David,

I hope my cousin, Ken Martin, who is far more the expert on current events and Cherokee History than I will post on this thread.

From a brief discussion with him, the issue is a little more complicated than the way it is presented in the press. The issue is not whether African-Americans or any other minority group should be included in the Cherokee nation, the issue is whether anyone unable to show Cherokee Ancestry "By Blood" and that means through documentation should be members of the tribe.

In a sort of roundabout way this move may be necessary as the Federal Government is attempting to crackdown on tribes with membership that is non-Native-American. Apparently, many tribes "with Casinos" and other new money making pursuits are being created or growing with non-Indian members. Apparently, the "guvment" is even withdrawing or threatening to withdraw recognition of certain tribes and funding/support because of this.

As I understand it the Cherokees are taking a pro-active step to avoid any questions regarding the legitimacy of the tribe or its membership. This vote does not just remove Cherokee Freedmen, but also removes the descendants of Inter-Married Whites who cannot show Indian Blood. Imagine a white person marries an Indian and becomes a tribal member by marriage (Inter-Married White). Now let's say the Indian spouse dies or runs off and the Inter-Married White remarries a non-Indian and has children. Those children, who have no Indian blood were considered tribal members, even though they had no Indian blood.

In the case of the Cherokee Freedmen, who the Cherokees were "forced" to include in the tribe in 1866 as a part of retribution for half of the Nation siding with the South, the Rolls for the Freedmen did NOT include any degree of Indian Blood on the list. This decision, which in 1866 was meant to make inclusion in the Cherokee Nation easier for Freedmen and former slaves, is now the problem. There is no doubt that many of these Freedmen and former slaves have high degrees of Indian blood. Some had little or none. Now, because there is no "documented" degree of Indian blood for their descendants, they will probably be removed from the tribal rolls.

I have mixed emotions about this issue, but purely on a legalistic stance, I will probably vote to only include members in the Cherokee Nation who can document their ancestry "By Blood".

I hope others will chime in on this thread as I'm a little shaky about all the particulars. Basically, I'm just repeating what I've heard, but am no expert on the subject.

Jim