“The Golden Rule”

The Senate Oversight Hearing on the “Reconstruction Treaty of 1866” revealed many things for those of us in the Indian Territory Freedmen Descendant Community regarding our status or acceptance by our respective tribal nation. Nothing was more revealing than the presentation given by the attorney for the Chickasaw Nation, Stephen Greetham. 

As I sat and listened to his presentation about the treaty and the perspective of the Chickasaw Nation, I was reminded of the “Golden Rule.” Most of us are familiar with the biblical verse from Matthew (7:12); 

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,

 do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

Mr. Greetham spoke eloquently about the law, treaties and Supreme Law but throughout his clinical and legal presentation on the treaty he omitted the moral character of that treaty as it pertained to the issue of citizenship for the formerly enslaved and their descendants of the Chickasaw Nation.

The people who were seeking citizenship in the land of their birth for themselves and their descendants had been a part of the nation for decades. When the time came to provide for those people the Chickasaw Nation felt no need to even provide funds the education of “freedmen” children.

When it came time to provide land for the formerly enslaved and their descendants to eke out food for survival, the nation went to court to be reimbursed by the United States government and this is what Mr. Greetham conveyed to the Senate Committee as a rationale to defend the nation’s position on not adopting their formerly enslaved population with citizenship.

Throughout the hearing the moral and righteous indignation from the Creek Nation, the Seminole Nation, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation about their sovereignty was devoid of any moral compass for the status of the freedmen and their descendants.

The fact that the leaders from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation did not appear on their own behalf demonstrates the level of disassociation from Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen Descendants that the Senate Committee needed to know.

When Mr. Greetham summarized his presentation with the view that the Chickasaw and Choctaw Treaty of 1866 and their decision not to include citizenship for the freedmen descendants was a matter of “implementation but not a violation of the treaty” he was correct in his conclusions but he left out so much more and it goes directly to the moral compass of the nation.

Mr. Greetham cleverly jumped from 1866 when the treaty was signed to a lawsuit in 1902 that compensated the Chickasaw Nation for every inch of territory the Chickasaw Freedmen and some of their descendants received. I say some because their minor and newborn children were not even included on the final rolls if their application for a land allotment was received AFTER April 26, 1906. The nation received over $600,000 from that decision; but the sovereignty of the tribe was upheld over the welfare of children.

Chickasaw Minor Freedmen #61

Various tribal representatives drove home the point that their sovereignty was the pillar to their existence that was inalienable and the matters of their formerly enslaved population and their descendants were a non-factor. 

This can only be viewed through the lens of an adaptation on what is commonly known as the “Golden Rule” and it was in full view throughout the hearing. 

“He, Who Owns the Gold, Makes the Rules!” 

The Chickasaw and Choctaw Freedmen and their descendants was not represented during the treaty negotiations that had a direct effect on their future; socially, politically and economically. Where were the moral and legal protections for them?

The negotiators from the Chickasaw nation were quite adept at creating a document that left them totally without any responsibility to adopt or care for the welfare of a population that "served" them before during and after their Removal. This little bit of history did not emerged (don’t quote me) during the presentations of Mr. Burrage or Greetham. 

Again, the morality sentiment towards sovereignty seems to be more important than the Humanity of those that were enslaved? 

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

One of the provisions in that treaty that was a matter of “implementation and not a violation” of the law was the “removal” of the freedmen from the Chickasaw nation to the “Leased District.” 

The irony of this should not be lost on anyone. The Chickasaw and Choctaw proposed through their skillful negotiation with the United States to REMOVE their formerly enslaved population, IF THEY WERE WILLING TO GO and there would be the compassionate amount of $100.00 to get them and their families there. 

M-234 Chickasaw Agency Emigration Roll #144, frame #140

It would be remiss of me not to mention the obligatory” mea culpa” given by Mr. Greetham on behalf of the Chickasaw Nation that went something like; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, slavery and Jim Crow. The Chickasaw Nation should reflect on their history and determine, is this what secures your sovereignty at the expense of the humanity of African and African-Native people? 

All of the programs and good things the nation is doing in the state of Oklahoma serve only to obscure the history of the Chickasaw Nation and its relationship to the formerly enslaved AND THEIR DESCENDANTS. 

Which of the two Golden Rules are the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations adhering? 

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,

 do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

 

“He, Who Owns the Gold, Makes the Rules!”

Write to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

testimony@indian.senate.gov