Talk:Cherokee freedmen controversy

Issue summary section

The section called "The Issue" came from an old version of Cherokee Freedmen that was brought here when Cherokee Freedmen became a redirect (at least I think I remember that being the case). The section was a bit POV, and a bit redundant with the history section. The section has now been renamed "Issue summary," which seems to be less POV (and much better cited), but still a bit redundant with other sections. However, I think that the redundancy is ok, but it should be in the lead section, rather than the issue summary section. Thus, I think that the old section (if/where it was citable and NPOV), the rewrite, and the lead should all be merged into a new lead. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would really like it if you would stop placing garbage about the Cherokee Nation into Wikipedia. You do not seem to have the accurate materials about what's going on in the Cherokee Nation, or related to any of these controversies. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, J. Chill. A new user made some edits to the issue summary section, and I thought that the issue summary should be merged with lead. The last time I made any substantial edits here was May 15 [1], which I think you looked through, and were happy with [2]. Stormshadows00 is a new user, I don't think their edits need be removed, nor the census facts about slaves. The material about recent events does need to be paired down, but I don't think cutting all of it at once was helpful either. I'll hold off on reverting you myself (but I'd support someone else to do it) given the issues between us, but don't take issues you have with me out on a new user. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to Cherokee Freedmen Controversy

My first issue with the page is that the "Issue" section, which had information that has NEVER been stated in any media or information in the Freedmen situation. Chief Smith has never stated that he did the election for the Cherokee who are of African slave descent and it's been known to people who have been following the case that there hasn't been anything that even alluded to that before and after the March 3rd ruling and the federal case announcement (and I even put up his actual words from the announcement of the election). That right there is not in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which I read before I made ANY changes.

As far as the "Diversity" pictures go, the Cherokee Nation recently made those ads in response to the allegations of racism with the Freedmen sitation. Putting those ads up with no indication of their origin and what the pictures were for is definetely not contributing to the article. And in the "history" log, the previous editor removed ALL the recent formation on the case, but stated that all he did was "replace photos removed and intro".

Another issue is the issue of the census information and other recent information about the Freedmen controversy that has been completely removed from the page. Now the original claim in the revision before mine is that "unsourced material" was removed, but all of my statements were cited with links and information backing up all my statements unlike the previous revison. I find it funny that my information was removed yet the information that was replaced had nothing backing up the statements made.

The recent changes I made was an update with recent information (once again sourced) with the action that has happened after the loss of citizenship (which was again removed by the previous edit and recent edit) and announcement of Bill HR 2824, additions to the previous statements that were missing from the previous edit, information about Cherokee slavery and lawsuits, removed the "issue" part because it was not factual and kind of redundant since the issue is in the header, and the merge of my previous edit to the header per the suggestion of smmurphy stated in this discussion (also putting parts of the original my original edit in other sections). The original article had three or four references. I had twenty four references.

Even though I followed all the guidelines, the changes were removed and the previous article was replaced. My concern with this article is that there is some misinformation, omitted infomation, factual information becaing removed, and the neutrality is definitely in question. If this keeps going on with each edit, there's no point in putting up accurate information.

Stormshadows00 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a sockpuppet account of a banned user, JohnC1. Are you JohnC1? If not, welcome, if so, you are not allowed to edit here asnd you changes can be reverted. Removal of the photos has not good jsutification. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added back in the materials about HR 2824 and removed your uncited edits which attack Chad Smith. The use of the term Cherokee nation of Oklahoma is likewise a dead giveaway. I need to see some evidence you are not JohnC1 or from the Cornsilks Board. Also, using Wikipedia to libel Chad Smith violates WP:BLP and will not be tolerated here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First you put "This user is suspected to be a "sock puppet of JohnC1" in my information and you have made changes to my profile page with that statement. I don't know what a "sock puppet" and I don't know who or what "JohnC1" is. But I do know one thing. I've read each and every guideline on wikipedia and according to them, you are putting false information and ommited information that has everything to with the Cherokee Freedmen situation. I have not violated any rule or guideline here and a believe harassment by a fellow user is a guideline on here. My edits can be verified with the twenty four links that I put on this page. (And for your information, many people call the tribe "Cherokee Nation Of Oklahoma"). ALL of MY edits that I, stormshadows00, made are completely cited and I don't know where you get off coming at me with "unsourced material", "he's a sockpuppet" and "libel Chad Smith". You've deleted almost all of the original article plus deleted information that actually happened. And to me, you're not being neutral or even about putting up the actual information.

And now you want to say I'm "JohnC1" or whoever he or she is and call me a "sockpuppet" in my profile? That's clear sign that you're foul about this. Stormshadows00 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If Stormshadows00 could fix the citations a little, so that it is clear what the original source is, we will be able to see more easily if the source is a reliable one. But from what I can see, most of them are strong (Washington Times, Daily Pheonix, etc.). I think the relevant policies might be undue weight and what is sometimes called synthesis and therefore original research, but neither is so ergrerious that mass reversion is useful. I think we should leave Stormshadow00's material on, and vet it (slowly, as in discuss each major change), if anything. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This user may be Johnc1, we need an admin in here to checkuser this account. revert wars, and uncited attacks on Chad Smith make is pretty clear who this is, along with claims they do not know what a sockpuppet is but yet edit proficiently on Wikipedia. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to file a WP:RFCU. Also, please state which issues specifically you have. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"This user" has no idea who or what a "JohnC1" is! I don't appreciate you putting this "user may be JohnC1" on my information or on my messages. My name isn't "John", I don't have a "C" in my name, and last I checked it was "00" and not "1". As for me "editing proficiently", it's not that hard to do when you cut/paste the article, type words, and actually preview it. It's really not. I don't know where you get off coming with all of this but smearing my name on here just because I actually researched the case and put up factual information? That is beyond weak. I would like any user in this discussion other than you to go through what I typed, clicked the links, read the recent information, and see if there is any "uncited attacks" or anything that is even remotely close to what you're describing about my "uncited attacks". If there is, that person can change it. If not, it can remain. But this "JohnC1" business....come on. Anyone with common sense knows that I'm new to this. Stormshadows00 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

slow down with reversions

I reverted Jeffreys reversion, as I think a bit too much was removed (for instance, why did you take out the categories, you changed some facts oddly, you removed all reference to Mcloghlin's work, which had been there for some time, etc.). If something is a BLP issue, that, and only that, can be removed on sight, although even for that it would be nice to discuss it here. For the rest, please get a concensus before any major changes. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Murphy, you reverted materials into the article which contain libel and statements attributed to over four Cherokee Nation officials, the Chief of the Keetoowah's, and other people which claim these people have made racist statements, and other uncited allegations. None of these statements were cited. These changes are a libel article with dozens of WP:BLP violations. What a mess. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. You are really being extra now. First of all, go to the United Keetoowah Band website (www.unitedkeetoowahband.org) and look at Chief Wickliffe's message under "CHIEF'S MESSAGE" in the "Keetoowah News" section. Did he or did he not say what I said in the article about the Cherokee breaking a treaty? Exactly. You're 0 for 1. Those statements talking about Chief Smith and Cowan Watts...I believe actual quotes were used to make a statement like I did? Let's see, shall we? Number one. Washington Post link from article: "A lot of Cherokees don't know who the freedmen are," Smith said. Did he, growing up? "No.". That pretty much screams "Didn't know about the Freedmen" if the man actually said it. Number two: USA Today link: "I didn't hear of freedmen until this whole issue came up," she says. "I didn't hear of them or meet them.". And Darren Buzzard? Come on. Many of those "uncited" have his quotes in full. 0 for 4.

Where's the "libel"? "Libel" has to be false, right? And I noticed that you deleted that with many other things.

And "uncited"? Let's see. Washington Post, USA Today, Cherokee.org, Indianz.com, Muskogee Daily Phoenix, Associated Press via KTEN.com, Oklahoma State's Chronicles Of Oklahoma, Tulsa Library's government documents, House Of Representatives's official site, Washington Times via The Litchfield Group, DiverseEducation.com, OSCN.net for the court documents.....stop me when I come to something "unsourced"?

And I've seen you're going around the article putting up "citation needed" with your new revisions (which are the same old revisions again) and the funniest thing is that you put a "citation needed" next to the "Chief Smith wanted an election" and the link is in the article! Would you like a quote? "Smith says tribunal decision could be addressed by calling for a tribal constitutional convention to amend the current document or through referendum petition.". And that BTW, was from the Associate Press following Chief's Smith's statement after the reinstatement. You're doing all of this and not once have you actually read what you edited.

0 for 5. I think it's pretty much clear that with your edits, omitting information, deleting established facts, changing up facts, claims of "libel" when the information is sourced, this "JohnC1" mess, and overall attitude about this, you're not about showing the facts on this situation or even putting accurate information on the article at all. And going as far as to slander my name with those tags you left at my information page shows that you're being extra foul with this. And isn't crying "he's a sockpuppet" and editing my page not only foul, but is it "libel" when you have no shred of substantial tangible proof whatsoever? Exactly. Stormshadows00 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not post libel here. I checked several of the citations and none of these attributed statements appear in them. If you continue to post such content, there is a strong possibility you will be blocked from editing on this site. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if you want to lob insults, do so somewhere else. The discussion page is to discuss content. I put back the bit about Watts and Smith not knowing about the Freedmen, but I clarified the Smith part, and I added a bit from the Freedmen perspective, so it is balanced. Let me know what you think. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I am discussing the content of the page too. Claims of "libel" when they're not there, citations being labeled as "unsourced" when they are, and changes made with 0 explanation is just crazy to me along with other things. But I agree. This is about content. The changes you made are good and I see nothing wrong with them. I did correct one thing and that was replaced "they" with she" on the Watts comment. I did make some edits to restore some information on there. You can go through it and see if there is some things that need to be clipped or changed, Smmurphy.. 1. The lead….per your request, I did merge the original text with my edit plus sent detailed information to their respective sections. They shouldn’t have been changed and reverted back to the original. 2. “The Issue”….like I stated before, there has never been a statement made or anything alluding to the bottom paragraph (like “based primarily upon demands by Cherokee Citizens of mixed African-Cherokee ancestry who disapprove of their fellow Freedmen”. I’ve seen nothing that back up that statements). The way both paragraphs are typed is pretty much painting the picture that vast majority want the Freedmen out and that, in tandem with the “Diversity” pictures, is not neutral or even accurate. The statement “The Cherokee Nation and majority of Cherokee Nation Citizens do not believe the Freedmen contributed to the success of the Cherokee Nation in modern times, and as such, voted to revoke their Citizenship in a recent tribal election. “....8,700 voters out of 250,000 members is not “majority”. The Cherokee Nation is not in unision about this and there are tribal council members who don’t agree with the administration’s choices. The entire “Issue” section has no purpose since the issue is clearly stated in the previous lead. I decided to change it. 3. The “Diversity” pictures....if they remain, the reasoning behind the pictures should be stated and not used as an ad for the Cherokee Nation. 4. The “History” section is redundant to the lead and other sections. The same information can be found in the lead and “Reinstatement And Loss Of Citizenship” section. I’ went ahead and changed it back. 5. “Feelings On The Controversy”....I’m restoring the two paragraphs to that. The issue of the treaty being broken and the issues of blood and race has been in forefront of the controversy and has everything to do with it. With Chief Wickliffe’s comments, I’m adding an additional link from Indianz.com to the article. The other comments had links associated with them.

As soon as I find the Allen vs. Cherokee Nation court documents, I’ll add them to the page so that others can see the actual descision. But for now, you can take a look at the changes and see what should be trimmed. Stormshadows00 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I like your changes to the lead (and removal of Issue section), it seems better to be more complete, especially given the length of the article. I think leads are generally cited, so we'll have to add refs to it, but those should come mostly from refs already in the article. You removed a {{fact}} tag without referencing the statement; I think that statement and a couple others do still need references. I'll look at it more closely later (as will others, hopefully), but I like your edits. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple fact tags, but I stopped. Basically, when an article is contended, you can assume that most statements might be challenged, and its always better to add a citation than remove such a tag. More importantly, I removed a couple sentences with racist statements, as they don't really need to be repeated. Saying that the letter contained racist statements (or perhaps saying that so-and-so said that the letter contained racist statements) is enough, and I don't think it is generally necessary to repeat stuff like that. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was debating on whether to delete the statements or not. It works without the quote so that's cool. As far as the fact tags go, one or two tags were on things that already had a citation for it. But I'm working on them right now. Some of the links do talk about the Cherokee Freedmen's history and I added a link about Stick Ross but, but I'll find individual links. That covers the first fact citation. The court decision for Allen vs. Cherokee Nation does state that the Freedmen were members for 110 years prior to the 1983 removal. I put the court document in the section. Second citation....I'm going to change it to "The freedmen descendants protested the vote" and put up links to the protest demonstrations in Oklahoma. The original statement was made by David Cornsilk, but I feel this change is better. A previous editor put the information about the third citation, but I'll do some searching and see what I can find.

I changed the lead again back to the original and removed the changes that I previously removed and explained above. The change you made to the lead was placed in the Freedmen section, but you can move it to another location if that doesn't work for you. The editor above states "The Freedmen did not contribute nor were involved in the 1975 struggle of the Cherokee Nation to attain Federal recognition when it was reorganized by Congressional Act in 1975" but the Cherokee Nation's own supreme court said "If this Court is to engage in a retrospective review of what the framer's thought, it should also focus on what those people knew, or must have known, about the citizenship status of the Cherokee Freedmen. The individuals who drafted the 1975 Constitution were well-educated and some were attorneys. They were familiar with Cherokee Nation legal history. When they included a direct reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls in the 1975 Constitution, they knew the Cherokee Freedmen were included in that document. These individuals were also familiar with Cherokee history under the 1839 Constitution, the Cherokee Nation's treaties and agreements, and the allotment process. The authors could not have been unaware of the citizenship status of Cherokee Freedmen. At that point in time, the Cherokee Freedmen had been legal citizens of the Cherokee Nation for 110 years". That edit along with others should have not been made because it wasn't factual and I changed that as well. You can go through it and do some proofreading of the new changes. Stormshadows00 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Being Cherokee

The article says that "descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen are Cherokee and were allowed to register to become enrolled citizens of the Cherokee Nation." The issue that I have with the current phrasing is that there is more than one way to understand "being" Cherokee. You can "be" a legal citizen of the Nation. You can "be" a Cherokee by blood. You can "be" a Cherokee by culture. The court ruling, which never uses the phrase "are Cherokee" or "is Cherokee" anywhere in it, says that descendants of Cherokee Freedmen are legally citizens of the Nation. It does not say a single word about which continent their great-great-great-great-grandparents were born on, what their race (a socially constructed concept anyway) is, or whether anyone is Cherokee by culture. It merely says that they are properly citizens of the Nation. I'd like to lose the ambiguous (and IMO, POV) language in favor of emphasizing what the court ruling actually says. WhatamIdoing 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the long response, but here is how I see it. Citing the court ruling probably isn't the best way to do it. How do secondary sources interpret the ruling? Our language should reflect the interpretation by reliable and authoritative secondary sources. The paragraph in Ray about this is on page 4 (6 of the pdf itself) of the working paper:

On March 7, 2006, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation issued its long-awaited opinion in the case of Lucy Allen. In a 2-1 decision, the supreme court of the second-largest Indian nation in the country ruled that descendants of freed slaves of the Cherokee (“Freedmen”) were entitled to citizenship. Cherokee Freedmen were African-descended people who had been owned by Cherokees until their emancipation by the Nation in 1863. Under the terms of the Treaty of 1866 reconciling the Cherokees with the United States, the tribe agreed to adopt the Freedmen as citizens and amended its Constitution accordingly. Many Freedmen and their descendants, though not all, were listed on the Final Rolls of the Dawes Commission which were, and are, the exclusive means by which to establish Cherokee Nation citizenship.

So at least based on that source (authoritative on basis of scholarly and published in law journal) I'd say that the ruling decided only on citizenship in Cherokee Nation, which makes sense to me. If we like, we can include mention that "historically, Cherokee people viewed their self identity as a political rather than racial distinction," which is a referenced line from the Cherokee article and from the Cherokee section of the Native American identity in the United States article. Doing so, however, is synthesis-esque original research unless we have an example of someone else making that connection. Ray makes this jump at page 63 of the working paper (65 of the pdf) in the paragraph that reads:

While kinship ties are typically obtained by birth within a tribal community, they can also be created through adoption. While the clan system still operated as the primary unit of society, Cherokee “[c]lans frequently adopted prisoners of war to supplement their own numbers and to replace kinsmen who had died or been killed.” White men in the late 1700s who associated themselves with Cherokee towns were occasionally adopted by clans but usually not. In the nineteenth century, as the clan system was overtaken by the model of citizenship, “American men who married Cherokee women could then seek legal rights in the Cherokee Nation without participating in the traditional ritual of adoption.” When the Cherokees adopted the Freedmen and their descendents into the Nation by the Treaty of 1866 and constitutional amendments of 1866, and later extended citizenship to intermarried whites, Shawnee, and Delaware, they did so against a background of Cherokee adoption practices which, while never extensive or a challenge to the primacy of ancestry, were nonetheless sufficiently common to have engendered their own rituals.

So I think that if we want to make that jump, we have to do so in a separate sentence that is clear why we might consider those politically granted citizenship as Cherokee. Most of the discussion, at least as framed by Ray, belongs more in the history section than the current issues section, unless we can find current activists using this argument in particular. I know that Marilyn Vann makes this jump, so if you look at her materials, you might be able to find something that fits into the current issues discussion better. But even then, its an argument Vann makes, not a universally accepted fact, and should be presented in that way. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Should the heading 'Cherokee freedmen controversy' be changed to 'Cherokee freedmen descendants' controversy perspective'? Objective facts are persistently deleted, and thus the article fails to address the depth and complexity of the issues. D.D.Bear (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) D.D.Bear 07/09/2008

There's a difference between "balance" and "misinformation" because you haven't provided objective facts. Your two edits totally contradicted the cited material already stated in the article that there was not a "by blood" requirement for membership in the Cherokee Nation according to the 1975 constitution. The actual court document from the March 2006 decision clearly stated the language in the constitution and the actual 1975 constitution is in the article. It wasn't "they meant to say 'by blood'" because there is 0 indication of that in the actual document and that lead to the Cherokee Supreme Court's decision and the attempts to amend the constitution. Both are provided in the article with the former being in the article for a while now. --Stormshadows00 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You erased the membership language at Article III section 1 and the cite to the 1975 constitution. Readers should get NPOV, not revisionist history conclusions. Otherwise, it might be best to change the title of this perspective to what it is repeatedly undone to be: one half of the Cherokee Freedmen controversy.

If all the gaming ceased, and 'both' sides were presented factually, the world would learn a few things and we'd all get what we have to have out of this mismatched 'controversy.' I start from the good faith view that "all sides are true" and objective reality includes it all, without blaming it on any past or present Chief, or demonizing people who, they would say, were acting out of a positive motive that was incidentally hurtful. If the facts just give the freedmen side, and someone believes that is all there is to it, then there will always be more chapters and no repose. Because you know that self-determinism is the same thing to the Cherokees as freedom was to the Freedmen. I propose we take this to a higher level, and put both sides' story on the table, for the world to see. Or, alternatively that we stop misrepresenting it as 'the controversy.' Because, 'the controversy' is not just one conclusory, accusatory, oversimplified, viewpoint. 75.104.66.148 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)D.D.Bear July 9, 2008

Your original edit was that the 1975 Constitution was the reason that the Freedmen descendants were disenfranchised and that is not true. If you read the cited court decision, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court clearly says "The individuals who drafted the 1975 Constitution were well-educated and some were attorneys. They were familiar with Cherokee Nation legal history. When they included a direct reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls in the 1975 Constitution, they knew the Cherokee Freedmen were included in that document. These individuals were also familiar with Cherokee history under the 1839 Constitution, the Cherokee Nation's treaties and agreements, and the allotment process. The authors could not have been unaware of the citizenship status of Cherokee Freedmen. At that point in time, the Cherokee Freedmen had been legal citizens of the Cherokee Nation for 110 years".

That contradicts your edit that "The Freedmen were Cherokee citizens until the vote passing the 1975 Cherokee Constitution which stripped them of voting rights and citizenship for more than three decades". It's right there and you can read it for yourself. In the 70's, Freedmen were still Cherokee members....80's, 90', and before March 2006 didn't include freedmen. so it wasn't "more than three decades" when it's just "more than two". I provided the cited material stating that fact and you changed it. You did change the "Loss Of Citizenship" with text from the constitution, but again the 1975 constitution does not say anything about a blood requirement in the very thing you added. Hence the contradiction and you putting up a statement that is not factual. If you're going to claim "revisionist history conclusions", then don't put "defined citizenship in a way that specifically included Indians by blood" when that language is not even present in the actual document.

If we really want to show sides of this (which this article has done with the work of others), then we tell it for what it is with facts backing up the statements and not change the facts or claim "revisionist history" when the original cited material says otherwise. --Stormshadows00 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

By 'revisionist history' I was referring to replacing the 1975 'facts as then known'(constitution words) with the 2006 ruling. Including the 2006 ruling language is proper when talking about 2006. But its revisionist history when that court ruling is stated retroactively and ex post facto, outside the context of the ambiguities in the Constitution that the 3 Chiefs were sworn to enforce. Here's why I think the article is biased under your reversion: Starting in 1976 the citizenship language was changed, for the first time since the postreconstruction national council resolution making the Freedmen citizens in the first place. It is perhaps the only early indicator of voter intent (albeit subject to two interpretations) we see during the period preceding the post-ruling Petition Drive. Wiki readers shouldn't be censored from reading that fascinating ambiguity. And the implications, both ways, should be explored. There should be a whole paragraph on the intent and meaning of Article III Section 1, with all the records and evidence that would tend to lean the 'real time' interpretation one way or another. Both persuasions. Not a vacuum. The concern, I'm sure, is that if the history articles were to show that the 1975 Constitution were passed with everyone knowing it was a vote to end Freedmen Descendant benefits... then it was the will of the majority and it would indicate that the Freedmen Descendants have taken the wrong strategy and might have to back up and take one of many other approaches to get a resolution. My sense is that interviews with the remaining living 1975 Constitutional Committee members would show they were not particularly attuned to the implications of the language. Were there news articles? In other words, was the 1975 election (1976?) determinative of any expression of public will by the Cherokee voters? It may be that the Constitutional passage itself was objected-to by Cherokee Freedmen Descendants. It seems POV to keep the discussion from 'going there' if in fact thisd article is about the controversy and not just about espousing the facts favorable to one side's position.

The positions on the controvery are stalled on the wrong rock. There are mutually-satisfying solutions available because it appears that the Cherokee Nation and the Freedmen Descendants want different things. So, relish the impasse. But when you are ready to move on to mutual success, then give it up on the censorship and lets put it all on the table. The best is yet to come for all. 75.104.66.148 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)D.D. Bear, Thursday July 10, 2008

Edits About The Freedmen/Intermarried Whites/Etc.

There are some changes being made that definitely need to be discussed because it's conflicting with previous material.

-Principal Chief Smith is one of the most vocal opponents of the freedmen reinstatement. It's been his stance since this started and the citied articles below has him quoted on his stance.

--The cited material didn't state that 2,800 Cherokee Members "currently enrolled in the tribe". It was talking about the Freedmen descendants in general.

-If the Cherokee had laws governing slave ownership and slave codes (which are stated in the article), the statement "the nature of slavery in Cherokee society" is an accurate statement.

-It's not "some Freedmen were put on the Freedmen" roll. There were 0 Freedmen placed on the "By Blood" roll because that roll in particular was for "blood Cherokee". All former slaves ("freedmen") were placed on the Freedmen roll and their children, whether they had a Cherokee parent or not, were on the roll as well. That was the whole purpose of the Freedmen Roll.....to list the Freedmen.

-"Loss Of Membership": The focus is not on the Intermarried Whites. The descendants of the Intermarried Whites, the spouse of the Cherokee already listed on the By Blood Roll, were not affected because their descendants are Cherokee based on the fact that part of their ancestry (the blood Cherokee) that is on the Cherokee By Blood Roll. I do think there should be some clarification on that and not lumping those two groups because the focus is on one and not the other.

-Freedmen were still around in 1907. It should be "some Freedmen and their descendants" because both did vote in the tribal elections.

-Dawes Rolls of 1902 is listed plain as day. There's no need to clarify.

--Stormshadows00 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Loss of Membership

About this: "Regardless of how it came to be, the result was that since the Freedmen Rolls had no record of Indian blood like the other Dawes Rolls, they lost their right to vote."

Stormshadows00, can you expand (in the text) on the Freedmen Rolls not having at least have a blood quantum designation for those who were African Cherokees? In other words, two things seem to have been going on with the Dawes Commission: Just one drop of African ancestry would result in a person being placed on the segregated list; and Cherokee blood quantum numbers, when and if known for these individuals, were omitted. For instance, did they just not figure Cherokee blood for biracials? Did they sometimes have blood quantum info from earlier rolls and not carry it over? Was it written some place else? Or was it a situation where the Dawes Commission didn't foresee that information ever being used because the Treaty of 1866 took care of it as a legal substitution for blood quantum? And were there any writings by the Dawes Commission about that?

(Because, possibly the segregated Dawes Rolls is the sourcepoint of today's split and one of the resolutions eventually might be to look back at federal complicity via segregation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.D.Bear (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Sturm paper regarding the events from 1975 to 1983? The article seeks to summarize what happened in the Nero case and issues running up to the 1983 election. It is about 7 pages long, and is written in a fairly concise manner. the sentence you mention is somewhat hamstrung as it is not encyclopedic to go into the matter in that detail. As for the questions you pose, to me it is implied that blood quantum of freedmen was not counted due to racism. Part of what was meant by "one drop" of African blood made you black was that such blood tainted ones purity. Thus, it wasn't important that one parent was not black, the other was. In any case, you are right, I think, that that those taking the rolls were not asked to keep track of blood quantum. In fact, I do not remember seeing blood quantum of those listed "Cherokee by blood" in the rolls.

Remember, the idea of race was taken very seriously, but in a way not consistent with how we now think of genetics. For instance, there is the story of researcher put a pencil in the hair of a subject, and the pencil stuck, then the subject should be considered black and not Indian (this was a study of Lumbee in 1939). I'm not sure what the Dawes Commission said about all this, wikipedians are generally advised to avoid primary sources, and Sturm focuses more on court cases, letters, Littlefield, Wardell, and Perdue. You should look at Daniel F. Littlefield (1978), The Cherokee Freedmen: From Emancipation to American Citizenship, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (which I have not read) if you want a more nuanced understanding.Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking back on the 'stripped them' reversions by Stormshadows00, where that term is reinserted. Seems that one can revoke voting rights, deny voting rights, disenfranchise voting rights, disavow voting rights, and more, but 'stripping' someone of voting rights is poor grammar (personification) (and POV).

I have not given up hope that Wiki can be a place for objectively, both sides, in one spot. A definitive place to go to hear the controversy from both sides. Maybe break it up into 2 topics so each side can tell one side of the story and it can be a collaborative effort without a dominator. D.D.Bear (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)D.D. Bear July 23, 2008

It's hard to fathom that you want "objectivity" when you don't even practice what you preach based on your track record so far. How exactly is the word "stripped" poor grammar when it is used in it's correct form? To answer this rhetorical question and to pretty much point out the obvious here, the dictionary defines stripped as "to remove". Looking at the decisions made, that's precisely what the administration did. And looking at the dictionary along with the thesaurus, one can "strip" privileges, "strip" rights, "strip" powers, "strip" status, and of course "strip" citizenship. And to point out even more obvious facts, the word "strip" is used in the exact same vein as as your examples such as "revoke". So you can pretty much stop with that when the sentence in question actually happened (with facts in the very article backing it up). This is kind of ironic considering the source of it all and what you pulled earlier in the discussion above. --Stormshadows00 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the Dawes Commission arbitrarily classified Cherokee Freedmen in that category based on appearance, not asking if individuals were descended from "Cherokee by blood." Some descendants have won court cases for citizenship based on documented descent from a Cherokee on the Dawes Rolls. The recordkeeping was chaotic and imperfect by all accounts. As D.D. Bear noted above, the Commission likely though the 1866 treaty took care of citizenship rights; people were being registered for the Dawes Rolls for a different purpose.Parkwells (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Slavery among the Cherokee

I think we need to make a change to the line: "From the 1830s to 1860s, some Cherokee began to hold a more British-American view of slavery."

After a 20yr campaign the slave trade was ruled illegal in the British Empire in 1807, and all slaves freed by 1833.

Unless this was also the view of the Cherokee from 1830-1860, I think the line should be edited. --92.9.78.194 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we move this section to the main Cherokee page and leave a summary and reference to the main page. Considering how substantial this section is it makes sense to paint an accurate albeit complex (not to mention highly intriguing) picture of who the Cherokee were and what we know they did (despite it be challenging to our modern political POVs). Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This article covers the Freedmen's history in detail as well as the court case that ties into that history. The section also covered a early case of Cherokee freedmen rights (Shoe Boots) as well as slave revolts and actions. A link and brief summary on the Cherokee page is reasonable compared to removing the section wholesale especially when the section removed covered only a part of slavery. Stormshadows00 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The Freedmens Hidden War

Hello everyone my name is Joe Howard and i am the author of a controversial Journal/Essay Called The Freedmens Hidden War.I am of Choctaw/Cherokee Freedmen Decent from the Howard and Roger Family and yes i do have ties to Norma Howard and Roger folks in Oklahoma and Texas.I would like to see if my Blog could be linked with Freedmen Articles and Norma Howard Articles as well my Blog address is www.wordwarrior.typepad.co Thanks Joe Howardəɵʉɔː —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.96.102 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Required" language

This definitely need some clarification as required means "order" or "demand". If it's "in accordance with a treaty made with the US government, the Cherokee were ordered", the Cherokee were not "required" to free their slaves and give them citizenship in accordance to the treaty because they already willingly agreed to do that. Voluntarily agreed (like the 1866 treaty says...."The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council" reiterating the 1863 act before going into the statement on abolishment). The US very much insisted upon abolishing slavery and making the Freedmen citizens in regards to all the Five Civilized Tribes in the Fort Smith talks and the other talks held during treaty negotiations. Those were one of the terms that they wanted. And in regards to the Cherokee, those were terms that Ross and his group agreed with and wanted beforehand. Obviously with the passing of the Act before and their overall stance on the issue. They flat out rejected other things that US officials insisted on, like land for railroads and such, but not that. And in Gen. Sanborn's January 1866 report, cited on the page now, you can see how there were supporters of citizenship. Watie's group had objection with the Freedmen being in the Nation but not with the abolition of slaves. Ross' group won out in the end and they were the ones that the US negotiated with, not Watie's group. And out of the tribes, the Chickasaw were the only group that rejected the inclusion of Freedmen when the US government insisted. So how can it be that "in accordance with the treaty, the Cherokee were required" when 1. these terms were agreed upon as a treaty is pretty much an agreement between two parties, 2. it's something that the Cherokee in control wanted to do and 3: they did this without being ordered to do so? The edit before was pretty clear on the action, that they agreed to free slaves and give them citizenship. Seemed pretty straight and to the point. Stormshadows00 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on civil war comment

The second sentence of the current article begins "During the American Civil War, the Cherokee who supported the Union....."

However one of the sources listed (The Washington Post) states "The tribe fought for the Confederacy." I think this area could do with some further clarification.Anonymous watcher (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Show conclusion of case

Modify Lead to show duration and conclusion of case in first paragraph of Lead; readers should not have to read several paragraphs to learn the conclusion of the court cases.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Title

There is no page simply named "Cherokee freedmen", only this article about the controversy over their enrollment. I suggest that either this page should be a general "Cherokee freedmen" article with a "Controversy" section or that the article be split into two articles. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Example from Theda Perdue

Theda Perdue (2000) recounts a story from "before the American Revolution" where a black slave named Molly is accepted as a Cherokee as a "replacement" for a woman who was beaten to death by her white husband. According to Cherokee historical practices, vengeance for the woman's death was required for her soul to find peace, and the husband was able to prevent his own execution by fleeing to the town of Chota (where according to Cherokee law he was safe) and purchasing Molly as an exchange. When the wives family accepted Molly, later known as "Chickaw," she became a part of their clan (the Deer Clan), and thus Cherokee.

Moving this here from the Native American identity in the United States article, which is undergoing cleanup. It's not really fitting in there, maybe here, if an example is needed. I didn't write this bit, just moving it. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Article title

I did revert a move to a new article because "Cherokee freedmen controversy" has been the default title of the article for several years now and followed Wikipedia naming conventions. But there are cites and sources that do capitalize "Freedmen" and some that don't. Some articles and categories on Wikipedia vary like Choctaw freedmen or several categories in lowercase. With that said, are there valid grounds to change the title to capitalize "Freedmen" or is the title fine as is? Stormshadows00 (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)