African-Native American Genealogy Forum
Re: 1866 Treaty
In Response To: Re: 1866 Treaty ()
Mike I believe they use a term in sociology for people blaming others for what they do as “extra-punitive” your continued attempts at characterizing my points as emotional are without merit.
Two, there is not one reference in my response using the word “fair” that again would be bowing to an emotional appeal, something I did not do.
Three, you did not make an argument of how wrong the Jim Crow laws were, you attempted to soften and excuse the treatment of freedmen within Indian Territory as somehow less abusive than those enslaved in the United States. I would counter that the enslavement of anyone, denying them their “human rights” is not a case of my pain was more painful than your pain. It would appear you are making the fairness argument, not me.
If you feel your name is an “epithet” that is your conclusion, an emotional one that you must deal with. I don’t see how I have been uncivil towards you by using your given name, if I referred to you with something other than your name then you might have a case for incivility. I simply engaged your juvenile attempts at obfuscating the issue by a sophomoric argument that because the term “citizen” does not appear, therefore the freedmen were not considered “citizens.”
I merely pointed out that a cursory reading of the document supports the contention that if the freedmen received the “rights” as ‘Native Cherokees” and if Native Cherokee’s are considered citizens, which is implied, than one can conclude that the freedmen were endowed with that same status, where is the conflict? You know,if x+y=z a simple algebraic, logical, linear conclusion.
You intimate that if “cooler heads” prevail, than a more tragic situation could be avoided. Seems to me the “hot-heads” were those reactionaries that upon hearing the “Cherokee Court” rule that the “Cherokee Constitution” DID NOT prevent freedmen descendants from citizenship, immediately sought to expel them without “FIRST” engaging the Freedmen before taking such actions.
You seem to infer that this issue just appeared last week. Chief Smith and his administration having been dealing with this issue for approximately five years as it pertains to Ms. Vann, perhaps it is his lack of leadership that brought the issue too this point when it was HE who could have taken a more diplomatic approach.
Seems to me, Smith should have asked the question be careful about what you ask for.
One last thing Mike, I support your contention that primary source documentation is essential to these issues. When it comes to the issue of blood, why hasn’t the Cherokee Nation along with the other four taken the approach that as most scholars conclude the Dawes Rolls were flawed?
As a primary source document the rear of many of these cards CLEARLY indicates some freedmen descendants possess “Indian” blood. Chief Smith could have acknowledged this and shown what an informed decision maker can do to affect a positive change. What he and those 6000 plus voters did was continue to deny this FACT and sought to ignore the truth of one of the freedmen’s contention. It does not address the fact that the tribe abrogated a Treaty and now must fact the consequences, don’t blame the Freedmen, and don’t be extra-punitive.
I hope this meets YOUR definition of civility; it’s the best I got Mike. Oh, by the way, what is more punitive, the spiteful and misuse of power displayed by the actions of the Chief? Or the dignified attempts at a dialogue by the Freedmen Descendants for the past five years? As long as this issue was moving under the radar and away from the light of the day, Chief Smith thought this was a slam dunk and now YOU want the freedmen to back off. Just like a bully. When the 90 pound weakling fights back the bully wants to play fair. Be grateful I’m not in that group, because when pushed, I push back! Sowwy, let my emotions get the best of me.