African-Native American Genealogy Forum
Re: 1866 Treaty vs. Constitutions
In Response To: 1866 Treaty vs. Constitutions ()
In regards to the changes of constitutions, I don't see why the treaty has to be affected pertaining to the freedmen. The treaty should still be in affect.
Good news. The treaty is still in effect. In fact, *all* of the treaties are still in effect, as none of them have been arbrogated, nor declared null and void.
Now, IANAL, but here's how I'd see it, and here is where the problem lies. If the Creek were no longer considered a federally recognized tribe, that wouldn't mean that the treaty is still in effect. It would mean that the tribe wouldn't receive federal recognition as a tribe, and possibly no federal funding to support it. Similar to the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thing going on right now; they are still part of the British royal family, but aren't performing their duties as part of the royal family, and therefore, not subject to any pay, salary, or funds allocated to them. They would have to be self-sufficient.
In this case, the Creek wouldn't be considered federally recognized, and not subject to any pay or funds allocated to them; the Creek would have to be self-sufficient. But the treaty would still be in effect, as it establishes citizenship and land rights, among other things.
That's a good question, and one I'm sure they won't answer, or may refuse to answer, for one reason or another.