The history of the Creek Nation, particularly in the period following the American Civil War, is a complex tapestry woven with threads of cultural conflict, political maneuvering, and the struggle for identity. A particularly sensitive and enduring issue was the status and rights of freedmen – individuals of African descent formerly enslaved by members of the Creek tribe. This article delves into the intricacies of this historical intersection, exploring the policies, perspectives, and ultimate integration (or lack thereof) of freedmen into the Creek Nation, especially in the context of the Dawes Commission and its mission to allot tribal lands. Understanding the story of the freedmen is crucial to grasping the full complexity of Creek history and the challenges faced by the tribe during this tumultuous era.
The Aftermath of the Civil War: Treaty Obligations and Freedmen
Prior to 1865, chattel slavery existed within the Creek Nation, a practice not uncommon among some of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes." Following the Confederacy’s defeat and the subsequent treaties aimed at re-establishing relations between the U.S. government and these tribes, the Creeks, along with others, were obligated to formally adopt their former slaves as freedmen. This stipulation was a cornerstone of the treaties designed to ensure the newly freed individuals were granted basic rights and a place within the tribal structure.
The treaty stipulations required more than just a nominal acknowledgement of freedom. It mandated the granting of citizenship rights to the freedmen, which, crucially, included the right to share in tribal lands and resources. This provision, while seemingly straightforward in principle, ignited a firestorm of controversy within the Creek Nation. The question of Some Creeks had owned slaves prior to 1865, and by treaty they were required to adopt them into the tribe generated deep divisions and animosity.
Opposition and Acceptance: A Divided Nation
While some Creeks readily accepted intermarriage and social integration with freedmen, a more pervasive sentiment was resistance to granting them full citizenship rights. The prospect of sharing tribal lands, a finite and valuable resource, was a significant point of contention. Many Creeks, particularly those of full-blood ancestry, opposed what they perceived as an erosion of their heritage and the dilution of their tribal identity.
This opposition manifested in various ways, ranging from social ostracization to political maneuvering aimed at limiting the rights and influence of the freedmen. The issue became a constant source of friction between tribal officials and the Dawes Commission, a federal body tasked with overseeing the allotment of tribal lands and the determination of citizenship. This friction further fragmented the Creek Nation, exacerbating existing divisions and creating new ones.
The Dawes Commission and the Freedmen: A Federal Mandate
The Dawes Commission, established by the U.S. government, played a pivotal role in shaping the fate of the Creek freedmen. Charged with dismantling tribal governments and allotting communal lands to individual tribal members, the commission faced the daunting task of determining who was eligible for enrollment and, consequently, entitled to a land allotment.
The federal government’s insistence that the freedmen be enrolled as citizens was a constant point of contention. The identity and eligibility of the freedmen became a major point of contention. In 1867, J.W. Dunn, the Creek agent at Fort Gibson, compiled a roll of 1,774 blacks he deemed eligible for citizenship. However, tribal officials contested this roll, arguing that many individuals had returned to the Creek Nation too late to benefit from the treaty provisions, while others were "state negroes" who had arrived seeking economic opportunities. Full-blood Creeks further alleged that officials from the three "colored towns" were attempting to fraudulently add ineligible names to their town rolls.
The commissioner of Indian affairs provided the Dawes Commission with a copy of the Dunn Roll on May 2, 1899, which served as the foundation for determining eligibility. The Dawes Commission sought to create a comprehensive and accurate roll of Creek citizens, including freedmen, to facilitate the allotment process. This endeavor, however, was met with resistance and allegations of fraud from various factions within the Creek Nation.
Navigating the Labyrinth: Enrollment Challenges and Political Maneuvering
The process of enrolling freedmen as citizens was fraught with challenges. The Creeks continued to try to negotiate an agreement that would modify the terms of the Curtis Act. On January 30, 1901, Bixby wrote to Dawes, who was sick at home in Massachusetts, that an amendment suggested by Chief Porter to submit the Creek rolls to the tribe for revision would give “tricksters and the Creek Council an opportunity to inaugurate another carnival of corruption.â€
The Dawes Commission’s efforts were further complicated by inconsistencies in record-keeping, language barriers, and the fluidity of Creek names. Accusations of corruption and favoritism were rampant, with various factions vying to influence the enrollment process to their advantage.
Chief Justice T.J. Adams of the Creek Supreme Court issued a ruling on August 5, 1896, that the National Council could recognize any person entitled to citizenship but had no power to grant citizenship because that would vest a person with property rights at the expense of existing citizens. The ruling would have struck almost three thousand freedmen from the rolls, but they were too numerous and well organized to be denied. On November 25, 1900, the “colored members†of the National Council suggested that P. Bruner, G. Jimmerson, and Robert Grayson be appointed as attorneys to represent them before the Dawes Commission.
The Legacy of Enrollment and Allotment
Despite the challenges and controversies, the Dawes Commission ultimately completed its work, enrolling thousands of Creek citizens, including freedmen. Each enrolled individual received an allotment of land, marking the end of communal land ownership and the beginning of a new era of individual land tenure.
The process, however, left a lasting legacy of bitterness and resentment. Many Creeks, particularly those who opposed allotment and the inclusion of freedmen, felt disenfranchised and betrayed by the U.S. government. The freedmen, while gaining legal recognition as citizens, often faced continued discrimination and economic hardship. The story of Some Creeks had owned slaves prior to 1865, and by treaty they were required to adopt them into the tribe is a microcosm of the larger challenges faced by Native American tribes during the era of assimilation and allotment.
The "Crazy Snake Movement" and Resistance
The dissatisfaction with the Dawes Commission and the allotment process fueled resistance movements within the Creek Nation. One of the most notable was the "Crazy Snake Movement," led by Chitto Harjo, also known as Snake. This faction, primarily composed of full-blood Creeks, vehemently opposed allotment and sought to maintain the traditional communal land system.
Armed with a copy of the treaty of 1832, he traveled around the Creek Nation from May to October 1890, speaking at “stomp dances†and other gatherings and encouraging Creeks not to allow themselves to be enrolled. In January 1901 a council was held at Hickory Ground, and the Snakes formed a separate government that was determined to maintain the “old treaties.†Similar groups formed among the other Five Civilized Tribes and the Dawes Commission began to worry that the Snake movement might grow.
The "Snake Light Horse" started to enforce the laws of the opposition government. Beatings and threats of violence to both Creeks and the many whites living in the Creek Nation resulted. An almost hysterical fear of the Snakes reached near epidemic-proportions in some areas, and the U.S. marshal, Dr. Leo E. Bennett, called on the U.S. Army for help.
The "Crazy Snake Movement" represented a clash of cultural values and a deep-seated resistance to the forced assimilation policies of the U.S. government. While ultimately unsuccessful in halting the allotment process, it served as a powerful symbol of Creek sovereignty and cultural preservation.
Conclusion: A Complex and Enduring Legacy
The story of the Creek freedmen and the Dawes Commission is a complex and multifaceted one, filled with political intrigue, cultural clashes, and the enduring struggle for identity and self-determination. The obligation imposed on the Creek Nation to adopt their former slaves as citizens after the Civil War was met with mixed reactions, leading to internal divisions and conflicts with the U.S. government.
The Dawes Commission’s efforts to enroll and allot land to Creek citizens, including freedmen, were fraught with challenges and controversies. Despite the legal recognition granted to freedmen, they often faced continued discrimination and economic hardship. The resistance movements, such as the "Crazy Snake Movement," underscored the deep-seated opposition to allotment and assimilation within the Creek Nation.
The legacy of this era continues to shape the Creek Nation today. The enrollment records of the Dawes Commission remain a valuable resource for genealogical research and tribal membership determination. The struggle for equality and justice for freedmen and their descendants continues, highlighting the enduring impact of historical injustices. The history of Some Creeks had owned slaves prior to 1865, and by treaty they were required to adopt them into the tribe serves as a reminder of the complexities of history and the importance of understanding the diverse perspectives and experiences that have shaped the Creek Nation.