[smokingfrog]

It looks like they may be within their rights, based on what the treaty says. But I don't know that any of the slaves were considered as members of the tribe before the civil war, so I don't know why they should be now. If the Cherokee would have left their slaves behind when Andy Jackson kicked them out of N. Carolina, they would have just ended up as someone else's slaves anyway. It seems to me that freeing of the slaves due to the civil war would make them United States citizens, not Cherokee Nation citizens.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy#Treaty_of_1866

Some people against membership for Freedmen descendants support Chief Smith's stance that the Freedmen are not Cherokee citizens because their ancestors were listed on the Freedmen Roll of the Dawes Rolls and not on the "Cherokee By-Blood" Roll. Smith and supporters claim that the Freedmen and their descendants have not been active in the tribe for 100 years, that the Freedmen were compensated for slavery with their Dawes land allotments and not tribal membership, that they were forced on the tribe due to the Treaty Of 1866, and that they are solely after the tribe's resources and Cherokee Nation's federally funded programs

[wardaddy]

Good point...I don’t know either...had not thought of it that way?

Your clarifications are causing me to rethink this?

Doesn’t what’s his name...post here?

let me think...right wing Indian pundit...pal of Wes Studi..(real Indian)

I looked it up...David Yeagley...used to post here as Bald Eagle or Owl Eagle I think...conservative pundit but I think he is Comanche descended

who knows...interesting legal case no question...I’ll follow it...keep us posted