Talk:Cherokee freedmen controversy

message: I created this page on the basis that there is little knowledge about this subject anywhere. All material pertaining to this issue weems to have a POV attached to it and therefore anybody who is looking for answers and not persuation should try and find it here. I do need help though filling out this page. Please help me do so, not only for me, but for the Cherokee people who need to make up their own minds and not be persuaded by political and tribal factions.Iwasmad 14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of this page 

message: I think the paragraph about him at the end could probably go into its own article. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Cornsilk 

message: Does anyone mind if this is moved to (or merged with the old version) of Cherokee Freedmen, which is currently a redirect?  If not, at least a good deal of the history could go over there. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A general article about all Freedmen is a better candidate.  There are freedmen from all five tribes and they all were placed onto a single roll -- the Freedmen Roll.  There were no "Cherokee Freedmen" as such recognized by the Dawes Commission as all Freedmen from the five civilized tribes were lumped together.  The Cherokee Freedmen are in fact all of the freedmen listed on the Freedmen rolls from all five tribes, so its not particularly just a "Cherokee" issue. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes again to the dispute over whether people of Cherokee heritage not on the right rolls can be called Cherokee.  There is an article freedman, and I just linked this from there. Putting this material into that article would imbalance that article, but would be an option. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There's a lot more here you may not be aware of.  The freedmen issue is not strictly confined to the Cherokee.  The Seminole Nation also disenrolled thier freedmen members.  What would make more sense is an article titled "Oklahoma Freedmen" or "Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes", the latter of which is far more accurate.  Remember, these Freedmen spoke a native language.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Freedmen's status in each tribe that held slaves was the result of new treaties that the US government made with each of the Five Civilized Tribes after the Civil War, because they had supported the Confederacy. The US required the emancipation of slaves and offering them tribal memberships. If the freedmen wanted to leave those nations, they could become US citizens.Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  move 

message: The section called "The Issue" came from an old version of Cherokee Freedmen that was brought here when Cherokee Freedmen became a redirect (at least I think I remember that being the case).  The section was a bit POV, and a bit redundant with the history section.  The section has now been renamed "Issue summary," which seems to be less POV (and much better cited), but still a bit redundant with other sections.  However, I think that the redundancy is ok, but it should be in the lead section, rather than the issue summary section.  Thus, I think that the old section (if/where it was citable and NPOV), the rewrite, and the lead should all be merged into a new lead.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would really like it if you would stop placing garbage about the Cherokee Nation into Wikipedia.  You do not seem to have the accurate materials about what's going on in the Cherokee Nation, or related to any of these controversies.  Thanks.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah, J.  Chill.  A new user made some edits to the issue summary section, and I thought that the issue summary should be merged with lead.  The last time I made any substantial edits here was May 15 , which I think you looked through, and were happy with .  Stormshadows00 is a new user, I don't think their edits need be removed, nor the census facts about slaves.  The material about recent events does need to be paired down, but I don't think cutting all of it at once was helpful either.  I'll hold off on reverting you myself (but I'd support someone else to do it) given the issues between us, but don't take issues you have with me out on a new user.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue summary section 

message: My first issue with the page is that the "Issue" section, which had information that has NEVER been stated in any media or information in the Freedmen situation. Chief Smith has never stated that he did the election for the Cherokee who are of African slave descent and it's been known to people who have been following the case that there hasn't been anything that even alluded to that before and after the March 3rd ruling and the federal case announcement (and I even put up his actual words from the announcement of the election). That right there is not in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which I read before I made ANY changes.
As far as the "Diversity" pictures go, the Cherokee Nation recently made those ads in response to the allegations of racism with the Freedmen sitation. Putting those ads up with no indication of their origin and what the pictures were for is definetely not contributing to the article. And in the "history" log, the previous editor removed ALL the recent formation on the case, but stated that all he did was "replace photos removed and intro".
Another issue is the issue of the census information and other recent information about the Freedmen controversy that has been completely removed from the page. Now the original claim in the revision before mine is that "unsourced material" was removed, but all of my statements were cited with links and information backing up all my statements unlike the previous revison. I find it funny that my information was removed yet the information that was replaced had nothing backing up the statements made.
The recent changes I made was an update with recent information (once again sourced) with the action that has happened after the loss of citizenship (which was again removed by the previous edit and recent edit) and announcement of Bill HR 2824, additions to the previous statements that were missing from the previous edit, information about Cherokee slavery and lawsuits, removed the "issue" part because it was not factual and kind of redundant since the issue is in the header, and the merge of my previous edit to the header per the suggestion of smmurphy stated in this discussion (also putting parts of the original my original edit in other sections). The original article had three or four references. I had twenty four references. 
Even though I followed all the guidelines, the changes were removed and the previous article was replaced. My concern with this article is that there is some misinformation, omitted infomation, factual information becaing removed, and the neutrality is definitely in question. If this keeps going on with each edit, there's no point in putting up accurate information.
Stormshadows00 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is a sockpuppet account of a banned user, JohnC1.  Are you JohnC1?   If not, welcome, if so, you are not allowed to edit here asnd you changes can be reverted.  Removal of the photos has not good jsutification. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added back in the materials about HR 2824 and removed your uncited edits which attack Chad Smith.  The use of the term Cherokee nation of Oklahoma is likewise a dead giveaway.  I need to see some evidence you are not JohnC1 or from the Cornsilks Board.  Also, using Wikipedia to libel Chad Smith violates WP:BLP and will not be tolerated here.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If Stormshadows00 could fix the citations a little, so that it is clear what the original source is, we will be able to see more easily if the source is a reliable one.  But from what I can see, most of them are strong (Washington Times, Daily Pheonix, etc.).  I think the relevant policies might be undue weight and what is sometimes called synthesis and therefore original research, but neither is so ergrerious that mass reversion is useful.  I think we should leave Stormshadow00's material on, and vet it (slowly, as in discuss each major change), if anything.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user may be Johnc1, we need an admin in here to checkuser this account.  revert wars, and uncited attacks on Chad Smith make is pretty clear who this is, along with claims they do not know what a sockpuppet is but yet edit proficiently on Wikipedia.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to file a WP:RFCU.  Also, please state which issues specifically you have.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "This user" has no idea who or what a "JohnC1" is! I don't appreciate you putting this "user may be JohnC1" on my information or on my messages. My name isn't "John", I don't have a "C" in my name, and last I checked it was "00" and not "1". As for me "editing proficiently", it's not that hard to do when you cut/paste the article, type words, and actually preview it. It's really not. I don't know where you get off coming with all of this but smearing my name on here just because I actually researched the case and put up factual information? That is beyond weak. I would like any user in this discussion other than you to go through what I typed, clicked the links, read the recent information, and see if there is any "uncited attacks" or anything that is even remotely close to what you're describing about my "uncited attacks". If there is, that person can change it. If not, it can remain. But this "JohnC1" business....come on. Anyone with common sense knows that I'm new to this. Stormshadows00 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made to Cherokee Freedmen Controversy 

message: Please do not remove the images again without valid discussion or place uncited statements which are libel into our project.  Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Images 

message: Just a note, per WP:HEAD, generally only the first word in a section is capitalized.  I'll get around to checking things out more in depth later, keep up the good work.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading capitalization 

message: Pleas bring specific issues you have with the lead to the talk page, rather than reverting.  Most of the material is cited, and citations are being brought into a standard form.  Constructive criticism is appreciated.  Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies to you.  I want you to stop reverting without discussion either directly or via other accounts. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: There are some changes being made that definitely need to be discussed because it's conflicting with previous material.
-Principal Chief Smith is one of the most vocal opponents of the freedmen reinstatement. It's been his stance since this started and the citied articles below has him quoted on his stance.
--The cited material didn't state that 2,800 Cherokee Members "currently enrolled in the tribe". It was talking about the Freedmen descendants in general.
-If the Cherokee had laws governing slave ownership and slave codes (which are stated in the article), the statement "the nature of slavery in Cherokee society" is an accurate statement.
-It's not "some Freedmen were put on the Freedmen" roll. There were 0 Freedmen placed on the "By Blood" roll because that roll in particular was for "blood Cherokee". All former slaves ("freedmen") were placed on the Freedmen roll and their children, whether they had a Cherokee parent or not, were on the roll as well. That was the whole purpose of the Freedmen Roll.....to list the Freedmen.
-"Loss Of Membership": The focus is not on the Intermarried Whites. The descendants of the Intermarried Whites, the spouse of the Cherokee already listed on the By Blood Roll, were not affected because their descendants are Cherokee based on the fact that part of their ancestry (the blood Cherokee) that is on the Cherokee By Blood Roll. I do think there should be some clarification on that and not lumping those two groups because the focus is on one and not the other.
-Freedmen were still around in 1907. It should be "some Freedmen and their descendants" because both did vote in the tribal elections.
-Dawes Rolls of 1902 is listed plain as day. There's no need to clarify.
--Stormshadows00 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits About The Freedmen/Intermarried Whites/Etc.

message: I think we need to make a change to the line: "From the 1830s to 1860s, some Cherokee began to hold a more British-American view of slavery." 
After a 20yr campaign the slave trade was ruled illegal in the British Empire in 1807, and all slaves freed by 1833. 
Unless this was also the view of the Cherokee from 1830-1860, I think the line should be edited. --92.9.78.194 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article covers the Freedmen's history in detail as well as the court case that ties into that history. The section also covered a early case of Cherokee freedmen rights (Shoe Boots) as well as slave revolts and actions. A link and brief summary on the Cherokee page is reasonable compared to removing the section wholesale especially when the section removed covered only a part of slavery. Stormshadows00 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery among the Cherokee 

message: Hello everyone my name is Joe Howard and i am the author of a controversial Journal/Essay Called The Freedmens Hidden War.I am of Choctaw/Cherokee Freedmen Decent from the Howard and Roger Family and yes i do have ties to Norma Howard and Roger folks in Oklahoma and Texas.I would like to see if my Blog could be linked with Freedmen Articles and Norma Howard Articles as well my Blog address is www.wordwarrior.typepad.co
Thanks
Joe Howardəɵʉɔː  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.96.102 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Freedmens Hidden War 

message: Since the image is publicity by the Cherokee Nation, as if to prove its actions against the Freedmen are not discriminatory, it seems odd to have it in this article, which necessarily covers the exclusion of the Cherokee Freedmen descendants as citizens of the Nation.Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This definitely need some clarification as required means "order" or "demand". If it's "in accordance with a treaty made with the US government, the Cherokee were ordered", the Cherokee were not "required" to free their slaves and give them citizenship in accordance to the treaty because they already willingly agreed to do that. Voluntarily agreed (like the 1866 treaty says...."The Cherokee Nation having, voluntarily, in February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, by an act of the national council" reiterating the 1863 act before going into the statement on abolishment). The US very much insisted upon abolishing slavery and making the Freedmen citizens in regards to all the Five Civilized Tribes in the Fort Smith talks and the other talks held during treaty negotiations. Those were one of the terms that they wanted. And in regards to the Cherokee, those were terms that Ross and his group agreed with and wanted beforehand. Obviously with the passing of the Act before and their overall stance on the issue. They flat out rejected other things that US officials insisted on, like land for railroads and such, but not that. And in Gen. Sanborn's January 1866 report, cited on the page now, you can see how there were supporters of citizenship. Watie's group had objection with the Freedmen being in the Nation but not with the abolition of slaves. Ross' group won out in the end and they were the ones that the US negotiated with, not Watie's group. And out of the tribes, the Chickasaw were the only group that rejected the inclusion of Freedmen when the US government insisted. So how can it be that "in accordance with the treaty, the Cherokee were required" when 1. these terms were agreed upon as a treaty is pretty much an agreement between two parties, 2. it's something that the Cherokee in control wanted to do and 3: they did this without being ordered to do so? The edit before was pretty clear on the action, that they agreed to free slaves and give them citizenship. Seemed pretty straight and to the point. Stormshadows00 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Required" language

message: The second sentence of the current article begins "During the American Civil War, the Cherokee who supported the Union....."
However one of the sources listed (The Washington Post) states "The tribe fought for the Confederacy." I think this area could do with some further clarification.Anonymous watcher (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on civil war comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cherokee freedmen controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070729170418/http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca33_watson/070313.html to http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca33_watson/070313.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927215202/http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6821461 to http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6821461
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070314092909/http://www.diverseeducation.com:80/artman/publish/article_7102.shtml to http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_7102.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cherokee freedmen controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510034518/http://www.tanasijournal.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=1&ed=53 to http://www.tanasijournal.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=1&ed=53
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630013134/http://digital.library.okstate.edu:80/kappler/Vol2/treaties/che0942.htm to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Kappler/Vol2/treaties/che0942.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Modify Lead to show duration and conclusion of case in first paragraph of Lead; readers should not have to read several paragraphs to learn the conclusion of the court cases.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Show conclusion of case

message: There is no page simply named "Cherokee freedmen", only this article about the controversy over their enrollment. I suggest that either this page should be a general "Cherokee freedmen" article with a "Controversy" section or that the article be split into two articles. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Moving this here from the Native American identity in the United States article, which is undergoing cleanup. It's not really fitting in there, maybe here, if an example is needed. I didn't write this bit, just moving it. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example from Theda Perdue