The relationship between federally recognized tribal governments and the United States government has evolved significantly, reaching a point of relative strength and autonomy. However, this progress is now shadowed by a contentious issue within the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The central concern revolves around allegations that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is attempting to reinterpret or potentially disregard the terms of a treaty signed in 1866 with the original Cherokee people. This situation raises serious questions about the sanctity of treaties and the potential ramifications for tribal sovereignty across the nation. The implications of potentially breaking a treaty are profound, potentially jeopardizing the established government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States, potentially opening the door for congressional intervention that could undermine tribal autonomy.
The Supreme Law of the Land: Treaties and the U.S. Constitution
At the heart of this debate lies the fundamental importance of treaties within the legal framework of the United States. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. This constitutional provision elevates treaties to a status equal to that of the Constitution itself and federal laws, binding all states and their judiciaries.
In the context of Native American law, it is a well-established principle that treaties can only be altered through subsequent treaties or by an act of Congress. Given that the United States no longer enters into treaty-making processes with Native American tribes, congressional action remains the sole avenue for modifying existing treaty obligations. This reality underscores the gravity of any attempt to unilaterally reinterpret or disregard a treaty, as it challenges the established legal framework and could have far-reaching consequences.
The Curtis Act and the Restoration of Voting Rights
Historically, the Cherokee Nation, like many other tribes, faced significant challenges to its sovereignty and self-governance. The Curtis Act of 1898, for instance, was a piece of federal legislation that aimed to dismantle tribal governments and assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American society. One of the key provisions of the Curtis Act stripped tribal citizens of the right to elect their own leaders, effectively undermining their political autonomy.
However, this right was eventually restored in 1970 through the Principal Chief’s Act, passed by Congress. This act marked a significant step towards restoring self-governance to the Cherokee Nation and other tribes. Following this act, the Department of the Interior issued regulations outlining the conditions for the democratic selection of tribal officials. A key condition mandated that voter qualifications for the Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek nations must be broad enough to include the enrolled Freedmen citizens of the respective nations, along with the descendants of such enrollees.
The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek and the Binding Nature of Treaties
The principle of upholding treaty obligations is further reinforced by the language used in treaties such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. This treaty, like many others, contains provisions that establish the binding nature of the agreements. The treaty states that tribal laws shall be in effect, except such as from time to time may be enacted in their own National Councils, not inconsistent with the Constitution Treaties, and Laws of the United States; and except such as may, and which have been enacted by Congress, to the extent that Congress, under the Constitution are required to exercise a legislation over Indian Affairs. This language underscores the commitment to upholding the terms of the treaty and adhering to the legal framework established by the United States.
A Legacy of Broken Promises and the Importance of Upholding Treaties
Throughout history, Native American tribes have faced a long and arduous struggle to hold the United States accountable for the promises made in treaties. One of the points of pride for Native Americans has been their unwavering commitment to upholding their treaty obligations, even in the face of broken promises by the U.S. government. If the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma succeeds in what is perceived as an attempt to disenfranchise a class of citizens, this legacy of integrity could be tarnished, potentially affecting all tribes in the United States.
The Alleged Disenfranchisement of Freedmen Descendants
The current controversy centers on allegations that the Smith administration within the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is attempting to unilaterally alter the terms of the 1866 treaty by eliminating citizenship and voting rights for Freedmen descendants. Freedmen were formerly enslaved people who were granted citizenship in the Cherokee Nation following the Civil War, as stipulated in the 1866 treaty.
Critics argue that this action exceeds the authority of the tribal government and undermines the treaty obligations that have been in place for over a century. The potential disenfranchisement of Freedmen descendants raises serious concerns about equality, justice, and the protection of minority rights within the Cherokee Nation. It also raises questions about the interpretation of treaties and the extent to which tribal governments can modify or disregard treaty provisions without congressional approval.
The Potential for a Dangerous Precedent and the Need for Unity
The actions of the Smith administration have been met with strong opposition from those who believe that they are setting a dangerous precedent. Critics argue that the administration is essentially claiming to have more power than Congress by unilaterally changing the terms of a treaty. This could embolden other tribal governments to disregard treaty obligations or to disenfranchise certain groups of citizens, leading to further instability and conflict.
To prevent such outcomes, it is imperative that all Cherokees stand together to protect their good names and uphold the integrity of their treaty obligations. The sanctity of treaties is essential for maintaining the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States. If the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is allowed to break the 1866 treaty, it could open the door for other treaties to be broken, undermining tribal sovereignty and jeopardizing the rights of Native Americans across the country. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is at risk of setting this dangerous precedent.
Preserving Tribal Sovereignty Through Treaty Adherence
The language that binds treaties should be preserved as written because treaties are binding for as long as the sun comes up in the east, sets in the west, the grass grows, and the waters flow. Because of this language, the U.S. government is much less likely to break another treaty. This commitment to upholding treaty obligations is essential for preserving tribal sovereignty and protecting the rights of Native Americans for generations to come.
It is crucial to maintain the integrity of tribal governments’ government-to-government relationships with the U.S. government and to keep all treaties intact. This is the way to honor and protect tribal sovereignty and to ensure that the promises made to Native American tribes are kept. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma should be wary of this possible precedent. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma must consider the impact. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma holds a key to the future.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the 1866 treaty highlights the complex and often fraught relationship between Native American tribes and the United States government. The sanctity of treaties is paramount for preserving tribal sovereignty and protecting the rights of Native Americans. Any attempt to unilaterally reinterpret or disregard treaty obligations should be met with scrutiny and resistance, as it could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the legal framework that has been in place for over a century. The future of tribal sovereignty depends on upholding the promises made in treaties and ensuring that the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the United States remains intact.