“Chickasaw history, like other histories, involves set back and growth, trial and progress. Relying on its sovereignty and rights to self-determination, the Chickasaw Nation in its most recent generations has made progress in rebuilding its institutions of government. Today, the Chickasaw Nation employs thousands of people, both Chickasaw citizens and non-citizens alike. It invests in communities throughout its reservation, Oklahoma, and the region. The Chickasaw Nation is dynamic, and its work as a people is ongoing. It remains committed to continuing its work and will do so in good faith—in accord with the law and its people’s right to sovereign self-determination.”
These are the words of the representative for the Chickasaw Nation and his remarks concerning the Reconstruction Treaty of 1866. On the surface who could argue with him about the nature of the Chickasaw Nation today and all the altruistic investments in the “communities throughout its reservation, Oklahoma and the region.”
The first sentence in this statement alluded to Chickasaw history and with a passing mentioning of the nation’s history of enslavement of people of African and African-Native ancestry or “freedpersons.”
The history of freedpersons among the citizens of the Chickasaw Nation began well before the outbreak of the War of the Rebellion and the nations siding with the Confederacy, which led to the Reconstruction Treaty of 1866 that would repair the Chickasaw Nations relationship with the United States.
Prior to their removal to Indian Territory many leading families and major slave owners attended the same Monroe Mission Church in Holly Springs, Mississippi that their slaves were members. When the slave owners began immigrating to Indian Territory in the 1830’s and 40’s they sought letters of demission and recommendation for their new church once they arrived in Indian Territory with their enslaved population.
It is unfortunate that the presentation by the representative of the Chickasaw nation is clearly attempting to put the nation in the best light possible for their “adherence to the law” however, he does not provide the context of their history and how it impacted the community of people who worshipped with them and in numerous cases share the same DNA. From 1866 to the present day, the nation has not shown the compassion it seeks to engender from Congress, the public and the descendants of the formerly enslaved descendants.
The nation in “its most recent generations has made
progress in rebuilding its institutions of government” this is the
same government that skillfully and knowingly negotiated a treaty that removed
any responsibility or obligation to provide for the people and their
descendants who came to Indian with them as members of that same church in
Mississippi.
 |
| "Father Stuart and the Monroe Mission" pages 41 & 42 |
_LOVE,Benjamin&Emahota.jpg) |
| M-234 Chickasaw Agency Immigration Rolls, Roll #144 |
Like a good neighbor, the Chickasaw Nation is providing jobs and support throughout the community within its “reservation.” However, now with their blanket of sovereignty, they can’t see the total disregard for the descendants of the people that helped establish their presence in and on their reservation, the freedmen and their descendants have become invisible because the nation chose not to wrap their arms around them and embrace their historical ties to the nation of their birth.
Yes, the treaty that was negotiated at Ft. Smith Arkansas in 1866 that would emancipate the Chickasaw enslaved population was clear, the Chickasaw Nation was not obligated to adopt their former slaves as citizens, it did not require them to accept the children fathered by many of their leading men, including those that signed the same “reconstruction treaty.”
Mr. Greetham pointed out in his remarks that Chickasaws along with the Choctaw Nation ceded land in the Leased District for the freedmen and their descendants if they were willing to be “removed.” As it so happens in 1868 when the time frame for the non-obligation, no enforcement mechanism treaty was about to run its course; many freedmen sent a Memorial to Congress (Senate Executive Document 82, 40th Congress, 2nd Session) to be removed from the nation because of the disdain and violence perpetrated upon them by their former owners and Chickasaw population of Indigenous and white citizens.
The Chickasaw nation knew then as they have shown they know now, there was no enforcement mechanism in that treaty that required them to do anything for the people they dragged from Mississippi in chains and clearing the way for them to settle in a new home rebuild their institutions and government. “Sound familiar?”
These men and women did not want to “remove” their families to a foreign land with the meager belongings they possessed and the one-hundred dollars that was “promised to them.” In the words of Michael Burrage, attorney representing the Choctaw Nation, “sound familiar?”
In 1868, the leading men from numerous Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen communities signed a letter to the Secretary of the Interior “relating to the rights of freedmen under the 3rd article of the treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians, concluded April 28, 1866.”
There was no altruism about jobs and benefits and citizenship extended to a people who toiled on the soil of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation, some bearing the children of Choctaw and Chickasaw men and where they buried their children and ancestors that survived the arduous “Trail of Tears.” Their story seems to be lost from the pages of Chickasaw and Choctaw History.
It is interesting to conduct a word search on the prepared remarks by Mr. Greetham and it is revealing that the words; slavery, bondage and chattel are mentioned eight times by my count. The word treaty; the reason he represented the nation was mentioned approximately twenty-nine times. The words rebellion, civil war and confederate were nowhere to be found in his text. Amazingly sovereignty was only mentioned twice.
Apparently the Treaty of 1866 that was negotiated to remove
the formerly enslaved population also attempted to remove them from the history
of the nation that enslaved them? However, we can thank the men who signed that
letter to the Secretary for ensuring their struggle to be recognized as humans
deserving of the privileges of citizenship in the nation of their birth is
preserved with their names in Senate Document 82, 40th Congress, 2nd
Session.
pg02-Rights%20of%20Freedmen%20Under%20Indian%20Treaty.jpg)
pg04-Rights%20of%20Freedmen%20Under%20Indian%20Treaty.jpg)
pg05-Rights%20of%20Freedmen%20Under%20Indian%20Treaty.jpg)
This is the history and the context that Mr. Greetham and the Chickasaw Nation apparently would have you ignore because they can shield themselves from criticism on the basis they “did not violate the treaty.” The nation’s position means sovereignty immunes them from having any responsibility in the matters of citizenship for freedmen descendants and that is a bone of contention if you provide context to the story that was left out of the Chickasaw Nation's presentation.
In 1873 the Chickasaw nation decided that it would have a come to Jesus moment evidently and the voices of reason within the Chickasaw Legislature passed an act that would formally adopt their formerly enslaved population according to Article 3 of the Treaty of Ft. Smith, June 28, 1866.
On February 27, 1873 Senate Miscellaneous Document 95, 42nd Congress, 3rd Session was addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from Douglas H. Cooper of the Chickasaw Nation to the President of the United States by Cyrus Harris governor of the Chickasaw Nation.
The letter to notify Congress and the President of the United States that “an act of the Chickasaw Legislature, providing for the adoption of negroes into the Chickasaw country referred to in the third article of the treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaws, concluded April 28, 1866.”
Sadly, Congress and the President failed to meet its fiduciary responsibility and protect the rights of adoption of the “negroes” into the Chickasaw country in 1873 and that moment of humaneness among the Chickasaw quickly passed. Their legislature and governor rescinded the legislation so Congress would not be able to act on it.
As I reflect on the words of Mr. Stephen Greetham and his recitation of the law, facts and Supreme Law, the context and his oral statement that was not included in his written statement was the freedmen issue was one of “implementation not violation of the law” rings hollow when you start to look at the long struggle the enslaved population endured.
From that little church in Mississippi, along the trail of the removal (only to have a provision within the reconstruction treaty that would have the freedmen endure another removal to the leased district) and with every letter and memorial sent to Congress for their relief and protection. There not be a resolution to their situation until Indian Territory along with Oklahoma Territory became the state of Oklahoma.
There continues to be an enormous betrayal of a people who were victimized as enslaved people by a nation that wants to be viewed as magnanimous to the world but when called upon to demonstrate those values it proclaims they have no responsibility according to the law.
He Who Has the Gold, Makes the Rules
“The Chickasaw Nation is dynamic, and its work as a people is ongoing. It remains committed to continuing its work and will do so in good faith…”
The Chickasaw Nation demonstrated it did not have a commitment to people who share their history and DNA. It denied them their humanity, identity and once they were of no use or value, the nation was prepared to exile them to a land far away rendering them and their history among the Chickasaw Nation invisible.
For the nation today to come into a Senate hearing and
declare their commitment to work and “good faith” in lieu of their treatment of
their enslaved population and their descendants that are seeking redress from
the “sovereign” Chickasaw and Choctaw nations as well as United States Congress; actions other than denial of “responsibility” are warranted.
No comments:
Post a Comment