The complex and deeply rooted dispute between the Cherokee Nation and the descendants of formerly enslaved people once owned by Cherokee citizens, known as Cherokee Freedmen, has reached a critical juncture. After years of contentious legal battles, both parties have jointly requested a federal court to resolve the core issue of citizenship rights within the Cherokee Nation. This article will delve into the history of this conflict, the legal arguments presented, and the potential implications of the court’s decision. The heart of the matter lies in interpreting the Treaty of 1866, a pivotal document signed between the U.S. government and the Cherokee Nation following the Civil War. The treaty’s language regarding the rights afforded to the Freedmen has become the central point of contention, shaping the lives and identities of thousands.
A History of Conflict: From Slavery to Citizenship Disputes
Prior to the Civil War, slavery was a practice present within the Cherokee Nation, mirroring the societal norms of the time. While not as widespread as in the Southern states, some Cherokee citizens owned enslaved African Americans. The institution of slavery within the Cherokee Nation was abolished with the signing of the Treaty of 1866. This treaty was a significant agreement that aimed to rebuild the relationship between the Cherokee Nation and the U.S. government after the Civil War, during which the Cherokee Nation had been divided in its loyalties.
The Treaty of 1866 included provisions that granted formerly enslaved people and their descendants, the Freedmen, certain rights within the Cherokee Nation. The crux of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the phrase in the treaty that afforded freed slaves "all the rights of native Cherokees." For generations, Freedmen and their descendants were considered citizens of the Cherokee Nation, enjoying the rights and privileges associated with that status.
However, in 2007, a significant shift occurred. Cherokee Nation citizens voted to amend their constitution in a way that effectively excluded Freedmen descendants from citizenship unless they could prove descent from a Native American ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls, a census conducted by the U.S. government at the turn of the 20th century to determine tribal membership. This decision sparked immediate controversy and ignited a legal battle that has continued for over a decade.
The 2007 vote was seen by many Freedmen descendants as a betrayal of the Treaty of 1866 and a direct attack on their identity and heritage. They argued that the treaty explicitly granted them the same rights as native Cherokees, regardless of blood quantum or documented Native American ancestry. The Cherokee Nation, on the other hand, maintained that citizenship should be based on lineal descent from a Native American ancestor, a common requirement for tribal membership across the United States.
The Legal Battleground: Treaty Interpretation and Citizenship Rights
The legal battles that followed the 2007 vote have been complex and emotionally charged. The core legal question centers on the interpretation of the Treaty of 1866 and whether it guarantees Freedmen descendants the right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation, irrespective of their blood quantum or documented Native American ancestry.
Freedmen descendants argue that the treaty’s language is clear and unambiguous. They contend that "all the rights of native Cherokees" encompasses the right to citizenship and that they should not be subjected to different or additional requirements for membership than those applied to other citizens of the Cherokee Nation. They emphasize that their ancestors suffered alongside Native Americans, endured the hardships of slavery, and contributed to the development and prosperity of the Cherokee Nation.
The Cherokee Nation argues that the treaty should be interpreted in the context of historical practices and legal precedents related to tribal sovereignty and membership. They maintain that tribes have the inherent right to determine their own citizenship requirements and that blood quantum or lineal descent from a Native American ancestor is a legitimate criterion for membership. They also point to the Dawes Rolls as a historical record of Cherokee citizens, arguing that those not listed on the rolls cannot claim Cherokee citizenship.
The legal arguments have been presented in various courts, including federal courts, and have involved extensive legal research, historical analysis, and expert testimony. The case has raised fundamental questions about tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and the meaning of citizenship.
The Joint Request: Seeking Judicial Resolution
In a rare move that signals a potential turning point in the conflict, both the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen descendants jointly filed a request in a Washington federal court, asking the court to resolve the central issue of citizenship rights through summary judgment. This request demonstrates a willingness from both sides to seek a definitive legal ruling on the matter, potentially bringing an end to the protracted and costly litigation.
The joint filing specifically asks the court to determine whether the Freedmen possess a right to equal citizenship in the Cherokee Nation under the Treaty of 1866. By seeking summary judgment, both parties are essentially asking the court to rule on the legal issue based on the existing record, without the need for a full trial. This approach could expedite the resolution of the case and provide clarity for both the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen descendants.
The filing also included a proposed schedule for the court to consider, suggesting deadlines for the submission of documents and a timeline for oral arguments. This demonstrates a commitment from both sides to move forward with the legal process in a timely and efficient manner.
Perspectives and Stakes: Identity, Heritage, and Belonging
The dispute over citizenship rights has profound implications for both the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen descendants. For the Cherokee Nation, the issue touches upon questions of tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and the right to define its own membership. The Cherokee Nation seeks to preserve its cultural identity and maintain control over its resources and governance.
For the Freedmen descendants, the issue is deeply personal and emotional. It is about their identity, their heritage, and their sense of belonging. They argue that they are an integral part of the Cherokee Nation, that their ancestors contributed to its history and culture, and that they deserve to be recognized as full and equal citizens.
Marilyn Vann, president of the Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, eloquently expressed the sentiments of many Freedmen descendants when she stated, "This is very important to us; this is our identity, who we are… These are our ancestors that came on the Trail of Tears, and to now have people say you’re not a part of us, get out, we feel outraged." Her words highlight the deep sense of injustice and exclusion felt by many Freedmen descendants who have been denied citizenship rights.
Cherokee Nation Attorney General Todd Hembree acknowledged the significance of the legal battle, stating that after "years of litigation and legal expenses, it appears that we will finally be able to ask a judge to decide the main issue of this case which is, ‘What, if anything, did the Treaty of 1866 grant the freedmen and their descendants?’" His statement underscores the importance of obtaining a clear legal interpretation of the treaty and resolving the long-standing dispute.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
The court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching consequences for both the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen descendants. If the court rules in favor of the Freedmen descendants, it would reaffirm their right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation and potentially open the door for thousands of individuals to be recognized as citizens. This could lead to increased participation in tribal governance, access to tribal resources, and a greater sense of belonging within the Cherokee Nation.
If the court rules in favor of the Cherokee Nation, it would uphold the tribe’s right to determine its own citizenship requirements and potentially limit the number of Freedmen descendants who can claim citizenship. This could reinforce the Cherokee Nation’s sovereignty and control over its membership, but it could also perpetuate the sense of exclusion and injustice felt by many Freedmen descendants.
Regardless of the court’s decision, the case will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the relationship between the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen descendants. It is crucial for both parties to engage in constructive dialogue and seek ways to heal the divisions that have been created by this long-standing dispute. The future of the Cherokee Nation depends on its ability to embrace its diverse heritage and create a community where all members feel valued and respected. This Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Freedmen case is one to watch. The case of the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Freedmen will set precedent. Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Freedmen are awaiting the judge’s final decision. It is expected that the case of the Cherokee Nation and Cherokee Freedmen will finally be put to rest.