Freedmen vs Cherokee Nation

Happy New Year! I hope everyone has had a wonderful holiday season. Many of us go back to work this week (those that had any time off at all, that is!), and it is now time for action. I am going to request that each of you, now that you have a fuller understanding of the issues between the Cherokee Nation and the UKB, take the time this week to compose letters of protest to both the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Larry EchoHawk, as well as the elected officials of the Cherokee Nation, in both the executive and legislative branches. In the 2000s, the UKB has attempted to place about 76 acres of land that they own as private property, and upon which their headquarters sits, into “trust.” Placing land into trust means that a parcel of property is held by the United States on behalf of a tribe. All Indian reservations are trust properties – legally held by the United States. All Indian casinos are required by federal law to be established only on trust prope...

Hello, everyone – I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and didn’t overdo too much. It was a foodfest in my neighborhood and it was really fun! In this installment we will bring the story of the UKB and the Cherokee Nation to the present. As the Cherokee Nation began to recover its sovereign powers in the 1970s, after having being squelched for most of the twentieth century by the “bureaucratic imperialism” of the BIA as the judge in the Harjo case described it, the UKB was dwindling. As the Cherokee Nation elected its first Chief since statehood, developed a superseding Constitution, reinstated its citizens, reconstituted its Tribal Council (also a result of the Harjo case), established Cherokee Nation Industries and investigated other economic development enterprises, the UKB receded and was basically defunct by the end of the 1970s. But in 1979, there was a particularly nasty runoff in the Principal Chief’s race between incumbent Ross Swimmer and his opponent, Jim Gordon. Swi...

Hello, everyone – I apologize for the delay in getting this next installment to you, but Christmas has overtaken me. I’m sure you can all relate to that! As we have seen in previous installments, by the 1970s, we had a Cherokee Nation that was beginning to stand up again for the first time since Oklahoma statehood, and we had the United Keetoowah Band that operated in conjunction with the Cherokee Nation, always stating that they were, in fact, an incorporated entity within the Cherokee Nation, rather than separate from it. By the early 1970s, the Cherokee Nation had established both a financial basis once again, by interest earned on a settlement from Indian Claims Commission concerning the 1893 sale of the Cherokee Outlet, and there had been an election for Principal Chief in 1971 – the first since statehood. W.W. Keeler, who had already served by Presidential appointment for twenty-two years, won that election by a landslide. One of Keeler’s initiatives was to develop a new Cons...

Hello, everyone – In our continuing saga of the Cherokee-Keetoowah relationships, we move into the mid-20th century. Before starting off, I will add my caveat once again: history and law are very interpretive endeavors. There will be those who disagree with this interpretation, but in the end, the only interpretation that matters is that of the federal courts. And the courts to date have supported the interpretation I am offering to you. In 1937 the Keetoowahs had been rebuffed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in their attempt to organize as a “band or tribe of Indians” under the terms of the OIWA. The Bureau is an agency of the Executive Branch, but the other branches of government have also been empowered to create and/or recognize tribal groups as well. So in the mid-1940s, the politically-oriented Keetoowah organization(s) of that era gave it another shot. This time they approached the legislative branch, the Congress, with a request to organize as a band or tribe of Indians. A...

From this point on, the story of the Keetoowahs and the Cherokee Nation gets into contested waters. Before setting off on today’s episode, I will note again that both history and law are very interpretive endeavors. The version I am giving is one that is contested at some points by the UKB and its supporters. But the thing to remember is that in the end, it doesn’t matter what my version is, or what the UKB’s version is, or what anyone’s version is. The only version that matters is the one that is accepted by the federal courts. And the one I am offering here is the one that the courts have upheld – several times now. The date of termination of the Cherokee Nation had been set as March 4, 1906. But tribal termination requires a piece of legislation to be achieved. And on March 4, 1906, no such legislation had been drafted or introduced. Instead of termination legislation, a different kind of legislation was in the works. (As an aside, the idea that the United States could put an end ...

Today we will continue with the history of the conflict between the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band (UKB). In my previous update I outlined the emergence of the Keetoowah Society as a political movement from the Civil War era and stated that the name “Keetoowah” began to be used about this organization at this time. This is important because one of the arguments the UKB makes today to try to support its assertions that it is a government of equal jurisdictional standing with the Cherokee Nation goes back to an even earlier era and involves an extreme revisioning of Cherokee history.  In the past eight or ten years, the UKB has claimed that “the Keetoowahs” (and again, this is obscure as to whether this means the political or the ceremonial group) are the descendants of the Old Settlers, those Cherokees who emigrated first to Arkansas in 1817, and then were relocated to the Indian Territory in 1828. These dates are prior to the Trail of Tears, and the both of the tr...

Subject: Cherokee Nation Update: The Allotment Era Keetoowah Societies Hello, everyone – Today we will continue with the history of the conflict between the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band (UKB).  In my previous update I outlined the emergence of the Keetoowah Society as a political movement from the Civil War era and stated that the name “Keetoowah” began to be used about this organization at this time. This is important because one of the arguments the UKB makes today to try to support its assertions that it is a government of equal jurisdictional standing with the Cherokee Nation goes back to an even earlier era and involves an extreme revisioning of Cherokee history. In the past eight or ten years, the UKB has claimed that “the Keetoowahs” (and again, this is obscure as to whether this means the political or the ceremonial group) are the descendants of the Old Settlers, those Cherokees who emigrated first to Arkansas in 1817, and then were relocated to the...

Subject: Cherokee Nation Update: The Original Keetoowah Society Hello, everyone – This week I will give a history of the issues between the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetoowah Band (UKB) – issues that are currently threatening the Cherokee Nation’s historic jurisdiction in northeastern Oklahoma. This is a complex story so I will be taking several days to cover it. And then I will provide some talking points for you to use in communicating your concerns to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the elected officials of the Cherokee Nation. Part of the confusion today results from the fact that there are actually two different entities that informally call themselves “Keetoowahs.” One is the Keetoowah Society, a ceremonial group that was revitalized in the allotment era and which still functions at several ceremonial grounds in northeastern Oklahoma, and the other is the United Keetoowah Band, an organization incorporated in 1946 under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (a federal ...

TREATY WITH THE CHEROKEE, 1866. July 19, 1866. | 14 Stats., 799. | Ratified July 27, 1866. | Proclaimed Aug. 11, 1866 http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol2/treaties/che0942.htm Articles of agreement and convention at the city of Washington on the nineteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, between the United States, represented by Dennis N. Cooley, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, [and] Elijah Sells, superintendent of Indian affairs for the southern superintendency, and the Cherokee Nation of Indians, represented by its delegates, James McDaniel, Smith Christie, White Catcher, S. H. Benge, J. B. Jones, and Daniel H. Ross—John Ross, principal chief of the Cherokces, being too unwell to join in these negotiations. PREAMBLE. Whereas existing treaties between the United States and the Cherokee Nation are deemed to be insufficient, the said contracting parties agree as follows, viz: ARTICLE 1. The pretended treaty made wit...

As requested by many of you, here is the Section of the Constitution which speaks to recalling an elected official. 1999 Cherokee Nation Constitution as approved by the Cherokee People in 2003: Article XI. Removal From Office Section 1. The Principal Chief, Deputy Principal Chief, members of the Council, Attorney General and Marshal shall be subject to removal from office for willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, habitual drunkenness, incompetency or any conviction of a felony, or a crime under the laws of the Cherokee Nation that if committed in some other jurisdiction would be a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or offenses against the Cherokee Nation committed while in office. Section 2. Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all other appointed officials shall be subject to removal for cause, as prescribed by law. Section 3. No official may be removed under Sections 1 or 2 of this Article or Section 8 of Article VIII except after tri...

Well, This Is Awkward Stranger - Online, The 09/12/2011 http://nativetimes.com/ From the Native American Times : OKLAHOMA CITY – Descendants of former black slaves once owned by members of the Cherokee Nation are asking a federal judge to block a tribal election for principal chief until the tribe restores their full citizenship rights, including the right to vote. In legal papers filed Friday in Washington, D.C., descendants of Cherokee freedmen, as they are known, asked a federal judge to halt a Sept. 24 election for principal chief of the Oklahoma-based tribe. A hearing on the request is set for Sept. 20 before U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. Documents filed by attorneys for the freedmen accuse the tribe of violating a 145-year-old treaty when the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court last month restored a voter-approved amendment denying citizenship to non-Native American descendants of tribal members' former black slaves. The court reversed a lower court ruling tha...

Our September 24 election is a matter of Cherokee National pride and honor. My opponent needs to step up the plate and take a position: Does he agree that the Cherokee people have a right to elect a chief according to our own laws and Constitution or will he stand with his non-Cherokee freedmen supporters who are trying to stop this election and cut all funding for services? The letter from the BIA is clearly an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Cherokee Nation. We must assert our sovereignty and follow the mandate of our Supreme Court. Washington D.C. bureaucrats are telling the Cherokee people that they don’t think we should be able to elect our own chief. The BIA wants to decide who our chief is, just like they did 100 years ago, and that’s wrong. During my tenure as Chief, I fought each and every attack on our sovereignty and will continue to do so during the next term. As Cherokees, we must be united in our battle against these Washington DC bureaucrat...