The Cherokee Nation, in a landmark decision reflecting complex issues of identity, sovereignty, and historical legacy, held a tribal election that resulted in the revocation of citizenship for descendants of formerly enslaved people once owned by members of the Cherokee Nation. The vote, held on a Saturday, saw a significant majority of Cherokee citizens cast ballots in favor of amending the tribal constitution. This article delves into the details of this pivotal decision, exploring the historical context, the arguments presented by both sides, and the potential ramifications for the future of the Cherokee Nation and its relationship with the descendants of freedmen.
The core of the issue revolved around an amendment to the Cherokee Nation’s constitution. This amendment, put to a vote by the Cherokee people, sought to define citizenship based on lineal descent from individuals listed on the Dawes Commission rolls as "Cherokee by blood." The Dawes Commission, established by the United States Congress in the late 19th century, was tasked with dismantling communal land ownership among Native American tribes and allotting individual parcels to tribal members. As part of this process, the commission created rolls listing tribal members, separating them into categories such as "Cherokee by blood" and "Freedmen." The "Freedmen" roll included individuals of African descent, regardless of whether they possessed Cherokee ancestry, who had been enslaved by Cherokee citizens.
The results of the election were decisive. With all 32 precincts reporting, an overwhelming 76.6 percent of Cherokee voters supported the constitutional amendment. This outcome effectively stripped tribal citizenship from an estimated 2,800 individuals who trace their lineage to those listed on the Dawes Commission’s "Freedmen" roll. The Cherokees Vote Out Slaves’ Descendants decision sparked immediate controversy and ignited a debate that continues to resonate within the Cherokee Nation and beyond.
The historical backdrop to this decision is crucial to understanding the complexities involved. The Cherokee Nation, like other Southern tribes, practiced slavery. Following the American Civil War and the subsequent abolition of slavery, the United States government entered into a treaty with the Cherokee Nation in 1866. This treaty, among other things, granted citizenship rights to formerly enslaved people and their descendants within the Cherokee Nation. This treaty formed the legal basis for the inclusion of Freedmen descendants as citizens of the tribe for many years.
However, in recent years, a movement gained momentum within the Cherokee Nation to redefine citizenship based on "blood quantum," the degree of Cherokee ancestry. Proponents of this view argued that tribal citizenship should be reserved for those with demonstrable Cherokee bloodlines, as documented on the Dawes Rolls. They contended that the 1866 treaty was a product of coercion by the United States government and should not supersede the tribe’s inherent right to determine its own citizenship criteria. This argument resonated with a significant portion of the Cherokee electorate, ultimately leading to the passage of the constitutional amendment.
Opponents of the amendment, including many Freedmen descendants, strongly condemned the vote as discriminatory and a violation of the 1866 treaty. They argued that the attempt to remove Freedmen from the tribe was rooted in racial prejudice and a desire to erase a painful chapter of Cherokee history. Marilyn Vann, president of the Oklahoma City-based Descendants of Freedmen of Five Civilized Tribes, expressed her disappointment, stating that people had "bought into a lot of rhetoric and falsehoods by tribal leaders." Vann and other advocates for Freedmen descendants vowed to challenge the decision through legal and political means.
Tribal officials, on the other hand, defended the vote as an exercise of tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Principal Chief Chad Smith emphasized that the Cherokee people had "exercised the most basic democratic right, the right to vote," and that their voice was clear regarding who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation. He asserted that no external entity had the right to dictate citizenship requirements to the tribe. Smith also noted that the voter turnout for this election was exceptionally high, indicating the importance the issue held for Cherokee citizens. The Cherokees Vote Out Slaves’ Descendants decision, according to tribal leaders, was a reflection of the will of the Cherokee people.
The legal challenges surrounding this issue have been extensive. The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court had previously ruled in 2006 that the 1866 treaty guaranteed citizenship to Freedmen descendants. However, the constitutional amendment effectively overturned this ruling. Freedmen descendants sought to prevent the election from taking place, but their efforts were unsuccessful. While a federal judge denied their request for an injunction, the judge left open the possibility of further legal action if the election resulted in the revocation of their citizenship rights.
Following the vote, tribal spokesman Mike Miller stated that the period for protesting the election would last until March 12 and that Cherokee courts were the proper venue for any legal challenges. Marilyn Vann immediately promised a protest, declaring that they did not accept the "fraudulent election." The legal battle over the citizenship rights of Freedmen descendants promises to be a protracted and complex one, with potentially far-reaching implications for tribal sovereignty and the rights of indigenous people.
The implications of the Cherokees Vote Out Slaves’ Descendants decision are multifaceted. For the approximately 2,800 Freedmen descendants who lost their citizenship, the consequences are significant. They face the loss of tribal benefits, including access to healthcare, housing assistance, and educational opportunities. Furthermore, the decision strikes at the core of their identity and sense of belonging to the Cherokee Nation. Many Freedmen descendants have deep roots in the Cherokee community, having lived and worked alongside Cherokee citizens for generations. The revocation of their citizenship creates a sense of alienation and marginalization.
The decision also raises broader questions about the definition of tribal citizenship and the role of race and ancestry in determining belonging. The Cherokee Nation’s decision to prioritize "blood quantum" over other factors, such as historical ties and cultural participation, sets a precedent that could be followed by other tribes. This could lead to further divisions within Native American communities and potentially exclude individuals who identify strongly with their tribal heritage but lack sufficient "blood quantum" to meet the established criteria.
Furthermore, the decision has implications for the relationship between the Cherokee Nation and the United States government. The 1866 treaty, which guaranteed citizenship to Freedmen descendants, was a binding agreement between the two entities. The Cherokee Nation’s decision to disregard this treaty could strain its relationship with the federal government and potentially jeopardize its access to federal funding and resources.
In conclusion, the Cherokee Nation’s vote to revoke the citizenship of slaves’ descendants represents a complex and controversial decision with far-reaching implications. It raises fundamental questions about identity, sovereignty, and the legacy of slavery in Native American communities. The legal battles and political debates surrounding this issue are likely to continue for years to come, shaping the future of the Cherokee Nation and its relationship with both its own citizens and the broader world. The outcome of this struggle will have a lasting impact on the definition of tribal citizenship and the rights of indigenous peoples.