African-Native American Genealogy Forum
Re: 1866 Treaty vs. Constitutions
In Response To: Re: 1866 Treaty vs. Constitutions ()
Because the treaty is still in effect I would think that the actual wording of the treaty would apply to all the five tribes.
Not necessarily. Since each tribe is a different "nation", separate treaties had to be made with each Nation, and each nation was able to have their own stipulations added to each treaty. The only ones that didn't, at least to my knowledge, were the Chickasaw and Choctaw, since they have the same treaty. The Seminole, Creek, and Cherokee all have separate, individual treaties.
I'm thinking it's the provisions of the treaty that would make them treated different, and on top of that, the changes they made in their nations' respective constitutions. For example, if the Creek treaty said "all Freedmen will be allotted land", while the Choctaw/Chickasaw said "all freedmen will be treated as citizens", but their constitution stated "you must be on the By Blood roll" to be admitted", you have a distinct difference. The Choctaw/Chickasaw Constitution would be in violation of the treaty, while the Creek treaty had no citizenship provision in it for the Freedmen. See the difference?
Oh, no doubt. But the question isn't just why, but where from? Because if the bloodline had to follow the father, who made that determination at the time of enrollment? The Tribe? The United States, as they were the ones that set up the Dawes Commission? All of the above? There's a fair amount of questions there that may not get an answer, because those that did it are obviously gone..