You said:

Tonight after reading some crap on the Cherokee Nation's website feel like I need to speak out.

I say!

And you spoke out quite well I must say!

You said:

As I understand it, the basic facts of the situation are this...

The Cherokee (along with many other Indian tribes) owned slaves prior to their removal in the Trail of Tears. In the removal, the Cherokee brought their slaves with them to their lands in what would someday become Oklahoma.

I say!

So far so good, with a slight error, they did not bring their slaves with them, the slaves were rounded up right along with the Cherokee like livestock and penned up for the forced death march, and the slaves gladly accompanied the only family they knew and continued to serve them on the march, many were actually Cherokee Children of the Cherokee slave holders..

You said:

During the Civil war, the Oklahoma tribes were split as to who they would support North or South, but a sizable number allied themselves with the South. After the war, the North used the fact that some tribal members fought with the South to justify harsh reconstruction treaties in which the tribes lost about half of their lands.

This is sort of misleading an plays into what Chief Smith and Cronies try to feed the General public as fact of law…

First though let me say not being an authority on treaties I will just make a couple of points that might help with the question of harshness with the Treaty of 1866, treaties were quite common between the US and Indian Nations. Treaties with other Nations hay have happened happen more for purposes of ending wars or as peace treaties. In any case there always seems to be one side that is forced to accept the terms of the other or face violent consequences. I t has to be understood there was a war and the Cherokee was on the loosing side, and the validity of a treaty has to be measured by the compliance by the parties. After negotiations yes there were negotiations with skilled negotiators on both sides, and the treaty can be said to be harsh, but a necessity for the Cherokee to be able to get on with their lives after a devastating war.

There has been claims by many over the years, and that is one of the lies the perpetrator of this genocidal act by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s claims today, and simply is not so, it very well could be said to be harsh but considering the era I believe the Cherokee fared rather well.

As I said Some Cherokee People have always tried to claim the Freedmen were forced on the Cherokee Nation, the Cherokee Nation attempted to prove that the Treaty of 1866 was "forced" upon the Nation. That was proven false in a case before the Indian Claims Commission (Cherokee Nation v. United States). The records created at the time of the Treaty show that the Freedmen question was not of much concern to the . The legal negotiators were more concerned with the attempts by the illegitimate Southern Cherokee delegation who were there claiming a right as a separate Cherokee Nation attempting to divide the Nation into two tribes, using the efforts of railroad companies efforts in negotiations for right of way through the Nation.

The mythology regarding the Treaty of 1866 and its provisions concerning the Freedmen being forced upon the Cherokees was begun and perpetuated by the Group of Southern Cherokee, who lacked any authority at the negotiations. Those who perpetuate it today are descendants of the southern illegal delegation do nothing but carry on the evil deeds of their ancestors in their renewed effort to destroy the Cherokee Nation by trying to divide us once again.

You said:

However, a good result from reconstruction was the abolition of slavery among the Indian tribes. The Union insisted that the tribes either adopt their former slaves (the new "freedmen") as tribal members, or they would be required to give the freedmen substantial financial settlements and full emancipation. Most of the tribes (including the Cherokee) went with the first option.

I say!

Yes abolition of slavery was a good result of the Reconstruction era, and the Treaty… I don’t believe your scenario quite fits the Cherokee, simply be cause in 1863 a good 3 years before the signing of the Treaty of 1866, the Cherokee Nation passed an emancipation act freeing their slaves from bondage See it here http://www.jalagi.org/1863emplaw.gif which was a way to protect their family members that were black and would be seen as freed slaves. And then to reiterate the fact the Cherokee were all for treating the freed black people fairly as the Law of the Treaty specified, they amended their click here 1839 Constitution see Article III section 5, in the same year of the signing of the treaty making the freed blacks citizens of the Cherokee Nation irregardless of blood.

You Said:

In later years, the Cherokee have tried to renege on their treaty obligations (ironic, since it is normally the white man that breaks Indian treaties) by kicking the freedmen out of the tribe. This to me is wrong. The Cherokee were wrong (as were non-Indians of the South) when they owned slaves. But they did commit this great wrong. The Freedmen have now been part of Cherokee society for over 100 years as free Cherokee people. To kick them out now, is no different and no less wrong that what the Southern states did when they enacted Jim Crow laws to put their former slaves into virtual slavery and subjugation. And it is

I say!

If you are talking about this try of kicking out the freedmen, you are correct, and in 1880 the Cherokee did a Census enumerating all Cherokee Citizens at the time you can see it here http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/cherokeecensus.php?chercensusPage=419 It will give you the listing of the Cherokee and their Citizenship status i.e. Adopted Delaware, Shawnee, Creek, white people, and African, that were not family members, black family members were simply enumerated as Cherokee. And were all Cherokee Citizens equally so.

You said:

Being an Indian is certainly about blood ties, but it is more than that. It is culture, it is tradition, it is language. To me the Freedmen suffered alongside the Cherokees and even under the Cherokees. To kick them out now is the ultimate insult.

I say!

True with some Indian Nation, BUT not the Cherokee, blood is of absolutely NO consequence, we, quite a while prior to all this, became a Nation of Nationals/ Citizens no different than all other nations including the USA…Example we are NOT American citizens by blood, are we??

You said:

I'm not surprised to see the current tribal administration defend their actions on their website, but I do find it particularly ironic to see them do so while displaying this little graphic on their website...


Here are these beautiful Cherokee children with their hands over their hearts (presumably reciting the pledge of allegiance) while one child is holding an American flag. Pardon me while I barf.

I say!

I agree give me my barf bag as well, if we are going to be Cherokee lets be Cherokee, being American is a happenstance because we lost the war!

You said:

The Cherokee were sent on a genocidal death march by the US Army. That flag was carried by the troops who took the Cherokee to Oklahoma, and that flag flew over the White House where racist President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and ordered the Indian removals to continue.

I say!

Yes you are right, American Indians are all to quick to forget this flag flew over many, many atrocities against the indigenous of this land, we ask for no more than what is ours and our rights by the LAW of the land TREATIES!!

You said:

But now, the great Cherokee Nation is willing to sell itself out and have their children be used as a propaganda tool in favor of disenfranchising the Freedmen, by playing to the presumed "common values, common ground" between racist pro-exclusion Cherokees and the dominant white culture.

I say!

You are right they are willing to sell out, BUT there is the fallacy in your statement it is not The Great Cherokee Nation that throws its people to the dogs, it is the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, see their Constitution here http://www.cornsilks.com/1975constitution.html the title clearly gives you there Name! And that my friend is another complete Story, if you have an interest in learning the truth, you can go to www.cornsilks.com click the CNO is bogus banner, then the LINK the story begins here.

You said:

I am proud to be Cherokee (I'm not a citizen though because my Cherokee ancestor wasn't allowed to sign it by her white husband, but that doesn't change my heritage), but I'm not proud of what the Cherokee nation is doing.

I say!

Maybe you need a pro to connect you!

I stand with the Freedmen and will continue to stand with them. There is a move by members of the Congressional Black caucus to take away federal funding for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. (Here is the Cherokee Nation's response to this (PDF download). I hope it doesn't come to this, but if the Cherokee nation will not back down then I think the funding should be yanked. I don't think it is right for the Federal government to aid and abet racism, and if the Cherokee nation will not live up to its treaty obligations to the Freedmen then I don't see what the alternative is.

I say!

You are absolutely right, and this has gone on absolutely too long and needs to be halted and it must come to this ASAP, for Chief Smith to be put in his place, he seems to think he is above the law, and attempts to place all Cherokee People above the law, we already lost the war, and we have no means to wage another, the only course is obey the law.

You said:

Let me say it one more way. The Cherokees action to take away tribal citizenship and to take away the Freedmen's right to vote, is no different than the US deciding to repeal 14th and 15th Amendments.

I say!

And the 13th amendment as well, and to get an understanding of the law all one has to do is read Watson’s Bill Here http://www.theucfi.com/2824watson.html and while you are there reading it, you can find documentation there on cornsilks.com to corroborate the facts of law she lays out.

by John Cornsilk (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:57:02 PM

  (0+)

blacks descended from Cherokee slaves can call themselves Cherokee, but if a white man wants to join up with the tribe, even if the tribe accepts him, he can never be Cherokee in the eyes of the government. Nice double standard. I thought there was rule where you had to have a certain amount of native blood to be considered a native? A black with no native blood at all can call himself a native and derive all the benefits but someone with just a small amount of native blood can't?

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:35:41 PM

  (0+)

If a white person (and there were some who did go with their Cherokee spouses) went on the Trail of Tears, then yeah I would say they should be accepted.

by J. M. Branum (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:42:05 PM

  (0+)

I would also say IMHO that tribal citizenship is only a small part of the equation. Cultural heritage in many ways is far more important.

by J. M. Branum (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM

  (0+)

blacks descended from Cherokee slaves can call themselves Cherokee, but if a white man wants to join up with the tribe, even if the tribe accepts him, he can never be Cherokee in the eyes of the government. Nice double standard. I thought there was rule where you had to have a certain amount of native blood to be considered a native? A black with no native blood at all can call himself a native and derive all the benefits but someone with just a small amount of native blood can't?

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:39:02 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Branum, You said:

If they went on the Trail of Tears

If a white person (and there were some who did go with their Cherokee spouses) went on the Trail of Tears, then yeah I would say they should be accepted.

I say!

 it is not a matter of who walked the forced death march  of 1838 and survived, to be considered  Cherokee,  freedmen descndants  and all of we Members of the CNO today, simply need to connect to and ancestor of the era of the 1866 Treaty, all Citizens of the Nation enumerated by census as I mentioned in the other post above, of 1880, there is a link above, and subsequently the Dawes Rolls for land allotment only, these rolls had absolutely nothing to do with citizenship, it was a requirement to be enumerated Dawes Rolls one had to be Cherokee, and the main sorce of who was and was not was the 1880 Cherokee Census.

 In your second response you said:

 I would also say IMHO that tribal citizenship is only a small part of the equation. Cultural heritage in many ways is far more important

I say!

Yes if we were talking about tribes, your HO would be 100% correct, but if we are talking Cherokee Nation, then that is a different species of frog, so to speak!!

As I said in the response to your first post, we Cherokee Ceased to be a Tribe long ago, and became a Nation of Nationals/Citizens; Thus Citizenship is the crux of the topic/situation,  and I think probably heritage and citizenship for this conversation are more closely a-kin, simply because as an example, we as American Citizens are NOT American citizens by the fact of our american blood are we??

Then Neither are we Cherokee people,  Citizens of our nation by fact of Cherokee blood. And for an example,  of culture, note in America, the Irish Day, the Italian Day, The cenco de mayo day etc, just to name a few...Within the Cherokee Nation you will find pockets of assorted ethnic cultural days, and events scattered through out the Cherokee Nation, due to our diversity in heritage/Citizenship, no different than America!

All that I say can be corroborated by documentation at www.cornsilks.com

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Member!

by John Cornsilk (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:08:52 AM

  (0+)

Hi John,

You have a great thought-provoking website. I enjoyed reading through it today.

by J. M. Branum (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:06:24 PM

  (0+)

click here

by J. M. Branum (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:10:45 PM

  (0+)

You said:

I've changed my mind on the Cherokee defunding issue

After talking to many people both on website comments and on email, I've changed my mind on the issue of defunding the Chereokee Nation of Oklahoma.

I said!

Well Mr. Branum, I would certainly be interest in who you talked to that could affect an understanding of the issue you seemed to have! BTW, Thanks for the comment on my web site, and I would like to extend an invite to my talk forum, http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/ you can stop by and read, but to post you must register, and have a working email, this keeps out the supporters of the CNO, with their pure BS, they don't want to discuss any message, just slam the messenger, they don‘t want to be accountable for their babblings so they refuse to register. At this time we are averaging 2500/readers hit’s a day, we have nearly 100 Cherokee members registered to post.

You said:

I still strongly believe that CNO did wrong by voting to exclude the Freedmen, but I also can understand that at least some of the voters didn't do so because of racism but because they feel strongly about the need for blood ties in the nation.

I say!

Yes there are quite a few high blood quantum Cherokee that think as you say, not just with blacks, whites equally so, they are most assuredly in the minority. And the biggest factor in the reasoning for the Vote result is Smith’s group went in to the communities, and fed the elderly and young families with Children, pure CRAP, such as , do you want those N******S sucking up all your services, taking all your commodities, taking all your kids school supplies and clothes, with comments like hide your daughters from these people, a complete Jim Crow Campaign, among the most venerable people back in the sticks, with maybe a TV maybe a computer, most likely not, actually some who speak very little English no newspapers…And I know this has to be true because in the precinct where I voted, there was nothing but elderly and young people with Children in the line to vote at mid-day.

A major issue with the actual vote, most every time you read or hear about the Vote to kick out the Freedmen it will be said a resounding 75% voted in favor, BUT they never say of the people that voted… We have a populace of close to 300,000 Citizens with only 38,000 registered to vote Plus about 13,000 with bad addresses and ineligible to vote.

So with respect to the populace, the actual registered to vote barely measures up to 10%

The total number that voted was 8,000, rounding the populace up to 300,000, the total of the populace that voted was 2.4%, sure the vote was 6,000 Yea 2,000 Ney, And Yes that is 75% in favor, but certainly not truth in fact.

Absolutely CNO did wrong in more than one aspect of the issue, actually it would just about involve writing a book to get it all across, I guess aside from the stripping Cherokee Citizens of their rights, the process to do so would be the next most heinous thing, which would be the petition calling for the amendment, it was totally illegal, and proven so in the Cherokee Court, but the majority of the court is/was owned by Smith.

You can read the dissent of the one judge here http://www.jalagi.org/leedsdissent.pdf that Smith did not control, and words of the balatant lawlessness of the Smith junta will gag a maggot, so just imagine how the majority ruling reads, I did have a copy of it if I can find it, and you are interested.

You said:

I myself don't agree with this perspective as I think culture is more important than blood --- as a brother of 3 adopted siblings and 2 natural-born siblings, I think my adopted siblings are just as much kin as the natural-born ones are. To me the Freedmen are adopted Cherokee and should be treated as such.

I say!

With the Cherokee People, and I dare say the US Citizenship as well, blood is total and completely inconsequential, as I said in another post, The Cherokee in 1827 gave up the concept of tribalism and became a Nation of Nationals, no different than any other Nation, even prior to that with the matrilineal form of government that Ruled/Governed the Cherokee People, blood was inconsequential, a clan mother chose to take under her wing a black, white or purple person, that person was considered a Cherokee Citizen of that Clan, and of the body politic of the Cherokee.

You said:

That said, the issue of threatening to defund the CNO will be seen as a threat to the survival and continued existence of the nation by many, and will I think force folks into a corner in trying to defend a bad policy. I also think it isn't fair, as other tribes have also excluded their Freedmen so to single out only the CNO isn't right.

I say NOT so Mr Branum, this line of BS is strictly from Smith and supporters, The average Cherokee on the Street not employed by CNO, or has no family employed there will tell you the same thing I say…Cut the FUNDING the sooner the better. As for other Tribes that would be involved with such a concern are the Five so-called civilized tribes who were Slave owners…The Seminole have already been through this very same scereino, they lost all their funding at once none of the piecemeal bit, and that is what needs to happen to CNO, shut them down immediately, and the Watson Bill calls for the loss of their gaming status as well, AGAIN the sooner the better None of these funds are reaching the people they are intended to help, so what difference does it make, the crooks will leave with no funds to steal, then the people can pick up the pieces and set a government of the Cherokee People, by the Cherokee People for the Cherokee People..

You said:

It seems like a better approach is to take the defunding issue off the table and to return to the negotiating table. There are lots of possible solutions if folks are creative enough. And I think in the long run the CNO (and other tribes) will have a richer and fuller culture if they accept the Freedmen as their adopted kin. But I think this has to be a matter of persuasion not coercion.

I say!

Your idea would be a valid approach if we were talking about Rational and Caring People with their supposed constituents in their thoughts, we are NOT, and the most important aspect of my reasoning for this statement is, I LIVE HERE I see everyday what goes on how the People are thought of and treated by the CNO powers that be.

And the simple fact is the only solution for the Cherokee People is the called for protection of our civil rights as is guaranteed in the Treaty of 1866.

One final Question Have you read the Watson Bill, line for line, then find corroboration, it can all be found at Cornsilks.com as well as Watson’s Bill at the top of the page.

The only other option for the Cherokee People, is totally illegal!!

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma member!

by John Cornsilk (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:26:09 PM

  (0+)

Hello Mr. Branum,

  I would like to address your change of heart about the defunding of the Cherokee Nation in order to gain compliance with federal laws and agreements.  One of the things that wasn't mentioned was that both the by-blood Cherokee citizens and the Freedmen descendant Cherokee citizens possess dual citizenship as U.S. citizens and Cherokee citizens. Occassionally the dis-enrollment proponents will mention that no harm will come to the Freedmen descendants who have been dis-enrolled for they can seek the same services from the federal government as U.S. citizens. Well the same holds true for the by-blood Cherokee citizens if Congress witholds funding to the Cherokee Nation.  Those services will most likely be managed directly by the BIA, or the State of Oklahoma via federal grants

instead of the Cherokee government. The harm will not be any greater on the by-bloods than it will be on the Freedmen descendants.  What will most certainly be disrupted is the Cherokee government, which is why some protesters of the Watson bill have spun it to mean a termination bill.

Elder John Corsilk has consistently conveyed the message that somehow the reset button needs to be pushed for the governing body of the Cherokee Nation for the current government was formed illegitimately and  the every action made by it is also illegitimate, including the dis-enrollments.

Allies like the Cornsilks within the Cherokee Nation are counting on the strength and resolve of U.S. citizens with a sense of justice.  They are standing up against people who they have to live with in order to fight a wrong that they could simply walk away from.

Congress must be able to have the credibilty to enforce the principles of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution for all governments that exist under federal jurisdiction without prejudice or exception.  If the current Cherokee governing body chooses to not adhere to these principles, then it should absolutely be defunded and face extinction. thus allowing it to be replaced with a Cherokee government willing to comply with the essential laws of the land pertaing to rights.

The statements of blood ties not being racist are deceptive. Take some time to read the Aryan Nation manifesto or some of the Black Nationalist rhetoric in the U.S.  I think you'll find that the Race Nation premises are strickingly similar.

What do I see?  I see a racist policy that that is graphically disturbing. Under this particular by-blood requirement, the descendants of Cherokee slaves of African descent whose ancestors were raped by their Cherokee by-blood masters are qualified for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation, while the descendants of those  ancestors who were perhaps not comely enough for a Cherokee by-blood master are automatically ineligible.  In spite of the romanticisms of Jefferson and Hemmings, there is no such thing as a consensual relationship between a captor and their captive, that is a true oxymoron.

The other disturbing point is the presumed authority to assign a class of people a nationality without their consent.  In this case the presumption is that the Cherokee of African descent are better represented as African-Americans and therefore have been assigned as U.S. citizens by the Cherokee voters rather than Cherokee citizens. 

Iraq can not assign Iraqi Kurds citizenship to Iran or Turkey, Israel can not assign Egyptian or Lebanese citizenship to Palestinian refugees, and the U.S. can not decide that legal U.S. citizens of Cuban-American ethnicity are better represented as Cuban citizens and remove their U.S. citizenship.

The current Cherokee government needs to be sanctioned for a blatant human rights violation and brought into compliance.  A 13th, 14th, or 15th amendment violation would not be tolerated if it were committed by a state or a commonwealth also under federal jurisdiction.  The Cherokee people, whether they be by-blood or not, have the protection of duel citizenship and will not be deprived.

Allen L. Lee 

by Allen Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:51:52 AM

  (0+)