Freedmen Descendants With Choctaw Blood Denied Due to Policies Based on Race

 At the Senate Hearing on Capitol Hill in July of this year, representatives of Five Tribal Nations, addressed the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on issues pertaining to the Freedmen of the Five Tribes. I attended that hearing, and sat directly behind the speakers. It was quite disappointing to listen to the words of the Choctaw Nation representative. Mr. Michael Burrage who made the statement that Choctaw citizenship is an issue about blood, and not about race.

Was Attorney Burrage speaking from what he truly believed to be true? Was he simply giving spin that he is paid to give? Or was he possibly honestly unaware of cases where numerous people identified as "Freedmen" had Choctaw fathers---who have the blood he spoke about. Is he not aware that they are still considered to be outsiders and not welcomed?   

Here is such an example of a Freedman who had Choctaw blood.

Ardena Darneal, Daughter of a Choctaw Indian:
This is a case where the daughter of a well-known Choctaw was not put on the blood roll, nor was her mother able to place her on the roll of the tribe to which her daughter was born. Because her mother's line came from Chickasaws slaves. The name of Ardena Darneal is actually found on a Chickasaw Freedman Card.  But Ardena had a Choctaw father.

On the front of the Dawes enrollment card, a note appears about Ardena's mother Fanny. The hand-written note clearly states that the mother Fanny Parks, is "Separated from Silas Darneel, a Choctaw Indian." 

Chickasaw Freedmen Card #927
Fannie Parks and children

Close up of notation on front of Dawes Card

Some time ago, Verdie Triplett, the grandson of Ardena Darneal, applied for citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. He was denied. He applied because he has a proven lineage by blood to a known Choctaw. He submitted all required documents including the card referring to Ardena's father. He proved in his application that he had the "blood" that Attorney Burrage spoke about. But yet, he was denied, even though lineal descent was proven.

Was it because the mother Fanny was on a Chickasaw Card? But her card proved the blood tie of her daughter to a still living Choctaw, and Ardena was the daughter of a Choctaw Indian. And if Verdie Triplett can prove that he is a lineal descendant of Silas Darneal a Choctaw and that he has the frequently mentioned blood---why is he not a citizen?

Was it because the child's father did not put her on his card?  That can't be the case,because Fanny, the Freedwoman was not allowed to enter the tent of blood citizens, even though her daughter clearly had her father's blood.  Attorney Burrage states, the case has to be proven of lineal descent. Mr. Triplett proved lineal descent through vital records connecting him directly to Ardena. And it is clear that Fanny Park's Ardena's mother told the Commission, who the child's father was and a notation was recorded on the card. Lineal descent was proven. Ardena had Choctaw blood, but was never put on the blood roll. But the question then arises: What is wrong with Ardena's blood?

Or------------is it possible that the issue is in reality, one of race and not blood? Indeed this question must be asked, because in case after case, those with Choctaw fathers were not admitted. The one thing in common that they had was that in almost every case, the mother was of African descent. The race of the mother extended to the child and was then used against them, thus preventing Ardena, and all of her descendants from Choctaw citizenship forever.  But Ardena was clearly one-half Choctaw and the attorney told the Senate Committee on Indian Affair, that lineal descent must be proven and that it is all about blood!  

Attorney Burrage pointed out that there are black people who are members of the tribe. But he did not point out that these are descendants of inter-racial marriages that have occurred in recent years. 

The final reason to exclude Freedmen when all other excuses are exhaustd is the use of the word, "sovereignty." Is sovereignty a "code word" for the right to exclude the very people who were enslaved in the same nation? Is that the action of an honorable and "proud" people?

Ardena Darneal, like her mother Fanny was put on the final roll as a descendant of slaves. Her blood tie to a Choctaw  meant nothing to the Dawes Commission and it means nothing to the Choctaw Nation, today. Her placement on the Freedmen roll also meant that she would only receive 1/8th the amount of land that blood-roll citizens were given.

In other words, blood-roll Choctaw were allotted 8 times more land (320 acres) than their former slaves (40 acres). And now today, descendants of  "blood-roll" Choctaws are still punishing the descendants of those they enslaved by not even giving them citizenship in the land where their ancestors lived, toiled and died.

In fairness, is it possible that today's tribal officials are simply unaware of these cases? If so, then shouldn't this issue be reviewed to right a wrong?

Would Attorney Burrage not agree that Ardena Darneal's blood tie is there, and that Mr. Triplett and his children are deserving of citizenship? 

Mr. Triplett still lives in the same neighborhood in Le Flore County that his Darneal cousins who are Choctaw citizens live. They know each other as cousins, but yet "sovereignty" or prejudice does not allow one part of Silas Daneal's descendants to be recognized a citizens while others from the same man, are citizens. Yet they are ALL Choctaw people. 

Would be Mr. Burrage become an advocate for descendants of this half Choctaw child to be a  citizen today?  Sadly, this is not the only case, for there are so many more. 

A Question of Morality

Why not address the moral issue of mistreating former slaves and their descendants?

The immorality of the policy of a blood tie should be addressed. When it comes to the right of citizenship of a people held in bondage for generations, how can the composition of their blood cast them out of a place that their ancestors earned?

A question to Attorney Burrage---are you truly comfortable with that?

Choctaw Freedmen had the same home as those on the blood roll and the roll of "inter-married whites" with whom the tribe has no issue. The Freedmen had no other home! The Freedmen themselves had been immersed in the same culture, language, foodways and had to abide by the same laws. So how  canone justify denial of a people who were a Choctaw people, because they don't have the slave owner's blood?

To the Choctaw Nation---Is that who you really are? The policy based on looks and blood---when the former slaves had no other home is a racist policy, a cruel policy and vicious policy!  If that is the case, and if that is what you are, then come forth in your truth and speak to it. On the other hand, if that is not the spirit of the Chahta Proud, then exhibit the courage of the ancestors and do what is right. 

The country that funds the Choctaw Nation is the United States. And the United States did not stipulate in the 14th Amendment that former slaves had to have the blood of their slave holders to be American citizens. So how does the Choctaw Nation practice and consider their blood policy to be one of sovereignty or intergrity, or righteousness?  Especially even when Freedmen descendants prove their blood ties--they are still denied.

Does the Choctaw Nation wish to truly be recognized as a community embracing prejudices of the Old South? If so, say so and let the world know that is who you are. If that is not who you wish to be, then reach back to the hands that reached back to you, in 2021, resulting from Chief Batton's Open Letter. 

Doing the right thing is not that hard.

If He Was Sincere.....

Image of Open Letter from Chief Gary Batton

 Over a year ago, Chief Gary Batton of the Choctaw Nation published an open letter about launching an initiative to look into the possibility of Choctaw Freedmen citizenship. However, since that time many people have sent letters to the Choctaw Nation, expressing an interest in engaging in the "meaningful conversations" with him that he implied was to occur. 

To this date, no one has received even a form letter from the Choctaw Nation, saying "thank you for your letter". No response, no acknowlegement, nothing. Last year, one Freedman descendant with family in SE Oklahoma, was able to establish a cordial relationship by phone with one of the tribal officials in the capitol. However, in late spring she made a call, and was suddenly told that the tribes attorneys  had advised them not to engage with callers about Freedmen.

So--the tribe is now "lawyered-up" in anticipation of some kind of adversarial action coming from Freedmen descendants?  Really? So the question has to be asked--was the open letter not sincere ? 

This year, several of us attended the hearing on July 27th with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,  and we were able to listen to the spokesperson on behalf of the Choctaw Nation speak about issues of blood, insisting their policy has nothing to do with race. The counsel clearly was unaware of the dozens of Freedmen families whose spouses, or fathers were Choctaws by blood. Perhaps he did not know that  their blood was intentionally left off the final Dawes roll, although their Choctaw fathers were named on the enrollment cards!  This gesture forever cast those Choctaw Freedmen who truly had blood ties, into a category of "Freedmen", forcing them to forever wear some kind of "stain of slavery" ---a stain put upon them by the tribe---not by themselves. Clearly this is all about race, and NOT about blood. 

Michael Burrage telling the Senate Committee that their policy has nothing to do with race.

And at the hearing, many of us were left wondering---if Chief Batton was sincere--could he not have come or did the chance of having a meaningful conversation with descendants of Choctaw Freedmen make him avoid the hearing?

Earlier this year when a Freedmen descendant attended a local event, and this person had the chance to meet the current chief and ask about the issue regarding Freedmen citizenship. The response was simply that not too many letters had come in about it, far less than what they had expected. And that was all.

So the initiative that the chief himself was to launch was based upon an unstated quantity letters to come from Freedmen descendants? The question is asked again----Was the initiative that the chief mentioned in his open letter dependent upon receipt of a specific number of letters by Freedmen to be sent to his office?

If THIS was the issue---his OPEN LETTER would have stated so that is, if he was sincere.

One can only surmise the following:

*If he was sincere no quantity of letters should not have kept him from doing the right thing.

*If he was sincere, the initiative said he would launch would have unfolded.

*If he was sincere, he would honor his word "....We see you. We hear you."

*If he was sincere, he would see us now---he would see us today---because still part of the same nation, still sharing the same history, and still walk and live among Choctaw people as Choctaw people

*If he was sincere, he would allow selected Freedmen descendants to meet with him.

*If he was sincere, he would come and look us in the eye, shake our hands, and sit down with us, all as members of the same community and learn that we are not different from each other.

*If he was sincere, he would have honored his word to meet us, talk to us have meaningful dialogue with us. 

Had he been truly sincere, we would not now feel that an empty gesture was tossed at us in a cruel hollow gesture of words unanwered and requests ignored.

Sadly, time has shown us that what we believed was sincere, truly was not.

Excerpt from the 2021 Open Letter of Chief Batton
(To date, no one has been able to meet with him, nor engage in any dialogue with him.)

* * * * *