The Seminoles had continued to popularly elect their principal officers after 1906 despite the language of the 1906 Five Tribes Act delegating the appointment to the U.S. president. While the BIA refused to recognize their elections, they worked with the elected chief so long as he did what they wanted. When he refused, they simply appointed someone to do their bidding.
12. The Five Tribes Act of 1970 provided for the promulgation of rules to carry out the "selection."
Analysis: The 1970 Five Tribes Act repealed that portion of the 1906 Five Tribes Act relative only to the appointment of the principal officers of the Five Civilized Tribes by the president. Nothing in the Act did or could be construed to repeal any of the disabilities imposed by the Curtis Act of 1898. In order for a federal law (relative to Indians) to do something, it must be specific and emphatic. The Courts of the United States have ruled that Congress must have its INTENT apparent in the wording of the law, to take away or restore the rights of an Indian tribe. OIWA is emphatic that its liberal provisions apply only to tribes organized under it. All others are excluded. The reason this language is there is to protect the rights of Indians in Oklahoma who did not want to retribalize, particularly mixed blooded Cherokees and some Creeks who had expressed their opposition to any bill which would provide for a restoration of the governments of the Five Civilized Tribes. The full bloods, however, wanted to reorganize and did so through the tribal towns and the UKB.
CONCLUSION:
So in closing, what do we have here? We have four of the Five Civilized Tribes organized under a law which removes all disabilities previously imposed by Congress. We have three Creek Tribal Towns organized under that same act as local governments who are working with the larger Creek Nation to assist their members. We have a group of Cherokees (UKB) organized under that same act, but who have been placed in an adversarial relationship with the corporate entity known as CNO and the sole embodiment of the Cherokee Nation, the Principal Chief, refuses to work with them. We have the Cherokee
Nation catapulted forward in time by the 1906 FTA. We have the OIWA passed to restore tribal sovereignty for those tribe organized under it. We have the 1970 FTA providing for the popular selection of the principal officers of the Five Tribes as they existed under the law and repealing the appointment of the chief by the president and allowing the promulgation of rules to carry
out the selection. We have the chief of the Creek Nation creating a constitution later found to be bogus and the courts restored the old Creek Constitution and allowed the Creeks to reorganize under OIWA. We have a Cherokee chief, Swimmer, operating under a bogus constitution that by his own admission created nothing more than a corporation that would assist him in governing. We have a federal court case (Harjo) which states emphatically that the sole embodiment of the Creek Nation was the office of the Principal Chief. All things being equal, and they are, the same is true for the office of the Cherokee Principal Chief as well. We have a court (Hodel) case which says the Creeks, by reorganizing under OIWA have had all disabilities removed. And we have the CNO officials laying claim to that same court case trying to give legitimacy to their court systems when there is not a shred of evidence that it was the intent of Congress to remove the Curtis Act disabilities unless a tribe took steps to reorganize under OIWA and the Harjo court gave no indication that it meant by its ruling that a tribe not organized under OIWA could claim the benefit of its provisions.
Therefore, what we have in our tribe, the Cherokees, are two entities, one, what is left of the Cherokee Nation and represented solely by the office of the Principal Chief as popularly selected by the Cherokee people every four years. The second entity is the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, a corporation created by Swimmer to first carry out the popular selection of the principal chief and then to assist him in governing. The Cherokee Nation is the office of the Principal Chief in accordance with law. The CNO is the chief's corporate partner. Wrap your mind around the fact that there are two entities, Cherokee Nation and the CNO.
So why such an adversarial relationship between the UKB and the CNO?
First, the UKB knows the CNO is not the legitimate government of the Cherokee Nation. Second, the Principal Chief (Chad), acting as the sole embodiment of the Cherokee Nation, refuses to allow the UKB to interact in a positive manner and has refused to permit the Cherokee Nation to reogranize under the OIWA.
I hope this bit of information helps everyone to understand the situation among the Cherokees and why it is so important for the Cherokee people to recognize the unlawful governance practiced by the CNO over the Cherokee people and against the UKB, the Delaware and the Freedmen.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
