federally funded programs in a way that
actively discriminates against descendants of Freedmen in
direct violation of treaty obligations.
Congress has every right to ensure that Federal funding is
implemented in compliance with all relevant obligations. We
will stand by the rights promised to Freedmen and the treaties
that guaranteed those rights over a century ago, and hold these
tribes accountable.
I would like to say how proud I am of the descendants of
Native Freedmen who have never waivered in their fight for
human dignity and equal recognition, even when it seemed no one
would listen, even with the growing movement for reparations
that recognizes the forced and uncompensated labor that built
this Country, and the riches amassed because of it. It seems
that the rights of the descendants of Freedmen still has never
been rightfully acknowledged and affirmed.
This pandemic has made clear that the ongoing
discrimination of the Freedmen descendants can literally mean
the difference between life and death for descendants of
Freedmen who have been denied COVID vaccines. So I urge the
distinguished members of this Committee, we must honor our word
as a Nation and uphold, as honorable people, the obligations of
these treaties. This is as much true for the United States
Government, which has failed to meet all of its treaty
obligations, as it is for the Five Tribes.
This work is ongoing. It is the obligation to the
descendants of Freedmen that can't be left out of that
conversation.
I want to thank again Senator Schatz for holding this
important hearing and working with me on this issue. I must
indicate that even though there appears to be only one
representative here for the Freedmen, I would like if at all
possible to make sure that the voices of other Freedmen are
heard in some sense, in some way.
While I am pleased that the United States Senate is finally
hearing testimony from a Freedmen descendant, I must state that
hearing from more voices, not less, is the key to productive
dialogue. It is when we don't expand our table to hear more
from those who have been disenfranchised that injustices and
systemic inequities are perpetuated.
Moving forward, I am convinced that we can work together to
not simply uplift the voices of Freedmen, but also to recognize
the shared suffering of Native Freedmen and Native Americans
forced to walk that Trail of Tears together, and the need to
honor the Treaties of 1866. I do not believe that the
documented history of the descendants of Freedmen can be
ignored, forgotten, or dismissed any longer.
Thank you, and I am happy to take any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maxine Waters, U.S. Representative from
California
Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of
the Committee. Today, I am here to discuss an issue I care very deeply
about but has been ignored for too long. Many remain unfamiliar with
the history of those who came to be known as the Native American
Freedmen, and the ongoing plight of their descendants. The Freedmen
were Black individuals who were enslaved by five formerly slave-holding
tribal nations and were forced to walk and suffer on the Trail of Tears
alongside their slave masters. A year after the Civil War ended, the
Fives Tribes agreed to abolish slavery and accept Freedmen and their
descendants as full tribal citizens under 1866 treaty agreements they
made with the United States government.
Specifically, the 1866 treaties required the Five Tribes to abolish
slavery and to agree to treat and accept formerly enslaved individuals
and their lineal descendants as equal tribal citizens. For example, the
treaty signed by the Cherokee Nation reads, ``All native born Cherokee,
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 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 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.'' The four other tribes all signed similar treaties.
Despite the fact that these treaty obligations still exist and are
binding on the Five Tribes, beginning in the late 1970s and early
1980s, the tribes began to take formal actions to take away the
citizenship rights of descendants of Freedman. For instance, in 1983,
Freedmen were prohibited from voting in Cherokee Nation elections and
received letters informing them that their citizenship had been
canceled. In 2007, the Cherokee amended their constitution to limit
citizenship to only individuals who were ``Cherokee by blood.'' These
actions led to years of litigation that was finally settled in 2017,
when a federal district court judge ruled in favor of the Freedmen and
their right to citizenship. In his ruling, the judge stated, ``In
accordance with Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty, the Cherokee Freedmen
have a present right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation that is
coextensive with the rights of Native Cherokees.''
Following the court decision, which the Cherokee Nation accepted as
binding, the tribe has taken actions to comply with the decision and
ensure that descendants of Freedmen are treated as equal citizens.
Before my Committee, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin
testified that these actions have made the Cherokee Nation a ``better
nation for having recognized full and equal citize nship of Freedmen
descendants.''
Despite the actions of the Cherokee to right the wrong inflicted on
its Freedmen, the descendants of Freedmen of the other four tribes
continue to be denied tribal citizenship and other basic rights
associated with citizenship like equal access to federally funded
affordable housing. My Committee even heard testimony last year that
Freedmen have even been denied access to life-saving vaccines during
the ongoing pandemic. It was this testimony that prompted the Biden
administration to designate all Seminole Freedmen as eligible for
health care services, including the COVID vaccine, through the Indian
Health Service. However, this decision only applies to Seminole
Freedmen, and not Freedmen from the other three tribes.
We know that equal access to housing sits at the heart of many of
the racial and economic injustices we continue to see across the
country today. As Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee,
I recognize that Native communities face some of the worst housing
conditions in the U.S. It is also important to recognize that the
legacy of land and cultural disenfranchisement has created and
maintained these circumstances. That is why I proposed providing $2
billion for affordable housing in tribal communities in my ``Housing is
Infrastructure Act'' and why I am moving to reauthorize NAHASDA with
language that ensures that descendants of Freedmen have equal access to
these resources, as the 1866 Treaties promised.
When Barney Frank, my predecessor, was Chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee, he recognized the plight of the Freedmen
and was a staunch advocate for their rights. I worked closely with him
on legislation to prevent tribes from disenfranchising their
descendants. Then as Ranking Member and now as Chairwoman of the
Committee, I continue that fight for justice for the descendants of
Freedmen.
Currently, there are tribes that are implementing federally funded
programs in a way that actively discriminates against descendants of
Freedmen in direct violation of treaty obligations. Congress has every
right to ensure that federal funding is implemented in compliance with
all relevant obligations.
We must stand by the rights promised to Freedmen and the treaties
that guaranteed those rights over a century ago and hold these tribes
accountable. I'd like to say how proud I am of the descendants of
Native Freedmen, who have never wavered in their fight for human
dignity and equal recognition, even when it seemed no one would listen.
Even with the growing movement for reparations that recognizes the
forced and uncompensated labor that built this country, and the riches
amassed because of it, it seems that the fight of the descendants of
Freedmen still has never been rightfully acknowledged and affirmed.
This pandemic has made clear that the ongoing discrimination of the
Freedmen descendants can literally mean the difference between life and
death for descendants of Freedmen who have been denied COVID vaccines.
So, I urge the distinguished Members of this Committee: We must honor
our word as a nation and uphold, as honorable people, the obligations
of these treaties. This is as much true for the U.S. government, which
has failed to meet all of its treaty obligations, as it is for the Five
Tribes. This work is ongoing, and it is the obligation to the
descendants of Freedmen that can't be left out of that conversation.
I want to again thank Senator Schatz for holding this important
hearing and working with me on this issue. And before I conclude, I
must highlight the imbalance of today's hearing panel and the need for
improved Congressional and federal government processes to ensure
historically marginalized voices are heard. Today's witnesses include
representation from each of the Five Tribes, representation from the
Department of the Interior, and Ms. Marilyn Vann, who, it seems is
expected to serve as the sole representative of all Native Freedmen.
While I'm pleased that the U.S. Senate is finally hearing testimony
from a Freedmen descendant, I must state that hearing from more voices-
not less-is the key to productive dialogue. It is when we don't expand
our table to hear more from those who have been disenfranchised that
injustices and systemic inequities are perpetuated.
So, moving forward, I am convinced that we can work together to not
simply uplift the stories of Freedmen, but also to recognize the shared
suffering of Native Freedmen and Native Americans forced to walk the
Trail of Tears together and the need to honor the treaties of 1866. I
do not believe that the documented history of the descendants of
Freedmen can be ignored, forgotten, or dismissed any longer.
Thank you and I'm happy to take any questions.
*The following attachments have been retained in the Committee
files and can be found at https://www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/
files/Testimony_of_
Chairwoman_Maxine_Waters_before_SCIA_re_Native_American_
Freedmen_7.27.22.pdf
1. 1866 U.S. Treaty with the Creek Nation
2. 1866 U.S. Treaty with the Cherokee Nation
3. 1866 U.S. Treaty with the Seminole Nation
4. 1866 U.S. Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations
5. Statement for the Record, Angela Walton-Raji
6. Statement for the Record, Damario Solomon-Simmons
7. Statement for the Record, Terry Ligon
8. Statement for the Record, Sharon Lenzy
9. Statement for the Record, Various Seminole Freedmen
10. Statements for the Record, Freedmen Seminole Band Chief
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Waters. We
appreciate your testimony.
Members may submit follow-up questions for the record, and
you are excused as we prepare our next panel.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
If the panelists will take their seats as we are
introducing them, I would appreciate it.
For our second panel, we have the Honorable Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department
of Interior; the Honorable Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Principal Chief,
Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma; the Honorable Lewis J. Johnson,
Chief of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; the Honorable Michael
Burrage, General Counsel, Choctaw Nation; the Honorable Jonodev
Chaudhuri, Ambassador, the Muscogee Creek Nation; Mr. Stephen
Greethman, Senior Counsel, The Chickasaw Nation; and Ms.
Marilyn Vann, President, The Descendants of Freedmen of the
Five Tribes Association, in Oklahoma.
I want to remind our witnesses that your full written
testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. We
would really appreciate it if you could keep your remarks to
five minutes, because this is an extraordinarily packed panel.
We will start with Secretary Newland. Please proceed with your
testimony.
STATEMENT HON. BRYAN NEWLAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN
AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
Thanks to Vice Chair Murkowski and members of the Committee. It
is great to be here today.
My name is Bryan Newland. I have the privilege of serving
as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs here at the
Department of the Interior.
I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
present the department's testimony at this important oversight
hearing on select provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction
Treaties between the United States and the Five Tribes in
Oklahoma. Several of these treaty provisions provide certain
rights and privileges to some Freedmen, who are people who were
enslaved and later released from servitude by the Cherokee,
Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee Creek and Seminole Nations, called
at times the Five Tribes. The department appreciates the
opportunity to discuss these important treaty provisions.
Each of the Five Tribes enacted laws supporting enslavement
and/or restricting the rights of enslaved people. In 1866,
after the Civil War, each of the Five Tribes entered into
treaties with the United States. Those treaties contained
provisions addressing the status and rights of Freedmen and
persons of African descent residing amongst the Five Tribes.
It is important to understand that there is no single
treaty or uniform law that applies to all Freedmen. The
Cherokee Nation and Muscogee Creek Nation and the Seminole
Nation each have their own treaty with the United States, and
the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations share a treaty in common with
the United States. All four of these treaties have slightly
different provisions relating to the Freedmen.
In 1896, Congress established a commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes to prepare membership rolls for each of the
tribes in anticipation of allotting their lands. Congress
directed the commission to determine applications for
citizenship in each of the Five Tribes in accordance with their
treaties and their laws.
Congress also required the commission to make a roll of
Freedmen entitled to citizenship in said tribes, and to include
their names in the list of members. The final rolls would
remain with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and be
considered the true and correct roll of persons entitled to the
rights of citizenship in each tribe.
In the past half century, there have been disputes within
some of the Five Tribes regarding the legal status of Freedmen
descendants. The Cherokee Nation resolved the dispute over the
status of Cherokee Freedmen utilizing its own judicial and
political processes.
In May of last year, Secretary Haaland approved the
Cherokee Nation constitution that explicitly secures the
citizenship and political rights of Cherokee Freedmen. In a
statement accompanying her approval, Secretary Haaland stated
that the new constitution ``fulfilled the Nation's obligations
to the Cherokee Freedmen and encouraged other tribes to take
similar steps to meet their moral and legal obligations to the
Freedmen.''
In February, I participated in consultation sessions with
leaders of the Five Tribes to consider the potential for some
direct services to the Freedmen from the BIA and the BIE. In
particular, we asked the tribes' views on whether the Bureau of
Indian Education should admit certain Freedmen descendants as
students at Haskell Indian Nations University and at
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. We continue to
review feedback and comments received from that consultation
and have not made any decisions on a path forward.
Determining eligibility for those services is a challenge
for the department when considering the Freedmen descendants.
The department generally defers to tribes to determine who is
and who is not a tribal citizen, as tribes have inherent
authority to determine who qualifies as a tribal citizen. As
the sovereign parties to treaties, tribes have an important
role to play in interpreting those treaties with the United
States.
However, as Secretary Haaland stated last year, the
department continues to encourage tribes to take steps to meet
their moral and legal obligations to Freedmen descendants.
The department is grateful to have the Five Tribes here
together today, along with Ms. Vann. We look forward to
continuing our work with the Five Tribes and with the Committee
as we consider the legal rights and the status of Freedmen
descendants.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary, Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Aanii (Hello)! Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman
Murkowski, and members of the Committee. My name is Bryan Newland, and
I am the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department
of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity to present
the Department's testimony at this important oversight hearing on
Select Provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between the
United States and Oklahoma Tribes. Several of these treaty provisions
provided certain rights and privileges to people commonly referred to
as Freedmen, or people who were enslaved by citizens of the Cherokee,
Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole nations, commonly
referred to in federal statues as the ``Five Civilized Tribes'' (Five
Tribes) and later released from enslavement. The Department appreciates
the opportunity to discuss these important provisions.
Background
The history of the Five Tribes is one ``steeped in sorrow as a
result of United States governmental policies that marginalized Native
American Indians and removed them from their lands.'' \1\ Each of the
Five Tribes had citizens that enslaved people and enacted laws
supporting enslavement and/or restricting the rights of enslaved
people. Those laws are no longer in effect today. In 1866, following
the Civil War, each of the Five Tribes entered into treaties with the
United States containing provisions addressing the status and rights of
freed slaves and persons of African descent residing among the Five
Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 267 F. Supp. 3d 86, 89 (D.D.C. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to understand that there is no single or uniform
law or treaty that applies to all Freedmen. The Freedmen provisions in
each of the 1866 treaties differed in important respects.
Treaty with the Seminole, March 21, 1866, 14 Stat. 755:
Article 2 of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma's 1866 Treaty
provides that ``inasmuch as there are among the Seminoles many
persons of African descent and blood, . . it is stipulated that
hereafter these persons and their descendants . . shall have
and enjoy all the rights of native citizens, and the laws of
said nation shall be equally binding upon all persons of
whatever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens or
members of said tribe.''
Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, April 28, 1866, 14
Stat. 769: Under that treaty in Article 3, the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations ceded certain lands in exchange for the sum
of $300,000, which the United States was to hold in trust until
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations enacted ``such laws, rules,
and regulations as may be necessary to give all persons of
African descent, resident in the said nation at the date of the
treaty of Fort Smith, and their descendants, heretofore held in
slavery among said nations, all the rights, privileges, and
immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of
said nations.''
Treaty with the Creeks, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat. 785: Article
2 of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's 1866 Treaty provides that
``inasmuch as there are among the Creeks many persons of
African descent, . . these persons . . and their descendants .
. shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native
citizens, including an equal interest in the soil and national
funds, and the laws of the said nation shall be equally binding
upon and give equal protection to all such persons, and all
others, of whatsoever race or color, who may be adopted as
citizens or members of said tribe.''
Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, 14 Stat. 799:
Article 9 of the Cherokee Nation's 1866 Treaty provides that
``all Freedmen who have been liberated . . , as well as all
free colored persons who were in the country at the
commencement of the rebellion . . , and their descendants,
shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.''
In 1896, Congress established a Commission to the Five Tribes to
prepare membership rolls for each in anticipation of breaking-up and
allotting their respective lands. \2\ Congress directed the Commission
to determine applications for citizenship in each of the Five Tribes in
accordance with all their laws ``not inconsistent with the laws of the
United States, and all treaties with . . said . . tribes,'' and giving
``due force and effect to the rolls, usages, and customs of each . . .
.'' \3\ It also required the Commission to ``make a roll of freedmen
entitled to citizenship in said tribes'' and to ``include their names
in the lists of members . . . .'' \4\ Once completed, the final rolls
would remain with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, by whom they were
to be considered the ``true and correct rolls of persons entitled to
the rights of citizenship'' in each Tribe. \5\ These lists are commonly
referred to as the ``Dawes Rolls.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Act of June 10, 1896, ch. 398, 29 Stat. 321, 339-40.
\3\ Id. at 339.
\4\ Id. at 340.
\5\ Id. at 339.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past half-century, there have been disputes within some of
the Five Tribes regarding the legal status of Freedmen.
The Cherokee Nation ultimately resolved its dispute over the status
of Freedmen when in May 2021, Secretary Haaland approved a Cherokee
Nation Constitution that explicitly secures the citizenship and
political rights of Cherokee Freedmen. In a statement accompanying her
approval of the Cherokee Constitution, Secretary Haaland stated that
the new Constitution ``fulfilled [the Cherokee Nation's] obligations to
the Cherokee Freedmen'' and ``encourage[d] other Tribes to take similar
steps to meet their moral and legal obligations to the Freedmen.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-haaland-approves-new-
constitution-cherokee-nation-guaranteeing-full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the status of the Freedmen in the Choctaw,
Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations, the Department
recognizes there remain issues to be resolved and we look forward to
working on those important issues with the Tribes.
The Department of the Interior's Actions
In response to requests from representatives of Freedmen
associations, the Department has considered whether certain Freedmen
are eligible for some direct federal services. In February, I
participated in consultation sessions with leaders of the Five Tribes
to consider whether to admit certain Freedmen descendants as students
at Haskell Indian Nations University (Haskell) and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute (SIPI)--two colleges operated by the Bureau of
Indian Education. We are continuing to review the feedback and comments
received as a result of that consultation and have not made any
decisions regarding potential enrollment of Freedmen at Haskell and
SIPI.
One of the challenges the Department faces when considering direct
federal services for Freedmen is determining eligibility. The
Department of the Interior does not presently verify or determine who
is a Freedman descendent. The Department generally defers to Tribes to
determine who is and is not a tribal citizen. Tribes have the inherent
and long-recognized authority to determine who qualifies as a tribal
citizen; and, as sovereign parties to treaties, Tribes also have an
important role in interpreting the meaning of those treaties. However,
as Secretary Haaland stated in May 2021, the Department encourages
Tribes to take steps to meet their moral and legal obligations to the
Freedmen. The Department recognizes that there is more work and
collaboration to be done with Tribes to get to that point.
Conclusion
The Department is grateful to have the Five Tribes together today.
We look forward to continuing our work with the Five Tribes and the
Committee as the moral and legal obligations to the Freedmen are
considered.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Newland.
Chief Hoskin, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HOSKIN, JR., PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE
NATION
Mr. Hoskin. Osiyo, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
Wa do for inviting me to speak today.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once wrote that ``Great
nations, like great men, should keep their promises.'' Cherokee
Nation is keeping our promise to the Cherokee Freedmen and
their descendants under our Treaty of 1866.
That treaty, Mr. Chairman, is a living, powerful and
foundational document that ties together every one of our
agreements with the United States. When we speak of our most
important treaty rights, our reservation in northeast Oklahoma,
our right to a delegate in the House of Representatives, for
example, we point to the language in the Treaty of 1866 which
reaffirms all of our prior treaties, not inconsistent with that
treaty.
Cherokees must defend and we must preserve the Treaty of
1866. Article 9 of that Treat states that ``All Freedmen and
their descendants shall have all the rights of Native
Cherokees,'' not some of the rights, all of the rights. Treaty
obligations ought to mean something, Mr. Chairman. You can't
pick and choose what parts of the treaty to uphold. We
criticize the United States when it fails to live up to its
treaty obligations, yet we in Cherokee Nation have a
responsibility to live up to ours.
For Cherokee Nation, the issue of Freedmen citizenship was
settled 156 years ago. It was settled in a treaty agreed to by
the Cherokee people, ratified by this Senate, and signed by the
President of the United States. Our ancestors agreed in 1866 to
forever cede the right to exclude Freedmen and their
descendants.
This means that Cherokee Nation's past actions to exclude
Freedmen descendants from Cherokee Nation were void ab initio,
void from the beginning.
The enslavement of other human beings and the subsequent
denial to them and their descendants of their basic rights is a
stain on the Cherokee Nation. It is a stain that must be
lifted.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an apology on behalf of the Cherokee
Nation for these actions. Just as important, I offer a
commitment to reconciliation.
I am proud of the many actions that we have taken over the
last five years toward reconciliation. In 2017, a Federal
district judge decided the Nash case. That case confirmed that
the 1866 Treaty remains alive and well and guarantees that
descendants of Cherokee Freedmen shall have ``all the rights of
Native Cherokees.'' To bring that matter to a close, Cherokee
Nation did not appeal.
The day after that historic decision, our own Supreme Court
affirmed full citizenship for Freedmen. We immediately began
processing applications for citizenship from Freedmen
descendants. To this date, Mr. Chairman, more than 11,800
applicants have become citizens.
In 2021, our Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ``by
blood'' language in our constitution also violated our
obligations in the Treaty of 1866. Our high court determined
that those words were invalid from inception and must be
removed.
As noted, Secretary Haaland reviewed our constitution later
than year. She wrote the Cherokee Nation had ``fulfilled their
obligations to the Cherokee Freedmen.''
The Nash decision and our swift actions to implement it was
a beginning, it was not an end. We understand that we must
embrace the spirit of equality each day.
For more than a century prior to the Nash case, Freedmen
had been disconnected from the Cherokee Nation. Many in the
Freedmen community did not have the same experiences, the same
access to services, the same opportunities as non-Freedmen
citizens. It is essential that we work to bridge that gap.
In 2020, I issued an executive order on equality,
reiterating our commitment to that idea. We also need to make
sure that we are mindful of the Freedmen experience. So in
2021, I announced the Cherokee Freedmen Art in History project,
which seeks to ensure that Freedmen voices are represented
within the Cherokee story.
I am proud to appear with my friend, Marilyn Vann, who I
appointed last year to our Environmental Protection Commission,
the first Cherokee citizen of Freedmen descent to hold a
Cherokee Nation appointed government post.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today because it is a moral
imperative that I be here. I am here to proclaim that having
finally kept your promise to Cherokee Freedmen, Cherokee Nation
is a better nation. It is a stronger nation.
Mr. Chairman, I am here representing a great nation. Wa do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoskin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hoskin, Jr., Principal Chief, Cherokee
Nation
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs:
Osiyo, and thank you for holding this important hearing. It is my
honor to speak with you today on behalf of the more than 429,000
citizens of Cherokee Nation.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black concluded his dissent in Federal
Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation with a powerful reminder.
``Great nations, like great men, should keep their promises.''
At its essence, today's hearing is about promises, and the historic
failure of great nations to keep those promises. For far too long,
Cherokee Nation failed to uphold a solemn promise made to the Cherokee
Freedmen more than 156 years ago.
But I can sit before you today, next to my fellow Tribal leaders
and my good friend Marilyn Vann, and honestly and proudly speak to the
many recent actions taken by Cherokee Nation to help right this wrong.
I can tell you Cherokee Nation is a better nation for having recognized
full and equal citizenship of Freedmen descendants. I can tell you that
we are a nation that keeps its word.
Our obligation to the Cherokee Freedmen and all enrolled citizens
of Freedmen descent is found within Article 9 of our Treaty of 1866:
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.
What the opponents of Freedmen rights ignore is that the issue of
full Freedmen citizenship was settled long before 2021, 2017, or 2007.
It was settled in 1866, by a treaty that was ratified by the Senate,
signed by the President of the United States, and is the supreme law of
the land. This is and was not a living issue--it was settled by our
ancestors.
The Treaty of 1866 is our last treaty with the United States, and
it also reaffirmed important portions of all previous treaties,
including the 1835 Treaty of New Echota that provides for our delegate
to the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Treaty of 1866 remains alive and well, as a federal judge
affirmed in 2017. Its relevance today impacts everyone within our
treaty-based reservation, which was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court through the historic McGirt decision.
The Treaty of 1866 is a legally binding document that ties together
every agreement Cherokee Nation has ever had with the United States.
Breaking the Treaty of 1866 could be our undoing.
Through Article 9 of the Treaty of 1866, we agreed to give Freedmen
``all'' the rights of native Cherokees. Not some rights. Not rights
subject to a popular vote. Not rights with an expiration date. ``All
the right of native Cherokees.'' Any right Cherokee Nation had to
enslave human beings, or deny them or their descendants full
citizenship, was disposed when we entered into this treaty.
Certain Cherokee Nation leaders, however, opted to ignore our 1866
Treaty and its strong commitment to equality and push policies designed
to exclude Freedmen descendants from their political community. This
was most apparent in 2007, when we amended our constitution to limit
citizenship ``to only those persons who were Cherokee, Shawnee, or
Delaware by blood.''
In the wake of this unfortunate action, Congress added limitation
language to a reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA):
SEC. 801. LIMITATION ON USE FOR CHEROKEE NATION.
No funds authorized under this Act, or the amendments made by
this Act, or appropriated pursuant to an authorization under
this Act or such amendments, shall be expended for the benefit
of the Cherokee Nation; provided, that this limitation shall
not be effective if the Temporary Order and Temporary
Injunction issued on May 14, 2007, by the District Court of the
Cherokee Nation remains in effect during the pendency of
litigation or there is a settlement agreement which effects the
end of litigation among the adverse parties.
As the Congressional Research Service wrote, at the time of the
2008 reauthorization ``some lawmakers supported denying NAHASDA funding
to the Cherokee Nation if it did not restore tribal citizenship rights
to the Cherokee Freedmen. Others opposed such efforts, citing
reluctance to intervene in a dispute that was being considered in the
courts and concerns about the effect that denying NAHASDA funding would
have on low-income members of the Cherokee Nation.''
Ultimately, Congress prohibited Cherokee Nation from receiving
NAHASDA funding unless (1) a specific temporary injunction in tribal
litigation on the Cherokee Freedmen dispute remained in effect during
litigation or (2) there was a settlement to the litigation.
This litigation ended in 2017, when Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the
Freedmen in Cherokee Nation v. Nash. Per Hogan's opinion, the 1866
Treaty guarantees that extant descendants of Cherokee freedmen shall
have ``all the rights of native Cherokees,'' including the right to
citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.
Although the Cherokee Nation Constitution defines citizenship,
Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty guarantees that the Cherokee
Freedmen shall have the right to it for as long as native
Cherokees have that right. The history, negotiations, and
practical construction of the 1866 Treaty suggest no other
result. Consequently, the Cherokee Freedmen's right to
citizenship in the Cherokee Nation is directly proportional to
native Cherokees' right to citizenship, and the Five Tribes Act
has no effect on that right.
The Cherokee Nation can continue to define itself as it sees
fit but must do so equally and evenhandedly with respect to
native Cherokees and the descendants of Cherokee freedmen. By
interposition of Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty, neither has
rights either superior or, importantly, inferior to the other.
Their fates under the Cherokee Nation Constitution rise and
fall equally and in tandem. In accordance with Article 9 of the
1866 Treaty, the Cherokee Freedmen have a present right to
citizenship in the Cherokee Nation that is coextensive with the
rights of native Cherokees.
We did not appeal this decision. We immediately began accepting and
processing citizenship requests from Freedmen descendants. To date, we
have approved and processed approximately 11,834 citizenship requests.
Shortly after the Federal court decision, the Cherokee Nation
Supreme Court issued its own order binding the Nation as a matter of
settled tribal law in complete accordance with the Federal District
Court's order in Nash. Specifically, the Supreme Court determined,
that the [Nash] case was entered into voluntarily by the
Nation, that the Nation had a full and proper presentation of
its case, and that the Nation is therefore now subject to the
opinion of the D.C. District Court.and. [f]urther, this Court
recognizes that the Treaty of 1866 has been and remains fully
binding on both the Cherokee Nation and the United States, and
to recognize the rights of those individuals who can trace an
ancestor to the Dawes Freedmen rolls to obtain citizenship
within the Nation.
Therefore, the Court,
Order[ed], Adjudge[d], and Decree[d] that the memorandum
opinion issued August 30, 2017 by the District Court of the
District of Columbia. . .is enforceable within and against the
Cherokee Nation, and that therefore the Cherokee Nation
Registrar, and the Cherokee Nation government and its offices,
are directed to begin processing the registration applications
of eligible Freedmen descendants, and that such Freedmen
descendants, upon registration as Cherokee Nation citizens,
shall have all the rights and duties of any other native
Cherokee.
Most recently, at the request of Attorney General Sara Hill, the
Cherokee Nation Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ``by blood''
language included the Cherokee Nation Constitution violated the Treaty
of 1866 and was thus void. The order states the language is ``illegal,
obsolete, and repugnant to the ideal of liberty,'' and the words ``by
blood'' are ``void, were never valid from inception, and must be
removed wherever found throughout our tribal law.''
Unequivocally, Freedmen have rights equal to ``by blood'' or
native Cherokees. . Freedmen rights are inherent. They extend
to descendants of Freedmen of as a birthright springing from
their ancestors' oppression and displacement as people of color
recorded and memorialized in Article 9 of the 1866 Treaty. . .
. The ``by blood'' language found within the Cherokee Nation
Constitution, and any laws which flow from that language, is
illegal, obsolete, and repugnant to the ideal of liberty. These
words insult and degrade the descendants of Freedmen much like
the Jim Crow laws found lingering on the books in Southern
states some fifty-seven years after the passage of the 1964
Civil Rights Act. ``By blood'' is a relic of a painful and
ugly, racial past. These two words have no place in the
Cherokee Nation, neither in present day, nor in its future. . .
From this day forward, may we prosper as a nation and embrace
one another with mutual respect, regardless of color, race, and
ancestry, as that which we are: Cherokee citizens.
The ``by blood'' language was a stain on our history and a haunting
remnant of a sad period. We could not move forward with those words
remaining in our constitution and laws, as some within the Nation were
clinging to them in order to divide our people and belittle and demean
the rights of Freedmen.
Last year Interior Secretary Deb Haaland approved the Cherokee
Nation Constitution, which ``explicitly ensures the protection of the
political rights and citizenship of all Cherokee citizens, including
the Cherokee Freedmen.'' As Secretary Haaland made clear upon approving
our constitution, ``The Cherokee Nation's actions have brought this
longstanding issue to a close and have importantly fulfilled their
obligations to the Cherokee Freedmen.''
While in Cherokee Nation, this issue is settled, there is still
much work to do. We know the Nash case and subsequent actions were the
beginning, not the end.
We are on a path of reconciliation, but we need to do more than
acknowledge the legal principle of equality--we must seek to embrace
the spirit of equality each day.
Because no nation can truly prosper when any of its citizens are
victims of discrimination.
As Native people, we know this all too well. We have experienced
too many similar painful chapters--from the Trail of Tears, to
governmental policies designed to terminate our political existence and
destroy our culture. We must have difficult conversations about these
injustices, and the accountability, reconciliation, and restitution
that must follow, because they still shape the world that we live in
today.
Unity doesn't just happen overnight. For more than a century
Freedmen had been disconnected from Cherokee Nation. This exclusion
meant many in the Freedmen community did not have the same experiences,
the same access to services, the same opportunities, the same
understanding of citizenship as non-Freedmen citizens. It is essential
that we work to bridge that gap.
Even as we wipe away the overt or hostile discrimination, we need
to make efforts to ensure that opportunities afforded to all Cherokee
citizens are just that: afforded to all Cherokee citizens.
For this reason, in November 2020 I signed an executive order on
equality, reiterating Cherokee Nation's commitment to equal protection
and equal opportunity under Cherokee law.
The order directs our executive branch to determine whether
barriers to equal access to services exist, to remove such barriers and
to establish plans for outreach to citizens of Freedmen descent and
other historically excluded communities within our tribe.
We also need to make sure that we are cognizant of the history and
the Freedmen experience. In late 2020 I announced the Cherokee Freedmen
Art and History Project, which seeks to provide a better understanding
of Cherokee Freedmen history and enhance how those voices are
represented within the Cherokee story. Cherokee society will be further
enriched, and the cause of equality enhanced, by celebrating Freedmen
history and art as part of a whole and complete Cherokee story.
The project began last year and is harnessing continued
conversations and collaboration with Cherokee Freedmen community
advisors to elevate the voice of Cherokee Freedmen. The project will
include comprehensive research for historical materials, references,
documents, and images, as well as an assessment of current
interpretations at all tribal sites.
We will utilize the assessment to identify gaps in its
representation and storytelling and develop new content that shares the
Freedmen perspective throughout tribal history. The content will help
educate Cherokee Nation citizens and the public through special
projects, including an exhibit at the Cherokee National History Museum.
Last fall Marilyn Vann became the first Cherokee Nation citizen of
Freedmen descent confirmed to a Cherokee Nation government commission.
I will close with a word on NAHASDA, as right or wrong, these
issues have become intertwined.
Indian Country needs Congress to make consistent and significant
investments in Native housing programs, and that starts with a robust
reauthorization of NAHASDA. I urge the committee to swiftly move
forward with a bipartisan reauthorization bill that can pass the Senate
and be signed into law.
That said, I would respectfully ask the committee to not seek
limitation riders that seek to tie needed funding to a desired
outcome--on NAHASDA or any other vehicle. One might look at the
Cherokee Nation story and come away with the conclusion that the 2008
limitation language brought us to where we are today. This is not the
case. So, I request that Members carefully consider the language they
put forward, and not look to condition funding for a Tribe or group of
Tribes in the hope of achieving a specific outcome.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important topic.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chief Hoskin.
Chief Johnson, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEWIS J. JOHNSON, CHIEF, SEMINOLE NATION;
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. BRIAN THOMAS PALMER, ASSISTANT CHIEF
Mr. Johnson. Good afternoon, Chairman, and the rest of the
Committee. The Seminole Nation thanks you for this time to be
able to speak.
It has been requested of us to expand on selected
provisions of the 1866 Treaty. The communication to the
Seminole Nation stated that in emails.
The Treaty was written to favor the necessities and the
desires of the United States, although it was stated to be
mutual necessities. I will now expand from the preamble and
certain articles of the 1866 Treaty for the Seminoles.
Selected provisions from the preamble: Whereas existing
treaties between the United States and the Seminole Nation are
insufficient to meet their mutual necessities, and in view of
the urgent necessities for more lands in Indian Territory
requires secession by said Seminole Nation, a part of the
present reservation, and it willing to pay therefor a
reasonable price while at the same time providing new and
adequate land for them.
The first phrase of the preamble is the opening words of
the 1866 Treaty. The existing treaty referenced is the 1856
Treaty, which was in fact sufficient for the Seminole, for it
consisted of millions of acres of land. It provided in the
language of that specific treaty that the desires of the United
States were the determining factor to the Seminole being the
only tribal nation of the Reconstruction Treaty era forced to
cede every inch of their land; 2,169,080 acres was ceded at 15
cents an acre.
The Seminole understood the 2,169,080 acres ceded was to be
assigned to other Indians and Freedmen to live thereon. This
promise was neither fulfilled nor honored. This language is
present in Article 3 of the 1866 Treaty. It is the first time
in the treaty where the term Freedmen is mentioned.
As stated in the preamble, the need for ceded land was for
only a part, not the whole of the Seminole lands on our initial
reservation. It is a fact a reasonable price was never paid for
the ceded land during this era, 15 cents an acre, nor was
adequate sufficient land provided as understood by the
Seminole.
The first sentence of Article 3 reflected the intent of the
United States as the Seminole understood it to mean. The 1866
Treaty ultimately was not honored in totality by the United
States, because the intent of Article 3 was not adhered to.
There are documents from all three branches of the United
States Government addressing this specific section of land.
That fulfills my time at this time. I am splitting my time
with Assistant Chief Palmer.
The Chairman. Assistant Chief Palmer, please proceed.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
[Greeting and opening in Native tongue.] During opening
remarks on NAHASDA reauthorization one year ago on this date,
the following was stated: ``The United States signed more than
370 treaties, passed laws, and instituted policies that have
come to define the special government-to-government
relationship between the Federal and tribal governments, and
obligates the Federal Government to promote the general well-
being of Native American tribes. Yet, the United States has
failed to provide that assistance.''
Any treaty must be viewed through the authors' eyes, and
those who reluctantly agree to it. Weighted consideration must
be given to the government's chosen language, intent, and the
atmosphere in which it was constructed 156 years ago. This is
how the U.S. Constitution is viewed; this is how the treaties
are viewed.
Article 2 of the Seminole Nation Treaty of 1866 reads in
part, ``Many persons of African descent and blood who have no
interests or property in the soil and no recognized civil
rights shall be permitted to settle, have and enjoy the rights
of all Native citizens, equally binding laws, and may be
adopted as citizens or members.''
The Dawes Commission certainly categorized Freedmen and
Seminoles separately and introduced blood quantum. Phrases and
terms utilized within the treaty are not the words of the
Seminole. They are the words and desires of the Federal
Government. This short testimony to discuss select provisions
is a disservice to the Seminole and warrants a deeper
conversation.
Grossly negligent oversights of the treaty agreements still
occur beyond the McGirt case. The government must account for
and consider the impact any decision may have on the financial
and fragile tribal system that has yet to overcome historical
poverty caused by a previous lack of protection defined by the
treaties in times of war and hostility, loss of valuable oil
and land, and continual suffering from the historical trauma
caused by the Indian Removal Act.
As an elected official, under the oath of office of the
Seminole Nation, I must uphold the treaty, the tribal and U.S.
Constitution, the tribal codes as they are written, as they
govern the Seminole.
Wa do.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Palmer
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Hon. Lewis J. Johnson, Chief, Seminole
Nation and Hon. Brian Thomas Palmer, Assistant Chief
Introduction
Chairman Shatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and members of the Committee:
we are Chief Lewis Johnson and Assistant Chief Brian Palmer of the
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. We are here to provide the history of the
Freedman Citizens of the Seminole Nation in the context of the Seminole
Nation's history and our 1866 Treaty with the United States.
The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (Seminole Nation) is made up of the
Seminole Indian People and Freedmen citizens descended from the
Seminole Citizens and Members whose names appear on the final rolls of
the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (the Final Seminole Dawes Rolls), as
approved by the United States Congress pursuant to the Act of April 26,
1906 (34 Stat. 137). The Seminole Nation is a sovereign nation whose
membership is based solely on ancestry, not race, revolving around Band
membership. As established by the Supreme Court in Morton v. Mancari,
417 U.S. 535, 552-553 (1974), membership is well established as a
political classification, and not a racial classification. In fact,
many people that may be Native American racially are excluded from
membership. This follows the same logic that membership is not, and
cannot, be based upon DNA tests or claims of Native American heritage.
The Seminole Nation, exercising its sovereign authority, has
established its citizenship and membership requirements based upon
lineal ancestry, very similar to a child's eligibility for United
States citizenship through a parent's citizenship.
The Seminole Nation Government and Bands
Many people do not understand the governmental structure of the
Seminole Nation. Similar to the United States Government, the Seminole
Nation has three branches of government created under the Constitution
of the Seminole Nation, as amended (Seminole Constitution): (1)
Legislative--the General Council of the Seminole Nation (General
Council); (2) Executive--the Chief and the Assistant Chief; and (3)
Judicial--the Seminole Nation Supreme Court. The Chief, Assistant
Chief, and members of the General Council are elected pursuant to the
requirements of the Seminole Constitution. But unlike the United States
government and most state governments, the General Council is made up
of two (2) representatives from each Band within the Seminole Nation,
and not based on any geographic locations within the Seminole Nation
Reservation. This structure of the General Council, as the supreme
governing body of the Seminole Nation, emphasizes the importance of
Band membership with the Seminole Nation.
The Seminole Nation is currently composed of fourteen (14) Bands.
Twelve (12) of which are comprised of Seminole Indians who share a
similar language and culture. Two (2) of the Bands are Freedmen Bands.
The fourteen (14) Seminole Bands are the backbone of Seminole Society.
Originally, each of Seminole Indian Band was a separate Tribe, but the
Seminole Bands eventually joined together to form the Seminole Nation
in the late 1700's and early 1800's. Through time, the number of Bands
has been steadily reduced, as some Bands died out or joined with other
related Bands. In the 1830's in Florida, there may have been as many as
35 Bands, in 1860 there were 24, and by 1879 there were only 14 Bands--
the current number recognized in the Seminole Constitution.
In 1866, the Dosar Barkus and Caesar Bruner Bands were recognized
as two (2) of the fourteen (14) currently assembled Bands. These two
Bands are comprised of Seminole Citizens of African descent who had
been forcibly removed from Florida with the other Seminole People. Each
Band has two (2) Band representatives that are members of the General
Council of the Seminole Nation.
Like many Native American cultures, the Seminole Nation is a
matrilineal society. Band membership is traditionally determined by
ancestry, and a Seminole child is generally enrolled into the Band of
their mother. Band membership is not racial, as there are numerous
Seminole People who are ethnically diverse, including Members with
African, European, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American ethnicity
enrolled as Members of various Seminole Bands. The only requirement, as
provided in Article II of the Seminole Constitution, is evidence of
ancestry traced to a Seminole citizen appearing on the Final Seminole
Dawes Rolls.
History of The Seminole Freedmen and Removal
Prior to removal from Florida, most of the people of African
ancestry living among the Seminole were not slaves. They were free
Africans and escaped slaves, who allied with Seminole living in Spanish
Florida. When the Seminole People were forcibly removed by federal
troops from their homeland in Florida, most of the population of
African ancestry living among the Seminole People were also forcibly
removed to Indian Territory later known as Oklahoma.
Following their relocation to Indian Territory later known as
Oklahoma, the various Seminole Bands were collectively recognized by
the United States Government first as the Seminole Nation and later as
the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and were subsequently grouped with
other southeastern Tribes that had been forcibly removed to Indian
Territory later known as Oklahoma. These southeastern Tribes,
collectively referred to as the Five Tribes (formerly known as The Five
Civilized Tribes) include the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, The Cherokee
Nation of Oklahoma, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Chickasaw
Nation of Oklahoma, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma.
Before removal, some of the Five Tribes held enslaved African
people. It must be understood not all five tribes had similar practices
of chattel slavery. Unfortunately, these Tribes were following the
horrific and barbaric practices utilized by the European based culture
of the colonists that had come to dominate the Southern region of the
United States. During the forced removal of the Five Tribes to Indian
Territory later known as Oklahoma, many of the enslaved African people
were forced by federal troops to accompany the Native Americans being
removed, resulting in their relocation to Indian Territory tribal
reservations. Following emancipation from slavery, those African people
living among the Five Tribes were generally referred to as Freedmen.
In 1866, each of the Five Tribes signed treaties with the United
States Government that ended the practice of slavery and involuntary
servitude within the reservations of the Five Tribes and guaranteed
equal protection for the Freedmen peoples that lived among the existing
members of the Five Tribes. Article II of the 1866 Treaty with The
Seminole (1866 Treaty) provides that the people of African descent
living among the Seminole (Seminole Freedmen) who settled there
(Seminole Nation) were guaranteed civil rights and equal protections as
the citizens of the Tribe by stating that:
[I]nasmuch as there are among the Seminoles many persons of
African descent and blood, who have no interest or property in
the soil, and no recognized civil rights, its stipulated that
hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other
of the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle
there, shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens,
and the laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon all
persons of whatever race or color who may be adopted as
citizens or members of said tribe.
Seminole Nation Treaty of 1866, Article II.
Pursuant to the Seminole Constitution, Seminole Freedmen are
Seminole Citizens of the Seminole Nation guaranteed the same civil
rights and equal protections of the governing laws of the Seminole
Nation, including representation on the General Council (the
legislative body of the Seminole Nation). Seminole Freedmen are
Citizens of the Seminole Nation but are not classified as ``Members''
for historical reasons set forth herein. The historical distinction of
Seminole Freedmen begins within the 1866 Treaty, when Seminole Freedmen
were established as Citizens of the Seminole Nation. This distinction
was further perpetuated by the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1893,
establishing the Dawes Commission. The Dawes Commission categorized the
Seminole Freedmen separately as it allotted lands and assets of the
Seminole Nation. The United States agents of the Dawes Commission kept
separate rolls for Seminole Freedmen and made separate allotments for
Seminole Freedmen. Regardless of their separate categorization by the
United States Government, the Freedmen are, as the 1866 Treaty states,
Citizens of the Seminole Nation.
The 1866 Treaty further stipulates that the Seminole Nation is
subject to the power of Congress and the President so long as those
exercises of power do not interfere with the Tribe's sovereign power
and status. In Article VII, the Seminole Nation ``agree[d] to such
legislation as Congress and the President may deem necessary for the
better administration of the rights of person and property within the
Indian Territory.'' Seminole Nation Treaty of 1866, Article VII. The
terms of the 1866 Treaty made it clear that ``said legislation shall
not in any manner interfere with or annul their present Tribal
organization, rights, laws, privileges, and customs.'' Id. When the
1866 Treaty was signed, the intent was to minimize the negative impact
on the right of the Seminole Nation to govern itself. Both the United
States and the Seminole Nation saw the importance of the Seminole
Nation's General Council making its own laws before and after the
Treaty was signed. This intent demonstrated by the 1866 Treaty language
stating that ``[n]o law shall be enacted inconsistent with the
Constitution of the United States, or the laws of Congress, or existing
treaty stipulations with the United States; nor shall said council
legislate upon matters pertaining to the organization, laws or customs
of the several tribes except as herein provided for.'' Id. (emphasis
added).
Congress has Plenary Power Over Indian Tribes
Plenary power over Indian affairs allows Congress to ``enact
legislation that both restricts and, in turn, relaxes those
restrictions on Tribal sovereign authority.'' Cohen's Handbook of
Federal Indian Law 5.02 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2017). The United
States Supreme Court has held that ``[p]lenary authority over the
Tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the
beginning.'' Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 18 U.S. 553, 565 (1903). Congress
controls Indian affairs, and this power is ``solely within the domain
of the legislative authority.'' Id. at 567. The Treaties that Congress
creates and the laws that it makes regarding Indian Tribes must be
followed by all parties to the treaty. The Seminole Nation understands
this to be true today and knows that, as a sovereign tribe, it is free
to determine membership and citizenship so long as that decision is
made in accordance with the plenary power of Congress, including the
1866 Treaty. Thus, the Seminole Nation is at liberty to continue to
exercise its power to decide who is a citizen of Seminole Nation so
long as these legislative decisions coincide with treaty obligations.
This includes allowing the Freedmen population to become ``Citizens''
of the Nation without compromising any future ability to be sovereign
and govern itself. Native American Tribes have always had the authority
to determine their own membership because ``Native American Tribes
retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise.''
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, 2022 LEXIS 3222, at *39 (U.S.
June 29, 2022).
Inherent Sovereignty and the Right to Regulate its Membership
The United States of America has four routes available to become a
citizen, which include: citizenship by naturalization, citizenship by
marriage, citizenship of children as a result of their parents'
citizenship, and citizenship through the military. Children obtaining
United States citizenship through their parents (ancestry) is no
different than Seminole Nation membership requirements.
The United States Department of the Interior states that ``[t]he
tribes establish membership criteria based on shared customs,
traditions, language, and Tribal blood.'' Tribal Enrollment Process,
Tribes, https://www.doi.gov/tribes/enrollment (last visited July 22,
2022). ``Tribal enrollment criteria are set forth in Tribal
constitutions, articles of incorporation or ordinances.'' Id. It has
always been understood that Indian tribes have the power to determine
their own membership because they are sovereign entities separate from
Federal and State governments. Because of this understanding, Indian
tribes have traditionally established the guidelines for choosing their
members using criteria developed through their own independent
reasoning, guidelines, and sovereignty.
Historically, some Indian tribes have made membership decisions in
conjunction with the amount of Indian Blood (or blood quantum) that a
person can prove. In reality, and in its best light, the idea of Indian
Blood is nothing more than proof of ancestry. The original concept of
Indian Blood began as an assumption of ethnicity of a person based upon
appearance or unsubstantiated claims of an individual. These
assumptions of Indian Blood were generally made by federal agents
compiling a Tribal census with no scientific basis, and the
unsubstantiated claims of individual Tribal members that rarely spoke
English or knew their grandparents, let alone the entire ethnic history
of their ancestors. In fact, Indian Blood was originally used by
federal agents to deny United States citizenship to Native Americans.
Because of these flaws in the concept of Indian Blood, many Indian
tribes, including the Seminole Nation, have abandoned the use of Indian
Blood, blood quantum, or ``certified degree of Indian Blood'' (CDIB) in
determining eligibility for Tribal enrollment. Instead, the Seminole
Nation, like many other Tribes, have exercised their sovereign
authority to determine that proven ancestry is the basis for
establishing eligibility for Tribal citizenship and/or membership. This
method of establishing eligibility for citizenship and/or membership is
no different than the ancestral basis for United States citizenship
(establishing citizenship of a child through their parents).
Paradoxically, the use of Indian Blood, or blood quantum has been
historically used by the Federal Government to dilute membership of
Indian tribes into extinction, rather than the demand to increase
membership we see today. Despite this attempt to extinguish Tribal
membership, Indian tribes have historically been able to choose their
own membership requirements, as they have the sovereign power to adopt
any person, of any race, into their Nation (similar to the various
methods of attaining United States citizenship). As discussed
previously, some Indian tribes within the United States have
established that eligibility for Tribal enrollment passes through one
parent instead of both parents (matrilineal or patrilineal lineage).
For example, the Santa Clara Pueblo determine enrollment eligibility
solely from the father of a child. If the father of a child is not a
member of the Santa Clara Pueblo, the child cannot be enrolled in the
Tribe, even if the mother is enrolled. In this case, a child may be
ineligible to be considered an Indian even though they have Indian
Blood and ancestry. Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. 49, 53 (1978).
Abrogating a Tribe's right to determine membership is to ``destroy
[its] cultural identity under the guise of saving it.'' Santa Clara
Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 54.
Seminole Freedmen Citizenship
While there has been some attention given to allegations that
Seminole Freedmen do not have access to Tribal services such as
healthcare, life insurance, and even doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, the
reality is that the Seminole Nation does not offer these Tribal
services. Healthcare within the Seminole Nation is provided by the
Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the United States
Department of Health and Human Services. IHS operates the Wewoka Indian
Health Services Unit (WIHS), which is not affiliated with or controlled
by the Seminole Nation. WIHS provides general health care including
COVID-19 vaccinations in accordance with IHS and CDC (both federal
agencies) guidelines.
Further, eligibility requirements for all Seminole Nation programs
are governed by the funding source. Many of these funding sources
include, but are not limited to, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an
agency within the United States Department of Interior, IHS, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) as administered
by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), an agency with the United States
Department of Interior, and the Johnson-O'Malley Program (JOM), a
program of the BIE. Eligible Seminole Nation Members and Freedmen
Citizens may apply for and receive services if criteria are met. Many
of these services require a CDIB card as federal criteria, and not as a
requirement of the Seminole Nation. A CDIB card is an identification
card issued by the BIA.
The key distinguishing feature of the Seminole Nation General
Council is the preservation of Freedmen Citizens and their
representation on General Council, the governing legislative body of
the Seminole. As described above, the Seminole Nation Freedmen are
eligible for membership in two (2) Bands, Dosar Barkus Band and Bruner
Band, with each having two (2) Band representatives that are members of
the General Council. Freedmen Citizens have a voice in the government
of the Seminole Nation. If the five basic civil rights enjoyed by all
citizens of the U.S include freedom of speech, religion, press,
assembly, and the right to petition the government, the Seminole
Freedmen enjoy all these rights within the Seminole Nation.
Finally, any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe
must be viewed through the eyes of those who wrote it and those who had
no choice but to agree to it. Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 684-85
(1942); Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 (1930). Consideration and
weight must be given to the chosen language and its intent, the
atmosphere in which it was constructed, and most importantly the goal
of the Federal Government. According to the United States Constitution,
Article VI, Clause 2, treaties are the supreme law of the land. This
means that treaties are to be followed even to the extent that they
conflict with state or lower-level laws. Based on this Constitutional
tenet, both the Federal Government and the Seminole Nation are bound by
the provisions of the 1866 Treaty, as this treaty has never been
terminated. While the Seminole Nation has a duty to its people, the
Federal Government has a larger and over-arching duty to honor its
promises, commitments, and obligations to all citizens of the United
States.
In Response to Comments About NAHASDA
The Seminole Nation submits its Indian Housing Plan (IHP) each year
as required by the Federal Government. This plan does not identify the
enrollment of Seminole People and is not based upon enrollment numbers.
True and accurate enrollment numbers of the Seminole Nation are
available and reported to the Federal Government. Seminole Freedmen are
represented and present within the policies of the Housing Authority of
Seminole Nation, preference within policy is used as governed and
patterned by federal law. In addition, Seminole Freedmen are included
in all rental assistance policies and additional appropriations granted
from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for the Housing
Authority of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (HASNOK). Any testimony
implying that the Seminole Nation received NAHASDA or supplemental ARPA
housing funding using Freedmen enrollment and then excluding the
Seminole Freedmen is either misleading or blatantly incorrect. The
decisions of other sovereign Indian tribes to determine their housing
policies is outside the control of Seminole Nation.
Seminole County Demographics
The Seminole Nation has limited resources and is continually
working with a fragile Tribal infrastructure that has yet to overcome
historical poverty, previous lack of protection promised by treaties,
loss of land base and valuable oil minerals, and decisions that
prevented prosperity for the Seminole Nation. The current geographic
land base of the Seminole Nation exists within Seminole County,
Oklahoma. In Seminole County, 24.3 percent of all residents, almost
twice the national average, live below the poverty level. While the
demand for affordable housing increases, the number of houses on the
market in Seminole County has decreased by over 9 percent in recent
months. This decrease in affordable housing is magnified by the
increase in housing prices due to inflation and other factors. Factors
contributing to the housing shortage and inability of residents to
obtain affordable housing include sky-rocketing utility costs and
increased gas prices. The average work commute for citizens in Seminole
County is 23 miles per day. To state that there is a shortage of
affordable or Tribal housing within the Seminole Nation for Seminole
Freedmen only reinforces the lack of affordable housing for all persons
living in Seminole County. There is a waiting list for Tribal housing.
There is a waiting list for all affordable housing. While many other
tribes have tremendous resources to allocate among their membership,
the Seminole Nation does not. The Nation is doing its best with the
limited resources that it has. The Seminole Nation cannot change or
improve the status of Seminole People until the Federal Government
honors its obligations to the Seminole Nation in a meaningful way,
honoring its treaties and obligations.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burrage, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BURRAGE, GENERAL COUNSEL, CHOCTAW
NATION
Mr. Burrage. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman
Schatz, and Vice Chair Murkowski, Senator Lankford and Senator
Smith, and all of the distinguished members of the Committee.
My name is Michael Burrage. I am General Counsel for and a
member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. I am here at the
request and on behalf of the Chief of the Choctaw Nation, the
Honorable Gary Batton, who the Committee invited to testify on
a matter of grave importance to the integrity of the Choctaw
Nation.
I began representing the Choctaw Nation in 1974, upon
graduation from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. At
that time, I moved to Antlers and began my law practice. I have
represented the Choctaw Nation ever since that time in 1974,
except for an approximately seven-year period when I was
appointed by President Clinton to be a United States District
Judge, being Chief Judge for five of those years, and also
serving on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by designation. I
was told that I am the first Native American to be appointed to
the Federal bench.
I want to make one thing very clear, and please listen. The
Freedman issue as it relates to the Choctaw Nation has nothing
to do with race. I repeat, it has nothing to do with race.
Tribal membership is based on blood, not race.
Today the Choctaw Nation tribal members includes African
Americans as well as those from other races. All members of our
tribe share one characteristic in common: they are Choctaw by
blood and they are all lineal descendants of Choctaw Indians.
The constitution fo the Choctaw Nation was established by
United States District Court order dated May 9th, 1983, in an
action entitled Morris v. Watt, with Federal approval by the
government on June 9th, 1983. I repeat, with Federal approval
by the Federal Government on June 9th, 1983, ratified by a vote
of the tribal members, certified by the Choctaw Election
Commission on July 25th, 1983. This constitution approved by
the Federal Government limits membership to Choctaws by blood
and their lineal descendants.
Chief Batton and I, as general counsel, take an oath to
uphold and defend this constitution. Our constitution has
existed and worked well for almost four decades. But now
another part of the Federal Government that approved that
constitution wants to unilaterally walk it back, without the
consent of the Indians affected, and without consent of the
tribe. Does that sound familiar to you when it comes to the
Federal Government's treatment of Indians and Indian tribes?
In the Choctaw Nation's recent litigation against the
Federal Government over the unallotted lands, United States
District Judge Lee R. West, who I served with, and was a
appearing as counsel for the nation at that time, said the
Federal Government has made many agreements with the tribes
that it did not keep. He said that was not going to happen in
his courtroom, and it did not.
It is the Federal Government, by placing tribal membership
in a political arena, that initiated this Freedmen issue, not
the Choctaw Nation. If there is a problem, the Federal
Government needs to find another solution that does not
infringe on the rights of the Choctaw people or the integrity
of our self-governance.
In 1978, in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, the Supreme
Court held a tribe, because of its sovereignty and principles
of self-determination, has the exclusive authority to determine
its membership. Following this, the Tenth Circuit in Ordinance
59 Association v. U.S. Department of Interior Secretary, held,
``Tribes, not the Federal Government, retain authority to
determine tribal membership.'' This holding should be honored
by all branches of the Federal Government.
The lawful interpretation of treaties, case law, and
history that relates to Indians is complicated. There are
special rules of construction when it comes to treaties with
the tribes.
We are here today, having been drawn into a political
process where decisions can have far-reaching legal
consequences. I respectfully ask this Committee, is a
Congressional hearing, where time is limited and personal and
political concerns are on the table, the proper place to
adjudicate such important matters as tribal membership? Then
you add on top of that, legislative threats are made, if the
tribe does not make the decision wanted by some politician,
critical housing funds for tribal members that need the housing
may be withheld.
How can this be squared with the United States Government's
trust duties and obligations to the tribes? How is this
anything than undermining the tribal self-determination and
tribal autonomy?
After surviving the cruelty of the Trail of Tears, the
Dawes Act, the near termination of our tribal functions, and
nearly two centuries of takings at the hand of the United
States Government, the Choctaw Nation and these other tribes
deserve better. This all goes to the core of the constitutional
identity of a sovereign tribe that is threatened.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. When
appropriate, I will be glad to answer any questions about what
I have said or other questions, especially about the Morris
case. I was there, I represented the tribe, although at that
point in the game I was carrying briefcases more than
lawyering. But I know what was discussed at those hearings, and
this was one of them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burrage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Burrage, General Counsel, Choctaw
Nation
Good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chair Murkowski, Senator
Lanklord, and distinguished members of the Committee.
I am Michael Burrage, General Counsel for and a member of, the
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
I am here at the request of, and on behalf of, the Chief of the
Choctaw Nation, the Honorable Gary Batton, who the Committee invited to
testify on a matter of grave and momentous importance to the integrity
of the Choctaw Nation.
I began representing the Choctaw Nation in 1974 upon graduation
from the University of Oklahoma College of Law, at which time I moved
to Antlers, Oklahoma to begin my law practice. I have represented the
Tribe since that time, except for an approximate 7 year period, when I
was appointed by President Clinton, to be a United States District
judge, being Chief judge for 5 of those years and also serving on the
10th Circuit Court of Appeals. I was told I am the first Native
American to be appointed to the federal bench.
To be clear, the Freedman issue, as it relates to the Choctaw
Nation, has nothing to do with race. Tribal membership is based on
blood, not race.
Today, Choctaw Nation's tribal membership includes African
Americans as well as those from other races. All members of our Tribe
share one characteristic in common, they are all Choctaw by blood. They
are all the lineal descendants of Choctaw Indians.
The Constitution of the Choctaw Nation was established by a United
States District Court order dated March 9, 1983 in an action entitled
Morris v Watt, with federal approval by the government, June 9, 1983
and ratified by a vote of the tribal members, certified by the Choctaw
Election Commission on July 25, 1983. This Constitution limits tribal
membership to Choctaws by blood and their lineal descendants. Chief
Batton, and I as General Counsel, take an oath to uphold and defend
this Constitution. Our Constitution has existed and worked well for
almost four decades, but now another part of the federal government
that approved this Constitution, wants to unilaterally walk it back.
Without the consent of the Indians affected. Sound familiar, when it
come to the federal government treatment of Indian tribes?
In the Choctaw Nation's recent litigation against the federal
government over unallotted lands, United States District Court Judge
Lee West, said the federal government made many agreements with the
tribes it did not keep. He said that was not going to happen in his
court and it did not.
It is the federal government, by placing tribal membership in a
political arena, that initiated this Freedmen issue, not the Choctaw
Nation. If there is a problem, the government needs to find another
solution, that does not infringe upon the rights of the Choctaw people
or the integrity of our self-government.
In Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez the Supreme Court held a tribe,
because of its sovereignty and principles of self-determination, has
the exclusive authority to determine its membership. Following this,
the Tenth Circuit in Ordinance 59 Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
Sec'y, held that ``Tribes, not the federal government, retain authority
to determine tribal membership.'' This holding should be honored by all
branches of the federal government today.
The lawful interpretation of treaties, case law and history that
relates to Indians is complicated. There are special rules of
construction when it comes to treaties with Indians. We are here today,
having been drawn into a political process, where decisions can have
far reaching legal consequences.
I respectfully ask the Committee--is a congressional hearing, where
time is limited and personal and political concerns are on the table,
the proper place to adjudicate such important matters as tribal
membership? Then, you add on top of that, legislative threats are made,
if the Tribe does not make the decision wanted by some politicians,
critical housing funds for tribal members in need will be withheld.
How can this be squared with the United States government's trust
duties and obligations to Indian tribes?
How is this anything other than undermining tribal self-
determination and tribal autonomy?
After surviving the cruelty of the Trail of Tears, the Dawes Act,
the near termination of our tribal functions, and nearly two centuries
of takings at the hands of the United States government, the Choctaw
Nation deserves better than to have the core of its constitutional
identity as a sovereign Tribe threatened.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns. When appropriate, I
will attempt to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Chaudhuri, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JONODEV OSCEOLA CHAUDHURI, AMBASSADOR,
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
Mr. Chaudhuri. Mvto. [Greeting in Native tongue.] Mr.
Chairman, Vice Chair, members of this esteemed Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jonodev Osceola
Chaudhuri, and I am proud to serve as Ambassador of the
Muscogee Creek Nation. As I sit here before you today, the
sovereignty of all tribal nations is under attack.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld our nation's
sovereignty in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Just this past month,
however, the court chose to abdicate it in order to placate
Oklahoma politicians. Congress has a duty to protect the
sovereignty of all tribal nations. That duty is all the more
pressing when one branch of the Federal Government seeks to
eliminate it.
The Freedmen issues trace their roots to injustices against
both Native Americans and African Americans. It goes without
saying that slavery is and always has been wrong. Just as the
United States fought a civil war over slavery, the Creek Nation
fought its own civil war. On one side were the traditionalists,
Upper Creeks, who imposed the imposition of colonial American
life into our nation, including the legalization of slavery.
I am a descendant of Fish Pond, and other Upper Creek
towns. My mom used to explain family oral history, stating that
when our family and other Creeks would raid slaveowners, we
would give freed slaves three options. One, receive our
assistance for passage to the north; two, live among us and
with us; or three, join an autonomous Black community within
the larger Muscogee world.
However, these practices conflicted directly with the goals
and desires of the most prominent Lower Creeks, who sought to
fully assimilate every aspect of white American culture into
the fabric of our nation, including slavery, cotton, and
Christianity. Instead of allowing the conflict to Creek Nation
to play out through our internal democratic processes, the
United States intervened and dispatched General Andrew Jackson
to exterminate the Upper Creeks.
The United States' goal was nothing less than complete
annihilation. In eight months of massacres, the United States
burned nearly every Upper Creek home and murdered thousands of
men, women, and children. My ancestors from Fish Pond sought
refuge at Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama,
and they were slaughtered by Jackson and the slave-owning
Cherokee leaders, John Ross and Major Ridge, who volunteered to
fight with him. At Tallaushatchee, Jackson locked 50 men,
women, and children in a cabin and burned them alive.
Horseshoe Bend and the scores of massacres that preceded it
silenced the strong anti-slavery faction within the Creek
Nation. Jackson's extermination policies against the Upper
Creeks created Alabama and resulted in the Indian Removal Act
and ultimately the Trail of Tears.
Even so, thousands of Creeks fought on the side of the
Union in the American Civil War. Once again we were targeted,
our homes burned and hundreds died. In exchange for our
loyalty, the United States promised that once the war ended,
our nation would not lose any land, and all the loyal Creeks
would be financially assisted. Both promises turned out to be
lies.
The Treaty of 1866 has often been characterized as a
reconstruction treaty. For us, it was not. It was a land grab
that stripped us of half of our reservation by force. My great-
grandpa, Elmer Hill, who fought for the Union said, the final
payment from the Unite States wasn't enough to buy a hat.
It is important to not that we are not Cherokee Nation. We
are not Chickasaw Nation. We are the Muscogee Creek Nation. Our
treaty with the United States contains different language than
the treaties of other tribal nations. Our current constitution
was reviewed and approved by the Department of Interior.
However, the interpretation of this treaty is currently the
subject of ongoing litigation.
Any true solution must go beyond a shallow, political
rhetoric and the yes/no binaries that such rhetoric supports.
To that end, we have begun a process at Muscogee Creek Nation
of developing historical, cultural, and legal research that
will help our citizens engage in a thoughtful and informed
exploration of this issue as they exercise their sovereign
right to determine the future of the Muscogee Creek Nation.
The Muscogee Creek Nation is proud of our diverse
citizenship. We have citizens who have mixed ancestry, who are
also white, African American, Mexican American, and many other
heritages. I myself am Creek and Asian. But whatever else we
may be, we are all Creek Indians by blood. As a nation that has
endured policies intended to exterminate us, because we are
Creek Indians by blood, citizenship and issues involving non-
Creek persons engender deep, conflicting emotions. Quite
frankly, our citizens stand on both sides of these issues.
We are working toward healing. We are not only the
descendants of select families that owned slaves, but also
those who opposed slavery and incurred the targeted murderous
wrath of the United States military.
But the solution to this is not another colonial
intervention by the United States. Mvto.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaudhuri follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri, Ambassador,
Muscogee Creek Nation
Hesci. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri Cvhecefkvtos. Hvsvketvmvset,
Epofvnkv, Vmvlkvt Pormetvs.
Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, and members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify. My name is Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri,
and I am proud to serve as Ambassador of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
As I sit here before you today, the sovereignty of all tribal nations
is under attack. Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld our nation's
sovereignty in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Just this past month, the Court
chose to abrogate it in order to placate Oklahoma politicians. Congress
has a duty to protect the sovereignty of our tribal nations. That duty
is all the more pressing when one branch of the federal government
seeks to eliminate it.
The Freedmen issue traces its roots to injustices against both
Native Americans and African Americans.
It goes without saying that slavery is and always has been wrong.
And just as the United States fought a civil war over slavery, the
Creek Nation fought its own civil war. On one side were the
traditionalist ``Upper Creeks'' who opposed the imposition of colonial
American life in our Nation, including the legalization of slavery. I
am a descendant of Fish Pond and other Upper Creek towns. My mom used
to explain family oral history, stating that when our family and other
Upper Creeks would raid slaveowners, ``we would give freed slaves three
options: (1) receive our assistance for passage to the North; (2) live
among us and with us; or (3) join an autonomous black community within
the larger Mvskoke world.
However, these practices conflicted directly with the goals and
desires of the most prominent Lower Creeks, who sought to fully
assimilate every aspect of white American culture into the fabric of
our nation, including slavery, cotton, and Christianity.
Instead of allowing the conflict at Creek Nation to play out
through our own internal democratic processes, the United States
intervened and dispatched General Andrew Jackson to exterminate the
Upper Creeks. The United States' goal was nothing less than complete
annihilation. In eight months of massacres, the United States burned
nearly every Upper Creek home and murdered thousands of men, women, and
children. My ancestors from Fish Pond sought refuge at Horseshoe Bend
on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama, and they were slaughtered by
Jackson and the slave-owning Cherokee leaders, John Ross and Major
Ridge, who volunteered to fight with him. At Tvlwv-hasv-ce, Jackson
locked fifty men, women, and children in a cabin and burned them alive.
Horseshoe Bend, and the scores of massacres that preceded it,
silenced the strong anti-slavery faction within Creek Nation. Jackson's
extermination policies against the Upper Creeks created Alabama, and
resulted in the Indian Removal Act, and ultimately the Trail of Tears.
Even so, thousands of Creeks fought on the side of the Union in the
American Civil War. Once again we were targeted; our homes burned and
hundreds died. In exchange for our loyalty, the United States promised
that once the war ended, our Nation would not lose any land, and all of
the Loyal Creeks would be financially assisted. Both promises turned
out to be lies.
The treaty of 1866 has often been characterized as a reconstruction
treaty. For us it was not. It was a land grab that stripped us of half
of our reservation by force. And my great-great-grandpa Upney Hill, who
fought for the Union, said the final payment from the United States
wasn't enough to buy a hat.
It is important to note that we are not Cherokee Nation. We are not
Chickasaw Nation. We are the Muscogee Creek Nation. Our treaty with the
United States contains different language than the treaties of other
tribal nations. Our current constitution was reviewed and approved by
the Department of the Interior. However, the interpretation of this
treaty is currently the subject of ongoing litigation.
Any true solution must go beyond the shallow political rhetoric and
the yes/no binaries that such rhetoric supports. To that end, we have
begun a process of developing historical, cultural, and legal research
that will help our citizens engage in a thoughtful, informed
exploration of this issue as they exercise their sovereign right to
determine the future of the Muscogee Creek Nation.
The Muscogee Creek Nation is proud of our diverse citizenship. We
have citizens who have mixed ancestry and are also white, African
American, Mexican American, and many other heritages. I myself am Creek
and Asian. But whatever else we may be, we are all Creek Indians by
blood.
And as a Nation that has endured policies intended to exterminate
us because we are Creek Indians by blood, citizenship issues involving
non-Creek persons engender deep, conflicting emotions. Quite frankly,
our citizens stand on both sides of these issues. We are working
towards healing. We are not only the descendants of select families
that owned slaves, but also those who opposed slavery and incurred the
targeted and murderous wrath of the United States military. But the
solution to this is not another colonial intervention by the United
States.
Mvto.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Greethman, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN GREETHMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL, CHICKASAW
NATION
Mr. Greethman. Thank you very much. Chairman Schatz, Vice
Chairwoman Murkowski and honorable members of the Committee, my
name is Stephen Greethman. I serve as senior counsel to the
Chickasaw Nation. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak today.
The Committee called this hearing to inquire as to freed-
person descendants' tribal citizenship rights under various
1866 treaties. For Chickasaw, this inquiry is controlled by
Article 3 our 1866 Treaty, a treaty to which the Choctaw Nation
is also a party.
The United States Supreme Court adjudicated the Committee's
question more than a century ago. Consistent with that
adjudication, we have not violated nor are we violating our
treaty.
But before I go further, let me state plainly: human
chattel slavery is a stain on history. It is a stain on the
continent's history, on the United States' history, and on
Chickasaw history. Likewise, Jim Crow is a stain on the United
States' and Oklahoma's history. There is no room for ambiguity
on those points and nothing I say today should be interpreted
as suggesting any ambiguity.
Relevant to the Committee's inquiry, the Chickasaw Nation's
1866 Treaty provides for a land cession to the United States,
but conditions Federal compensation on the nation's choosing to
extend citizenship to Freedpersons. That choice was neither
made nor supplanted by the treaty which only spoke to the
consequence of whichever choice the Chickasaw made.
The Chickasaw people deliberated and chose not to extend
citizenship. In doing so, the Chickasaw expressly relinquished
any claim to compensation for the lands the United States took.
This choice was not a violation of the treaty, but its
implementation.
Of course, as the Supreme Court recently quipped, history
did not stop in 1866. In the wake of restored treaty relations,
the U.S. again broke faith. Giving in to non-Native political
pressure, Congress turned its efforts to undermining tribal
self-government and opening indigenous lands to non-Native
settlement so Oklahoma could be formed as a brand-new State.
It should be remembered that throughout this period,
Chickasaws themselves were not U.S. citizens, though they and
their rights remained subject to Congress' claim to plenary
authority over Indian affairs.
In the chaos resulting from this pressure campaign,
disputes over Freedperson rights arose. In 1902, Congress
directed us to court. By us, I mean the United States and the
Chickasaw Nation and the Freedmen and the Choctaw Nation. Here
is Congress' language: ``Authority is hereby conferred on the
court of claims to determine the existing controversy
respecting the relations of the Chickasaw Freedmen to the
Chickasaw Nation and the rights of such Freedmen in the lands
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations under the third article of
the Treaty of 1866, between the United States and the Choctaw
and Chickasaw Nations, and under any and all laws subsequently
enacted by the Chickasaw legislature or by Congress.''
In considering the case, the court concluded, one, Congress
had not independently vested Freedpersons with citizenship, and
two, the treaty did not impose an obligation for the tribe to
do so. Instead, the treaty provided for potential citizenship.
As the court of claims put it, ``A means whereby Freedmen
might, by consent of the tribe and the voluntary action of
former slaves, become members.''
Based on treaty text and the parties' actions, the court
ruled Freedpersons' ``relation to the Chickasaw Nation is, as
the treaty expresses, the same as citizens of the United States
in the nation.'' This remains a true statement of law and fact
today. Again, the statement represents treaty implementation,
not violation.
Treaties matter. They are the supreme law of the land. The
Federal legal system both produced the Chickasaw Nation's 1866
Treaty and adjudicated its meaning more than a century ago. We
are both, the Chickasaw Nation and the United States, bound by
the court's disposition of the matter.
Mindful of questions the law does not answer, though,
Chickasaw stands by this process and result. All peoples work
to reconcile their often-complicated histories over time. The
U.S. and Chickasaw signed the 1866 Treaty during a difficult
period in our shared history, a period in which the United
States began its own process of reconciling its dehumanizing
reliance on human chattel slavery. We are more than 150 years
on now, and that process continues, as it should.
But the law matters. Chickasaw history, like other
histories, involves growth and setback, trial and progress. In
its most recent generations, the nation has made tremendous
progress in rebuilding its governing institutions. Today it
employs thousands, both Chickasaw citizens and like me, non-
citizens. It invests in communities throughout its reservation,
Oklahoma, and the region. It is dynamic, and its work is
ongoing.
It remains committed to this rebuilding effort, and engages
in it consistent with the law and its people's right to
sovereign self-determination.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Thank
you for the opportunity to start a conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greethman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Greethman, Senior Counsel, Chickasaw
Nation
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, and honorable members
of the Committee:
My name is Stephen Greetham. I serve as Senior Counsel to the
Chickasaw Nation, a position within Chickasaw government in which I
work with the Nation's leadership on a broad variety of matters. Thank
you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Human chattel slavery is a stain on history--this continent's
history, the United States' history, and Chickasaw history. Likewise,
Jim Crow is a stain on the United States' and Oklahoma's history. There
can be no ambiguity on those points, nor is there any defense to them.
The Committee has convened this hearing to inquire as to whether
any of the Five Tribes has an outstanding treaty obligation to vest
Tribal citizenship in the descendants of those Freedpersons formerly
held in bondage under its laws. With respect to the Chickasaw Nation,
article three of its 1866 Treaty with the United States controls
today's inquiry, and the meaning and effect of that article was decided
by the federal courts more than a century ago. As adjudicated by the
United States Supreme Court, the Chickasaw Nation is not in violation
of any treaty obligation, and its citizenship parameters remain
properly and lawfully controlled by the Nation's constitution and code.
All nations and peoples evolve, adapt, and seek to reconcile their
often complicated histories over time. And all peoples, as an aspect of
their inherent sovereignty, are entitled to engage in these processes
as a people. The United States and the Chickasaw Nation signed the 1866
Treaty during a difficult period in our shared history, a period in
which the United States first began its own process of attempting to
reconcile its reliance on human chattel slavery and the race laws
designed to support it. Now, more than 150 years on, this process
continues.
Since first contact with European colonialists, Chickasaws have
been committed to protecting their national sense of self and have
resisted subordination to any other sovereign. Even still, Chickasaw
engaged in and adopted certain practices and economies of the North
American colonial system, including human chattel slavery. This
history, accordingly, is a part of Chickasaw history as it is a part of
United States history.
As another part of our shared history, slavery led to war among the
states within a single generation of the United States' breaking faith
and removing the Chickasaw Nation from its ancestral homeland to Indian
Territory--what is now Oklahoma. On the outbreak of war, the United
States violated its Removal Era treaty obligations and militarily
abandoned Indian Territory, and the Nation acted in accord with what
its national survival required. Just as American citizens, though,
Chickasaws (who were not United States citizens at the time) were
divided on both the war and its causes. This internal division led
different factions of its people to fight on different sides of the
conflict, and when war was over, the United States and Chickasaw Nation
worked to restore peace and their prior relations, forming and entering
the Treaty of 1866, 14 Stats. 769 (Jun. 28, 1866), expressly for those
purposes.
Article three of the Treaty addressed Freedpersons and Chickasaw
Nation citizenship. The article is long, but it provided for a
Chickasaw Nation land cession to the United States and excused the
United States from paying compensation therefor unless the Nation
extended Tribal citizenship to certain Freedpersons. By the Treaty's
plain terms, the choice of extending Chickasaw citizenship remained
with the Chickasaw people: Such fundamental choice was neither made in
nor supplanted by the Treaty, though it did specify the consequences if
the Chickasaw people declined to extend citizenship. Following the
Treaty's ratification, the Chickasaw Nation memorialized its people's
choice not to extend citizenship and to expressly relinquish claim to
compensation for the land cession. E.g., An Act Confirming the Treaty
of 1866, Chickasaw Nation Legislature, November 9, 1866. This
memorialization was not a defiance of a treaty obligation but merely
the Chickasaw Nation's acting on a question in accord with the
mechanism preserved and specified by the Treaty.
History, though, did not stop at 1866. Acceding to the pressures of
its own citizens, the United States turned to a new campaign, one
intended to overcome the legal and political rights of the Native
Nations of Indian Territory so a new state could be formed. As part of
this post-war campaign, waves of speculators and settlers flooded into
the Territory, and Chickasaws were soon minorities in their own
country. Within another two generations or so, the United States again
wrested control of Indigenous lands, and the Chickasaw Nation's treaty
homeland was allotted--to Chickasaw citizens and resident Freedpersons
alike. The remainder fell to the settlers and speculators, and the way
was cleared for Oklahoma statehood.
In the midst of this chaos, disputes arose concerning Freedperson
rights to Chickasaw Nation citizenship, and Congress directed the
United States and Chickasaw Nation to obtain a final disposition of the
matter in the federal courts. An Act to ratify and confirm an agreement
with the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, 32 Stat. 641, 649-50, Chap.
1362, 36 (July 1, 1902) (``Authority is hereby conferred on the Court
of Claims to determine the existing controversy respecting the
relations of the Chickasaw freedmen to the Chickasaw Nation and the
rights of such freedmen in the lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
nations under the third article of the treaty of eighteen hundred and
sixty-six between the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw
nations, and under any and all laws subsequently enacted by the
Chickasaw legislature or by Congress.'' (Emphasis added.)); cf. id.,
37-40 (directing process). \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation share a close treaty
relationship, starting with the Removal Era treaties of the 1830s which
vested them with undivided interests in the realty of the secured
treaty territory. Both nations are also signatory to the same 1866
Treaty with the United States, and both nations were involved in the
litigation authorized by the 1902 act. While the litigation only ruled
on citizenship questions relating to the Chickasaw Nation, its
disposition affected Chickasaw and Choctaw interests in the undivided
treaty territory. Accordingly, the Choctaw Nation was a named party in
the suit, along with the Chickasaw Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking up the resulting litigation and reviewing the Treaty,
statutes, and the actions of the parties, the United States Court of
Claims concluded that Freedpersons' ``relation to the Chickasaw Nation
is, as the treaty expresses, the same as citizens of the United States
in the nation,'' i.e., not Chickasaw citizens. United States v. Choctaw
Nation, 38 Ct. Cl. 558, 568-69 (1903). The following year, the United
States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Claims' ruling, in total.
Chickasaw Freedmen, 193 U.S. 115 (1904).
In so ruling and resolving the dispute, both courts recognized
Congress made no independent attempt, by legislation or otherwise, to
vest Freedpersons with citizenship. Chickasaw Freedmen, 193 U.S. at
124-25; Choctaw Nation, 38 Ct. Cl. at 567. Nor was such citizenship
required by the treaty, which instead provided a mechanism for
potential citizenship, i.e., ``a means whereby freedmen might, by
consent of the tribe and the voluntary action of the former slaves,
become members'' of the Chickasaw Nation. Choctaw Nation, 38 Ct. Cl. at
566.
With this Treaty and the judicial construction of it in mind, it is
not disputed that the Chickasaw Nation did not vest Freedpersons with
Tribal citizenship. Nor is it disputed that, as consequence, the
Chickasaw people waived claim to compensation for the land cession
imposed by the Treaty. Nor can it be disputed that today, as in 1866
and 1904, Freedpersons' ``relation to the Chickasaw Nation is, as the
treaty expresses, the same as citizens of the United States in the
nation.'' Id. at 568-69. This is the authoritative judicial
construction of the Treaty and its operation. It remains the
undisturbed law today, and it responds to the Committee's inquiry.
Treaties matter. As provided in the United States Constitution,
treaties are the supreme law of the land, though they are subject to
construction and enforcement by the federal courts. The United States
legal system produced the Treaty and later adjudicated its meaning.
Mindful of the tumult of history and the importance of ongoing
processes, the Chickasaw Nation holds true to its Treaty and the
judicial construction of it--an adjudication that's not been challenged
for over a century and to which the parties remain bound. None of us
can say what the future will provide, but we can (and do) know how the
law stands.
Chickasaw history, like other histories, involves set back and
growth, trial and progress. Relying on its sovereignty and rights to
self-determination, the Chickasaw Nation in its most recent generations
has made progress in rebuilding its institutions of government. Today,
the Chickasaw Nation employs thousands of people, both Chickasaw
citizens and non-citizens alike. It invests in communities throughout
its reservation, Oklahoma, and the region. The Chickasaw Nation is
dynamic, and its work as a people is ongoing. It remains committed to
continuing its work and will do so in good faith--in accord with the
law and its people's right to sovereign self-determination.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Vann, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARILYN VANN, PRESIDENT, DESCENDANTS OF FREEDMEN
OF THE FIVE TRIBES ASSOCIATION
Ms. Vann. Greetings, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski,
and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for
giving me this opportunity to be a hearing witness.
I am Marilyn Vann, President of the Descendants of Freedmen
of the Five Tribes Association. I am a Cherokee citizen and a
Freedmen descendant.
We support enforcement of 1866 Treaty rights of Freedmen
descendants. The tribes allied with the Confederate States to
protect black chattel slavery. The 1866 Treaty granted the
Creek, the Cherokee, and Seminole free and enslaved peoples and
their descendants tribal citizenship rights. Choctaw Freedmen
were eventually adopted in 1885. Chickasaw Freedmen were not
members of the tribe at the time of the Dawes enrollment as per
the Federal courts.
Many descendants today need services the same as their by
blood relatives. Poverty began of the Freedmen during slavery.
Later, Freedmen suffered from race massacres, segregation, and
redlining. Freedmen descendants' disenrollment began in 1979.
The Freedmen members of the tribes that were disenrolled were
not allowed to vote on the disenrollment or only in nominal
numbers. Currently only Cherokee Nation works to fulfill its
treaty obligations to Freedmen.
As a result of past and current systemic racism,
descendants need help from the Senators. Some that need help
include Creek Freedman descendant Mr. Lovett of Okmulgee, a
senior citizen on disability. He needs rental assistance. Can
the tribes change without Congressional and Federal
intervention? History says no.
The Cherokee Nation only came into compliance in 2017 after
Federal court decisions in Cherokee Nation v. Nash and Vann,
and passage of Freedmen protective language in the 2008 NAHASDA
Reauthorization Act. Even today, some councilpersons and
candidates for tribal office run anti-Freedmen rights
campaigns.
The Seminole Nation has worked to exclude Freemen
descendants from receiving almost all services, even after
losing the Seminole Nation v. Norton case, Federal case in
2002, and receiving directions from the DOI and HUD that the
Freedmen citizens qualify for services. Their leadership has
granted the Freedmen as citizens rather than members, which
legally means the same, and reissued Freedmen tribal IDs that
state zero blood quantum and voting benefits only.
The Seminole tribal government has told other tribal
nations and Federal agencies the Freedmen citizens do not
qualify for services. In October 2021, Seminole Freedmen began
receiving medical services after the IHS sent orders to all
chiefs and tribally operated health units that the Freedmen
citizens qualified for health services. This came after my
visits to the Rockville IHS headquarters with Seminole
Councilwoman Samson, who is here today, requesting urgent help.
The Freedmen elders dying from COVID-19, such as Mr. Thomas,
whose wife was on the council, was covered by the national
press, when tribal and IHS COVID vaccines were denied to
Seminole Freedmen tribal citizens but given to other members of
the tribe.
The Muscogee Creek Nation stresses the validity of Article
3 of its 1866 Treaty which confirmed the reservation. See
McGirt v. Oklahoma. But it is silent on Article 2 of the same
treaty that granted the enslaved people and their descendants
the right to share in the national funds and all the rights of
Indians, Article 2. Creek Freedmen descendants went to tribal
court but have been waiting for a judge to be assigned to the
case since February 2021. The Creek Nation issued $$4,500
checks from COVID-19 funds to each by blood citizen. Not a
nickel went to the Creek Freedmen, a clear violation of that
treaty.
By the way, the Seminole Nation leadership denied the
Freedmen citizens its share of the COVID funds as well.
This Committee can assist the Freedmen. Here are some
suggestions. We ask Congress to write legislation that includes
Freedmen descendants in appropriations, new programs, or
reauthorization of old programs for entitlements that benefit
the nations. This must be done by Congressional language.
The DOI can register Freedmen descendants, giving those
that provide proof of descendancy, a Dawes enrollee, a
confirmed person is a treaty heir, that qualifies for Federal
services. We request field hearings or local listening sessions
to be held in Oklahoma by members and staff of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs so more voices can be heard. We ask
for investigations of CRS reports on the Freedmen treaty
issues. These do not equate citizenship, but would be a start.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marilyn Vann, President, Descendants of Freedmen
of the Five Tribes Association
Greetings, Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
Distinguished Members of the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My
name is Marilyn Vann and I serve as the President of the Descendants of
Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association, which is an Oklahoma
based nonprofit. The organization educates the public on the 1866
treaties, which created citizenship rights for the black freedmen and
freedmen descendants of the Five ``Civilized'' Tribes (Cherokee Nation,
Muscogee Creek Nation, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma, and Chickasaw Nation). The Association also works for an end
to Federal and tribal discrimination against freedmen descendants in
tribal enrollment, and in receiving Federal and tribal funded services
available to members/citizens of federal recognized tribes. Our
organization has members and official supporters throughout the United
States and incorporated in 2002. I have been President of the
organization since incorporation. On behalf of the Association, I want
to thank the Committee for holding today's hearing and for issuing an
invitation to me to testify before youtoday on this important issue.
I am a member of the Cherokee Nation and was a litigant in the DC
Federal court litigation, Cherokee Nation v. Nash and Vann v. Zinke and
all the historical research for the legal briefs. These cases
reaffirmed the 1866 treaty rights to tribal membership of Cherokee
freedmen descendants. In 2021, I was also a litigant in Cherokee Nation
tribal court case (Mayes v. Cherokee Nation Election Commission and
Vann), which dealt with the rights of freedmen tribal members to hold
office. Although I am not an attorney (I am a retired engineering team
leader), I have spoken on the history and the rights of the freedmen
descendants for almost 20 years including at the Congressional Black
Caucus Foundation meetings in 2007 and 2008. I also was a witness for
the House Financial Services Subcommittee Housing, Insurance and
Community Development Committee on Financial Services July 27, 2021. My
ancestors on the federal Dawes Indian tribal rolls were registered as
Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw freedmen although I do have documented
Cherokee and Chickasaw Indian ancestors who died prior to the Dawes
enrollment. By education I have a BS degree in engineering and retired
from the Federal government as a Treasury Department Engineering Team
leader with 32 years of Federal service.
Background and General History
Prior to 1492 a system of slavery had existed in some form within
these tribes in our original pre-removal homelands (now the
Southeastern United States), however slavery was not based on a
person's race but the conquering of other Indian tribes. Enslaved
Indians were often adopted into tribal nations overtime. The earliest
known contact of African enslaved people was with the Desoto Exhibition
in 1541, when Desoto traveled through the southern tribes. (Two
enslaved Africans on Desoto's exhibition escaped and were later adopted
by one of the Creek tribal towns.)
After 1492, persons of African ancestry were occasionally adopted
as members of the tribes or became members through Indian mothers,
however this practice became almost nonexistent as the Indian system of
slavery began to be associated with persons of African ancestry and
chattel slavery as more and more mixed white tribal citizens brought
enslaved Africans into the tribal nations. Some of these tribes wrote
their first slave codes before the Indian Removal Treaties.
Enslaved Africans were also taken on the Trails of Tears by their
tribes to do the hard dirty work of clearing fields, carrying bags,
chopping wood, etc. so that the rest of the tribe could more easily
survive and build new Indian plantations in the Removal Treaties lands
of Indian Territory. After the Indian removals of the 1830s and 40s,
Indian slaveholders were paid for enslaved Africans who died on the
Trial of Tears. Tribal Laws were passed which limited the rights of
persons of African descent to read and right, to own personal property,
to marry Indians, to vote, etc. except in the Seminole Nation. Prior to
the outbreak of the Civil War, African chattel slavery had become a
main part of economic wealth for some tribal citizens. Because Indian
slavers didn't own personal land, their wealth was based on the number
of enslaved Africans they owned.
The 5 tribes in 1861 signed treaties with the Confederate states
with the continuation of African chattel slavery being a primary reason
for the alliance with the Confederate states. Although not all tribal
members owned slaves, the leadership of the 5 tribes were slaveholders,
and many of the tribal members wealth was due to the slave-based
economy. Some of the tribal slavers owned hundreds of slaves, lived in
mansions, and had large plantations. The free Africans of the five
tribes were persons of African ancestry legally living within the 5
tribes at the beginning of the Civil War--though the majority of
Africans were enslaved under tribal law . Although the official
governments of the five tribes and most of the Indian troops fought for
the confederacy, there were three Union regiments. The United States
required new treaties with all of the five tribes after the Civil War.
The 1866 treaties of the Cherokee, Creek and Seminole nations adopted
after the Civil War between the tribes and the United States Government
ended slavery in those tribes, and set up provisions for tribal
citizenship of the former enslaved Africans with provisions giving
freedmen all the rights of native Indians of their tribal nation.
The 1866 Treaties between the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations and the
U.S. Government gave each of these tribes the option to adopt the
freedmen, in which case the tribe would receive a payment from the U.S.
Government. The Choctaw nation adopted the freedmen in 1883, and
received the funds they were entitled to as stated in the 1866 treaty.
Summary of the Choctaw and Chickasaw conditions of their enslaved
Africans and descendants found in Article III and IV of their 1866
joint Reconstruction Treaty.
--the Choctaw Nation was paid its full share of the funds and
interest;
--the Chickasaw Nation was paid only a part of its share and
interest because it failed to carry out the key requirement of
the treaty;
--the Choctaw Freedmen were adopted by the Choctaw and hence
were not eligible for any of the $300,000; and
--the Chickasaw Freedmen were not adopted by the Chickasaw but
did not move from Chickasaw lands and hence were not eligible
for any of the $300,000.
Details
Article 3 of the 1866 treaty required that the $300,000 be held in
trust for the Choctaw and Chickasaw (at 5 percent annual interest) and
only be paid to them if, within two years of the ratification of the
treaty, the tribes had passed ``laws, rules, and regulations'' making
each tribe's Freedmen citizens of the respective tribes (i.e.,
``adopting'' them). If no such laws were passed by the tribes in two
years, then the $300,000 would be removed from trust for the tribes and
would be held ``for the use and benefit'' of those Freedmen who chose
to remove from the tribes' territory. The United States would, within
90 days after the two-year period, remove all Freedmen who were willing
to leave. Any Freedmen who chose to remain, or removed and then
returned, were to have no benefit from the $300,000.
Article 46 of the 1866 treaty provided for an advance payment of
$200,000 to the tribes from the $300,000--$150,000 to the Choctaws and
$50,000 to the Chickasaws.
During 1866-1868, the U.S. appropriated funds for the advance
payments and for the interest to the Choctaw and Chickasaw.
Neither tribe adopted its Freedmen within the two-year period after
ratification of the treaty. Nor did the United States remove any of the
Freedmen, nor apparently did any Freedmen remove. The funds were
removed from trust for the tribes (so interest payments were no longer
due the tribes).
In 1873 the Chickasaw legislature passed an act adopting the
Chickasaw Freedmen, subject to the approval of the ``proper
authorities'' of the United States. Congress did not act, nor did the
Interior Department.
In the late 1870s and through the 1880s, the Chickasaw legislature
passed further acts and memorials asking for removal of the Chickasaw
Freedmen and otherwise expressing desires for their removal.
In 1883 the Choctaw legislature passed an act adopting the Choctaw
Freedmen. This was in response to a U.S. Indian appropriations act of
1882 involving a deduction from the two tribes' appropriations, and
allowing either tribe to adopt its Freedmen, under the 1866 treaty,
without the agreement of the other. By the 1883 Choctaw act, the
Choctaw Freedmen--who had not removed from Choctaw territory--were now
Choctaw citizens, and hence were not eligible for benefits from the
$300,000 in Article 3. Unlike the Choctaw, the Chickasaw did not adopt
the Chickasaw Freedmen--who had also not removed from Chickasaw
territory (some were also in Choctaw territory).
In 1885 an Indian appropriation act appropriated funds to pay the
Choctaws the balance owed them under Article 3 of the 1866 treaty. (A
1940 Court of Claims decision determined that the 1885 payment settled
the Choctaw payments in full.)
In 1894 the U.S. Congress approved the 1873 Chickasaw adoption act.
In 1897-1898, the United States negotiated the ``Atoka Agreement''
with the Choctaw and Chickasaw for the final allotment of all their
lands among Choctaw and Chickasaw citizens (including Choctaw
Freedmen); the Atoka Agreement was enacted in the Curtis Act of 1898,
but with an amendment providing that the final allotment of Chickasaw
and Choctaw lands include allotments to the Chickasaw Freedmen, and
also with an additional amendment authorizing a court case to determine
if Chickasaw Freedmen were Chickasaw citizens (under the 1873 Chickasaw
act), and hence eligible for allotment, or, if they were not citizens,
to determine United States compensation to the Chickasaw and Choctaw
for their lands allotted to the Chickasaw Freedmen.
In 1903 the U.S. Court of Claims found that the Chickasaw Freedmen
had not been adopted, because the 1873 act had been ``withdrawn''
before 1894, and hence that the Chickasaw Freedmen were not Chickasaw
citizens and were not eligible for allotments. This meant that the
United States owed the Chickasaw and Choctaw for their lands allotted
to the Chickasaw Freedmen. The court also found that the Chickasaw
Freedmen had not removed from Chickasaw or Choctaw territory, which
meant, the court found, that the Chickasaw Freedmen were not entitled
to any part of the $300,000 under the 1866 treaty. (A copy of this
decision is attached.) The Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Claims
decision in 1904.
The Freedmen of the 5 tribes (slaves and their descendants of
Indians) relationship was the same as the U.S.'s relationship to the
Tribes. That is, the Freedmen were, in essence, wards of the U.S.
government in relation to the U.S. Congress' plenary power to relate to
the Tribes. [In effect, Freedmen were colonial subjects that were not
legally sophisticated enough to advocate for their own best interest,
so the US had a higher standard of duty to act for them.] More
professionally stated, as ``guardians'' of the Freedmen's best
interests, the U.S. breached its duty by not taking vigorous measures
to see that the best interests of the Freedmen were served in requiring
the Tribes to keep the Freedmen as citizens rather than the course that
was taken. Unfortunately.
By the late 19th century, the five tribes reservations were overrun
by white intruders who pushed the Federal government to make Indian
Territory and Oklahoma Territory (both created by the treaties of 1866)
into a state. Tribal freedmen were not entitled to US citizenship under
the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution as they were not
slaves of U.S. citizens. The members/citizens of the 5 tribes,
including freedmen, were not U.S. citizens and did not receive U.S.
citizenship until the 1901 Five Tribes Citizenship Act was passed.
The Dawes final rolls were made by the U.S. government between 1898
and 1906 to distribute lands of the 5 tribes owned in common to the
citizens/tribal members based on agreements between each tribe and the
Federal government. See Curtis Act--Act of June 28 1898 (30 Stat 485)
which required division of tribal lands to tribal members/citizens.
Each tribe signed an allotment agreement which detailed the size of the
allotments and other criteria such as cut off days to apply for
allotments for their citizens. For example, under the Creek Agreement
of March 1 1901 (31 Stat at L 861) , Creek tribal members who died
prior to April 1 1899 were not authorized to be registered on the Dawes
Final rolls. (See also Supreme Court Case US v. Wildcat (244 US 111)
Under The Cherokee Agreement (32 Stat 716) Cherokee tribal members were
not listed if they died prior to September 1 1902. Freedmen of the
Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole tribes received the same size land
allotments as by blood members of the tribe. Most members of the tribes
were listed on the ``by blood'' sections of the rolls with a degree of
blood assigned by the Dawes commission. Freedmen and their descendants
of the Five tribes were placed on separate sections of the Dawes rolls
without degrees of blood by the U.S. Government largely to have a class
of citizens whose allotment land would have restrictions lifted earlier
( Act of April 21 1904 33 Stat at L189 ) than tribal members who had
been registered on the Dawes rolls with a degree of Indian blood. A
review of tribal membership lists (such as the Cherokee Nation 1880
tribal census) and U.S. government payment rolls (such as the 1852
Cherokee Drennen payment roll), and the 1871 immigration roll of
Shawnees who were granted citizenship in the Cherokee Nation by
agreement between the U.S, Cherokee and Shawnee tribes show that the 5
tribes and the U.S. government did not have degrees of blood/blood
quantum for tribal members before the late 1890s. All of the tribes had
some adopted citizens listed on the Dawes rolls. The Act of April
26,1906 34 Stat 137 made it almost impossible for persons registered as
freedmen to transfer to the by blood sections of the Dawes rolls. This
Act of 1906 also authorized the U.S. president to appoint the Principal
Chief (or governor) for each tribe. In the 1926 Oklahoma Supreme Court
case Sango v. Willig, the court makes it clear that a Dawes enrolled
Creek freedwoman whose mothers was listed as a , Creek by blood on the
Dawes roll is a ``non Indian'' for allotment purposes (i.e. the date to
sell her allotment) but not necessarily for other purposes. As stated
in the book, ``The Dawes Commission'' by national archives
administrator Kent Carter, persons of mixed African Indian blood were
generally classed as freedmen by the Dawes Commission.
Oklahoma became a state in 1907 with the state constitution
defining all persons except ``Negros'' as legally white. ``Negros
``(persons with any amount of African ancestry) were required to be
segregated in schools, restaurants, etc. from persons of all other
races in Oklahoma, not allowed to marry with persons of other races,
and grandfather clause laws were passed which stripped black Oklahomans
of the right to vote in state and Congressional elections until these
laws were overthrown by the US supreme Court (Guinn v. United States).
These laws did not affect persons with no African ancestry. For
example, in 1907 Cherokee Robert L Owen was elected as a US Senator and
Chickasaw Charles Carter was elected as a US Congressman. The Principal
Chiefs Act (Act of October 22, 1970--Public Law 91-496) was passed to
allow members of the five tribes to vote on the principal Chief.
Directions given by the Assistant Secretary of Interior in a letter to
Muskogee BIA director Virgil Harrington dated March 29, 1971, which
reaffirmed the right of the Cherokee, Creek Seminole, Choctaw freedmen
and their descendants to vote in the Principal Chief elections.
By the middle of the twenties century, the Department of the
Interior (DOI) began to issue certificate of Indian blood cards (CDIB)
based on the degrees of blood assigned by the Dawes commission.
Descendants of freedmen are unable to acquire CDIB cards for this
reason. During the first half of the 20th century, the U.S. government
began to use the degrees of blood to limit access to tribal services or
Indian preference by barring persons with lower blood quantum's from
accessing Federal services or Federal jobs at the DOI for Indians. This
also divesting the freedmen communities of needed resources. The BIA
still to this day have NO Freedmen descendants working within its
department. The DOI regulations eventually were changed in the year
2000 (25 CFR part 20) to authorize service eligibility based on tribal
membership rather than minimum one quarter blood quantum for Federal
funded services, however freedmen were still denied services funded by
the federal government in all five tribes until Cherokee freedmen
achieved victories in the courts in the twenty first century.
1866 Treaties Freedmen Provisions and Historic Background
Seminole Treaty and Seminole freedmen
ARTICLE 2. The Seminole Nation covenant that henceforth in said
nation slavery shall not exist, nor involuntary servitude, except for
and in punishment of crime, whereof the offending party shall first
have been duly convicted in accordance with law, applicable to all the
members of said nation. And inasmuch as there are among the Seminoles
many persons of African descent and blood, who have no interest or
property in the soil, and no recognized civil rights it is stipulated
that hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other of
the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle there,
shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens, and the laws of
said nation shall be equally binding upon all persons of whatever race
or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe.
Many of the black Seminoles had entered the Seminole reservation
during the early nineteen center as runaway slaves. They fought side by
side with the Seminole Indians to prevent the tribe from being removed
from what is now Florida to what is now Oklahoma. Prominent black
Seminoles including Abraham, Ben Bruno, and John Horse served as
Interpreters and advisors to elected tribal leaders. During the Civil
War, many Seminole leaders such as John Chupco, Billy Bowlegs and Fos
Harjo refused to support the Confederacy and removed to Kansas along
with black Seminoles such as Robert Johnson--Enlisting with the Union
Indian regiments. After the Civil War ended both Loyal Seminoles and
Confederate Seminoles were represented in treaty negotiations, with
Band Chief John Chupco being a representative for Loyal Seminoles and
John Brown who had been a confederate officer representing confederate
Seminoles.
Black Seminoles leaders after the Civil war included rancher and
store owners Ceasar Bruner and Dosar Barkus all of whom were band
Chiefs Many freedmen spoke the Muscogee language, attended schools with
Indians, worshipped at ceremonial grounds and were thoroughly a part of
the community.
The Seminole Nation did not have intermarried white citizens, but
there were some adopted Indians on the by blood section of the Dawes
rolls including Caddo Indians who did not receive degrees of blood.
After Oklahoma statehood, the Seminole Bands continued to meet and
elect band representatives, and the Band members including freedmen
voted and recommended Principal Chiefs for the US government to
appoint. Prior to the 1970s , the Seminole nation leadership
unsuccessfully requested to be repaid by the US government for the
value freedmen allotments. The litigation was unsuccessful
Creek Nation Treaty and Creek Freedmen
Creek Nation Treaty (Ratified July 19th, 1866, Proclaimed August
11, 1866)
ARTICLE 2. The Creeks hereby covenant and agree that henceforth
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly
convicted in accordance with laws applicable to all members of said
tribe, shall ever exist in said nation; and inasmuch as there are among
the Creeks many persons of African descent, who have no interest in the
soil, it is stipulated that hereafter these persons lawfully residing
in said Creek country under their laws and usages, or who have been
thus residing in said country, and may return within one year from the
ratification of this treaty, and their descendants and such others of
the same race as may be permitted by the laws of the said nation to
settle within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Creek Nation as
citizens [thereof,] shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges
of native citizens, including an equal interest in the soil and
national funds, and the laws of the said nation shall be equally
binding upon and give equal protection to all such persons, and all
others, of whatsoever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens or
members of said tribe.
Note--Freedmen Harry Island and Cow Tom (Cow Micco) were
interpreters for the nation and signed the treaty.
Prior to the 1830s removal from the Alabama homeland, the Creek
Nation consisted of separate tribal nations including Eufaula, Coweta,
Arbeka, etc. The separate tribes united and were organized as tribal
towns which were effectively voting districts. At the time of the Civil
War, there were several free Blacks who had either bought their freedom
or been freed by their master who was often a relative. In 1861, Creeks
leaders such as the McIntoshes, Perrymens and Graysons supporting the
confederacy passed laws to stop slaves from owning personal property
and required free Blacks to ``chose a master'' by March 10, 1861 or
they would be sold to the highest bidder. This required free Blacks to
sell their property before being returned to slavery. Many of the free
Black Creeks and Seminoles, traditional Indians and enslaved Africans
opposing the Confederacy, joined with Creek traditional Chief Opothle-
Yahola (who also owned enslaved Africans) to leave the Creek nation
territory for safety, but were attacked multiple times when they cross
into the Cherokee Nation territory (just north of Tulsa, Oklahoma) in
more than 3 major Indian Territory Civil War battles on the way to
Kansas, and although the Yohola's men fought bravely, they were forced
to leave most of their food and supplies to avoid capture. Hundreds
were slaughtered including old women and children by the Cherokee
Confederates. (Cherokees captured the Indians and placed them into war
camps and murdered the Africans). `The US Government in Kansas
encouraged many of the male refuges into military service and many
joined the First Indian Home Guard and fought bravely. During the Civil
War, men such as Cow Tom served as interpreters to the Union Army, and
Creek Africans such as Picket Rentie and Sugar George, and Robert
Johnson served in the Indian Home Guards to protect the nation from
Confederates. Other blacks were mustered into the First Kansas Colored
regiment.
After the end of the Civil War, both Loyal Creeks and Confederate
Creeks had a voice in the treaty. Loyal Creeks such as Sands advocated
for blacks to have an equal right in the tribe while confederate Creeks
such as DN McIntosh supported the freedmen having separate lands within
the nation. The Loyal Creeks prevailed. The treaty promised that Loyal
Creeks would be paid for their losses, however the freedmen Loyal
Creeks never shared in the Loyal Creek Funds which were paid in the
20th century. After the enactment of the 1866 treaty, In 1867the Creek
nation passed a constitution which incorporated the 1866 treaty
provisions. Three new tribal towns to incorporate the freedmen into the
Creek nation as citizens were set up, These were Northfork, Canadian
Colored, and Arkansas Colored for the freed slaves so that they could
select a warrior and Town King to represent them in the House of Kings
and House of Warriors (ie the legislature). The 1867 constitution
included the freedmen as full citizens of the nation. Schools were set
up for freedmen children although some schools were mixed, and freedmen
farmed and ranched on the reservation. Leading freedmen included Ketch
Barnett, town king Cow Tom, Harry Island, Judge Jesse Franklin,
businessman Sugar George--who also served as a town King, interpreter
Robert Johnson, Attorney, banker and teacher AGW Sango, Attorney James
Coodey Johnson who was an interpreter for Federal Judge Parker and an
advisor to the Seminole Nation Chief. After Oklahoma statehood the
tribal governments were greatly diminished and most of the tribal towns
ceased electing officers as the Act of 1906 limited the operations of
tribal government. Under the Creek Agreement, each Creek citizen
including freedmen received acre allotments. Creek freedmen community
leaders such as Jake Simmons Jr Fought against segregation of blacks
both freedmen and non freedmen after Oklahoma statehood.
The Creek nation leadership (Creek Indian Council) attempted to
remove the freedmen from the tribe in 1944, however this proposed
constitution was not approved by the DOI due to Creek citizens not
voting on the constitution.
Cherokee Nation
The Cherokee Nation, like the other 5 tribes that removed from the
southeast United States to eastern Oklahoma, was a tribe which enacted
black codes beginning in the 1820s in part due to the influence of
intermarried white citizens and their children. Prior to the 1820s
Cherokees retained its strength increasing its population by adopting
persons into matrilineal clans. Many white men received Cherokee
citizenship after marriage with Cherokee women. Several Creeks received
Cherokee citizenship during the 1820s based on an agreement between the
Creek and Cherokee nation. Cataba, and Natchez Indians were also
adopted citizens. There was no concept of ``Cherokee blood''. Both the
1827 and 1839 constitutions had discriminatory language against persons
of African ancestry although a small number of persons with African
ancestry were recognized citizens. The tribe allied with the
Confederate states in 1861, in part to protect permanent chattel
slavery. Cherokee freedmen such as Wheat Baldrige served in the Indian
Home Guard. After the Civil War, the Cherokee freedmen and their
descendants received all the rights of native Cherokees under Article 9
of the treaty of 1866. (14 Stat 799).
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. [945]
The 1866 treaty also authorized the adoption of ``friendly
Indians''. A band of Delaware and Shawnee were adopted into the tribe
in 1867 and 1869 respectively based on Agreements between those tribes,
the US government, and the Cherokee nation government,
The treaty of 1866 had representatives from both Union and
Confederate Cherokees. According to a court of claims lawsuit Cherokee
Nation v. United States 12 ICC 570, the major concerns of the tribal
treaty representatives were that the nation not be divided into two
separate nations--one for Confederate Cherokees, that the tribe be paid
for lands cessions to the United States, that railroad right of ways be
limited, and that the nation not be incorporated into a United States
Territory. After the treaty was signed, Chief WP Ross, a Princeton
educated lawyer wrote amendments to the 1839 constitution so that the
tribal constitution would be in compliance with the treaty of 1866. The
Cherokee men (women could not vote) approved the constitutional
amendments.
The US Senate held several Field hearings within the tribal
reservations to ascertain the status of the freedmen, and often spoke
to current or former tribal leaders to seek their understanding on the
treaty rights of the freedmen. For example, in US Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs Hearings (Conditions of Indian Tribes in Indian
Territory) held in May 1885 in Tahlequah, both former Chief WP Ross and
former Judge William Boudinot affirmed that the freedmen received their
citizenship rights through the 1866 treaty.
Prior to Oklahoma statehood. Freedmen such as Stick Ross, Jerry
Alberty, Frank Vann, Ned Irons and Fox Glass served in the tribal
council and their descendants such as Mr. L Ross and Mr. M Harrisonare
active in the tribal community today. After the Civil War, the Cherokee
freedmen periodically went to Federal court to enforce their treaty
rights to payments and annuities (See Moses Whitmire, Trustee for the
Cherokee Freedmen v. Cherokee Nation and United States 30 Ct Claims 138
(1895).
Almost all of the Cherokee freedmen who received tribal allotments
during the Dawes enrollment were listed on the Cherokee Nation 1880
census or were descended from someone listed on the 1880 census just as
were Cherokees by blood. Several persons who had been listed on earlier
rolls as ``native Cherokee'' rather than ``adopted colored'' (example
Anthony Crittenden) or received payment rolls only available to native
Cherokees (ie Perry Ross) were listed as Freedmen. Many white citizens
challenged the fact that they did not receive allotments due to the
dates of their marriages, the US Supreme Court (Redbird v. Cherokee
Nation) held that the intermarried white citizens did not have the full
rights as tribal members who were citizens by treaty including the
freedmen. About 200 Cherokee citizens who originally had immigrated
into the Cherokee nation received 160-acre allotments (rather than 110
acre allotments) due to the provisions of the Delaware-Cherokee
agreement.
Between Oklahoma statehood in 1907 until after the Principal Chiefs
Act was passed, the Cherokee Nation government a critical function was
to file lawsuits against the United States. Appointed Chiefs did not
receive salaries and had few funds for government functions. The first
tribal employee since statehood was Mrs Harder, who was hired in 1966.
An Indian Claims Court determined that the Cherokee nation was not
entitled to receive funds for adopting the freedmen or for the value of
the freedmen allotments (Cherokee Nation v. US 12 ICC 570 (1963)). The
judges emphasized that the tribe was not forced to adopt the freedmen.
In the 1960s Cherokee freedmen received their portion of a judgement
fund authorized by Title 25 Section 991.
Cherokee freedmen voted on the 1975 constitution (which authorized
all Dawes enrollees and descendants to be members of the tribe) and in
elections until 1983 in which they were blocked at the polls--which
appears to have been due to a dispute with the Principal Chief
Eventually the tribal code was passed to make it impossible for
freedmen to register in the tribe. The freedmen fought in both tribal
and federal courts against these discriminatory laws.
Need for Congressional Action
At the end of the Civil War, written legal promises were made to
tribal freedmen and their descendants--promises which have been broken
after Oklahoma Statehood.
Today's most descendants of freedmen are denied access to Federal
housing programs available to members of Federal tribes in violation of
the treaty provisions by tribal governments whose leadership assert
tribal sovereignty as sufficient reason to violate the treaties and
human rights of the freedmen. However, just as the U.S. Supreme Court
determined the U.S. government did not have a unilateral right to break
Article 3 of its 1866 treaty agreement with the Muscogee Creek Nation
(see e.g. McGirt v Oklahoma) \1\ the freedmen position is that the
tribes do not have a unilateral right to remove treaty rights from the
freedmen. All amicus briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by the
5 tribes stressed the validity of Article 3 (ceding and conveying the
west half of their lands in present day Oklahoma) of the Creek Treaty
when it came to the Muscogee Creek Nation retaining its reservation .
Article 2 of the treaty (abolishing slavery by the Creek Nation and
establishing the citizenship rights of the freedmen) still remains in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __ (2020); 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Interior does not have the authority to break the
treaty by discriminating against the freedmen.
INCOME BASED PROGRAMS SUCH AS NAHASDA
There is no doubt that many descendants of freedmen of the tribes
qualify for programs based on income. The lower incomes of many
freedmen are due not only to current racism but to historic racism
where the Federal government assisted in limiting assets of tribal
blacks. The Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen treaty allowed these nations
to limit freedmen to 40-acre allotments if adopted in sharp contrast to
other tribal members, including adopted whites, who received 320 acre
allotments. In 1907, Oklahoma became a state without the U.S.
Government requiring anti-discrimination laws in the state
constitution. The first law passed was Senate Bill 1 which set up Jim
Crow segregation laws throughout Oklahoma only for persons of African
ancestry--persons without African ancestry were legally white.
Establishment of sundown towns in cities such as Henryetta in the
Muscogee Creek Nation where all blacks were forced out and the 1921
Greenwood north Tulsa community Race Massacre (Greenwood community is
located in the Cherokee Nation reservation) compounded poverty of
freedmen citizens. Freedmen citizens such as Attorney BC Franklin--the
father of Historian John Hope Franklin who was a Dawes enrolled Choctaw
freedmen--lost all of their assets in the massacre.
The non-profit Oklahoma Policy Institute in 2010 published a paper
showing a significant wealth gap between Oklahoma Native Americans and
Oklahoma African Americans with native Americans having a median income
of 11,216 below the median come for the state and African Americans
having a median income of 18,231 below the state median income. This
same survey shows 63.4 percent of Oklahoma native Americans owned homes
while only 42.7 percent of Oklahoma African Americans were homeowners.
Of course, freedmen descendants were negatively affected by the U.S.
government's redlining policies in the past while currently being
unable for the most part to participate in the Federal funded Native
American programs to increase home ownership. The aiser Family
Foundation reports black poverty of 28 percent in Oklahoma versus 19
percent for American Indians in 2019. Descendants of Freedmen, due to
direct actions by the U.S., state, and tribal governments that have
diminished their net worth, have few financial resources to enforce
their rights in court or petition Congress for enforcement of 1866
treaty rights.
Impact of the Denial of NAHASDA and Other Federal Benefits on
Descendants of Freedmen
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
The ancestors of the Seminole freedmen were an integral part of the
nation even prior to the Civil War--serving as warriors, interpreters,
and after the Civil War as elected tribal leaders of freedmen political
bands. Article 2 of the Seminole Nation 1866 treaty states the freedmen
should have all the rights of native citizens. Seminole Nation
registers its descendants of freedmen in the tribe, but classifies them
as ``citizens'' rather than ``members'' and denies them access to
services. The Seminole Nation adopted a new constitution in 1969 which
continued to have fourteen bands including two freedmen bands. Freedmen
are allowed to vote and allowed 4 out of 28 tribal council seats based
on the tribal constitution. After successfully winning a lawsuit in the
court of claims due to underpayment of land sales in 1823 in Florida ,
Congress in 1991 approved a usage plan for tribal programs to be funded
by the judgement fund award. The BIA had recommended to the tribe that
the freedmen be excluded from the programs as their position was that
ancestors of the freedmen were not recognized members of the tribe when
the land was sold to the United States. After receiving the funds the
tribe voted that the freedmen could not participate in the programs,
taking the position that only tribal members with CDIB cards were
descended from persons recognized as tribal members in 1823. Freedmen
tribal leaders at that time asserted that members of Congress had been
assured that the freedmen would be able to participate in the programs
funded by the judgement fund. In 2000, the tribe attempted to remove
the freedmen completely through a constitutional amendment but was
blocked by the Department of Interior (DOI), as they did not receive
permission from the DOI to remove the freedmen from the tribe. In the
DC Federal case Seminole Nation v. Norton, \2\ the court ruling made it
clear that the Department of the Interior had not overreached its
authority in protecting the Seminole freedmen 1866 treaty rights to
tribal membership. (Some tribal funding was reduced during the court
case until the tribe added the freedmen back to the voting rolls and
invited the Freedmen council members to take back their seats)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Seminole Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton, 223 F.Supp.2d. 122
(D.D.C. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the Department of the Interior issued a letter to the
Seminole Nation that freedmen qualify for federal services based on
membership in Federal tribes (See Exhibit ) The Seminole Nation then
reissued the freedmen tribal membership cards to have the words
`FREEDMEN' stamped in bold letters, the statement `` zero (``O'') blood
quantum'' on the front and the words ``voting privileges only on the
back `` of the tribal card.
The Seminole Nation Housing authority uses a point system to
determine priority for NAHASDA funded services with fullbloods having
the highest number of priority points. In 2015, Seminole Nation
Freedmen Tribal Councilwoman Leetta Osborne Sampson and I requested in
writing that the office of inspector general and former HUD Secretary
Julian Castro investigate the denial of NAHASDA funded services to
Seminole freedmen. (Housing policies at that time required a CDIB card
and applications from freedmen citizens were not accepted). In 2016, we
received a letter from HUD officials that the tribe had changed the
housing policy to allow freedmen to apply for housing services. (See
Exhibit) The written policy was changed to allow freedmen to apply for
the programs in the applications by removing the requirement for CDIB
card and adding the words freedmen/citizens as eligible to apply.
Despite this change however, Seminole freedmen tribal citizens did not
receive Housing services because freedmen were not awarded points and
were placed in the same category as members of other tribes.
In April 2018, Councilwoman Osborne and I met in Washington D.C.
with Heidi Frechette, Director of Office Native American Programs
(ONAP) with the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of
Public and Indian Housing, and explained toMs. Frechette and her
colleagues that freedmen tribal members/citizens still were being
denied access to NAHASDA funded services. On September 1, 2018, the
Attorney for the Housing Authority of the Seminole Nation informed the
tribal council in a meeting (available on YouTube) that she had been
contacted by HUD and informed that the Seminole freedmen needed to be
able to receive NAHASDA funded services. Tribal councilmembers at the
meeting raised issues of tribal sovereignty, others stated that federal
law limited the programs to CDIB holders, that the freedmen should be
satisfied to be included with members other tribes, or that the federal
government should do something to fix the problem of the housing for
the freedmen and not the tribe. A review of the November 2021 Housing
application has removed the Seminole freedmen citizens from being
included with members of other tribes and again requires CDIB cards as
part of the application--resulting in Seminole freedmen once again
being denied the ability to apply for NAHASDA funded services
(Housing_App_2021_revised.pdf (hasnok.org). I am unaware if Seminole
freedmen have applied to other tribes for housing assistance, but the
Seminole Nation has proactively worked to discourage other tribes and
Federal agencies from providing federal services (including Indian
Health Services until late ) to Seminole Nation tribal citizens. For
example, the Cherokee nation was told by the Seminole nation that
Seminole freedmen did not qualify to be seen at Cherokee Nation medical
clinics. The Seminole tribe as of 2021 has approximately 18,800
registered members and citizens, which includesfreedmen. Of that
number, reedmen citizens account for approximately 3,200 persons in
2021. It is my understanding based on information received from tribal
council representatives that the tribe/tribal housing authority submits
population including both ``members and ``citizens'' for its Federal
funding requests. Notably, by counting freedmen among its total
population, the Seminole Nation receive a greater proportion of NAHASDA
formula funds and other program funds, despite the fact that it
continues to take affirmative steps to limit and often deny the
freedmen access to these federally-funded benefits. I want to emphasize
that no tribe is completely sovereign in use of NAHASDA funds and that
Seminole Nation elected leaders are aware of this. For example, an
Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit report dated September 10,2003
for the Seminole Nation Housing Authority required the authority to
repay NAHASDA funds used to purchase land in 2001, which was not
appraised prior to purchase and for which an environmental review was
not made prior to purchase. Finding (hud.gov)
Several months ago, I listened to a recording of a Seminole Nation
General Council meeting in which the Housing director discussed
freedmen and NAHASDA issues with the council. Some of the council
people implied that if the federal government wants the freedmen to
have housing they should make the tribe give them housing services; or
that HUD should give the freedmen housing.
Medical Services--Seminole Nation
The Seminole Nation does not operate medical clinics or hospitals.
The Seminole Nation has had a policy of informing other tribes and
Federal government units that the freedmen do not qualify for federal
services, subsequently many tribes units or Indian Health service
medical facilities until recently refused to process a chart for
Seminole freedmen citizens/tribal members. For example, the Cherokee
nation was contacted by Seminole nation after opening charts for
Seminole freedmen (approximately 2015) who advised them that freedmen
did not qualify for medical services . Subsequently, the Seminole
freedmen who had opened charts received letters from Cherokee nation
that they had been contacted by Seminole nation . On that basis the
letter stated Cherokee nation was suspending the charts until they
received further guidance. Such actions by Seminole nation created a
great hardship for many Seminole nation freedmen citizens/tribal
members. In 2014, 2017,and 2018,. Seminole Nation Councilwoman Leetta
Osborne Sampson and myself had meetings with officials at Indian Health
Services Headquarters requesting that they ensure that Seminole
freedmen had access to Federal funded medical services at HIS/tribal
clinics and hospitals. Indian health service officials stated that
members/citizens of tribes Indians with CDIB cards, and persons who had
proven they were Indians in the community qualified for Indian Health
Funded services. When the COVID-19 epidemic vaccine distributions began
in late 2020, IH-S and tribal units received sufficient supply earlier
than the states did. IH-S and tribal governments worked hard to ensure
that tribal members received the vaccine, but Seminole freedmen tribal
members were turned away from receiving shots although the vaccine was
available. National newspapers and national TV stations ran stories
about elderly freedmen such as the elderly members of the Thomas family
being turned away and dying from COVID-19. In October 2021, the Indian
Health Services sent advisory letters to all tribal chairman/tribal
chiefs, Indian Health Service Units, and urban health facilities
directing them to allow Seminole freedmen to receive health care when
they present their tribal membership/tribal citizenship cards Seminole
Freedmen have been receiving medical services at a variety of tribal
Indian Health Service Units since October 2021
Educational Benefits--Seminole freedmen
Seminole Freedmen have been unable to receive education at DOI
funded schools such as Haskell Institute although they are members/
citizens of a federal tribe . Nor do the Seminole freedmen receive
other scholarships for members of federal tribes as they tribe will not
certify that they are members of the tribe qualifying for such
assistance. Most schools do not allow Seminole freedmen children to
participate in Johnson-Omally Programs (JOM) as the Seminole nation
informs them that the children do not qualify for the programs. This is
in spite of the DOI letter from 2003 which state that Seminole freedmen
qualified for educational benefits.
Seminole Freedmen--Per Capita Payments, CARES Act or American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) payments
Although the Seminole freedmen applied, they did not receive any
relief payments funded by the CARES Act or the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA). No Seminole freedmen received a payment funded by the CARES
Act. All persons registered with the Seminole nation received 2000
payments as COVID 19 ARPA assistance payments except for the freedmen
citizens. Freedmen who applied received letters stating that they had
the ``wrong card'' and could not receive the funds. It is my
understanding that newly registered by blood Seminoles received the
2000 payments.
Muscogee Creek Nation
Article 2 of the 1866 Creek treaty (clearly maintains that . the
freedmen and their descendants shall have all the rights of native
citizens and are entitled to an equal interest in the soil and to share
in the funds of the nation--each Creek citizen including freedmen
citizens received 160 acre allotments during the Dawes enrollment.
https://learn.k20center.ou.edu/lesson/736/Reconstruction%20Treaties
%20of%201866%E2%80%94Reconstruction%20in%20Indian%
20Territory.pdf?rev=2701
After the Civil War, Creek freedmen served as tribal judges,
elected leaders, tribal attorneys, and were leading businessmen. The
descendants of these illustrious individuals such as Mrs. K Williams a
descendant of Freedmen Judge Jesse Franklin wish to join their
ancestors in serving their tribal nations. In 1979, the Acting Deputy
Commissioner of Indian Affairs approved a constitution which limited
tribal membership to ``creeks by blood''. Freedmen and freedmen
descendants were barred from voting on the constitution although some
had attempted to register for the election. For example, in 1976,
Reverend A Mitchell who then lived in Checotah had been turned away
when he attempted to register to vote = tribal employees/tribal agents
telling him that ``the freedmen had been removed from the tribe in 1906
by the US government. Mrs Mary C of Mcintosh County was also not
allowed to register to vote on the new constitution. Although tribal
law at first allowed applicants for citizenship to show that they were
Creeks by blood by using a variety of rolls, this language was removed
from tribal law in 1991 and the tribe did not allow applicants to
receive citizenship from these rolls which included the 1857 Old
Settler roll. For many years, the citizenship department did not even
allow persons who had no ancestors on the by blood rolls to receive an
application for Creek citizenship. Currently Freedmen are being denied
services through lack of tribal membership.
A 2018 Federal lawsuit (filed by Creek Freedmen descendants
unaffiliated with the Descendants of Freedmen Association) to enforce
1866 treaty rights of Creek freedmen was dismissed for technical
reasons. The judge requested that the freedmen litigants try to seek
justice in tribal court since there had been several years since
freedmen had tried to use the federal courts. Mr Kennedy and Ms Grayson
filed a case in tribal court in 2020 but the judge recused herself in
February 2021. A new judge has not been assigned although the tribe has
tried other civil cases based on the tribal website.
Many Muscogee Creek Tribal leaders as well as most candidates for
elective office have justified freedmen disenrollment and the tribes
right to discriminate against the freedmen based on tribal sovereignty
and or the fact that the DOI approved the 1979 constitution. Although
the current Muscogee Creek Nation chief issued a public statement on
May 27, 2021 that the tribe should have town halls with public comment
to consider revising the tribal constitution to again register freedmen
descendants ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/us/politics/freedmen-
citizenship.html) to my knowledge, no public meetings have been set to
date. A subsequent statement by Chief Hill on social media asserts that
freedmen citizenship issues must be resolved by the Muscogee people.
According to the Muscogee Nation website, the tribal population in 2021
was 86,100. Since the time of the Dawes enrollment, Creek freedmen were
approximately 1/3 of the tribal members. By extension, the number of
freedmen (if registered in the tribe were permitted) would be
approximately 28,000 in 2021 My conclusion is that the freedmen will
continue to be denied services regardless of treaty obligations absent
federal intervention. Descendants of Creek freedmen do not receive any
benefits including, housing assistance medical services, educational
services, or covid assistance payments due to their status as
nonmembers.$493.3 million dollars in covid relief funds under the
American Rescue Plan Act, the Creek freedmen did not receive a share of
those funds.
As a result of past and current systemic racism, Descendants of
Freedmen have substantial needs. While there are too many to name here
today, some of the persons who need assistance at the present time
include:
Mr. L. Lovett of Okmulgee--A senior citizen on disability
who has had a double lung transplant. He greatly needs rental
assistance. He is a Creek freedmen descendant.
Mrs. B. Wilson of Okmulgee -She recently passed away She was
a widowed senior citizen who desperately needed a roof. Her
daughter who took care of her still lives in the house and
should qualify for assistance based on income. The room has a
tarp and there is damage to the foundation. She greatly needs
housing repair assistance. She is a Creek freedmen descendant.
Ms. W. Rice of Okmulgee--A single mom who works a part-time
job and is a student. She needs rental assistance, but would
eventually like to receive assistance with a down payment to
purchase a home. She went to the Creek Nation to apply for
assistance, but was denied due to not being registered due to
freedmen status. Ms Rice and several other young members of her
family also need educational assistance.
Dr M just completed her medical residency in Oklahoma. She
and her family did not qualify for Federal financial assistance
available for Indians/tribal members as she and her family are
Creek freedmen. Receiving such assistance would have aided her
in getting her degree which could aid the Creek people.
Mrs Reagan and Mr Lewis are Creek freedmen descendants who
are lower income people living in Oklahoma. They are living in
unsafe housing and need housing assistance
Cherokee Nation
In recent years, the Cherokee Nation has worked to live up to its
treaty obligations to descendants of Cherokee freedmen, especially
since Judge Thomas Hogan's order was issued in the Cherokee Nation v.
Nash case in August 2017. In 2021, the Federal order was finalized in
the Cherokee Nation tribal supreme court in :RE: Effects of Cherokee
Nation v. Nash and Vann.
As a result of this federal litigation, I am pleased to report that
Cherokee freedmen descendants are being registered in the tribe and are
accessing housing assistance, COVID 19 assistance, medical service
programs under the Hoskin administration and previously under the Baker
administration. Freedmen as well as Delaware and Shawnee tribal members
can once again run for office as was the case prior to the diminishment
of tribal government in 1907 due to Oklahoma statehood. I myself was
appointed as a commissioner on the Cherokee Nation Environmental
Protection Commission in September 2021 by Honorable Principal Chief
Chuck Hoskin with approval by the tribal council, being the first
tribal member of freedmen status to serve on a Cherokee Nation Board.
However, I must emphasize to this Committee that this state of
affairs did not come about without federal intervention as well as
great sacrifices by freedmen and their supporters and attorneys. I
myself spent more than $100,000 in personal funds to ensure that the
attorneys were able to continue the Cherokee freedmen cases--this is
outside of personal funds used for advocacy. My good friend, Mr. Eli
Grayson, an activist who is Creek citizen with freedmen ancestry also
spent more than $100,000 in personal funds to advocate and publicize
freedmen rights. Former House Financial Service Committee Chairman
Barney Frank and his staff worked tirelessly to get freedmen protective
language included in the 2008 NAHASDA Re-Authorization legislation
which tied the tribes ability to receive federal housing funds while
litigation between the Freedmen and Federal defendants continued.
Federal funds were frozen for a few weeks during a 2011 close tribal
election for principal chief after a tribal court ruled to again
disenroll freedmen tribal members The funds were restored very quickly
after the tribe, the freedmen litigants, and the Department of Justice
agreed that freedmen would remain in the tribe during the litigation
and any settlement periods and the tribe would not discriminate against
freedmen during this period. A moratorium on registering new freedmen
tribal members continued until 2017
The attorneys on the cases, especially the Velie law firm, expended
hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal time--much of which has not
been reimbursed--to see the cases through to the end. In 2003, Cherokee
freedmen descendants commenced litigation in Federal court on
citizenship issues in the Vann v. Norton case The Cherokee Nation v.
Nash and Vann case was filed in 2009 by the Cherokee nation against
freedmen and the department of Interior. in 2004 (Lucy Allen ) case was
filedin tribal court and won in 2006 Under the administration of
Principal Chief Chad Smith, the Cherokee Nation spent tens of millions
of dollars to dismiss the Federal case(s) on technical grounds, and
hired Washington, DC lobbyists in attempt to tell a different history
of the freedmen than what is in the historical record.
There continue to be office holders and candidates for office who
run on anti-freedmen platforms--implying that freedmen citizenship or
freedmen rights to hold office is unconstitutional or an abrogation of
tribal sovereignty. Some office holders were even involved in illegally
obtaining signatures for the freedmen removal petition to vote the
freedmen out in 2006 by changing the tribal constitution. Because of
the concerns of Congress, the tribe suspended the disenrollments and
set up a tribal court case to review freedmen tribal membership.
Indeed, there are current councilmembers who argued in tribal court
in 2018 that the Cherokee Nation should appeal Judge Hogan's ruling to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A 2019 Chief Candidate
who was serving on the tribal council even denied freedmen children
school supplies they were entitled to under the Johnson Omally Indian
Education program when he worked outside the tribal government as a
school administrator in Muskogee. The language in the Housing draft
bill will provide extra incentive and insurance against those seeking
to deny freedmen their rights. Black U.S. citizens in the deep south
did not only depend on the courts to uphold their rights but also
sought support of Congress to uphold legal and human rights. The
Cherokee Nation has a population of approximately 400,000 tribal
members/citizens in 2022, including about 8,500 Cherokee freedmen
tribal members. Based on the Dawes enrollment, freedmen registered in
the tribe would have been approximately 48,000--the lower number of
currently registered freedmen is a direct result of the moratorium on
freedmen registration instituted by earlier tribal leadership.
Also, there are Federal Agencies, departments and BIA operated
schools which have been resistant to honoring the treaties. Officials
at a DOI operated University in 2020 refused to process Cherokee
freedmen tribal members applications until Principal Chief Hoskin got
involved, although the Chief of Staff had tried to resolve the issue
earlier.
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma had harsh slave codes. They heavily
supported the Confederate States, few if any Choctaw Indians fought for
the Union. The tribe had almost no free blacks prior to the Civil War
due to tribal law, (One of the few was the Beams family which had been
freed by their father who recorded this manumission in multiple
courthouses, but their nonblack relatives tried to reenslave them after
the death of the father. There Choctaw relatives ``sold them'' but
ultimately part of the family received justice through the courts after
running and hiding for years) and eventually getting citizenship in the
Creek nation. Some of the descendants of Mitchell Beams (Baccus family)
are currently registered in the Creek Nation.
The treaty was jointly with the Chickasaw Nation.
ARTICLE 2. The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby covenant and agree
that henceforth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise
than in punishment of crime whereof the parties shall have been duly
convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all members of the
particular nation, shall ever exist in said nations.
ARTICLE 3. The Choctaws and Chickasaws, in consideration of the sum
of three hundred thousand dollars, hereby cede to the United States the
territory west of the 98 west longitude, known as the leased district,
provided that the said sum shall be invested and held by the United
States, at an interest not less than five per cent., in trust for the
said nations, until the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nations respectively shall have made such laws, rules, and regulations
as may be necessary to give all persons of African descent, resident in
the said nation at the date of the treaty of Fort Smith, and their
descendants, heretofore held in slavery among said nations, all the
rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of
citizens of said nations, except in the annuities, moneys, and public
domain claimed by, or belonging to, said nations respectively; and also
to give to such persons who were residents as aforesaid, and their
descendants, forty acres each of the land of said nations on the same
terms as the Choctaws and Chickasaws, to be selected on the survey of
said land, after the Choctaws and Chickasaws and Kansas Indians have
made their selections as herein provided; and immediately on the
enactment of such laws, rules, and regulations, the said sum of three
hundred thousand dollars shall be paid to the said Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations in the proportion of three-fourths to the former and
one-fourth to the latter, less such sum, at the rate of one hundred
dollars per capita, as shall be sufficient to pay such persons of
African descent before referred to as within ninety days after the
passage of such laws, rules, and regulations shall elect to remove and
actually remove from the said nations respectively. And should the said
laws, rules, and regulations not be made by the legislatures of the
said nations respectively, within two years from the ratification of
this treaty, then the said sum of three hundred thousand dollars shall
cease to be held in trust for the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations,
and be held for the use and benefit of such of said persons of African
descent as the United States shall remove from the said Territory in
such manner as the United States shall deem proper, the United States
agreeing, within ninety days from the expiration of the said two years,
to remove from said nations all such persons of African descent as may
be willing to remove; those remaining or returning after having been
removed from said nations to have no benefit of said sum of three
hundred thousand dollars, or any part thereof, but shall be upon the
same footing as other citizens of the United States in the said
nations.
The tribe did not adopt the freedmen until 1885and received money
from the U.S. government for doing so pursuant to the terms of their
1866 treaty. The freedmen did receive some education through the tribe
after 1885 but were seen as lesser citizens. The tribe continued laws
against intermarriage with blacks and although blacks voted in tribal
elections before statehood, they were not allowed to hold office
freedmen Henry Cuthlow was elected but not allowed to take his seat in
the tribal legislature. Again, freedmen only received forty-acre
allotments when the Dawes commission divided the tribal reservation
land.
Between 1500 and 2000 Chickasaw and Choctaw freedmen challenged
their status on the freedmen section of the Dawes rolls. The litigants
were persons of Indian and African blood, some of whom were considered
to be family by their Choctaw/Chickasaw relatives, or who had exercised
the rights of citizenship in the Chickasaw or Choctaw nations. .Betty
Ligon, a Choctaw freedmen and the daughter of prominent Choctaw Indian
Robert Love was the lead plaintiff in Equity 7071 case which was
dismissed for technical reasons.
A constitution passed in 1983 removed freedmen from citizenship.
Freedmen descendants were not allowed to vote on the constitution which
disenrolled them. The freedmen thusly have been denied the ability to
access NAHASDA funds, receive services from tribal clinics, or receive
assistance from other program funds such as the CARES Act due to their
disenrollment.
The Choctaw nation had about 200,000 population in 2021. Based on
the freedmen being \1/3\ of tribal citizens during the Dawes
enrollment, approximately 66,000 freedmen descendants should be
currently registered in the tribe. A letter from Choctaw Principal
Chief Batton dated June 25, 2020 to Honorable Speaker Pelosi
criticizing proposed language in housing bills, which ties the ability
of his nation to receive federal housing funds to the tribe honoring
1866 treaty obligations asserted the language would destroy tribal
self-determination. Chief Batton stated that the Freedmen issue is a
problem caused by the United States, not the Choctaw Nation--completely
ignoring the slavery and black codes passed by tribal law prior to
1866, the tribes alliance with the Confederate States, the many years
the freedmen were uneducated, stateless people without citizenship in
any nation, discriminatory laws in existence after the adoption
blocking Choctaw freedmen ability to hold office and intermarry with
other tribal members--and the Choctaw tribe insistence on limiting the
freedmen tribal members to 40 acre allotments all added to the
impoverishment of the freedmen.
This is not even addressing the inability of today's Choctaw
freedmen descendants to access services available to registered tribal
members--which was not a decision forced by the US government but due
to tribal disenrollment actions. The Choctaw freedmen descendant as non
tribal members cannot access any Choctaw nation services. For Example,
the Choctaw Nation Housing authority requires CDIB cards to qualify for
its programs. Although Chief Batton in May 2021 issued a statement
calling for dialogue about freedmen citizenship, no town halls or
forums to discuss freedmen citizenship have been held. An Open Letter
from Chief Gary Batton Choctaw Nation. I also sent a response to the
speaker which the media has also published. Slave-owning past remains
problem for Choctaws--Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
(ocpathink.org) Based on past history, the chances of the tribe living
up to its treaty obligations without federal intervention appears
almost non-existent.
Chickasaw Nation
The Chickasaw Nation together with the Choctaw Nation signed a
joint treaty with the United States in 1866. The Chickasaw Nation had
harsher slave and black codes than other tribes--the tribe had almost
no freed blacks at the time of the Civil War. Like the Choctaw Nation,
Chickasaw Nation was given the option to adopt the freedmen. During the
1870s, the tribe passed a legislative act to adopt the freedmen, but
later rescinded it. I believe that the Chickasaw Nation's decision to
rescind it resulted in part because of the large number of Chickasaw
freedmen. Until the 20th century, the Chickasaw freedmen were stateless
people. Congress allowed the Chickasaw nation to sue the United states
in court of claims to determine if freedmen were members of the tribe.
(see also United States v. Choctaw Nation 193 US 115 *1904).
The Chickasaw freedmen received 40 acre allotments because there
was uncertainty of whether or not they had been adopted by the
Chickasaw Nation while the rolls were being made As a result of the
court rulings there were no Chickasaw freedmen minor rolls since the
court decisions came down before the rolls were finalized. As per the
court decisions, the United States government paid the Chickasaw Nation
for the value of the freedmen allotments.
More than half of persons listed on the Chickasaw section of the
Dawes rolls were listed as freedmen. Currently, the Chickasaw Nation
does not register freedmen as members of the tribe, and requires CDIB
cards for federal services. Based on estimated current Chickasaw Nation
population of 49,000, approximately 50,000 freedmen descendants would
be registered in the tribe based on extrapolation of the Dawes
enrollment.
Conclusion
The freedmen have been a part of the five tribes for hundreds of
years. The enslavement, discrimination, and disenrollments have
occurred not through any actions of the freedmen. They were not signers
of the Indian Removal Act or any other actions passed by Congress
against the tribes. The ancestors of todays freedmen were not invaders,
or enemy combatants but merely human beings who looked different who
had little political power.
Indian is a legal term in Federal law. According to US Supreme
Court case Morton v. Marcari, 417 US 535 (1974) an Indian is a member
of a Federal recognized tribe.
Some tribal leaders have opposed freedmen citizenship asserting
that the freedmen are not interested in their ancestral tribal nations,
are not cultural, or only interested in benefits. Some former leaders
have misstated that the freedmen ancestors were squatters, or that
slavery was better in the tribes than in the Deep South.
The freedmen reject this reasoning. No one wants to be a slave and
the same black codes against owning property, literacy, etc existed in
the five tribes. The Cherokee slaves fled from the Joe Vann plantation
to seek freedom in but were unsuccessful. The majority of members of
the five tribes do not speak the language, worship at ceremonial
grounds, participate in elections, attend council meetings, etc. There
are still a few freedmen speakers of the Muscogee language living on
reservations although there numbers are few. Some freedmen attend
Indian churches, still live on allotments such as members of the Brown
family in the Choctaw nation and the Ford family in the Creek nation.
There are also members of the Prince Family living on allotments in the
Chickasaw nation. Family members who are by blood tribal members attend
funerals and family gatherings of freedmen relatives and vice versa .
In all of the five tribes, there are tribal members who are married to
persons of freedmen status. Tribal candidates attend freedmen meetings
requesting support even in tribes where freedmen are not currently
registered as many freedmen have family members who are registered in
tribes. Currently, Creek Freedmen descendants participate in the Creek
festival--attending dances, participating in the parades, and attend
inauguration of Muscogee tribal leaders; the Muscogee Creek freedmen
Indian band is currently sponsoring Creek language classes. Tribally
registered Cherokee freedmen descendants attend language and history
classes, are members of Cherokee community organizations and are on the
boards of Cherokee community organizations in the DC area, the Kansas
City area, North Tulsa area, and the Oakland California area. There are
Cherokee tribal members of freedmen status who have mastered tribal
arts--one such person was my deceased friend Mrs Rodslen Brown, who was
an award winning basket maker. Cherokee freedmen tribal members are
employed at Cherokee nation and Cherokee nation businesses. I myself
ran for tribal council office in 2021. Placing third out of eight
candidates.
The treaties are still in effect as tribal governments and tribal
citizens have used in court citing the treaties. Both in criminal cases
such as McGirt and in Civil cases such as the Arkansas Riverbed cases.
The freedmen position is that the freedmen are still have their treaty
rights in accordance with the treaties even if they are not tribally
registered, they are to be treated the same as Indian tribal members in
accordance to treaty language. . . It is the responsible of the US
government to enforce the treaty.
You may ask how do we believe that the members of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs can assist the freedmen if they accept that
the treaty rights of the freedmen descendants are still valid?
1. The Department of Interior can register the freedmen
descendants, giving those who provide sufficient proof a
descendancy of a Dawes enrollee letter acerating the person is
a treaty Indian who qualifies for federal services.
2. Government departments such as Indian health service can
receive directions that the freedmen with the descendance
letters qualify for certain programs such as Indian Health
service, tribal schools, Indian health service scholarships, or
preference for jobs in the Department of Interior or the Indian
Health Service. The BIA can confirm with the school, hospital,
etc that the freedmen descendant is qualified as a descendant
of a Dawes enrollee/treaty Indian.
3. For those services run by the tribal governments through
compacts or 638 contracts, we request that the federal
government set aside funds specifically for freedmen use who
are not being served by their tribal governments either due to
tribal council actions which block the freedmen such as in the
Seminole nation or disenrollments in violation of the treaty
such as in the Creek nation. We ask that HUD or other agencies
initially run these programs for freedmen use. The legislation
should also allow for freedmen bands, freedmen organized tribal
towns, or freedmen organizations to receive funds to run the
programs--contract or compact with the agencies.
4. We request Field Hearings to be held in Oklahoma by members
and staff of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs so that
more voices of the freedmen people can be heard
5. We ask that the Committee request CRS reports on the status
of the freedmen of the tribes.
6. We request that the inspector general's office or other
government departments run investigations on five tribes
judgment funds paid out since 1971 and ascertain if freedmen
were able to share in the funded programs or per capita
payments made available to non freedmen tribal members.
7. We ask that audits by the Inspector general's office be
made of Seminole Nation programs to determine if and when
funding numbers given to government agencies for services or
covid 19 relief included the registered population.
8. We ask that the US government insure that freedmen share in
the COVID relief payments in accordance with the treaties. We
emphasize that the Creek freedmen have not received the four
thousand dollar payments that other members of the Creek nation
received in the last two years in ARPA funds although the
treaty says the Creek freedmen are to share in the funds of the
nation.
9. We ask that the committee be open to legislation which ties
tribal funding with compliance with the treaties similar to
that proposed to Chairman Waters last year for the NAHASDA
reauthorization act . Although we understand that some members
do not support such legislation, such legislation has
encouraged compliance with the treaties.
10. Amendments to the 1947 Stigler Act made in 1918 (Public
Law 115-399) do not allow freedmen descendants whether or not
registered in tribes to inherit or otherwise obtain restricted
property from spouses or family members. The freedmen ask for
equity so far as property rights.
11. Freedmen descendants even if tribally registered are
treated differently in the criminal courts than by citizens of
their tribes. My understanding is that some of this is due to
pre civil War cases such as the 1846 Supreme Court case United
States v. Rogers which dealt with whether an adopted white
citizen was an Indian for criminal purposes. (Judge Roger Taney
of the Dred Scott decision was judge on this case). We ask that
the Committee review this issue and use your authority to place
all tribal members on the same footing in criminal cases.
I stress that the suggestions above do not equate to equal tribal
citizenship but this would be a start whereby the US government is
doing its part to live up to its treaty obligations.
Distinguished members, I thank you for the opportunity to provide
this information to the Committee
The Chairman. I thank all of our testifiers. It is really
extraordinary testimony, all of you deeply professional, deeply
knowledgeable, obviously not in agreement, some intense
frustration expressed. I respect that.
These issues, as I said before, are foundational to
people's identity, to communities, to tribal identity. So I
just wanted to acknowledge the professionalism with which you
all delivered your testimony.
I will start with Mr. Newland. I understand the department
is currently gathering data relating to Freedmen eligibility
for certain Federal benefits. Can you just talk a little bit
more about what is going on in that process, and how it is
coming along?
Mr. Newland. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my
testimony, we had conducted consultation, formal government-to-
government consultation with the Five Tribes back in February.
We received, in addition to sitting down and having a
conversation on some of these same issues, we received
comments. The question was whether to admit non-tribal member
Freedmen descendants as students at Haskell and SIPI.
One of the challenges with that is that the BIA is not
currently set up in a way where we have the capacity to make
determinations about who would and would not be eligible. We
typically rely on tribal governments for membership and
citizenship questions.
So we haven't yet decided definitively on a course of
action coming out of that consultation. But those are some of
the issues that we were considering.
The Chairman. I am sort of assuming you can't answer this
question, but based on the data that you are gathering so far,
do we have a ballpark number of how many Freedmen descendants
have equities across the Five Tribes?
Mr. Newland. I don't have that number, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
There has been talk, Ms. Mann's testimony talked about a
CRS report, there has been talk among staffers about a GAO
report. Cards on the table, as I am thinking about the path
forward, that strikes me as an important first step, just to
sort of set a baseline of how each of the Five Tribes are in a
different situation, both in terms of their treaty obligations
but also their current view of the issue and where they may or
may not be in pending litigation.
Also, some baseline data about how many people are we
talking about. What percentage of the current rolls would this
constitute, what kind of resource requirements would that
implicate? I am wondering what your thoughts are about a GAO
report to try to get a level set here about the history, the
legal aspects, the mechanics of conducting a roll. I know
something about this from the Native Hawaiian community, the
blood quantum questions, the lineal descendancy, they are not
so easy to settle.
So even before you get to the potential for public policy
in this space, you need to know what the facts are. So I am
wondering what you think about that.
Mr. Newland. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to work with
the Committee to better understand how that study would be set
up. But you hit the nail on the head, that simple descendancy
does not in and of itself necessarily mean that someone would
be an eligible Freedmen descendant, because each tribe has
slightly different citizenship requirements.
So the short answer to your question is, we would be happy
to continue those conversations that look at how we would
better define the numbers here.
The Chairman. My final question before I turn it over to
Vice Chair Murkowski, and I will do a second round to try to
ask some additional questions, Chief Hoskin, you testified that
the nation has approved and processed just under 12,000
citizenship requests. Do you have an idea, was it an initial
rush and now you just have a few coming in in the sort of
regular order? Or are there are a lot of requests still pending
for processing? How is this working?
Mr. Hoskin. There was an initial rush, because of the
obvious news of the court decision and how we embraced it. But
the number has grown steadily. So when I testified before a
House committee earlier this year, we were somewhere in the
neighborhood of the 8,000 range. So that gives you an idea, now
we are closing in on 12,000.
Now, we are the largest tribe by population in the United
States, coming onto 440,000 citizens, in that neighborhood. I
think as we go out and engage in our outreach, Mr. Chairman, we
are encouraging more people to sign up. It is a rigorous
process, and it should be. But we are doing outreach, and I
think that is why you see our numbers continue to grow.
I don't know what the ceiling is, and I don't know right
now whether we can get this Committee the information, what our
pending applications are. But we process thousands of
applications for citizenship every month for Cherokee,
potential Cherokee citizens of all sorts of descent, including
Cherokee by blood and Freedmen.
So I think that number is just going to continue to grow.
The Chairman. Just before I turn it over to Vice Chair
Murkowski, just for the other representatives of the tribes,
whether over the table or in subsequent correspondence, I am
going to try to get some fidelity on how many people we are
talking about for each of your tribes, and what percentage of
your current membership that may comprise.
I understand that is sometimes sensitive information, given
that you are sovereigns. So I want to be respectful of that.
But I also think for decision making purposes we need to
understand not just the legal and moral and historical
implications, but how many people are we talking about and if
it is a resource question, what it would cost to address.
So just to let you know those questions are coming, and I
am sensitive to the idea that maybe you don't want to give me
incredible precision with the microphone on.
Vice Chair Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin with a question to you, Assistant
Secretary Newland. When Secretary Haaland approved the Cherokee
Nation's new constitution guaranteeing full citizenship, she
did state very clearly, ``Tribal self-governance is the best
path forward to resolving internal tribal conflicts. We
encourage other tribes to take similar steps.''
But as we have heard very clearly today, the treaties that
the Five Tribes are under are very different, and therefore the
obligations to the Freedmen and their descendants are at
question here, of course.
So the question to you is, if the tribe's treaty does not
require it to extend membership to Freedmen, what Federal
obligations does the Federal Government have to the Freedmen
and to their descendants? I guess a follow-on to that would be,
if there are any administrative authorities that the Department
of Interior possesses that could be utilized to address the
concerns. You indicated that consultation has been underway,
and discussions about BIE and BIA, and the department has not
determined yet how to move forward.
Can you speak again to the Federal obligation and also to
potential administrative authorities?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I want to make
sure I am understanding your question correctly. Are you asking
if a Freedmen descendant does not have a legal right to tribal
citizenship, at that point what would the United States'
obligation be?
Senator Murkowski. Correct. What would the obligation be
then to the Freedmen and to their descendants.
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. If there is no
legal right to tribal citizenship, it is not clear that the
United States would have a trust duty to any individual as
though they were Indian or as though they were a tribal
citizen.
Senator Murkowski. So what about any administrative
authorities within the department to address some of the
concerns that we have heard articulated today?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Vice Chair. This has been a
difficult question for us to answer. I know some folks here in
the room have views that the answers are clear on their face.
But in terms of how we would administer direct services to
Freedmen descendants, again it is very difficult for us to put
that into practice through the BIA, because we are simply not
set up or not constituted right now to make determinations
about who would be a lawful or legitimate Freedmen descendant
entitled to those services and who would not be.
So the answer to your question is, it is just not clear
today what administrative capabilities we would have.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask yet probably another hard
question, and that is a recognition that as sovereign parties
to treaties, tribes clearly have an important role in
interpreting the meaning of the treaties. But the United States
is also the other sovereign party to the 1866 Treaties that
were signed by the Five Tribes.
The question would be, what role does the United States
have to interpret and enforce the terms of these treaties as
the other signatory? Probably not easy, again, to respond to.
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Vice Chair. They are all hard
questions, which is why we are here in this setting today. Both
sovereigns who are party to a treaty have a responsibility to
fulfill the terms of the treaty, and also have a right to help
determine the treaty and its meaning.
The Cherokee Nation's journey here is a great example of a
mix of diplomacy between the United States and the Cherokee
Nation, but also the Cherokee Nation exercising its inherent
sovereign powers through its own political processes and its
own judicial process to resolve these questions, without
conflict or having an outcome imposed upon them from outside
the nation.
So I think the United States has that ability as well as a
sovereign party to a treaty. But that can be, I think, the best
way to resolve those is within the tribe and through the
nation-to-nation relationship.
Senator Murkowski. Assistant Secretary, hopefully this is
very quick and very easy. But the Seminole Nation claims in
their testimony that there are still some Federal services that
require the CDIB cards, the Certificate Degrees of Indian Blood
cards. These are including services that are provided by both
BIE, BIA, and Indian Health Service.
Can you share with me whether or not a CDIB card is a
Federal requirement for eligibility to access BIA programs and
services?
Mr. Newland. Madam Vice Chair, typically we refer to
somebody's, a person's status as a tribal citizen or tribal
member for the delivery of those services. In most cases, and I
believe with respect to all five of the tribes represented to
date, they perform the CDIB functions under contract with the
BIA under their tribal government authority.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am well over
my time. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lujan?
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
you, Chairman Schatz and to Vice Chair Murkowski for this
important hearing to discuss these respective treaties of 1866.
I want to thank each of our esteemed witnesses for taking
time to be with us today and for all of our constituents who
are here as well to participate in person, and for everyone
that is participating virtually as well with this important
conversation.
My first question is for Chief Hoskin. How has recognizing
Cherokee Freedmen as Cherokee citizens affected the Cherokee
Nation?
Mr. Hoskin. I think it has affected us in a positive way.
Senator, there is something about living up to what we see at
Cherokee Nation insofar as our 1866 Treaty as an obligation. We
think treaties are solemn promises. So that in and of itself I
think does something for the Cherokee people.
I also think that exploring a part of our history that we
have frankly suppressed, collectively, individually, and are
now doing the opposite, embracing it, is good. Frankly, it is
good for the United States to take some scrutiny of its own
history. I can say that as the Chief of the Cherokee Nation,
because the United States has suppressed Cherokee history
collectively, individually. We have to look in the mirror, and
we have to recognize that we have done the same.
Embracing Freedmen history, going into communities where
many Freedmen descendants live, for me as Chief, I think it has
made me a better chief. It has exposed me to some of the needs
in that community that we need to work to meet.
So I just think it has been completely positive. I am not
going to suggest that there hasn't been some difficulties in
terms of our internal debates and discussions about whether
this is what the treaty meant. Cherokees are certainly noted
for disagreeing from time to time. We have a great and vibrant
democracy in the Cherokee Nation, and people have raised their
voices. I think that has also been healthy.
But ultimately, we respect the rule of law. We respect our
ancestors, and our ancestors agreed, 156 years ago, that
Freedmen and their descendants should be considered people that
have all the rights of Native Cherokees. Being able to say that
is important.
Lastly, Senator, when I come into this chamber or in any
forum in which I am pressing the government of the United
States to live up to its obligations, I do so as a chief of a
nation that is living up to the obligations in that same
document. It would be difficult for me, Senator, to come to
this Committee and press for treaty rights if I could not say
to myself, we are living up to all of our obligations. That
makes Cherokee Nation, insofar as our treaty is concerned, I
think a nation in a stronger position than we would be had we
not done that.
Senator Lujan. Thanks, Chief Hoskin.
Assistant Secretary Newland, you mentioned in your
testimony that Interior is continuing to review consultation
feedback before it makes a decision on whether Freedmen are
allowed to enroll at Haskell Indian Nations University in
Kansas and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New
Mexico. Assistant Secretary Newland, although enrollment at BIA
post-secondary schools is still under review, what are some
direct Federal services that Freedmen with tribal membership
are entitled to?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator Lujan, for the question. So
if Freedmen descendants are enrolled as tribal citizens then
they are brought within the scope of our relationship, between
the United States and tribal nations, and would then be
eligible for the services that the Federal Government provides
to that tribe, and its members.
Senator Lujan. Thank you for that.
Ms. Vann, yes or no, are Cherokee tribal members with
Freedmen status able to receive every direct Federal service
and right that the Federal Government provides to tribal
members without Freedmen status?
Ms. Vann. No.
Senator Lujan. My follow-up is what Federal services and
benefits are they not eligible to receive despite having full
tribal citizenship?
Ms. Vann. When the Stigler Act amendments were made in
2008, the Act of 1947, the language did not allow Freedmen
tribal members/Freedmen citizens to inherit restricted land
from their relatives or spouses of their tribes, and the land
would retain its restrictions.
One other thing is that Freedmen tribal members and
Freedmen citizens are being treated differently on the
reservations when it comes to criminal cases. Again, I am
talking about the McGirt decision. So those are the two areas.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that response, Ms. Vann.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I do have other
questions I will be submitting into the record and to follow up
with those that I have asked. Thank you for the time today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lujan.
Senator Lankford?
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you . Thank you to al
of you that are here. It is nice to see so many Oklahomans here
and get a chance to hang out with neighbors. I very much
appreciate your testimony, for everyone coming today.
Especially I want to thank Principal Chief Hoskin, Chief
Johnson, for coming here to be able to represent, and
leadership, all of you, have done a great job representing your
tribe. I especially want to recognize the two chiefs who are
here as well.
Also for Marilyn Vann, we met 11 years ago, when you chased
me down in a town hall meeting at a public library and cornered
me in the room to talk about Freedmen issues.
Ms. Vann. Right.
Senator Lankford. You were tenacious about that, and you
have never stopped in the process. You represent the Freedmen
well. You have stayed very knowledgeable on these issues and
have stayed tenacious in the process on that. So it is great
over a now-decade long friendship with us that we have stayed
in contact since then. You didn't scare me off when you
cornered me in the room to be able to talk through issues, and
you still don't scare me off. I am glad to be able to call you
a friend as well.
Let me ask a general question on this, and just bring this
out. The Chairman is trying to be able to figure out how do we
get to resolution so this is not another century from now and
this same kind of hearing is still occurring. Because many of
you referenced, these are resolved issues within our tribe, it
has been resolved in law, it has been resolved through
different treaties, it has been resolved through different
arrangements. But it is clearly unresolved on some of these
issues.
So the key becomes how do we actually get to resolution on
this. If you could describe to me the relationship and the
number of Freedmen that are connected to the tribe that we know
of. As you mentioned before, Chief Hoskin, it is about 12,000
at this point for the Cherokee Nation. The number, and also,
what is the current relationship there, whether it is voting
rights, whether it is other benefits, or that it is nothing at
all. That would be helpful just to be able to get some context
for the record on that.
Chief Hoskin, obviously yours is the easiest at this point.
Mr. Hoskin. Yes, thank you, Senator. It is good to be here
and spend some time with you.
Cherokee Nation citizenship is equal. I suspect my good
friend Marilyn Vann has the same thing with here that I have
with me, which is a Cherokee citizenship card, which apart from
our picture and name is indistinguishable. That is where it
starts in terms of the symbolic representation of citizenship.
But beyond that, there are equal rights. There are no
distinctions between Cherokee citizens of Freedmen descent or
Cherokees by blood descent. I would note for the Committee that
Cherokee Nation is even more diverse than that. There are
Cherokee citizens of Shawnee descent, Cherokee citizens of
Delaware descent. Those all stem, Senator, from that same time
period, the period of post-Civil War. There is no distinction.
I do want to note, if I could take the opportunity, my
friend Marilyn Vann noted those two areas in which Cherokee
citizens of Freedmen descent do not have equal access. Those
are two distinctly Federal issues, for which the Cherokee
Nation would support any discussion, any dialogue on how to
repair those. Those are not within the control of the Cherokee
Nation.
So to the extent, Senator, that it is within our control,
equal rights is the order of the day at the Cherokee Nation.
Senator Lankford. Chief Johnson, it is good to see you.
Mr. Johnson. Good to see you.
Senator Lankford. Do you have an accounting of what that
number might look like for Freedmen that are attached to the
Seminole Nation, or the relationship there, and what that
relationship is like?
Mr. Johnson. The Freedmen that are numbered within the
Seminole Nation citizenship, about 2,500. And I want to say
some things, on some things that are what I call innuendo. If
anyone here has studied the history of the southeastern tribes,
what you are going to find is that the Seminoles are totally
separate, and there are relationships with persons of African
descent. My lands, the longest wars in American Indian history
was fought between the United States, the Seminoles, and what
then were called the Maroons, some of them were escaped slaves,
some of them were free people. That was freedom fighters that
were fighting for the same cause, and that was to remain free.
The Seminoles have always had the Freedmen as their
citizens, since 1866. We had a Florida Land Claims case not too
long ago, back in the 1990s. That was as the Seminole Nation
was recognized by Congress in 1823. The Freedmen was not, the
so-called Freedmen at that time was not actually Freedmen, they
were persons of African descent, Maroons, freed slaves or
escaped slaves from the south. So they were not eligible for
those judgment funds as written by Congress.
Now, what we know as Seminoles is that since 1866, the
Freedmen have been citizens. They have two seats on the tribal
council, which is four seats, on the tribal council. They can
vote on measures that are passed by the tribal council of the
Seminole Nation. If they come in for enrollment, they come in
and they are enrolled as citizens.
Customs among American Indians are very important. I hear
all kinds of words being said this day, but my lands, our
treaty says that the terms of the 1866 Treaty made it clear
that said legislation should not in any manner interfere with
or annul the present tribal organization, the rights, the laws,
the privilege and the customs. It has always been the custom of
the Seminole, because the treaty says so, it says right here in
the treaty that its members are citizens. We had that choice to
say members are citizens.
So I see interchangeably that term being used, citizen,
member, citizenship, membership, all that type of thing. And
that might work for the Federal Government. But in the customs
of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Freedmen and the
descendants of the Freedmen, there is no such thing as a
Freedman today. I think you know that. They are descendants of
Freedmen. And they have always been by custom of the Seminole,
the Seminole Indians have been members of what, of the Native
Bands, the twelve different Native Bands within the Nation.
Once after 1866 and the development of the Freedmen Bands, they
have been members of those particular bands as well.
But they have always been seen as citizens. In the customs
of the Seminoles, that became the specific tribes of Florida
that became known as Seminoles, we have always been known as
the members of those specific bands. And that is in the
Seminole Nation. So that is how the Seminole Nation sees it.
That is our oral history, that is our tradition. And I believe
the Treaty actually supports those two terms being used, and
that is how the Seminoles use them in this present day as well.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Chief Johnson.
Mr. Burrage?
Mr. Burrage. Thank you, Senator. With regard to a path
forward, well, before that, I don't have a number to give you.
We can get that, but I don't have a number to give you. But
with regard to a path forward----
Senator Lankford. Yes, it is not so much as path forward as
it is just a description of the current relationship as far as
services, what may be different on that.
Mr. Burrage. The Choctaw Nation does not recognize the
Freedmen. That is because of the constitution. But I just want
to bring forward on that constitution that a relevant Federal
court, the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior
were in that case. There was specific discussion about how
certain people would be treated, be it adopted, intermarried,
white, and the Freedmen. And a determination was made that it
wouldn't be Choctaw by blood, Delton Cox from Poteau, Oklahoma
was on that commission. And I have talked to him and he said
this specific issue was discussed and the Federal Government
never raised an objection, they never raised the treaty issue,
they never raised the Freedmen issue, and approved this
constitution.
We think that Choctaw Nation as a sovereign entity should
be able to determine its membership as set forth by the Supreme
Court.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Burrage.
Jonodev, I am going to call you by your first name, because
we already know each other. Give us the approximate number that
it is in a relationship, if it is known, and then any other
benefits or details or connections.
Mr. Chaudhuri. I don't think specific numbers are known,
because the data is notoriously challenging to confirm the
validity of. Along those lines, Creek Nation has been engaged
in an active effort to compile data internally and collect
historic, cultural, legal information to help provide
background for citizens of Creek Nation to have an informed
dialogue that is driven by facts, not by political rhetoric.
And that informed dialogue, incidentally, may go beyond any
specific treaty provision. I want to point this out, because
the treaty issue has been framed in very conclusory terms about
what it says and what it doesn't say. But as I have said
before, the treaty itself is working its way through our court
system.
But beyond that, this information gathering that our chief,
Principal Chief Hill, has promoted as part of a national
conversation, will help inform conversations beyond simple
treaty interpretation. Any nation worth its salt, including the
United States, has to regularly determine whether or not
existing laws are consistent with the will of the people. And
you need information, you need data to have that discussion.
But I would just say, in a previous position, I was at an
agency that cited regularly a statutory provision that is often
cited in many watershed legislations in terms of Indian
affairs. That legislation talks about the fundamental policy
goal of the Federal Government is to support strong tribal
governments.
So whether it is through the judicial process of Muscogee
Creek Nation or the public voting process of Muscogee Creek
Nation, the Federal Government has a responsibility to support
the sovereignty of the nation as it engages in this dialogue.
It is important that it does so, because as I said before,
colonialist history does not bode well in terms of efforts by
the United States to impose its values on these sovereign
nations. We need to learn from history.
So one way to turn sympathetic folks in this issue against
Federal action is to impose solutions rather than have a true
healing process within the nation that is fostered by
information. That is what we are engaged in right now in
Muscogee Creek Nation. People may have concerns about time
frames, people may have concerns about when things are going to
happen. But any progress of any nation comes in its own time.
Yes, we need to push for a conversation, but it can't be
imposed by the United States.
So, thank you, Senator. Your question about data is very
well taken. The are historic problems with the data. But we are
internally looking at it. I caution against conclusory
positions regarding what one treaty provision means without
having the courts take a look.
Senator Lankford. I get that. I respect that, that is
there, the Chairman has been working on it for a while and
trying to be able to think through how to be able to gather
more data. The work the Muscogee Creek Nation has already done
will be very helpful in that process to be able to be
informative for a process like that.
So that is a helpful piece to be able to have. I appreciate
that very much. What I think you hear from this Committee, and
certainly from the Chairman, is how do we work together in this
process. I don't hear a Federal action to be able to try to
step on any kind of tribe in that. It is a chance to partner
together.
Mr. Greethman?
Mr. Greethman. It is just a defined term. Chickasaw Nation
doesn't track Freedmen or non-Freedmen. There are Chickasaw
citizens and non-citizens. As I said, this was litigated over a
century ago, so there aren't separate tracks of citizenship.
There are just citizens.
Many Chickasaw citizens are also folks who are descended
from people who were held in bondage. So they could be
classified as Freedpersons, but they are also on the Chickasaw
by blood roll, so they count as citizens.
I have no number for you, as far as folks who are not on
the Dawes Commission Chickasaw by blood roll, but are
exclusively on Freedmen roll. I have no number for you on that.
Senator Lankford. All right. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one
follow-up question? I apologize for going long. I am taking my
Oklahoma time with Oklahoma folks here in the process, but that
is helpful. Thanks for just putting the context of that on the
record, because that is helpful to be able to get the context
on all those issues.
Mr. Newland, I do want to ask a slightly separate question
on this, just to follow up on it. There were two major Supreme
Court decisions that have a very direct and immediate impact on
Oklahoma. You know them very well, it is McGirt and the Castro-
Huerta decisions on that.
I need to ask you a question, if the Department of Interior
or if you or anyone you know of is currently working on a
legislative response for McGirt, or for Castro-Huerta. Is there
any ongoing work, either from technical assistance or writing?
Because this has direct impact on every person that is here and
on my State and the four million Oklahomans that I represent.
So is there any action that is currently going on that you
or anyone on your team is working on to develop a legislative
response to Castro-Huerta or to McGirt?
Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. The Executive Branch has
been asked to provide technical assistance on legislative
language in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Was that only on Castro-Huerta, or
was it McGirt as well?
Mr. Newland. Yes, Senator, Castro-Huerta.
Senator Lankford. Would you be willing to share that with
my office, as the Senator for Oklahoma? Obviously that has a
direct impact on my State as well and all these folks that are
here.
Mr. Newland. Pardon?
Senator Lankford. Would you be willing to share that
information with me? Because obviously as the Senator for
Oklahoma, that has direct impact on my State.
Mr. Newland. I don't see a reason why, no reason comes to
mind why we wouldn't be able to share that, Senator.
Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lankford, just on the question of TA, I don't know
who the TA is being provided to, actually, but I just want to
make sure that they have, if it is a member or member office or
the committee office, I want to make sure they have the ability
to work confidentially with counsel and the Executive Branch. I
can assure you that the conversations we have had privately
about understanding the Oklahoma equities are well taken. But I
want to protect Secretary Newland's ability to work
confidentially with whatever member or member office may be
asking for TA.
Senator Lankford. Sure.
The Chairman. In fact, it could be my staff. I don't know
yet.
Senator Lankford. I respect that. My biggest challenge is,
I don't ever want something being worked on or developed as a
piece of legislation that has direct and immediate impact on
Oklahoma tribes and on the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma not
actually be involved in that.
The Chairman. Nothing about me without me. I got it.
Thank you very much. I just have one final question for Ms.
Vann. Knowing that Congress' authority related to tribal
membership is limited by Federal Indian law and the language of
the treaties at issue today, what do you think can be done to
further the cause of reconciliation? I think that although it
got a little hot today, and I have no doubt that some people
will leave this hearing, maybe even most people will leave this
hearing feeling unsatisfied, not vindicated, I consider this a
success. Because we aired it out, and people were heard.
I think it is important to move forward, but I think it is
important to move forward carefully. Measure twice, cut once.
We want to make sure that we move forward legislatively
together. We want to make sure that sovereignty is respected.
But we also want to understand that African American enslaved
people and Native Americans were mistreated.
And we are all in this situation because of the actions of
the Federal Government of the United States. The official
policy of the Federal Government of the United States ends up
pitting African Americans and Native Americans against each
other in this terribly unfortunate historic circumstance.
So I don't have an easy solution. I think a GAO report is a
reasonable start. I think dialogue is an important start.
But I am open to whatever suggestions you may have about
moving forward as quickly as we can, but understanding that if
we try to move too quickly it will actually backfire and we
will lose another decade of potential progress. So I am
interested in your thoughts, Ms. Vann.
Ms. Vann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am, as a member of the
tribe, certainly I believe in tribal sovereignty. But the
United States, of course, does have a responsibility to the
Freedmen people as per the treaty, not just to the tribal
chiefs and chairmen. Now, decisions have been made regarding
the status of the Freedmen by some tribal nations. This comes
in part after Jim Crow laws, which put persons of African
ancestry on the bottom of the deck here in Oklahoma.
So far as solutions moving forward, where there are some
cases, the Freedmen have tried to do various things to try to
get equity under the treaty, as I said. For instance, there are
some Creek Freedmen descendants who have been trying to use the
Federal courts and also the tribal courts, as well as of course
coming up here to D.C.
We would like for the true history of the tribes and the
Freedmen to be there. That is one reason we are calling for
studies, because there have been some tribal leaders in the
past who have said things like the Freedmen were forced on the
tribes or snuck in from Arkansas. Although there are Federal
records that say otherwise. So let's get the truth out there
for what it is.
I like this idea of continued dialogue. But as I said, the
Freedmen people, a lot of people are in need. Not all of that
is the fault of the tribes. Some of that is the State of
Oklahoma. And there were some tribal leaders in the past that
were in elected positions, I think it was around 1907, there
were some that were coming from some of the tribes that sat in
Congress, that sat in the Senate. And they were opposed to
persons of African ancestry.
Also I want to mention that the Freedmen people were not
citizens of the United States until the other members of the
tribe became citizens. Our citizenship was coming through the
treaties.
That being said, I made a few suggestions about possibly
how the United States can bring some relief to the Freedmen
people so far as some services. I know all of that is going to
cost money.
But I also want to mention the fact that back before, back
in those earlier days when the tribal governments were more
limited, until the Principal Chiefs Act was passed in 1970, the
Bureau, they did, a number of people, including the Freedmen
people, sometimes per capita payments. That happened I know in
the Cherokee Nation; I know in the Creek Nation there were some
per capita payments in the past.
So this sort of thing can be done. But again, it is going
to cost some money. I get that.
In my 22-page report, I have some other suggestions there.
Again, we couldn't get to it in the five minutes. So that is
what I am thinking, it is going to take some time, some input
by the Federal Government. And I understand that there were
constitutions that were approved by the Federal Government. But
Freemen people weren't allowed to vote on them. Well, again,
they have been signed. So there we are.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank all of the
testifiers, as well as our first panelist, Chair Waters from
the U.S. House of Representatives.
The hearing record will be open for one month to allow
ample time for views to be submitted for the Committee's
consideration.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for their time and
their testimony today. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Damario Solomon Simmons, Esq., M.Ed., Managing
Partner of SolomonSimmonsLaw
INTRODUCTION
On May 12, 2021, Department of Interior Secretary Deb Haaland
publicly acknowledged that the ``Five Tribes'' of Oklahoma, including
the Creek Nation, are legally obligated to recognize Freedmen as
citizens. In praising the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma for finally
adhering to their Treaty of 1866, Secretary Haaland encouraged the
other ``Five Tribes'' to ``meet their moral and legal obligations to
the Freedmen.'' However, to date, the Creek Nation continues their
race-based discrimination against Black Creeks in violation of Article
II of the Creek Treaty of 1866 between the United States and the
Muskogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma (hereinafter referred to as ``MCN'').
Article II of the Creak Treaty of 1866 enshrines as the ``supreme
law of the land'' that the Freedmen and Freedmen Descendants,
regardless of their ``blood'' status, ``shall have and enjoy all the
rights and privileges of native citizens'' of the MCN. Creek Treaty of
1866, Art. 2, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat. 785, 1866 WL 18777 (hereinafter
``Treaty of 1866''). However, since 1979 MCN has perpetuated race-based
discrimination and the badges of slavery by using me, my clients' and
other Creek Freedmen Descendants' African ancestry to deny them the
rights and benefits of MCN citizenship. MCN has excluded Creek Freedmen
and their Descendants from the rights guaranteed by the Treaty of 1866,
including, but not limited to, the rights of citizenship, to vote, to
hold office, and to be recognized for who they are: MCN citizens by
birthright, heritage, history, and culture.
This is why Creek Freedmen desperately need this Committee to
support legislation and executive action that severs the U.S.
Government's relations with MCN until MCN restores full citizenship
rights to Creek Freedmen as required by Article II of the MCN Treaty of
1866 and causes MCN to respect and adhere to Article II of the MCN
Treaty of 1866.
HISTORY OF MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION AND THE CREEK FREEDMEN
For at least four centuries, the MCN included people of different
``races,'' skin color, and national origins among its citizens. Only
recently has the MCN perpetrated a policy of exclusion based upon race.
Historically, the MCN comprised a confederacy of separate towns,
tribes, and peoples throughout what is now the southeastern United
States. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Among those peoples were the Yamassee or Jamassi who were
reported to have been ``immigrants from Africa prior to the European
discovery of America.'' See, United States Department of Interior
Census Office, Extra Census Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: United States
Census Printing Office (1894), p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As European colonists and eventually white non-indigenous Americans
began to inhabit this area, they sought to ``civilize the Creek
Indian.'' In the ensuing decades, the United States continuously and
repeatedly attempted to impose, often by force, its customs, economy,
religion, and political structure on indigenous groups such as the MCN.
One American custom adopted by some Creek citizens was the plantation
economy and the reliance on chattel African slavery as a labor force.
Along with enslaved Africans who were owned by MCN citizens, there
were also MCN citizens of African descent and free Blacks openly living
as citizens of the MCN. All these segments of MCN society were forcibly
removed pursuant to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, when the United
States expelled the MCN from their traditional homelands and sent them
along the infamous Trail of Tears to live in Indian Territory, in what
is now Oklahoma.
The Creeks were removed primarily by their traditional tribal
``town,'' and it was the town ``Micos'' or chiefs who kept the tribal
rolls. This allowed the MCN citizens who made it to Oklahoma to re-
establish their towns. Removal was carried out by the U.S. military,
and approximately 24,000 MCN citizens were forced to travel to Indian
Territory by foot or riverboats. Due to poor planning, organization,
and indifference by the U.S. Government, thousands of MCN citizens died
on the way to Indian Territory due to exposure, starvation, and
disease. Even after removal to Indian Territory, some MCN citizens
continued to hold slaves until the Creek Treaty of 1866 abolished
slavery in the Creek Nation.
THE CIVIL WAR AND THE TREATY OF 1866
In 1861, Union forces withdrew from Indian Territory, and
Confederate officials formally occupied Indian Territory. Some Creeks,
known as the ``Lower/Southern Creeks,'' who had been more willing to
adopt the plantation economy and other European customs, provided
supplies, men, and support to the Confederacy, and even sent
representatives to the Confederate Congress. Other Creeks, known as the
``Upper/Loyal Creeks,'' who generally resisted cultural assimilation,
provided supplies, men, and support for the Union.
A contingent of Loyal Creeks, which included a substantial
``Black'' Creek component, left their homes for Kansas to flee from
Lower/Southern Creek soldiers and their Confederate allies. The Battle
of Honey Springs Creek was a major battle that occurred in Indian
Territory during the Civil War, and Upper/Loyal Creeks, including
``Black'' Creeks, valiantly fought against the Confederacy and their
allies. In 1865, after the Civil War ended, President Andrew Johnson
designated a commission to travel to Fort Smith, Arkansas, to convene a
council for the purpose of negotiating new treaties with the Creeks and
the other four tribes making up the so-called ``Five Civilized
Tribes'': the Seminoles, Cherokees, Choctaws, and Chickasaws.
The members of that commission declared that a treaty between each
tribe and the United States ``must'' contain certain stipulations,
including that ``[t]he institution of slavery, which has existed among
several of the tribes, must be forthwith abolished, and measures taken
for the unconditional emancipation of all persons held in bondage, and
for their incorporation into the tribes on an equal footing with the
original members, or suitably provided for.'' D.N. COOLEY, SOUTHERN
SUPERINTENDENCE 296, 298. (Oct. 30, 1865).
In an exercise of its sovereignty, the MCN negotiated and executed
the Treaty of 1866 \2\ with the United States. That treaty became the
foundational legal document of the Creek Nation and established the
modern MCN as it is known today. The treaty provides in pertinent part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ My paternal great-great-great-grandfather, Coweta Micco (a/k/a
Cow Tom) was one of only five (5) Creek Citizens to negotiate and sign
the Treaty of 1866.
[I]nasmuch as there are among the Creek many persons of
African descent.it is stipulated that hereafter these persons,
lawfully residing in said Creek country, under their laws and
usages, or who have been thus residing in said country, and may
return within one year from the ratification of this treaty,
and their descendants and such others of the same race as may
be permitted by the laws of said Nation to settle within the
limits of the jurisdiction of the Creek Nation as citizens
[thereof], shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges
of native citizens, including an equal interest in the soil and
national funds; and the laws of said Nation shall be equally
binding upon and give equal protection to all such persons. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Treaty of 1866, Art. II.
Functionally, identical clauses outlawing slavery and granting full
citizenship to those formally enslaved persons also appear in the
treaties that the Seminole, Cherokee, and Choctaw Nations executed with
the United States in 1866.
MCN POST-CIVIL WAR AND PRE-DAWES ROLLS ENROLLMENT
Shortly after executing the Treaty of 1866, the MCN reorganized
their government constitutional structure; and, in 1867, the MCN
created a new and expansive constitution (``1867 Constitution'').
The 1867 MCN Constitution did not discriminate against Creeks of
African descent, Free Africans, or Creek Freedmen citizens of MCN. In
fact, Article I, Sec. 1, 2, and 3 of the 1867 Constitution authorized
each etvlwv (town) to elect a member to the House of Kings and House of
Warriors. \3\ The towns in existence at that time included three
African Creek towns--Arkansas Colored, North Fork Colored, and Canadian
Colored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under MCN's bicameral legislature the House of Kings and House
of Warrior were equivalent to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of
Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1867 and 1895, the MCN created numerous rolls of its
citizens. None of these rolls created by the MCN contained or listed
any blood quantum, or singled out Creeks of African descent, ``Free
African'' MCN citizens, or formerly-enslaved Africans who were
emancipated and accepted as Creek citizens pursuant to the Treaty of
1866. Between 1866 and 1906, Creeks of African descent were an
essential part of the MCN community, as evidenced by their service in
important and high positions in MCN government, and other areas of MCN
life, including Creek citizens like Sugar George, Judge Henry Reed,
Harry Island, and Warrior Rentie.
THE DAWES ROLLS
In 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act of 1887 (``Dawes Act''). The
stated purpose of the Dawes Act was to prepare Indian Territory for
statehood and white settlement. To this end, the Dawes Act authorized
the transfer of most of the land owned corporately by the so-called
Five Civilized Tribes (the Creek, Cherokee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and
Choctaw nations) to individual tribal citizens. Implicit in this
allocation policy was an effort to eliminate the tribes' ability to
self-govern. After the Dawes Act had been enacted, Congress created the
Dawes Commission in 1893 and tasked it with identifying all MCN
citizens who were eligible for land allotment in what would come to be
known as the Dawes Roll.
Five years after the creation of the Dawes Commission, Congress
passed the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 495, (``Curtis Act''),
directing the commission to create two lists of citizens of the Creek
Nation who would be eligible for land allotment: (1) the ``Creek Nation
Creek Roll,'' which was purportedly only composed of Creek citizens
with Creek blood; and (2) the ``Creek Nation Freedmen Roll,'' which was
purportedly only a roll of those citizens of the Creek Nation who were
formerly enslaved Africans and devoid of any Creek blood. \4\ The Dawes
Commission, motivated by racism and white supremacy, used race and MCN
citizens' physical appearance to segregate Creeks of African Descent,
i.e. ``Creek Freedmen.'' The ``true'' Creeks, in the Dawes Commission's
estimation, were listed on the Creek Roll, also known as the Blood
Roll; the Creek Freedmen (i.e. individuals of African descent,
regardless of whether they or their ancestors were previously enslaved
in the MCN) were listed on the Creek Freedmen Roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 431
(1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dawes Commission employed the hypo-descent rule, by which any
individual with ``one drop'' of ``Black blood'' was to be considered
Black and, therefore, belonged on the Freedmen Roll. The Dawes
Commission, therefore, enrolled many Creeks of African descent on the
Freedmen Roll, regardless of whether they or their ancestors were ever
enslaved in the MCN or how much ``Creek blood'' they possessed. \5\
Therefore, once the Dawes Rolls closed on March 4, 1907, Creek citizens
enrolled on the Freedmen Roll and their descendants, in perpetuity,
would always carry the ugly badge of slavery, regardless of whether the
enrollee or their ancestors were ever enslaved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``[I]n cases of mixed freedmen and Indian parents, which was
common among the Creeks . . . the applicant was always enrolled as a
`freedmen'.'' Kent Carter, The Dawes Commission and the Allotment of
the Five Civilized Tribes 1893-1914 (1999). Dawes Commission personnel
were instructed to look for and/or inquire if a MCN citizen had any
African ancestry, and to place that individual on the so-called
Freedmen roll. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPULSION OF CREEK FREEDMEN AND DIVESTURE OF CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS
On or about August 18, 1975, the MCN, through its National Council,
submitted to the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) a draft
constitution (``Draft Constitution'') that, among other things,
contained express provisions which: (1) stripped individuals on the
1906 Creek Freedmen Rolls and their then-living lineal descendants of
their MCN citizenship; and (2) prevented the unborn lineal descendants
of individuals who were enrolled on the 1906 Creek Freedmen Rolls from
becoming citizens of MCN. Before the MCN submitted the Draft
Constitution to DOI, the MCN did not seek, obtain, or allow any input
from Creek Freedmen or individuals representing Creek Freedmen's
interests.
On October 29, 1977, then-MCN Principal Chief Claud Cox, a
proponent of the new constitution, admitted that one of the express
goals of the Draft Constitution was to strip Freedmen and Creek
Freedmen Descendants of their MCN citizenship and rights, stating:
When you go back to the old [1867] Constitution, you are
licked before you start; because it doesn't talk about Indians,
it talks about CITIZENS of the CREEK NATION. When you got down
to the Allotment time, there were more that was non-Indians or
half-blood or less, who outnumbered the full blood, all of
these totaled about 11,000, and there were only 18,000 on the
entire Roll; so there was only 9,000 above One-half blood.
That's the reason, they lost control; the FULLBLOOD lost
control. That's what we're fighting, this blood quantum, trying
to get back and let the people control because under the old
Constitution, you've lost before you ever started. There were
three FREEDMAN bands that would outnumber you today as
citizens. So, if we want to keep the INDIAN in control, we've
got to take a good look at this thing and get us a Constitution
that will keep the Creek Indian in Control. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MCN National Council Minutes, October 29, 1977 at 31.
On August 17, 1979, DOI approved the new MCN constitution for MCN
referendum (``1979 Constitution''). On October 6, 1979, the MCN held an
election to formally adopt the 1979 Constitution and replace the 1867
Constitution. Section 503 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C.
5203, in effect in 1979, required the participation of at least 30
percent of ``those entitled'' to vote, or the results of the election
would be invalid. The total number of ``entitled voters'' that MCN
officials identified prior to the 1979 constitutional referendum did
not include Creek Freedmen or Creek Freedmen Descendants, in an
apparent effort to meet OIWA election requirements. Creek Freedmen and
their Descendants were denied the right to vote on the 1979
Constitution and did not cast votes.
Upon the dubious ratification of the 1979 Constitution, and with
DOI's approval, the MCN illegally declared that all Freedmen were not
entitled to MCN citizenship and would no longer be recognized or
allowed to be citizens of MCN. The MCN also began to summarily deny
Creek Freedmen and their Descendants applications for citizenship. As a
result, thousands of Creek citizens-including my clients, whose
ancestors' names appeared on the Creek Freedmen Roll-were stripped of
their legal rights and cultural identity. Creek Freedmen Descendants
have been denied their MCN citizenship rights as the MCN has
implemented statutes and policies under the illegal 1979 Constitution
and in violation of the Treaty of 1866.
From 1979 through the present, eligible Freedmen and Creek Freedmen
Descendants who have applied for MCN citizenships and have been
summarily denied. Often, Freedmen applicants are informed of their
denial via a form letter from the Citizenship Board, which includes
some version of the following language, taken from a May 31, 2002,
letter from MCN to a Creek Freedmen applicant:
We are returning your letter and any other documents submitted
for enrollment into the Muscogee (Creek) Nation because in
checking the Dawes Commission Rolls, your ancestors were
enrolled on the Creek Freedmen Rolls. If you will note from the
copy you submitted there is no blood quantum listed because
they are not Creek by Blood. When slavery was abolished
following the Civil War, Treaties were negotiated with the
Five-Civilized Tribes; the Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek
and Seminole Nations. The treaties conferred citizenship in the
tribes on the negroes who had been held in slavery by the
tribes. Such citizens were referred to as `Freedmen.' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, letter dated May 31, 2002, from MCN to Creek Freedmen
Applicant on file with undersigned.
CREEK FREEDMEN'S UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGATION HISTORY
In 2004, on behalf of two Freedmen Descendants, Fred Johnson
``(Johnson'') and Ron Graham (``Graham''), I litigated the issue of
Freedmen's and Freedmen Descendants' citizenship within the MCN court
in Johnson and Graham v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma
Citizenship Board, CV 2003-54. The MCN Citizenship Board (``Citizenship
Board''), which was created after ratification of the unlawful 1979
Constitution, repeatedly denied Johnson's and Graham's citizenship
applications between 1983 and 2003.
I appealed the Citizenship Board's administrative decisions against
Johnson and Graham to the MCN District Court, alleging arbitrary and
capricious decisionmaking and abuses of discretion by the Citizenship
Board. Johnson and Graham contended that they and all Freedmen were
eligible for citizenship in MCN, pursuant to the Treaty of 1866, the
Muscogee (Creek) Nation Constitution, and the MCN Citizenship Code. A
bench trial on the merits was held over seven days between August 28,
2005, and September 14, 2005. During the trial, we introduced hundreds
of exhibits and took the live testimony of approximately 12 witnesses,
including the foremost Creek Freedmen academic, Dr. Daniel Littlefield.
In its March 27, 2006 opinion, the MCN District Court declined to
rule on or even discuss the substantive issues directly related to the
Treaty of 1866 and the validity of the 1979 Constitution. Instead, the
MCN District Court found the Citizenship Board did not follow MCN law
that mandated Johnson, Graham, and other Descendants to have their
citizenship applications processed. On or about April 13, 2006, the
Citizenship Board refused to comply with the MCN District Court's order
to process Johnson's and Graham's citizenship applications. On November
2, 2007, the MCN Supreme Court unanimously reversed the MCN District
Court decision and similarly refused to rule on the applicability of
the citizenship provisions of the Treaty of 1866.
After more than ten (10) years of trying to work with the elected
officials of MCN without any results, in July 2018, I filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of D.C. against
the MCN and DOI on behalf of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band
(``Band'') and a handful of individual Creek Freedmen for the MCN's
denial of citizenship on account of their race and the DOI's breach of
its fiduciary duty to protect the citizenship rights of the Creek
Freedmen, including, without limitation, their rights to vote and to
run for office. In June 2019, despite our arguments that exhausting
tribal remedies would be futile, the court dismissed the lawsuit
without prejudice, pending the exhaustion of remedies in tribal court.
Accordingly, when two of our clients' applications for citizenship with
MCN were denied in July and October 2019, respectively, each filed
administrative appeals with the MCN, which were also denied.
In March 2020, I filed a petition in the MCN District Court on
behalf of our Creek Freedmen clients, alleging that the MCN Citizenship
Board violated the U.S. Constitution; the Principal Chiefs Act of 1970;
the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. 1301, et seq.; and the
Treaty of 1866, by denying our clients their citizenship rights. Ever
since then, the MCN and even the tribal court itself has engaged in a
slew of dilatory tactics to preclude our clients from obtaining a
ruling that would permit them to re-file their original complaint in
federal court. Counsel for the MCN has been unreasonably unavailable,
filed frivolous briefs, and peppered us with discovery requests even
though the facts are undisputed and the only issue to be decided is
purely one of law to be decided by the court. Moreover, two of the only
three judges available to preside over cases filed in the MCN District
Court both recused themselves from the case over 18 months ago, and a
new judge has not been assigned to the case despite repeated inquiries
and filings with the MCN District Court and Supreme Court and having
been fully briefed for over a year. Consequently, my clients have
effectively exhausted their tribal remedies to pursue citizenship in
the MCN and the MCN court's dilatory tactics underscore that there is
no apparent intention of addressing the legal issues raised by my
clients.
EFFECT OF 2020 U.S. SUPREME COURT MCGIRT RULING
Citizenship rights like voting and running for office are important
enough to warrant congressional intervention in this matter, but the
need for a legislative remedy has grown even more in the wake of the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452.
In McGirt, the Supreme Court held that the MCN reservation, which was
established by way of the Treaty of 1866 and which comprises a large
part of eastern Oklahoma, had never been disestablished, and that the
State of Oklahoma therefore lacked jurisdiction within the bounds of
the reservation to prosecute crimes under the Major Crimes Act.
Since this ruling was handed down, the MCN has been using it to
rationalize the MCN's attempts to assert more power over other affairs
here in the State of Oklahoma, such as energy and gaming. In other
words, while the MCN actively defends against claims that its race-
based discrimination against Creek Freedmen violates the Treaty of
1866, it simultaneously rationalizes its power grabs by pointing to the
Treaty of 1866. The hypocrisy is simply stunning.
Moreover, McGirt has effectively created another disparity between
Creek Freedmen and other MCN citizens. Because Creek Freedmen are being
denied citizenship with the tribe, they are unable to avail themselves
of the benefits of the McGirt ruling. Since McGirt was decided, state
court judges have, in practice, required defendants seeking to have
their cases dismissed based on McGirt to prove their affiliation by
showing verification of tribal citizenship or by showing they possess
some degree of Indian blood. Due to the MCN's racial discrimination
against Creek Freedmen (who do not necessarily possess Indian blood),
Freedmen who are prosecuted by the State have been left without a means
to demonstrate their affiliation with the MCN. The result is that non-
Black MCN members can get their cases dismissed, while Black Creeks
cannot.
This disparity, based entirely on race, is unacceptable and
blatantly violates the Creek Freedmen criminal defendants'
constitutional rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection
clauses, among others. These Creek Freedmen's liberty interests are at
stake, providing more immediacy to the need for Congress to intervene
to mandate that the MCN restore citizenship rights to Creek Freedmen.
ARTICLE II OF THE TREATY OF 1866 IS BINDING ON THE MCN
The Creek Treaty of 1866 is a bilateral agreement--negotiated and
signed by two sovereign entities utilizing their executive and
legislative governmental powers. The overall validity of the agreement
has not been contested by the MCN and was upheld by the McGirt
decision. Consequently, the Treaty of 1866 remains the supreme law of
the land, both within the Creek Nation and within the United States of
America.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established that there must be ``clear
and plain evidence that Congress actually considered the conflict
between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on
the other and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the
treaty.'' United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734, 739-40 (1986).
Restrictions on Indian Treaty abrogation are well-settled in U.S.
Supreme Court precedent. Treaty rights are too fundamental to be
casually cast aside: ``Congress may abrogate Indian treaty rights, but
it must clearly express its intent to do so.'' Minnesota v. Mille Lacs
Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 202 (1999) (citations omitted).
There has been no act of Congress expressing any intent to abrogate
Article II of the Creek Treaty of 1866. As a result, the MCN cannot
unilaterally extinguish the Freedmen's rights under the Creek Treaty of
1866.
The MCN exercised its sovereignty to execute and bind itself to the
terms of the Creek Treaty of 1866, and the MCN cannot now, under the
guise of sovereignty, claim the power to renege on its covenant to
admit the Freedmen and their Descendants as citizens of the MCN. The
U.S. Government has already analyzed a treaty provision functionally
identical to Article II of the Creek Treaty of 1866 and found that it
guaranteed Cherokee citizenship in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma,
and, since the Cherokee Treaty of 1866 had not been abrogated, the
Cherokee Nation had to grant Cherokee Freedmen citizenship within the
Cherokee Nation. See Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 267 F.Supp.3d 86 (D.D.C.
2017).
SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE ACTION REQUESTED:
I am respectfully asking this Committee and Congress to pass
legislation that does the following:
Affirms that the Creek Treaty of 1866 guarantees the Creek
Freedmen Descendants the right to full and equal citizenship in
the MCN;
The Creek Freedmen Descendants are legally indistinguishable
from other citizens of the MCN pursuant to the Creek Treaty of
1866;
As equal citizens of the MCN, the Creek Freedmen Descendants
are entitled to all rights, privileges, protections, and
benefits arising from citizenship in the Creek Nation equally
and on the same basis as all other MCN citizens, including,
without limitation, the rights to vote in MCN elections, to run
for and hold MCN office, and to receive funds and benefits
available to MCN citizens;
No federal statute or superseding treaty has modified the
Creek Freedmen Descendants' citizenship rights as they were
granted in the Creek Treaty of 1866;
No amendment to the MCN Constitution has modified or can
modify the citizenship rights of Creek Freedmen Descendants,
because those rights are derived from the Creek Treaty of 1866
and not the MCN Constitution.
Ensure that United States Justice Department and Department
of Interior protect Creek Freedmen. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Black Creeks need the DOJ and DOI to take the same position
that they took in the Black Cherokee litigation and make it clear that
Article 2 of the Creek Treaty of 1866 is still valid. Specifically, the
Interior Department filed a 72-page motion for summary judgment wherein
it asked U.S. District Court to declare that the 1866 Treaty between
the Cherokee Nation and the U.S. guaranteed Black Cherokees and their
descendants ``all the rights of native Cherokees,'' including the right
to Cherokee citizenship and that the treaty provision ``continues to
guarantee descendants of eligible Freedmen with citizenship and all
other rights of native Cherokees.''
It was similar bold and sustained actions of members of the
Congress took on behalf of Cherokee Freedmen that paved the way for
thousands of Cherokee Freedmen to secure their voting rights in 2007,
and eventually secure their full citizenship rights with Cherokee
Nation of Oklahoma (CNO). I am hoping I can similarly count on you to
stand up for the rule of law and the rights of Creek Freedmen during
this important time.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the exclusion of Creek Freedmen from citizenship with
the MCN is not just a tribal sovereignty issue; it is a racial justice
issue. While legislation like the For the People Act and the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act has fallen stagnant, action from this
committee to protect Black Creeks' fundamental rights as MCN citizens
can move our country in the right direction-toward racial justice and
eradication of anti-Black hatred across this nation. Bold actions taken
by the Congress helped the Cherokee Freedmen secure their full and
complete citizenship rights within the CNO. My clients and your
constituents are confident that your tangible support of their cause
will produce similar results for Creek Freedmen. Lastly, if you have
any questions or comments, you may contact me personally at 918-551-
8999 or [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rhonda K. Grayson, Chairwoman and Band
Leader, Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments have been retained in the Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Band leader of the MCIFB I was surprised to learn of this
hearing a week before the actual scheduled hearing date. We have
received many calls over the last few days from concerned freedmen that
it is unjust that the Freedmen's descendants were not extended the same
courtesy as the five tribes. We find it ironic that Freedmen leaders
from the various 5 tribes were not invited to speak at a congressional
hearing on an issue that directly affected their citizenship within the
respective tribal nations. How is it possible to host a hearing without
full representation from freedmen of all five tribes''?
Although the leadership of the Creek Freedmen Band nor our legal
counsel was invited to testify, we feel it is essential to attend as
our organization, the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band represents
thousands of Creek Freedmen across the country. See Citizenship case
Grayson and Kennedy v. Mvskoke Nation, CV-2020-34 in which I am one of
the named plaintiffs. (see page 7 for details of the lawsuit and
recusal information of Judge Leeds).
We have attended other meetings in the past with members of
Congress in the hopes of furthering the cause of gaining recognition
and citizenship for long disenfranchised Creek Freedmen. We believe
that members of Congress must understand that the issues that the
Freedmen's descendants face are as distinctive and separate from one
another as are the treaties of each of these five tribes.
At the very basic, we must be granted the right to represent
ourselves on tribal matters before Congress. Particularly when it comes
to the right of citizenship within these tribes, Freedmen descendants
should be allowed to clarify and define their situation and to counter
any arguments or disputes against their rightful place and citizenship
within the tribes.
History and Background
The Muscogee Creek Freedmen were citizens of the Muscogee Creek
Nation who were placed on the Creek Freedmen Roll. This classification
included people of African descent who were:
1. Enslaved or owned by citizens of the MCN
2. Free Blacks living as citizens of the Creek Nation.
3. Mixed blood Creeks of African descent listed as Creek
Freedmen on the Dawes Rolls.
Regardless of their ``blood'' status or enrollment, the Freedmen,
and their Descendants in accordance with the Treaty of 1866 Article 2
``shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens'' Pursuant to
Article 2 of the Creek Treaty of 1866 between the United States and the
MCN. (Note: Between 1867 and 1895, the MCN created numerous rolls of
its citizens. These rolls did not list a blood quantum or single out
the Creeks of African descent, free blacks, or the formally enslaved
African Creeks emancipated by the Creek Treaty of 1866.)
Creeks adopted the American custom of plantation Chattel slavery as
a labor force. There were enslaved Africans owned by MCN citizens and
MCN citizens of African descent, and free Blacks openly livings as
citizens of the MCN. All were forced removed pursuant to the Indian
Removal Act of 1830 from their traditional homelands in Alabama and
Georgia to Indian Territory, current-day Oklahoma.
Our ancestors fought side by side with the Muscogee people in their
traditional homelands in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida during the time
of war. The Creek Freedmen endured the same rigors of travel, uprooting
of their homes and the unknown on the journey to the new land. Freedmen
endured the same tragedies as the sinking of the Monmouth steamboat on
the Mississippi River in 1837 on the journey to the new land in which
many African Creeks did not survive.
They served the Nation after the Civil War in 1866 in the House of
Kings and the House of Warriors in Muscogee Nation National Council as
policymakers, lawyers, translators, Judicial appointments, Lighthorse
(police), and advisors to the Principal Chief of the Nation! We've been
here all the while!
During the Civil War, the Muscogee Creek Nation citizens fought on
both the Union and Confederate. At the end of the Civil War, the United
States and Muscogee Creek Nation signed the peace Treaty of 1866, which
required the cession of 3.2 million acres of land and granted full
citizenship to Freedmen.
The 1866 Creek Treaty-Article 2. The Creeks hereby covenant and
agree that henceforth neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall
have been duly convicted in accordance with laws applicable to all
members of said tribe, shall ever exist in said Nation; and inasmuch as
there are among the Creeks many persons of African descent, who have no
interest in the soil, it is stipulated that hereafter these persons
lawfully residing in said Creek country under their laws and usages, or
who have been thus residing in said country, and may return within one
year from the ratification of this Treaty, and their descendants and
such others of the same race as may be permitted by the laws of the
said Nation to settle within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
Creek Nation as citizens [thereof,] shall have and enjoy all the rights
and privileges of native citizens, including an equal interest in the
soil and national funds, and the laws of the said Nation shall be
equally binding upon and give equal protection to all such persons, and
all others, of whatsoever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens
or members of said tribe.
In 1867, the Muscogee Creek Nation (MCN) citizens adopted a written
constitution that followed the provisions of Article 2 of the 1866
Treaty, which called for a Principal Chief, Second Chief, the judicial
branch. The bicameral legislative system comprised of a House of Kings
and a House of Warriors, which included the Freedmen (what we know
today as our U.S. Legislative system, the Senate, and House
Representative).
Black Creeks or Freedmen (The term Freedmen was not a term used
until the late 1890s and was given by the government). It is worth
noting that there were free men and women of color living in the Creek
Nation. My family and most African descent people identified as
``Creeks'' or Black Creeks or, as my grandfather would say, ``Native
Negro's or State Negro's. They identified differently culturally from
the people know as ``State Negro's.'') Black Creeks or Freedmen served
in the House of Kings and the House of Warriors. Our ancestors served
as Senators, Judges, lawyers, Lighthorse police, and the principal
chief of Creek Nation, etc. One such example is Chief Perryman. As
described in the Extra Census Bulletin, ``The principal chief,
virtually a Negro, comes of a famous family in creek annals his Name is
Leguest Choteau Perryman., ``The negroes are among the earnest workers
in the Five Tribes. The Creek Nation affords the best example of negro
progress. The principal chief, virtually a negro, comes from a famous
family in Creek annals. His Name is Leguest Choteau Perryman''.
Department of the Interior Census Office, Washington D.C., United
States Printing Office, 1894.''
There are far too many stories to mention about the Creek Freedmen
serving the Creek Nation in essential roles in government and in the
community. However, a few examples are Mikko Cow Tom; he was a signer
of the 1866 Creek Treaty/Interpreter), Judge Henry Reed, Harry Island
(Interpreter), and Jesse Franklin (Supreme Court). Sugar T. George
served on the House of Kings and in the House of Warriors, what we know
today as the House-Senate and the House of Representatives. He served
as prosecuting attorney and was said to be the wealthiest Black Creek
Freedman in the Nation. He served in Union Army in company ``H'' of the
1st Indian Home Guard. He served on the board of the Tullahassee
Mission School, a school for Creek and Seminole freedmen, to name a
few. We would argue that the Creek Nation literally would not be what
it is today without the bloodshed and tears of the Creek Freedmen who
served their Nation faithfully only for their descendants to be
disenfranchised years later.
Identity
One argument that we often hear from some MCN tribal members.
``Freedmen are not Indian, Creek, or Mvskoke.''You don't know the
language, culture, history, etc. ``You Freedmen only want to be
enrolled for the benefits. ``Well, we beg to differ. Our ancestors
spoke the language and served the nation of their birth. We understand
the history of the Creek Nation. Our organization has met for more than
20 years to study and educate about the history. The board is the
original board members of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five
Civilized Tribes that was incorporated in 2002. In 2008 the Creek
members incorporated similarly as the Cherokee Band was formed to
educate our members and the public about the history and to reach Creek
Freedmen and pursue citizenship within the MCN. Band member and former
leader Ron Graham, charter member of the Descendants of Freedmen of the
Five 5 Tribes and the former Vice President of the Descendants of
Freedmen of the 5 Tribes, his father Theodore ``BLUE'' Graham was an
original Dawes enrollee and land allottee. He was enrolled as Newborn
Freedmen, roll number 671. Mr. Theodore ``Blue'' Graham, an Arbeka
Stomp Dance Leader, was fluent in the Creek Language, participated in
many cultural activities, and was well known among Creek's citizens.
Theodore Blue Graham identified as a Creek.
Board member Sharon Lenzy-Scott is of Creek ancestry from her
maternal side and Cherokee from her paternal side of her family.
Sharon's mother, Mrs. Adlene Perryman-Lenzy, was disenfranchised from
the tribe in 1979. In the eyes of the Creek Nation, she was no longer
regarded as a Creek Nation citizen because her family was listed on the
Creek Freedmen Dawes Roll.
Countless attempts were made from 1979 through 2000 by Mrs.
Perryman-Lenzy to regain her citizenship. She fought tirelessly until
she could no longer fight. Mrs. Adlene Perryman-Lenzy died with the
memory of Creek Nation, stripping her from her birthright as a citizen
of Creek Nation.
By birthright through Sharon's paternal side, she can enroll as a
Cherokee citizen, but she refuses to do so as she INDENTIFIES as the
creek. It is not about becoming a member of the Creek Nation for
monetary gain. It is about the birthright and identity.
MCIFB Member Mr. Gary Cunningham, CEO of Prosperity in Washington
D.C., is a descendant of Creek Freedmen Justice Jesse Franklin, who
served in the House of Kings and the House of Warriors. Mr. Cunningham
is also a descendant of Cherokee Freedmen. In one of my many
conversations with our Band member, Mr. Cunningham, I mentioned that he
could enroll as a Cherokee citizen; he said, ``Rhonda, I am holding out
for the day we the Creek Freedmen can take our rightful place back in
the Nation.'' There are countless other examples of Creek Freedmen who
could enroll in the Cherokee Nation or the Seminole Nation Tribe as
citizens. Still, they identify as Creek and hold out with the belief
that one day the Creek Nation will uphold their obligations and readmit
the Freedmen back into the Nation of their ancestor's birth.
Citizenship within the tribe is not about financial gain for Freedmen.
It's about our birthright.
The fallacy that Creek Freedmen are only interested in gaining
their citizenship for the ``benefits'' is further nullified by the
personal successes of many of these Freedmen. We count in our members
Doctor of Education: medicine, and dermatology, PPT, a Special Agent
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, skillful attorneys, CEO's VP
etc., of major corporations. These are individuals who have no need of
``benefits' from the tribe. These are individuals who know the history
of their ancestors and refuse to allow their ancestors' sacrifices and
accomplishments to be forgotten.
More History and Background
Dunn Roll was to identify citizens entitled to payment. Listed on
the Dunn roll were all citizens, Native Creeks, and Freedmen. Three
Freedmen's districts/towns were established for political and economic
purposes: North Fork, Canadian, and Arkansas. The Colbert Commission
was established to authorize, summons witnesses, take testimony, and
decide and approve citizenship cases.
Curtis Act in 1898 allowed the government to terminate the MCN
tribal government by taking away ownership of the land, which had been
held in common, and replacing it with individual ownership of 160 acres
of land per citizen. The establishment of the Dawes Commission by
Congress was to identify and enroll citizens eligible for allotment.
All creek Freedmen received the same amount of land as someone who was
considered a full-blood Indian. They all received 160 acres of land as
full citizens of the Creek Nation. All were on equal footing.
The Curtis Act directed the Dawes Commission to divide the MCN by
creating two separate rolls: 1) the ``Creek Nation Creek Roll or Creek
Nation Indian Roll.'' Blood quantum was intended to be used for land
allotment purposes only. For example, ``In cases of mixed Freedmen and
Indian parents, which was common among the Creeks.the applicant that
was enrolled as a Freedmen was not given credit for having any Indian
blood. See Kent Carter. The blood quantum was never intended to be used
by tribes years later to determine who could be members of the various
tribes. It was for land allotment purposes only!
There were factions within the tribe that sought to eliminate the
Freedmen.
``In 1938, a memorandum was sent to the Solicitor, the Department
of Interior, Nathan Margold, by John Collier, Commissioner, on behalf
of the Five Tribes, ``Question. They wanted to find some way to
eliminate the Freedmen.'' And ``The status of these Freedmen, would the
Freedmen be entitled to vote on the adoption of a constitution.'' In
1941, Nathan Margold answered and stated that ``Creek Freedmen were
adopted as full members pursuant to the Treaty of June 14, 1866 (14
Stat. 785).''
On October 29, 1977, Principal Chief Claud Cox stated that the
express goal of the 1979 Constitution was to strip Freedmen and Creek
Freedmen Descendants of their MCN citizenship and rights. ``When you go
back to the old [1867] Constitution, you are licked before you start;
because it doesn't talk about Indians, it talks about citizens of the
Creek Nation. When you got down to the Allotment time, there were more
that was non-Indians or half-blood or less, who outnumbered the full
blood, all these totaled about 11,000, and there were only 18,000 on
the entire Roll; so, there was only 9,000 above One-half blood. That's
the reason they lost control; the full-bloods lost control. That's what
we are fighting, this blood quantum, trying to get back and let the
people control because under the old constitution, you've lost before
you ever started. There were three Freedmen bands that would outnumber
you today, as citizens. So, if we want to keep the Indian in control,
we've got to take a good look at this thing and get us a constitution
that will keep the Creek Indian in control.''
In 1979, the Muscogee Creek Nation decided to disenfranchise the
Freedmen with the adoption of a new Constitution and election that was
approved by the BIA. As per the Treaty of 1866 article 2, Freedmen are
citizens by Treaty and have a constitutional right as citizens of the
MCN to vote in all constitutional elections. Freedmen were not
permitted to vote in this election and were said to have been voted
out; however, the Treaty has not been abrogated and is still good law.
The landmark Supreme Court case MirGirt has affirmed that the Treaty of
1866 is still valid and thus article 2 of the Treaty is still good law.
As a result of being disenrolled from the tribe, the Freedmen
descendants have lost their citizenship, identity, rights to run for
political office, voting rights, Indian housing, educational grants,
health Care, COVID stimulus relief funds, and other federally funded
programs. More importantly, a sense of loss of belongingness and pride
of being a part of a community that we have had ties with for
generations--a community where our ancestors served in critical roles
and fought for the wellbeing of the entire MCN. Yet, we are no longer
welcomed to the Nation of our ancestor's birth.
The Treaty of 1866, Article 2, has not been abrogated or amended,
and the new Constitution of 1979 violates the Treaty, which is the
supreme law of the land. Members of the MCIFB are in active litigation
pursuing citizenship within the Muscogee Creek Nation.
From 1979-to the current day, Creek Freedmen descendants have been
advocating for their citizenship rights through litigation, seeking
relief from Congress and the Department of the Interior to no avail.
The most recent citizenship lawsuit was filed in 2018 in the United
Supreme Court in the District of D.C. against the MCN and DOI on behalf
of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band for the denial of
citizenship based on the 1866 Creek Treaty. The court dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice, pending the exhaustion of remedies in tribal
court. I resubmitted an application in May 2019, but that application
was denied in July 2019. I submitted the request for an appeal which
was denied in Nov 2019.
The attorneys filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the MCN in
March 2020. There is currently a motion for summary judgment request
pending in the MCN (Muscogee Nation) court that the MCN refuses to
appoint a judge. We have had two judges recuse themselves from the
case. With the second recusal of a judge Leeds. We have been without a
Judge for 1.5 years.
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SET STATUS CONFERENCE
(Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby
submit this Motion to Set Status Conference. Plaintiffs move that the
Court schedule an in-person status conference on the grounds that no
judge has been assigned this matter since February 25, 2021, and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment has been pending since May 17,
2021.
In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs submits as follows:
1. This case is about whether Article II of the Treaty of 1866
which guarantees formerly enslaved persons or individuals listed on the
1906 Dawes Creek Freedmen Rolls (``Creek Freedmen'') and their
descendants all the rights and privileges of Tribal citizenship is
binding on the Mvskoke Nation (the ``Nation'').
2. Pursuant to Mvskoke law, treaties are held to be inviolate and
must be followed by the Nation. Seminole Nation Development Authority
v. Morris & Morris, 2 Mvs. L. Rep. 553, 566 (2000).
3. Furthermore, the Creek Supreme Court has upheld Article II of
the 1866 Treaty as granting descendants of Creek Freedmen equal rights
of Tribal citizenship. Roley McIntosh, 7 Mvs. L. Rep. 348 (1886).
4. Plaintiffs allege that the 1866 Treaty is binding on the Nation
and ``by blood'' limitations on citizenship under Article III of the
Creek Constitution and current citizenship laws are in violation of
Article II of the 1866 Treaty.
5. Plaintiffs allege that Creek Freedmen treaty rights are
inherent, equal to ``by blood'' members, and cannot be extinguished by
the Creek Constitution. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323
(1978) (``Indian tribes still possess those aspects of sovereignty not
withdrawn by treaty or statute.'').
6. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that treaties are the
supreme law of the land and cannot be broken unless Congress makes a
clear statement of its intent. Id. at 20. Here, there is no federal
legislation abrogating Article II of the 1866 Treaty.
7. Plaintiff Grayson was notified that her administrative appeal
for citizenship was denied on November 5, 2019.
8. Plaintiff Kennedy was notified that his administrative appeal
for citizenship was denied on February 20, 2020.
9. Plaintiffs filed their petition for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the Citizenship 2 Suits against the agencies of the
Mvskoke (Creek) Nation are deemed suits against the Mvskoke (Creek)
Nation itself and the sovereign immunity of the Nation is waived in all
actions filed in Tribal court that are limited to injunctive,
declaratory or equitable relief, but not for claims seeking damages
against the Treasury. Title 27, 1-102 (D); Britton and McGirt v.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Division of Health Administration, 2 Mvs. L.
Rep. 531 (2000) see also Ade v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Division of
Health Administration, 2 Mvs. L. Rep. 538 (2000). 3 Board of the
Muscogee (Creek) Nation on March 11, 2020.
10. On December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment.
11. On February 23, 2021, this Court entered an order extending
time to the Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment to April 19, 2021.
12. On February 25, 2021, Judge Stacy Leeds recused herself from
this matter and no replacement judge has been assigned.
13. Defendants filed their response in opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment on April 19, 2021.
14. Plaintiffs filed their reply to Defendants' response in
opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on May 17, 2021.
15. Plaintiffs, who have a strong interest in moving forward with
this case, respectfully move that the Court set an in-person status
conference wherein the Court and the parties can ascertain the status
of a new judge being assigned to this matter and schedule a hearing on
the summary judgment motion pending before the Court. WHEREFORE, for
the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
Court enter an order scheduling an in-person status conference and, at
the conclusion of the conference, assign a new judge to this matter,
and set a date to decide Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted, Damario Solomon-Simmons, Erick J. Giles)
Conclusion
I believe the MCN is delaying the case to prevent the Creek
freedmen from refiling in the U.S. Federal court. The MCN is stalling
for time because they know they must look at history; the history will
uncover the truth of how our lives intertwined so closely with the MCN,
and they know the outcome: history and the Peace Treaty of 1866 are on
our side.
We have sought relief from Congress in the past. With HR 1514, a
bill in the 116th Congressman Danny Davis introduced Congress. The
language in the Bill is to sever United States Government relations
with the Creek Nation of Oklahoma until such time as the Creek Nation
of Oklahoma restores full Tribal citizenship to the Creek Freedmen
disenfranchised in the October 6, 1979, Creek Nation vote and fulfills
all its treaty obligations with the Government of the United States,
and for other purposes. Unfortunately, the Bill did not receive any co-
sponsors. We, however, have been successful in collaborating with the
congressman Danny Davis staff to reintroduce the Bill in the 117
congresses under H.R. 4637, but have not had success in getting the
sponsorship needed to move the bill along.
The MCIFB is grateful to have been included in talks with congress
woman Waters staff regarding NAHASDA language to include all Freedmen
of the five tribes. It has come to our attention that congress will not
consider adding this language to the Bill. It has been a pleasure
working with congresswoman Waters team, and we are most grateful for
the support and zeal to affirm the citizenship rights of the freedmen.
Congresswoman Waters has been a beacon of hope for the Freedmen; when
no one would hear us, she listed and stayed the course.
We/Creek freedmen and the descendants have been in this fight for
decades. Our members are wearied, and many are dying off. We want to
receive justice and restore citizenship before more of our elders cross
over. We have lost faith in the justice system, and we do not believe
the MCN will honor the 1866 Creek Treaty law, unless forces to do so.
We have heard rumors about discussions from the MCN on the citizenship
issue about the Freedmen. We do not believe that will happen; in
hindsight, there is no need for meetings unless it is a serious meeting
to discuss reenrolling the freedmen, atoning for the years that the MCN
has dishonored the wishes of the MCN ancestors. The Treaty, as stated,
is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court has ruled that
the 1866 treaty has not been abrogated. The MCN should immediately
affirm the Creek Freedmen Descendants' citizenship rights and follow
the ruling in the McGirt case. We ask that your office use its power to
help enforce the law, the Treaty of 1866 in its entirety which includes
article 2.
The MCIFB officially incorporated in Oklahoma in 2008, but members
of the executive board have been a dominant presence in the community
fighting for the Treaty Rights of all Creek Freedmen for years. We have
sought to preserve and protect the extraordinary history and culture of
the Creek Freedmen (AKA Black Creeks).
In closing, we have protected our history by educating the public
through various platforms such as conferences, genealogy workshops,
speaking engagements, cultural programs, and a traveling history
exhibit.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri
Question 1. You testified that the Muscogee Creek Nation should not
be confused with other Tribal Nations who are signatories to their 1866
Treaties. How exactly is the Nation's treaty similar to the other
Nations'? How is it different?
Answer. The series of treaties executed in 1866 were not universal.
Each was a specific agreement, with a specific tribe that addressed
specific elements of a tribe's history with the United States and the
specific circumstances that existed at the time of treaty negotiations.
As such, each treaty must be viewed independently and exclusively
within its own terms and context, with the same independent and
exclusive views that a Nations Constitution recieves. And while the
Creek treaty clearly differs from those with other tribes, the final
interpretation of elements of our treaty that related to former slaves
remains a subject of ongoing litigation.
Question 2. You testified that the Federal Government's past
actions against the Muscogee Creek Nation helped create the Freedmen
concern, and that, ``the solution is not another colonial intervention
by the United States.'' If the federal government does nothing to
address an issue that you testified that it helped create, what is its
responsibility in your view? And what is the Muscogee Creek Nation's
responsibility, if any?
Answer. The principle illustrated in my testimony is that bad
things happen when the U.S. government violates the inherent
sovereignty of tribes and instead seeks to overrule tribal leadership
with forcible dictates. History makes clear that the issue of slavery
was being challenged within Creek Nation through the internal processes
of our people and that the anti-slavery forces were an ascendant force
until the federal government violently intervened.
As a sovereign nation, our responsibility is to honor our treaty
agreements with the United States as we always have-even when the
federal government has not. Our specific legal obligations under this
treaty remain subject to interpretation within the courts. But separate
and apart from the treaty language, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation has
also begun to facilitate a deliberative process through which our
citizens can evaluate existing policies related to this issue and
exercise their sovereign right to determine the future of our nation.
The U.S. government's role in the perpetuation of slavery as an
institution is not debatable. Several policy ideas to address this
history have been debated over the years without consensus. However, it
is evident that the United States' responsibilities flow directly to
the African American community and not through tribal nations which had
their own distinct histories with slaves that are being addressed by
sovereign tribal governments. Using federal government intervention
into tribal processes as a political substitute for America taking
direct responsibility for its own role in slavery would be no healing
solution; it would simply be more injustice perpetrated against
Indigenous peoples who have already endured generations of it.
Question 3. Speaking on the Muscogee Creek Nation's diverse
citizenry, you testified that ``we are all Creek by blood.'' Please
elaborate on the meaning of this statement and how it impacts
citizenship, either of Freedmen descendants or its existing members?
Answer. As is the case with the United States, it is the inherent
right of sovereign tribal nations to determine their own citizenship
qualifications. In 1979 the Muscogee (Creek) Nation ratified our
current constitution ``to promote Unity, to establish Justice, and
secure to ourselves and our children the blessings of Freedom, to
preserve our basic Rights and Heritage, to strengthen and preserve self
and local Government, in continued relations with the United States of
America''
Approved by the U. S. Department of Interior, our constitution sets
forth terms of eligibility for citizenship that include minimum blood
quantum criteria along with other lineage requirements and associated
standards of proof. However, our constitution does not require
individuals to be exclusively Creek Indians. As a result, our citizens
now represent a widely diverse range of backgrounds. We have Muscogee
(Creek) citizens who are also White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian among
many others. But whatever else we are, we are all Creek Indians by
blood. Our constitution does not provide any exception to this
requirement.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Lewis J. Johnson and Hon. Brian T. Palmer
Question 1. What is the current membership and benefit status of
Freedmen under your Tribal law? Can you estimate, or give a percentage,
of the overall population of the Seminole Nation if Seminole Freedmen
were to obtain full citizenship status?
Answer. By way of clarification, Freedmen are persons of African
descent and Seminole citizens who do not have Indian ancestry. \1\ The
words ``citizens'' and ``members'' have been used interchangeably by
the Federal government throughout history. It is not our intention to
distinguish between the two for purposes of this response. Each answer
below will reflect that clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, Treaty of March 21, 1866.
The total enrollment of Freedmen of the Seminole ation of Oklahoma
is 2,673. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (``Nation'') is not notified
of the passing of Freedmen enrollees, so this number represents current
and historical information. Seminole Freedmen receive the same benefits
under Tribal law as Tribal Member enrollees do under Tribal Law. The
disparity in the treatment of the two groups exists at the Federal and
State levels (see below, e.g., CDIB, Dawes Roll, and State Fuel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact).
Total Enrollment:
(i) Total Seminole Tribal Members enrolled as of August 31,
2022: 19,361 (living)
(ii) Total Freedman Citizens enrolled as of August 31, 2022:
2,673 (living and deceased)
(iii) Of the known living enrolled individuals, Freedmen make
up approximately 12 percent of Seminole ation Enrollment. \2\
Seminole Freedmen are given full citizenship status as more
fully described in the response to Question 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By means of comparison, based upon information available on the
website of the Cherokee Nation, Freedmen make up less than 2 percent of
the population of the Cherokee Nation. When providing monetary
assistance and benefits, this difference is critical.
Question 2. You testified about the requirements for individuals to
receive federal benefits as a Tribal citizen. In your view, what is the
difference between a Certificate of Indian Blood (CDIB) and a Tribal ID
Card? Are the Seminole Freedmen eligible for CDIB cards to your
knowledge: And, as ``members,'' do the Seminole Freedmen have Tribal ID
cards? If not, do they have another form of Tribal ID?
Answer. By way of clarification, Freedmen are persons of African
descent and Seminole citizens who do not have Indian ancestry. The
words ``citizens'' and ``members'' have been used interchangeably by
the Federal government throughout history. It is not our intention to
distinguish between the two for purposes of this response.
A Copy of a Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'') Certificate of
Degree of Indian or Alaska ative Blood (CDIB) form is attached as
Exhibit 1 to this letter. Long before the Treaty of 1866, the Federal
government classified indigenous individuals (``Indians'') by a
percentage of Indian blood. Individuals classified as ``Freedmen,'' by
Federal government definition, do not have ``Indian blood'' ancestry.
This Federal definition has been perpetuated from the time treaties
began with indigenous populations and is still in use today. \3\ The
first line of the CDIB Card application requires the applicant to
assess their ancestral heritage and determine Indian blood. This
inquiry by the Federal government reflects that the Federal government,
rather than the Tribes, requires individuals applying for a CDIB card
to prove their level of Indian blood. In addition to nonrecognition of
Freedmen, the Federal governrnent will not recognize those individuals
whose ancestors are not on a base roll (for these purposes, the Dawes
roll) or who are not members of a Federally recognized Tribe. There are
also numerous State recognized tribal members who also do not qualify
for CDIB cards, and therefore do not receive benefits, regardless of
their ancestry and lineage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Davis ex Rel Davis v. United States, Treaty of Camp
Moultrie, and Treaty of 1866, more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tribal ID Card for the ation is issued to a Tribal Member after
the CDIB card is issued. They are two separate cards, a CDIB card which
allows access to Federal benefits and a Tribal ID card. There are two
forms of Tribal ID cards for the Nation. The Tribal Membership card is
issued after the CDIB card showing Indian ancestry is issued, and the
Tribal Citizenship card is issued to Freedmen without Indian ancestry.
The Freedmen Tribal Citizenship Card provides the holder with the
rights of citizenship of the ation, primarily the right to vote.
The Nation does not determine the eligibility of the Seminole
Freedmen to obtain CDIB cards. That determination is made by the BIA.
Question 3. You testified that Seminole Freedmen are guaranteed the
``same civil rights and equal protections of the governing laws of the
Seminole ation.'' You also testified that Seminole Freedmen are not
classified as ``members'' for historical reasons. Can you elaborate on
this distinction? What is the practical effect of having the same civil
rights and equal protections of the Nation's laws, but not retaining
the status of a ``member?'' Are there certain benefits that only
``members'' retain?
Answers. By way of clarification, Freedmen are persons of African
descent and Seminole citizens who do not have Indian ancestry. The
words ``citizens'' and ``members'' have been used interchangeably by
the Federal government throughout history. It is not our intention to
distinguish between the two for purposes of this response.
A concise summary of the historical distinction of the Freedmen by
the Federal government is provided in the United States Court of
Appeals case Davis ex Rel. Davis v. United States, \4\ in which the
Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the ation on a question relating to
benefits provided to Freedmen. A portion of that case is cited below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 343 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2003)
''The Seminole Nation was formed after the European conquest
of America. In addition to members of Native American ancestry,
it also includes members of African ancestry, descendants of
escaped slaves who began living among Native American groups in
the then-foreign territory that became Florida. In 1823 the
Seminole Nation's Florida lands were ceded to the United States
by the Treaty of Camp Moultrie. Thereafter, most of the
Seminole Nation's people, including those of African ancestry,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
were forcibly removed to what is now Oklahoma.
After removal the Tribe entered into a treaty with the United
States. . . . `` That treaty, which we will refer to as the
Treaty of 1866, contains the following language:
[I)nasmuch as there are among the Seminoles many persons of
African descent and blood, who have no interest or property in
the soil, and no recognized civil rights, it is stipulated that
hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other
of the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle
there, shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens,
and the laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon all
persons of whatever race or color who may be adopted as
citizens or members of said tribe.
Treaty with the Seminole Indians, Mar. 21, 1866, US-Seminole
Nation of Indians, Art. fl 14 Stat. 755, 756. Notwithstanding
this sweeping language, the United States itself continued to
distinguish the Estelusti (now Freedmen) from tribal members of
Native American ancestry.
For instance, when the Dawes Commission in 1906 created
official membership rolls for the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma,
it created two rolls, one for those of Native American ancestry
(the ``Seminole Blood Roll'') and one for the Estelusti (the
``Freedmen Roll''). A member of mixed ancestry was classified
in accordance with maternal ancestry. Today, these membership
rolls, often referred to as the ``Dawes Rolls,'' are
authoritative evidence of tribal membership. Any person who can
show descent from a person listed on either of the two rolls is
recognized as a member of the Tribe. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Note that in modern times, Seminole People with Indian ancestry
may be enrolled in the band or clan of their Indian ancestor, there is
no matrilineal enrollment requirement.
The Tribe's members are divided among 14 bands. The two
Plaintiff-bands consist entirely of descendants of those listed
on the Freedmen Roll. . . . Participation in some of the
Tribe's programs requires a CDIB card, ``the BIA 's
certification that an individual possesses a specific quantum
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of Indian blood.'' Davis I, 192 F.3d at 956.
A member of the Tribe can obtain a CDIB card by proving a
specified relationship to a person listed on the Seminole Blood
Roll. A person who proves the same relationship with respect to
a person listed on the Seminole Freedmen Roll, however, is not
entitled to a CDIB. In a letter dated October 4, 1995, the
Superintendent of the Wewoka Agency of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs explained this differential treatment:
``The Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood makes or infers
no mention of Tribal Membership. The policy states that my
responsibility is to certify one[']s Indian blood when
acceptable proof of relationship to an individual enrolled on
specific rolls of particular tribes [is presented). . . [T)here
are persons listed on the Freedman roll who were part Indian.
As you know, the Seminole Nation follows maternal lineage.for
example, if the person's mother was [Fjreedman and the father
was Indian by blood, the person was enrolled in the [F)reedman
roll. This person was still part Indian and he/she and his/her
descendants would be eligible to receive a [CDIB). . . Our
policy is not to deny [Freedmen CDIBs], but to state that
adequate proof of relationship to a person with Indian blood
has been provided by them . . . Stated simply, if a Freedman
band member or anyone else applies for a [CD/BJ that cannot
provide acceptable proof of relationship to a Seminole Indian
by blood, they will be denied a [CDIB).'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 6Again, Seminole People with Indian ancestry may be enrolled in
the band or clan of their Indian ancestor, there is no matrilineal
enrollment requirement.
Aple. Supp.App. at I 68-69. According to Plaintiffs, many
members of the Dosar Barkus and Bruner Bands of the Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma have been denied CD!Bs under the BIA 's
policy. Consequently, members of the Plaintiff-bands have been
excluded from participation in programs for which CDIB cards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
are required.
343 F.3d at 1286-1287.
The distinction made by the Federal government between Freedmen and
Indian ancestry is also reflected in the Act of April 26, 1906, also
referred to as the Oklahoma Organic Act (the ``Act''). The intention of
the Act was to provide for the final disposition of the Five Civilized
Tribes in Oklahoma, with statehood occurring in 1907. Section 4 of the
Act shows the intention by the Federal government to differentiate
between Freedmen and those of Indian ancestry and provides:
SEC. 4. That no name shall be transferred from the approved
freedmen, or any other approved rolls of the Choctaw,
Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, or Seminole tribes, respectively,
to the roll of citizens by blood, unless the records in charge
of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes show that
application for enrollment as a citizen by blood was made
within the time prescribed by law by or for the party seeking
the transfer, and said records shall be conclusive evidence as
to the fact of such application, unless it be shown by
documentary evidence that the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes actually received such application within the time
prescribed by law.
P.L. 51- 182, 26 Stat. 81 (emphasis added).
Later sections of the Act provide additional protections for
Indians by blood, with Section 19 restricting the powers of those with
Indian ancestry to alienate property. Section 20 restricts those with
Indian ancestry from leasing property. Section 21 limits and controls
the intestate di stribution of property of those with Indian ancestry
stating that property of Indians who died intestate, without heirs,
would escheat to the Tribe of the decedent. Section 22 requires the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior for the transfer of land
inherited by those of Indian ancestry, and Section 23 goes further
requiring approval of devises by will of those of Indian descent. No
such restrictions are made by the Federal government through the Act on
Freedmen, regarding their property, their right to contract, their
rights to devise their property, or their heirs.
As recently as the 1970s, within the memories of Seminole People
still living, the Federal government drafted the Constitution of the
Seminole Nation. Distinctions between those of lndian ancestry and
Freedmen were made within that document. Those drafters were careful to
follow the mandates of the 1866 Treaty, preserving the civil rights of
all Seminole People, but a distinction was made.
The only civil rights reserved to Seminole People in the Bill of
Rights of the Constitution of the Nation are:
(i) The right to belong to a Seminole Band;
(ii) The rights and privileges awarded to all citizens of the
United States; and
(iii) Individual vested property rights of Seminole People.
All Seminole People are guaranteed the same civil rights and equal
protections of the governing laws of the ation, including
representation on the General Council of the ation. These Freedmen of
the Nation have not been disenfranchised dating back the signing of the
1866 Treaty with the United States and including the right to have
representation on the General Council of the ation. The practical
effect of these Constitutional protections is that all Seminole People
are treated the same with respect to benefits under the laws of the
Nation.
This discussion would be incomplete without a summary of the broken
promises of the Federal government to provide land and financial
resources to the Seminole Nation. In every Treaty and Act cited in this
discussion, and others, the Federal government either promised to
provide additional land, stewardship of land and minerals, or financial
resources to the Seminole Nation. Little of this has occurred. Even
now, each time the Federal government provides support to Tribes, these
decisions are based on membership numbers of Tribal populations
(frequently excluding Freedmen) and not the needs of the Tribal ations.
The Seminole ation finds itself in the position of being the least
wealthy of the 5 Tribes, with the smallest land base, and fewest
economic development opportunities. The Federal government should
correct its broken promises to all Seminole People.
Additional Comments by Assistant Chief Palmer:
I appreciated the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Seminole
ation before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on
July 27, 2022. In particular, I valued the purpose of the hearing and
the opportunity to present information for the record. The Federal
government asked the Sovereigns for answers to questions concerning
Freedmen. Facts applicable to each Tribal Nation's position regarding
Freedmen were presented in an unbiased manner, possibly for the first
time. Unfortunately, the five-minute time limit required of the Tribal
representatives resulted in lopsided testimony because other non-Tribal
speakers filled much more than five minutes with their testimony and
the Tribal representatives were not permitted any time to respond to
what were some very inflammatory statements. In an effort to provide a
more balanced perspective, I am submitting this written response.
Marilyn Vann spoke at length at the Senate hearing, as well as at a
hearing before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee
on Housing, Community Development, and Insurance on July 27, 2021.
Unfortunately, Ms. Vann has a history of using generalizations and
mischaracterizations about the Seminole Nation and the Seminole
Freedmen in an attempt to sway the media and public opinion. For
example, in the 2021 hearing, Ms. Vann categorized all of the Five
Tribes as slave holders. In reality, the Seminole Nation did not
practice ``Southern Antebellum Slavery''. Many runaway slaves were
welcomed and protected by the Seminole. As history proves, several
prominent leaders of African descent served alongside the Seminole
during the Florida Seminole Wars. These individuals were viewed as
warriors.
Another example is that Ms. Vann stated that the ation
``recategorized the Freedmen as citizens rather than members.'' This is
a false statement. Article II of the 1866 Treaty with The Seminole (
1866 Treaty) provides that the people of African descent living among
the Seminole (Seminole Freedmen) who settled there at that time were
guaranteed civil rights and equal protections as the citizens of the
Tribe by stating that:
``[I]nasmuch as there are among the Seminoles many persons of
African descent and blood, who have no interest or property in
the soil, and no recognized civil rights, its stipulated that
hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other
of the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle
there, shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens,
and the laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon all
persons of whatever race or color who may be adopted as
citizens or members of said tribe.''
Seminole ation Treaty of 1866, Article II.
Pursuant to the Seminole Constitution, Seminole Freedmen are, and
have been since 1866, Tribal citizens of the Seminole ation guaranteed
the same civil rights and equal protections of the governing laws of
the Seminole ation, including representation on the General Council.
Seminole Freedmen are citizens of the Seminole ation but are not
classified as ``Members'' for historical reasons. The historical
distinction of Seminole Freedmen begins within the 1866 Treaty.
This distinction was further perpetuated by the Act of Congress
approved March 3, 1893, establishing the Dawes Commission. The Dawes
Commission categorized the Seminole Freedmen separately as it allotted
lands and assets of the Seminole ation. The United States agents of the
Dawes Commission kept separate rolls for Seminole Freedmen and made
separate allotments for Seminole Freedmen.
Freedmen citizens receive all the civil rights of Tribal members.
Tribal members receive very few ``tribally funded'' benefits that have
fewer requirements and provisions than Federally Grant Funded programs
and services. Freedmen are allowed access to several tribal
programstribally funded and grant funded such as OAP, Transit, Housing,
and Food Distribution. Some ``tribally funded'' benefits are
supplemental assistance programs that are unrelated to the Treaty of
1866. Civil Rights do not equate to privilege, tribal member
preference, or benefits. Still another element of Ms. Vann's testimony
that should be corrected is her statement that the Nation denied the
Freedman descendants the opportunity to receive a COVID vaccination.
The Seminole ation does not provide oversight over Indian Health
Services (``IHS''), which is a Federal agency and, at the time, IHS was
only providing COVID vaccines in accordance with CDC guidelines and its
internal policies. In addition, during the first three months of
vaccine availability, there was limited supply and vaccine distribution
and storage requirements were factors that shaped distribution
decisions. Later, as CDC recommendations changed with the vaccine, any
person was allowed to receive the vaccination at the Wewoka his
location.
The timeline for COVID vaccine distribution at the Wewoka IHS
location was as follows:
January 4, 2021--beneficiaries 65 and older with an active
chart were eligible.
January 22, 2021--beneficiaries 18 and older with an active
chart and underlying health conditions, first responders,
teachers, and Seminole Nation employees with an active chart
were eligible.
February 18, 2021--non-beneficiary spouses, caregivers, and
household members of beneficiaries were eligible.
March 1, 2021--anyone over the age of 18 was eligible for
vaccine.
It was not until October 5, 2021 that IHS updated on its position
as to the eligibility of the Seminole Freedmen to receive health
services from IHS or by a Tribal Health Program or an Urban Indian
Organization. !HS reviewed the eligibility status of the Seminole
Freedmen in accordance with its eligibility requirements and determined
that the Seminole Freedmen are eligible for health care services.
It is critical to note that as demonstrated by the timeline above,
Seminole Freedmen were provided the opportunity to receive the COVID-19
vaccine on March 1, 2021, which was 7 months before they were
identified as eligible beneficiaries by IHS on October 5, 2021.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Marilyn Vann
Question 1. Given that Congress's authority related to Tribal
membership is limited by federal Indian law and the language of the
1866 treaties, what can be done at the federal level to facilitate
reconciliation between Freedmen descendants and the Five Tribes?
Answer. The US government must enforce the treaty rights of the
freedmen and freedmen descendants for there to be reconciliation of the
parties. At the present time, the leadership of the tribes except for
the Cherokee nation and the freedmen descendants are on opposite ends
of freedmen descendants rights in areas such as citizenship and or
tribal annuities and tribal programs. Furthermore, the leadership of
those nations oppose the United States intervening to enforce the
treaty when it comes to freedmen rights while wanting US enforcement of
other provisions of the treaties such as recognition of the
reservations as per the Supreme Court case McGirt V Oklahoma. They
appear to wish for the freedmen descendants to walk away from their
legal rights which both the tribes and the US government have promised
them. That is not acceptable to the freedmen descendants any more than
tribal leaders have been willing to accept the United States
mismanagement of tribal funds. (Osage tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Vs
United States 75 Fed Ct Claims 462).
Much of the opposition to freedmen descendants is rooted in anti-
Blackness in which the US government must take some responsibility by
setting up separate rolls for freedmen tribal members, establishing
blood quantum for the purpose of determining when restrictions on
allotments would end instead of allowing each tribal member to state if
they wished a restricted allotment or not, allowing Oklahoma upon
statehood to set up discriminatory laws against persons with any
African ancestry, and the US setting up federal programs in the earlier
part of the twentieth century in which eligibility was determined based
on blood quantum set by the Dawes commission. Another example is in
1978 the DOI distributing judgement funds to Creeks by blood and
unregistered Eastern Creeks (such as those who later became members of
the now federally recognized Alabama based Poarch Band of Creek Indians
who remained east of the Mississippi) but not to Creek freedmen and
freedmen descendants asserting that Creek freedmen descendants
ancestors were not tribal members in 1818. The Department of Interior
ignored the fact that a fair number of persons on the Creek by blood
sections of the rolls had ancestors who were members of other Indian
tribes in 1818--many Cherokees became Creek citizens during the 1820s
based on an agreement between the two nations, and that many persons
later registered as Creek freedmen had a parent who was a Creek Indian
listed on rolls prior to Dawes such as the 1857 Creek Old Settler roll
that died before the Dawes enrollment.
Another proof of tribal anti Black attitudes is that the tribal
governments have not tried to remove other tribal minorities with
treaty rights--examples are Shawnees and Delaware Indians adopted into
the Cherokee nation.
Descendants of Creek Indians adopted into the Cherokee nation
during the 1820s with no federal treaty rights to Cherokee citizenship
also have continued their Cherokee tribal membership with no opposition
by tribal leadership. Euchee Indians have continued to be members of
the Muscogee Creek Nation although they are not Muscogee people by
ancestry. Seminole and Chickasaw tribes also continue memberships of
adopted Indians (See Lula V Powell 64 Okla 200 regarding Caddo Indians
registered on the Seminole by blood Roll without degrees of blood) who
are not related to Seminole or Chickasaw Indians respectively.
I stated in my testimony submitted in July 2022, history of the
Five Tribes shows that without Federal intervention either thru the
courts, Federal agencies, and or laws passed by Congress, the tribal
governments will not live up to their legal treaty obligations to the
freedmen until the US government lives to its treaty obligations to the
descendants of tribal freedmen.
History shows that when the US government enforces the law,
reconciliation begins. In the Cherokee nation, for example,
understanding of the freedmen treaty rights and acceptance of the
freedmen and freedmen descendants as full citizens of the tribe was
much greater once the US government thru the courts, federal agencies
and in Congress took actions to uphold the treaties. Regarding the
other tribes, until the freedmen descendants are standing in the voting
line, living in tribal housing, attending lunches for tribal elders,
taking positions as leaders in tribal community organizations, being
recognized as tribal veterans, exercising the rights of citizens etc I
foresee no reconciliation even if government officials such as
Secretary of Interior Haaland and Secretary of HUD Fudge encourage the
tribes to live up to treaty obligations to freedmen descendants. We of
course welcome any government officials public support of the 1866
rights of the freedmen.
The legal obligations of the United States to protect the rights of
the tribal freedmen is just as great as the obligations of the United
States to protect the tribal leadership. It was not foreseen in 1866
that the United States would one day tum the freedmen descendants over
to the whims of the tribal governments without them having any voice (
or a very minimal voice) in the matter and wash its hands of the
freedmen. We remind the honorable Senators that the US did not shut its
eyes to the plight of black south Africans who had been denationalized
by the South African apartheid government although the US had no legal
obligation to assist them. The US government overrode a presidential
veto to establish a trade embargo to put pressure on the apartheid
government--without outside pressure, the apartheid government might
exist to this day.
Tribal governments are not sovereign nations similar to Mexico and
Canada but are domestic dependent nations under the protection of the
US government. (See Cherokee Nation V Georgia US 30 US 1). The tribes
are bound by the treaties that they signed--and not just on the rights
of the freedmen and freedmen descendants. For example, the Creek nation
in the 1832 treaty between the Creeks and the United States (7 Stat
366) ceded all of its reservation land east of the Mississippi to
obtain a reservation in what is now Eastern Oklahoma. The Muscogee
Creek nation (formerly Creek nation) cannot now in 2022 claim that they
continue to have a reservation consisting of the lands ceded in 1832 in
Alabama.
The Five tribes' governments had the authority to cede sovereignty
in matters including the freedmen and their rights and did so in the
treaties. The tribes are also subject to the thirteen amendment to the
US constitution pertaining to the end of slavery and badges of slavery.
In 2008 in Vann et al V Kempthorne (07-5024), DC Appeals Court Judges
Merrick Garland, David Tatel, and Thomas Griffith asserted that the
Cherokee nation had treated away its right to discriminate against the
freedmen. A review of testimony of former Cherokee Chief WP Ross (A
Princeton Educated lawyer) in 1885 to US Senators at a Committee on
Indian Affairs Field hearing clearly states the tribal position that
the US government had a legal right to intervene in issues of freedmen
citizenship although not in the citizenship of others. That was the
understanding of tribal leaders shortly after the treaties were signed.
The US government has intervened to ensure that the freedmen and
freedmen descendants received enforcement of their rights under the
treaties. For example, the US Government in October 19 1888 passed an
Act of Congress (25 Stat 608) to provide funds to Cherokee freedmen and
other adopted citizens including Shawnees who had not received their
share of a per capita payment due to actions by the tribal government.
Those who received the payment pursuant to the Act of Congress were
listed on the Wallace roll. Subsequent to this, the US government in
1890 passed legislation to allow the Cherokee freedmen (as well as the
Delaware and Shawnee tribal members who had received Cherokee
citizenship based on the 1866 treaty) to sue the Cherokee nation in the
Court of Claims to receive per capita funds. The freedmen won the
lawsuit and received the funds. (Moses Whitmire, Trustee for the
Cherokee freedmen V Cherokee nation and United States 30 Ct Claims 138
(1895)). In 1867, Creek nation leaders refused to pay Creek freedmen
tribal members a share of per capita payment received from the US
government. In 1869, the United States government paid Creek freedmen
the per capita payment which they had been denied in 1867 by the Creek
nation leadership. (1869 JW Dunn roll payment). During the 20th
century, the US government protected Cherokee freedmen (and their
descendants) rights to tribal property in Cherokee Nation V United
States 180 Court Claims 181 (1967) and Seminole freedmen citizenship
rights in Seminole Nation V Norton. We repeat there has been NO Act of
Congress which has terminated the legal rights of the freedmen. This
Cherokee and Seminole Nations litigated this issue both in Federal
cases Cherokee Nation V Nash and Vann and in Seminole Nation V Norton.
Although tribal membership and the treatment of tribal members is
generally an internal tribal matter as per the Supreme Court case Santa
Clara Pueblo Vs Martinez, this is not the case in tribes where the US
and a tribe have created a citizenship for members originating from a
different tribe (such as Delaware Indians adopted into Cherokee
Nation), and adoption of black slave descendants whose ancestors had
been enslaved under tribal law by tribal nations who fought for the
confederate States, or tribal nations who have agreed to minimum blood
quantum requirements as a waiver of sovereignty to gain or regain
federal recognition. For example, Congress passed the 1987 Ysleta del
Sur Pueblo restoration Act (Public Law 100-89) to overturn the
termination of the tribal government but the bill set a Congressional
required minimum blood quantum of one eighth for tribal membership.
This is a case where the tribe clearly waived tribal sovereignty so far
as tribal membership to reestablish a government to government
relationship with the United States. Note The minimum blood quantum
requirement for this tribe were removed by a subsequent Act of Congress
in 2012.
We also have examples of the US government approach to violations
of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteen amendments to the US
constitution which were passed to bring basic legal rights to blacks in
the southern states after the Civil War. Until the United States took
actions thru the Federal Courts (Brown V Topeka Board of Education),
through Congress (1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting rights Act, and
Fair Housing Act), and Federal Agencies using their authority to
minimize discrimination--such as the Treasury Department which acted to
revoke tax exemptions against segregated/racial discriminatory private
schools (See also Bob Jones University V United States 461 US 574)
little change would have happened in the South so far as ending
discrimination against blacks and bringing a much higher level of
reconciliation between the majority and minority races than existed in
the 1950s. Examples of this include the election of Governor Douglas
Wilder of Virginia which is a white majority state and black
Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia in a district in which blacks are
in the minority--Virginia having been a state which some school
districts closed down segregated public schools during the 1950s to
avoid having integrated public schools.
We are aware that the Federal courts determined that the Chickasaw
freedmen were not adopted by the Chickasaw nation. The United States
must take a large share of the blame for this as they did not timely
approve the adoption of the freedmen immediately after the tribal
government did so in 1872; the tribe changed its mind when the US
government did not act at that time. The US government can bring some
equity to some of the Chickasaw freedmen descendants by passing laws to
allow previously dismissed cases such as the Equity 7071 case to be
tried in the Federal Courts based on the merits of the case. Congress
can remove procedural impediments such as statute of limitations for
descendants of black mixed Chickasaw Indians and black mixed Choctaws
who were registered as freedmen to determine if they should receive the
value of the allotments their ancestor did not receive (i.e. three
hundred twenty acres).
We are aware that Congress is hesitant to pass laws which decrease
tribal sovereignty. However, the freedmen descendants ask for
enforcement of rights where the tribal governments have already waived
sovereignty during the nineteen century. Also, as noted in the DC
Appellate rulings in Vann V Kempthorne and Vann V Salazar, the tribal
officers are not sovereign. Congress can provide disenrolled or
discriminated against freedmen descendants separate funding and proving
additional funding to the DOI to determine who the unregistered
freedmen descendants are. The freedmen descendants merely wish Congress
to enforce the agreements which have already been made. Congress has
the legal authority to require the Department of Interior to file
litigation on behalf of the freedmen descendants rights, if Congress
does not pass such a bill, Congress has the power to block the
Department of Interior from using statutes of limitations as defenses
if sued by disenrolled freedmen descendants. We are aware that the DOI
does not always assert this defenses--See Tilly Hardwick V United
States 5; CV 01710. Congress also has the legal authority to pass bills
allowing freedmen descendants litigants to sue a tribal government to
gain clarification of these issues as was done during the nineteen
century.
We are aware that enforcement of the treaties will require
additional funding from the US government. We are aware that several
tribes have received Federal recognition through Congress since the
early 1980s including some who never had a treaty with the United
States government. Several tribes are working to obtain federal
recognition through Acts of Congress at the present time and if such
recognition is granted, these tribes will qualify for some program
funds. We ask that Congress not approve federal recognition for
additional tribes until the US enforces its treaty obligations to
freedmen descendants.
Question 2. You're the first Cherokee Nation citizen of Freedmen
descent confirmed to a Cherokee Nation government commission. What does
that mean to you? To your Association? And to other Freedmen groups who
seek redress?
Answer. I was honored to be appointed as a commissioner to the
Cherokee Nation Environmental Protection Commission. It gives me great
satisfaction as a Cherokee Nation tribal member to serve my tribe in a
professional capacity and use my education and professional experience
as a team lead engineer for the betterment of my tribal nation. (I am a
retired engineering team leader who worked for the federal government
for thirty two years and prior to that worked in private industry for
two years. Prior to that I graduated with distinction from the
University of Oklahoma with a Bachelor of Science degree in
engineering). The appointment has also been a way to showcase to my own
tribe as well as to other tribes that there are freedmen descendants
who have important skills and education including in the STEM areas.
Unfortunately, too many non freedmen members of tribes believe untrue
negative stereotypes about the education, skills, and leadership
qualities of persons of African ancestry including freedmen
descendants. To the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Tribes
Association, the appointment shows that there can be opportunities
within the tribal government for persons of freedmen descendant status.
Board members and members of the Descendants of Freedmen Association
are pleased with the appointment and support the appointments of other
qualified freedmen descendants' tribal members to tribal boards and
commissions. Other freedmen groups who are working to showcase and or
fight against tribal disenrollment against are supportive as they see
the appointment as proof that if the US government does it part to
enforce the treaties, reconciliation will proceed.
Question 3. Ms. Vann, do you believe this Committee should
investigate which direct federal services and benefits require proof of
Indian blood to better understand how Tribal members with Freedmen
status may be affected?
Answer. I believe that there should be a formal investigation of
which Federal programs and benefits require proof of Indian blood
because some federal and tribal officials do believe that all federal
programs and benefits require CDIB cards. However, I must state that
for every program that I am aware of, there are no blood quantum
requirements. The Supreme Court case Morton V Mancari (417 US 535),
asserts that Indians (ie registered Indians) have a unique legal status
and can be preferentially hired by the BIA without breaking laws
against racial preferences in Federal employment. According to a letter
former Regional Director for the Eastern Oklahoma Region, 25 CFR Part
20 Financial Assistance and Social Service Programs the definition of
an Indian qualified to receive assistance from Federal Indian programs
is tribal membership as of October 20 2000. Prior to that time,
qualification for Indian programs required one quarter blood quantum.
Furthermore, a review of Public Health Federal regulations for Indian
Health Service (See CFR 42 Section 136) state that tribal members/
tribal citizens, persons who have a degree of blood such as from CDIB
card, unregistered minors (children, stepchildren, etc) in an Indian
(ie a home where a member/citizen of a federal tribe resides), all
qualify for Indian health service. A review of NAHASDA regulations 24
CFR Part 1000 also has no requirements of a CDIB card and or minimum
blood quantum to access the program funds. A 2016 letter from former
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affair Ms. Erika Moritsuga
asserts that the Seminole nation has been informed that no CDIB card is
necessary for Seminole nation registered freedmen to receive NAHASDA
funded services. The tribe has continued to discriminate against the
freedmen by reclassifying them as tribal ``citizens'' rather than as
tribal'' members'' and reissued their tribal cards showing such
language.
To my knowledge, the only areas in which registered freedmen can be
discriminated against in the acquisition of restricted allotment land
because the Amendments to the Stigler Act which expanded the
eligibility to own land under restriction and retain the restrictions
was expanded from five tribes descendants who have one half blood
quantum or higher to persons who are descended from a person on the by
blood section of the Dawes rolls whether they are tribally registered
or not. For example, a half blood Cherokee who is married to a Cherokee
freedmen would be able to transfer restricted allotment land to his son
upon his death with the property remaining in restricted status but not
to his wife without the property losing its restricted status. This of
course could easily be changed by allowing transfer of the restricted
property to a descendant of any Dawes enrollee.
The other area in which freedmen are being discriminated against
which state courts have determined to be legal is in the area of
criminal justice. This has mainly came to play after the Supreme Court
case McGirt V Oklahoma decision and subsequent state of Oklahoma cases
which have determined that State of Oklahoma Judges have determined
that based on the 1846 Rogers case (United States V Rogers 45 US567) in
which an adopted white Cherokee who was a US citizen killed another
adopted white Cherokee citizen on the reservation and the court held
that US courts held jurisdiction over the matter and not tribal courts;
that freedmen are not Indians for criminal justice purposes. State
courts have required that a defendant claiming Indian status when a
crime occurs within the five tribes' reservation provide not only proof
of tribal membership but also a CDIB card. We must point out that the
freedmen members of the tribes did not have US citizenship until the
twentieth century just as all members of the tribe except for adopted
white citizens. We also point out that an Act of Congress can be passed
to clarify that all members/citizens defendants of the five tribes are
not subject to state court jurisdiction when crimes are committed on
reservations.
Question 4. Ms. Vann, you state in your testimony that this
Committee can assist Tribal members with Freedmen status by requesting
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on the status of the
Freedmen. What specifically should such CRS reports investigate with
respect to the descendants of Freedmen of the Five Tribes?
Answer. Creek Nation--The tribe relies on the signature on a new
constitution DOI officials in 1979 as authority to remove the freedmen
from the tribe. Are there DOI documents which explain why the
constitution was deemed to be valid so far as overriding the treaty
rights of the freedmen? I already mentioned that in twenty years, I
have found no freedmen descendants who voted on the constitution, nor
did any of their families who had status as Creek freedmen. What
efforts did the DOI do to try to ensure that the freedmen voted on the
constitution? Since no Federal court has determined that freedmen have
been removed by the US government by any Act of Congress, by what
process can the freedmen receive their rightful share of the funds of
the Creek nation as per the treaty if the tribe does not register them
as members of the tribe? Does Indian Health Service have the authority
to provide medical services to Creek freedmen based on their current
status or must this only come from the tribal officials designating
either all or a subset of the Creek freedmen descendants as ``Indians
in the tribal (in this case the Muscogee Creek) community''? How will
the freedmen receive their share of funds from the American rescue plan
Act? Please identify judgement funds not received by the freedmen and
freedmen descendants since 1971.
Seminole Nation--As I testified before, the Seminole Nation has
allowed Seminole freedmen to vote and hold office on the council but
had otherwise blocked Seminole freedmen tribal members from receiving
both federal and tribal services funded services until the October 2021
letter went out to all tribal leaders and Indian Health service units
that Seminole freedmen qualify for the health services. HUD has
informed the tribe that the Seminole freedmen qualify for the services
but housing policies still block freedmen from participating in the
programs. I am aware that some Senators oppose tying funding to tribal
governments being in compliance with their treaty agreements however,
what solutions can be found in which the freedmen will receive program
funds? How will the freedmen receive their shares of tribal funding
from the American rescue plan act? The tribe is fighting to receive
additional judgement funds (Chief Johnson mentioned this during his
testimony), what steps can Congress take to ensure that the freedmen
cannot be blocked from receiving their share of the both past and
future funds received by the tribe. Please identify judgement funds
received by the nation since 1971 in which freedmen descendants have
been blocked from receiving since 1971.
Choctaw Nation--My written witness testimony went in depth about
the history of the Choctaw Nation, their demands to be paid for
adopting the freedmen (which the US did pay as per the treaty of 1866),
and their denationalization of the freedmen and freedmen descendants
after receiving the funds of the US taxpayer for adopting them. Please
investigate if the freedmen descendants are entitled to the funds plus
interest. Please investigate what steps the DOI took to ensure that
freedmen participated in the constitutional vote which disenrolled them
(Again, I have not found one single freedmen or freedmen descendant who
voted or had a family member with freedmen status who voted on the
constitution which was approved by the DOI).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Michael Burrage
Question 1. What is the current membership and benefit status of
Freedmen under Tribal law?
Answer. The Choctaw Nation Constitution, approved by the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior, makes every person eligible for Choctaw
Nation membership who can trace his or her lineal descendancy from a
person who was placed by the United States Government on the Dawes Act
roll of Choctaws, a roll created and administered by the United States
Government over a century ago. Some of our members, and applicants for
members, may be able to trace their lineage to African American
freedmen (or to other African Americans or to Irish Americans or to
German Americans, etc.), but that lineage is constitutionally
irrelevant. What is legally required is a lineage connection to at
least one Choctaw ancestor who appears on the Dawes Act roll of
Choctaws. It should be noted that the Tribe, following its
constitutional mandate related to membership, does have tribal members
from different races, including African American members. All other
lineage is given no legal consideration in Choctaw Nation membership
determinations under our Constitution.
Question 2. Are you able to estimate, or provide a percentage, of
the Seminole Nation's Freedmen membership? And would this estimate/
percentage differ if they were to obtain full citizenship status?
Answer. No. We respectfully refer you to the Seminole Nation as to
such matters.
If the question was intended to reference the Choctaw Nation's
membership, we are likewise unable to answer. Choctaw Nation gathers
and maintains no lineage records of Choctaw Nation members except
insofar as it relates to documents tracing to a Choctaw ancestor who
appears on the Dawes Act roll of Choctaws.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Hon. Michael Burrage
Question. Mr. Burrage, has the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma held any
town halls or forums to discuss Freedmen citizenship since Chief Batton
issued an open letter in July 2021?
Answer. Given the constraints of the COVID public health pandemic,
Choctaw Nation forums have been virtual only and regularly have
occurred as part of Chief Batton's robust communication channels with
Choctaw Nation members and the general public. Tribal membership
questions, including those regarding ``Freedmen citizenship'', have
gained only nominal responses.
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Chuck Hoskin Jr.
Question 1. Your 2020 Executive Order directed the Nation's
executive branch to identify barriers that prevent equal access to
services for Freedmen. It's been two years--what is the outcome of your
order?
Answer. Since issuing the executive order there has been far more
unity within our people. There is now an understanding that all
Cherokee Nation citizens will be treated with respect and dignity when
seeking access to government programs, services, and employment.
Our executive directors looked through our policies, regulations,
and outreach materials with an eye toward ensuring equality, and from
that review identified areas of concern. They then developed action
plans for engaging historically excluded groups, including Cherokee
citizens of Freedmen descent.
These actions have strengthened our commitment to reconciliation.
But we know our work is just beginning. We need to do far more than
merely acknowledge the legal principal of equality--we must seek to
embrace the spirit of equality every day. So, we are working with
Cherokee citizens of Freedmen descent to ensure we are truly
understanding their needs and concerns.
We are hiring community liaisons. We are hiring more citizens of
Freedmen descent to work in our departments. If individuals seeking
employment within Cherokee Nation do not have proper credentials, our
Career Services team will work with these men and women to ensure they
have access to the education and training they need to put them in
these roles.
True reconciliation will take time. But by committing to a mindset
of acceptance and by seeking out areas where we may have fallen short,
we are on the correct path.
Question 2. How has the Nation been impacted by accepting Freedmen
as members? Social, economic, or community-wise?
Answer. Cherokee Nation is a better nation today than it was prior
to the Nash decision. It is a stronger nation, and I'm proud of the
many actions we've taken over the last five years to bring Cherokee
citizens of Freedmen descent into the Cherokee Nation community.
But unity doesn't just happen overnight. For more than a century
men and women of Freedmen descent had been disconnected from Cherokee
Nation, and many in the Freedmen community did not have the same
experiences, the same access to services, the same opportunities, the
same understanding of citizenship as non-Freedmen citizens. We need to
continue to bridge this gap.
Keeping our promise to citizens of Freedmen descent has impacted
Cherokee Nation in many ways. Our tribe is larger--there are now about
12,000 enrolled members of Freedmen descent in Cherokee Nation. Growth
brings budgetary needs--more housing, health care and mental health
services, childcare, food assistance, etc.--but it also brings a wealth
of possibility.
______
Letters Submitted for the Record
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian of Mattaponi ancestry and concerned member of
the American Indian community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm
that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties
should stand and be enforced as written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five
Civilized Tribes addressed at this hearing.
Thank you,
Ruben Anderson
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian of Mattaponi ancestry and concerned member of
the American Indian community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm
that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties
should stand and be enforced as written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five
Civilized Tribes addressed at this hearing.
Thank you,
Martia Anderson
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Respectively,
Craig Coleman Jr., Teacher, businessman, advocate, friend.
______
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community in Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between
the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and
Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established treaties
is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as
written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects
the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories,
prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal
nations. If they make the freedmen Africans in Oklahoma, they will do
the same thing all across Indian country.
Jerry Scott
______
My name is Mosezickle Pitts Ramirez a descendant of Chickasaw
Freedmen. My family consists of 150 descendants of the same. We want to
be heard included and counted. Many years ago prior to statehood the
Chickasaw published a statement that read: FORMER SLAVES ARE LIKE DOGS
THEY BARE NO SOULS. THEY SHALL IN NO WISE TAKE PART IN THE CITIZENSHIP
OF OUR INDIAN HERITAGE. . .CHICKASAW NATION 1898 Ada Newspaper Indian
Territory.
______
Greetings, to whom it may concern,
I am American Indian, Descendant of reclassified and misclassified
indigenous inhabitants of Mvskoke Territory and other southern
territories of south east woodlands of North America.
Matters concerning the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties directly effect
my family's lineage. Any unnecessary and negative changes to said
treaty will be considered not only immoral but also unlawful. As this
matter is very concerning we demand that these proposed changes be
stopped immediately.
Marlon Coffee
______
Dear Senate Committee,
I am an American Indian with family that's on Choctaw by blood and
Cherokee Freedman rolls. I'm currently not enrolled into my tribe due
to being missclassified and great migration reasons. But My Freedman
have no African lineage. The slaves in my family was Black Europeans
not African so
If they make the freedmen Africans in Oklahoma, they will do the
same thing all across Indian country.
They are trying to turn the American Indians into Africans. My
family did not go on the trail of tears some still reside in
Mississippi who have direct connection to the Dancing Rabbit treaty,
Which allowed us to remain on our land in Mississippi Also as a
concerned member of the American Indian Community outside of Oklahoma
the treaties of 1866 should not be changed and remain in place whereas
they set a precedence for other treaties. I am concerned because of the
precedent of changing the treaty of 1866. The treaty should stand and
be enforced as written.
Jasmine Humphries
______
To whom this may concern
I'm aware of the hearing on the 1866 reconstruction that the so
called natives are trying to have reconstructed for the record I am a
concerned descendant of American Indian blood that's currently living
outside of Oklahoma territory my family stayed behind and was
reclassified. My name is Brian Henry and on behalf of me and my family
we reject the 5 civilized tribes stance and don't want the treaty
changed, again on the behalf of me and my blood lineages we reject what
the so called 5 civilized tribes leaders are trying to do they do not
speak for me and my family and our history we want what they are trying
to change struck down we want the treaty to stay exactly how it is.
Andre
______
Hello, To whom it may concern,
Peace to the council, chiefs, elders etc. As I write today I pray
that this letter is met with the health of the elders and the blessings
of the ancestors.
I am an American Indian. I am the descendant of Muskogee language
Choctaw Indians of the Ponchatoula village, displaced from Louisiana/
Mississippi/Alabama to Saint Paul/Minneapolis MN by way of E St Louis
Illinois and St Louis Mo.
I am writing as a concerned citizen of Indian country outside of
Oklahoma regarding, The hearings on the 1866 reconstruction treaty and
how it may directly affect my family, most urgently with respects to
article 3 ``In compliance with the desire of the United States to
locate other Indians and freedmen thereon.''
It is of my request that the council oppose any changes made to the
treaty of 1866. Any changes to treaties leave all treaties open to
being overturned. That is a danger to all Indians and indigenous
peoples in Oklahoma, America and globally.
I would like the decision of Murphy to remain upheld. As all
treaties must remain untouched, and respected for true sovereignty to
remain in Indian country.
Sincerely,
Danielle Churcher, Registered voter Minnesota 6th district
______
Hello, I am writing regarding the letter to submit. I have a few
questions.
1. Both of my great grandparents and their daughter (my
grandmother) are listed on the Dawes Roll. Do I submit a letter for
each great grandparent or just list my grandmother?
2. My mother is deceased there are 5 of us siblings, do we each
submit a letter or will one suffice and we attach the names along with
our children and our grandchildren?
3. Is there an issue if we don't have the name of the slave holder?
Thank you,
Jacquelyn Freeman
______
Osiyo,
We welcome the communications for this is a key factor in our
healing process;whereas the voices of my ancestors can be heard today.
We truly wish that so called misclassified Negro American Indian
blood,not be lost in translation to this committee.
Wdio.
Accawmacke,Eyno
David StandingRock Whistling Owl.
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian Pamunkey woman, and registered voter. I am
concerned about a myriad of things happening in Oklahoma. I write to
affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the
Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations have been
altered to eliminate the American Indian and raise up a non existent
African heritage of the ``Freedmen''. I have seen the treaties altered
many times as the victims of ``paper genocide'' profess a grievance.
Changing the established treaties is a dangerous precedent. The
treaties should stand and be enforced as written. Furthermore, the
actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the rights, legal
statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners of war and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations. Many of the non
federally recognized American Indians are not extinct, we are here and
completely overlooked and erroneously called ``Black and or African
American''. How much longer before attention, is brought to the matter
of addressing, the genocide and ethnocide of American Indians from
antiquity to now? As it stands there at least upwards of one hundred
fifty thousand Misclassified American Indians who are put down and shut
out. We wish to make our presence known and restoration and
preservation of the history and culture should bring global attention
to the seriousness of a ``hurt people'' who is hidden from the world.
The changing of the treaties before our eyes is an insult beyond
measure that effects ALL Misclassified American Indians
Wado!
Phoenix Moon
______
To whom it may concern or Dear Senate Committee,
I am an American Indian through lineage done so by Oral History,
family genealogy and government records. Linage should be in proper
place in regards to making Freedmen, Africans, inside of the 5
Civilized Tribes. This could spill over all across Indian Country.
There seems to be a concerted effort to turn the misclassified
American Indians into Africans. Concerned citizens of Indian Territory
and those whose families didn't make the Trail of Tears are effected by
the decisions made by 5 Civilized Tribes position on trying to
Africanize the misclassified American Indian.
Also, as a concerned member of the American Indian Community
outside of Oklahoma the treaties of 1866 should not be changed and
remain in place whereas they set a precedence for other treaties.
I hope this email is greeted with acknowledgement and
understanding.
Johnathan Lee
______
I'm a concerned descendant of detribalized American Indians. I want
to know why there's a meeting without the other 5 Civilized Tribes'
freedmen besides the Cherokee. This treaty can't be amended without the
freedmen's say so.
Damion
______
In honor of our Ancestors of this Land, I come bestowing You with
the highest of elevations.
This coming Wednesday, July 27, 2022, is scheduled a meeting of
Congressional Senators and assigned Committee Members to discuss and
review parameters involving the oversight hearing to examine select
provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between the United
States and some American Indian Tribes. As an American Indian, active
registered voter and tax paying American, it is my ancestral duty and
bloodline rite to communicate with my elected officials and committee
members about the significant impacts these meetings and potential
addendums would have on my community. It is certainly understood there
are many treaties which ushered in detrimental effects of removal acts,
sweeping multitudes of ancestral families off their lands. Other
treaties presented notions to offer a revolutionary aspect of living
for Indigenous Americans, while there were other stipulations placed
upon ancestral and historical practices of families; also compromising
the unity within family units.
The Treaty of 1866 with the Cherokee states to establish the
abolishment of slavery amongst American Indians connected to the
Cherokee Tribal Nation, recognized by the United States government.
Within this treaty, there are limited expansion boundaries for allotted
Tribal families and their descendants, although to the contrary other
members are provided amnesty towards crimes committed, allowed tribal
members to be in charge of their commercial presentations with no
government interference, in addition to a collective of other
parameters removed or strengthened upon the verbiage of the Article.
During this time, the treaty also determined structural mandates for
Cherokee Governance and council requirements.
Subsequent articles also present the allowance of some tribal
members to reside with selected residential spaces, as long as one is
deemed civilized; in conjunction, as designated areas of tribal lands
highlighted for assigned states lands.
As a descendant of Pre-colonial, first contact American Indians and
having lineage to the Cherokee Nation prior to the Civil War, I have an
ancestral obligation to communicate how imperative it is to communicate
my understanding of how the amendment of this treaty, without
substantial input from direct descendants must not be.
In addition, the addendum towards such significant government
sanctioning treaties will alter a person structure within one's lives,
also ancestral lineage practices which were impaired, halted, or able
to commence by way of the Treaty of 1866.
I am seeking to have representation of diverse participants
(Cherokee members, tribal family descendants, and other allies) in
addition to American Indians who are directly involved in the adjusted
parameters placed as a result of the present treaty or potentially
impacted from amendments to such treaty.
Any and all assistance your offices and representatives will offer
are highly appreciated.
Infinite Peace to You,
Selena Murrell
______
Hiti Hampuli I am Enrolled Miccosukee who is darker complexion.
What the creek nation is trying to do is sacreligious to what being a
native stands for, I hope the creek freedman win this case so things
can change for the creek tribe.
Xavier Kluttz
______
To Whom it May Concern,
Osiyo! In honor of our Ancestors of this Land, I'm sending you the
highest of elevations.
Yesterday, Wednesday, July 27, 2022, was the scheduled meeting with
the Congressional Senators and assigned Committee Members to discuss
and review parameters involving the oversight hearing to examine select
provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between the United
States and a select few of American Indian Tribes. Today, I felt
compelled to express my thoughts, after witnessing the public hearing,
live in Washington D.C. As an American Indian and tax paying American,
it is my ancestral duty and bloodline rite to communicate with my
elected officials and committee members about the significant impacts
these meetings and potential addendums. It is certainly understood that
there are many treaties which ushered in effects of detrimental effects
of removal acts sweeping multitudes of ancestral families off their
lands. Other treaties presented notions to offer a revolutionary aspect
of living for indigenous Americans, while there were other stipulations
placed upon ancestral and historical practices of families; also
compromising the unity within family units.
The Treaty of 1866 with the Cherokee, states to establish the
abolishment of slavery amongst American Indians connected to the
Cherokee Tribal Nation, recognized by the United States government.
Within this treaty, there are limited expansion boundaries for allotted
Tribal families and their descendants, although to the contrary other
members are provided amnesty towards crimes committed, allowed tribal
members to be in charge of their commercial presentations with no
government interference, in addition to a collective of other
parameters removed or strengthened upon the verbiage of the Article.
During this time, the treaty also determined structural mandates for
Cherokee Governance and council requirements.
Subsequent articles also present the allowance of some tribal
members to reside with selected residential spaces, as long as one is
deemed civilized; in conjunction, as designated areas of tribal lands
highlighted for assigned states lands.
As a descendant of Pre-colonial, first contact American Indians and
having lineage to the Cherokee Nation prior to the Civil War, I have an
ancestral obligation to communicate how imperative it is to communicate
my understanding of how the amendment of this treaty, without
substantial input from direct descendants must not be. After witnessing
the live hearing, on Wednesday, I am quite taken aback on the amount of
times the words, ``Africans'' were being used in comparison to the
Freedoms, when in fact these words and/or titles were never used prior
to. If they were are using these titles, what is going to stop them
from using these same titles amongst all other American Indians labeled
as Freedmen, in other other tribal nations? This is a huge issue.
In addition, the addendum towards such significant government
sanctioning treaties will alter a person's structure within their lives
, but also ancestral lineage practices which were impaired, halted, or
able to commence by way the Treaty of 1866.
I am seeking to have representation of diverse participants
(Cherokee members, tribal family descendants, and other allies) in
addition to American Indians whom are directly involved in the adjusted
parameters placed as a result of the present treaty or potentially
impacted from amendments to such treaty.
Any and all assistance your offices and representatives will offer
are highly appreciated.
Infinite Peace to You,
N.R. ``Indigo Moon'' Powell
______
Dear Senate Committee,
I am an American Indian who has lineage to the Five Civilized
Tribes. My paternal grandmother was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma and her
great-grandfather is on the 1890 Creek Dawes Rolls, by full blood.
If they reclassify the Oklahoma freedmen as Africans, it is only a
matter of time before the rest of the American Indians in North America
will face paper genocide. As a concerned member of the American Indian
community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established
treaties will be a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and
be enforced as written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this
hearing affect the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal
histories, and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
I am standing with solidarity in the Sharp v. Murphy case.
Sincerely,
Nekeisha ``Indigo Sunflower'' Stanfield
______
Greetings to ALCON,
I am writing as an American Indian and a concerned member of the
American Indian community living outside of Oklahoma. I write to affirm
that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole Nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties sets a dangerous precedent. I believe the
treaties should stand and be enforced as they are currently written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affect the
rights, legal status, ethnic identities, lineal histories, and
classifications of American Indians and Tribal nations for generations
to come.
Respectfully,
James Donald Sr.
______
Greetings,
As a US Citizen and a descendent of Cherokee, I write to affirm
that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations should not be changed.
Changing this treaty could set a precedent for all other treaties
involving American Indians recognized and unrecognized. Specifically
excluding the Freedman from such discussion is troubling and
problematic. Recent history show the unfair treatment of the Freedman
as late as 2007 when the Cherokee Nation stripped 2,800 Freedman of
their membership. This is problematic being that the 1866 Treaty
between the Cherokee Nation and the U.S. Government included these
freedman. This decision was overturned by a Judge in 2017 granting
citizenship rights to sed freedman but shows a clear bias against
Freedman from the Cherokee Nation. What is of most importance that is
clearly stated in the 1866 treaty that Freedman was included and ceded
land as said in article 2 of the treaty, ``Shall have and enjoy all the
right and privileges of native citizens, including an equal interests
in the soil and national funds, and the laws of the said nation shall
be equally binding upon and give equal protection to all such persons,
and all others, of whatsoever race or color who may be adopted as a
citizen or members of said tribe.'' The treaties should stand and be
enforced as written.
I do not like the actions being taken to modify the 1866 Treaties.
I request that you do not modify the Treaties.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Watkins
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As a concerned descendent of the American Indian community and US
Citizen, outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established
treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be
enforced as written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this
hearing affects the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal
histories, prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and
tribal nations.
Respectfully,
Big Creek
______
My name is Culani, I am an American Indian, a tribal member and
descendant of the Cherokee civilized tribes living in Georgia. I am
descendant of Creek Tribe and Black Foot. I implore the Senate
Committee to hold the 5 Tribes accountable for the treatment of all of
their citizens, especially their Freedmen Citizens according to the
original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty.
I was extremely saddened to learn about the current status of the
Freedmen of the 5 Tribes. They have been treated as Second Class
Citizens with little to no access to the benefits provided to Non-
Freedmen Citizens when in my understanding, the 1866 Treaty stipulated
their full membership to the Tribes. I believe the 5 Tribes have been
allowed to practice exclusion and dare I say racism towards their
Freedmen Citizens when by law they agreed not to do so. This in my
opinion is a breach of the Treaty.
Again I implore your careful consideration of my email, and please
hold true to the original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty to not add in
or allow the Tribes to continue exclusion or oppression of rightful
Citizens.
Thank You,
Culani Burks
______
My name is Kristoffer Taylor, I am an American Indian, a tribal
member of a non-recognized tribe and a very concerned citizen. I
implore the Senate Committee to hold the 5 Tribes accountable for the
treatment of all of their citizens, especially their Freedmen Citizens
according to the original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty.
I was extremely saddened to learn about the current status of the
Freedmen of the 5 Tribes. They have been treated as Second Class
Citizens with little to no access to the benefits provided to Non-
Freedmen Citizens when in my understanding, the 1866 Treaty stipulated
their full membership to the Tribes. I believe the 5 Tribes have been
allowed to practice exclusion and dare I say racism towards their
Freedmen Citizens when by law they agreed not to do so. This in my
opinion is a breach of the Treaty.
Again I implore your careful consideration of my email, and please
hold true to the original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty to not add in
or allow the Tribes to continue exclusion or oppression of rightful
Citizens.
Thank You,
Kristoffer Taylor
______
My name is Cudjo, I am an American Indian, a tribal member of a
non-recognized tribe and a very concerned citizen. I implore the Senate
Committee to hold the 5 Tribes accountable for the treatment of all of
their citizens, especially their Freedmen Citizens according to the
original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty.
I was extremely saddened to learn about the current status of the
Freedmen of the 5 Tribes. They have been treated as Second Class
Citizens with little to no access to the benefits provided to Non-
Freedmen Citizens when in my understanding, the 1866 Treaty stipulated
their full membership to the Tribes. I believe the 5 Tribes have been
allowed to practice exclusion and dare I say racism towards their
Freedmen Citizens when by law they agreed not to do so. This in my
opinion is a breach of the Treaty.
Again I implore your careful consideration of my email, and please
hold true to the original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty to not add in
or allow the Tribes to continue exclusion or oppression of rightful
Citizens.
Thank You,
Cudjo
______
Dear Senate Committee Persons,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed.
Unfortunately, this is a reminder of what I was told by my
ancestors now gone and still living. The gross basis against the
freemen. For which, is not a surprise to those record keepers but a
secret to the story of this nation those who had to walk away from
their heritage, land, and language and others standing in solidarity
with them by ``disenrolling'' the family. Only because the entire
shades of family excluded. I come from both of these families.
Growing up it was frustrating, knowing I'm Indian but people saying
I'm black but also saying ``You must got Indian in your family'' but
could never ``prove it'' outside of oral history (pre Internet.) That
frustration grew when I began the work to return back to the tribe as
an adult with the help of a cousin. Only to be reminded about blood
quantum bc my family had not been enrolled since the birth of Daddy
George Crabtree, Muskov Creek. Reason being Mom Ezzie Edwards-Crabtree
was Cherokee freeman. Thus making us freemen. 23 years of long haul
work I had to do, record changes and convincing of my grandmother, who
did not want to enroll bc of the identification of African lineage
attachment to freeman, to enroll so the remaining of us could.
As of now I'm not on roll bc of the same reason despite now my
mother and siblings are.
Until recently the tribe made a strong campaign effort ``bring
family home'' and providing the opportunity lost but given to future
generations and generations who have been able to remain attached to
the tribes. And that is about to change again.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Respectively,
Valeda Finney-Stewart, Shai's Farm LLC
______
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community in Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between
the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and
Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established treaties
is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as
written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects
the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories,
prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal
nations. If they make the freedmen Africans in Oklahoma, they will do
the same thing all across Indian country.
Ashley Allen
______
To whom it may concern,
As a concerned citizen of the American Indian community living
outside of Indian country in Oklahoma I would like to submit my
grievances in regards to the meeting being conducted today in the
Senate hearing. I am completely against any updates being sought to be
made. The real question is what are the motives behind the desire to
modify said treaty? And further more why weren't the Freedmen invited
to the conversation when they are the ones who's position is at stake
in this conversation? Furthermore why are the said tribes attempting to
make all the origins of brown skinned people of this country to be from
Africa? That's clearly misclassification and ethnocide. Again I would
like to state for the record that I am against any updates to the 1866
treaty, and am stating that it should left as is and enforced in its
current state.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Brandon Redd Woolf DeShaun
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian of Cherokee, Quapaw Choctaw lineage, and
registered voter. I am concerned about a myriad of things happening in
Oklahoma. I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations have been altered to eliminate the American Indian and raise up
a non existent African heritage of the ``Freedmen''. I have seen the
treaties altered many times as the victims of ``paper genocide''
profess a grievance. Changing the established treaties is a dangerous
precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations. Many
of the non federally recognized American Indians are not extinct, we
are here and completely overlooked and erroneously called ``Black and
or African American''. How much longer before attention, is brought to
the matter of addressing, the genocide and ethnocide of American
Indians from antiquity to now? As it stands there at least upwards of
one hundred fifty thousand Misclassified American Indians who are put
down and shut out. We wish to make our presence known and restoration
and preservation of the history and culture should bring global
attention to the seriousness of a ``hurt people'' who are hidden from
the world. The changing of the treaties before our eyes is an insult
beyond measure that effects ALL Misclassified American Indians.
Jimmy DeShon Gulley, Qualls family
______
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community in Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between
the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and
Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established treaties
is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as
written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects
the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories,
prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal
nations. If they make the freedmen Africans in Oklahoma, they will do
the same thing all across Indian country.
Karla Dunn
______
I am an Urban American Indian and I am opposed to any changes to
the 1866 treaty or any other American Indian treaty. I am an American
Indian and stop trying to Africanize the true American Indian.
Lloyd Carty
______
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community in Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between
the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and
Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established treaties
is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as
written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects
the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories,
prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal
nations. If they make the freedmen Africans in Oklahoma, they will do
the same thing all across Indian country.
Michael Jackson, MBA
______
Dear Representative/Senator/Senate Committee,
My name is Nikki, I am an American Indian Citizen who lives outside
of Oklahoma.
I am highly devastated to hear that the 5 civilized tribes are
trying to change the 1866 Treaty.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Sincerely,
N.M.Stanfield
______
Good morning,
I'm an American Indian and I object to any changes being made to
the 1866 Treaty.
TpTv Too Live
______
I am a descendant of Alabama Creek Indians. Changing the 1866
Treaty would be detrimental to our people.
Trevor
______
Good Evening,
I hope all is well. I'm writing to express my sincere concerns over
the 1866 reconstruction of the treaties. There are many American
Indians that were misclassified and reclassified that have indigenous
ancestry. I'm personally a descendant of the 5 civilized tribes by
blood and a freedmen on another line in my family. The 1866 treaty
should be held in tact without any modifications. There are many people
who are experiencing an issue even enrolling in the tribes by blood and
only the Cherokee are recognizing the freedmen. If the treaty is
modified in any way this will further disenfranchise people from being
recognized and enrolled in the tribes. We understand the history in
this country and the freedmen were included in those treaties for a
reason. Please leave the treaties in place as is.
Thank you,
D. Smith, Concerned Citizen, voter and tax payer
______
Dear Senate Indian Affairs Committee Members,
Estonko! (Hello) You are receiving this formal request to vote to
uphold the 1866 Treaty that the United States made with the Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma and the descendants of the Estelusti Seminole
Freedmen.
It is my strong recommendation that you plan to vote to enforce
delivery of services, full benefits and clarify the definition of
membership versus citizenship for the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. We
have repeatedly asked for an attorney general's opinion regarding their
request to disburse funds to members by blood and not members by the
body, which are considered freedmen members. Which has been ruled
unconstitutional by the Crow and Dunlevy legal response to the Seminole
Nation from 2015. The following is an expert from the 1866 Treaty.
``ARTICLE 2. The Seminole Nation covenant that henceforth in said
nation slavery shall not exist, nor involuntary servitude, except for
and in punishment of crime, whereof the offending party shall first
have been duly convicted in accordance with law, applicable to all the
members of said nation. And inasmuch as there are among the Seminoles
many persons of African descent and blood, who have no interest or
property in the soil, and no recognized civil rights it is stipulated
that hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other of
the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle there,
shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens, and the laws of
said nation shall be equally binding upon all persons of whatever race
or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe''.
This is not an isolated incident, there are many concerns regarding
the behavior of our past and current tribal chiefs and council members
for many years. This is gross neglect of duty and misconduct reflecting
on the dignity and integrity of the Tribal Chiefs, Band Chief Leaders
and General Council members who continuously vote to exclude freemen
from all benefits while violating our own Seminole National
Constitution regarding membership.
We want to give an update on the status of freedman in the Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma. The freedmen were given federal appropriations to
provide Healthcare to the members of the tribe. It was not announced
until October of 2021 in spite of the benefit declared in May of 2021
by the previous tribal Chief Greg Chilcoat However, the freedman only
received coverage after the federal government intervened regarding the
number of deaths to COVID 19 denied Estelusti Seminole members of the
tribe. What is Law without the enforcement or fulfillment?
MTVO! (Thank You)
Sincerely,
Reginald Knighton, Band Chief, Dosar Barkus Band, Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma
______
To Whom It May Concern,
Hello and greetings in the name of Jesus Christ. I am Pastor
Sterling Mitchell, Sr., the grandson of Jimmie Cudjoe who was a Black
Freedman of the Seminole Nation Tribe, Dosar Barkus Band. Growing up in
small rural Spencer, OK, I was introduced to segregation at an early
age. I am a product of the civil rights movement and sit-ins with Clara
Luper. These times were emotional and still reside with me today.
My memory of segregation and the civil rights era came forward more
strongly when I was denied my 100 percent tribal benefits from Seminole
Nation. It is extremely heartwrenching that, in 2022, I am still
experiencing discrimation and segregation. These benefits are not just
a want, however they are legitimately owed to me and my family. My
grandfather was a great man and I want to keep his legacy alive. I will
be 70 years old on December 4, 2022, and I want to be able to enjoy
these benefits with my children and grandchildren.
Sincerely,
Sterling Mitchell, Sr.
______
To Whom This May Concern
I would like to thank the committee or committees who are listening
to our concerns and staff that's involved with the Great Lineage of the
Black Seminole Nation Tribe. Also the Dosar Barkus Band.
Being from Oklahoma I was under the impression that we all (people)
are under one oath and state flag to where we are to unite and have
peace with all individuals.
Per these words, this is not what is going on with the Seminole
Nation Tribe. These set backs have not been good experiences for my
kids or myself.
I, Shawn Mitchell, am the great grandson of Jimmie Cudjoe. Who was
part of the Black Seminole Nation Tribe.
When learning about this great knowledge I applied for a Seminole
Nation Card and received it.
While looking at my card I saw there was a print that read 0/0
blood.
In Feb of 2022 I applied for programs that evolve the Native
Affairs department.
Once I signed my kids up, I was told immediately after I showed my
card your kids are denied because it says 0/0 blood.
March of 2022 I applied for a Seminole Native car tag and drove
over 3 hrs to get it to find out I am denied because my card says 0/0
Thanks,
Shawn Mitchell, Black Seminole Nation Tribe
______
Ishtonko! Senator Schatz & Committee members,
Please allow me to introduce myself in writing as I am unable to
attend this hearing in person. I am state Representative Ajay Pittman
of House District 99 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I have dual
citizenship as a proud member of the Seminole Nation. I am a member of
the Bird Clan and the Dosar Barkus Band.
I am honored to greet the United States Indian Affairs Senate
Committee and submit the video of the Horrific History of Boarding
Schools in Oklahoma. I am the third Seminole elected to the State
legislature, Co-chair of the Oklahoma Native American Caucus, and
Secretary of the National Caucus of Native American State Legislators.
I also honor my former tribal chief, the late former State
Representative and Senator Enoch Kelly Haney, as the first Seminole
elected to the legislature. My mother, Senator Anastasia Pittman was
the second Seminole elected to the state legislature serving as both a
State Representative and Senator. She is an enrolled member and
currently serves as an elected Seminole Nation General Council Member
and band secretary.
We are bringing honor to our tribe as citizens of the Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma. My family calls me Javece Mujessi--which is
translated to ``New Moon.'' I am the seventh generation Seminole in our
family and I am charged with keeping the fire of knowledge burning and
sharing the medicine. This is what my native great grandmother taught
us as a part of our heritage. She taught us a life motto: to honor
Christ and our creator, Culture, Community, and Character. Today, we
are asking that you grant us full benefits to ensure that we are no
longer considered members by the body with voting benefits only. Our
bloodline should never be denied.
I am looking forward to preserving our heritage culture and
traditions as we honor our ancestors.
Mtvo! (Thank You)
Representative Ajay Pittman
______
To whom it may concern:
My name is Jordyn Daniels, I am a proud American Indian from the
Dosar Barkus Band of the Seminole Nation Tribe. My great great
grandfather was Jimmie Cudjoe.
I am writing to you today to express my disbelief of how
differently the Indian Tribes are treated in the state of Oklahoma. I
have a friend that is in another tribe in Oklahoma and have spoken with
them about their benefits and treatment and I'm shocked by our vast
differences. I don't understand how some benefits are granted and
others are not.
As I am entering my last year of my undergraduate degree, it is
unfortunate that I have been intentionally neglected benefits, such as
receiving scholarships, a tribal tag for my car, housing opportunities,
financial assistance and the list goes on.
As a Black Freedman, I am being denied benefits because of the
color of my skin. This makes me really sad because I am a descendant of
a rich culture who houses history in their bosoms. If our story were to
end here, it would be disheartening that I won't be able to reap the
benefits my ancestor fought for. I'm hopeful that one day I will be
able to share and live this history with a family of my own.
Respectfully,
Jordyn Daniels
______
Dear Senators Schatz and Murkowski,
Hello from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I am Jaeln Daniels and Jimmie
Cudjo is my great great grandfather. I am writing to express my concern
of not being able to receive equal native benefits from the Seminole
Nation Tribe.
I am a 20 year old young man living in the state of Oklahoma where
I am still looked upon as not equal. I feel like I have a lot of life
to live and experiences to be had. I greatly want one of them to be the
experience of receiving 100 percent native benefits. With these
benefits, I would be able to advance my education and entrepreneurial
endeavors.
I see my grandfather and mother working hard to ensure our family
history is not lost. I want to do my part in helping to make sure the
Black Freedman are recognized as equals within the Seminole Tribe. With
your help, I am confident our efforts will not be in vain.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours truly,
Jaeln Daniels
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed. Changing established treaties is a
dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as
written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects
the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories,
prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal
nations.
Amir Finney
______
I, Dr. Monique Y. Tate, officially known as Principal Chieftess
Sahani Ugidahli (Blue Feather), and the Grand Council of Coosa Nation
of North America (USA) living natural beings brings this Affidavit in
support of a Criminal Complaint against Ashley Fry et al., Named and
Unnamed agents of the United States, the State, and Local Political
Divisionsfor the continuum of GENOCIDE and conspiracy to commit fraud
against Aboriginal Indigenous Americans known since antiquity as Negros
da Terra in the Americas.
Dr. Monique Y. Tate
______
Greetings,
As a member of the American Indian community outside of Oklahoma
and as a descendent of Cherokee, I write to affirm that the 1866
Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw,
Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing
this treaty could set a precedent for all other treaties involving
American Indians recognized and unrecognized. Specifically excluding
the Freedman from such discussion is troubling and problematic. Recent
history show the unfair treatment of the Freedman as late as 2007 when
the Cherokee Nation stripped 2,800 Freedman of their membership. This
is problematic being that the 1866 Treaty between the Cherokee Nation
and the U.S. Government included these freedman. This decision was
overturned by a Judge in 2017 granting citizenship rights to sed
freedman but shows a clear bias against Freedman from the Cherokee
Nation. What is of most importance that is clearly stated in the 1866
treaty that Freedman was included and ceded land as said in article 2
of the treaty, ``Shall have and enjoy all the right and privileges of
native citizens, including an equal interests in the soil and national
funds, and the laws of the said nation shall be equally binding upon
and give equal protection to all such persons, and all others, of
whatsoever race or color who may be adopted as a citizen or members of
said tribe.''
I expect that these select provisions being disused would not
effect those clearly stated in such treaty by further excluding or
omitting such parties such as Freedman to the legal precedent set by
the Treaty of 1866. I am concerned with pattern of exclusion of the
freedman from the Oklahoma tribes. The treaty should stand and be
enforced as written. I appreciate all time and concern with this matter
and am optimistic for the plight of the American Indian.
Sincerely,
Joel Martin
______
Dear Senators:
My name is Charlesetta Jennings. I am a descendant of Isaac
Gardner, who was a Choctaw Freedmen whose name is on the Dawes Roll,
(Card number 821, Roll number 1793), the roll that the Choctaw Nation
uses for citizenship but excludes those ofus whose ancestors were on
the Freedman pages of that roll.
I am writing to bring to your attention that today we are denied
citizen simply because our direct ancestors on the Dawes Roll were
slaves. We are being forced to wear the badge of slavery which is a
signal to the tribal enrollment office to exclude Freedmen.
My ancestor was a slave of Polly Le Flore from the Choctaw Nation.
Like others, my ancestors arrived in the Territory with the tribe,
toiled in bondage under them, and remained in the Territory after
freedom came because it was the land that they knew as their home.
In the Choctaw Nation our ancestors were excluded from education
for years after the treaty was signed in 1866, and were limited in the
right to gather after freedom and our ancestors lived oppressed for
decades.
After statehood, we were then classified together with southern
black families that migrated to Oklahoma, and we have been forgotten as
part of the Oklahoma landscape.
Our identity is still that of being of Choctaw Nation descent and
we continually see our white colleagues who will tell us that they are
Choctaw tribal citizens and they have Indian rights. Yet, we also have
multiple levels of documentation and our family is on the same Roll
that provides our tie to the same nation. But, because we are of
African descent we are rejected when applications are submitted for
enrollment.
We ask that you assist us with righting this wrong and that you no
longer force us to pay through our own tax dollars for our own
alienation from a nation that we have never violated. It is the nation
that violates us.
I pray that you address the issue of citizenship for Freedmen
descendants or consider withholding federal dollars from these nations
that discriminate against us.
Sincerely,
CHARLESETTA JENNINGS
______
Iam a descendent of Peter and Lucy Mack of Meridian Oklahoma on my
father side and descendent of Molly Dumas on my mothers side. Both is
known to have Indian ancestors. I have not been recognized.
Angela L Sampson
______
I, Ron Graham, a Freedmen Descendant of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation
(MCN) request that the United States Department of the Interior BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office conduct a
fullscale investigation on the legitimacy of the MCN constitution. The
Freedmen have been discriminated of our tribal citizenship. In 1979 the
MCN disenfranchised the Freedmen descendants, beginning with the MCN
Constitution and later through the years from the MCN tribal
referendums, approved by the MCN National Councils and Principal
Chiefs. As a result of this illegal Constitution and referendums, the
Freedmen descendants have lost our tribal citizenship, voting rights,
medical benifits, housing services, educational programs, clothing
benifits, federally funded programs and our identity.
Also, in 1979 the U.S. Department of the Interior BIA approved the
MCN constitution. This approval was signed by Sidney L. Mills, Acting
Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Mr. Mills stated, ``That nothing
in this approval shall be construed as authorizing any action under the
constitution that would be contrary to Federal Law.'' The Muscogee
(Creek) Nation Constitution is contrary to Federal law and definitely
violates the MCN 1866 Treaty Article II and the U.S. Constitution
Article VI Clause 2 which was ratifed on June 21, 1788 and it reads as
follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in evecy
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstand.
The ``by blood'' or ``Indian blood'' language listed within the MCN
Constitution and any laws which flows from that language is illegal and
contrary to Federal Law. Also, the ``by blood'' or ``Indian blood''
language found within the MCN constitution is obsolete and unacceptable
to the ideal of life and liberty. These words insult and degrade the
descendants of Freedmen much like the Jim Crow laws found lingering on
the books in Southern states some many years after the passage of the
1964 Civil Rights Act. The 'by blood' or 'Indian blood' phrase is a
relic of a painful, ugly and a racial past. These words have absolutely
no place in the MCN constitution, neither in present day nor in its
future.
Also, the blood quantum was originally used by the Dawes commission
and was only to be used for land allotment purposes and not to
disenfranchise the descendants of Freedmen. This is a violation of our
civil rights and a badge of slavery. In 1947 the Stigler Act was
passed, although it was amended in 2018, H.R. 2606, eliminating the
blood quantum minimum for tribal citizens, of their land that is in
trust. The MCN constitution and referendums making the Freedmen
descendants ineligible for tribal citizenship, violates Article II of
the MCN 1866 Treaty, making the MCN constitution unenforceable. The MCN
is not honoring Article II of the 1866 Treaty.
The MCN shall continue to define itself as it sees fit but
essentially do so equally and evenhandedly with the regards of the MCN
dsecendants of Freedmen. In 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the
McGirt case that the MCN reservation is still intact, based on the fact
that the MCN 1866 Treaty is still in full effect and has never been
abrogated.
The MCN Freedmen citizenship is exclusively based on the MCN 1866
Treaty Article II, which was concluded on June 14, 1866 ratified July
23, 1866 and proclaimed August 11, 1866 in accordance with applicable
Federal Law. And it reads:
MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION 1866 TREATY ARTICLE 2.
The Creeks hereby covenant and agree that hencerorth neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude. otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes. whereof the parties shall have been duly
convicted In accordance with laws applicable to all members of
said tribe, shall ever exist in said nation; and Inasmuch as
there are among the Creeks many persons of African descent. who
have no Interest in the soil, It ls stipulated that hereafter
these persons lawfully residing in said Creek country under
their laws and usages, or who have been thus residing In said
country, and may return within one year from the ratification
or this treaty, and their descendants and such others of the
same race as may be permitted by the laws of the said nation to
settle within the limits of the jurisdiction or the Creek
Nation as citizens shall have and enjoy all the rights and
privileges of native citizens, Including an equal Interest In
the soU and national runcls, and the laws of the said nation
shall be equally binding upon and give equal protection to all
such persons, and all others, of whatsoever race or color, who
may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe.
I appreciate your time, effort and cooporation. I will expect to
hear from you promptly regarding the outcome of this request. Thank
you.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Graham
______
Dear Senate Committee,
Greeting, As a concerned member of the American Indian community
outside of Oklahoma , I am concerned because of the precedent of
changing the treaty of 1866. As a descendents of the Choctaw tribe from
my grand mother Rhoda Hayes records and full blood , I'm concerned on
them changing the treaty, because it's going to effect the freedom's
,as if they history doesn't matter, which is very problematic, because
that's someone history being erased . As a American Indian due to
changes like this makes some American of dark completion effect lose
their history and puts them in a miss classification as an African,
when they have no ties to Africa, I think the treaty shouldn't be
changed!
Big Red Thomas
______
Good Morning,
I wish to encourage that the 1866 Treaty be upheld to the
recognising the Freedmen as First Nation. For example, Article 9 states
explicitly states that Freedmen shall have all--not some, not half and
not a little--of the rights of a Cherokee Native. As honourable people
of the Five Tribes, it needs to be upheld out of a moral and legal
obligation. This is active discrimination against Freedmen not because
they are Native--which, by blood, they are--but because they are of
African descent. At It's core, it is racist, and is deplorable. After
the tribes came together to march for Black Lives Matter how can they
still try to push fellow Native brothers and sisters out? It's morally
disgraceful, not to mention the idea of this illegal violation being
given any validation of any kind is simply despicable.
Do not, under any circumstances, take away the promised and legal
rights of the Freedmen who are just as Indian, First Nation, Native
American as anyone else. They are not second or third class citizens,
and violating these rights sends the message they are.
I know the right decision will be concluded.
With regards,
Tatyana Leba
______
Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Sybil Shmona Johnson,Wife of
Damion Lamons Johnson and I submit this statement of facts on his
behalf:
A) Damion Lamons Johnson is a Direct Blood descendant of Thomas
Perryman, Benjamin Perryman,Moses Perryman,Lucy Perryman,Jacob Simmons
Sr.,Laura Simmons, Ophelia Simmons,Joe Johnson Jr , Clarence Johnson
Sr, in an unbroken succession. . . . furthermore:
B) Damion Lamons Johnson is of Direct Blood descendant of Bluford
Miller Sr ,Jacob Simmons Sr, Laura Simmons, Ophelia Simmons, Joe
Johnson Jr, Clarence Johnson Sr. . . . Ladies and Gentlemen of this
honorable panel, My Husband is also direct descendant of Chief Cow Tom
through unbroken succession via Cow Tom's daughter and Granddaughter
Malinda CowTom and Rose Ellen Jefferson (Wife of Jacob Simmons Sr).
Ladies and Gentlemen these are American Indians who have been stripped
of their Native and indigenous identities unique to North America. Due
to the admitted systemic racism displayed by the Dawes rolls agents my
were reduced to descendants of Slaves erasing our families rich history
and contributions to creating this country.
Respectfully,
S.Johnson on behalf of Damion Lamons Johnson.
______
My family has a roll number and proof of native blood. But was
denied citizenship! Make this wrong right. Give us what is rightfully
ours.
______
August 8th, 2022
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Joel C. Burris. I am the great grandson of Freedmen John
Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the Freedmen
in the 1866 Treaty.
I am requesting that the rights of the descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Clarence Burris
Jared Burris
Joel C. Burris
Joshua Burris
Roy Burris
______
August 8, 2022
Dear Sir/Madam of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Clarence C. Alexander jr. I am a ``Choctaw Freedman''
and a descendant of:
My great-great grandfather's name--Dave Burris; Dawes #668
(Card #338)
My great-great grandmother's name--Ruth Ann Burris; Dawes #7 43
(Carel #355)
My great grandfather's name--John Burris; Dawes #2859 (Carel
#337)
My great grandmother's name--Delia Burris; Dawes #2860 (Card
#337)
My grandfather's name--Duke BuITis; Dawes #2865 (Card #337)
My grandmother's name--Luella Burris; Dawes #2865 (Carel #337)
My specific Choctaw designation: Duke Burris; Dawes #286.5
(Card #337), John Burris; Dawes #2859 (Card #337) & Delia
Burris; Dawes #2860 (Card #337)
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and the United
States of America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedman in the 1866 Treaty.
I am requesting that the rights of the descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely
Clarence C. Alexander jr.
______
Dear Senators:
Choctaw Freedmen want to reclaim citizenship: We're now in the 21st
century. Many decades have passed since the Choctaw Nation changed its
constitution in 1983, where they no longer allow Choctaw Freedmen as
citizens. The Choctaw Freedmen still face considerable discrimination
in terms of social identity, not even having a seat at the table for an
open dialogue and discussion. The Cherokee Nation, as a whole, has
lifted itself into the 21st century and finally moved to address the
heavy weight of racial injustice and favored equality for their
Cherokee Freedmen and descendants. Now it's incumbent upon the Choctaw
Nation, the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee and the US
Government; as well as, our Choctaw Freedmen Advocates and Supporters
must all work together to see the once enslaved Choctaw Freedmen and
their descendants today will be recognized as full citizens of the
Choctaw Nation.
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
______
To whom it may concern!
I am writing to show that my relatives are Choctaw Freedom decent!
Roland Bulter is my grandfather.
Lucia Johnson is my grandmother( mother of Nora Butler).
Isabella Johnson was my great grandmother.
I have other documents of proof will roll numbers.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional
information!
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Ira L. Nunley III
______
Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band
This letter is in response to the testimony of Jonodev Chaudhuri,
professed ``Ambassador'' of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (MCN) in the
letter he submitted as testimony before the United States Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs for a Hearing on the Freedmen Issue and
Tribal Sovereignty, Wednesday, July 27, 2022.
We, as Freedmen Descendants, take issue with Chaudhuri and the MCN
on several points. For the purposes of this letter, we will address the
MCN through Chaudhuri as its Ambassador. First, while he speaks of the
``imposition of colonial American life in our Nation (MCN),'' he says
nothing of the benefits the MCN derived from being a slaveholding
nation. He implies that the enslavers in the MCN were somehow
benevolent benefactors, only acting on behalf and in the interest of
enslaved Africans. To imply that the act of owning another human being
is anything other than a horrendous crime is highly offensive.
Chaudhuri says nothing about the financial gain obtained by the MCN
from its enslavement of African people. He says nothing about the
benefit to the MCN from those enslaved people's intellectual property,
their physical labors, or their cultural contributions. He says nothing
about the fact that these African people, despite their regulated place
in society as enslaved people, rose in the MCN to become citizens,
serve as interpreters, scouts, acted as band leaders, and even served
in the House of Kings and the House of Warriors. He says nothing about
the fact that the formerly enslaved people in the MCN enjoyed full
citizenship in the nation due to generations of accrued culture,
language, intermarriage, the production of offspring, and the Treaty of
1866 until Freedmen were forced out of the nation in the alleged name
of ``blood'' and ``sovereignty.''
He says nothing about the fact that the MCN nation fully complied
with their obligations to their Freedmen and their descendants,
according to the 1866 Treaty, until 1979. He does not explain why the
MCN made a stunning decision in 1979 to suddenly exclude its citizens
known as Creek Freedmen. Could it have anything to do with the various
judgment funds in the millions finally awarded to the MCN? It appears
to be a very clear case of greed or racism. Or both. What other
explanation is there after literal generations of shared lives and
experiences? Mr. Chaudhuri admits himself that there are MCN citizens
who support their brothers and sisters of Freedmen descendant being
rightfully reinstated into the nation as citizens, but where are those
citizens? Why are they never allowed to speak on behalf of the
Freedmen? Why have we not heard from them?
We, as Freedmen Descendants, also take issue with the fact that at
the same time Chaudhuri vilifies America for ``colonialism'' and her
actions against Native people and people of African descent, he then
himself speaks the language of a preset day oppressor when he advocates
``blood-right'' and bigotry against rightful citizens masked as
sovereignty while simultaneously claiming the position of the
oppressed. Apparently, despite their past ``colonial'' interference,
Chaudhuri and the MCN demand that the United States Government (USG)
continue abiding by its obligations under the Treaty of 1866 and
provide funds and benefits to the MCN. However, Chaudhuri and the MCN
paradoxically argue that the USG should not interfere when it comes to
expecting the MCN to abide by its obligations under the Treaty and
should allow the MCN to racially oppress its citizens, in direct
contrast to the Treaty. He states, ``The Freedmen issue traces its
roots to injustices against both Native Americans and African
Americans.'' He, and by default, the MCN, can only be understood to be
arguing that if the United States can (historically) commit injustices
against African Americans, then why can't they? In the name of
``sovereignty.''
Another point we, as Freedmen descendants, take issue with is the
entire myth that there is any way to accurately quantify ``blood
quantum'' with regards to the MCN or that it has anything to do with
the rights of citizenship for Freedmen descendants. It is important to
point out that between 1867 and 1895, the MCN created numerous rolls of
its citizens. These rolls did not list a blood quantum or single out
the Creeks of African descent, free Black people, or the formally
enslaved African Creeks emancipated by the Creek Treaty of 1866. Blood
quantum was never an issue before the Dawes Roll. Furthermore, how can
they possibly make this argument without science? This alleged ``Creek
by blood'' myth is directly tied to the same ``colonial interference''
that Chaudhuri repudiates in his written testimony. The same MCN
citizens who are making the argument that only ``blood'' Creeks should
be allowed citizenship are relying on ``blood quantities'' that were
made by visual observation or by word of mouth and documented over 156
years ago by Dawes Commission employees. There is no moral or
scientific basis for the MCN citizen ``blood'' claims.
However, that is all irrelevant to the intent of the Dawes
Commission and the Treaty of 1866 that the MCN signed and is obligated
to. Nor does the ``blood quantum'' issue have anything to do with the
guarantee of citizenship for the formerly enslaved people of the MCN
and their descendants as codified in the Treaty. If the MCN wishes to
limit the citizenship and rights of their ``by blood'' citizens, who
are we to stop them? Even though we do not agree. The guaranteed right
to citizenship for the Freedmen and their descendants was never
intended to be dependent nor conditioned upon ``blood quantum'' or lack
thereof.
Finally, regardless of how individual MCN citizens may or may not
have felt at the time of the signing, the MCN ultimately signed the
Treaty of 1866 with the United States following the Civil War. The MCN
continues to benefit from that Treaty and expects that the United
States Government will continue to honor its obligations delineated in
the Treaty. The MCN understands that it does not have a legal leg to
stand on regarding its continued violation of the Treaty, nor will it
be able to withstand the increasing volume of the outcry against this
injustice. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation Freedmen descendants have been
fighting this injustice since the day the MCN's Constitution was signed
in 1979, illegally disenrolling and disenfranchising the Freedmen
citizens.
The fact that our Freedmen ancestors could thrive, persist, and
overcome the ravages of slavery does not mean that their enslavement
was ``easy'' within Native nations. They endured for us, their
descendants. Our families are also among the first to inhabit Indian
Territory (Oklahoma) via the Trail of Tears. They arrived after leaving
their homes and families and all they knew not only as displaced people
themselves but as the enslaved property of displaced people. They
worked, fought, toiled, suffered, and survived alongside their Native
enslavers, the new families, and bonds they created, and their fellow
citizens. They contributed to those native societies and, for a long
time, were accepted and participated as citizens within the MCN. They,
and we as their descendants, have earned our right to exist peacefully
within the MCN as much as African Americans have earned and deserve
our/their place in American society. Anything less than that
acknowledgment is criminal. Mr. Chaudhuri's anecdotal and sanitized
personal family allegory regarding what was truly a heinous and brutal
plight for enslaved African people in the MCN is irrelevant and
condescending. It has nothing to do with the Treaty of 1866 or the
MCN's obligations to the descendants of their formerly enslaved people.
Our ancestors also have names. Our ancestors also had lives. Our
ancestors also shared the same rigors of displacement, tragedy, and
fear of the unknown during the removal to a new land. Our ancestors
also live in our hearts and memories, and we will honor and fight for
their (and our) birthright as disenfranchised citizens of the MCN.
Mvto. The members of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band
(MCIFB) and its Leadership, the proud descendants of the people known
as Creek Freedmen.
______
First of all thank you for this opportunity, growing up as a child
my mother was turned down housing we live in a four room house not
indoor plumbing for many years I left home its age of 17 trying to
pursue a better life started out in college but had to drop out because
my son started going to college so I had to let him pursue his dreams .
I am type two diabetic I have to worry about keeping insurance in order
to get medication. I have a niece that passed away three weeks ago from
kidney failure she was a diabetic with no insurance I could go on and
on about what citizenship mean to me and my family, we have school
loans that we can't pay, I haven't worked in 4 years, I had to retire
because I could no longer do my job, it hard living on a fixed income,
I live with my sister for the last 3 years, thank you for your time.
Carolyn Childs
______
To whomever this may concern.
I'm the Great-Great-Great Granddaughter of Sidney Fisher I'm
sending this letter on behalf of my family.
My great great grandfather (Alexander Fisher) Lawyer (Albert J.
Lee) sent a letter in 1906 stating that he is Choctaw.
Also, documents were sent to the Department of Interior in 1902
Stating Alexander is citizen by birth of the Choctaw Nation.
How did the Dawes Commission state they didn't have ``in their
possession'' a record of Sidney Fisher ``recognized as a citizen by
blood in Choctaw, but documents have been presented to say otherwise
like the book below?
Also, if you read the who was who among the southern Indians
Genealogical notebook 1698-1907 you will also find Sidney Fisher on
page 233. (Don Martini)
My family walked the trail tears right along with their Native
Brothers and Sisters.
We have sent birth certificates, death certificates and all
documentation we can find, to Choctaw Nation, and continue to get the
run around.
All we want is our Choctaw rights to pass along to our future.
Not one Fisher has ever requested for them to lose their family
lineage which is Choctaw by blood.
I am requesting my Choctaw blood line to be re-instated because it
should have never been removed.
WE ARE CHOCTAW BY BLOOD NOT A FREEDMAN!
Thank you,
Laneesha Parker
______
Greetings, my Name is Maku Hajur Nisur , Translated in English as
``Chief RockEagle''. I am the sitting Chief of the Yamasee Nation of
The Great ``Altamaha ``Bloodline from the M'un Clan. I am a direct
descendant of Ancient Chief Altamaha himself. After the documented
Yamasse War in 1715 my people has been listed as extinct, when in fact
we're not and have been here keep our heritage alive while being
excluded from our rights as indigenous people. We have been listed as
Freedmen , Negroes and slaves, due Racial prejudices. Our Tribal lands
in Georgia has been divided and sold to the highest bidder without our
consent. Yamasee Built the Creek nation Now called the Muskogee Nation.
Article 3 of the 1866 Treaty distinguishes Yamasee From Africans in the
Text in Article 2. In HR 1514 Yamasee or Jamasi are mentioned as being
apart of the Confederation. However, since 1901 last time we (Yamasee)
was mentioned by Congress, We're (Yamasee) not mentioned again . Where
did the Yamasee people go when our last whereabouts is with the
Muskogee Creek Nation? It has Been racism that has blocked Yamasee true
heritage and classified us as Freedmen or Freedman. Our estate(land)
has been stolen and The Yamasee has been denied Treaty rights.
Therefore it should be redressed immediately and recognized as an
Indian Tribe within the Confederacy of the Muskogee Creek Nation.
The Great Violation is the denationalization of indigenous people
due to Color Code system imposed that is called apartheid. The right to
a identity and Nationality is a Human right Enforcement of Treaties has
to be done as part of restorative Justice .
Respectfully,
Chief RockEagle
______
Dear Committee members,
Please accept my testimony in support of citizenship rights of
descendants of Creek Freedmen. I am a descendant of Nero Drew roll
#2200 and Dick Anderson roll #2203. My grandmother Mildred Borders
received a Per Capita letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1962.
I attached a copy of this letter as part of the testimony in support of
the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between U.S. and Oklahoma Tribes. I
pray this committee supports the 1866 U.S. Treaty rights of Creek
Freedmen citizenship.
Thank you.
Paul Littlejohn Jr.
______
Greetings,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma , I am writing to affirm that the 1866 treaties between the
United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed or reconstructed.
Changing established treaties is a slippery slope and sets a
dangerous precedent.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written with no
further changes in language or terms used. Some of the traits have
already been reconstructed with the express purpose of removing any
mention of the peoples whom the original treat specifically applied to.
The actions and outcomes of this hearing will affect the rights,
legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five
Civilized Tribes addressed here.
Dean Brown, A concerned citizen
______
As a descendant of the native American nation I have never received
benefits and feel racially profile due to not receiving any benefits
from any tribe. As a native American and knowing how harshly all the
native American people were treated and continually to be treated I
feel there's nothing but right to afford the native American
descendants to receive benefits for the undue harassment undue murder
undo segregation that the native American people experience at the
hands of Americans. Thank you for the opportunity God bless you.
Don R. Horton Sr.
______
My name is Yulonda Seamster a descendant of Chickasaw Freedmen. My
family consists of 150 descendants of the same. We want to be heard
included and counted.
______
Dear Senators:
My name is Noreen Fellows. I along with my siblings, our children,
grandchildren and great grandchildren, are descendant of George Freeman
#2955, Rosie Freeman #4444, and Mary Lena Freeman #44448 who were
Choctaw Freedman whose names are on the Dawes Roll, the roll that the
Choctaw Nation uses for citizenship but excludes those of us whose
ancestors were on the Freedman pages of that roll.
I am writing to bring to your attention that today we are denied
citizenship simply because our direct ancestors on the Dawes Roll were
slaves. We are being forced to wear the badge of slavery which is a
signal to the tribal enrollment office to exclude Freedmen.
My ancestor was a slave of Unknown from the Choctaw Nation. Like
others, my ancestors arrived in the Territory with the tribe, toiled in
bondage under them, and remained in the Territory after freedom came
because it was the land that they knew as their home.
In the Choctaw Nation our ancestors were excluded from education
for years after the treaty was signed in 1866, were limited in the
right to gather after freedom and our ancestors lived oppressed for
decades.
After statehood, we were then classified together with southern
black families that migrated to Oklahoma, and we have been forgotten as
part of the Oklahoma landscape.
Our identity is still that of being of Choctaw Nation descent and
we continually seek inclusion in the nation that our grandparents and
great grandparents were part of for many years.
We are rejected, and we continually see our Caucasian colleagues
who will tell us that they are Choctaw tribal citizens and they have
Indian rights. Yet, we, also have multiple levels of documentation and
our family is on the same roll that provides our tie to the same
nation. But because we are of African descent we are rejected when
applications are submitted for enrollment.
We ask that you assist us with righting this wrong and that you no
longer force us to pay through our own tax dollars for our own
alienation from a nation that we have never violated. It is the nation
that violates us.
Included with this letter are many of the descendants of George and
Rosie Freeman. Please note that records at times may say Rosa Freeman,
Rose Freeman, Rosie Freeman, Mary Magdalene Freeman, Mary Magdalena
Freeman or Mary Lena Freeman.
I pray that you address the issue of citizenship for Freedmen
descendants or consider withholding federal dollars from these nations
that discriminate against us.
Sincerely,
Noreen Fellows
______
Hi my name is Chester gooden a black Seminole Indian full blood I'm
sending this to you about to discrimination that is being done against
the black Seminole Nation we have all of our paperwork to prove that
we're a full blooded Indians I've been always told I was an Indian not
no African I am not a African American I am an Indian people have died
from lack of healthcare because the Seminole Nation does not want to
include us into the benefits that we are rightfully supposed to be
getting even though they get paid money for us every month we don't see
a dime of it they didn't want to include us in the housing they just
now included us into healthcare benefits and this is stuff that we are
we are entitled to if someone could please please look into these
matters it's been going on too long the discrimination has been going
on too long if we can prove that we are who we say we are how come we
are still getting denied stop discrimination stop the discrimination.
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian and child-bearer of American Indians, I am a
concerned member of the American Indian community outside of Oklahoma.
I am writing to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United States
and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations
should not be changed.
Furthering the continuance of paper genocides and removal of
contributions of American Indian ancestries and cultural rights of
passage passed down, creates perpetual harm to our future generations.
Changing established treaties is simply a dangerous precedent The
treaties should stand and therefore remain enforced as written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
Freedmen being classified as Africans in Oklahoma is disingenuously
disturbing to the American Indian community.
I ask that the committee withdraw from this attempt to rewrite
history of the living ancestors of the American Indian. This attempt
will set the presence and continuances of inaccuracies of the American
Indian to be echoed. I speak for myself and all other American Indians
when I say we are here and our children's children are as well.
Tammie Drayden
______
I support the American Indian as Moorish American Moslem
Dudenem1Inc
______
I am of Indian Heritage and I jave not received any benefits and
they are telling me I'm not eligible.
Dwight Sampson Sr
______
Choctaw Freedmen want to reclaim citizenship: We're now in the 21st
century. Many decades have passed since the Choctaw Nation changed its
constitution in 1983, where they no longer allow Choctaw Freedmen as
citizens. The Choctaw Freedmen still face considerable discrimination
in terms of social identity, not even having a seat at the table for an
open dialogue and discussion. The Cherokee Nation, as a whole, has
lifted itself into the 21st century and finally moved to address the
heavy weight of racial injustice and favored equality for their
Cherokee Freedmen and descendants. Now it's incumbent upon the Choctaw
Nation, the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee and the US
Government; as well as, our Choctaw Freedmen Advocates and Supporters
must all work together to see the once enslaved Choctaw Freedmen and
their descendants today will be recognized as full citizens of the
Choctaw Nation. Choctaw Nation should provide Health Care, Housing &
Homeownership support, Educational support, Business support, Economic
Development support, other services to Choctaw Freedman and the
Descendants of Black people once enslaved by ALL FIVE TRIBES. I want my
Choctaw Nation citizenship reclaimed.
Sincerely,
Erica Bills
Evangela Bills
______
Halito, To whomever this may concern.
I'm the Great-Great Granddaughter of Sidney Fisher I'm sending this
letter on behalf of my family.
My great grandfather (Alexander Fisher) Lawyer (Albert J. Lee) sent
a letter in 1906 stating that he is Choctaw.
also, documents were sent to the Department of Interior in 1902
Stating Alexander is citizen by birth of the Choctaw Nation.
How did the Dawes Commission state they didn't have ``in their
possession'' a record of Sidney Fisher ``recognized as a citizen by
blood in Choctaw, but documents have been presented to say otherwise
like the book below?
Also, if you read the who was who among the southern Indians
Genealogical notebook 1698-1907 you will also find Sidney Fisher on
page 233. (Don Martini)
My family walked the trail tears right along with their Native
Brothers and Sisters.
We have sent birth certificates, death certificates and all
documentation we can find, to Choctaw Nation, and continue to get the
run around.
All we want is our Choctaw rights to pass along to our future.
Not one Fisher has ever requested for them to lose their family
lineage which is Choctaw by blood.
I am requesting my Choctaw blood line to be re-instated because it
should have never been removed.
WE ARE CHOCTAW BY BLOOD NOT A FREEDMAN!
I'm doing this for my Grandma Emma Fisher.
Regards,
Carlene Crawley
Roshavia Crawley
______
My name is Freida Cudjoe Givens. I am the third generation of the
Cudjoe Families. My great-grand father Witty Cudjoe at the age of 9
years came to America with his father, mother, and grandmother aboard a
slave ship. Life aboard the ship was a hardship. As a result, his
grandmother died. Reaching America, Witty and father and mother were
sold to the Seminole Indians
In the 1800s, as the Seminoles were removed from their lands, Witty
Cudjoe agree to stay with the Creek Indians as their slave to allow his
son and wife to travel with the Seminoles for a chance for freedom.
Witty Cudjoe was able to eventual join the Seminoles and became a
brother within Seminole Nation. Witty Cudjoe married Maggie Fulbright
who was the daughter of slave owner's son. Because of the harassment
their twin daughter experience, he and Maggie migrated from the
Carolina's, to Topeka, Kansas. Traveling with Maggie's father, who was
a minister, they settled near Earlsboro, Oklahoma. During those year
Witty and Maggie had a son name Darryl. When Darryl was of age, he
married Willie Mae Jones and they had seven sons: Harold, Lance and
Lawrence (twins), Wilburt (my father), Alvin, Freeland, and Commodore.
Lance Cudjoe, Lawrence Cudjoe, and Wilburt Cudjoe all served as
counsel members on the Seminole counsel representing the Bruner Band.
The Bruner Band are those descendants and extend bloodline of black
Seminoles from the Black Seminole Caesar Bruner. Although the Seminole
Indians were awarded access to money and benefits by the Federal
Government in 1990s were they were awarded $16 Million to the Seminole
Nation, those members Seminole's denied the Black Seminoles access to
said monetary and other benefits awarded as ``blood'' Seminoles did not
accept the Black Seminoles as part of the Seminole Nation, thus leading
the Federal Government to place a hold on said benefits until a unified
consensus could be made that both bands Bruner and Dozer Barker Bands.
In 1995, more than 300 Black Seminoles converged on the Bureau of
Indian Affairs offices in Wewoka to apply for their Certified Degree of
Indian Blood Cards. I, along with my children, have yet to receive
those cards as proof of our bloodline inheritance. It has been stated
that those documents proving our bloodline were destroyed. We still
have copies of the applications that we applied. We all have received
membership cards that allow voting rights to counsel elections.
The Oklahoma Seminoles in 1991, received 75 percent of the $16
million plus interest which was around $92 million at that time. Black
Seminole just as the Blood Seminole have faced the challenges of living
decent lives. The main difference is that Black Seminoles have not been
able to access such benefits as assistance in housing, clothing, food,
health such as medical, prescriptions, dental, hearing, and vision. The
lack of access to these programs has stifled black Seminoles to receive
their equitable share of assistance for several generations, which
could have benefitted many of us to obtain a better way of life and
better pursue the American Dream, of such things as home ownership,
advancement in education, and entrepreneurship. All we ask is inclusion
which we have been denied for far too long.
______
Growing up, I had so many aunts and uncles (extended family types
of Aunts and Uncles too), cousins and two grandmothers. Reunions,
receiving cards, presents at birthdays and Christmas, and simple get
togethers for Sunday dinners and holidays like Easter and Christmas
were joyful times. Lots of laughter, telling stories and lots of
delicious things to eat like fry bread, sofkee and chow-chow, etc. Even
though my mother's philosophy for raising children was: ``children
should be seen and not heard'' mixing with the adult relatives was a
favorite past time for me. As long as I was not loud and boisterous or
``chiming in,'' I could sit on laps and listen to grown folks'
conversations and laughter.
My mother was the youngest of seven siblings, four sisters: Gladys,
Dimples, Pearl and Oleta and brothers ``Man Crain'' and Albert. All had
different personalities and for the most part, were fun to be around.
This photo is part of my vast personal collection of family
photographs. It is not included in my book. From bottom left to right:
Violet P. Crain--grandmother, Vivian Lowry, Gladys Sypert, Halley Floyd
and husband James Floyd, Oleta Crain, Maggie Bruner, Albert Crain-Peck,
me and my mother, Grace Hicks. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Photos and sketches have been retained in the Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most serious one was Aunt Gladys. She was the oldest and the
slowest. She and Uncle Carl lived in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Aunt Gladys was
the only sibling who stayed near the Crain family roots in Seminole
County, Oklahoma since their grandparents settled there after being
displaced from Florida during the ``Trail of Tears'' under President
Andrew Jackson. It was said that as a child, Aunt Gladys was so slow.
When a storm was approaching and everyone was getting into the tornado
shelter Aunt Gladys was slow getting to the shelter. It was shut locked
by the ones who were in place so she had to go back to the house and
get under the dining table in the house instead. In spite of moving
slow, that quick thinking saved her. I would laugh to myself when she
demonstrated how to get under a table and hold on to the legs in case
of a tornado warning.
The first image insert above, shows my Grandmother seated in the
lower left. Below is my compilation sketch I include in my soon to be
published book: Finding Out: Coming to Terms with Adoption. It includes
my grandmother's teaching degree from Langston University and several
views I captured from vintage photos from my personal collection. The
upper right group are her students she taught in a one room school
house in Wewoka, Oklahoma. I was told by the the paperboy that
delivered the morning paper to 401 S. Seminole In Wewoka where she
stayed with one of her relatives while her children stayed at the
Turkey Creek farm that she cried every morning when her driver came to
pick her up and take her to the school to teach the students. He said
my grandmother hated teaching. Maybe because of the poor conditions and
lack of school books and supplies. Maybe because she was away from her
children. Or maybe because she was paid $99 for teaching the year and
all grades. As a child, she was taught in Indian missionary schools
away from her family. In one of the early US Census reports, I saw that
she answered for her great grandparents because neither spoke or wrote
English.
Below is Caesar Bruner, My Grandmother's grandfather. The Freedman
Seminole Indian Band in Oklahoma bears his name--Bruner Band. Much has
been written about him, his brothers and his father, Tom Bruner. I did
not know him since he passed before I was born. After moving from
Brunertown, he chose land in Seminole County for his people that would
provide acreage for farming and herding cattle. I have a map that
depicts the location and other features of Indian Territory, IT.
Below are sketches from early activity on Turkey Creek farmland and
other parts of Seminole Co. Probably 1920s or earlier because the child
in the sketches is my mother--Grace Crain. The others are my Aunt
Dimples, Memo, my grandmother and one of my mother's cousin.
Below is an excerpt In my book, Finding Out: Coming to Terms with
Adoption. Below is my compilation sketch of Aunt Oleta. She was such an
incredible woman. Growing up, I knew she was special even though she
hardly spoke of all her many accomplishments--and there were many,
starting with her debating team days at Douglas High school in Wewoka,
Ok. More can be read about her in Women of Consequence. Below is my
compilation sketch included in my book. Shown are my mother's siblings
around 1950's and earlier.
In my possession are a few artifacts I mention in my book. Two are
the abacus and the school bell my grandmother used when she taught in
the one room schoolhouse in Wewoka. The other is a cypress wood sugar
bucket that was brought from Florida during the Trail of Tears. ``The
bucket is an artifact of evidence I have to support that my ancestors
were part of the ``Trail of Tears''. I have a handwritten note that has
rested for decades in the sugar bucket in Mother's possession after my
grandmother's passing. Now the sugar bucket is in my guardianship. The
note was written by my grandmother. It reads on the envelope:
``V. Polly Alexander Crain's Note about Rachel Warren's Sugar
Bucket''
The note reads:
``This is Great Grandmother's (Rachel Lincoln Warren) sugar bucket
made from Cypress (Cypress) wood, bought from Florida during the
Seminole Indian Removal to Indian Territory 1839-1849. To be kept in
the family of Lucy's descendent, V. Polly Alexander Crain, the present
owner.
Rachel Warren was the daughter of Abraham Lincoln of Tampa Bay,
Florida. A Negro, who intercedes with the Indians for Gen. Jessup, U.S.
Commander, persuading them to give up their rights and consent to the
removal.''
More references to Seminole Indian history and Seminole Freedman
background are woven into my story. I don't approach my book as an
historian. There are plenty writers more knowledgeable than me. I
include as much personal backdrop and anecdotes to create a human scale
story to provide my future readers enough information to understand the
events in the book. It is a collection of an adopted child's memoirs,
revealing a very personal side of being a Filipino adopted by a Black
Tuskegee trained airmen and a direct decendent of a Seminole Freedman
Indian--my mother. I embrace my Seminole heritage with pride and it was
a joy to share what I loved about my mother's heritage and family.
In my book, I do not address current issues like land steal, the
disappearance of mineral rights over the generations, lack of
recognition for Seminole Freedmen's presence in the Seminole Nation
governance.
For more information or permission to use any portion of this
submittal including the sketches that are part of my soon to be
published book, please contact me.
Paula Wilson
______
We the undersigned are descendants of persons designated as
``Freedmen'' of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation. Two of our members
were present at the recent hearing on July 27th when tribal
representatives spoke to you about issues pertaining to the descendants
of Freedmen and their rights and the denial of their rights as citizens
of their respective nations.
As descendants of Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen we wish to point
out a few facts with you and to also make a request to this honorable
committee. Please note the following historical indisputable facts:
Both tribes signed the same Reconstruction treaty in April
1866 in Ft. Smith, to abolish slavery and to extend citizenship
to their former slaves.
It was a full 19 years before the Choctaw Nation complied
while Freedmen suffered their fate as stateless people.
The Chickasaw never complied with the treaty. They
considered it in 1873 but it was never approved and once there
was congressional oversight the tribe fought vehemently against
citizenship for their former slaves.
Chickasaw Freedmen lived for 41 years belonging to no
nation, without rights, protection under the law, without
education for their children and in communities of violence
extended to them without punishment.
In 1882, The Memorial of the Chickasaw Freedmen was written
and sent to Congress.
The year after Choctaw citizenship, the executive council
passed a bill banning inter-marriage with anyone of the African
Race, an offence punishable by ``50 lashes on the bare back.''
Freedmen of these two nations remained in the only land they
knew as home, living within the culture of their tribe,
speaking the language of their tribe, practicing the food ways
of their tribe.
After adoption in 1885, Choctaw leaders such as Chief Green
McCurtain attended a 4-day conference to court the vote of the
Freedmen. This event was covered in detail in the local press
at that time.
When Choctaw Freedman citizen Henry Cutchlow ran for office
in the 1890s and won a seat on the tribal council, he was
prevented from taking his seat and serving.
Of Concern Today:
Today descendants of these two nations, who live in the
Oklahoma communities where these tribes are located, are
prevented from receiving services extended to their neighbors.
Freedmen Children are not permitted to take advantage of
STEM educational opportunities offered to their neighbors'
children.
Freedmen children are not eligible to attend Jones Academy a
private school for individuals from all other tribes who have
CDIB cards. Meanwhile, Freedmen who are connected to this
nation since the Indian Removal of 1830 are prevented from
enrollment.
Elder housing is not available to senior citizens who are
Freedmen.
Choctaw Homebuyer Advantage Program is not available to
Freedmen in the same community.
The LEAP program a Lease to Purchase housing program is not
available to Freedmen homebuyers.
The ``37'' Rental Assistance Program in the Chickasaw
Nation, is not available for Freedmen in the same area, which
assists low income families with rental assistance.
The ``98'' Rental Program of the Chickasaw Nation is not
available for Freedmen in the same area, assisting low income
families to lease units in the private sector.
There are dozens more services from health services, mental health
assistance and much more, that are not extended to Freedmen from these
two nations, who are also in need.
Our Requests:
We request the opportunity to share the Choctaw and the
Chickasaw Freedmen story and to share our unique concerns.
We also request the opportunity to discuss a method of
determining the possible numbers of Freedmen today.
The core group of CCFA, has a sociologist on our team who
has compiled statistical data on the Freedmen, that we are
willing to share with the committee. From this data, that was
originally presented by the Department of the Interior in 1906
that included numbers of Freedmen from all tribes. From that
data, population projections could possibly be made. We are
willing to meet with you, share this data that we have, and to
assist in any way in the future in learning more about the
plight of Freedmen.
Our core group also has a published author and national
speaker who has studied Freedmen history and communities for
over 30 years. That individual's research may assist the
committee in learning more of the similarities and differences
among the Freedmen communities.
Two members of our core committee also have direct ties to
persons still based in Oklahoma Freedmen communities who can
attest to the specific needs of the Freedmen living on Oklahoma
soil.
Therefore, we humbly request the opportunity to meet with the
Senate Committee. Two members of the CCFA core group were in attendance
at the July 27th hearing, but they were among those voiceless Freedmen
in the room, whose perspectives were not heard. We represent Choctaw
and Chickasaw Freedmen descendants and are also willing to speak on a
panel alongside Muscogee Creek and Seminole Freedmen representatives to
be heard.
We pray that this egregious error of omission can be rectified by
allowing representatives to share our voices of concern to with you
honorable senators. We are willing to make ourselves available sometime
in the near future to meet with you all.
We thank you and hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Athena Gaiten Butler
Terry J. Ligon
Jerry H. Moore
Angela Y. Walton-Raji
Sandra Williams
______
Hello and good morning, I wanted to introduce myself, my name is
Kera Carter. According to my Ancestry family tree I am Siminoe as all
of my mothers fathers people are in have been. I just stumbled upon
this information within the last few months however the information I
am finding for people of color, Black people who are finding that they
are actually native it's discouraging. Many people of color many Black
people who find out that they are actually native or have native family
members on the Dawes Roles or who replaced on the dolls rose even
though they had native blood it just breaks my heart. My hope in
writing is that I would hope that we could have a better understanding
about our history as a country in as native people. Since I just
stumbled upon this information I'm trying to feverishly get as much
done because my mother didn't even know her history. My mother is one
of those people who has a delayed Birth certificate. Her biological
father, James sterling Whose name did not appear on the roles but who's
mother, Alice Carter, her mother Leah and every generation as far back
as I could go appear on the roles. I would like to be able to have my
mother reconnect to her people is there a way this can be done
respectfully!? I feel it's time for us to open the door to the true and
real history and allow people to receive their land back be able to
benefit from the programs that are available to them. Not to mention
their families. The fact is we are stronger together. I hope to hear
back and I pray you are well. Please respond.
Kera Carter
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Bella A. Vinson. I am the great, great, great
granddaughter of Freedmen John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia
Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the Freedmen
in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the descendants
be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Bella A. Vinson
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Billy Mitchell. I am the great, great grandson of
Freedmen John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris, Freedman
Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of
America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedmen in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the
descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Billy Mitchell
______
Greetings
This email is to bring to light that many of the people called
Freedmen are not the descendants of slaves as popularly reported but
many are the Yamassee or Jamassi Indians.
Article 3 of the 1866 treaty distinguished them from Africans in
the text in article 2. In HR 1514 the Yamassee or Jamassi are mentioned
as being part of the confederation. However, since 1901 last time they
were mentioned by Congress they are not mentioned again. Where did this
Indian Tribe of Indigenous people go to when their last whereabouts is
with the Muscogee Creek Nation.
It was and is racism that has blocked the Freedmen from their true
heritage. Their estate has been stolen and they have been denied treaty
rights. Therefore it should be redressed immediately and recognized as
an Indian Tribe within the Confederacy of the Muscogee Creek Nation.
The great violation is the denationalization of Indigenous people
due to a color code system imposed that is called apartheid. The right
to an identity a nationality is a human right. Enforcement of treaties
has to be done as part of restorative Justice.
Sincerely
Isa El Mahdi
______
My name is Teresa Elliott.I have been doing my family history for
over 30 years.I can find Indian roll numbers on both sides of my
family.But I keep getting turned down.But these blonde hair and blue
eyed Indians who don't have a drop of blood nor were adopted by Indians
get cards.I think this is ridiculous.You should have to go by the
Treaty of 1866 which Freedmen are included only Cherokee Indians are
doing right by black freedmen.The system is always stacked double with
blacks.When will American ever do right by Black citizens.We are human
too.
Currently four out of the Five Tribes are still in illegal
violation of Article 2 of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties.
Muscogee Creek Nation
Choctaw Nation
Chickasaw Nation
Seminole Nation of Oklvhomv
Due to anti-Black racism tens of thousands of Black Indigenous
(Muscogee Creek Nation) have been kicked out (dis-enrolled) of the
Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma.
Black Muscogee people, many of whom are the descendants of enslaved
people owned by Muscogee Creek Nation, have Muscogee Creek Nation
ancestry, and were a part of the Muscogee Creek Nation for generations
pre-removal, were full citizens of the Muscogee Creek Nation from the
signing of of 1866 Reconstruction Treaties until 1979.
In 1979, an anti-Black faction of the Muscogee Creek Nation pushed
through an illegal vote that did not permit Black Muscogee people to
vote.
The result of the 1979 vote was the full disenfranchisement and
exclusion of the of Black Muscogee people from the tribe.
Black Muscogee people continue to be disenfranchised from their
tribal communities and are currently going through litigation to
restore their rightful citizenship in the Muscogee Creek Nation and
restore their Muscogee Creek kinship and cultural ties in their nation
per the Treaties of 1866.
tvlse public schools, tvlse public schools Indigenous Education
Department and memorial high school are complicit in systematic
discrimination against dis-enrolled Black Muscogee people.
My son, Kianle Frazier is not allowed to receive services from
tvlse public schools Indigenous Education Department.
My son was denied tutoring from memorial high school (2021-2022).
Twanna Johnson, MS , Social Worker, refused tutoring and told me to
complete tvlse public schools Indigenous Education paperwork. Twanna
Johnson also referred to Indigenous people, the original stewards of
Turtle Island as ``Indians''.
I request an independent investigation of discrimination practices
at tvlse public schools (regardless of intentional or unintentional
)against disenfranchised Black Indigenous students.
I request tvlse public schools move into 21st century knowledge.
The proper term is Indigenous people. The use of the word ``Indian'',
is rooted in anti-Indigenous racism, Indigenous erasure and seeks to
not view Indigenous people in a contemporary context.
Yes, referring to Indigenous people, original to Turtle Islands as
``Indians'' is NOT okay.
The ONLY time non-Native Indigenous people should be using
``Indians'' is when using proper titles like Indian Country (that's
actually what its called) and the official names of tribes (ex: Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians).
I included the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. It's important the
committee is aware how deep systematic discrimination is resulting from
the illegal violation of the Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.
Kindly acknowledge this email upon receipt.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Dymetrice Nicole Hall
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Alexander J. Vinson. I am the great, great, great
grandson of Freedmen John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris,
Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of
America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedmen in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the
descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Alexander J. Vinson
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Helen J. Vinson. I am the great, great, great
granddaughter of Freedmen John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia
Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of
America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedmen in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the
descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Helen J. Vinson
______
Good morning Senators:
I am a Descendant of a Choctaw Freedmen.
I'm asking that the Committee persevere in recognition of the
Freedmen and their descendants.
Glenda Young
______
Dear Indian Senate Committee,
I am a descendant member of the Creek Freedman and my ancestors are
Anderson and Drew.
J. Herron
______
Dear Congressional Senate Members:
I am a lineal descendant of African and Chickasaw people enrolled
as ``Freedmen'' on the Dawes Rolls. The Dawes Rolls, which were used as
a census created by the U.S. Government and the Chickasaw nation of
those living within the tribal nation as a result of chattel slavery
and removal from their original homelands to Oklahoma Territory.
The Dawes process of enrollment was flawed from its inception.
Instead of creating a historical list of who lived within the
territory, this census became a segregated list of who was considered a
By Blood Native, an Intermarried White or Freedman (slaves and their
families regardless of any blood ties to the Native tribe).
My ancestors have suffered immensely from this government
sanctioned injustice. In spite of this, my ancestors survived and at
times thrived on their own accord, as people who have remained
forgotten by the Chickasaw tribe from which they were enslaved and were
also born into.
I have included a photo that has been a prized possession within my
family for over a century. The photo is a compilation of individual
photos which were taken the actual day of my family's enrollment by the
Dawes agents in 1900. My grandfather is pictured as a young toddler of
2 years old in the top left corner of the photos below with his
brothers, his mother and his grandmother. As he aged, he explained to
all of us that his family traveled to the city of Ardmore from their
location in Hendrix (Kemp City), Oklahoma to be enrolled for their land
allotment by the Chickasaw Nation. They dressed for the occasion in
their finest clothes as they headed to the big city. This day was of
major importance and since they were dressed for the occasion, my great
grandmother decided to capture this historical day with a family photo.
What can visually be observed in my family's photo is the obvious
admixture Native American and African American combination. My family
was a mixture of African and Chickasaw due to the injustices of slave
miscegenation. It is not a secret anymore that women held in bondage or
slave conditions are not free from the crimes of rape and other
physical abuses. The Chickasaws or any of the 5 Slave Holding tribes do
not discuss the horrors brought to families due to this issue. Where do
these people fit into the tribe? We have their blood but also have
African blood! As my grandfather told me, the day they registered they
were sent to the tent of Freedmen not By Blood, although they contain
the blood of both. Don't forget the old saying and rule of one drop of
African blood means you are African and nothing else! My Great
Grandmother, Angie Chico (Chickasaw Freedmen Roll 3956, card 1029) and
over 2000 additional families tried to re-register in Equity Case 7071;
Bettie Ligon et al., Plaintiffs v Douglas H. Johnston et al., Green
McCurtain, et al., and James R. Garfield Secretary of the Interior.
We were never admitted as citizens and also received only 40 acres
of land during the allotment versus other native by blood and
intermarried whites who received 320 acres. Although some Chickasaw By
Blood fathers are listed on my family's Dawes cards, the word. .
.ILLEGITIMATE also appears. Who are we, Chickasaw nation? Who are we,
those that are here by the injustice and horrific conditions of slavery
by your people. My early family members spoke the language, ate the
same foods and lived the cultural lives of both cultures. This is all
they knew having lived with and among this nation.
My family as with many Freedmen families deserve to be included
within the Chickasaw Nation with full citizenship and all rights
afforded to this Nation.
Let me be clear, I have a college degree, and am the owner of an
international consumer brand and I personally do not need the
assistance of the Chickasaw Nation. My passion is for my people who are
descendants of a proud family who worked and toiled this land for the
betterment of your Nation and the United States. My extended family
members and any further descendants we have deserve not to be
disenfranchised or marginalized any longer. Please right the wrongs of
the past!
Congress and Chickasaw Nation please find a way to include the
PEOPLE (Freedmen and their descendants) that you have neglected for
over a century.
Sincerely,
SANDRA K. WILLIAMS
______
Hello!
I'm on the Tribal Council of The Accawmacke Indians of Virginia.
Our reservation land in Northampton County is being illegally occupied.
Northampton Parks and Reservation occupies our land and has the
audacity to have built a game of disc golf directly alongside the area
of land that is occupied as a burial site for our Kings. PNC Bank
(along with other businesses and residences) is also occupying our
land. This is sacred ground.
The Indians of Virginia are Virginian History. If it wasn't for our
tribe and other Virginian tribes, this country wouldn't exist. The
Accawmacke of Virginia were one of the first tribes the colonists
encountered upon arrival.
We need help getting back what was stolen from us and desecrated.
This is an embarrassment to America. The local news station won't cover
it. How can you help us?
Miss Cypress
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Gene Burris, Jr. I am the great grandson of Freedmen
John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the Freedmen
in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the descendants
be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Gene Burris, Jr.
______
Dear Committee members
Please accept my testimony to support of citizenship rights of
descendants of Creek Freedom, I am a descendant of Nero Drew roll #2200
and Dick Anderson roll #2203. My grandmother Mildred Borders received a
Per Capita letter from the Bureau of Indian affairs in 1962. I attached
a copy of this letter as part of the testimony in support of the 1866
Reconstruction Treaties between U.S. Treaty rights of Creek Freedmen
Citizenship.
Thanks you.
Leslie John Maxwell
______
This letter is in regard to the Oversight Hearing on 1866
Reconstruction Treaties. I am a descendant of the Muscogee (Creek)
Nation. I am a descendant of Cow Tom (aka Cow Mikko) and Harry Island.
Both of their names are signed at the end of the Creek Treaty of 1866.
Please make note that mikko means ``chief.'' I am writing on the behalf
of my ancestors and living relatives: Carl, Leonard, Cortez, Inger,
Tammy, Weldon, Krishnia, Andrea, Franklin, etc.
The Creek Nation Treaty of 1866 was ratified July 19, 1866 and
proclaimed August 11, 1866. Isn't it time for the U.S. government to
honor its treaty with the Creek Nation as indicated at the time the
treaty was ratified and proclaimed. Article 2 of the Creek Treaty of
1866 is the glaring evidence that justifies the African descendants of
the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's quest for full citizenship rights. PLEASE
SUPPORT CREEK FREEDMEN AND FREEDWOMEN RIGHTS.
Thank you very much,
Ata Omom
______
Please send information about the Indian Heritage Roll. I believe
my ancestors are genetically linked. My children's paternal
grandmother's name was Eva Hamilton Parker. Her dad was Native American
but we are not aware of the tribe. She had 7 sons. Four are still
alive.
My mother Mildred Thompson McDaniel had stated that they were part
Native American. She has 7 living children.
Please send the necessary information in order to be better
informed on how to proceed.
Cordially
Deborah Parker
______
Hello my name is Kenya Elaine Cooper Andrews, I am the Great-Great
granddaughter of John and Delia Burris, the Great-Granddaughter of Duke
and Luella Burris, the Grand-daughter of Etha Wilson. Etha Mae Wilson
is the mother of my birth mother Lucille Marie Talbert, who was born in
Idabel, Oklahoma.
My Grandmother is Etha Wilson, who is the biological and oldest
daughter of Duke and Luella Burris. Duke Burris biological mother was
Delia Burris. I am requesting to be allowed to be placed back into and
registered as I am a biological descendant of a Choctaw Freemen. I
remember the many times the elders would tell us of our people's,
especially when we attended the many Pow-Wow's as we were growing up.
How they told me not to forget my people or my heritage. My mother
often told about how we are the descendant's of the Choctaw Freemen
from Tom's Oklahoma/Idabel Oklahoma in a place they called the bottoms.
My mother, Lucille Talbert was born in Idabel Oklahoma and said that
she lived part-time with her Great-Grandmother Delia in Tom Oklahoma/
the bottoms. My Great-Great Grandfather is Duke Burris, his roll#is
(2865) on card#(337), my Great-Great Grandmother is Delia Burris, her
roll#is (2860) on card#337
Kenya Elaine Andrews.
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Bryan Vinson. I am the great grandson of Freedmen John
Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of
America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedmen in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the
descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Vinson
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Dale Hardy. I am the great granddaughter of Freedmen
John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of
America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedmen in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the
descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Dale Hardy
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Zuri M. Vinson. I am the great, great, great
granddaughter of Freedmen John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia
Burris, Freedman Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of
America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the
Freedmen in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the
descendants be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Zuri M. Vinson
______
Dear Senators:
My name is Shanda Green. I am a descendant of Isaac Gardner, who
was a Choctaw Freedmen whose name is on the Dawes Roll, (Card number
821, Roll number 1793), the roll that the Choctaw Nation uses for
citizenship but excludes those of us whose ancestors were on the
Freedman pages of that roll.
I am writing to bring to your attention that today we are denied
citizen simply because our direct ancestors on the Dawes Roll were
slaves. We are being forced to wear the badge of slavery which is a
signal to the tribal enrollment office to exclude Freedmen.
My ancestor was a slave of Polly Leflore from the Choctaw Nation.
Like others, my ancestors arrived in the Territory with the tribe,
toiled in bondage under them, and remained in the Territory after
freedom came because it was the land that they knew as their home.
In the Choctaw Nation our ancestors were excluded from education
for years after the treaty was signed in 1866, and were limited in the
right to gather after freedom and our ancestors lived oppressed for
decades.
After statehood, we were then classified together with southern
black families that migrated to Oklahoma, and we have been forgotten as
part of the Oklahoma landscape.
Our identity is still that of being of Choctaw Nation descent and
we continually see our white colleagues who will tell us that they are
Choctaw tribal citizens and they have Indian rights. Yet, we also have
multiple levels of documentation and our family is on the same Roll
that provides our tie to the same nation. But, because we are of
African descent we are rejected when applications are submitted for
enrollment.
We ask that you assist us with righting this wrong and that you no
longer force us to pay through our own tax dollars for our own
alienation from a nation that we have never violated. It is the nation
that violates us.
I pray that you address the issue of citizenship for Freedmen
descendants or consider withholding federal dollars from these nations
that discriminate against us.
Sincerely,
Shanda Green
______
Greetings,
I, Latoya Fields, the living woman and living bloodline heir of the
Cherokee, Choctaw, and Muskogee. As a member of the American Indian
community, I am writing to declare that changing the 1866 Treaties
between the United States of America and the Cherokee, Chickasaw,
Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations would be unethical. Our
forefathers agreed that the freeman were to be included in this treaty
and to change that now would be morally wrong. Changing this treaty to
exclude the freedman or any parties in the original treaty could set a
trend for all other treaties involving American Indians recognized and
unrecognized. And that will no longer be tolerated. Our ancestors
included the Freedman for a reason and that reason will be honored.
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian of Mattaponi ancestry and concerned member of
the American Indian community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm
that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties
should stand and be enforced as written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five
Civilized Tribes addressed at this hearing.
Thank you,
Louis Anderson
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian of Mattaponi ancestry and concerned member of
the American Indian community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm
that the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties
should stand and be enforced as written.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five
Civilized Tribes addressed at this hearing.
Thank you,
Claudia Anderson
______
I Donetta Love Starks wish to have my family and I included in this
hearing as it relates to our heritage. I feel that we should be a
recipient if funds are given. Thank you!
I am of Indian heritage and I feel like I've been robbed of my
inheritance because I have received nothing and they are telling me I'm
not eligible
______
I Matthew Sampson have been cheated out of my Indian inheritance, i
am a descendent of JANE ALEXANDER of the Choctaw tribe
______
As an American Indian of Cherokee ancestry, I am writing you
concerned about the altering of the 1866 Treaties between the Oklahoma
tribes and the United States government. I do not agree with anyone
changing this treaty because of the possibility that this change may
affect treaties for other American Indian nations.
I also believe that the Freedmen of the Indian nations of Oklahoma
should have more representation in these types of hearings and that
they should not be unfairly excluded because they were included in the
original treaties as full members of their respective tribes with
``...all the rights and privileges of native citizens.'' and ``.the
laws of the said nation shall be equally binding upon and give equal
protection to all such persons, and all others, of whatsoever race or
color.'' as stated in Article 2 of the 1866 Treaty of the 5 Civilized
Tribes. This article is very important to the integrity of the treaty
and should not be altered or removed.
This issue is important to my community and me because if the
promises of the treaties are not upheld or changed it can be the
undoing of many tribes in Oklahoma and throughout the United States, as
well as future generations of American Indian descendants who wish to
reconnect. My ancestors have experienced trauma and pain due to the
changing of agreements or these agreements not being sustained.
I respectfully ask the committee not to change the current 1866
Treaty with the United States and the Tribes of Oklahoma.
Thank you,
Latasha Gibson
______
I am Irene Renee Parker Eva Hamilton Parker is my grandmother. Her
son Donald Ray, is my father. Eva's father Thomas Hamilton migrated
from Rutherford North Carolina to Siminole Oklahoma in 1907 . ( The
Seminole Indians, one of the so-called ``Five Civilized Tribes,'' were
forcibly removed to the Indian Territory (present Oklahoma) in the
first half of the nineteenth century. This migration was part of the
United States' general policy of Indian Removal, and it resulted from
both a series of Seminole wars and several questionable treaties with
the federal government. ) I lost alot of my research in Harvey. Andrew
Whiteside was Thomas father who in census later appeared as Andrew
Hamilton. According to some of research it was easy to change your name
or claim family. When the census was documented you would go to the
inscriber and you would give a name and claim whomever as family if
they were with you. I began seeing Hamilton instead of Whiteside in
early 1900. I remember a census where Andrew claimed Hamilton as the
surname but a person traveling/living with Andrew his wife and children
kept his Indian name. Attached is a picture of Thomas Hamilton. He is
not black and notice the Indian blankets/saddle on the horse is tribal.
I hope this helps. I have quite a bit of research just have to
redocument it. Please keep me in the loop. I have been attempting to
gather information because everyone says we are entitled to heritage
benefits but no proof which is the research.
Irene Parker
______
APPROXIMATELY SOME 500 CHILDREN WERE NOT GIVEN ALLOTMENTS. HAVINGS
PARENTS THAT HAD BEEN ALLOTTED LAND AND WHO WERE JUST NOT FREEDMAN OF
THE CHICKASAW AND CHOCTAW NATION.
FINE EXAMPLE COMES HARRIETT HUMDY POWERS CHICKASAW FREEDMAN,FIELD
CARD 614 ROLL #2597. DESCRIMATED AGAINST BY THE CHICKASAW NATION. HER
FATHER WAS EDMUND HUMDY CHICKASAW #2630 WAS THE SON OF LYDIA COLBERT
PART CHICKASAW AND LYDIA'S MOTHER SELPHIA/ZELPHIA COLBERT PART
CHICKASAW BY BLLOD. SELPHIA COLBERT WAS THE DAUGHTER OF THOMAS COLBERT
A NOTED CHICKASAW BY BLOOD, THOMAS THE SON OF MAJOR JAMES COLBERT AND
CHOCTAW SUSAN JAMES.
MY GGG GREAT GRANDMOTHER SELPHIA COLBERT CAME TO CHOCTAW TERRITORY
AS A FREE WOMAN WITH HER COLBERT FAMILY.. THOMAS COLBERT HER FATHER.
THE LONG HARD PLIGHT FROM MISSISSIPPI TO CHOCTAW TERRITORY MY FAMILY
ENDURED.
MY FAMILIES HELP TOILED THE CHICKASAW LAND AND SERVED AS
INTERPUTERS.AND FOUGHT IN THE CIVIL WAR ALSO SERVICEING THE DAWES
COMMISSION. DEVOTED TO THE NATION OF THEIR BIRTH.BUT YET THEIRS NAMES
STRICKEN OUT AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED.
RECALLING THE TREATY OF DANCING RABBIT LEVI COLBERT HAD NO FEAR OF
THE AFRICAN SLAVE OR THEIR MIXED OFFSPRINGS OF THE CHICKASAW NATION WHO
HAD COHABITATED WITH THEIR SLAVES.. NEVER A FEAR OF THE SLAVES. LATER
CALLED FREEDMAN IN TAKING OVER THE NATION.
BUT YET NOTHING BUT BIAS AND PREJUICE AGAINST THE BLACK CHICKASAW
FREEDMAN TILL THIS HOUR. THERE IS NO PROUDNESS IN BEING DENIED YOUR
RIGHTS BECAUSE YOUR MOTHER WAS AN AFRICAN WOMAN AND YOUR FATHER WAS A
CHICKASAW/CHOCTAW BY BLOOD.
CALVIN HUMDY CHICKASAW FREEDMAN FIELD 682 ROLL # 2940 FILED A
PETITION IN BEHALF 0F EDMUND HUMDY AND AGNESS HUMDY JONES AND THEIR
CHILDREN. PETITION FILED 5 MARCH 1906 ENROLLMENT BY BLOOD DENIED.
WE ARE THE CHICKASAW FREEDMAN/BY BLOOD OFFSPRINGS OF THE TREATY OF
1866 SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN.
SUBMITTED,
JULIA VALERIE POWERS
______
I Karen Burgess (Buford), am a descendant of Rosa (Rosie and George
freeman child of Mary Lena Freeman, who was a Choctaw Freedman whose
name is on the Dawes Roll, the roll that the Choctaw Nation uses for
citizenship but excludes those of us whose ancestors were on the
Freedman pages of that roll.
I am writing to bring to your attention that today we are denied
citizenship simply because our direct ancestors on the Dawes Roll were
slaves. We are being forces to wear the badge of slavery which is a
signal to the tribal enrollment office to exclude Freedman.
My ancestor was a slave (unknown) from the Choctaw Nation. Like
others, my ancestors arrived in the Territory with the tribe, toiled in
bondage under them, and remained in the Territory after freedom came
because it was the land that they knew as their home.
In the Choctaw Nation our ancestors were excluded from education
for years after the treaty was signed in 1866, and were limited in the
right to gather after freedom and our ancestors lived oppressed for
decades.
After statehood, we were then classified together with southern
black families that migrated to Oklahoma, and we have been forgotten as
part of the Oklahoma landscape.
Our identity is still that of being of Choctaw Nation descent and
continually seek inclusion in the nation that our grandparents and
great grandparents were part of.
We are rejected, and we continually see our white colleagues who
will tell us that they are Choctaw tribal citizens and they have Indian
rights. Yet, we also have multiple levels of documentation and our
family is on the same roll that proves our tie to the same nation. But
because we are of African descent we are rejected when applications are
submitted for enrollment.
We ask that you assist us with righting this wrong and that you no
longer force us to pay through our own tax dollars for our own
alienation from a nation that we have never violated. It is the nation
that violates us.
Karen Buford
______
My testimony is that I am of Indian blood however I have not
received any benefit from the Indian tribes my ancestry is Choctaw
Chickasaw I would love to give a live in person interview if necessary
thank you for your time and attention.
Kathy Sampson
______
Hello my name is Davorien Ray, from the county of Laurens South
Carolina As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside
of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the
United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed. Changing established treaties is a
dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be enforced as
written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects
the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories,
prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal
nations. I vote against the bill and I feel as though it will effect me
and my people greatly. Please and thank You.
______
I am doing my testimony because I am getting wrongfully done I am
100 percent Seminole Indian I have my card I have my roll number I have
everything to prove it we are getting wrongfully discriminated again
they are getting money for us that we do not see a dime for we have
just been included into the health plan we do not get none of the
housing any of it we don't see a dime of it and I have family members
that have suffered for this my grandmother was a 100 percent Indian
Seminole Indian full blooded and I am 100 percent full blooded and
getting wrongfully discriminated against someone needs to investigate
this and look into it because we deserve our money and they don't
deserve a dime of it and we should be getting what is rightfully hours
and they have been getting it for years and not us seeing a dime of it
please investigate this matter.
LaTena Threatt
______
In the 27 July 2022 hearing, the question was asked. How many
Freedmen descendants are there. I am just one of the numerous Freedmen
descendants of former slaves of the Chickasaw Nation. Thank you.
Valerie Walker
______
Greetings Ladies and gentlemen I am Damion lamons Johnson and I'm
direct by blood descendant of Both The Perryman Family of Creek Nation
and Chief CowTom who has been designated as a freedman. Ladies and
gentlemen of this honorable panel, There has been many historical
fictions written about my Great x5 Grandfather and his origins and
Status within the only Nation he has ever know. Cow Tom was no slave.
He was a member of the Yamasse Native American Indians who were apart
of the Creek confederation and members of the Tuscarora and Iroquois
confederation before joining the Creek confederation. The are countless
documents to support and show that My Grandfather was an American
Indian NOT A SLAVE. I am seeking to right the wrong that has been done
to this side of my Native Family through the systematic racism of the
Dawes rolls and their agents who blatantly with a stroke of a pen
turned my people into African Americans who are descendants of Slaves.
Finally ladies and gentlemen I'm NOT here asking for reparations or
assistance as being an American Indian. I'm asking this congressional
committed to recognize that We are In fact American Indians who have
been catatogrized an misidentified as Freedman. Thank you for your
time. Humbly, Damion lamons Johnson.
______
I am an American Indian Connection
Family story Linage should be in proper place
Concerned citizens of Indians territory left behind & their issues
effect me here decisions made by 5 civil tribe explain position on
matters black and Africanized
2 sentences final point
Ancestors to the descendants
Diatribe concerns with the treaties
Markus Wilson
______
Halito, To whomever this may concern.
I'm the Great-Great Granddaughter of Sidney Fisher I'm sending this
letter on behalf of my family.
My great grandfather (Alexander Fisher) Lawyer (Albert J. Lee) sent
a letter in 1906 stating that he is Choctaw.
Also, documents were sent to the Department of Interior in 1902
Stating Alexander is citizen by birth of the Choctaw Nation.
How did the Dawes Commission state they didn't have ``in their
possession'' a record of Sidney Fisher ``recognized as a citizen by
blood in Choctaw, but documents have been presented to say otherwise
like the book below?
Also, if you read the who was who among the southern Indians
Genealogical notebook 1698-1907 you will also find Sidney Fisher on
page 233. (Don Martini)
My family walked the trail tears right along with their Native
Brothers and Sisters.
We have sent birth certificates, death certificates and all
documentation we can find, to Choctaw Nation, and continue to get the
run around.
All we want is our Choctaw rights to pass along to our future.
Not one Fisher has ever requested for them to lose their family
lineage which is Choctaw by blood.
I am requesting my Choctaw blood line to be re-instated because it
should have never been removed.
WE ARE CHOCTAW BY BLOOD NOT A FREEDMAN!
Katrina Bills
______
I am denied benefits being a black Indian but not acknowledged by
Muskogee Creek Indian Tribe counsel. I have tried many times over the
years and continually told Blacks were adopted in. Please help.
Bev Elliott Taylor
______
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established
treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be
enforced as written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this
hearing affects the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal
histories, prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and
tribal nations. If they make the freedmen Africans in Oklahoma, they
will do the same thing all across Indian country.
Crystal Spaulding
______
Dear Representative/Senator/Senate Committee, My name is Nakiyah
Phillips. I am a direct descendant of 1866 Creek Treaty signer Cow
Mikko.
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Nakiyah Phillips
______
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chairman Murkowski:
I am writing on behalf of the Native Village of Unalakleet to urge
the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to support and pass S.
2907--Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies
Act out of Committee. This legislation will create a Congressional
Commission to locate and analyze the records from the over four hundred
known Indian boarding schools that operated across the country. This
Congressional Commission will bring together boarding school survivors,
tribal representatives, along with experts in education, health, and
children and families to account for the long-lasting impacts of the
federal Indian boarding school policy. S. 2907 will also be an
important additional measure to support the U.S. Department of the
Interior's Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative.
For well over 150 years, hundreds of thousands of American Indian
and Alaska Native children were taken, forced, or coerced to attend
federal government supported Indian boarding schools away from their
families, communities, and Tribal Nations. These schools were part of a
policy of cultural assimilation and genocide, the disposition of tribal
lands, and produced long-lasting impacts including the loss of Native
languages and cultures. Many children that were taken from their
families and Trial Nations died at the boarding schools. These children
were never returned home to their loved ones and often their families
were never notified of their deaths. The first Federal Indian Boarding
School Initiative Investigative Report has helped shed light on the
schools.
The Congressional Commission created by S. 2907 will help further
the ensure a full and complete review of: the total number of Native
children forced to attend Indian boarding schools; the total number of
Native children who were abused, died, or went missing at Indian
boarding schools; and the long-term impacts that Indian boarding
schools have had on the children who attended and their families. S.
2907 will ensure that there will be a full accounting of the Indian
boarding schools and will promote truth, justice, and healing. We urge
the Committee to pass S.2907 when it comes before the U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
Frank Katchatag, President
______
My name is Tony, I'm a vexed American Indian heir as to why there's
a change to 1866 Treaty. My grandmother was Opelousa Indian tribal
member from Louisiana. As a tribal member that never received benefits,
I insist that the Senate committee to hold the Five Tribes accountable
for not including Freedmen in the treaty of 1866. If you ask me the act
of exclusion is an attack on my people once again.
I ask the readers of this email to recognize the plight of my
people not being included in this great nation's history. Please don't
let the family stories passed down to me be wiped away with the stroke
of a pen.
______
Dear Congressional Members,
Halito, my name is Michael Tyrone Dean Jr and I am a Georgia voter/
resident although I currently reside in Tongva ancestral lands at 738 N
Clementine Street in Anaheim, California during my graduate studies at
California State University Fullerton.
I, on behalf of my family and extended family write you to ask that
you support efforts of Congresswoman Maxine Waters to obtain
enforcement of the 1866 treaty rights of Freedmen tribal members/
Descendants of Freedmen tribal members.
I am descendant of African/Black Chickasaw and Choctaw
Freedpeoples, historically referred to as Freedmen descendants of the
Five so-called `Civilized' Tribes which include the Muscogee Creek
Nation, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,
Chickasaw nation, and Cherokee nation--who held enslaved African
individuals and families before, during, and after U.S. President
Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830.
I am a lineal descendant of Mahala and Ben McGilbry directly
through their daughter whom is my 2nd great-grandmother, Julia Ann
Jackson. My 3rd great grandmother Mahala was an enslaved African woman
within at the time traditional Chickasaw/Choctaw lands among the
Chickasaw, when she met my 3rd great-grandfather Ben McGilbry who was
the son of John McGilvery, a mixed European-Chickasaw/Choctaw. My 2nd
great grandparents were Julia Ann and Isom Jackson who were born in the
nations of their Chickasaw/Choctaw enslavers in Indian Territory by way
of their elders taking the infamous Trail of Tears as the tribes
traveled west of the Mississippi river after forced removal from the
ancestral homelands--with African/Black enslaved people clearing the
way and laboring upon newly cultivated lands in what later became
eastern Oklahoma. Following his death, tribal leader Samuel `Pitman'
Colbert's `slave property'(including my grandmothers Mahala and Julia)
was passed on to his daughter Harriet (Colbert) Folsom whom married
wealthy Choctaw slave owner, Dr. Henry Nail Folsom. Together, these
families along with Chickasaw James Lanihee owned a majority of my
Freedmen ancestors. My 2nd great grandfather Isom was born in the
Choctaw Nation's Kiamichi county where his family, including his
brother Henry were split up and sent to Texas (see interview document)
while he remained in bondage in Indian Territory. Following the Treaty
of 1866, which abolished slavery in the five slaveholding tribes, my
family remained in the lands that had been the only home they knew as a
bicultural and biracial people; within the marginalized allotments of
the Choctaw Nation/I.T. The Dawes Commission, in collaboration with
tribal leaders at the time, classified individuals living within the
tribes according to designations that discriminated against people of
African ancestry who were formerly enslaved by lumping them into the
category of Freedmen; although many had the blood of their former slave
owners and other recognized Natives. This event prompted Freedmen to
respond with Equity Case 7071 filed April 13, 1907; in which my 2nd
great-grandmother Julia Ann Jackson and family is a listed litigant who
joined in testimony to be moved to the ``By Blood'' designation in the
Dawes Rolls. Unfortunately, she was denied and Equity Case 7071 not
taken seriously within the court nor among tribal leaders. It must be
noted that according to the Dawes Commission, Freedmen were to receive
40 acres of land while members on By Blood roll and intermarried whites
would receive 320 acres of land. To this day, equal treatment of
Freedmen tribal members and their descendants is still being denied and
the Chickasaw/Choctaw Treaty of 1866 which guarantees these protections
for descendants is not being upheld.
As stated in solidarity with statements from other Freedmen
descendants of four out of the five tribes: House Financial service
committee chairman Maxine Waters and her staff are working on language
to put in a NAHASDA (Indian housing) reauthorization bill to tie
receipt of Federal Indian Housing funds of the above listed tribes to
equal treatment of their Freedmen tribal members/descendants of
freedmen tribal members on the same basis as other members in
accordance with 1866 treaties signed by the listed tribes and the
United States government. This language would not affect any other
tribes than those listed above--as other tribes did not join the
Confederate states in order to keep persons of African ancestry as
permanent chattel slaves. I believe in tribal sovereignty; however, I
also believe that tribal governments must keep their word & agreements
(so far as tribal services and/or equal tribal membership) to the U.S.
government and to persons formerly enslaved under tribal law prior to
1866.
To continue: no NAHASDA reauthorization bill has been introduced in
the House financial service containing freedmen protective language at
the time; however, we ask that you support Congresswoman Maxine Waters
efforts to include such language in a NAHASDA reauthorization bill this
term. We are aware that some tribal leaders have requested that some
members of Congress not support legislation which ``singles out
tribes'' so far as taxpayer funded NAHASDA program money.
My hope is that you will support the civil and human rights of
Black Indian Freedmen and their descendants by supporting efforts led
by California Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
Yakoke Sincerely,
Michael Dean
______
My name is John Parker, I am an American Indian, a tribal member of
a non-recognized tribe and a very concerned citizen. I implore the
Senate Committee to hold the 5 Tribes accountable for the treatment of
all of their citizens, especially their Freedmen Citizens according to
the original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty.
I was extremely saddened to learn about the current status of the
Freedmen of the 5 Tribes. They have been treated as Second Class
Citizens with little to no access to the benefits provided to Non-
Freedmen Citizens when in my understanding, the 1866 Treaty stipulated
their full membership to the Tribes. I believe the 5 Tribes have been
allowed to practice exclusion and dare I say racism towards their
Freedmen Citizens when by law they agreed not to do so. This in my
opinion is a breach of the Treaty.
Again I implore your careful consideration of my email, and please
hold true to the original stipulations of the 1866 Treaty to not add in
or allow the Tribes to continue exclusion or oppression of rightful
Citizens.
Thank You,
John D. Parker III
______
I Clinton Lamar Crawley, a descendant of Sydney Fisher, will be
submitting these documents of my ancestors and lineage, thank you.
______
Hello my name is Clayton Allen. I'm a Seminole by blood freedmen
reclassified as freedmen with no Indian blood. I'm a Indian not a
African. I have had family die due to being labeled freedmen. I proved
I have Indian blood & still I am denied. Thank you for taking time to
hear our cries.
______
Nahambipi,
I am writing this as a concerned American Indian(Lumbee/Saponi), on
behalf of the citizens of Indian Territory. The treaties signed by the
Indigenous inhabitants of this land are the foundations of the United
States legal system. The original wording and context is crucial to
holding all parties involved to their duties and responsibilities there
in. I am opposed to any changes of the original wording of any American
treaty.
My sincere regards,
Damon Taylor
______
Greetings Senators Brian Schats Senator Lisa Murkowski, Committee
members and staff,
Thank you in advance for your leadership in forging ahead with
hosting a committee hearing in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
Please review the attached information of links and letters that
the Estelusti Seminoles of Oklahoma would like to submit on behalf of
the Dosar Barkus Band of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
We were advised to submit our testimonies and evidence that is
clear that we need Congress to intervene Immediately in regard to the
violation of the 1866 Treaty and the negative effects it has on
indigenous people of color in America.
The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma's Constitution Article 2. reaffirms
that their membership consists of all citizens. This is being violated
along with the 1866 Treaty Article. 2.
Mvto.
Phillip Barkus, Asst. Band Chief, Dosar Barkus Band of the
Seminole Nation
______
6028 enrolled creek freedmen by 1921 according to Napoleon Davis in
Oklahoma Creek Freedman, My Roots 1858-1921. Dunn Roll of 1869 prior
captures others and an omitted ( rejected) roll denied by Creek Council
lists many black creeks who later had majority population and vote in
Creek Nation before 1979. My ancestor, an original allottee was Comfort
Polk #6356, Census Card 2050. I was denied enrollment by blood 6/17/19
and on appeal under the guise that this public record of enrollment
could not be found. Absurd. Comfort Polk later Mann was Black. My
attempted enrollment in person was humiliating and I witnessed the
difference in treatment among applicants. You are not welcome even if
not enrolled freedmen if that Ancestor is Black. The days of stares,
tension and hatred are ever present. Hope this helps because I'm too
old to exaggerate or lie.
Gail M. Jackson
______
Goodevening to the Indian testimony hearing committee, I Julius E
Harris from Moss Point, Mississippi. I am of the Chahta and Ogaxpa
Mazho peoples of Sunflower County, Mississippi. That's not of the Five
Civilized Tribes out of Oklahoma do not consent, condone, or comply to
the removal of the 1866 Treaty.
Sam Williams
______
Dear Representative/Senator/Senate Committee,
My name is Sarah Finney. As a concerned member of the American
Indian community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866
Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw,
Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Respectively,
Sarah Finney
______
Dear Senators:
My name is Carlotta Kemp Wheeler. I am the granddaughter of
Wellington Kemp and Mary Lamey Kemp, Chickasaw Freedmen whose names
were on the Dawes Roll, the roll that the Chickasaw Nation uses for
citizenship but excludes those of us whose ancestors were on the
Freedmen roll. My grandfather, Wellington Kemp is listed as Chickasaw
Freedmen, Roll #3498, Census Card #839. My grandmother, Mary Lamey,
Chickasaw Freedmen, Roll # 3685, Census Card #888. My grandmother, Mary
Lamey and her siblings joined with Bettie Ligon and about 2000 other
Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen as litigants in a case referred to as
``Equity Case 7071'', to be removed from the Choctaw or Chickasaw
Freedmen roll and placed on the citizens by blood roll.
I am writing to bring to your attention that today we are denied
citizenship simply because our direct ancestors on the Dawes Rolls were
slaves. We are being forced to wear the badge of slavery which is a
signal to the tribal enrollment office to exclude Freedmen.
My ancestors were enslaved by Julia Reynolds and Ala-hun-tub-by
from the Chickasaw Nation. Like others, my ancestors arrived in the
territory with the tribe, toiled in bondage under them and remained in
the territory after freedom came because it was the land that they knew
as home. In the Chickasaw Nation our ancestors were excluded for years
after the treaty was signed in 1866 and were limited in the right to
gather after freedom and our ancestors lived oppressed for decades.
Our identity is still that of being of Chickasaw Nation descent and
we continually seek inclusion in the nation that our grandparents and
great grandparents were part of. We are rejected, and we continually
see our white counterparts who will tell us that they are Chickasaw
tribal citizens and they have Indian rights. Yet, we also have multiple
levels of documentation and our family is on the same roll that
provides our tie to the same nation. But because we are of African
descent we are rejected when applications are submitted for enrollment.
We ask that you assist us with righting this wrong and that you no
longer force us to pay through our own tax dollars for our own
alienation from a nation that we have never violated. It is the nation
that violates us.
My hope is that you address the issue of citizenship for Freedmen
descendants or consider withholding federal dollars from these nations
that discriminate against us.
Sincerely,
Carlotta Kemp Wheeler
______
Choctaw Freedmen want to reclaim citizenship: We're now in the 21st
century. Many decades have passed since the Choctaw Nation changed its
constitution in 1983, where they no longer allow Choctaw Freedmen as
citizens. The Choctaw Freedmen still face considerable discrimination
in terms of social identity, not even having a seat at the table for an
open dialogue and discussion. The Cherokee Nation, as a whole, has
lifted itself into the 21st century and finally moved to address the
heavy weight of racial injustice and favored equality for their
Cherokee Freedmen and descendants. Now it's incumbent upon the Choctaw
Nation, the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee, and the US
Government; as well as our Choctaw Freedmen Advocates and Supporters
must all work together to see the once enslaved Choctaw Freedmen and
their descendants today will be recognized as full citizens of the
Choctaw Nation.
Sincerely,
Dedra M. Strickland
______
In honor of our Ancestors of this Land, I come bestowing You with
the highest of elevations.
This coming Wednesday, July 27, 2022, is scheduled a meeting of
Congressional Senators and assigned Committee Members to discuss and
review parameters involving the oversight hearing to examine select
provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between the United
States and some American Indian Tribes. As an American Indian, active
registered voter and tax paying American, it is my ancestral duty and
bloodline rite to communicate with my elected officials and committee
members about the significant impacts these meetings and potential
addendums would have on my community. It is certainly understood there
are many treaties which ushered in detrimental effects of removal acts,
sweeping multitudes of ancestral families off their lands. Other
treaties presented notions to offer a revolutionary aspect of living
for Indigenous Americans, while there were other stipulations placed
upon ancestral and historical practices of families; also compromising
the unity within family units.
The Treaty of 1866 with the Cherokee (which I have lineage to)
states to establish the abolishment of slavery amongst American Indians
connected to the Cherokee Tribal Nation, recognized by the United
States government. Within this treaty, there are limited expansion
boundaries for allotted Tribal families and their descendants, although
to the contrary other members are provided amnesty towards crimes
committed, allowed tribal members to be in charge of their commercial
presentations with no government interference, in addition to a
collective of other parameters removed or strengthened upon the
verbiage of the Article. During this time, the treaty also determined
structural mandates for Cherokee Governance and council requirements.
Subsequent articles also present the allowance of some tribal
members to reside with selected residential spaces, as long as one is
deemed civilized; in conjunction, as designated areas of tribal lands
highlighted for assigned states lands.
As a descendant of Pre-colonial, first contact American Indians and
having lineage to the Cherokee Nation prior to the Civil War, I have an
ancestral obligation to communicate how imperative it is to communicate
my understanding of how the amendment of this treaty, without
substantial input from direct descendants must not be.
In addition, the addendum towards such significant government
sanctioning treaties will alter a person structure within one's lives,
also ancestral lineage practices which were impaired, halted, or able
to commence by way of the Treaty of 1866.
I am seeking to have representation of diverse participants
(Cherokee members, tribal family descendants, and other allies) in
addition to American Indians who are directly involved in the adjusted
parameters placed as a result of the present treaty or potentially
impacted from amendments to such treaty.
Any and all assistance your offices and representatives will offer
are highly appreciated.
Infinite Peace to You,
Paula ``LittleFeather Hummingbird'' DeWitt
______
Dear Sir (or) Madam:
I am an American Indian who is very concerned with this hearing
that is taking place on July 27, 2022. I am appalled that Freedman are
not being allowed to fully share their grievances at the Oversight
Hearing. The Freedman are being excluded from testifying at the
hearing.
In addition, detribalized American Indians are being completely
ignored. You are trying to rectify a treaty without including people
who are disproportionately impacted by it.
My great great grandmother was part of the 1830s removal from
Mississippi to Oklahoma, she was identified as a Mvskoke American
Indian during that time. She ended up returning to Mississippi and now
her descendants, though American Indians, are living their lives as
``Black.''
This July 22nd hearing and the manner in which it's being played is
concerning. I hope you will reconsider rectifying the treaty without
the oversight of those who are impacted by it.
Thank you,
Francine Anderson
______
My name is Doris Burris Williamson and I've been asked by Marilyn
Vann--Freedmen Advocate and Speaker for the upcoming 07/27/2022
Hearing--1866 Reconstruction Treaties Between the United States and
Oklahoma Tribes.
Please submit my (4) documents as exhibits in support for the
upcoming 07/27/2022 Hearing with the US Senate of Indian Affairs--1866
Reconstruction Treaties Between the United States and Oklahoma Tribes.
1. Official Letter from Choctaw Freedmen Citizenship Footprints,
Inc.
2. Change.org Petition Message and Update Letter to Supporters
3. Excel Spreadsheet--Petition
4. House Bill 16 U.S. Government Memorial Passed 11.021880
Doris Burris Williamson, President--Choctaw Freedmen
Citizenship Footprints, Inc.
______
To All Parties The Issue May Concern,
Osiyo. My name is Conchata Laferrel Clark, and I am an American
Indian. I do not reside in Oklahoma or any current reservation. My
family with the surname Clark, were detribalized and misclassified. My
family was misclassified as Colored, Negro and Black. My family's
lineage is that of Cherokee blood, that includes the lineage of the
Moytoy Chiefdom. I am also a descendant of Beloved Woman (Ghi-ga-u)
Nancy Ward. My family, like many Cherokee Indians, were moved from
areas like Tennessee, Georgia and later to Oklahoma. My Clark family
eventually moved to Texas. My grandparents Osborne and Dora Clark were
one of the original settling families in Prairie View, Tx. They are
responsible for the economic and agricultural growth of that city.
However, our Cherokee affiliation and traditions were taken away. We
have been forced to live under a false identity as Black. My paternal
great grandparents William H Clark, Lila Clark and their children Mabel
Clark and James Clark are all listed on the Dawes Roll as Cherokee by
full blood. I am now in the process of being registered in the Cherokee
Nation, to reclaim my family's lineage and tribal affiliation. Changes
to the 1866 Treaty is a detriment to other detribalized and
misclassified Indians such as me. Please consider your actions and the
repercussions that other American Indians may endure as a result of any
amendments.
Wado,
Conchata Laferrel Clark
______
Greetings to this body
I am Chief Amaru Xi-Ali. I am addressing this body representing
disenfranchised descendants of freedmen & women who were misclassified
as enslaved Africans/Negroes/Blacks amongst the 5 civilized tribes and
the states of the United States of America.
In history we were classified as the Powhatan Confederacy which
after wars splintered into primarily the Yamasee Muscogee Guale Choctaw
Seminole & various other tribes known in records by their distinct
culture & phenotypes. These phenotypical variants were used against our
ancestors by the above mentioned parties to establish a color code of
denationalization & genocide.
The 5 civilized tribes set up a policy in the CDIB policy against
the above First Nations aboriginals designed to mirror the apartheid
practices similar to South Africa and other instances of genocide
against indigenous peoples based on the aforementioned color code
systems.
At that time 1) the states of the US 2) the federal government and
3) the 5 civilized tribes implemented reclassification tactics against
these First Nations aboriginals reclassifying us as Negroes Blacks
Africans etc.
Their descendants (US) lost self governance autonomy and nationalit
vis these breaches of law.
For the last 15 years we (Xi- Amaru Confederation) have compiled
genealogical data--genetic data--archived history to prove this
reclassification was a violation of treaties still in force and our
autonomy. What the records show is that these acts were breaches of law
and now human rights.
The Xi-Amaru Confederation) has assumed the primary responsibility
to use its institutions to bring this information to the descendants of
disenfranchised Aboriginals impacted by these unlawful acts. We have
organized publically for 13 years to bring awareness to these realities
and we have structured institutions in order to autonomously bring
restitution in these primary areas.
Indigenous Health institutions
Tribal Courts & Institutions of Law
Indigenous Educational Institutions
Indigenous Commercial Institutions
Indigenous Mental Health Institutions
Our actions pertain to protections already guaranteed in contract
in re our autonomous institutions and restitution of the lands,
resources, and injury suffered due to genocide owed to us by the 5
civilized tribes, the states of the US, and the US federal government.
We will continue to work autonomously and address this body for means
to gain restitution for the descendants of First Nation aboriginals
mentioned herein.
Chief Amaru Xi-Ali
______
Dear Senate Committee,
I am an American Indian Woman (Cherokee) and registered voter. My
concern pertains to the 1866 traty in Oklahoma to Africanize the
American Indians who have been misclassified as ``Black and/or
African''. As a descendant, changing this treaty as it stands now would
further genocide and ethnocide the American Indian and set a precedent
to alter future treaties.
Celestine Wilson
______
I'm a concerned American Indian Descendent of the creek nation
living outside of Oklahoma. I believe the 1866 treaty should be upheld
and not reconstructed by any means
Theodis Brown
______
Dear Sir/Madam of the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee:
My name is Brenda McClellon-Droke. I am the great granddaughter of
Freedmen John Burris, Freedman Roll #2859 and Delia Burris, Freedman
Roll #2860.
I am writing to request that the Choctaw Nation and United States
of America abide by the promise made to the Descendants of the Freedmen
in the 1866 Treaty. I am requesting that the rights of the descendants
be reinstated.
Sincerely,
Brenda McClellon-Droke
______
To all who is concerned about Truth and Fairness,
My Name is Robyn L. Powell. I am a descendant of James Foster,
which he is our Great Grand Father his Roll number is 2276.
I have three sisters & one Brother We all are under the same Row
number.
Robyn Powell, Steven Jefferson, Stephanie Tweedy, Kim Jefferson,
Tamala Menifee. Our Mother was Juanita June Jefferson. Who has been
deceased since September 15th, 2000, who was Born in Seminole on
December 29th 1936 to Elizabeth Foster. (Who is all of Juanita's
children Grandmother.
The oldest who is almost 66 years old (Robyn) was born in Wewoka,
Okla., the other children were all born in Oklahoma City OK.
Also, Elizabeth Foster had a son who is also deceased Vernell
Jefferson.
He had 3 sons Vernell Jr.; Andre & Jeffery all born right here in
Oklahoma as well.
We are the direct descendants of James Foster, who begot Elizabeth
Foster, who begot Juanita & Vernell. We fall under Juanita & her
Brother Vernell.
They fought until their death to get benefits started for
themselves & their children.
It now our generation, we have been fighting for our rights & our
Benefits.
So many under this very Row number died trying to get help for
education medication, medical help, monthly benefits & aid to housing.
This has been kept from us for generations after generations.
Now, please tell how fair it is to be counted generation after
generation on the Row, but at the same time can't be treated fairly
according to various treaty acts. Our family fought alongside of these
Seminoles & it's not fair for only them to receive benefits. We are
Seminole Nation Just like they are.
We need this to he looked at with a true, non-bias, fair eyes. Most
of us has our Seminole Nation ID, All under the very same Row number,
Under the Ceasar/Brunner Band.
But every benefit has been held back except voting rights, & until
last year, we have medical.
I urge you to look at this the same way you looked the other
Tribes. It's not right, it's never been right & its needs to be
rectified. It wasn't right then & it isn't right Now.
They used our number to collect from the Government & never gave us
one red dime from generation to generation. Make this right, In the
eyes of God It's called the 5 Civilized Tribes!!!
Not the 3 Civilized tribes. We have suffered enough just like the
People in That Tulsa Murderous attack on their ancestors. We died too,
not because of physical bombs, But because of mental Bombs, greed,
Blocks, cheating, cooking books to accomplish more hatefulness,
heartlessness & just plain evilness. Please, Make this right.
Thank you
Robyn Powell
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established
treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations. The
treaties should stand and be enforced as written. Respectfully, do not
attempt to change the 1866 Treaties between the United States and the
Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations.
Yours in Health,
Dr. Fallon Johns, DC, CME
______
Hello,
My name is Marlon Ladd. I've recently discovered that my ancestors
and myself are all part of the Seminole Nation. Discovering one's
roots, especially being ``African American'' in the United States is an
empowering pursuit. Especially considering that too much of our history
has been discounted, marginalized or completely left out of teachings
in our schools. I am a Seminole Freedmen on my father's side via his
mother, my grandmother. My father passed away in 2017 and I had and
still have many unanswered questions about my lineage. As a college
professor and a filmmaker, I tend to do a lot of research where my
community is concerned and I have recently began do said research on
Native American and U.S. Government affairs.
Learning about the history of the Freedmen has left me very
saddened. The Seminole Freedmen in particular did a great many things
for this country, including serving as soldiers and scouts in the Civil
War. Seminole Freedmen and other Freedmen were a very specialized group
of people, because they knew and understood the ways of Native
Americans and the American way of life. They served not only as
soldiers and scouts, but also as interpreters and their value when it
came to strategy and fighting was unmatched. It is a painful pill to
swallow to learn that in a country where inequality is still a big
issue, I discover that all of my heritage related to my ancestors on
both sides were pushed aside and forgotten.
Every parent wants to pass down wealth and knowledge to their kids,
so that those kids will not have the same struggles as their parents.
Generational wealth starts with land ownership. We have seen almost
every group of people receive this type of benefit, except for Freedmen
and African-Americans. What's one thing they have in common? African
roots.
No one and no one country is perfect, but as with anything else,
you know better, so you do better. It's important to get this right. I
have a family and it's important to me that they be treated fairly.
They, like me and my father before me are descendants of the Seminole
Nation. We are descendants of people that made the ultimate sacrifice
for this country. Descendants of a people that were made to travel from
their homeland in Florida to ``Indian Territory,'' a place where nobody
wanted to be until oil was discovered there. We are descendants of a
people that were hunted and harassed and therefore migrated to Mexico.
We are descendants of a people that were then asked to come back and
fight in a war that helped to unify this country. We have done and
still continue to do great things, but I fear all will be lost and
forgotten if we continue on this same path of division that threatens
the very inclusivity of a people that earned their seat at the table.
This issue is extremely important to me and countless others. If
there is anything I can do to help I'm this process, please let me
know.
Thanks
Marlon Ladd
______
To the Senate Committee regarding Native American assistance and
Indian affairs, my name is LeEtta Osborne-Sampson and I have served as
the General Council Representative of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
for 12 years and as the Band Chief of Caesar Bruner Band for 11 years.
As a proud 4th generation General Council Representative I am
devastated by the actions of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and the
federal government of the United States of America. In 2002 the
Freedmen won the case of Seminole Nation vs. Norton and are eligible
for all programs within the tribe. However, the Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma is withholding assistance to the Freedmen and the federal
government has been aiding the Seminole Nation in not abiding by the
Treatises of 1866.
The Seminole Nation has not taken any steps to address their
policies regarding Freedmen having access to all programs funded by the
federal government. The language of their policies is used to deny the
Freedmen based on ``Jim Crow Laws.'' The former and present Chiefs
stand before the government of United States of America and claim my
people as citizens, but do not recognize Freedmen as members. The terms
member and citizen are nothing more than the Jim Crow etiquette of
``white'' and ``colored.'' The nation has left us at the mercy of the
State of Oklahoma, but we are denied by the State of Oklahoma due to
the fact we are citizens of the Seminole Nation. As a result my people
are regulated to reject being Seminole as a means of having basic
necessities such shelter, food, and burial assistance. The Seminole
Nation uses anti-black racism to not include us in federal programs,
but includes us in their headcount for Federal revenue.
In Article II of the Seminole Nation Constitution it grants
membership in the Seminole Nation to ``all Seminole citizens whose
names appear on the final rolls of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
approved pursuant to Section 2 of the Act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat.
138) and their descendants.'' Despite, Freedmen being granted
membership they have been denied the following: housing, education,
burial assistance, judgment funds, healthcare, COVID 19 vaccinations,
COVID 19 relief funds, and etc. For example, many Freedmen live below
poverty level therefore, can't afford to live on generational land
without assistance from the tribe. My people are being forced to leave
ancestral lands due to a degree of blood quantum. The Freedmen were
given these ancestral lands based on Treaties of 1866 with the United
States government and Seminole Nation, however tribal assistance has
been refused.
The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma must cooperate with the Federal Law
and the decision made in the case of Seminole vs. Norton to secure
tribal assistance for all citizens. The Freedmen have been through
enough injustice and the United States federal government must step in
on our behalf to stop the destruction of my people. My request is that
the Senate Committee designate tribal funds as a separate program for
the Freedmen or include all Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes in
the programs funded by the federal government. The reinstatement of all
federally funded benefits to the Freedmen of Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma must be enforced with haste. The birthright of the Freedmen is
under attack.
Kind regards,
LeEtta Osborne-Sampson
______
Dear Senate Committee Members,
I am requesting that the 1866 Treaty remained unchanged and
enforced as is. As an American Indian outside of the Oklahoma Community
I understand the this treaty sets a precedence for all the other
treaties that will ultimately affect the American Indian Community at
large.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Selina Howard
______
Dear Senators:
I write to you in response to the recent hearing on Capitol Hill
pertaining to Freedmen descendants from the Five Tribes of Oklahoma,
please note that we are not attempting to push our way into a foreign
entity. I am from a family was taken to Oklahoma during the years of
Indian Removal, enslaved in the Choctaw Nation and later freed when the
1866 treaty abolished slavery.
After the United States passed the 13th Amendment to the US
Constitution and passed the 14th Amendment making former slaves
citizens of the US, there was no requirement that the slaves had to
have white blood to be American citizens. Yet, three of the Five Tribes
that held African slaves, are now federally funded while having a
requirement that descendants of formerly India-held slaves, cannot have
Indian nation citizenship, because they don't have the slave owner's
blood. You were told at the hearing that ``it is all about blood.''
Senators their placing blood as a requirement, makes their policies all
about race. Because many of their former slaves had their blood as they
were fathered by Indian men. But having a black mother for them somehow
``erased'' their blood, making them ``less than equal'' and never to be
seen or treated as citizens. This is racist and this is wrong. The US
Constitutions that each of you uphold, refutes this.
Please understand that these are requirements that were created in
the 20th century specifically for the Creek and Choctaw Nations to
remove the Freedmen. You all know that in the early 1900s as anti-black
sentiments manifested during the years of lynching and racial violence
in the nation, three of the Oklahoma slave-holding tribes simply
removed their citizens of black ancestry. Muscogee Creeks quietly did
it in 1979, and the Choctaws blocked them in 1983. Prior to that,
Freedmen and their descendants were citizens.
The wording of their new constitution was carefully constructed in
the 1979 by the Creeks and 1983 by the Choctaws. With the assistance of
the BIA the use of a CDIB card was invented as the tool of exclusion.
They never existed before that. Senators--degree of racial or ethnic
blood can't be measured. This is not based on any scientific
methodology, yet it is practiced by an arm of the US government! The
United States does not practice South African apartheid such as the old
pass cards--but CDIB cards is precisely doing that-measuring blood
quantum and declaring that someone is ``racially'' Indian! To
illustrate this--these tribes will admit someone who is 1/1000th Indian
which means that they are actually white, but they are given all of the
privileges of being Chickasaw, or Choctaw, or Muscogee Creek. And these
thin blooded citizens live all over the US, suffering no
discrimination, living in no native communities and are racially
indistinguishable from being Caucasian.
However, a Freedman descendant, whose ancestor had an Indian father
on the Dawes Roll, who is not a great-grandson or great-granddaughter
is technically if one does the same math-\1/32\ Creek, or Chickasaw, or
Choctaw, but-they are physically black in appearance, they do suffer
discrimination based on color. In addition--they do have the blood of
their ancestors who had native blood. But their being black eliminates
them. This is not American and this is simply wrong.
Senators, at the hearing as the tribal officials spoke, a room full
of black people sat in the back listening. All of them have a
documented tie to a person on the Dawes Roll. All have family ties that
go back to the years of the Indian Removal, because their ancestors
were removed with them a enslaved people. They learned the culture of
the slave masters, spoke the language, prepared and ate the same food,
lived among them after freedom abided by the same laws. And for some
women they were forced to have children with their slave owners. And
even THOSE children were rejected even though they had the ``precious''
Indian blood. Why? Because to them, Freedmen blood did not count
because their mothers were black, as if their African blood put a stain
on their Indian-ness, even though they were of direct lineal descendant
of their Indian father. And for those tribal freedmen whose mothers did
not have Indian-fathered children, their children were forever
considered just colored and always second class, and destined to be
treated differently a policy which continues to this day.
But today they are not to be considered one of them? Many served on
the tribal council in the years after the Civil War, serving in both
ruling houses of the Creek Nation. And today---they are not considered
one of them? This is simply wrong. Black tribal citizens were simply
removed, and language suddenly appeared from the tribes, crying
``sovereignty'' no different from ``states' rights'' cried by deep
south racists, claiming a ``right'' to prevent opportunities and equal
treatment of people of African descent. THIS IS RACIST AND CANNOT OCCUR
IN AMERICA TOAY!
Chickasaws broke the treaty and NEVER extended citizenship to their
former slaves, and until Oklahoma statehood came in 1907 those freed
people lived in a harsh land, with no schools, no rights, no laws to
protect them. They were a people without a nation. No one helped them.
For the tribes that still mistreat the descendants of the Freedmen,
in an effort to look more like like ``traditional'' Indians where their
leaders and representatives are mixed white and native, such as those
who addressed the committee on July 27th of this year, they strive to
continue to keep descendants of Creek Freedmen, Choctaw Freedmen,
Chickasaw Freedmen from a citizenship that is their birthright.
Freedmen descendants are NOT intruders nor enermies of the tribes, and
never have been, whether in the past, nor in the present.
The question therefore must be asked:
How can the United States allow this practice based solely on race
to occur? These racially motivated tribal leaders will NOT change their
policy based on any moral sense of doing what is right. They are
committed to a racially based policy denying their black citizens who
were citizens of these tribes.
On July 27th 2022 these three tribes sent representatives to
Congress to address those of you on this committee to justify the
continuation of a heinous practice of policy based on race. But please
understand the following:
Choctaw slaves and their children WERE Choctaw.
Chickasaw slaves and their children WERE Chickasaw.
Muscogee Creek slaves were Creek, and today---their descendants ARE
Choctaw, and ARE Chickasaw and ARE Muscogee Creek.
In contrast to the other speakers, the committee saw and heard the
leader of the Cherokee Nation, Honorable Chuck Hoskins address the
issue, and pointed out that previous practices were simply wrong. Chief
Hoskins also uttered and apology for this act of racism extended to the
Freedmen portion of their nation. They have corrected previous policies
and are now a much stronger nation as a result. Meanwhile the other
tribes that have another purpose and interest spoke differently to you.
Congress cannot continue to fund these three nations that twist
their words to appear that they are hapless victims aka ``poor Indian
tribes'' to be pitied, or to imply that their former slaves were
``forced'' upon them.
Not one enslaved person willingly jumped on the auction block to be
enslaved. Yes, the tribes were forced to free them from bondage,
because they refused to do so. And these nations today are wealthy
sovereign nations, wealthy enough to have ``ambassadors'' to speak to
you, as lobbyists.
Meanwhile, Freedmen have no voice, no lobbyists, nor
representatives in Washington to negotiate issues on our behalf. The
racist policies continue, as they have, for 156 years. We realize that
the past cannot be changed. However, the future can be affected, and
Congress has the ability, to bring to an end, the heinous hypocrisy of
these three tribal nations, who are NOT victims today.
These wealthy tribal nations receive BILLIONS of US Dollars each
year. As these wealthy tribes sent ambassadors and lawyers to speak to
you, in front of a room full of Freedmen descendants, black people,
about whom they spoke untruthfully, the issue needs to be addressed.
One speaker begged that nothing be done to ``hurt'' the nation or
their sovereignty. Freedmen will not affect the sovereignty of the
nations. Yet they are allowed to continue to ``hurt'' the Freedmen
descendants. The term ``sovereignty'' is used to justify their
mistreatment of black citizens. That senators is not sovereignty---that
is racism!
Freedmen descendants hold no ill will toward to citizens of any
nation. It is the tribal leaders who hold ill will against Freedmen
descendants, and wish to continue to ignore them and to deny them,
while others including those descended from inter-married whites----who
had NO Indian blood, are welcomed. That, honorable senators is a policy
that is TRULY ALL ABOUT RACE, and NOT ABOUT BLOOD.
Meanwhile the descendants of their slaves still especially in rural
Oklahoma communities live in poverty, and their children have no access
to the same educational benefits that lighter skinned or ``white
looking'' Choctaw, Chickasaws and Creeks receive. No summer camps for
Freedmen children, no STEM training for them. The Freedmen descended
elderly receive no health assistance, or living aid for assisted-living
facilities. No mental health care for those in need of such help. And
the McGirt ruling will not be applied in any cases facing them.
Something must be pointed out to you as well: When lands were
allotted, those called Choctaws and Chickasaws ``by blood'' received 8
times more land than their former slaves. Why? Because the practice of
giving people of African descent less was acceptable. In addition---the
concept of being a citizen ``by blood'' was established when the Dawes
Roll was created, and this is the BASE ROLL used by all of the Five
Slaveholding Tribes today. Their ``sovereignty'' allows them the
freedom to use this race-based roll and to admit only people whose
ancestors appear on certain pages of the roll.
In the 20th century these nations, in conjunction allies in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, later created a concept of CDIB cards---
especially since the blood of Freedmen was omitted, thus making it
legal to move past the people that these tribes once bought, sold,
traded and owned as human property. This is not only illegal, but also
immoral.
Today such policy is no longer acceptable. However these tribes
have been able to continue these policies based exclusively on race,
and to hide behind the word, ``sovereignty'', and are continually
receiving federal funds, because there has been no Congressional
oversight. They have simply ``gotten away with it.''
Interestingly looking back in time, policies about race have been
in place. After citizenship came to Choctaw Freedmen in 1885, Executive
Office of the Choctaw nation banned marriages to people of African
descent. If marriages occurred, actions were to be punished 50 lashes
on the bare back. Today they will show you that they have members of
African descent who are citizens but they are children recent-day
inter-racial marriages. Their children are then posed as ``poster''
children to demonstrate some kind of ``inclusivity'' and diversity on
their part. But those poster children are not descendants of slaves.
Because for them, a person having an enslaved ancestor is somehow less
Choctaw, thus inferior. This is simply racist, wrong and illegal in the
America.
Again looking back in time, the base roll used for membership is
the Dawes Roll that refused to record the Indian blood of mixed
children who were Choctaw and ``negro''. Meanwhile mixed children who
were Choctaw and white, Chickasaw and white, and Creek and white were
recorded and today they are still welcomed into the tribe--because
their blood was recorded. And these nations are federally funded for
excluding descendants of their slaves, and are allowed to do this!
America is better than this! Likewise, these tribes should be
better than this! To allow US tax dollars to fund entities that
practice such acts, is not the nation that clearly America claims to
be.
Today, many Freedmen descendants still claim an identity as Choctaw
people, and Chickasaw people, and as Muscogee Creek people. Yet they
live in Oklahoma communities where tribal entities are supported and
honored, and they are excluded from services, jobs, housing assistance,
that should benefit them as well.
The current lawsuit from Creek Freedmen is permanently stalled,
because the tribe refused assign a judge to hear their case in tribal
court. There is a possible reason for this: It is expected that the
Creek judge will rule against them, which will then allow the Freedmen-
descended plaintiffs to appeal in Federal court. Once in Federal court,
there is a chance that they will win. So, to prevent the Freedmen
lawsuit from going forward, (after more than a year), their case
appears to be permanently stalled. Without a preliminary, judgement,
nothing can happen. These Creek descendants are not aliens trying to
force themselves on a nation to which they have no tie. They are a
Creek people.
So much more can be said and it is hoped that the voices of
Freedmen can someday fully be heard by you, and understood, and that
termination of this practice of institutional racism can be brought to
a much needed end.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Angela Y. Walton-Raji
______
I am a descendant of a Seminole and Muskogee Creek Nations.
And I would like to register my disapproval of any changes to the
1866 treaties.
And because the nations policy, which put the tribes in violation
of the treaties, I demand that the treaties remains exactly the same.
And for those treaties to be enforced as written.
It was a violation of the treaties when the freedmen were removed
from the tribes. And the federal government was involved in this
illegal act by allowing the tribes to take this action against the
people who the treaty was written for.
I demand that this violation which is in your hands be cleared up
as soon as possible.
Waltho Wallace Wesley
______
As an American Indian I am expressing my concern about the changes
that are being proposed for the Treaty of 1866. While I reside outside
of Oklahoma City, it is imperative that the 1866 Treaty should remain
in place as outlined in 1866, whereas it sets a precedent for other
treaties.
The Treaty of 1866 must stand and be enforced as written.
Respectfully,
D K Hasan
______
To: Senator Brian Schatz and Members of the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs:
My name is Sharon Lenzy-Scott. I would like to submit my statement
to you and the committee regarding Creek Freedmen's long fight for our
citizenship rights as Citizens of the Creek Nation.
My mother Adlene Perrymen Lenzy and her sisters were enrolled
citizens of the Creek Nation until 1979. My mother's father,
grandfather and grandmother and great-grandfather had always been
citizens of the Creek Nation. My great-grand-mother's response in her
testimony while being enrolled by the Dawes Commission in 1898, when
asked how long have you been in the Creek Nation was ``all my days.''
My great grand father was a loyal creek , who fought in the war.
As you know, Oklahoma did not become a state until 1907. It had
been known as Indian Territory up until then. Dawes was sent to Indian
Territory to enroll and separate the tribes by having two sets of rolls
Freedmen and By Blood Rolls. How Dawes determine a blood degree by the
color of ones skin in itself was a false determination. There was no
DNA method of determination at that time.
My purpose in sending this letter to the Committee is the failure
of the Creek Nation to adhere to the treaty of 1866, and article 2 of
that treaty. It was said by the Creek Nation that the federal
government has broken several treaties, so the Creek Nation can justify
by breaking this treaty, which is the main source of their livelihood.
My concern is the federal government has not penalized or questioned
why the 1866 treaty has been broken, yet the federal government with
freedmen's tax paying monies is still supporting the Creek Nation.
As a Freedmen of the Creek Nation, I feel the federal government
has not protected the rights of the Freedmen as citizens of the Creek
Nation, but has allowed the Creek Nation to take the citizenship rights
and benefits of the Freedmen away and for allowing the Creek Nation to
break the treaty.
Where is the justification for not penalizing the Creek Nation for
breaking a federal law? Other nations which have signed treaties with
the United States has to follow the treaties signed or be penalized.
Why is the Creek Nation being treated differently? They are a sovereign
nation and has the right to create and use their sovereign rights by
creating constitutions within the Creek Nation, but their constitutions
does not overide the Treaty, which is the Law of the Land.
United States is a law abiding nation for everyone. Please correct
this failure of the federal government and make the Creek Nation do the
right thing for all their citizens. Citizenship is not a blood
requirement , but a cultural and idenification requirement.
Thanks for your attention to this matter
Sharon Lenzy-Scott
______
Dear Chairman Brian Schatz, Vice Chairman Lisa Murkowski and Ranking
Member Fox:
I write to commend the committee for having the Oversight Hearing
on ``Select Provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between the
United States and the Oklahoma Tribes''. I would like to express my
appreciation that the matter was discussed and how re-enrollment should
begin as sooner then later.
My maternal grandfather Clarence Harkins Sr. (2/5/1922) was
registered with the Choctaw Nation. He was dis-enrolled during the
period of time during the late 70's early 80's when the tribes modified
their constitutions. These are the same tribes that his federal tax
dollars were allotted to while actively discriminating against him and
other Freedmen descendants.
The Choctaw Nation continues this practice of institutionalized
racism and anti-Blackness currently under the guise of ``sovereignty''.
The general counsel for the Choctaw Nation--Michael Burrage made a
statement that the exclusion of Freedmen descendant was ``not about
race'' is false because the the nation has a few citizens who are Black
(often biracial/mutiracial persons). The Freedmen descendants are Black
and the only population within the tribe that was not allowed to vote
on their ability to remain in the the tribe or the new constitution
that dis-enrolled them due to ``by blood'' statements. It can only be
about race. Please note that many of the Dawes roll's Freedmen cards
note on the back of the card parents and their ``owners''.
Native parent(s) are listed on the cards showing ``by blood
connection''. This subject is largely ignored.
The tribes' (Choctaw, Chicasaw, Seminole and Muscogee/Creek)
argument regarding sovereign rights goes against the United States'
Civil Rights act of 1964 and the multiple Reconstruction treaties of
1866. The United State's ``hand's off'' and ``turn a blind eye''
approach has continued to be detrimental to the descendants of the
Freemen who are United States citizens. Our complaints and request for
intervention have largely been ignored. This practice supports the
Tribes continued disregard to the 1866 Reconstruction treaties and the
disrespect/discrimination of the Freedmen descendants.
The time to act is now. This committee and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has the ability and duty to rectify this matter. My ancestors
and my relatives interest must be protected and taken out of this game
of using ``sovereignty'' as a shield to openly practice
institutionalized racism and anti-Blackness.
Sincerely,
Tracy R Stubblefield (Clarence Harkins Sr. granddaughter)
______
Honorable Senators,
This letter and comments are intended to provide a different point
of view regarding the ``Select Provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction
Treaty'' between the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations. I respectfully ask
that it become part of the Congressional Record of this hearing.
As the lawyers for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations presented
their positions on the ``Reconstruction Treaty of 1866'' and the issue
of citizenship, they left me asking more questions about two points
made by the attorneys that were not directly addressed by this hearing
on a certain class of Freedmen Descendants.
The class of ``Freedmen Descendants'' that comprised the litigants
in Equity Case 7071; Bettie Ligon et al., Plaintiffs v Douglas H.
Johnston et al., Green McCurtain, et al., and James R. Garfield
Secretary of the Interior Defendants at the time it was filed was
estimated to be worth fifteen-million dollars in land value. Today,
that value lost by Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen descendants could
range anywhere between one-half a billion to over nine-billion dollars
and that is a question that was not entertained during the hearing on
the ``Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.'' As the great grandson of the
lead litigant Bettie Ligon whose father, my great-great grandfather
Robert Howard Love was one of the signers of the treaty I feel it is my
responsibility and obligation to bring long overdue attention to this
obvious miscarriage of justice before your committee for a resolution.
The plight of the estimated fifteen-hundred (1,500) to two-thousand
(2,000) individuals as citizens based on their ``lineal descent''
should have been part of the decision to make them citizens at their
birth and following the ratification of the 1866 treaty. It was not
until 1898 when the Dawes Commission began creating a ``census'' of
``citizens'' on a blood roll and freedmen roll when the tribes and
United States government began to disenfranchise the litigants involved
with Equity Case 7071 based on the ``race of a female ancestor or
parent.''
Both attorneys clearly illustrated that point when Judge Michael
Burrage's initial comments confirmed their rights as citizens with the
following statement; ``to be clear, the Freedmen issue, as it relates
to the Choctaw Nation, has nothing to do with race. Tribal membership
is based on blood, not race.''
Judge Burrage immediately followed that up with, ``Today, Choctaw
Nation's tribal membership includes African Americans as well as those
from other races. All members of our Tribe share one characteristic in
common, they are all Choctaw by blood. They are all the lineal
descendants of Choctaw Indians.''
Judge Burrage emphatically confirmed to the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs that the claimants in Equity Case 7071 who sought
citizenship based on their ``lineal descent'' to a recognized citizen
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations had a legal right to that
citizenship but because of the racial policy of excluding people who
had a ``freedmen'' mother while disregarding their father deprived each
and every one of them citizenship and the value of three-hundred and
twenty acres of land.
From 1866 to 1898 to 2022 this is the legacy of the decision that
mixed blood freedmen were not ``lineal descendants'' and worthy of
citizenship and equity in the land distribution of the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations. It is why nine, 9-Billion dollars is a small price
to pay for the continued injustice that occurred in 1866, 1898 and
presently in 2022.
I mentioned that attorney Stephen Greetham shares this view that
``lineal descent'' is the basis for citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation
and despite his best efforts to obscure that fact you only have to look
at the lone footnote in his prepared statement.
``The Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation share a close treaty
relationship, starting with the Removal Era treaties of the 1830s which
vested them with undivided interests in the realty of the secured
treaty territory.''
In the 1830 Treaty that is mentioned by Mr. Greetham it states that
the land that was to become the state of Oklahoma was for the benefit
of the people who were a party to that treaty and their descendants. If
you take into consideration the words of Mr. Burrage that citizenship
is based on ``lineal descent'' then the descendants of every person
that was a claimant in Equity Case 7071 has a legal right to ``equity''
for the loss of land value that was incurred based on the ``racial''
biases that saw them erroneously being placed on the freedman rolls.
Every action taken by Department of the Interior and the Choctaw
and Chickasaw nations to refuse citizenship and land equity for the
``mixed race'' Chickasaw and Choctaw ``freedmen'' and their descendants
was about race. The claims of sovereignty today only mask that history
of their nations but the record is clear; today as it was then, a
specific class of Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen Descendants have been
denied their ``rights and privileges'' within the nations of their
ancestor's birth based on the political construct of race and a
suitable remedy must be found by Congress as well as the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations.
Not one of those slaves that were part of the removal with the
Choctaw and Chickasaw nations willingly travelled west. But all you
hear about are the sorrow and degradation of the tribes. When the
descendants of Kissander and Daniel who worshipped alongside their
enslaver Tennessee Bynum, their descendants are now recognized citizens
of the Chickasaw Nation because of ``lineal descent.'' But because of
the peculiarities of ``race'' the descendant of Margaret Ann Wilson who
came west with Benjamin Love; her daughter Bettie Love-Ligon and the
``lineal descendants'' of two-thousand other similarly situated people
don't share the distinction of citizenship and have been deprived of
the generational wealth that came with owning 320 acres of valuable
land in the new state of Oklahoma.
Congress and the Senate has some difficult decisions to make
concerning the people who were denied equity and protection based on
their status as a protected group living under the power of a
protectorate (Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations) of the United States. They
were placed in a position that did not guarantee their citizenship,
equity and due process before the law that Mr. Greetham declared when
he stated that ``Treaties matter!''
These same two nations created a ``race'' of people and denied many
of them their citizenship because of the ``taint of negro blood `` so
the cries of sovereignty somehow are meant to wipe away all of this
history, land and citizenship and still to this day ignore the humanity
of the people that were the ``lineal descendants'' of numerous Choctaw
and Chickasaw men, some who even signed the duplicitous treaty of 1866,
like Bettie's father Robert Howard Love.
As a descendant of Bettie Love-Ligon Choctaw Freedman Card #106 and
Ella Jackson-Freeman Choctaw Freedman Card #1252, who were both
litigants that sought to be transferred from the Freedmen Roll to the
by blood roll; I speak for the tens of thousands descendants of Equity
Case 7071 filed April 13, 1907; Bettie Ligon et al., Plaintiffs v
Douglas H. Johnston et al., Green McCurtain, et al., and James R.
Garfield Secretary of the Interior Defendants.
We demand that Congress open up this case for the due process that
our ancestors deserved but were denied. We demand that descendants of
the litigants of Equity Case 7071 be paid for the racially
discriminatory act that saw them lose the value of 640,000 acres of
land and their citizenship dating back to 1866 when the
``Reconstruction Treaty'' was signed. We are asking for $9 Billion
dollars, for the land loss because of the racial practices of the
Choctaw Nation, Chickasaw Nation and Department of the Interior.
In an interview in March of 1911, Webster Ballinger the attorney
that was to argue Equity Case 7071 before the Supreme Court of the
United States ``I some time ago abandoned the theory advanced in the
Bettie Ligon case that any person of mixed Indian and negro blood,
regardless of the degree, was entitled to enrollment as an Indian. I
shall only advocate in the future the enrollment of persons of this
class who are unquestionably Indians.''
Ballinger felt the litigants in Equity Case 7071 ``would be
prejudicial'' to the cases in his opinion that would be ``successful in
securing the rights of that class of cases about which there is no
question.'' Again more evidence that the issue of race was paramount in
the litigants in Equity Case 7071 being recognized rightfully for
citizenship and their 320 acre land allotments.
Prior to this change of ``legal theory'' Webster Ballinger was
waging a vigorous parallel challenge for the transfer of his clients in
the Senate and House where he was met with resistance from practically
the total Oklahoma Congressional delegation at the time. So it is more
than peculiar that his change in theory just months before he was to
argue the case before the Supreme Court of the United States in October
of 1911 would have been welcomed by the people he represented.
Ballinger decided he would drop the court case to pursue a
resolution through congressional action. That is why it was an extreme
joy for me to be present to hear the arguments given by the counsel for
the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations. They confirmed that the legal theory
first proposed by Webster Ballinger to be sound, that ``lineal
descent'' or ``any person of mixed Indian and negro blood, regardless
of degree, was entitled to enrollment as an Indian.'' Judge Michael
Burrage, a Choctaw Citizen and Chief Counsel for the Nation confirmed
it when he began his presentation to the committee. There can only be
one conclusion drawn from this hearing and the voluminous historical
documentation that the litigants in Bettie Ligon et al., Plaintiffs v
Douglas H. Johnston et al., Green McCurtain, et al., and James R.
Garfield Secretary of the Interior Defendants are entitled to
citizenship and compensation for the tremendous harm done to their
descendants dating back to the signing of the ``Reconstruction Treaty
of 1866.''
The Congress of the United States failed our ancestors because the
climate in the country at the time made it sufficiently easy for racial
attitudes of the day to hold sway. As I listened to Chairman Schatz and
Vice-Chair Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Senator Lankford of Oklahoma
their sentiment was to reconcile the issue of citizenship for the
Indian Territory Freedmen, on this matter there should be little
opposition, the descendants of Equity Case 7071 have waited more than
one-hundred and twenty four years to be recognized as citizens. They
have waited over one-hundred years to receive their rightful share for
the value of land they were denied, by the courts, by their attorney,
by the Dawes Commission, by the Department of the Interior and by the
Congress of the United States.
There is no doubt the claims of Bettie Ligon and the other
litigants was a just cause and deserved to have their day in court.
Today we have the documentation and the science to support their claims
as ``lineal descendants'' and because the case was never argued before
the Supreme Court it would seem Congress, the Chickasaw and Choctaw
Nations have an obligation and responsibility to ``repair'' this
massive injustice.
I will leave you with this short story about my great-grandmother
Bettie Love-Ligon who died on November 21, 1912. Over the years of
researching my family's history I always wanted to know who Bettie was
what made her the person chosen to be the lead litigant in Equity Case
7071? What was her demeanor? What was in her character to become the
lead litigant in what was considered to be one of the most important
cases in Indian Territory? One day I found a letter in her land
allotment jacket that told me everything I needed to know about Bettie
Ligon.
Bettie's attorney Albert J. Lee wrote to J. George Wright the
Commissioner of the Five Civilized Tribes on December 14, 1907. In his
letter to Wright he stated:
``Yesterday morning Betty Ligon, the principal plaintiff in the
case known as Ligon Vs. Johnson, came to our office with Freedmen
patents No. 3643, 3650, 3412, 3413, 3411, 3559, and 3414 which had been
registered to her at Newport, Oklahoma. On receiving the enveloped from
the Post Master and on opening one of them which disclosed a Freedman
patent, she immediately came to our office without opening the rest of
the envelopes.''
``An attempt has been made once before to deliver these patents to
Betty Ligon, and those similarly situated, but acting upon advice of
their attorneys, they have refused to receive them and we return to
you, herewith, the above numbered patents, and inform you that it is
useless to again mail these patents, to Betty Ligon, as she declines to
receive them until after the courts have finally passed upon the case
now pending, which case will determine whether or not she is entitled
to participate in the tribal property as an Indian by blood or as
Freedman.''
Senators, Bettie and her children reluctantly accepted freedmen
allotments of 40 acres, yet she fought from the first time she applied
for citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation in 1896 up to her death in 1912
for her rights as a citizen in the Chickasaw Nation. Bettie always made
it known, she was the daughter of Robert Howard Love ``who was the same
Robert Love that signed the Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.'' Bettie,
like the other ``similarly situated'' litigants left a legacy that they
were Chickasaw or Choctaw by blood and as their descendants we are here
to claim that identity as well as the compensation for the land our
ancestors were denied and unable to leave to us, the ``lineal
descendants of Equity Case 7071: Bettie Ligon et al., Plaintiffs v
Douglas H. Johnston et al., Green McCurtain, et al., and James R.
Garfield Secretary of the Interior Defendants.
References
Ligon, Bettie, et al v. D.H. Johnson et al, Green McCurtain et al,
James R. Garfield, Secretary of Interior Melven Cornish Collection Box
10, Folder 6, Native American Manuscripts Collection, Special
Collection University of Oklahoma Western History Collections
Senate Report 5013 (59-2) Part 2, page 1526
Michael Burrage YouTube Video (33rd minute)
Senate Report 5013 (59-2) Part 2, pages 1497-98
Choctaw Nation 1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, Articles II &
IV
Chickasaw Freedmen Cards #570 & #570, Chickasaw by Blood Card #1846
The Chickasaw Freedmen, A People Without a Country by Daniel F.
Littlefield, Jr. page 52
Daily Ardmoreite, October 4, 1908 page1, column1&2
Vinita Daily Chieftain March 16, 1910 page 4
Bettie Ligon, Choctaw Freedmen Enrollment #2604 Land Allotment
Packet page 7., (Letter to J. George Wright)
1896 Application for Citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation Bettie
Ligon #73 (NARA Record Group 75, M-1650)
Joe and Dillard Perry Petition to Transfer Files 1-254, NARA Record
Group #75, NRF-90C
Terry J. Ligon; Great Grandson of Bettie Love-Ligon; Great-
Great Grandson of Robert Howard Love
______
My name is Leatrice Tanner-Brown. I am the Executrix of the Estate
of my grandfather, George W. Curls, Sr., Cherokee Freedman No. 4304.
This correspondence is to request that the Secretary of the
Interior provide an accounting to the Estate of George W. Curls, Sr.
and similarly situated Freedmen of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes,
who under the terms of the Act of May 27, 1908, are owed fiduciary
duties by the United States.
The Act of May 27, 1908, imposed specific and detailed fiducimy
duties upon the Secretary of Interior to preserve and protect the
interests of minor Freedmen allottees in funds from any source and from
leases on land allotted to Freedmen minors and to take all available
actions to prevent dissipation or deterioration of these allotments and
funds through carelessness, negligence or exploitation of Freedmen
minors. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Five Civilized Tribes allied themselves with the
Confederacy during the Civil War and attempted to maintain slaves
following the War. As a result of the Tribes disloyalty to the United
States during the Civil War all territoty owned by the Tribes was
forfeited. The status of the Tribes was reestablished under Treaties
entered in 1866. The Treaties of 1866 came into existence as a result
of the post-civil war reconciliation effort, and provided a means for
the Five Tribes to re-establish their government-to-government
relations with the United States, following their ill-concerned
alliances with the Confederate States of America and long history of
slavery. The Treaties addressed a number of issues for readmitting the
Five Tribes back into the federal union, including amnesty for all war
crimes committed by its citizens, establishment of federal courts in
the Indian territory, the settlement of ``civilized friendly Indians''
within the Tribes and the adoption of all freed slaves and free colored
persons into the Tribes as tribal citizens. Article IX of the Cherokee
Treaty is an example, and provides: The Cherokee nation having,
voluntarily, in Febmary, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of
their national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby covenant and
agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntaiy
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 voluntaiy
act of their former owners by law, as well as all free colored persons
who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are
now residents there in, 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. Under
the 1866 Treaties, Freedmen and their descendants, were to receive all
the rights of native Tribe members. ``All rights'' can only be read to
mean all rights, including but not limited to, the right of
citizenship. See, Appellant Brief, Cherokee Nation v. Nash, Case No.
SC-2011-02, Supreme Court of the Cherokee Nation,(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the specific statutory mandate imposed by the Act of May 27,
1908, upon the Secretary of Inte1ior to assure that if land allotted to
Freedmen minors, funds derived therefrom and beneficial interest of
Freedmen minors, were not being properly cared for by the guardians or
curators appointed under the Act by probate comis of the State of
Oklahoma, the Secretary was required to act to prevent the beneficial
interests in land and funds from being dissipated, or permitted to
deteriorate in value by reason of negligence, carelessness or
incompetency of the guardian or exploitation of minor Freedmen. The
specific fiduciary duties imposed upon the Secretary of Interior by the
Act of May 27, 1908 includes a statuto1y duty to account to Freedmen
minors subject to Section 6 for funds derived from allotted land.
I am the personal representative of the Estate of George W. Curls,
Sr., a Freedman who by reason of his interest in restricted allotments
under the Curtis Act of 1898, the ante-bellum Treaties of 1866, lost or
mismanaged trust funds, has standing to sue the United States for
breaches of trust related to losses and mismanagement of tiust funds
derived from his allotted land. George Curls, was enrolled on the Rolls
of the Cherokee Freedmen under the Dawes Act of July 1, 1902. Cherokee
Freedmen Roll, Cherokee Freedman 4304. At the time of his enrollment,
George Curls was five years old, having been born to former Cherokee
slave parents in Indian Country, Oklahoma in 1897.
Mr. Curls received forty and twenty acre allotment deeds from the
Cherokee Tribe under the Curtis Act. Under these two deeds, Mr. Curls
received Curtis Act allotments equaling 60 acres. These allotments were
received at a point in time when Mr. Curls was a minor.
Under the Act of May 27, 1908, restrictions against alienation of
Freedmen allotments, were retained for minors, Under the Act of 1908
any funds from allotments owned by minor Freedmen were to be controlled
and monitored by the Department ofinterior. See, Sections 2 and 6 of
Act of May 27, 1908. The funds derived from oil, gas, agricultural, hay
and pasture leases on Mr. Curls' allotments were subject to the
fiduciary duties imposed by the Act of May 27, 1908, on the Secretary
of the Department of Interior.
The specific terms of the Act of May 27, 1908, state:
SEC 6. That the persons and prope1ty of minor allottees of the
Five Civilized Tribes shall, except as otherwise specifically provided
by law, be subject to the jurisdiction of the probate courts of the
State of Oklahoma. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby empowered,
under rules and regulations to be prescribed by him, to appoint such
local representatives within the State of Oklahoma who shall be
citizens of that State or now domiciled therein as he may deem
necessary to inquire into and investigate the conduct of guardians or
curators having in charge the estates of such minors, and whenever such
representative or representatives of the Secretary of the Interior
shall be of opinion that the estate of any minor is not being properly
cared for by the guardian or curator, or that the same is in any manner
being dissipated or wasted or being permitted to deteriorate in value
by reason of the negligence or carelessness or incompetency of the
guardian or curator, said representative or representatives of the
Secretary of the Interior shall have power and it shall be their duty
to report said matter in full to the proper probate court and take the
necessary steps to have such matter fully investigated, and go to the
further extent of prosecuting any necessaiy remedy, either civil or
criminal, or both, to preserve the property and protect the interests
of said minor allottees; and it shall be the fmther duty of such
representative or representatives to make full and complete reports to
the Secretary of the Interior. All such reports, either to the
Secretary of the Interior or to the proper probate court, shall become
public records and subject to the inspection and examination of the
public, and the necessary court fees shall be allowed against the
estates of May be appointed said minors.[sic]. The probate courts may,
in their discretion appoint any such representative of the Secretary of
the Interior as guardian or curator for such minors, without fee or
charge.
And said representatives of the Secretary of the Interior are
further restricted lands, authorized, and it is made their duty, to
counsel and advise all allottees, adult or minor, having restricted
lands of all of their legal rights with reference to their restricted
lands, without charge, and to advise them in the preparation of all
leases authorized by law to be made, and at the request of any allottee
having restricted land he shall, with out charge, except the necessary
court and recording fees and expenses, if any, in the name of the
allottee, take such steps as may be necessary, including the bringing
of any suit or suits and the prosecution and appeal thereof, to cancel
and annul any deed, conveyance, 11101igage, lease, contract to sell,
power of attorney, or any other encumbrance of any kind or character,
made or attempted to be made or executed in violation of this Act or
any other Act of Congress, and to take all steps necessary to assist
said allottees in acquiring and retaining possession of their
restricted lands.
Under the Act of May 27, 1908, restrictions against alienation of
Freedmen allotments, such as the allotments to Mr. Curls', were not
removed. Accordingly, any funds derived from Mr. Curls' allotments
should have been accounted for by the Department of Interior under the
terms of the Sections 2 and 6 of the 1908 Act.
This correspondence has also been addressed to the Honorable Susan
Rice, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy because according
to the President's January 20, 2021 Executive Order on Advancing Racial
Equity and Support for Undersigned Communities through the Federal
Government.
''Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity
agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that
we face ... It is therefore the policy of [the Biden] Administration
that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to
advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have
been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by
persistent poverty and inequality. Affinnatively advancing equity,
civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the
responsibility of the whole of our Government. Because advancing equity
requires a systematic approach to embedding fairness in decisionmaking
processes, executive departments d agencies (agencies) must recognize
and work to redress inequities in their policies and programs that
serve as ban-iers to equal opportunity to reach their full potential.
Consistent with these aims, each agency must assess whether, and to
what extent, its programs and policies perpetuate systemic ban-iers to
opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved
groups.
President Biden has directed the head of each federal agency, or
designee, to conduct a policy review and within 200 days from January
20, 2021, and to provide a report to the Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy (APDP), Ms. Rice, reflecting findings.
This conespondence is to request the Secretary begin immediate
steps to provide the accounting owed to the Estate of George Curls by
the Secretary. It is also to request that the Honorable Ms. Rice
investigate the shameful history of the United States in connection
with United States policy, that continues to this day, to embrace and
extend paternalistic treatment and protection to Native Americans from
the Five Civilized Tribes despite their disloyalty to the nation during
the Civil War, while denying any redress whatsoever to the lesser
educated and exploited slaves held by these Tribes who fought for the
Confederacy. The result of the non feasance of the Department
oflnterior has been to deprive Freedmen of valuable property rights and
expose them to fraud and corruption ignored by the federal government.
Please respond to my conespondence at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Leatrice Tanner-Brown
______
Halito,
My name is Kayla, I speak for my afro-native ancestors. Both of
African and Native descent. We are Mississippi Choctaw to Oklahoma and
Creek Freeman. We have ancestors enrolled on the Dunns Rolls and Dawes.
Link to some of my family papertrail. We received land in
Mississippi and Oklahoma. We farmed- planting tobacco and corn and
using plant medicines.
http://mcgeefamilyreunion6.com/nelsonsforefathers.html
We have been denied enrollment since 1903. I am a creative artist
that has represented the stories and tales of these ancestors.
The Choctaw Nation has benefited from adapting settler colonialism
in ways that is anti-black and racist. At the same time the nation
relates cultural practices that are shared between African ancestors/
current peoples like basket weaving and bead work. They also have a
Seed Program that gives out Peas that originate from Africa.... The
hypocrisy is blatant and offensive to then deny peoples who journeyed
with you sharing blood, sweat and tears to not enroll them and deny
them benefits.
We are calling for Justice and Reconciliation as this is the way
forward through healing a nation of genecide and enslavement of black
peoples.
As stated in the hearing ``The government pitted African American
and Native peoples against each other''.
It is time for healing, it is time to change the path forward for
the better.
Yakoke,
Kayla Banks
______
My name is Terry J. Ligon, I am a Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen
Descendant as well as someone who is descended from a ``recognized''
Chickasaw citizen named Robert Howard Love. I am a history and
genealogical researcher of Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen. I write and
teach on the subject Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen History and
Genealogy.
During the past 25 years or more I have served as a faculty member
of the Mid-West African American Genealogical Institute (MAAGI.) I am a
founding member of the African-American Genealogical Society of
Northern California (AAGSNC) as well as a founding member of the
Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen Association (CCFA)
My story is unique and it represents tens of thousands of other
individuals, some who may not know their connection to the story of
Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen who were part of a lawsuit filed on
April 13, 1907 that was estimated to be worth twenty-million dollars
and more than 640,000 acres of land.
This lawsuit dealt with the issues of identity, citizenship and
land in the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and the unequal distribution
of that land, based on people of mixed Chickasaw-African and Choctaw-
African descent. Much of what you all will undertake during your
hearing on the ``Reconstruction Treaty of 1866'' will probably never
engage the subject of what is now known as Equity Case 7071 Bettie
Ligon, et al., Plaintiffs v Douglass H. Johns(t)on, et al., Green
McCurtain, et al., and James R. Garfield, Secretary of the Interior,
Defendants.
Many would argue, as those who came before us and took their case
before Congress during the early part of the 20th Century; our
ancestors had a right to receive three-hundred and twenty acres of land
and citizenship in the nation of their birth. Only because of their
perception as being strictly ``black'' were they denied this right and
the Reconstruction Treaty of 1866 is not the beginning of their story;
it just a part that begins when my great-great grandmother Margaret Ann
Wilson and hundreds of other enslaved men, women and children took part
in what is known as the ``Long Walk of Many Tears.''
Their story, Bettie's story has roots in the 1830 Treaty of Dancing
Rabbit Creek that paved the way for the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations
to establish their homes in now what is the state of Oklahoma and it
was the work of the United States government under the jurisdiction of
the Dawes Commission that systematically based citizenship and land
ownership on ``political construction of race'' that excluded the
children of ``enslaved'' or women of ``African'' descent.
The Reconstruction Treaty of 1866 does not account for the actions
that took place during this period that may not be a part of your
committee's ``fact finding mission.'' Historically the Senate has had a
prominent role in the actions by the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations and
their continued disenfranchisement of people known as ``freedmen'' and
their descendants during the reconstruction era.
In 1870, a memorial was sent to the Committee on Indian Affairs
``On Behalf of the Colored People of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes
of Indians'' Senate Miscellaneous Document 106 (41st Congress, 2nd
Session.) This document only four years after their ``emancipation
sought the help of Congress to ``secure to them equal rights and
privileges with white citizens.''Unfortunately, the Senate and the
Indian Affairs Committee did not ``secure'' nor protect the ``equal
rights'' of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen at that time.
In 1873, the Chickasaw Nation submitted legislation passed in their
legislature; Senate Miscellaneous Document 95 (42nd Congress, 3rd
Session) that adopted their formerly enslaved population but because
Congress failed to ratify this legislation at that time, the Chickasaw
Freedmen and their descendants have never been granted citizenship or
their rightful share of the land promised them in the 1830 treaty.
In 1874, Our ancestors submitted Senate Miscellaneous Document 118,
(43rd Congress, 1st Session) the ``persons of African descent resident
in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations'' continued to lobby the Senate
and Committee on Indian Affairs to intervene on their behalf because
both nations and the United States failed to protect their rights
contained in the ``Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.''
Here we are in the year 2022, the descendants of those formerly
enslaved people seeking ``equal justice under law'' call upon the
Congress of the United States, the Committee on Indian Affairs to
fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to enforce the ``Supreme Law''
in that ``Reconstruction Treaty;'' more than one-hundred and fifty
years later?
In closing, my great grandmother Bettie was the lead litigant in
Equity Case 7071, her mother was an enslaved woman named Margaret Ann
Colbert-Wilson. Bettie's father was a recognized Chickasaw citizen
named Robert Howard Love and he was one of the men who signed that
Reconstruction Treaty of 1866.
Bettie Love-Ligon and the other litigants who participated in
Equity Case 7071 sought the same protections and equality given their
kin on the blood roll. Throughout the time their case was winding its
way through the court system, practically the entire Oklahoma
Congressional Delegation sought to overturn every bill that came before
Congress that would have given them ``equity'' (citizenship and 320
acres of land.)
The questions before this Committee, this Congress, this Senate is
when will our ancestors be recognized for who they were?
When will their descendants receive ``equal justice under law?''
Thank you for your consideration on these matters and respectfully
request that my remarks be entered on the record of the hearing on 27
July 2022.
Regards,
Terry J. LIGON
______
Dear Senate Committee Members,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed. The treaties should stand and be
enforced as written. Changing this treaty could set a precedent for all
other treaties involving American Indians recognized and unrecognized.
Specifically excluding the Freedman from such discussion is troubling
and problematic.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, and
classifications of American Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five
Civilized Tribes addressed at this hearing.
I appreciate all time and concern with this matter and am
optimistic for the plight of the American Indian.
Best regards,
Deanna Donald
______
Good Afternoon to the members of the Senate committee. My name is
Stephney Johnson and I am a Freedmen descendant of the Seminole Nation
of Oklahoma. I am writing this letter as testament to my treatment
within the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
In the Spring of 2018, I attended a council meeting at the
Mekusukey Mission in Seminole, OK. Upon entering the Mekusukey Mission,
I am greeted by a picture of ``the last man hung in the Seminole
Nation''. As a Black Native, and as someone who has had an ancestor
that has publicly hung in Seminole, OK, I find that very offensive. No-
one can answer the question as to why the photo is there, but to have
in on display for all of the public to see is extremely distasteful. At
the meeting, there was a question from the band rep, Ms. Sylvia Davis
of the Dosar Barkus band at the time asking why there is ``0/0 degree
of Indian blood'' on our tribal enrollment cards for the Freedmen and
how we can go about taking that part off of our cards. The lady did not
have an answer to the question. She was then asked by Ms. Leetta
Osborne-Sampson, band rep of the Caesar Bruner band asked when and why
did the ``0/0 degree of Indian blood come about being put on the cards,
and when will it be taken off? Those questions were met with
disagreement from the rest of the band reps of the Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma, as well as from the crowd of other Seminoles. Being in the
crowd and sitting next to someone saying that I don't deserve to be
apart of the tribe because of a war that happened hundreds of years ago
is very disheartening.
There have been many programs that we have been denied for within
the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma including qualifying for the tiny homes
for our Senior Citizens, obtaining a Seminole Nation of Oklahoma tags
for our vehicles, closing assistance for our children for school, and
the most recent one, not being able to obtain the ARPA--Household
Assistance through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds. In February of this year I filled out an application to receive
COVID relief funds through the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Five months
have now passed and I have not heard an acceptance nor a denial from
the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma for obtaining COVID relief funds. I
still cannot wrap my head around this because the Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma counts me every single year for money from the United States
government, but we cannot use any of the services within the Nation.
How can the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma have council reps for the two
Freedmen bands, Dosar Barkus and Caesar Bruner, sit on council and vote
for programs and appropriate funds for th e tribe when we cannot use
the things that benefit us?
In the online article published by NonDoc, Assistant Chief of the
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Brian Palmer, said ``The Seminole Nation
follows the treaty and constitution with an understanding od how it was
constructed and what was intended just the same as we view the U.S.
Constitution.'' Article two of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Treaty
of 1866 states: ``The Seminole Nation covenant that henceforth in said
nation slavery shall not exist, nor involuntary servitude, except for
and in punishment of crime, whereof the offending party shall first
have been duly convicted in accordance with law, applicable to all the
members of said nation. And inasmuch as there are among the Seminoles
many persons of African descent and blood, who have no interest or
property in the soil, and no recognized civil rights it is stipulated
that hereafter these persons and their descendants, and such other of
the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to settle there,
shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens, and the laws of
said nation shall be equally binding upon all persons of whatever race
or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe.'' It
would not be fair if the United States of America picks and chooses
which parts of the U.S. Constitution they want to abide by, so why has
the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma gotten away with picking and choosing
which party of the Treaty of 1866 they want to abide by? The Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma should abide by ALL parts of the Treaty of 1866.
My ancestors come from the same part of Florida their ancestors
came from. We fought the same Seminole War against the U.S. Army. We
walked the same death walk from Florida to Indian Territory, which is
commonly known as the Trail of Tears. We fought Oklahoma statehood, the
land run, and my ancestors survived residential school together. We
fought the same fight, shed the same blood. I do not understand why the
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma suddenly decides that we are different
because skin color is different or because our hair comes out of our
head a little differently than them. No matter what, at the end of the
day I am Seminole. Am I a proud Seminole? Yes. Am I proud to be a part
of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma? I will not be a proud Seminole
until all members of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma have rights.
Stephney Noel Johnson
______
Hello,
My name is Ray Jackson, on January 2005, I submitted my
application, along with all of the required certified documentation as
requested to show my lineage too my Choctaw Indian Descendants, in
appling to obtain my Choctaw Identification Card, using my family's
roll number 3939 under my grandfather's name Mitchell Jackson.
I in return, received a letter dated January 17, 2005, stating my
grandfather was enrolled as a Choctaw Freeman with no blood amount
listed. However, when I contacted the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, I was
informed my application was denied, ``due to, too many people using
this same Roll Number''
I am the youngest of (11) children born to my parents, and I am the
Father of (3) children. Therefore, that would be a long lineage that is
entitled to usage of my Grandparents Roll Number, that was assigned to
them. This also tells me that, some of my family members have been
allowed to obtain a Valid Identification Card, utilizing the benefits
offered, while I have not been given that same opportunity.
I would like to be granted usage as well.
Thanking you in advance for reading my testimony, and hopefully you
will be able to help me obtain my ID card.
Ray Jackson
______
My name is Wanda Warren and I am the descendant of an enrolled
Choctaw Freedmen. My ancestors were owned by Choctaw Chief, Peter
Pitchlynn. Many years have passed since the Choctaw Nation changed its
constitution in 1983 where they no longer allowed Choctaw Freedmen as
citizens.
Choctaw Freedmen still face considerable discrimination in terms of
social identity as well as economic and health disparities. At a recent
U.S. Senate Committee of Indian Affairs meeting, only one
representative from the Cherokee Freedmen, whose citizenship has been
restored, was given time to speak. Although I am so grateful for the
work that is being done, which is long overdue, I believe it is
important to include the voices of all of those who will be affected
before decisions are made and healing can begin.
Great men and great nations not only keep their word, they
recognize and value everyone who has helped them to become prosperous
no matter the race or origin. The Cherokee Nation recently dealt with
the racial injustice that formerly guided their decisions of who could
be citizens of their great nation.
I urge the Choctaw Nation as well as the other Oklahoma Tribes
(Chickasaw, Muscogee, Seminole and Cherokee), the U.S. government and
U.S. Senate of Indian Affairs Committee, along with representatives
from all Freedmen communities to continue to work to recognize and
restore the citizenship of once enslaved Freedmen and their
descendants.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this committee with
feedback.
Wanda Warren
______
I would like to change my status on a birth certificate
Kennie Brown
______
To whom it may concern,
I am an American Indian. I recently found out that my ancestors are
Creek Cherokee, and Powhatan . Specifically my Creek ancestors lived in
Oklahoma territory in the 1900's, before moving back to Alabam a few
years later. With my recent findings my family and I plan to honor our
ancestors customs and ways of the land. I am my ancestors. I am a
descendant of many tribes. If they make the freedmen Africans in
Oklahoma, they will do the same thing all across Indian country.They
are trying to turn the American Indians to Africans, when some of us
are simply not African. They are saying we are not showing up for work,
but in the most recent census the number of American Indian grew by 90
percent.This treaty must be honored, because the descendants are still
alive.
Kindly,
JB Williams
______
Choctaw Freedmen want to reclaim citizenship: We're now in the 21st
century. Many decades have passed since the Choctaw Nation changed its
constitution in 1983, where they no longer allow Choctaw Freedmen as
citizens. The Choctaw Freedmen still face considerable discrimination
in terms of social identity, not even having a seat at the table for an
open dialogue and discussion. The Cherokee Nation, as a whole, has
lifted itself into the 21st century and finally moved to address the
heavy weight of racial injustice and favored equality for their
Cherokee Freedmen and descendants. Now it's incumbent upon the Choctaw
Nation, the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee and the US
Government; as well as, our Choctaw Freedmen Advocates and Supporters
must all work together to see the once enslaved Choctaw Freedmen and
their descendants today will be recognized as full citizens of the
Choctaw Nation. Choctaw Nation should provide Health Care, Housing &
Homeownership support, Educational support, Business support, Economic
Development support, other services to Choctaw Freedman and the
Descendants of Black people once enslaved by ALL FIVE TRIBES. I want my
Choctaw Nation citizenship reclaimed.
Sincerely,
Unique Ray
______
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing established
treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be
enforced as written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this
hearing affects the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal
histories, and classifications of American Indians and tribal nation
beyond the Five Civilized Tribes addressed at this hearing.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this item.
Elizabeth Marie Bagby
______
In honor of our Ancestors of this Land, I come bestowing You with
the highest of elevations.
This coming Wednesday, July 27, 2022, is scheduled a meeting of
Congressional Senators and assigned Committee Members to discuss and
review parameters involving the oversight hearing to examine select
provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties between the United
States and some American Indian Tribes. As an American Indian with
multiple tribal nation lineages, active registered voter, and tax
paying American, it is my ancestral duty and bloodline rite to
communicate with my elected officials and committee members about the
significant impacts these meetings and potential addendums would have
on my community. It is certainly understood there are many treaties
which ushered in detrimental effects of removal acts, sweeping
multitudes of ancestral families off their lands. Other treaties
presented notions to offer a revolutionary aspect of living for
Indigenous Americans, while there were other stipulations placed upon
ancestral and historical practices of families; also compromising the
unity within family units.
The Treaty of 1866 with the Cherokee states to establish the
abolishment of slavery amongst American Indians connected to the
Cherokee Tribal Nation, recognized by the United States government.
Within this treaty, there are limited expansion boundaries for allotted
Tribal families and their descendants, although to the contrary other
members are provided amnesty towards crimes committed, allowed tribal
members to be in charge of their commercial presentations with no
government interference, in addition to a collective of other
parameters removed or strengthened upon the verbiage of the Article.
During this time, the treaty also determined structural mandates for
Cherokee Governance and council requirements.
Subsequent articles also present the allowance of some tribal
members to reside with selected residential spaces, as long as one is
deemed civilized; in conjunction, as designated areas of tribal lands
highlighted for assigned states lands.
As a descendant of Pre-colonial, first contact American Indians and
having lineage to the Cherokee Nation prior to the Civil War, I have an
ancestral obligation to communicate how imperative it is to communicate
my understanding of how the amendment of this treaty, without
substantial input from direct descendants must not be.
In addition, the addendum towards such significant government
sanctioning treaties will alter a person structure within one's lives,
also ancestral lineage practices which were impaired, halted, or able
to commence by way of the Treaty of 1866.
I am seeking to have representation of diverse participants
(Cherokee members, tribal family descendants, and other allies) in
addition to American Indians who are directly involved in the adjusted
parameters placed as a result of the present treaty or potentially
impacted from amendments to such treaty.
Any and all assistance your offices and representatives will offer
are highly appreciated.
Infinite Peace to You,
Waswekr Cheeta
______
To whom it may concern,
As a American Indian of the First Tribe from the ancestral
homelands of Alabama and Georgia I would like the record to show that
it will be irreparable harm and continued genocide of our identity and
Human Right abuse with any overturning of the 1866 Treaty . The illegal
President and sworn citizen of Spain Andrew Jackson was the central
figure of this process with the Indian Removal Act and this United
States is supposed to protect our Civil Rights.
We ask that you do not change the 1866 Treaties and you recognize
our First Tribe status starting first with our Human Rights full
restoration.
Thank you,
Ishmael A. Bey
______
I'm American Indian. It's very important that you keep the treaty
the same and never change it. Enforce the current treaty of 1866.
Thanks in advance.
Carey Bey
______
I am an American Indian ,As a concerned member of the American
Indian Community outside of Oklahoma the treaties of 1866 should not be
changed and remain in place where as they set a precedence for other
treaties, that's going to effect more then just the 5 recognized
tribes.
Big Red Thomas
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community outside of Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed, especially without the
input of the Freedmen with ancestry of the tribes. Changing established
treaties is a dangerous precedent. The treaties should stand and be
enforced as written. Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this
hearing affects the rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal
histories, prisoners of war and classifications of American Indians and
tribal nations.
Damion
______
Dear Senate Committee,
I write with regards to the senate hearing on the 1866 Treaties
between the Five Civilized Tribes.
As an American Indian and concerned member of the American Indian
community outside of Oklahoma, I would like to affirm that the 1866
Treaties between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw,
Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole nations should not be changed. Changing
previously established treaties is a dangerous precedent. Furthermore,
the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the rights, legal
statuses, identities, lineal histories, and classifications of American
Indians and tribal nations beyond the Five Civilized Tribes addressed
at this hearing. Even alterations to seemingly simple nomenclatures
(such as African, Negro, Indian, or Free Person of Color) with the
intent of modernizing those terms is a dangerous act, as you risk
merging distinctly separate ethnic groups of people without the
specific genealogies and historical nuances that resulted in those
terminologies that do not equate to terms used today. For example, many
Free Persons of Color also appear on tribal rolls as Indians by blood.
Thus, to contextualize Free Person of Color to also historically mean
Negro or African American today would not only be a fallacy but would
equate to ethnocide for those who were misclassified then and would be
further misclassified in this process. The same fallacy is true for
equating Negro to mean African or to equate any other historical term
to mean something else today without a deeper understanding of family
genealogies and state and federal legislations, such as the Racial
Integrity Act of 1924 (which forced all distinct ethnic groups of
people of color into the racial category of Negro).
Moreover, allowing the treaties to be altered (even with the
appearance of benevolence) opens the door for obligatory parties to
escape holding up their end of the bargain. If you don't like the terms
of a treaty, create a new one. But the government, understanding its
historic track record of breaking treaties, should be ashamed to be in
the business of tampering with established treaties.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Sincerely,
Onoschioke Tethrake
Aaron ``Great River Moon'' Moss
______
Peace & Blessings
I Chelon Robinson, (Yamasee Bloodline) am a direct descendant of
Ancient Chief Altamaha himself. After the documented Yamasse War in
1715 my people has been listed as extinct, when in fact we're not and
have been here keep our heritage alive while being excluded from our
rights as indigenous people. We have been listed as Freedmen , Negroes
and slaves, due Racial prejudices. Our Tribal lands in Georgia has been
divided and sold to the highest bidder without our consent. Yamasee
Built the Creek nation Now called the Muskogee Nation. Article 3 of the
1866 Treaty distinguishes Yamasee From Africans in the Text in Article
2. In HR 1514 Yamasee or Jamasi are mentioned as being apart of the
Confederation. However, since 1901 last time we (Yamasee) was mentioned
by Congress, Where (Yamasee) not mentioned again . Where did the
Yamasee people go when our last whereabouts is with the Muskogee Creek
Nation? It has Been racism that has blocked Yamasee true heritage and
classified us as Freedmen or Freedman. Our estate(land) has been stolen
and The Yamasee has been denied Treaty rights. Therefore it should be
redressed immediately and recognized as an Indian Tribe within the
Confederacy of the Muskogee Creek Nation.
The Great Violation is the denationalization of indigenous people
due to Color Code system imposed that is called apartheid. The right to
a identity and Nationality is a Human right Enforcement of Treaties has
to be done as part of restorative Justice.
Respectfully,
Chelon Robinson
______
Dear Representative/Senator/Senate Committee, MY NAME is AMARAY FINNEY
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Respectively,
Amaray Finney
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community residing
outside of Oklahoma, I'm writing to corroborate that the 1866 Treaties
between the United States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek,
and Seminole nations should not be changed.
The changing of these established treaties disrupt established
precedents & is dangerous! These treaties should stand and be enforced
as is. Moreover, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal status, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners of
War and classifications of American Indians and Tribal nations. If the
make the Freedmen, Africans in Oklahoma, that will open pandora's box
and lead the way for them do the same thing across Indian country.
Jason Robinson
______
I am an American Indian who once identified as African American due
to my history being lost or hidden from people like me. I am
descendants of the 5 civilized tribes and find that ratifying the 1866
treaty to change the names/nationality of the people who originally
signed this treaty is a form of denationalization. At a time where
people like myself are discovering their truth, that has been hidden
from them, actions like the one proposed today will further hide the
truth from ever seeing light. I do not want congressmen to change the
original treaty to reflect something different. We have land ties
affiliate with this treaty and continuing with ratifying it, is a form
of cultural genocide and erasure.
Jazz Whitaker
______
To all members of 5he Congress, their staff, their aids and all
Americans this correspondence is written in the Spirit of friendship
that defines the bonds of our TREATIES between our nations the united
states and her Citizens.
Honor our words as written by all our grandfathers on both sides of
the table.
To do otherwise is an action of unfriending.
Also, Can we normalize NOT marketing & PROJECTING the debunked
pseudo social science Identity #BLACK #FBA #ADOS #BIPOC or any other
eugenic racist by word or marketing slogan. We are Americans.
Coke JILES Mac Leod
______
Dear Senate Committee,
As a concerned member of the American Indian community outside of
Oklahoma, I write to affirm that the 1866 Treaties between the United
States and the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole
nations should not be changed.
Changing established treaties is a dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, the actions and outcomes of this hearing affects the
rights, legal statuses, ethnic identities, lineal histories, prisoners
of war and classifications of American Indians and tribal nations.
The treaties should stand and be enforced as written.
Kia Edwards
______
Greetings,
My Name is Nina Tuyar Mayah, Translated to English as ``Noble Lady
Swan''. I am a Clan Mother of the Yamasee Nation of The Great
``Altamaha ``Bloodline from the M'un Clan. After the documented Yamasse
War in 1715 my people have been listed as extinct, when in fact we are
not and have been here keeping our heritage alive while being excluded
from our rights as indigenous people. We have been listed as Freedmen ,
Negroes and slaves, due Racial prejudices. Our Tribal lands in Georgia
has been divided and sold to the highest bidder without our consent.
Yamasee Built the Creek nation Now called the Muskogee Nation. Article
3 of the 1866 Treaty distinguishes Yamasee From Africans in the Text in
Article 2. In HR 1514 Yamasee or Jamasi are mentioned as being a part
of the Confederation. However, 1901 was the last time we (Yamasee) were
mentioned by Congress; We're (Yamasee) not mentioned again . Where did
the Yamasee people go when our last whereabouts were with the Muskogee
Creek Nation? It has Been racism that has blocked Yamasee's true
heritage and classified us as Freedmen or Freedman. Our estate (land)
has been stolen and The Yamasee has been denied Treaty rights.
Therefore, it should be redressed immediately and recognized as an
Indian Tribe within the Confederacy of the Muskogee Creek Nation.
The Great Violation is the denationalization of indigenous people
due to Color Code system imposed that is called apartheid. The right to
an identity and Nationality is a Human right. Enforcement of Treaties
has to be done as part of restorative Justice.
Respectfully,
Nina Tuyar Mayah
______
Greetings, my Name is Pilar O. Muhammad. I am a Clan Mother of the
Yamasee Nation of The Great ``Altamaha ``Bloodline from the M'un Clan.
After the documented Yamasse War in 1715 my people has been listed as
extinct, when in fact we're not and have been here keep our heritage
alive while being excluded from our rights as indigenous people. We
have been listed as Freedmen , Negroes and slaves, due Racial
prejudices. Our Tribal lands in Georgia has been divided and sold to
the highest bidder without our consent. Yamasee Built the Creek nation
Now called the Muskogee Nation. Article 3 of the 1866 Treaty
distinguishes Yamasee From Africans in the Text in Article 2. In HR
1514 Yamasee or Jamasi are mentioned as being apart of the
Confederation. However, since 1901 last time we (Yamasee) was mentioned
by Congress, We're (Yamasee) not mentioned again . Where did the
Yamasee people go when our last whereabouts is with the Muskogee Creek
Nation? It has Been racism that has blocked Yamasee true heritage and
classified us as Freedmen or Freedman. Our estate(land) has been stolen
and The Yamasee has been denied Treaty rights. Therefore it should be
redressed immediately and recognized as an Indian Tribe within the
Confederacy of the Muskogee Creek Nation.
The Great Violation is the denationalization of indigenous people
due to Color Code system imposed that is called apartheid. The right to
a identity and Nationality is a Human right Enforcement of Treaties has
to be done as part of restorative Justice .
Respectfully,
Pilar O. Muhammad
______
I Urenna of the House Kelly (Moore), am sending this testimony in
regards to the 1866 Indian treaty and any decision made against it.
Throughout my genealogy searches I have come to find that none of my
relatives were enslaved africans. They have been living in the Americas
prior to the inception of the Declaration of Independence. My people
have continually been declassified and reclassified. I am here to set
the record straight and allow the record to show, we are not any such
misnomer colored, negro, black or african american. It was orally
advised to me by my ancestors that my great great grandfather Samuel
Lockhart (Donniel Lockheart) was full Cherokee by blood lineage. I am
still in the act of diligently tracing my genealogy despite all of the
oppression, terrorism and attempts of hindering such knowledge. My
mothers kin are original to the lands of the Americas and not of
African descent. She is American Indian by terminology found on the SF
181 form. I want to affirm that I oppose any termination, changes or
evidential tampering of any treatise created by my ancestors that would
molest any rights pertaining to the aborigine people of what's called
the Americas and the utilization and true ownership of the land. We are
bound to the land by heritage.
Kelly, Urenna
______
To who it may concern,
I am an American Indian. I am a Virginia Indian and my lineage is
deep in Virginia soil we never migrate any where,we was the first to
interact with the British settlers.
I am a concerned citizens of Indian territory left behind and the
issues that affect me here with the decision made by 5 civilized tribes
explaining position on matters blacks and Africanized. I would love to
be able to stand on my lineage as a American Indian without prejudice.
I know my ancestors was apart of the treaties that now being changed to
remove me from my birth right.
Sincerely
Pamela Hall
______
I appreciate this Committee for reading my written statement. In
2011, eleven (11) years ago, I submitted my first application with
supporting documents to the Cherokee Nation. Then, on November 20,
2020, I submitted my second application with supporting documents to
the Cherokee Nation. On January 21, 2021, I received a letter
acknowledging receipt of my application. Concerning my application, I
have had conversations with the office staff and have exchanged emails
with Supervisor Caleen Bolin.
My Paternal Grandmother, Annie Crawford, age 5, is listed as a
Cherokee Freedmen on the Dawes Roll, #2799. I was told that my
application was being given to another processor. When I spoke with Ms.
Bolin, she stated that she is researching my application. Is there a
way that someone with expert knowledge on Cherokee Freedmen
applications would be able to assist her in processing my application?
The last voicemail that I left for Ms. Bolin was on May 25, 2022.
I am a member of and support the work of The Descendants of the
Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association.
Much Gratitude.
Loryne JOYce Bowen
______
Good evening,
I write this Testimony message to bring awareness to the
unjustified and inconsistent business practices that have occurred on
behalf of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. I have been a fully
registered Seminole Nation tribe member for 2-3 years now and I am
still being denied and refused services. My recent experience has been
trying to get my used vehicle I just purchased registered with the
Seminole Nation Tribe. I made a trip from Oklahoma City to Seminole
which is about 45 minutes. Once I arrived, I gave the Seminole Nation
representative my vehicle documents and she began to process my
information. About 5 minutes later I received a call from the
processing representative stating that she would not be able to process
my information due to I am registered as a ``Freedman''. I requested if
the provision or justification citing used to support the denial
decision could be provided to me, it was refused. I requested a list of
``Freedman'' benefit exclusions to tell me which services I am allowed
and not allowed, it couldn't be provided. I asked when the last time
the Seminole Nation operation codes were updated, no one knew. I've
even been told just because my Tribal card says Seminole Nation, that
doesn't mean I am a part of the Tribe. I drove back to the Oklahoma
City to get my vehicle registered with the State of OK with no Tribal
recognition since I was refused services. Also, about a month ago I
completed and sent in BIA form 4432 to receive Indian Preference when I
apply for Federal Jobs and I was denied. Again I was it was due to
because I was a ``Freedman''. The Seminole Nation receives substantial
amounts of funding for these programs and it is clear by the defiant
actions from Upper Tribal leaders that the Tribe has zero Internet when
it comes to recognizing the Seminole Freedman members as equals and
it's extremely frustrating and discouraging. I request 2 actions: 1.
That all BIA funded services operated under the Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma are notified that Freedman citizens are to receive equal
services effective immediately. 2. Membership cards are reprinted to
removed the Freedman language. Thank you for your time and attention. I
look forward to seeing these changes within the BIA and Seminole
Nation.
Pj Roberson
______
Dear Sir/Madam:
This communication comes to you as a testimony that I would like to
submit about my experiences of impartial treatment, discrimination,
racism, and acts of what I feel is hate directed at me and my family
and many other persons with Black heritage from the leaders and some
members of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (SNO) tribe.
I am a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and I am also
Black. My Native American lineage extends deep and intertwines with my
African American heritage both maternally and paternally. My maternal
great great grandfather, Tecumseh Bruner traveled to Kansas and fought
in the Civil War. He is listed on Congressional records as a ``Loyal
Creek.'' My maternal grandfather, James Foster was born in Indian
territory. At a very early age he attended Indian schools, received
land allotments and regular monetary payments. My maternal
grandmother's family (Trotter & Dunlap) moved from Eupora, Mississippi
to Indian territory when she was a teen. My grandmother's appearance
showed a mixture of Native American and Black. Extremely long coal
black hair, high cheek bones and the skin tone of Native American. As
kids we would go to town in Wewoka, Oklahoma and many of the Native
Americans communicated with her speaking their native tongue.
Unfortunately, when she and her family sought to enroll on Dawes by
blood roles, like so many that are mixed with Black, their paperwork
mysteriously burned and was destroyed in a courthouse fire. She nor any
member of her immediate family were ever enrolled on the Dawes because
of this. My paternal family, the Cudjoe(s) were born and lived in
Indian Territory. They had numerous land allotments in the Wewoka,
Holdenville, New Lima and Seminole, Oklahoma area. My ancestors lived
on Indian land and communities. They were family, intermarried and had
children. My ancestors traveled the Trail of Tears and were forced to
relocate to Indian Territory during the Indian Removal.
Once arriving to Indian territory, my ancestors enrolled on the
Dawes rolls but depending on their appearance, many were listed on the
Freedmen Dawes instead of the By Blood Dawes. The Freedmen Dawes forms
has no column to list a blood quantum. Many who have/had the appearance
of Black, were also mixed with Indian. But still today, many tribal
leaders, government agencies and other individuals consistently try and
create a blood quantum for Freedmen even though the government document
does not list one.
In 1866, the United States Government and the Seminole Nation of
Oklahoma entered into a treaty agreement. In this treaty, it states
that ALL members of the tribe, would be treated equally in all matters.
U.S. Treaty with the Seminole Nation (1866)
March 21, 1866, Ratified, July 18, 1866. Proclaimed, August 16,
1866. Now, therefore, the United States, by its commissioners
aforesaid, and the above-named delegates of the Seminole Nation, the
day the year above written, mutually stipulate and agree, on behalf of
the respective parties, as follows, to wit;
Article 2 of the treaty states:. . . And inasmuch as there are
among the Seminoles many persons of African descent and blood, who have
no interest or property in the soil, and no recognized civil rights it
is stipulated that hereafter these persons and their descendants, and
such other of the same race as shall be permitted by said nation to
settle there, shall have and enjoy all the rights of native citizens,
and the laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon all persons
of whatever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of
the tribe.
The treaty agreement mentions nothing about a CDIB card or blood
quantum. Sadly, many government entities have failed the Freedmen too.
There is no accountability. When people who are on the Freedmen Dawes
rolls seek to enroll in the SNO, they are issued a different card. This
card is very powerful in that on sight, Freedmen are automatically
denied many entitled benefits. The front of the card states that we
have 0/0 Indian Blood. This information is inaccurate as many Freedmen
have Indian Blood. The card also states that we only have VOTING
RIGHTS. If a person is not part of your nation, why would you allow
them to enroll and vote? The SNO submits enrollment numbers to the
United States government and include all Freedmen in this count. Once
they receive the government funding, they refuse to acknowledge the
Freedmen as a member of the tribe and keep any funding they have
received on the Freedmen's behalf. This is fraud, racism, and
discrimination. I have contacted numerous Congressional leaders and
government agencies, but my pleas have been ignored. Without the
billions of dollars tribes receive from the United States government,
the effect of the SNO's racism would be diminished. Freedmen are told
that we do not qualify for benefits due to the fact that there is no
CDIB shown on the government form with our ancestor's names. If they do
not use a CDIB when they count Freedmen in their reported enrollment
numbers, it should not factor when Freedmen inquire about programs and
other benefits that are being withheld from us.
On September 10, 2018, R. Glen Melville, Acting Regional Director
of the United States Department of the Interior penned a letter,
addressing it to The Honorable Harold Frazier of Eagle Butte, South
Dakota. The letter discussed doing away with the CDIB program. He
stated that he would reach out to the tribes to get their input on the
affects it would have on their tribal nations. The tribes will never
agree to do away with CDIB. It's their tool of power, a tool they use
to discriminate and enact racism on Black tribal members. Doing away
with CDIB in the SNO, would help the tribe to own up to their part in
the treaty agreement of 1866 and hopefully restore equality within the
tribe.
Below I will outline some of the disparate treatment my family and
I have had to endure.
MEMBERSHIP CARDS--I spoke to Shirley Walker, the SNO's
Enrollment Office Director about the appearance of the
Freedmen's card. On January 31, 2018, I wrote a letter of
appeal to her as my family's Membership cards arrived with
inaccurate information on them. I requested that the inaccurate
information be removed, and new cards be sent. On February 8,
2018, Ms. Walker sent a response stating that ``Freedman has no
proven Seminole Indian Blood. New citizenship cards will not be
issued as they were initially issued to designate voting
precincts. . ..'' On March 13, 2018, Ms. Walker further stated
that ``by law we cannot go beyond or change anything on the
Dawes Roll.'' In all actuality, Ms. Walker has gone beyond and
changed what the Dawes Roll, a federal document states. The
Freedmen Dawes Roll does not have a column for a percentage;
therefore, Ms. Walker can not make up her own interpretation of
the federal document and apply it as a law. It does not say 0/
0, there simply is not one there. The CDIB program is flawed
and the placement of this requirement to receive equal access
to programs is discriminatory towards Freedmen and contrary to
the 1866 treaty. Ms. Walker also stated that ``the federal
government has made that distinction and that our family is not
eligible for an appeal no matter what the enrollment office
places on our cards.'' On April 21, 2018, a petition was
submitted concerning the inaccurate information on Freedmen
enrollment cards. The petition was signed by over thirty
members of the Caesar Bruner band, a part of the SNO. The
petition requested that this situation be heard before the
council and discussed. The petition was certified mailed to
then Chief Greg Chilcoat. Chief Chilcoat refused to put it on
the agenda and refused to acknowledge the issue.
AFFORDABLE CARES ACT--The SNO received ACA funding. Although
Freedmen were also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, Freedmen
were denied monetary payments. Applications were completed and
turned in, but no response was ever made from the tribe. Many
of my family have completed these applications and have proof
that they were received by the SNO, but we have been ignored
and continue to be denied of our benefits.
VOTING RIGHTS--The chief and many other SNO members say
Freedmen have no place in their tribe, but during election time
I and many other family members receive post cards, letters,
and other election mailouts asking us to vote for them.
SNO TAG AGENCY--My family and I have tried for at least 4 years
to take advantage of the SNO tribal tags, vehicle registration
and other services this agency provides. However, each time we
are denied and told that Freedmen are not allowed to use these
services. The tribal tag agency comes as a department where
tribal members can receive huge discounts on these services and
pay less than they would it they chose to use the state of run
tag agencies. We are denied this service and are being forced
to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars more than other
tribal members each year. On March 19, 2018, Mary A
Mashunkashey SNO Business & Corporate Regulatory Commission
Executive Director informed me that codes say that they must
give services to ``tribal members and I am a citizen.'' My
family and I have been denied the use of these services for
many years.
JUDGMENT FUND--On March 19, 2018, I visited the Judgment Fund
office to drop off an application for my 65-year-old brother
who is an enrolled SNO member. He was seeking help from the
Elderly Assistance Program. I spoke to Madonna Williams who
said she was the coordinator there. She asked for my brother's
CDIB card and when I explained that he did not have one but
gave her a copy of his membership card. She refused to accept
the application for my elderly brother and said that he would
need a CDIB card. My brother met all other qualifications to
the program but was denied.
SNAP PROGRAM--During the April 28, 2018, General Council
Meeting, the director over the federally funded snap program
stated that their program is a supplement to the supplement to
allow people in the tribe to take advantage of dual programs.
Freedmen would not be allowed to participate nor take advantage
of this tribal program.
ASAP STRONG KIDS PROGRAM--Mr. Jonathan Bennett was the director
of this program during the time span of April 28, 2018, at the
General Council Meeting. Our band representative Ms. Osborne-
Sampson asked if Freedmen would be allowed to participate in
the program, his reply was ``I don't have a problem with it as
long as the Department of justice (DOJ) doesn't.'' According to
his response, Freedmen families would need to have special
permission from DOJ to participate in this program.
HEADSTART PROGRAM--During the April 28, 2018, General Council
Meeting, the person who is over this program said they receive
federal funding, but they do not have any guidelines in place.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)--At the April 18, 2018,
General Council Meeting, the manager of the Housing Authority
of Wewoka, OK gave a report and said that ``Full Blood Member''
will get preference over Freedmen. In another situation, a 184-
loan application had to be approved twice before that SNO
tribal member's ``Freedmen'' application was finally approved.
It was approved, rescinded (saying the tribal member needed a
blood quantum) but after the Freedmen filed a complaint, the
184 was approved again. Contact was made with HUD director's
office, Sharon Gordon-Ribeiro to file a complaint about the
process and what they felt was discrimination. The applicant
was told there is basically no place to file a complaint as HUD
can't investigate themselves.
LOYAL CREEK FUNDS--My family received a letter from the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs saying my
mother, her siblings and several other relatives were entitled
to funds from my great great grandfather loyal Creek Tecumseh
Bruner. My relatives were never paid, and I and my deceased
mother and sisters have inquired to numerous government
agencies about this for many years. I have made numerous Open
Records requests, to be ignored. It seems as if there is a
cover-up and the funds my family should have received over 50
years ago is being kept from us.
Many tribal members and officials even taunt Freedmen saying, ``You
can't do anything to us, we're Sovereign.'' ``Sue us, I forgot, you
can't, we're Sovereign.'' It seems as if the SNO believes that they are
untouchable and can continue to receive billions of dollars from
government funding but does not have to answer to anyone.
One U.S. Senator wrote me saying that the U.S. Government does not
meddle into Sovereign affairs and the U.S. has no authority to do
anything. I disagree, the U.S. government does have authority. They
have authority to STOP funding the racism. Make a decision to own up to
ALL parts of the 1866 treaty. Stop giving money to the tribes based on
their numbers if they are not allowing all of those people counted to
participate in the programs.
I pray that the United States Senate will make some changes and
open doors for all tribal members to be treated equally as the Treaty
of 1866 meant for it to be.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need additional
information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rochelle Stephney-Roberson
______
My Name is Beverly Ann Elliott Taylor. My great grandmother is
Lizzie Sango. CDIB 1043 I believe. I have contacted Creek county in
Muskogee and the say I was adopted In. . .And not eligible. My
grandmother, Lizzie's daughter, deceased, was Fannie Mae Webster 75
percent Indian. She did not have a CDIB card. . . . my dad, Clarence
Elliott, who is deceased, did not have one either. Please help.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Greetings to the Senate Committee,
This communique is regarding the Oversight Hearing on Select
Provisions of the 1866 Reconstruction treaties Between the United
States and Oklahoma Tribes. My name is Dr. Nolan L. Fontaine, I am
misclassified American Indian. I am asking that the US Senate Committee
steadfast on reconsidering the provision for freedmen outside of Indian
Territory. This particular will have reverberating effects on Urban
Indians like myself. My maternal great-great grandfather, John Wesley
Saunders was misclassified in the state of Delaware who was listed as
Mulatto on the 1840 census after baptism. On later censuses Grandpa
John and his children were labeled as Colored/Negro, then Black. This
same method was continued to their progeny.
This reclassification methodology also doubled-downed as a covert
intergenerational silencing tactic and resulted in most family to hide,
obscure and disguise our culture, heritage and spiritual practices for
fear of state & federal retribution or relocation to Indian Territory.
Not until Public Law 95-341 (45 USC 1996) the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act of 1978 was it legal for American Indians to engage in
spiritual practices without retaliation of levy, fine or incarceration.
By 1978, my mother, who also was American Indian, had graduated
high school and my grandmother, who was the head of household covertly
lived as a misclassified American Indian woman so she would not have to
be relocated to HUD Indian Housing. In the past, there has also been
overt attempts to Africanize Indian Territory and Indians around
America to erase our cultural memories. This particular practice also
occurred in the housing project where I was raised.
Indian Territory is now known as the State of Oklahoma with respect
to 2/3 of the state land belonging the Muscogee-Creek, the Choctaw-
Chickasaw, the Seminole, and the Cherokee as well. As a concerned
descendant of American Indians who stayed behind post-1866, matters in
Oklahoma Tribe provisions effect Indians outside of Indian Territory
immensely. I am appreciative of Gov. Kevin Stitt, the Oklahoma State
Assembly, the US House and US Senate and the Committee on Indian
Affairs in working nation-to-nation with the Muscogee-Creek, the
Choctaw-Chickasaw, the Seminole, and the Cherokee, as well as with
Urban Indians, like myself with family who live outside Indian
Territory respectively.
It is my request as registered voter with a family of forty (40+)
American Indians that the committee highly consider the impact that
changing provisions may have for other Urban Indians families. For the
purpose of posterity, I would like this document saved in the US Senate
record for the future seven (7) generations.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. Nolan L. Fontaine
"_____
Dear Senators:
I am a descendant of Creek Freedmen. I am writing to inform you
that I, and hundreds of thousands of other Creek Freedmen Descendants,
are being discriminated against and denied citizenship within the MCN
due to our African ancestry. Our ancestors were the 1st people to
inhibit Indian Territory (Oklahoma). Our ancestors took part in the
infamous Trail of Tears and were removed from their Southeastern
homelands, suffering the same losses and tragedies as the so-called
full-blood tribal members on the journey west to the new land.
Our ancestors were enslaved by the MCN and placed on the Creek
Freedmen Dawes Roll regardless of blood degree. In 1979 the MCN
disenrolled all citizens placed on the Creek Freedmen Roll from the
tribe due to their African blood and greed. As a result, we have been
stripped of our birthright, language, culture, educational
opportunities, Indian Health Services, Covid relief funding, and the
vaccine.
Congress, I ask that you assist us with righting this wrong and
that you no longer force us to pay tax dollars only to be denied access
to the Nation of our ancestor's birth and our birthright as the
descendants of Creek Freedmen.
I pray that you address the issue of citizenship for Freedmen
descendants or consider withholding federal dollars from these nations
that discriminate against us.
Kind regards,
Cynthia Griffin
T'Aubrey Griffin
Talton Griffin
Deborah Hawkins
Lester Darnell Hawkins
Juanita Hawkins-Davis
Tammy Hawkins-Landrum
Doris Elaine Hawkins-Williams
Marsha Hawkins
Marcus Hawkins Jr.
Rico Hawkins
Cametra Lasette Johnson
Ke'Yonna HawkinsA'Morey Davis-Jackson
Jascent Janelle Glenn
Obby Darnell Mayes
Moniqueka Whyte-Mayes
Crystal Carolyn Mayes
Anna Cato Mayes
Ramona Hankerson
Tiara Sank
Cedric Christon
Phillip Jennings
Leon Lenzy
Charles Cedric Jennings
Obadiah Joseph Mayes
Cynthia Cato Mayes Pottinger
Tyree R. Parker"
______
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
Choctaw Freedmen want to reclaim citizenship: We're now in the 21st
century. Many decades have passed since the Choctaw Nation changed its
constitution in 1983, where they no longer allow Choctaw Freedmen as
citizens. The Choctaw Freedmen still face considerable discrimination
in terms of social identity, not even having a seat at the table for an
open dialogue and discussion. The Cherokee Nation, as a whole, has
lifted itself into the 21st century and finally moved to address the
heavy weight of racial injustice and favored equality for their
Cherokee Freedmen and descendants. Now it's incumbent upon the Choctaw
Nation, the US Senate of Indian Affairs Committee and the US
Government; as well as, our Choctaw Freedmen Advocates and Supporters
must all work together to see the once enslaved Choctaw Freedmen and
their descendants today will be recognized as full citizens of the
Choctaw Nation. Choctaw Nation should provide Health Care, Housing &
Homeownership support, Educational support, Business support, Economic
Development support, other services to Choctaw Freedman and the
Descendants of Black people once enslaved by ALL FIVE TRIBES. I want my
Choctaw Nation citizenship reclaimed.
Sincerely,
Chamia Bills
Kyree Bills
Etta Daniels
De'Kyria Mitchell
Juanna Nobles
Kirsten Nobles
Unique Ray
Sandra Reynolds
______
Dear Chair and Committee Members,
I am one of many descendants of Creek Freedmen.
I want to express my opinion regarding the current hearing on the
1866 U.S. Treaty. Specifically Article II of the Muscogee Creek Nation
treaty with the United States Government. For the last 40 years my
family members have been fighting for our citizenship rights back into
the Muscogee Creek Nation. Due to the breach of the 1866 U.S. Treaty by
the Muscogee Creek Nation that expelled the Creek Freedmen around 1979
from the Muscogee Creek Nation based on racial divide. Four of the Five
Civilized Tribes continues to breach this Treaty agreement with the
support of the BIA. We feel that this is discrimination to support such
a breach and it even mimics what could be a form of genocide to remove
Creek Freedmen descendants as if they never existed.
Well we do exist and there are thousands of descendants of Creek
Freedmen living in the United States but expelled from their ancestor's
tribe the Muscogee Creek Nation simply because they are descendants of
former black slaves.
I know the question came up in the hearing how many Creek Freedmen
descendants are there? Well in my family alone there are hundreds and
around the country thousands possibly 20,000 or more. My ancestors were
the bread winners for the Muscogee Creek Nation making their farmlands
prosperous. The contributions they gave free of charge allowed the
Muscogee Creek Nation to grow into the strong Nation it is today. This
is one of the very reasons our people cannot be erased from history and
there must be a path moving forward for both Muscogee Creek by blood
and Muscogee Creek Freedmen to co-exist. First, we want these types of
human rights violations to stop. Secondly, we want a path to
citizenship rights per the 1866 U. S. Treaty.
This means that all descendants of Creek Freedmen should be
eligible for citizenship based on their ancestors Creek Freedmen roll
numbers. No more human rights challenges based on blood quantum
requirements. Blood quantum requirements were removed from the
Amendments of the Stigler Act in 2018 but failed to include the
protection of land for the Freedmen. This is why so many Creek Freedmen
lost their land due to the language written in the original Stigler
Act. Even my family lost their land in Wagoner County, Oklahoma that my
ancestors would've passed down to their descendants if it weren't for
the Adverse Possession or just straight out thievery. This land was
supposed to be protected land for Freedmen as well as Natives by blood.
The policies, laws and Muscogee Creek constitution have been written to
discriminate and exterminate the very existence of the Freedmen. Well,
I am here to say we are still here and willing and able to testify
about this issue that we have been fighting for 40 years now.
Some of our Matriarchs have passed on but they taught us well about
our history. This gives us the ability to keep our heritage alive and
well. We recommend the Committee invite the descendants of Creek
Freedmen and other nations Freedmen to testify via Zoom. We want you to
hear our voices and we making an effort to be available to discuss the
issues. We can provide documentation that includes our ancestors roll
numbers and other documentation about the allotment of land.
We pray the Committee can find a way moving forward by listening to
the voices of the descendants of enslaved ancestors. And by honoring
the U.S. 1866 Treaty rights granting citizenship to our ancestors and
their descendants. We are proud Muscogee Creek Freedmen descendants of
the Five Civilized Tribes.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Betty Latimer
Tyler Ford
Bre'Yell Thompson
Robert Jeffery
Erica Bills
Deric D. Isaac
Diane Tucker
Eric Ford
Glendie Herron
Nadine Brown
Ameenah Fuller
Cathy Ford
Freedman Portland Andrews
Roger Abdul-Raheem
Maerean Coleman
Milinda Mayfield
Ieashia Fox
Robin Fox
Zakiyyah Abdul-Raheem
Gina Tucker
Byron Brannon
Hattie Harris
Steven Brannon
Maxwell, Kevin
Katherine Williams
Pam Isaac
Reginald Littlejohn
Rexal Ford
Roy Tucker
Glendie Herron
Anitra Herron
Quintin Maxwell
Antoinette Carruthers
Virgie Anderson Jones
Marsha Giddings
Toni M. Jones
Apollos Tucker
*Any other statements and attachments have been reviewed and
retained in the Committee files.*