Kenneth Howard Smith - From Black Slaves to Native American Indians - The Treaty of 1866 in Knots

Kenneth Howard Smith - From Black Slaves to Native American Indians - Treaty of 1866. The Treaties that bind and unbind whose a native and whose is not. This report is repetitive on details and tying all together the loopholes and counter arguments to citizenship. It's double speak at its best. This subject has been flipped upside down and turned around. The early pioneer of the Freedman treaty was the late Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee, a true champion and we miss her terribly.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
His is a present date in of SDC News 1 distributed by SDC
Digital. The following presentation is by
Doctor Kenneth Howard Smith of the SDC Institute.
Thank you for listening. The ad mended Treaty of 1866
between the US government and the Cherokee Nation that gives
Black American slaves as Native Black American Indians

(00:22):
indigenous to the America's hundreds of years before
Christopher Columbus with the removable of the by blood claws
has opened up a new problem. The shift of Native Black
Indians names in the beginning as Negroes, colored Friedman,
Afro Americans, Black Americans to mention several.
Now this new shift of names for native original black Indians in

(00:44):
the Cherokee tribes. All reparation for slaves will
only be paid to African black Americans from the slave ships.
All other native blacks, American Indians will not get
reparation and has been delegated as prisoners of war
from the Civil War. You're pointing right at the
knot that's been tightening for more than a century.
Identity defined by paperwork versus identity carried in

(01:05):
community and memory. The 1866 treaty with the
Cherokee was explicit. Friedman and their descendants
were to have equal rights in thenation.
That promise has been fought over ever since, especially
through the by blood claws inserted later to police
belonging. Striking that claws down gave
Friedman descendants back what the treaty already promised, but

(01:27):
it also reignited an old fight about categories.
Who gets called what and who gets cut out when the state or
tribe starts attaching benefits to those labels.
Your point about shifting names,Negro colored, Afro, American,
etcetera isn't just semantics. Each term came with political
consequences. Now we're seeing the same thing

(01:48):
with African Americans versus Friedman descendants versus
Native Black Indians. One label could open the door to
reparations tied to the transatlantic slave trade, while
another label could leave peoplesidelined even if their families
endured enslavement on this soil.
The prisoners of war framing from the Civil War era adds

(02:08):
another layer. It casts Friedman not as
survivors of the Middle Passage,but as captives of America's own
internal war, legally and symbolically separating them
from the African diaspora. Reparations conversation.
It's a power play over categories.
Reparations and recognition hinge less on the reality of
ancestry than on which box someone else puts you in.

(02:29):
Here's the lay of the land as itstands now, with all three
fronts colliding in Congress. The conversation around
reparations, think HR 40, usually narrows to descendants
of enslaved Africans brought to the US by ships.
That definition leaves Friedman,descendants of tribal nations,
in a Gray zone. Some lawmakers have started

(02:50):
asking whether treaty obligations like the 1866
Cherokee Deal should be honored in tandem with reparations
frameworks. But there's no unified push.
Mostly, it's silence, with tribes lobbying hard to keep
sovereignty front and center, wary of federal meddling in the
courts. Recent rulings have forced the

(03:11):
Cherokee Nation and others like Seminole, to restore Friedman
descendants to full citizenship,citing the treaty.
Courts have been careful not to wade into reparations, sticking
instead to treaty enforcement. But by re establishing
citizenship, they've cracked thedoor open for questions of
benefits, land rights and federal funding.

(03:32):
The legal battles aren't finished.
Each case becomes a test of whether treaty promises outweigh
tribal membership rules. Inside the tribes, this is the
roughest space. Some tribal citizens argue that
recognizing Friedman descendantsdilutes sovereignty or
redistributes resources. Friedman descendants counter

(03:52):
that the treaty language is plain.
They are citizens, period. The debate runs along old color
lines, but also along anxieties about federal intervention.
The removal of by blood hit especially hard because it
challenges a century of identitygatekeeping.
So right now, it's less about reparations checks landing in
anyone's mailbox and more about a tug of war over categories,

(04:15):
rights, and who gets to define original people.
In 1866, the United States signed a treaty with the
Cherokee Nation that promised full rights of citizenship to
Friedman, formerly enslaved Black people held within the
tribe and their descendants. That promise was gutted by a by
blood clause added later, excluding anyone who could not
prove Cherokee ancestry on the Das Rolls.

(04:38):
This year, the Cherokee Nation'sown Supreme Court ruled that by
blood was unconstitutional undertribal law, reaffirming that
Friedman descendants are citizens by treaty right, not by
racial gatekeeping. Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin
Junior has said the nation must move forward together, but
resentment simmers among some citizens who see federal

(04:58):
pressure behind the ruling. At the federal level, Congress
has edged closer to studying reparations through HR 40, but
the language centers on descendants of Africans brought
to the US through the Middle Passage.
That framing could exclude Friedman descendants whose
ancestors were enslaved within Native nations, casting them as
prisoners of war of the Civil War era rather than as part of

(05:20):
the African diaspora story. The collision is clear.
One set of lawmakers is debatingreparations for slavery, while
courts are quietly upholding treaty rights that bind tribes
to their Black citizens. For Friedman descendants, the
fight is about more than reparations.
It's about not being erased by shifting labels.
Negro, Colored. Friedman.

(05:41):
Afro, American. African American.
Each term has been wielded to draw boundaries, and each
boundary has carried consequences for land,
citizenship, and recognition. The story here isn't just about
checks or benefits. It's about whether the United
States and the tribes themselveswill honor a 159 year old treaty
promise. Explain Commentary.

(06:04):
When Congress signed the Treaty of 1866 with the Cherokee
Nation, the language was unambiguous.
Formerly enslaved people held within the Nation, the Freedmen
and their descendants shall haveall the rights of native
Cherokees. It was a binding promise meant
to anchor black citizenship in the tribal future.
But in the early 20th century, federal officials carved up

(06:27):
citizenship roles and the Cherokee Nation later codified a
by blood requirement, locking out Friedman descendants for
generations. That fight erupted again this
year when the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court struck down the by
blood language in the nation's constitution.
Justice Shawna Baker wrote in the unanimous opinion that the
clause was repugnant to the 1866treaty and had no place in

(06:50):
tribal law. Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin
Junior welcomed the decision, saying it affirms that our
Friedman brothers and sisters are part of the Cherokee story,
inseparable from it. Yet even within the nation, the
ruling has triggered old anxieties whether citizenship is
a matter of sovereignty or shared history, and whether
federal pressure lurks behind every tribal decision.

(07:13):
Meanwhile, in Washington, the reparations debate is taking on
a parallel track. Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, DTX, has
reintroduced HR40, which would establish a Commission to study
reparations for slavery. But the scope is clear.
The bill defines beneficiaries as descendants of Africans
trafficked through the Middle Passage into US slavery.

(07:36):
That framing risks sidelining the descendants of tribal
Friedman who were enslaved in Native nations but not brought
across the Atlantic. Leaders of Friedman descendants
argue that such distinctions areartificial.
Marilyn Van, president of the Descendants of Friedman of the
Five Civilized Tribes, has pressed both Congress and tribal
governments. Our people bled and suffered

(07:57):
under slavery and Jim Crow. Whether in tribal territory or
the South, a treaty is not an option.
It is the supreme law of the land.
The politics cut deep. Tribal governments fear that
expanding claims could trigger federal intrusion into
sovereignty or strain already limited resources.
Friedman descendants fear erasure and other generation

(08:19):
lost in the shuffle of names. Negro, Colored, Friedman, Afro
American, African American. Each label has marked who
belonged, who didn't, and who paid the price.
The collision is unavoidable. The Cherokee courts are
affirming treaty citizenship, while Congress debates
reparations along narrower lines.

(08:39):
At the center are Black familieswho have lived on this soil for
centuries, forced to argue againand again for rights already
promised in ink. The question is whether
lawmakers and tribal governmentswill finally confront the full
weight of history, or whether the Treaty of 1866 will remain
yet another promise honored onlyin part.
Investigative Commentary The promise is nearly 160 years old,

(09:04):
and in the aftermath of war, theTreaty of 1866 between the
United States and the Cherokee Nation guaranteed that Freedman
enslaved people, once held within the tribe and their
descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.
But from the beginning, that promise has been narrowed,
redefined, and at times erased. The most consequential rollback

(09:25):
came with the imposition of the by blood requirement in Cherokee
citizenship law. It left thousands of black
descendants without a political home, even as they carried
Cherokee surnames and history. That exclusion triggered years
of litigation. In Cherokee Nation V Nash 2017,
a federal court ruled that Friedman descendants were

(09:47):
entitled to equal citizenship, citing the supremacy of the 1866
treaty. The ruling forced the Cherokee
Nation to restore Friedman citizenship, a decision that
still ripples inside the tribe. The nation's Supreme Court took
another decisive step in 2021, when Justice Shawna Baker,
writing for a unanimous bench, struck by blood from the

(10:09):
nation's Constitution as illegal, obsolete and repugnant
to the ideal of liberty. Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin
Junior has since pledged inclusion, calling Friedman
descendants Cherokee citizens. Period.
But beneath that language lies tension.
Many citizens bristle at what they see as federal intrusion
into sovereign matters. The debate is not just about

(10:32):
identity. It is about resources,
representation, and political power.
In Washington, a separate but connected battle is unfolding.
The late Representative dot Sheila Jackson Lee, DTX,
continued to champion HR 40, which would study reparations
for descendants of Africans trafficked via the Middle
Passage. That language, however, excludes

(10:54):
the unique history of Friedman descendants of tribal nations.
Leaders like Marilyn Van, president of the Descendants of
Friedman of the Five Civilized Tribes, argue the exclusion is
indefensible. Our ancestors were enslaved,
dispossessed, and denied rights every bit as systematically as
others. A treaty promise is not
optional, it is law. The Biden administration has

(11:17):
cautiously weighed in. In 2021, the Department of the
Interior Under Secretary Deb Holland affirmed that the
Cherokee Nation was bound by the1866 treaty, signaling a
willingness to enforce treaty rights more aggressively than
past administrations. Yet on reparations, the White
House has held back, supporting HR 40s Commission framework but

(11:40):
leaving the scope and the question of Friedman descendants
unsettled. The stakes are not just academic
Citizenship in a tribal nation brings access to housing
programs, health care, educationand cultural belonging.
Exclusion means more than a missing name on a roll.
It means erasure. And when Congress defines
reparations too narrowly, it risks repeating that erasure on

(12:02):
a national scale. This fight is about more than
checks or benefits. It's about whether America is
willing to confront the full story of slavery on its soil,
including the chapters written in Indian Territory, and whether
the word treaty still carries legal weight when black lives
are on the line. Until then, Friedman descendants
remain suspended between categories, asked to prove their

(12:24):
belonging again and again, even with the ink of 1866 still
legible on the page. Investigative commentary.
The Treaty of 1866 was supposed to settle the question signed in
the aftermath of the Civil War. It declared that Freedman Black
people, once enslaved within theCherokee Nation and their

(12:44):
descendants, shall have all the rights of Native Cherokees.
It was unambiguous. Yet more than a century later,
that promise remains contested, tested in courts, and narrowed
by politics. The fight came to a head in
Cherokee Nation V Nash 2017, when a federal court ruled that
Friedman descendants must be recognized as full citizens

(13:07):
under the treaty. 4 years later,the Cherokee Nation Supreme
Court followed suit, striking the by blood language from the
nation's constitution. Justice Shawna Baker, writing
for a unanimous bench, called itillegal, obsolete and repugnant
to the ideal of Liberty. Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin
Junior has embraced the ruling, saying Friedman are Cherokee

(13:30):
citizens, period. But not all share that
conviction. Some citizens fear that
enforcing treaty promises undercut sovereignty, especially
when federal courts are the onescompelling compliance.
The tension is raw. Who defines the nation, its own
people or the treaties signed under Duras with Washington?
The Cherokee Nation is not alonein this reckoning.

(13:53):
The other four tribes of Indian Territory, the Seminole, Creek,
Muskogee, Chickasaw, and ChoctawNations, were also bound by 1866
treaties. Their responses have varied.
The Seminole and Creek have wavered between recognition and
exclusion. The Chickasaw and Choctaw have
resisted granting Friedman descendants full citizenship,

(14:13):
despite repeated pressure from Friedman advocates and federal
officials. Each stance reflects not only
internal politics but also resource anxieties.
Expanding citizenship means dividing federal funding, land
rights and political representation.
Washington has taken notice. Under the Biden administration,
the Department of the Interior has adopted A firmer stance.

(14:37):
Secretary Deb Holland, the firstNative American to hold the
office, has underscored that treaties remain binding law.
Brian Newland, assistant secretary for Indian affairs,
has gone further, stating in 2021 that the Cherokee Nation's
decision to strike by blood was an affirmation of the rule of
law and a model for other tribesbound by 1866 agreements.

(15:00):
The message was clear. Honoring Friedman rights is not
optional. But here lies the paradox.
At the same time, Congress flirts with reparations through
HR40, led by the late Representative Sheila Jackson
Lee, DTX. The definition of who qualifies
remains narrow. The bill centers on descendants
of Africans trafficked through the Middle Passage.

(15:22):
By that measure, many Friedman descendants whose ancestors were
enslaved in Native nations couldbe excluded.
Marilyn Van, president of the Descendants of Friedman of the
Five Civilized Tribes, has called this a double injustice.
Our people suffered slavery, removal and Jim Crow.
A treaty guarantee is not a suggestion.
It is the supreme law of the land.

(15:44):
The Cherokee Nation has begun toreconcile with its Friedman
citizens, but the broader fight is unresolved.
Sovereignty, treaty law, reparations and identity collide
in ways the drafters of 1866 could never have imagined.
And in that collision, Friedman descendants live suspended
between categories recognized inone courtroom, erased in another

(16:06):
congressional draft. The question is whether the
United States and the tribes bound by its treaties will
confront the whole story that slavery on this soil was not
confined to plantations, and that treaties signed in 1866 are
promises still waiting to be kept.
Investigative commentary. The Treaty of 1866 was meant to

(16:28):
be final. Signed in the ashes of the Civil
War. It bound the Cherokee Nation and
four other tribes in Indian Territory to grant Friedman, the
Black people, once enslaved within their nations and their
descendants, all the rights of Native citizens.
On paper, the promise was airtight.
In practice, it has been clawed back, reinterpreted, and

(16:49):
litigated for generations. The Cherokee Nation's fight is
the most visible. After decades of exclusion, a
federal court in Cherokee NationV Nash 2017 ruled that Friedman
descendants were entitled to equal citizenship under the
treaty. In 2021, the Cherokee Nation's
own Supreme Court struck by blood from its constitution,

(17:12):
with Justice Shawna Baker calling it illegal, obsolete,
and repugnant to the ideal of liberty.
That decision restored citizenship to roughly 8500
Friedman descendants who now hold full rights in a nation of
about 400,000 citizens. Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin
Junior has framed it as overdue.Justice Friedman are Cherokee

(17:33):
citizens, period. Yet even in triumph, the scars
of exclusion remain. The broader picture is starker.
Across the five tribes, the Cherokee, Seminole, Muskogee,
Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw nations, an estimated 20,000 to
25,000 Friedman descendants remain in limbo.
The Cherokee are the only tribe to fully recognize them today.

(17:57):
The Seminole Nation has fought bitter legal battles to restrict
Friedman citizenship. The Muskogee have wavered
between partial recognition and exclusion.
The Choctaw and Chickasaw have refused to extend full
citizenship at all. In those nations, Friedman
descendants are effectively locked out of political life,
services, and cultural belongingguaranteed by treaty.

(18:18):
Washington has begun to weigh in.
Secretary of the Interior Deb Holland has stressed that
treaties are binding law. Brian Newland, assistant
secretary for Indian Affairs, praised the Cherokee Nations
2021 ruling as an affirmation ofthe rule of law and pointedly
suggested that other tribes with1866 obligations should follow

(18:39):
suit. The Biden administration's
stance is cautious but clear. Friedman rights cannot be
indefinitely ignored. Meanwhile, Congress debates
reparations through HR 40, championed by Rep Sheila Jackson
Lee, DTX. But the bills scope descendants
of Africans trafficked via the Middle Passage risks excluding

(19:00):
Friedman descendants. For leaders like Marilyn Van,
president of the descendants of Friedman of the Five Civilized
Tribes, that exclusion is untenable.
Are people endured slavery, removal and Jim Crow?
The treaty promise is not symbolic.
It is the supreme law of the land.
Numbers give the tension weight.For Cherokee Friedman

(19:22):
descendants, recognition means not only citizenship, but also
access to housing, health care, and education programs funded by
federal dollars. For their counterparts in the
Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminolenations, exclusion means being
citizens on paper only. In the historical record erased
in the present tense, the reckoning is unavoidable.

(19:43):
Either the 1866 treaties are enforced fully across all 5
tribes, or they are not, And in that choice lies the larger
question, whether the United States and the tribes bound by
its treaties will honor the whole story of slavery on this
soil. Until then, thousands of
Friedman descendants remain suspended between categories

(20:04):
recognized by history, acknowledged by law but denied
in practice. Investigative commentary.
The Treaty of 1866 was meant to settle it.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Cherokee Nation and
four other tribes of Indian Territory agreed to grant
Friedman, the Black people they had once enslaved and their

(20:25):
descendants all the rights of Native citizens.
Yet 159 years later, that promise remains unsettled,
tested in courtrooms and contested inside tribal
politics. The historical record shows the
scope of that promise. When the Dawes Rolls were
compiled between 1898 and 1914, roughly 20,000 Freedmen were

(20:47):
enrolled across the Five Tribes.About 4000 in the Cherokee
Nation alone. They were listed on separate
rolls from by blood citizens, a bureaucratic move that later fed
exclusion. Fast forward to today.
After years of litigation culminating in Cherokee Nation V
Nash 2017 and a decisive 2021 Cherokee Supreme Court ruling

(21:10):
striking by blood from the nation's constitution about
8500, Friedman descendants are now recognized as full Cherokee
citizens. They stand in a nation of
roughly 400,000 citizens. The numbers reveal both growth
and persistence, a community recorded on paper over a century
ago that never disappeared even when the law tried to erase it.

(21:32):
The contrast with other tribes is stark.
Across the Five Tribes, an estimated 20,000 to 25,000
Friedman descendants remain. Only the Cherokee Nation fully
recognizes them. The Seminole Nation has fought
legal challenges to limit Friedman citizenship.
The Muskogee Creek Nation has oscillated, recognizing and then

(21:54):
curtailing rights. The Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nations have not extended full citizenship at all.
For descendants in those nations, the Dawes Rolls remain
an ancestral record without present tense power.
Federal officials are watching closely.
Interior Secretary Deb Holland has reaffirmed that treaties are
binding. Brian Newland, assistant

(22:16):
secretary for Indian affairs, praised the Cherokee ruling as
an affirmation of the rule of law and suggested other 1866
treaty tribes cannot avoid the issue forever.
The Biden administration has stopped short of forcing
compliance, but the tone is unmistakable.
The law favors, Friedman writes.Meanwhile in Congress, Rep

(22:38):
Sheila Jackson Lee, DTX, continues to push HR 40, the
reparations bill, but it's focused.
Descendants of Africans trafficked through the Middle
Passage risks excluding Friedman, whose ancestors were
enslaved within Native nations. For activists like Marilyn Van,
president of the Descendants of Friedman of the Five Civilized
Tribes, this compounds the injustice.

(23:00):
Our ancestors were enslaved, dispossessed, and denied rights.
The treaty is not symbolic. It is binding.
Law numbers strip away abstraction.
Thousands of Friedman descendants are citizens in one
tribe but excluded in others. In 1890, the Dawes Rolls
recorded their existence. In 2025, many still fight to be

(23:23):
recognized as more than a footnote.
The unresolved question is not whether Friedman existed.
They were counted, named, enrolled.
The question is whether the treaty that guaranteed their
place will finally be honored infull.
Until then, thousands remain caught between history and
present law, acknowledged on thepage, denied in practice,

(23:43):
investigative commentary. The Treaty of 1866 was meant to
settle it. In the aftermath of the Civil
War, the Cherokee Nation and four other tribes of Indian
Territory agreed to grant Friedman, the Black people they
had once enslaved and their descendants all the rights of
Native citizens. Yet 159 years later, that

(24:05):
promise remains unsettled, tested in courtrooms and
contested inside tribal politics.
The historical record shows the scope of that promise.
When the Dawes Rolls were compiled between 1898 and 1914,
roughly 20,000 Freedmen were enrolled across the Five Tribes.
About 4000 in the Cherokee Nation alone.

(24:26):
They were listed on separate rolls from by blood citizens, a
bureaucratic move that later fedexclusion.
Fast forward to today. After years of litigation
culminating in Cherokee Nation VNash 2017 and a decisive 2021
Cherokee Supreme Court ruling striking by blood from the
nation's constitution about 8500, Friedman descendants are

(24:49):
now recognized as full Cherokee citizens.
They stand in a nation of roughly 400,000 citizens.
The numbers reveal both growth and persistence, a community
recorded on paper over a centuryago that never disappeared even
when the law tried to erase it. The contrast with other tribes
is stark. Across the Five Tribes, an

(25:10):
estimated 20,000 to 25,000 Friedman descendants remain.
Only the Cherokee Nation fully recognizes them.
The Seminole Nation has fought legal challenges to limit
Friedman citizenship. The Muskogee Creek Nation has
oscillated, recognizing and thencurtailing rights.
The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations have not extended full

(25:32):
citizenship at all. For descendants in those
nations, the Da's rolls remain an ancestral record without
present tense power. Federal officials are watching
closely. Interior Secretary Deb Holland
has reaffirmed that treaties arebinding.
Brian Newland, assistant secretary for Indian affairs,
praised the Cherokee ruling as an affirmation of the rule of

(25:55):
law and suggested other 1866 treaty tribes cannot avoid the
issue forever. The Biden administration has
stopped short of forcing compliance, but the tone is
unmistakable. The law favors Friedman rights.
Meanwhile in Congress, Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, DTX,
continues to push HR 40, the reparations bill, but it's

(26:18):
focused. Descendants of Africans
trafficked through the Middle Passage risks excluding
Friedman, whose ancestors were enslaved within Native nations.
For activists like Marilyn Van, president of the Descendants of
Friedman of the Five Civilized Tribes, this compounds the
injustice. Our ancestors were enslaved,
dispossessed, and denied rights.The treaty is not symbolic.

(26:40):
It is binding. Law numbers strip away
abstraction. Thousands of Friedman
descendants are citizens in one tribe but excluded in others.
In 1890, the Dawes Rolls recorded their existence in
2025. Many still fight to be
recognized as more than a footnote, and the national
stakes are larger than one treaty.

(27:03):
If Friedman descendants can be excluded from reparations
discussions because their ancestors were enslaved in
Native nations rather than on plantations, it sets a precedent
that America can carve up slavery's legacy into categories
of worthiness. That narrowing would not only
betray the 1866 treaties but also undermine the broader push
for reparations by shrinking whocounts as a descendant of

(27:25):
enslavement. The unresolved question is not
whether Friedman existed. They were counted, named,
enrolled. The question is whether the
treaty that guaranteed their place will finally be honored in
full. Because how America answers that
question may shape who is written into and who is written
out of the nation's reckoning with slavery itself.

(27:46):
This was a present Aiden of SDC News 1, distributed by SDC
Digital. The following presentation was
by Doctor Kenneth Howard Smith of the SDC Institute.
Thank you for listening. This is a present Aiden of SDC
News 1.