News From Indian Country Op-Ed on Cherokee Freedmen

Here.

Cherokees flee the moral high ground over Freedmen

by Robert Warrior

Cherokee Chief Chad Smith is wrong and Representative Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) is right. As those who follow the American Indian political world know, earlier this year an overwhelming majority of Cherokee voters decided to deny descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen, freed slaves who trod the Trail of Tears with their Native American owners, rights to political enfranchisement guaranteed to them in an 1866 treaty the Cherokees signed with the United States in the aftermath of the Civil War.

***

The politics of this issue are certainly interesting—the embarrassingly low number of Cherokees, for instance, who participate in their nation’s electoral process (less than 8000 in a group of well over 150,000), the predictable way that this decision by one group exposes all American Indian nations to alienating people who have been important, reliable friends (the Congressional Black Caucus most visibly). Morality, however, has been the missing topic in the wrangling thus far, and I would argue is the basis for why it is important for everyone, especially American Indian people who have been silent thus far, to support efforts like those of Representative Watt.

The moral case against the Cherokees is straightforward. As a duly constituted nation in the nineteenth century, they legally embraced and promoted African slavery, a position they maintained after Removal to Indian Territory in the 1830s. The vast majority of Cherokees could not afford slaves, as was also the case throughout the American South, and historians of Cherokee slavery have demonstrated that some aspects of the Cherokee social world gave a different, less negative character to being enslaved by wealthy Cherokees rather than wealthy whites. Make no mistake, though. No one is on record as having volunteered to become a Cherokee slave. History records plenty of Cherokee slaves attempting to escape to freedom, as well as Cherokee slave revolts.

The institution of slavery was for Cherokees, as it has been for all people who practice it, morally and politically corruptive, and many citizens of this Native slaving nation knew it. Stories like that of the children of Shoeboots and Doll, a Cherokee slaveowner and his black concubine/wife, whose father risked his reputation as a war hero in petitioning for their recognition as Cherokees provides a picture of this ambiguity, but the cruelty, sexual violence, and physical degradation of modern slavery under Cherokees like James Vann is just as unambiguous (both are captured magnificently by University of Michigan scholar Tiya Miles in her 2005 book Ties that Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom).

***

In spite of being egged on and provoked by the legislated racism of the Cherokee Nation, the vast majority of Freedmen descendants have reacted with impressive dignity befitting their proud history. Melvin Watt and other black members of Congress have likewise responded in a measured, but active way. It remains for more people, including Native American writers, scholars, and artists, not to mention elected leaders, presidents, and chiefs, to stand up and be counted on the right moral side of this question. Better yet, Chad Smith could save us all the trouble by following some of the best examples of Cherokee history rather than the morally corrupting and exclusionary ones he and his supporters have chosen thus far.

4 thoughts on “News From Indian Country Op-Ed on Cherokee Freedmen

  1. Ronnie Sellers Walkingstick August 23, 2011 / 1:46 pm

    My dad was full blood Cherokee and my first wife was Black Cherokee. My son is the product of both. I am sorrowed by the attitude that the Western Cherokee Nation has taken on this issue. They are showing the same attitude the white people of America has shown toward the unfortunate slaves. I am white Cherokee. But I am proud of all my heritage. My white side were in the original colonies that started the invasion.

  2. Tom August 24, 2011 / 12:34 pm

    Being Cherokee, I would ask those outside of this issue to look at it from this perspective. The policy that exists is that in order to be a member of the Cherokee Nation, you have to prove that you are descended from someone who was listed on the rolls as a member of tribe. It does not matter if you’re full blood, or mixed with any other race on the planet, if you can show you’re a descendant, then you can join the tribe. What do the descendants of Freedmen offer culturally? What is it they hope to gain by joining the tribe? Why aren’t any of the other “Five Tribes” who were slave owners not having to deal with this issue, even though they have the same policies? If the Freedmen have “cultural dignity” then they should be proud of who they are as African Americans and not try to glomb onto to the the Cherokees that in this modern era, they have no cultural attachments to.

  3. Matthew L.M. Fletcher August 24, 2011 / 12:50 pm

    Outsiders are deeply troubled by the Cherokee decision to exclude people who are part of the Cherokee treaty tradition on the basis of their race. Well settled principles of law suggest that when a nation brings in outsiders, enslaves them, and then is forced to free their slaves, those former slaves (freedmen) become full citizens of the nation entitled to the equal protection of that nation’s laws.

  4. keetoowah August 25, 2011 / 12:54 pm

    What do white thinbloods bring ‘culturally’ to the tirbe? Nothing. Chad Smith’s administration teaches them to be cherokee through his history course, and indoctrinates them into his ideals of what his administration deems as ‘cherokee’. The modern freedmen are descendants of people listed on the dawes rolls, the only difference is that those people who they descend from all have black heritage. And the Administration under Chad Smith pushed and was successful in getting this portion of the Dawes Roll, not recognized for citizenship.

Comments are closed.