The issue of Cherokee citizenship, specifically regarding the descendants of freed slaves known as Freedmen, remains a contentious and deeply divisive subject within the Cherokee Nation. At the heart of the matter is a clash between the tribe’s highest court, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal, and the then-Principal Chief Chad Smith, who publicly voiced his opposition to a ruling that granted citizenship rights to the Freedmen. This article delves into the intricacies of this dispute, exploring the legal arguments, political maneuvering, and deeply held beliefs that fueled the debate.
The Judicial Appeals Tribunal, the Cherokee Nation’s highest judicial authority, issued a landmark ruling asserting that Freedmen, whose ancestors were enslaved by and later integrated into the Cherokee Nation during the 19th century, were illegally denied their rightful tribal citizenship. The court based its decision on the interpretation of the Cherokee Nation’s constitution, arguing that it guaranteed citizenship to the Freedmen and their descendants. This ruling effectively recognized the Freedmen as citizens with all the rights and privileges afforded to other members of the Cherokee Nation.
However, the then-Principal Chief Chad Smith, the elected leader of the Cherokee Nation, openly challenged the court’s decision. In his annual state of the nation address, Smith suggested that the ruling should be addressed through either a tribal constitutional convention or a referendum petition. This would essentially allow the Cherokee people to directly vote on whether to amend the current constitution to exclude the Freedmen from citizenship. Smith’s argument centered on the belief that citizenship is a fundamental right that should be determined by the people, not by the courts, even when the court is providing its interpretation of the tribal constitution.
Smith’s stance ignited a firestorm of controversy and exposed deep divisions within the Cherokee Nation. Supporters of the Freedmen argued that the court’s ruling was a just and long-overdue recognition of their rights, while opponents expressed concerns about the potential impact of granting citizenship to a large group of individuals who, according to them, had not actively contributed to the rebuilding of the Cherokee Nation in recent times. This is the view of Cherokee Chief Not Ready to End Fight to Keep Out Freedmen
Adding another layer of complexity to the situation was the assertion by Cherokee Nation Councilor Bill John Baker, who stated that the Judicial Appeals Tribunal’s ruling was "the law of the land." Baker criticized Chief Smith’s efforts to challenge the ruling, suggesting that it was a waste of time and resources. He also pointed out the apparent contradiction of Smith, who originally appointed the members of the court, now disagreeing with its decision. Baker also questioned Smith’s motives, implying that he was attempting to circumvent the court’s ruling by appealing to the people for a vote.
Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen Association, expressed her disappointment with Chief Smith’s reasoning. She emphasized that the judges had issued a detailed and well-reasoned decision and hoped that the council and voters would recognize its validity. Vann also articulated her vision of the Cherokee Nation as a nation, not a race, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity and equal opportunity for all its members. She argued that the Freedmen had not been allowed to fully participate in building up the nation because they had been denied the opportunity to do so.
The debate also touched upon the potential political implications of granting citizenship to the Freedmen. David Cornsilk, a Cherokee lay advocate who represented the Freedmen before the high court, estimated that the decision could add between 12,000 and 25,000 individuals to the tribal rolls. This influx of new voters could potentially shift the balance of power within the Cherokee Nation, especially considering that Chief Smith’s primary support base was believed to be among absentee voters. Cornsilk went so far as to accuse Smith of being a racist for opposing the Freedmen’s citizenship.
Councilor Don Garvin of Muskogee acknowledged the authority of the Judicial Appeals Tribunal’s ruling but also emphasized the right of Cherokee citizens to decide on matters of tribal citizenship. While Garvin did not explicitly endorse Smith’s call for a constitutional convention or referendum, his comments suggested a willingness to consider alternative options. When asked about his past disagreements with Smith, Garvin struggled to recall any instances where he had voted against the Chief’s proposals, stating that "It’s hard to be against him when he’s right."
The issue was slated to be taken up by the Rules Committee, of which all council members were a part, in a meeting on March 30th. Councilor Garvin indicated that he would await the committee’s recommendations before taking a definitive stance on the matter.
This complex and multifaceted dispute over Cherokee citizenship highlights the ongoing struggle to reconcile historical injustices with contemporary concerns about tribal identity and self-determination. The core question revolves around the interpretation of the Cherokee Nation’s constitution and the balance between judicial authority, popular sovereignty, and the rights of marginalized groups. The debate is a microcosm of broader issues surrounding race, citizenship, and belonging that continue to shape societies around the world.
The case of the Cherokee Freedmen raises fundamental questions about who belongs to a nation and on what basis citizenship should be determined. Is it based solely on ancestry and blood quantum, or should other factors, such as historical ties, cultural integration, and contributions to the community, also be considered? These are questions that the Cherokee Nation, like many other indigenous nations and countries grappling with similar issues, must confront in order to forge a more inclusive and just future. The Cherokee Chief Not Ready to End Fight to Keep Out Freedmen is a sentiment that reflects a deep-seated conflict over identity and belonging.
Ultimately, the resolution of this dispute will have far-reaching implications for the Cherokee Nation and its relationship with the Freedmen community. It will also serve as a precedent for other indigenous nations facing similar challenges in defining citizenship and ensuring the rights of all their members. The Cherokee Chief Not Ready to End Fight to Keep Out Freedmen highlights a crucial juncture in the tribe’s history, one that demands careful consideration, open dialogue, and a commitment to justice and equality.