The Politics of Blood in Choctaw-Chickasaw Country

Usually when examining the records of Freedmen from Indian Territory, there was a policy during the years of the Dawes Commission, to enroll a person as a "Freedman" if the was once enslaved by a "blood" member of the tribe.

In some cases, the person was enslaved by someone who was white, but who had a spouse who was an Indian member of the tribe. In other words if a white man had an Indian wife, then the Freedman applicant was still eligible for enrollment, and later allotted land. And likewise if a white woman was married to an Indian man, still the person who was enslaved, was deemed eligible for enrollment. This was the policy, because the applicant who had once been enslaved, had proven a tie to the tribe by having been enslaved by an Indian.
,
Well, while examining a series of records for an upcoming Choctaw-Chickasaw Freedmen publication, I found an interesting document that proved to be somewhat different. In the case of Mary Helena Jones, on Chickasaw Freedman Card #1469, a note was made on her enrollment card that she was a descendant of "Gen. Cooper's slaves".

This referred to General Douglas H. Cooper.  He was a white man who was a Confederate army general during the Civil War. He led the Indian confederate troops during the Civil War, specifically the Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles. It is no surprise that he was a slave holder. In the enrollment case of Mary Helena Jones, however, the slave holder associated with the family, was white and well as his wife. Yet---because of his status as an Indian agent, and also as having been "adopted" by the two tribes--Choctaw and Chickasaw the Freedman applicants had proven a tie to an Indian slave holder.

There is no objection to Mary Helena Jones being enrolled in as a Chickasaw Freedman. She was born in, was enslaved in, and lived her entire life in Indian Territory. So there is no question with her status.

1) Did his being a man of prominence (former confederate general, Indian agent, and adopted white citizen) impact the status of the Coopers as members of the tribe?

2)Did any descendants of General Cooper become enrolled members of the tribe as citizens?

3)Are the descendants of General Cooper eligible for enrollment today?

An interesting document appeared among many of the papers for the Freedman applicant. One page found among her papers addressed the issue of who her slave holder was:

Clearly, the "politics of blood" continues today in many circles, and is often examined by descendants of Freedmen of Indian Territory.

Ironically, there are dozens of people who today have an Indian ancestor----but because their ancestors were still placed on the "Freedman" roll, they cannot become citizens today. At the same time, there were people admitted to the tribe at the same time who had less than 1/4 blood--yet today---with 1/500th degree of blood---they are admitted to the tribe today, simply because their ancestors were not placed on the "Freedman" roll, which forced former slaves to have to live under some kind of "stain" that their enslavement gave them.

Descendants of the five tribes are fully aware of the peculiar "politics of blood" as practiced by the Oklahoma-based tribes, and the policy continues to be supported by federal entities in addition to the federally supported tribes that prevail.