The legal landscape of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma shifted dramatically following a landmark ruling by its highest court, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal. The decision mandates that the tribe extend citizenship to the descendants of slaves, historically known as Cherokee Freedmen. This ruling brings to a close decades of contentious legal battles surrounding the status and rights of these individuals and their families.
The Tribal court rules in favor of “Freedmen” marks a pivotal moment in the tribe’s history, prompting widespread reactions from various stakeholders, including the Freedmen themselves, tribal members, legal experts, and observers of Native American affairs. The implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate granting of citizenship, touching upon issues of identity, tribal sovereignty, historical justice, and the complex legacy of slavery within Native American communities.
A History of Slavery and the Cherokee Nation
To fully understand the significance of the court’s decision, it’s crucial to delve into the historical context of slavery within the Cherokee Nation. Like other members of the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole), the Cherokee adopted the institution of slavery, mirroring the practices of the surrounding European-American society. This adoption, however, was not without internal debate and conflict.
By the early 19th century, slavery had become deeply entrenched in the Cherokee economy, particularly in agriculture. Wealthy Cherokee families owned slaves who labored on plantations, producing cotton and other cash crops. The enslaved individuals, primarily of African descent, were subjected to the same brutal conditions and dehumanization as their counterparts in the American South.
The Civil War further complicated the situation. The Cherokee Nation, like other Native American tribes, was divided in its loyalties. While some Cherokees supported the Confederacy, others remained loyal to the Union. This internal division led to significant hardship and devastation within the Nation.
Following the Union victory, the U.S. government mandated that the Five Civilized Tribes abolish slavery and grant citizenship to their former slaves. This mandate was enshrined in the Reconstruction Treaties of 1866. As a result, the Cherokee Nation formally abolished slavery and recognized the Freedmen as citizens, granting them rights and privileges equal to those of Cherokee citizens by blood.
The Dawes Rolls and the Seeds of Controversy
A crucial aspect of the Freedmen’s case revolves around the Dawes Rolls, also known as the Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. These rolls were compiled by the Dawes Commission between 1898 and 1906 for the purpose of allotting tribal lands and dissolving tribal governments. The rolls listed individuals by blood, marriage, or as Freedmen.
The Dawes Rolls became the primary source for determining tribal citizenship. However, over time, the Cherokee Nation began to restrict citizenship based on blood quantum, requiring individuals to prove a certain degree of Cherokee ancestry. This restriction effectively disenfranchised many Freedmen and their descendants, who were listed on the Dawes Rolls as Freedmen but lacked documented Cherokee blood.
The Legal Battle and the Court’s Decision
The issue of Freedmen citizenship has been a source of legal contention for decades. The Cherokee Nation’s 1975 constitution, while not explicitly mentioning blood quantum as a requirement for citizenship, was interpreted by some as implying such a requirement. This interpretation led to the exclusion of many Freedmen from tribal membership, denying them access to tribal services, healthcare, housing, and voting rights.
The recent case before the Judicial Appeals Tribunal challenged this interpretation. The Freedmen argued that the 1866 treaty and the Dawes Rolls guaranteed their citizenship rights and that the tribe’s subsequent restrictions were discriminatory and violated their treaty rights.
In a 2-1 decision, the appeals tribunal sided with the Freedmen. The court ruled that the 1975 constitution does not explicitly require Cherokee blood for citizenship and that the Freedmen, whose ancestors were listed on the Dawes Rolls, are entitled to tribal membership.
Justice Stacy Leeds, in her written opinion, emphasized that the constitution does not contain the phrases "by blood" or "Cherokee by blood," indicating that blood quantum was not intended as a criterion for citizenship. This interpretation effectively overturned the tribe’s long-standing policy of restricting citizenship based on blood quantum. This Tribal court rules in favor of “Freedmen” will change many lives.
Reactions and Implications
The court’s decision has been met with a mix of jubilation and disappointment. Freedmen and their advocates have hailed the ruling as a victory for justice and equality. Lucy Allen, one of the Freedmen who pursued the case, expressed her joy and vindication, stating that the decision was "a long time coming." David Cornsilk, a Cherokee advocate for the Freedmen, echoed this sentiment.
However, some members of the Cherokee Nation have expressed concern about the potential impact of the ruling on tribal resources and services. The addition of thousands of new members could strain the tribe’s healthcare system, housing programs, and other essential services.
Diane Hammons, Cherokee general counsel, acknowledged the court’s decision and stated that the tribe would respect the rule of law. While expressing disagreement with the court’s interpretation of the constitution, she affirmed the tribe’s commitment to upholding the law.
The decision has broader implications for other Native American tribes, particularly the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, which has similar Freedmen cases pending before its own court. The Cherokee ruling could set a precedent for these cases and influence the way other tribes address the issue of Freedmen citizenship.
The Broader Context of Native American Identity
The Tribal court rules in favor of “Freedmen” also underscores the complex and evolving nature of Native American identity. The question of who is considered Native American has been a subject of debate and contention for centuries. Blood quantum, descent, cultural affiliation, and tribal membership are all factors that contribute to one’s identity as Native American.
The Cherokee Freedmen case highlights the tension between these different factors. While the Freedmen may not have Cherokee blood, they have a historical connection to the tribe through slavery and subsequent integration into Cherokee society. Their ancestors were recognized as citizens of the Cherokee Nation in the 19th century, and they have maintained cultural and familial ties to the tribe for generations.
The court’s decision recognizes the validity of this historical connection and affirms the Freedmen’s right to be considered members of the Cherokee Nation. It also challenges the notion that blood quantum is the sole determinant of Native American identity.
Moving Forward
The Tribal court rules in favor of “Freedmen” represents a significant step towards reconciliation and healing within the Cherokee Nation. However, the implementation of the court’s decision will require careful planning and sensitivity. The tribe must work to ensure that the Freedmen are fully integrated into tribal life and that their rights and needs are met.
Furthermore, the tribe must engage in open and honest dialogue about the legacy of slavery and its impact on the Cherokee Nation. This dialogue should involve all members of the tribe, including both Cherokee by blood and Freedmen, and should aim to promote understanding, healing, and reconciliation.
The path forward will not be easy, but the court’s decision provides an opportunity for the Cherokee Nation to reaffirm its commitment to justice, equality, and inclusivity. By embracing the Freedmen as full members of the tribe, the Cherokee Nation can strengthen its community and build a more just and equitable future for all its citizens.
In conclusion, the Tribal court rules in favor of “Freedmen” is a watershed moment in the history of the Cherokee Nation. It signifies a commitment to upholding treaty obligations, addressing historical injustices, and embracing a more inclusive vision of tribal membership. While challenges remain, the decision offers a path towards healing and reconciliation, ultimately strengthening the Cherokee Nation for generations to come.