Tulsa World: Tribe can change constitution, not freedmen treaty, BIA says

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Sunday, November 22, 2009 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Tribe can change constitution, not freedmen treaty, BIA says

By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Published: 8/11/2007 2:31 AM
Last Modified: 8/11/2007 2:31 AM

WASHINGTON -- The head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs endorsed the Cherokee Nation's right to amend its constitution without federal approval, but he made it clear Friday that the action does nothing to alter the tribal membership of freedmen descendants.

"By approving this constitutional amendment, it doesn't change the freedmen's status," Carl Artman said. "The 1866 treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation affirms their rights.

"Until the treaty of 1866 is abrogated, the freedmen will remain members of the tribe."

Making his comments during an interview, Artman said his agency would consider taking the Cherokee Nation to court to enforce that treaty if the tribe once again moved to expel certain descendants of former slaves from its membership rolls.

"I am not sure that court action is the way to go," he said. "We would look at all of our options."

Artman's Aug. 9 letter to the tribe, which announced his approval of the constitutional change taking the federal government out of its amendment process and his comments about that decision, stressed that the tribe still must follow the law.

"In approving the amendment, it affirmed tribal sovereignty," Artman said, adding that tribal sovereignty, just like the sovereignty of the federal government or a state government, can be limited by a constitution.

"It can also be limited by treaties, and in this case, sovereignty is limited, guided by the 1866 treaty," he said.

Cherokee

officials said Artman's approval ends an eight-year "struggle" to remove the federal agency from the tribe's constitutional process.

Cherokee Nation voters passed a constitutional amendment removing federal oversight on June 23.

Artman and Principal Chief Chad Smith clashed over a similar vote in 2003, forcing the chief to set another vote.

Smith said Friday that Artman's approval of the June 23 vote validates self-governance for tribes.

"We do appreciate that they (the BIA) acknowledge what our own courts have already held to be true -- that the Cherokee people are the only people with the right to decide what our constitution says," Smith said.

Meredith Frailey, the speaker of the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council, said federal approval affirms that the tribe is capable of making fundamental government decisions.

"The BIA has told us what we already knew -- the Cherokee people do not need a federal bureaucracy micromanaging our nation," she said.

Artman's decisions on the Cherokee Nation, specifically those pertaining to freedmen descendants, are being watched closely by members of Congress.

U.S. Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and perhaps the tribe's most vocal congressional critic, is not ready to let the matter drop.

"Assistant Secretary Artman's decision to approve the Cherokee Nation's amended constitution is the wrong message at the wrong time," she said. "It demonstrates the need for immediate and aggressive congressional oversight of this matter."

Artman said he did not see the point of holding a congressional hearing.

"Oversight of what?" he asked. "The freedmen always have been part of the Cherokee Nation, and they still are." pu,Also --- World staff writer S.E. Ruckman contributed to this story.

Jim Myers (202) 484-1424
jim.myers@tulsaworld.com

By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

6 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment m.h., stilwell (8/11/2007 8:22:39 AM) It is completely hypocritical that the U.S. govt. would have the nerve to say that anyone MUST honor a treaty. In lite of all the treaties they have beoken, this decision should mean absolutely nothing to the C.N. As far as allowing the Cherokees to decide their own constitution, it is a no-brainer. Who else could say what their constitution should contain? And for Mrs. Watson, I am absolute certain that she would have a much different point of view if we were discussing govt. control of the N.A.A.C.P.
	Report Comment David Cornsilk, Tulsa (8/11/2007 10:09:40 AM) I sure wish all these whiners about broken treaties would point to one, just ONE treaty between the Cherokees and the United States that has been broken! Even the Treaty of 1866 was fully implemented by the time Oklahoma became a state. It has remained the source of federal recognition of the Cherokee Nation since its adoption. Anytime the Cherokees went to war with the United States, the treaty that made peace between us and them was dissolved. The Treaty of 1866 was necessary because the Cherokees had taken up arms against the U.S. And one of the most important points in that Treaty, which eventually brought about payments to the Cherokees amounting to millions of dollars in payments made in 1909 (Miller payment) and 1963 (Outlet payment), is the fact that ALL PRVIOUS TREATIES are restored to full force and effect. Certainly the U.S. may have broken treaties with other tribes, nations etc. But not with us. Even the land allottment of 1902 can be found in the 1866 Treaty. The Cherokees, in 1901 voted overwhelmingly in favor of allottment in accordance with the provisions of that Treaty (even though the full blood and Freedmen were opposed). The Watson Bill does not seek to "dissolve" the Cherokee Nation. It simply moves to withdraw recognition and federal funding from the wayward tribe. We don't have a government to government relationship with Iran. We give them no money. Yet they continue to exist. The Cherokee Nation will continue to exist, but it will lose its protected status and the state of Oklahoma will have field day with us.
	Report Comment KAW, Tulsa (8/11/2007 6:55:22 PM) VERY WELL SAID, DAVID! Unfortunately, some people really don't care to know the truth. It is sad to see Cherokee history being rewritten and talked about by many who don't know the facts. The above person that you had to educate has misrepresented the history here today. When Diane Watson comes to Oklahoma, I sincerely hope she interviews the disenfranchised Freedmen citizens, and other Cherokees as well. Many are living in poverty and have been forgotten by their tribal government. The spotlight will be on the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma soon. Chad Smith is accepting more than $300 million dollars in taxpayers dollars and using some of those funds to ethnically cleanse the Freedmen from the tribe! $300 MILLION DOLLARS! AM I THE ONLY ONE APPALLED AT THAT?
	Report Comment Marvin Summerfield, (8/12/2007 7:05:12 AM) No, you are not the only Cherokee appalled by the waste of money by the Chad Smith Administration. Many of us who have kinfolks living in abject poverty in the historic boundary lines of the Cherokee Nation are tired of seeing tons of tribal waste..$300 million going into the tribal banks makes one wonder if the funds are really going into helping tribal members or if it is being mis-spent? The Smith Administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs should both be investigated to see who really holds the funds and who really receives them..Carl Artman's turnabout make me, and other Cherokees suspicious about his role in the whole Freedmen affair, too..Mrs. Watson will soon be in town and it is about time..
	Report Comment ktibbits, Stilwell (8/12/2007 11:45:49 PM) Hi! I think folks can agree or disagree with whether Cherokees were thinking about the potential ramifications when they voted for disenfranchisement, but Cherokee leaders are bound to follow the outcome of the disenfranchisement election because they have to do the democratic will of the Cherokee voters regardless of any personal beliefs. So to fuel this with harsh feelings toward the Chief is insincere and gratitous. Don't "use" the Freedmen to dis the Chief while claiming to be their friends, because anyone in the same post has to follow the law. This is a legal thing, not a policy thing, so there is nothing to be accomplished for the Freedmen from an antagonistic approach against the Chief. If the Freedmen started an initiative petition to redo the vote on disenfranchisement, I don't think enough Freedmen are in or near Cherokee communities or living among the Cherokees to change the vote outcome. Yet, all sides agree that IF the Cherokee people want to add Freedmen as citizens, it fixes the immediate problem. Personal opinion... I regret the disenfranchisement vote, but I don't see it as changing anything. In other words, the Freedmen have been fighting "to get something" not to "keep something they have." Does anyone besides me ever wonder why the US doesn't pay reparations to the Freedmen because it breached Cherokee autonomy in fact with statehood and by allotment? The Treaty of 1866 was unfair from the jump-go. (Doesn't it distinguish the Southern Cherokees, and yet apply against all Cherokees?) Look--- the US promised to protect our bounds if we'd move West, but then its civil war spilled into our Nation and they breached that promise of containing its own business, then the US made us give reconstruction reparations. What's to appreciate about a treaty that blames the victim? If it weren't between sovereigns, we could almost call it an adhesion contract.
	Report Comment SJA, Bartlesville (8/14/2007 9:31:27 AM) Thank you so much Mr Cornsilk for your knowledge of U S and Cherokee history. Knowing the truth will set us free. U S Rep Diane Watson recommends congressional oversight, in reference to the approval of the Cherokee Constitution sending the wrong message at the wrong time. Artman says the Freedmen have always been members of the tribe. According to articles I've read, the Freedmen were members and council members with full rights until they were kicked out in the 1980's, is this true or not?

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.