Tribal ruling raises dispute over slaves owned by Indians

Related Topics

By Ben Fenwick

OKLAHOMA CITY | Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:49pm EST

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - A tribal court ruling that the Cherokee Nation must allow descendants of former slaves owned by Indians to be tribal members, has again raised the painful history of the forcible removal of the Indians to Oklahoma in the nineteenth century.

A Cherokee Nation tribal court ruled on Friday that the nation cannot exclude the so-called "Freedmen" from tribal membership even though some of them are not blood descendants of the Indians.

The issue arises because when the U.S. government forced Indian tribes to walk from the Southeast U.S. to Oklahoma in 1831, in what the Indians described as the "Trail of Tears", some of them brought their African-American slaves with them.

They brought them because the Cherokee owned plantations in the U.S. South. When the tribe was ejected from the land they were allowed to take their possessions with them, including the slaves.

After the Civil War, those slaves were freed and an 1866 treaty with the U.S. required the Cherokee to admit to the tribe the slaves and their descendants, some with Cherokee blood because plantation owners had fathered children with slave women, and some with no Indian blood.

In 2007, the Cherokee tribe voted for a tribal constitutional amendment that revoked the membership of the slave descendants who could not prove Cherokee blood. This stripped more than 2,800 Freedmen descendants of tribal membership, most of them African-Americans. Friday's ruling invalidates the Amendment.

The case is being heard separately in a U.S. Federal court.

"We have received the (tribal court) decision with which we respectfully disagree," said Diane Hammons, Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation. She said the tribe might appeal.

Marilyn Vann, a member of the Cherokee Freedmen and president of the organization that represents descendants of the former slaves, said the Friday decision was a step in the right direction but action in U.S. Federal court was more important.

"This shows that some in the Cherokee Nation want to rule by law instead of inciting base interest for their own political gain," Vann said.

Vann said some in the Cherokee tribe did not want to allow the descendants of slaves to vote on issues such as distributing the millions of dollars of tribal income from gambling casinos.

"It's about control of the money," Vann said. "They have casinos and hundreds of millions of dollars they don't have to pay taxes on. They don't want to have to account for what they spend that money on."

(Editing by Greg McCune)
U.S.
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
ROWnine wrote:
A Native American Indian (NAI) born outside of the USA may obtain what is commonly referred to as a “Green Card” but also known as the status distinguishing Permanent Resident Alien (distinguishing because the Immigration has a history of issuing various “Temporary Resident Alien cards or documents) or the more ambiguous and politically lukewarm Lawful Permanent Resident card (that fuzzy up the word Alien in an attempt to distinguish between the words alien and illegal alien). The NAI generally presents three things to the US government. (1.) His or her Band Card. (2.) Birth Certificate listing both natural parents. (3.) A letter from the subjects Band that certifies the blood per centum of the subject to be at least 50%. Some peoples, like the Métis, did not, could not or would keep adequate records of their blood lineage and for this reason US courts have excluded them from claims to resident status in the USA. The fact that the Cherokee nation has decided that they are going to offer citizenship to slaves as within their rights. I believe, like most tribes they held white, black, and other tribal peoples as slaves so it will be interesting how they will award blood per centum. Fifty fifty for other tribal slaves if the other tribe has records, 100% in any case or 50% in cases of black or white parentage with one Indian parent. It would be a good idea for the US court to send it back to the tribal court to work this out before it puts its support behind it.

Jan 15, 2011 7:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Anonymous45 wrote:
First of all, I hope no one is surprised that there were native americans who owned slaves. There were black people who owned slaves in the US. This doesn’t change the fact that one group overwhelmingly benefited from the institution of slavery. Second, it is truely sad and telling that I have seen in my lifetime many blue eyed, light haired people of obvious european decent claim native blood unquestioned, but blacks who were once considered part of quite a few native american tribes have had to fight to remain members of said tribes when the casino money came rolling in. Seminole natives also fought to abandon the blacks who once lived amoungst their tribe. Stranger still is the fact that the only card carrying native americans I’ve known personally were all part black and from California tribes. This story is the result of greed, revisionist history, and white supremacy to be sure.

Jan 20, 2011 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Olon wrote:
Marilyn Vann is absolutely correct! It is all about money! Race is merely a social construction used as a vehicle to exclude some so that more can be distributed to less. Those most opposed to the rule of law are, for all practical purposes whitw, and infiltrated the tribe before and after the “Trail of Tears.” As suggested in the previous comment,being caucasian is ok in this regard, for they are proud descendants of the Cherokee Nation’s Confederate Veterans. As always, the descendants of the perpetrators of racist chattel slavery system introduced to the Cherokee Nation as a vehicle for profit and assimilation, wish to manipulate its legal structure for their own selfish interests.

My half-Cherokee/half-black great-grandmother of my grandfather, was 12 when she WALKED the Trail of Tears in 1838. She was sold from Cherokees to whites, to more whites – all within the Cherokee Nation while bearing children, by force, from all of them. She was even sold after the Emancipation Proclamation since, as implied in this article, such Emancipation did not apply in Oklahoma. I agree that the Trail of Tears is one of the most horrific events in modern history; however, it was much more horrible for my ancestors, the servants of the displaced, some who had also experienced the Middle Passage – simply imagine! Those who voted out the Cherokee Freedmen desire the benefit of being part of a sovereign nation without the responsibility.

Jan 21, 2011 6:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
See All Comments »