Black and Red Journal

On This Day In Indian Territory November 14

2011-11-14T11:50:00.000-08:00

Throughout my years of research the one thing that has driven me is the need to capture and preserve the “voices” of my ancestor’s as well as other former slaves and their descendants of the Five Slave Holding Tribes.

In many instances I have found many articles, documents and historical records that provide various first person accounts of what life was like for the people of Indian Territory. It is always enlightening to discover individuals who have impacted the lives of my ancestor’s which serves as background information that helps me understand how they arrived at decisions that kept them strong during some arduous times and experiences.

One of the sources that provide snapshots of life in Indian Territory was the newspapers of the Territory. These publications with and without their biases the newspapers provided information on what was going on socially, politically as well as the financial life in the territory.

“On This Day,” appeared two examples of politics in the territory. The Indian Chieftain of 1901 was the paper of record and on its front page two stories appeared that had a direct impact on Indian Territory Freedmen in general and one article dealt with the politics of the Cherokee Nation that is noteworthy for Cherokee Freedmen today.

It is well documented the people of Indian Territory had issues with the Dawes Commission. The tribal governments of the Five Slave Holding Tribes were resistant to efforts to dissolve the governments and saw Tams Bixby as the figurehead for much of their dissatisfaction.

Freedmen and intermarried whites who found themselves in opposition with the Dawes Commission considered the policies and actions taken by the Dawes Commission were a reflection of their interaction with Tams Bixby.

On this occasion the power brokers in Washington, D.C. saw an opening to remove Bixby and force him to retire based on his seeking political office as a senator from Minnesota, the state he resided.

The article that should be of interest to Cherokee Freedmen has to do with a speech given by the Principal Chief of the day, T.W. Buffington. His talk was wide ranging and covered many topics.

What caught my attention was a small but significant section of that his speech actually given on the

sixth of November 1901.

Chief Bufffington’s message on “matters of import” included issues concerning mineral rights in the nation. He also spoke about the orphan asylum in the nation, finances, education and of particular import; freedmen enrollment and citizenship.

It is the last category of enrollment and citizenship that appears to have a direct connection with the issue of Cherokee Freedmen citizenship issues today in my opinion.

For those who are not familiar with the issue of Cherokee Freedmen citizenship and how the Cherokee Nation has been fighting tooth and nail in efforts to remove citizenship from Cherokee freedmen descendants today this article goes to the heart of the matter.

Today’s freedmen descendants have steadfastly held their citizenship was based on the Treaty of 1866 and historically their claims have been corroborated time and again by the documented evidence.

In Chief Buffington’s message he speaks on this issue and it could not be more clearer the Cherokee Nation viewed the former slaves and their descendants were citizens with rights as “native Cherokees” that meant they were in fact; citizens.

The fact that so many leaders in the Cherokee Nation today have a contrary view on citizenship and freedmen descendants appears to illustrate just how little they know of their own history and the issue of citizenship for Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants.

It is no wonder that so many people within the Cherokee Nation have tried to obfuscate this issue by terming freedmen citizenship as an issue of “non-Indian” or sovereignty. Clearly if these “citizens” and “leaders” took the time to review their leaders who were much closer to this issue they would know the overwhelming belief the term “rights as native Cherokee” was a phrase Chief Buffington understood to mean Cherokee Freedmen were citizens. This is reflected in the “Chief’s Message” page 2, column 4 of the November 14, 1901 issue of the Indian Chieftain, the paper of record for the Cherokee Nation.

Here you have a definitive record provided in the Cherokee paper by the Cherokee Chief, that there were three thousand, one hundred and fifty seven freedmen and their descendants who were included in the twenty eight thousand, nine hundred and five “Cherokee citizens on straight cards, INCLUDING Cherokee, Delaware’s, Shawnee’s, intermarried whites AND Freedmen.”

This Week in Indian Territory November 13-20

2011-11-13T16:22:00.000-08:00

“How much Negro wealth went into the building of Oklahoma?
It is only exceeded by the sweat, toil, and tears of … slaves’ free labor of more than 250 years!” Buck Franklin COLBERT, “My Life and an Era”

November 19, 1828
Religious Disturbance-General Council Edward Gunter, slave whipping.

November 17, 1895
A colored normal school and industrial institute is to be established three miles west of Choctaw City. Prof. J. D. Randolph has been elected president.

November 13, 1890
The published report hat J. Milton Turner has a contract to prosecute all claims of the Freedmen against the Cherokee nation is false according to Lester Foreman, president of the Freedmen brotherhood

November 16, 1900

A colony of 100 negroes from Texas has purchased 1,000 acres of land near Wellston, Okla., which they will divide into cotton patches. The first contingent of the colony arrived this week about 150 strong. They come from Grimes County, Texas and more are on the road.

November 15, 1902
The Freedmen roll report was submitted to Hon. T. W. Buffington, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation and signed by” Attys. L. B. Bell, W . W. Hastings and J. S. Davenport.

November 14, 1906
Brownsville Riot; United States Troops disarmed.

November 14, 1902
Cherokee Payment; Delaware Indians, Shawnee Indians and Adopted Whites

On This Day In Indian Territory

2011-11-09T05:06:00.000-08:00

This feature is an opportunity to provide a look at life in Indian Territory and how the atmosphere shaped the everyday life, culture and politics of all who lived there.

As we look back at our ancestor's we tend to place our opinions, attitudes and beliefs on them without taking into account all they lived through that was vastly different from what we experience.

Then sometimes the old saying; "if you don't know your history, you are bound to repeat it" rears up to remind us how true that statement is.

Indian Chieftain November 9, 1883 P2 C1

Keep in mind the Indian Chieftain was "Devoted to the Interests of the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Seminoles and Creeks, and all Other Indians of the Indian Territory." In that sense, the Indian Chieftain was a mouthpiece for the Cherokee Nation as well as the other four slave holding tribes.

I'm still trying to make sense out of this next article that appeared on the same page in the same paper as the one above that spoke so eloquently about the need for fairness, justice and equality for the "poor man." but uses disparaging terms in equating a familiar phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

Indian Chieftain Nov. 1883 P1 C3

As I stated in the beginning, we can learn a lot from our past and the various newspapers that existed in Indian Territory provide a great deal about the political and social atmosphere our ancestor's lived and navigated for us to be here today.

Now for the other side of the story!

Muskogee Cimeter Nov. 9, 1905 p 12
R.A. Givens, Watchmaker photo circa 1890

Newspapers like the Indian Chieftain and Daily Ardmoreite were not black owned papers and rarely ran stories that portrayed black people in positive ways. Fortunately there were a few black owned papers in Indian Territory and for the most part they were more even handed in their view of life in the communities of Indian Territory freedmen and "state Negroes."

The ad showing R.A. Givens in his workshop circa 1890 is an example of the progress blacks were achieving in Indian Territory. Many who settled in the area sought to better their life and became productive citizens only a generation or two removed from slavery.

What should not be overlooked is the existence of a newspaper meant there was a reading public of black people who had a desire to be informed of local and national issues.

This ad is also an example of a man who has realized the importance of advertising his business and implies there was a class of blacks who had disposable incomes that could afford his service.

In most of the papers there were sections that could be compared to National Enquirer or Facebook today. These sections are the areas that provided local and national news from the point of view of "over the back fence reporting."

During the period leading up to Oklahoma statehood the population was divided on how that should occur and if there should be a state that comprised the "Twin Territories" of Oklahoma and Indian Territory.

The Muskogee Cimeter provided it's readers with the details of that struggle and where the publisher stood on the issue.

We also see how involved in Republican party politics black people were prior to their migration into the Democratic Party where we see large numbers today.

I was amused at the assessment of traveling to Dallas, Texas voiced in the first article and how the editor felt about "visiting" the area in 1905.

The news that Booker T. Washington was coming to Muskogee was big news in 1905 and the Muskogee Cimeter was there to provide all the information it's readers required to be at the event where Mr. Washington was speaking.

It must have been a highly anticipated visit for the people of Muskogee to have Booker T. Washington visit the area.

We can learn a lot from the pages of history as it was written in the voices of the people who lived it, perhaps I will be able to locate the edition of the Muskogee Cimeter that reported on Mr. Washington's visit in an issue following his visit?

All of this demonstrates how the life of former Indian Territory slaves were changing dynamically following their enslavement. On the one hand they were members of certain tribes, many cases tenuously hanging on to their citizenship.

Yet, at the same time forces around them were beginning to change how they viewed themselves and their connection to the tribes and lifestyle they had become familiar and attached. This lead up to statehood was beginning to have an enormous effect on the lives of all who lived in Indian Territory and especially those formerly enslaved in the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek (Muskogee) and Seminole Nations.

Over the years many people have voiced to me their thoughts on what happened to their ancestor's allotment. From Chickasaw freedmen descendants to Seminole freedmen descendant's all have this desire to know what happened to all of that land wealth given to their great grandparents or grand parent as in my case.

The story has yet to be told on that saga of our history but there are indications that from day one or quite frankly from the day before day one, people known as grafters have preyed on the uneducated former slave for the sole purpose of separating them from their land.

I would hazard to say they were quite successful in that endeavor when we look at who among us can say they owned their ancestor's "original allotment?"

This Week in Indian Territory October 30-November 5

2011-10-30T04:56:00.000-07:00

"This Week In Indian Territory" is constructed from a collection of newspaper indexes housed at the Oklahoma Historical Society. The index represents the life and times of Indian Territory Freedmen following their "emancipation" in 1866, through "reconstruction," through the Dawes enrollment period and a few short years following Oklahoma statehood.

“This Week In Indian Territory” provides a snapshot into the life of the Freedmen of the Five Slave Holding Tribes also known as the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole Nations.

My intent is to provide readers and researchers more insight into the politics, culture and general life experienced by the formerly enslaved men, women and children of Indian Territory as they fought their way through the maze of issues that would shape their destiny and the destiny of their descendants today.

“How much Negro wealth went into the building of Oklahoma?
It is only exceeded by the sweat, toil, and tears of … slaves’ free labor of more than 250 years!”

Buck Franklin COLBERT, “My Life and an Era”

November 01, 1895
Perry, Okla., negroes threaten to arrest the Board of Education for not admitting colored children to the white school.

November 01, 1902
Attorneys for the Cherokee Nation make their report on freedmen cases. Report given.

November 03, 1875
Choctaw and Chickasaw Commissioners failed to agree as to the disposition of the Negro question.

November 02, 1890
At Oklahoma City hundreds of able bodied negroes apply for supplies, which there are posted appeals for cotton pickers, at $1.00 per hundred.

November 05, 1898
In his report to Congress, Indian Agent Dew Moore Wisdom says he fears (an influx of Negroes are coming) (sic) into the territory hoping to share in the Cherokee allotment with the freedmen.

November 05, 1939
Anyone who thinks Oklahoma City doesn’t have a Negro housing problem should spend a few hours down in the squalid triangle east of the Katy Railroad tracks. It is a slum district in worst sense of the word. These slums are civic sores which endanger the entire city. Some of the basic facts that underlie the Negro housing problem. Pictures of Negro housing facilities. Charles Bowes photographer.

This Week in Indian Territory October 23-29

2011-10-23T05:16:00.000-07:00

“How much Negro wealth went into the building of Oklahoma?

It is only exceeded by the sweat, toil, and tears of … slaves’ free labor of more than 250 years!”

Buck Franklin COLBERT, “My Life and an Era”

"This Week In Indian Territory" is constructed from a collection of newspaper indexes housed at the Oklahoma Historical Society. The index represents the life and times of Indian Territory Freedmen following their "emancipation" in 1866, through "reconstruction," through the Dawes enrollment period and a few short years following Oklahoma statehood.

“This Week In Indian Territory” provides a snapshot into the life of the Freedmen of the Five Slave Holding Tribes also known as the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole Nations.

My intent is to provide readers and researchers more insight into the politics, culture and general life experienced by the formerly enslaved men, women and children of Indian Territory as they fought their way through the maze of issues that would shape their destiny and the destiny of their descendants today.

October 25, 1906

C. W. Stevenson’s interesting and loyal letter to the “Free Press” regarding the Negro vote.

October 26, 1901
Judge Joseph A. Gill, sitting at Muskogee issues temporary injunction against the Dawes Commission today. No more enrolling of Freedmen not on the roll of 1880, pending the hearing of petition of Cherokee Nation for permanent injunction.

October 28, 1901
Courts decision causes consternation in the Freedmen camp. The decision of Judge Joseph A. Gill, handed down at Muskogee Saturday, to the Dawes Commission will open courts to hearing of Freedmen cases.

October 27, 1911
The Katy hotel a rooming house for Negroes, at Coweta was burned last night. The Negroes are being driven from Coweta and there is talk of burning other undesirable places.

Wordless Wednesday ~ Chickasaw Fathers 1

2011-10-12T12:00:00.000-07:00

Despite documentation that clearly illustrates numerous "African-Natives" were enrolled as "freedmen" the Chickasaw Nation remains silent about thousands of Chickasaws who are "Chickasaw by blood." Their exclusion was based on the antebellum custom of determining lineal descent according to an individual's mother only.

This practice by the Dawes Commission with the blessing of the Chickasaw Nation ignored established law that a person's genealogical descent included all of their ancestor's, male and female.

Senate Document 5013 Vol. 2 p. 1500

The Dawes Commission and Department of the Interior either ignored or were ignorant of established law and used the excuse; "children followed the status of the mother" which allowed the Chickasaw Nation and Commission to violate the United States laws by classifying the children of Chickasaw men as freedmen.

"Descendants, as defined by Bouvier, vol. 1 p550, are those who have issued from an individual, including his children, grandchildren and their children to the remotest degree."

Today the descendant's of these men and women continue to be stigmatized by that decision and the Chickasaw Nation remains silent; why?

Tuskahoma Thursday

2011-10-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

My initial visit to the Choctaw Council House in 2010 was an educational experience. Most of the time when I visit Oklahoma my interest keep me in the southern part of the state.

On this particular visit my host Verdie Triplett took me to the Council House among other sites and it was great to visit an area that only existed in history books. Having an opportunity to visit places like Muskogee, Wagnoner, Scullyville, Ft. Coffee and Spiro.

Being on the ground brought home the some of the places where our ancestors lived and fought to be included in the life and culture, before and after their enslavement by the Choctaw Indians.

From Wikipedia

Council House, also known as the Choctaw Capitol Building, is an historic site in Pushmataha County, Oklahoma two miles north of Tuskahoma, Oklahoma. The Choctaw National Council House is located here, as well as the Old Town Cemetery of Tuskahoma.

Chief Pushmataha

Deny Their Indian Blood

2011-09-30T02:55:00.000-07:00

Present day officials in the Five Slave Holding Tribes have expressed their willingness to enroll as citizens anyone who has demonstrated they have “Indian blood” with an ancestor on the Dawes Roll.

I have always found this statement disingenuous. It is clear the history of the Dawes Commission demonstrates how the enrollment process was steeped in controversy over the issue of mixed African-Native people being included on the citizens by blood rolls.

Most, if not all genealogists understand the issue of "lineal descent" and how that should have dictated anyone, ANYONE with Indian blood being placed on the "citizen by roll." However the Dawes Commission and the Five Slave Holding Tribes established a roll that willfully omitted thousands of people who possessed Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Muskogee and in some rare cases Seminole blood.

Senate Document 5013 (59th Congress, 2nd Session Vol. 1) p938

"As for these persons the most that can be contended for them and the most that is contended, is that they are the children of slave women, illegitimately begotten by Indian men.”

It was this statement that guided the Dawes Commission to omit people who they knew had Indian blood but chose to ignore.

Evidently in 1907 the Five Slave Holding Tribes could not conceive that the children of Indian men possessed the blood of their father’s so they could be included on the citizenship rolls.

Actually when you read the excuses the Dawes Commission used based on the "Indian laws, customs, and usages they must take the status of their mother" it in no way eliminates the fact these children possessed Indian blood. Their actions only meant the United States government and the Five Slave Holding Tribes continued the stigma (badges) of slavery.

It would appear those in control of the Five Slave Holding Tribes are continuing this immoral and wrong headed practice in the twenty first century.

"While Assistant Attorney General Campbell commented on this fact, he based his decision upon the alleged fact that they were the children of an Indian man and thus made his decision applicable to this entire class of persons numbering some 1,500 people"

This was one of many decisions by the United States Attorney General's office that flipped back and forth on the issue of mixed blood African-Native people. The Joe and Dillard Perry citizenship case became the benchmark for all the cases that followed of mixed African-Native citizenship.

This passage above illustrates to what lengths the Dawes Commission and Five Slave Holding Tribes would go to deny the citizenship of people who they clearly knew had "Indian blood." It also shows to what lengths the Commission, the tribes and their lawyers went to deny these 1500 people their rightful citizenship.

All of these actions were clearly an exercise in denial and is the reason today thousands of Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen descendants are considered non-Indian. When tribal officials pay lip service to the notion the way to citizenship is to demonstrate you have Indian blood and an ancestor on the "Dawes Roll" these people will always be denied citizenship based on the false premise "race" is determined by your mother.

Here we are over one hundred years later and the Five Slave Holding Tribes arrogantly state that to be a citizen in their nation you have to possess “Indian blood.” I wonder if they understand or care just how they are continuing the sad legacy of slavery that denied thousands of people as citizens because their ancestors had an enslaved mother and an Indian father?

Links to Cherokee Freedmen Articles in the News

2011-09-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

The following links and articles concerning recent media outlets coverage of the Cherokee Freedmen citizenship issue.

The attention on this issue is unprecedented and deserves the attention of my readers who may not be aware of the various articles and news programs.

About ten years ago Marilyn Vann requested several individuals including yours truly to meet in Tulsa, Ok to discuss forming an organization of concerned historians, genealogist and Indian Territory Freedmen researchers; since that time there has not been this amount of attention and traction on this little known story.

Clearly there are different points of view on the topic of citizenship for the descendants of slaves own by the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee Creek and Seminole Nations.

The fact that it is now becoming known to a wider audience only goes to demonstrate the strength and moral imperative of this issue. It has also been a direct result of the determination of Marilyn Vann and others who have continued to research and write about the history of the Indian Territory Freedmen.

Links to the New York Times piece on the Cherokee Freedmen citizenship issue.

Define "Real Indians"

"It's About Ancestry"

A Weak Sovereign

The Role of Blood Quantum

My Cherokee Identity

Slavery's Long Shadow

Why The Freedmen Fight

The True Meaning of Sovereignty

The link below is for a discussion to on air later today with Professor Tiya Miles at 3:00 ET
America's 2nd Largest Indian Tribe Expels Blacks

Tombstone Tuesday: Babyland~Union Cemetery Episode Three

2011-09-20T06:34:00.000-07:00

The final episode in the series that is dedicated to the children who were with for such a short time but live on in the hearts and minds of their parents.

"Rights As Native Cherokee?"

2011-09-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

As the struggle continues for the citizenship of Cherokee Freedmen it is important that the historical record reflect the truth to their claims as Cherokee citizens. The Cherokee Nation’s Supreme Court has interpreted the 1866 Treaty as only giving the freedmen and their descendants “rights as Native Cherokee.”

Senate Document 239 (63rd Congress, 1st Session pg3)

Through some reasoning that defies established law and historical precedent this ruling claims the freedmen descendants were not given citizenship. In the past I’ve used actual documents from the Congressional Record Serial Set to illustrate how ridiculous that claim appears.

In the 63^rd Congress , 1^st Session the Cherokee Freedmen presented a memorial to Congress for the purpose of enrolling individuals who were left off the final rolls of freedmen citizens.

Senate Document 239 (63rd Congress, 1st Session pg4)

In their memorial to Congress, the Freedmen gave voice to their determination to be included in the nation of their birth and fought to have additional people enrolled who were left off the roll by the machinations of the Dawes Commission.

The freedmen correctly assert, that the Act of Congress of June 10, 1896 “the rolls of citizenship of the several tribes, as they existed.”

There could be no clearer language that an act of Congress established confirmed the citizenship of Freedmen in the “several tribes” known as Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek (Muskogee) and Seminole, for the Cherokee Nation to come up with a definition that dubious at best is only a self serving attempt to deny the actions of Congress and the legal supremacy of the Treaty of 1866.

Senate Document 239 is only four pages in length gives provides additional insight into the matter and must be included as part of the historical record that established the citizenship of the Cherokee Freedmen descendants.

Senate Document 239 (63rd Congress, 1st Session pg4)

This portion of Senate Document 239 illustrates at least two factors concerning the citizenship of the Cherokee Freedmen.

First, the Secretary of the Interior gave clear and specific instructions for the Dawes Commission to include the names of certain freedmen and their descendants on the final rolls as citizens of the Cherokee Nation. The secretary did this to correct and protect their rights which were “wrongfully denied membership (citizenship) in said nation.”

All of this is quite plain language and continues to demonstrate that the Cherokee Freedmen had been given citizenship with all of the privileges of citizenship as “Native Cherokee’s.” For the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court to rule otherwise is testament to their violation of the rights that were established by the Treaty of 1866.

In the next portion of the memorial the rights to citizenship is illustrated by the cultural and political context the Cherokee Freedmen established by their continued residence in the nation of their birth.

Senate Document 239 (63rd Congress, 1st Session pg4)

Clearly the Treaty of 1866 has remained in force and therefore the rights and privileges of citizenship remain in force for the Cherokee Freedmen.

What is astounding is the rationale for the removal of citizenship by the Cherokee Nation when they attempt to establish citizenship based on the amount of Cherokee blood an individual has.

It is clear from much of the documentation that the Dawes Rolls were never done to establishment “citizenship” by way of Cherokee blood; the rolls were a segregated census of ALL the citizens entitled to land allotment. Today these same rolls are now being abused to perpetuate some kind of racial superiority test for having “Cherokee blood.”

Additionally, anyone who takes the time to actually study the rolls and other documents will know that it would be virtually impossible for any freedmen descendant from any of the Five Slave Holding Tribes to “prove” they have “Indian blood.”

The Dawes Commission made it clear anyone with a mother of African descent or a slave; her children would be considered a slave, or in the words of the former Cherokee Chief “non-Indian” no matter how much “Indian blood” that individual possessed.

This is the standard argument for all of the Five Slave Holding Tribes and they should be called on it. The morally right thing to do would be to honor the Treaty of 1866 and stop the canard of an Indian race when speaking of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek Indians; the Seminoles are a different story.

For more on this story an interesting online debate on the New York Times website is a good read click the link below:

Room For Debate

Tombstone Tuesday ~ Babyland Two

2011-09-13T08:35:00.000-07:00

Dedicated to the children who were with us briefly but live on in the hearts and minds of their parents.

Those Who Fail to Learn Their History Are Bound to Repeat It

2011-09-10T10:09:00.000-07:00

With the recent ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court denying the Treaty of 1866 granting citizenship to the former slaves and their descendants of the Cherokee Nation; I was reminded of an interesting document from the Congressional Record Serial Set.

The Cherokee Supreme Court ruling struck me as curious because it was eerily similar to an action taken by the Cherokee Legislature in 1888 when they passed a law over the veto of the Chief to make per capita payments to “Cherokee by blood citizens” only. That statement alone would seem to indicate there were at least two different classes of citizenship, Cherokee by blood and non-blood citizens for them to make that distinction.

As you look at the document further, it becomes clear that the Cherokee Nation today has failed to adhere to the old Cherokee Freedmen proverb;

those who fail to learn their history are doomed to repeat it.

House Report 844 (50th Congress, 1st Session)

House Report 844; 50^th Congress, 1^st Session was a report that demonstrates just how much the Supreme Court has violated the United States Constitution and ignores the power of Congress in the matters of enforcing the rights of citizenship granted the former slaves and their descendants of the Cherokee Nation.

This report in 1888 and the bill H.R. 5066 clearly demonstrate that the legal standing of citizenship and the treaty of 1866 remains in effect contrary to the decision of the Cherokee Supreme Court.

This report includes language that clearly demonstrates the right of citizenship granted in 1866 to the Delaware and Shawnee tribes was also granted to the Cherokee Freedmen at the same time when they all were adopted into the tribe with “all the rights of Native Cherokee. “

That last statement is the very statement today that the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court is not so cleverly trying to deny is the basis for the adopted slaves and their descendants having citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

“Hammons added that the court distinguishes that the Treaty of 1866 did not grant citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

“I think we all understand that,” Hammons said. “I think what the Treaty of 1866 granted to Freedmen and their descendents (sic) were the rights of Native Cherokees. All of us as Native Cherokees could have our citizenship affected at any time by constitutional amendment. We argued that in the case.”

The court also found that the Treaty of 1866 only granted to Freedmen the rights of native Cherokees but that it was the constitution of the Cherokee people that granted them citizenship, she said. “

For the Cherokee Supreme Court to rule in this manner is perplexing because the evidence is overwhelming that the Freedmen received citizenship at the same time the Delaware and Shawnee and they all fought to be included in the per capita payment based on their citizenship.

House Report 844 provided additional information to demonstrate the Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants received citizenship by making the argument if the Cherokee legislature made payments to Cherokee by blood citizens only it would be in violation of the Treaty of 1866, and “at war with all principles of law and common justice.”

If you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it.

It is very clear the Cherokee Nation wants to have nothing to do with the Treaty of 1866 because the nation would be held in violation of the United States Constitution when it violates the rights of “all” of it’s citizens by denying citizenship to the descendants of their former slaves.

The other crucial aspect of the Treaty of 1866 which would apply to all of the tribes makes it clear the Nations are bound by the laws of the United States AND provides the President of the United States along with Congress a fiduciary responsibility to protect the rights of ALL Cherokee citizens including the descendants of the former slaves.

” If you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it.”

This brings up some very interesting questions for freedmen descendants today. It is clear the President of the United States has a responsibility to protect the rights of citizenship of the freedmen and there was a precedent for such actions by President Grover Cleveland.

” If you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it.”

Clearly in 1886 the issue of citizenship based on the treaty of 1866 was being fought as it is being fought today and the evidence is compelling. Not only was the President obligated to “secure” the rights of the freedmen and OTHER citizens of the “Cherokee Nation by adoption AND incorporation.”

You will also note, the letter from President Cleveland included the phrase; "securing to the Cherokee freedmen and other citizens of the Cherokee Nation by adoption and incorporation." This was an affirmative statement for the citizenship of the freedmen, period!

The decision by then Secretary of the Interior also demonstrates he had a responsibility to “remedy any wrong” done to the Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants and I can only imagine that responsibility exist today.

This all becomes more interesting when you consider that Rep. Barney Franks is reported to have sent letters to various government officials to with hold funds from the Cherokee Nation until the Cherokee Freedmen are reinstated as citizens of the nation.

“I do not believe the federal government should continue to fund the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma if it is blatantly violating the rights of some members,” U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., wrote in a recent letter to HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. The congressman asked Donovan to “act appropriately to prevent any funding from the federal government for tribal housing.”

Frank sent another letter to Larry Echo Hawk, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior, asking that he “take appropriate action to protect the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen.” Echo Hawk has not publicly responded.

So it would seem Representative Franks, Congress and the President of the United States has every right to take action to protect the rights of freedmen descendants in the Five Slave Holding Tribes when it comes to their citizenship.

There could be no question the Treaty of 1866 is the law that has determined the citizenship status of freedmen and their descendants, the question is will they defend the Constitution by enforcing the laws of this country and deny any further funding to the Five Slave Holding Tribes until they comply with the law?

The last lines on this page sums up the situation for the Cherokee Nation and their denial of citizenship to the descendants of their former slaves:

"they were denied a right GUARANTEED them by an agreement entered into under a SOLEMN TREATY STIPULATION."

” If you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it.”

Tombstone Tuesday: Babyland~Union Cemetery Episode One

2011-09-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

Dedicated to the children who were with us briefly but live on in the hearts and minds of their parents.

Whimsical Tombstone Tuesday

2011-08-30T06:42:00.000-07:00

Located in Union Cemetery in Brentwood, California is a special section devoted to children who died early in life. One can only imagine the pain of their parents and how the tragedy of losing a child so young.

However, there are a few of the grave sites that have a whimsical character about them that I find uplifting and noteworthy.

Standing in the middle of this section is for the lack of a better word, obelisk with plaques of what appears to angels.

Rogelio CRESPO

Joshua BLACK

This Week In Indian Territory Aug. 28-Sept.3

2011-08-27T06:42:00.000-07:00

This Week in Indian Territory

2011-08-21T05:29:00.000-07:00

Times Record (Blackwell) August 25, 1898 p6 c3

As we have seen just this week, leaders among the Five Slave Holding Tribes have a record of violating the rights of their adopted citizens.

The Choctaw Freedmen took their protest to the Department of the Interior in 1898; fast forward one hundred and thirteen years a similar fate is visited upon the Cherokee Freedmen descendants.

The actions of the "Chief Who Shall Not Be Named" stacked the Cherokee Supreme Court and when he lost the most recent election the same Supreme Court ruled "The Chief Who Shall Not Be Named" gets a "do over!"

This all comes before another election not unlike the one in the Choctaw Nation in 1898 where Freedmen and their descendants were denied the "right of suffrage." In this case, the Cherokee Freedmen descendants have been convieniently removed from citizenship so they can't effect who will be Chief of the Cherokee Nation.

Just more proof, people who don't know their history are bound to repeat it!

Cherokee Freedmen Citizenship Terminated

Secret Schools In Indian Territory?

2011-08-19T02:07:00.000-07:00

Recently I was intrigued by the title of a post on Facebook "Secret School Preserved in Chickasha." It turns out that the title referred to a story on a local television station in Oklahoma City about a segregated and "secret" school for blacks in Indian Territory which later became the state of Oklahoma.

The more I watched the video the more I became intrigued by some delicious irony and what could possibly be a clever edit job by the television station that produced the segment.

I have to believe the producer of this segment may have edited the segment in such a way to say something that is arguably untrue.

Anyone who researches Indian Territory or Oklahoma history should know; the probability of "secret schools" is misleading at best.

Following the Civil War, former slaves of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole ALL sought to educate their children and they were very upfront and open about it. It was not uncommon for them to seek the help of the Indian Agent in securing the services of teachers for their children's education, especially in the Chickasaw Nation. In 1876 Agent Rogers sought to purchase a building for the express purpose of making it a Freedmen school.

In the Creek Nation, former slave and Civil War soldier Sugar George; a Creek citizen, petitioned the Creek council for funding to construct a "segregated school" for the children of Creek Freedmen.

Indian Journal April 24, 1878 p5c2

In the Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen community there were men like David Franklin, Simon Love, King Blue, Charles Cohee, Nathan Cochran, Richard Brashears and many others who saw the value of education for their children and put their money, time and effort in securing that education.

Senate Document 157 55th Congress, 1st Session pp34-35

Senate Document 149, 55th Congress, 1st Session

Senate Document 101 55th Congress, 3rd Session p.8

Clearly, the idea that there were "secret schools" in Indian Territory or the state of Oklahoma can be shown as inaccurate by the ample amount of documentation available.

The only remains of the Dawes Academy Berwyn, OK (now Gene Autry, OK)

I suspect the video footage was edited to appear to say secret schools. The woman the statement is credited to never made the statement. In my opinion she was speaking about the antebellum era when educating slaves was prohibited and done in "secret."

One of the positive points of the segment was the proposed plan to preserve a school building that existed during Oklahoma's segregated past. It is not clear from the video if this school existed before statehood which if it was, preservation of the building should be a priority by the state and the Oklahoma Historical Society.

Unfortunately the comments I read after viewing the video segment tended to be negative in nature and fixated over the three hundred thousand dollars that was needed to convert the school into a museum.

"What? $300,000??? Who you trying to scam, you rotten liers?(sic) There is no way!"

"I'm glad the school or any part of our history has been preserved for that matter but they need 300.00 for what exactly. It looks like everything is intact and in good shape so I'm a little puzzled at why the money is needed. Put the school on Americas roadside attractions, Google it. Pretty sure it's free and then ask for donations as people come to see it."

"I think the school is an important part of history but I think 300,000 would be better spent. Maybe some scholarships for college, maybe some donations to the local food banks so that people can get help with food. Museums cost money to visit so only those with extra money will see it. come to see it."

However, there was one individual who had the insight to look past the $300,000 and see the value in preserving the schoolhouse.

"If they spend some of the money developing this museum it may be able to be used to recieve (sic) donations and admission revenu (sic) to then provide scholorships (sic) and so on. Creating a possibility to recieve (sic) far more than ($)300,000."

First and foremost, this is a historical site that is an important part of the history of Indian Territory, the state of Oklahoma and the tens of thousands of blacks and Indian Territory Freedmen descendants who have a unique and little known history among the states resident's, as well as people throughout the country.

How shortsighted of the other three people who commented and failed to realize by preserving this building and converting it into a museum it has the capability of generating more revenue for the state and community of Chickasha where they plan to develop the museum.

A curator, along with many other fields of employment would become immediately needed to maintain the facility. The museum could become a repository for the history of the Indian Territory freedmen who lived in and near Chickasha and therefore generate tourism to the area when those same families have their reunions in or near the area.

Oklahoma has an obligation to preserve ALL of it's history but for a long time the state has appeared to be more inclined to minimize the presence of blacks before statehood who lived and were enslaved by the so called Five Civilized Tribes.

It also offers an opportunity for the Chickasaw Nation to demonstrate some responsibility in preserving the history of their nation by preserving a schoolhouse of their former slaves who were never adopted into the nation, which brings me to the delicious irony in this entire saga.

The $300,000 figure just happens to be the same amount of money that was to be provided to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation as part of the Treaty of 1866 if they adopted their former slaves.

The former slaves of the Choctaw's were adopted as citizens and were able to provide some education for their children but the Chickasaw Freedmen had to fight constantly to get their children educated because the portion of the $300,000 that could have helped them fund a school was denied them. Perhaps this is an opportunity for some fence mending?

ARTICLE III

The Choctaws and Chickasaws, in consideration of the sum of $300,000, hereby cede to the United States the territory west of 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 Nations 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 $300,000 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 get be made by the legislatures of the said Nations respectively, within two years from the ratification of this treaty, then the said sum of, $300,000 shall cease to be held in trust for the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and be held for the use and the 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 $300,000, or any part thereof, but shall be upon the same footing as other citizens of the United States in the said Nations.

Teacher's Report Dawes Academy 1904 Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory

It would be interesting to see what the value of $300,000 in 1866 would be in 2011 dollars? Somehow I think the state of Oklahoma as well as the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations would be providing a stimulus to the economy of the area and making good on a treaty provision that is not well known by citizens in the two nations or the citizens of Oklahoma.

Additional Notes:

See, "My Life And an Era" by Buck Colbert Franklin (father of John Hope Franklin) who details how his father paid for the education of the children in his community out of his own pocket.

For more articles on Indian Territory schools see:

Education For Creek Freedmen

Evangel Mission, School For Creek Freedmen

Jehovah Baptist Church

Word Up Wednesday: Legacy of Napoleon Davis

2011-08-17T08:34:00.000-07:00

This photo is an image of the former Creek Freedmen Shrine built by Napoleon Davis, a Creek Freedmen Descendant. The shrine was built by Mr. Davis with the majority of work done by his own hands.

Photo courtesy of Angela Walton-Raji

His vision was to erect a building that would house the artifacts and history associated with the Creek Freedmen and from all accounts the building was an engineering feat for one man to erect.

Photo courtesy of Angela Walton-Raji

Unfortunately following Mr. Davis' death his property became abandoned and subsequently his children sold the property. During that time the building was allowed to deteriorate and the new owner gutted the interior.

Photo Courtesy of Debra Jane Seltzer

It would have been the ideal facility for preserving the history of Creek Freedmen and their descendants had someone reached out to preserve the legacy of Napoleon Davis.

Whimsical Tombstone Tuesday

2011-08-16T12:45:00.000-07:00

It is always a pleasure to photograph a cemetery and come across a grave site where someone has taken a "different" approach to decorating a loved one's final resting place.

Clearly the majority of people take a serious attitude about what is within the bounds of "good taste" and "dignified" but for those few who follow a different drummer; I'm eternally grateful for the joy you provide me as I walk the grounds and occasionally come across a grave to see where someone had a different point of view.

Who knew John Hancock was into convertibles?

One of my favorites; a homemade headstone, priceless!

Tombstone Tuesday: The Joys of Documenting a Cemetery 2

2011-08-09T08:40:00.000-07:00

Last week I received a request for a photograph of a headstone in my local cemetery (Union Cemetery, Brentwood, CA) through the Find A Grave website. Unfortunately by the time I could respond to it someone had already claimed the job.

Because I was planning on doing some work at the cemetery anyway I wrote an email to the woman who claimed the request and inquired if she had taken the shot and volunteered to do it if she would allow me.

In a matter of minutes she responded to my idea and informed me she wouldn't be able to get to the cemetery before Sunday so we agreed I would have the honor of fulfilling the photo request.

I got all of my gear together and took off to the cemetery but when I got there to ask for the location of the gravesite one of the caretakers informed me someone had been there earlier in the morning asking about the same headstones.

I surmised that there was a third individual who wanted to take this photograph and they were "jumping the claim!" Undaunted because my original purpose was to canvas the cemetery and systematically shoot headstones throughout the cemetery the caretaker gave me a ride to the site and I shot the headstone anyway since I was given permission by the original person who claimed the request.

I noticed the area where the two headstones were located had some interesting monuments and decided I would put in an hour or two documenting the plot of gravesites. I wasn't sure if someone had already done it but I've learned over the past year most people will shoot a few stones and I could still provide other people with a photo of their ancestor's burial site if I just took the photos and worried about if I'm duplicating them later.

Sure enough when I got back home, the "claim jumper" uploaded her photos but I felt it only right that I should upload mine because I was given permission and therefore had a responsibility to complete the task.

The next day I received one of the greatest rewards a person could ask for when the woman who requested the photo's sent me a thank you letter.

Hello Terry,

"I wanted to thank you for taking the beautiful photo's of my brother and sister's headstone for me. They are great, so clear just wonderful; you do great work and I am sure there is a special place in heaven for people like you that do such nice things for others.

Gene was killed in a boating accident at the delta and Caren had had cancer for a couple of years. She was also the harbor master at the marina where he was killed. I live in Merced and it is hard for me to get out there with work and taking care of my 86 year old mother so do no i appreciate what you done for me"

Debi Potts

A lot of times we forget how gratifying it can be just to give of ourselves and our time. With Debi sharing the history of her family and how much it meant for her to have those photos I'm glad I took the time to follow through on that request.

I'm also reminded that I must continue to document the Union Cemetery whenever I get some free time.

Freedmen Like All Other Indians?

2011-07-27T11:31:00.000-07:00

This is my response to a comment made by a reader of a recent article I blogged about: "Choctaw Freedmen ARE Citizens"

“To answer why Terry, the reason is simply because Freedmen like all OTHER Indians desire to have full fellowship and Citizen status (sic) within their respective Tribes.”

I have a problem with your characterization that “freedmen like all OTHER Indians” because that is not factually true. The majority of the people known as freedmen and their descendants are not Indian.

Those who were classified as freedmen but had a male ancestor or parent that was “Indian” were systematically refused, ignored and marginalized as not having any Indian blood because their mother or another female ancestor was classified as having African descent.

These factors contributed to the eventual removal of freedmen as citizens. It also contributed to former slaves and their descendants realization that freedmen were people of African descent, which is also how the majority conducted themselves following Oklahoma statehood in 1907.

Despite what appears to your solidarity with freedmen descendants; when you engage in misrepresenting the freedmen and their descendants in my opinion does not support their rights as adopted citizens by the Treaty of 1866.

I've lived almost 60 years as a black man, it would be the height of hypocrasy if I started walking around in some so called "Indian dress" just to prove how much Indian I have in me. I see people who have no problem doing this and I wonder why?

“WHY?! Because it is their BIRTHRIGHT! WHY does anyone want to be American? Because they are American.”

Here we agree, it is their birthright as descendants of the former slaves of the Five Slave Holding Tribes. They were born in one of the nations and except for the Chickasaw Nation, the former slaves and their descendants were granted citizenship in the nation of their birth; just as someone being born in the United States.

However, it is the leaders in the Five Slave Holding Tribes who choose to ignore this simple fact. Contemporary leaders of the Five Slave Holding Tribes have ignored the Treaty 1866 and devised a strategy of “Indian tribes for Indians.”

“Do Freedmen want second class Citizenship status? NO! WHY not? Because they are no less Citizens than any other Indian.“

Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes have been illegally disenfranchised, it is wrong and should be rectified. J.D. Colbert wrote an *excellent* article about Citizenship, and stated that Citizenship should be about blood quantum and cultural fluency. It's an idea...http://64.38.12.138/News/2011/002199.asp

I found this argument confusing to say the least. I read the article and came away with the idea Mr. Colbert is in direct opposition to your point of view?

If as he argues “citizenship” should be about “blood quantum and cultural fluency” it again ignores the Treaty of 1866 and the adoption of the former slaves of the Five Slave Holding Tribes. The Dawes Commission with the complicity of the tribal leaders sought NOT to enroll everyone with “Indian blood” and the constructed separate rolls to insure the former slaves and their descendant’s would not be citizens, despite their already having that distinction before the Dawes enrollment process.

Again, you argue freedmen should be citizens but I’m scratching my head to see how J.D. Colbert’s article supports your argument?

It is that concept that "blood quantum" somehow denotes an Indian racial purity test. If there is a Chickasaw race, Choctaw race, Cherokee race, Creek race, or Seminole race, I fail to see it. The idea that there is an Indian race frankly seems problematic to me.

I've looked at a lot of Dawes cards and there are a lot of I.W.'s (intermarried whites) who appear to be citizens by blood in the nations that refused to honor their treaty adopting "freedmen." Anyone promoting an "Indian Race" from the Five Slave Holding Tribes is someone who does not know their history.

The Largest Slave Holder in Indian Territory~Robert M. Jones Choctaw Indian

2011-07-21T07:05:00.000-07:00

In 2007 I happened to be reading an online version of the Daily Ardmoreite Newspaper in which an article was written about four people who had a profound impact on the history of Oklahoma. What struck me about the article was an individual who was portrayed as one of the best businessmen in Indian Territory. I recognized the name but as I read the article one important fact was missing from the article in my opinion was significant to the person being discussed.

The article began innocently enough, it informed readers that prior to statehood Oklahoma was known as Indian Territory a fact I was quite familiar. Then the author began telling how the Choctaws were “relocated” to Indian Territory as a consequence of Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory:

“As part of the first treaty signed between the Choctaw government and the United States government in 1820, the federal government would take the sons and daughters of these mixed-blood families, and send them to the Choctaw academy to learn to read and write.”

Clearly this story was meant to be uplifting for a certain segment of the population, as the author continued it was clear to me he was omitting a significant part of this man life and Indian Territory that has gone under reported by historians far to long.

The subject of this article was Robert M. Jones; the largest slave holder in the Choctaw Nation and arguably the largest slave holder in Indian Territory.

If you include the people enslaved by his wife Susan (Susie) Jones nee Colbert; there is no doubt, together they amassed an enormous amount “wealth” based on the oppression of African descendant slaves. How the writer could omit this part of this man’s background is beyond me.

His parents were described as “a white merchant and his mother was a Choctaw,” the author also informed his readers that;

“From a young age Jones was raised to be both the son of a white merchant as well as to take part in the customs and traditions of his Choctaw tribe."

I’m not exactly sure what the “customs and traditions” of the Choctaw tribes consisted of but all indications point to the institution of slavery as being at the core of the tribe upon their arrival in Indian Territory for which the nation would join the Confederacy during the Civil War to maintain the institution.

“In 1861 war came to the Indian Territory. All five of the Five Civilized Tribes aligned themselves with the Confederacy. Jones served as the delegate to the Confederate Congress from the Indian Territory. Once the war was over Jones continued to serve his people. He negotiated with the federal government for the new peace treaty of 1866.”

Here we see again an important aspect not only in the life of Robert M. Jones but the entire Choctaw Nation when they “negotiated” the Treaty of 1866 with one of the major articles in it was the abolishment of slavery.

For this writer to omit the true history of this man in an effort to glorify him as one of Oklahoma’s examples of a pioneer and leader is a disservice to every citizen of Oklahoma, especially the descendants of those men and women who were enslaved by him and his family.

The Chronicles of Oklahoma does give a fuller portrait of the man and how he obtained his wealth and stature as an “Oklahoma leader.”

“A mixed-blood Choctaw leader, planter, and entrepreneur, Robert M. Jones operated large plantations and shipping concerns in Indian Territory. At the peak of his success he ran approximately twenty-eight trading stores, six plantations along the Arkansas and Texas borders, and a sugar plantation in Louisiana.

The two largest plantations were Lake West, with almost five thousand acres near present Oberlin, and Rocky Comfort, with approximately ten thousand acres. He was the largest slave holder in Indian Territory, owning approximately 225 slaves at any given time. His two steamboats had regular shipping to New Orleans.”

It is truly unfortunate that the state of Oklahoma and the so called Five Civilized Tribes continue their omission of this sordid chapter in their history. At some point it is hoped they can come to grips with this and begin the process of healing themselves and the descendants of the people they oppressed.

The Five Slave Holding Tribes continue to portray their oppression as an ultimate wrong done to them as victims based on their ignorance of the “white man’s” laws.

However, through the life of Robert M. Jones and many other “mixed blood” families throughout the Five Slave Holding Tribes, their cries of ignorance is not supported by the facts.

“Jones's greatest service to the Choctaw was in the long process of getting the "net proceeds" from the federal government. These were payments promised to the tribe for the land and improvements in Mississippi and Alabama when the tribe was forced to remove to Indian Territory in the 1830s.”

“The Choctaw and Creek tribes elected Jones president of the "United Nations of the Indian Territory," and he was one of the most ardent secessionists in the region during the Civil War. He was most influential as the joint delegate from the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations to the Confederate Congress in Richmond, Virginia.”

“Jones also negotiated the Choctaws' post-war treaty with the federal government, which included the past payment of the "net proceeds." He regained his antebellum wealth by retaining his property and businesses and by selling forty-five hundred bales of cotton that he had earlier stored in New Orleans.”

Perhaps it is time the Five Slaveholding Tribes come clean about their history?

Sources:

· “Oklahoma: A unique state with a unique history Historical Society director illustrates his point with stories about four people who impacted state's development”

By Micah Groves

Staff Writer

Web posted October 28, 2007

· Chronicles of Oklahoma

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/J/JO022.html

· 1860 Arkansas Slave Schedule

Let the Record Reflect...

2011-07-14T06:58:00.000-07:00

Winchester “Daugherty” COLBERT Chickasaw Indian Slaveholder

It is inescapable the history of slavery among the so called Five Civilized Tribes but somehow their historians omit this sordid chapter in the history of the tribe. In an effort to illustrate just how pervasive this institution was throughout these nations, I will be posting some of the known slave holders along with some of the individuals and families they held in bondage.

It is unfortunate the Five Slave Holding Tribes engaged in this inhumane institution but it is equally unfortunate for them to remove this chapter from their historical landscape as they promote a “traditional” Native American culture.

We begin to see time after time how the “ruling class” or “mixed blood” elites in the nations become the dominant slave holders in each nation. In the case of the Seminole nation it would appear their system was based more on the traditional practice of paying tribute to their leaders.

This was in stark contrast to the system we see in the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee Nations, where slave holding mixed bloods dominated the institution in order to solidify their control over the economics and politics of their respective nation.

Beginning with Winchester (Daugherty) COLBERT we see how his power and influence was connected to his family’s wealth by owning slaves. This provided a comfortable way of living that was more on the level of southern plantation than the tributary system practiced in the Seminole Nation.

There appears to be another aspect that is consistent with the institution of slavery among the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Creek nations; the leading men had no problem fathering children with an enslaved woman.

What we discover, just like the system of slavery in the south these men denied the humanity of their enslaved people but had no problem using the women for their pleasure. As usual, race was a barrier to marriage and citizenship but race was not a barrier to sex.

From the information on the Dawes card of his son, Nelson COLBERT, apparently Winchester sold him off to a man by the name of Johnson PERRY; which is not the exception to the rule from what I've seen in the course of my research.

Winchester COLBERT comes from arguably the largest slave owning family of Chickasaw Indians and part of the ruling “mixed blood” elite. Families like the COLBERT’S, LOVE’S AND GAINES’ dominated tribal politics and the Chickasaw economy based directly on slave ownership. Contrary to the stories told by the nation even today, the removal to Indian Territory for these families was not the “Trail of Tears” they like to portray.

Don Martini "Who Was Who Among the Southern Indians"

Senate Document 166; 50th Congress, 1st Session pg.9

These documents demonstrate clearly the Chickasaw Indians knew the value of owning humans as property and as they complain about “finding themselves oppressed, being ignorant of the language and laws of the United States;” they were engaging in the oppressive institution of slavery!

The claims this tribe in which Winchester COLBERT was a leader, coming from a leading family was nothing less than disingenuous. Let the record reflect Winchester COLBERT took part in negotiating the Treaty of Ft. Smith in 1866; and his signature is a part of that historical document.

Let the record reflect; among the men from the Chickasaw Nation that signed the Treaty of 1866; Winchester COLBERT, Edmund PICKENS, Colbert CARTER and my great great grandfather Robert H. LOVE ALL owned slaves.

Let the record; reflect that slavery was an integral part of the Chickasaw Nation; so much so that one of the major issues in the Treaty of 1866 was the abolishment of slavery.

Let the record reflect; following the “emancipation” of the Chickasaw slaves, the nation did not adopt the people they enslaved as citizens, which that included their own children.

Let the record reflect; for forty years the former slaves of the Chickasaw nation were not citizens in the nation of their birth.

The descendants of those enslaved and the descendants of those who enslaved these men, women and children have an obligation to correct this history but neither can do it without the other.

Finally let the record reflect; the Chickasaw Nation engaged in the wholesale oppression of people of African and African-Native descent. Despite this, the Chickasaw Nation used their oppression by the United States in their efforts to receive favorable treatment when they were forced to move to Indian Territory.

Let the record reflect they were incapable of showing the same empathy for the people they enslaved.

Choctaw Freedmen Descendants ARE Citizens...

2011-07-03T03:38:00.000-07:00

In 1904 an election was held for Principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation; in that election the Tuskahoma Party led by Green McCurtain was seeking the position. On behalf of the Tuskahoma Party several members of the Executive Committee wrote an open letter to the Choctaw Freedmen seeking their vote for Green McCurtain.

This document illustrates quite clearly just how much the Choctaw Freedmen were integral to keeping that nation together.

We know the Choctaw Nation officially adopted the former slaves of that nation and their descendants in 1885.

This action was done in compliance with the Treaty of Fort Smith in 1866 and gave the former slaves AND THEIR descendants full rights, the same as Choctaw “citizens by blood.”

With that as the background there evidently was some concern that the children of the Choctaw Freedmen born between 1902 and 1906 would have the same rights to citizenship including receiving a land allotment.

These became issues during the campaign for Principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation in 1904. It was the aim of the Tuskahoma Party then led by Green McCurtain to campaign for the votes of the Choctaw Freedmen citizens and this is why the Tuskahoma Party included a platform to appeal specifically to the Freedmen.

The method of campaigning for votes used by the Tuskahoma Party seem to be instructive for today’s Choctaw Freedmen descendants as they consider the idea that those rights and privileges given to their ancestors should be in full force today?

Document after document supports the historical fact that Choctaw Freedmen AND THEIR descendants were granted citizenship by the Treaty of 1866 and as late as 1904, they were actively involved with the politics, culture and society of the Choctaw Nation.

Looking at all of the documentation on the Choctaw Freedmen it is curious how their descendants have been marginalized and ostensibly disenfranchised from citizenship today when everything points to their legal rights to citizenship?

Green McCurtain went on to become Principal Chief in August of 1904 and all the evidence we have indicates the Choctaw Freedmen Minors and Newborns did become citizens and received land allotments.

One can only conclude the Tuskahoma Party fulfilled it’s campaign pledge to the Choctaw Freedmen based on all the available evidence; so why isn’t the Choctaw Nation and it’s people actively seeking out Choctaw Freedmen descendant’s as citizens of the nation?

Green McCurtain from the
Chronicles of Oklahoma

Clearly there were people among the Choctaw who did not share the idea that the former slaves of the Choctaw Nation were entitled to citizenship and clearly they disagreed with the idea that the children of the Choctaw Freedmen should receive land allotments.

The platform of the so called Choctaw Protective Party was silent on this issue as the flyer for the Tuskahoma Party “plainly” pointed out. Perhaps the sentiments of the Choctaw Protective Party have survived and taken root in the Choctaw Nation today?

I can’t recall hearing anyone from the nation today advocating for the inclusion of the Choctaw Freedmen descendants to be citizens.

This is somewhat disturbing when you think about it. Tribal historians rarely if ever discuss the nation’s unfortunate connections to the oppression and enslavement of African and African-Native people but will consistently give voice to their oppression from the United States.

In many respects much of what the so called Five Civilized Tribes receive in entitlements from the United States government is based on “their” oppression; it may be just a matter of time when the descendant’s of the Choctaw Freedmen begin to question why the Choctaw Nation doesn’t start compensating the descendant’s of the people they have oppressed and disenfranchised?

It could be easy to be cynical and look at this as a ploy by the Tuskahoma Party to get the Freedmen votes but looking at the evidence, the leaders of that party honored their agreement with the Choctaw Freedmen.

That may be the last time the Choctaw Nation honored an agreement with the former slaves and their descendant’s?

From Western History Collection Oklahoma University