Joe Battiece Choctaw Freedman?

Petition to Transfer From Choctaw Freedman Roll to Choctaw By Blood Roll #F-026

Joe BATTIECE Choctaw Freedman Card #498

Claimant in Equity Case 7071

#BlackHistory365

   In the matter of the petition of Joe Battiece and Ollie Battiece for the correction of the enrollment records of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes in the matter of their enrollment as freedmen of the Choctaw Nation, and for the transfer of their names from the said Freedmen Roll to the roll of Choctaw by blood.

 

   January 15, 1906, there was filed with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes by Albert J. Lee attorney for the petitioners, a petition for Joe Battiece and his son Ollie Battiece, praying that their names be transferred from the roll of Choctaw Freedmen to the roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.

 

   Attached to the petition is the affidavit of Joe Battiece, in which he alleges that he is twenty-nine years of age, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation and lives in the town of Hugo, Indian Territory.  He further stated, at the time he appeared before the Dawes Commission for enrollment, his father was a full blood Choctaw named Solomon Battiece and "his mother was a colored woman named Lottie Williams, that he was born out of wedlock but that his father had always acknowledged him to be his son; that his father is a recognized and enrolled Choctaw by blood and that his father is still living and resides near Hugo, Indian Territory."

 

   No answer to the petition was filed by the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations within the fifteen days allowed for that purpose by the regulations adopted by the Commissioner January 2, 1906.

M-1186 Choctaw Freedman Dawes Card #498 Front/Rear Joe BATTIECE et al., 

M-1301 Oral Interview/Summary Joe BATTIECE Choctaw Freedman Card #498 p2

   It is incredible the lengths the Dawes Commission went to to deny enrolling people of mixed African-Choctaw or African-Chickasaw ancestry on the “by blood” rolls. This is the summary of the oral interview that was conducted in 1899 when Joe Battiece applied for land allotment. Nowhere in this interview is the question; “who is your father?” If that is not a part of the so called record, how does the name Solomon Battiece, with the description, Choctaw Indian appear on the rear of his enrollment card? Clearly, when the testimony was transcribed by the stenographers, something important was omitted.

M-1186 Choctaw by Blood Dawes Card #1638 Solomon BATTIEST

   While you ponder that bit of prestidigitation, when Joe and his attorney Albert J. Lee submitted an affidavit “for the correction of the enrollment records of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes” the commission responded with their standard; “It does not appear from the records of the commission to the Five Civilized Tribes that Joe Battiece, at the time of his application for enrollment as a Choctaw Freedman or at any time subsequent thereto, and prior to December 25, 1902, ever made any application or asserted any rights whatsoever to enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation.” It could be argued that the missing testimony was the assertion of those rights but because they don't appear in the transcript, Joe Battiece and his attorneys were arguably denied due process?

   The nature of the 1899 interview was clear, the only thing the Dawes Commission was interested in was establishing Joe Battiece and his siblings status as freedmen, based on the “race” of their mother, a formerly enslaved and deceased woman named Lottie Williams. 

   It is this kind of hypocrisy and lies that are part of the legacy of the Dawes Commission, the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation that they appear to be blind to the racial discrimination that occurred from the outset. The antebellum past, appears to determine the nature of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes today?