Join the Genealogy Revolution.
Search for your surname in the largest DNA database of its kind!

My Surname


Footnote.com

Banner - Family Tree Maker 2008

Domain Name Registration at GoDaddy.com 120x60


African-Native American Genealogy Forum

Re: NDN Descendant Unveiled ~ Long but worth it!

Greetings Ronald,

You ask an interesting question, but first I’m not familiar with the book of which you speak, if you get more information on it I would like to read more on this subject.

Ronald, it is also interesting the Choctaw Nation in 1907, evidently in anticipation of Oklahoma entering as the new state in the Union and after the U. S. government dissolved the five nations the Choctaw felt it necessary to violate the U.S. Constitution AND their own laws of adoption when they forbade the intermarriage of a “negro man or woman.”

Even prior to this date (1907) there were in violation of their own laws when you take in consideration the applications for citizenship (M1650), on every application that was identified as a freedmen, the response by the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations placed on the record that it was forbidden to “marry anyone of African descent.” This was in 1896 a full eleven years prior to what was written or declared in 1907.

Further, if you look at the adoption of the freedmen in the Choctaw nation as citizens in 1883, you again see where the Choctaws were in conflict with their own laws as well as the laws of the United States for which their constitution states they must be in compliance:

The Choctaw Nation on May 21, 1883, duly enacted a law in strict compliance with the terms of the treaty of 1866, hereinabove set out, the first section of which reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the general council of the Choctaw Nation assembled, That all persons of African descent, resident in the Choctaw Nation at the date of the treaty of Fort Smith, September 13, 1865, and their descendants formerly held in slavery by the Choctaws or Chickasaws, are hereby declared to be entitled to and invested with all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the rights of suffrage, of citizens of the Choctaw Nation, except in the annuity moneys and the public domain of the nation...

Thus the person of African descent held in slavery on and prior to the 13th day of September, 1865, and resident in the nation on that date, and his or her descendants, born prior to the treaty of 1866, and theretofore held in slavery, and such persons only, became citizens in law and in fact of the Choctaw Nation with all the rights, privileges, and immunities of any full-blood Choctaw, except the right to participate equally with the full-blood Choctaw in the lands and moneys of the tribe. These rights did not pass to their descendants born after the treaty of 1866. They could not be transmitted to their children thereafter born, and such children were permitted to remain in the nation only during good behavior. Section 7, of the act of the Choctaw council—hereinabove referred to—enacted in conformity with the treaty of 1866 provides:

Be it further enacted, That intermarriage with such freedmen of African descent, who were formerly held as slaves of the Choctaws, and have become citizens, shall not confer any rights, of citizenship in this nation, and all freedmen who have married, or who may hereafter marry, freedwomen who have become citizens of the Choctaw Nation, are subject to the permit laws, and allowed to remain during good behavior only.

It clearly states the “person of African descent” became citizens of the nation. There is the clause that states this distinction did not pass to the “freedmen’s” descendants, which would seem in contradiction to the principle that a child born in the nation of its parents becomes a citizen by birth in that nation. It doesn’t make them a Choctaw or an Indian, but it should make them a citizen.

In the second paragraph it would seem there is an implied acceptance of the intermarriage between a Choctaw and anyone of “African descent” though unlike the intermarried whites, the intermarried “negro” or person of “African descent” did not convey any rights as a citizen of the nation.

It is amazing how destructive racism is and how it causes sane people to come up with insane concepts of marriage, children and interpersonal relationships.

I might add the attorney in this case did a masterful job of articulating the merits of how the laws requiring the punishment of individuals who did intermarry with people of African descent. I have yet to find any case where someone was placed under the lash because of their relationship with a person of African descent.

In fact the attorney uses as an example the Joe and Dillard PERRY case, as well as the Morris and Lucy IMPSON case, and as well as the Joe and Dora McGEE case, all involving a male from the Choctaw or Chickasaw nation “marrying” a freedwoman and fathering children by them.

In the case of the IMPSON’s and McGEE’s the children were admitted as citizens by blood, and remarkably, there will be an IMPSON family reunion I believe this year that notes the descendants of Morris and Lucy are noted as part of the family today.

Though the PERRY’s were successful in establishing their bloodline in the Chickasaw Nation, I don’t believe the descendant’s of this line are acknowledged as rightful citizens of that nation. Like I said funny thing racism?


18 Dec 2002 :: 14 Nov 2008
Copyright © 2002-2008 by AfriGeneas. All rights reserved.
AfriGeneas ~ African Ancestored Genealogy