Cherokee Nation Sends First Delegate to Congress
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Cherokee Nation’s recent decision to exercise its treaty rights and send Kimberly Teehee to Washington D.C. as its first-ever delegate to the U.S. Congress marks a new strategy in the ongoing fight for the survival and sovereignty of Indigenous peoples in the United States.
“This journey is just beginning and we have a long way to go to see this through to fruition,” Teehee said. “However, a Cherokee Nation delegate to Congress is a negotiated right that our ancestors advocated for, and today, our tribal nation is stronger than ever and ready to defend all our constitutional and treaty rights.”
The unprecedented step came last month when Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr. delivered his 2019 State of the Nation address and asserted, “To the government of the United States, I want to say this: I’m sending a Cherokee woman to Washington, D.C.”
Drawing on the right to representation afforded in several treaties signed between the United States government and the Cherokee Nation, Hoskin’s decision to send a delegate to Congress constitutes a bold move toward affirming tribal sovereignty. He is also testing the limits of the United States to make good on promises it has made since the beginning of colonial rule.
Confirmed as a delegate by the Cherokee Nation Council on August 30, Teehee currently serves as the director of Cherokee Nation Government Relations and vice president of government relations at Cherokee Nation Businesses. Teehee grew up in Oklahoma and cut her teeth in politics in the 1980s, interning for Wilma Mankiller , the first woman to become principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. She previously worked for President Barack Obama’s administration as the first-ever senior policy adviser for Native American Affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council, and has over a decade of experience in Washington, D.C. She has advocated for environmental justice, tribal self-determination, economic growth, health care and education — issues that impact all of Indian Country.
The appointment of this delegate is coming on the heels of several notable political victories for Native Americans. In November 2018, Sharice Davids (Ho-Chunk Nation) and Deb Haaland (Laguna Pueblo) became the first Native American women elected to Congress. Kimberly Teehee will be the third Indigenous woman to represent Indigenous nations in Congress. Unlike Davids and Haaland, however, Teehee will not have the right to vote when the House is in open session. She will, however, be able to participate in committees as a voting member and bring legislation to the floor. This is an important distinction to make: Haaland and Davids are elected members of a congressional district, operating from within the U.S. representational system. Teehee stands as a delegate of a sovereign nation; it is the power of treaties which recognize nation-to-nation agreements that make Teehee’s presence in Congress possible.
“I think more broadly, we want affirmation that our treaties are still in full force and effect,” Chief Hoskin told Truthout . “You can say that in a theoretical sense, but to actually do it, we’re demonstrating in a real concrete way that the treaty is still alive, it’s a living and breathing document.”
The Obligation to Uphold Treaties
More than 500 treaties have been signed between Indigenous nations and the colonial United States government, considered under the U.S. Constitution to be the “ supreme law of the land. ” In the early days of occupation and white settlement, treaties were used to mark land boundaries as well as establish political, economic and military agreements between Indigenous peoples and growing numbers of settlers and colonial powers. Ojibwe scholar Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark reminds us that, “Indigenous nations primarily saw treaties as living relationships, diplomatic processes that enabled the expansion of intricate kin-based networks situated within a relational paradigm that saw the world as a deeply interconnected and interdependent place.” In other words, treaty documents outline responsibilities and obligations that have been agreed upon by the United States government and which it is required to honor and uphold. A treaty is not a relic of history, but an ongoing, living set of relationships.
That the Cherokee Nation has a right to representation in Congress is not in dispute. Article XII of the 1785 Treaty of Hopewell states that the Cherokee “shall have the right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.” Article 7 of the 1835 Treaty of New Echota outlines something similar for Cherokees: “They shall be entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.” The 1866 Treaty with the Cherokee — which provided citizenship for former slaves, the Cherokee Freedmen — also affirms all treaty rights previously established.
The decision to act on these treaty obligations has been met with excitement by many Cherokees, though some are not sure what its long-term effects will be. Historian and genealogist David Cornsilk, dually enrolled Cherokee Nation citizen and United Keetoowah Band member, told Truthout , “Even if there is a diversity of opinion among Cherokee people, we know that the treaty of 1866 is a contemporary document, because it was adjudicated recently in federal court in the case of the Cherokee Freedmen .” Cornsilk added that while the delegate is nominated by the tribal government, ultimately the position should be responsive to Cherokee people.
But why has this right to representation in Congress not been exercised until now? One possible answer is that the Cherokee Nation was simply not interested in sending a delegate to argue in vain to callous Washington bureaucrats — Native people were not fully able to vote until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Another is that it had more pressing matters to attend to in the wake of horrific colonial violence, land dispossession and the dismantling of Indigenous governance systems. The Cherokee Nation has also spent decades strengthening its communities through investments in healthcare and education , and there has been a broader shift in Indian Country toward the reassertion of treaty rights — something also witnessed at Standing Rock .
The Government’s History of Violent Suppression
The historical relationship between the United States and the Cherokee Nation — like its relationship with so many other Indigenous nations — is one of betrayal, characterized by illegal land seizures, forced removal and the termination of tribal governance. But from the perspective of Cherokees, it is also a story of survivance and adaptation. These two historical narratives converge in the current moment, when the exercise of Cherokee sovereignty will test the willingness of the federal government to uphold its treaty obligations. Sending Teehee to Congress is not just about advocating on behalf of the Cherokee Nation; it sends a clear message to Washington: Indigenous sovereignty still stands.
Cherokees have reason to be suspicious of the United States government. Of all the North American tribes to experience forced removal from their homelands, the case of the Cherokees and the Trail of Tears has been so indelibly marked, and yet constantly glossed over in U.S. history. The removal of the Cherokees was orchestrated by Andrew Jackson. By refusing to enforce the Supreme Court’s 1832 ruling that affirmed the sovereign rights of the Cherokee Nation, Jackson paved the way for the state of Georgia to continue its illegal annexation of Cherokee territory. With the impending threat of violence and intractable stance of land-hungry Jackson, a small group of Cherokees signed the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, a controversial decision which sanctioned the removal of the Cherokees beyond the limits of the United States. In 1838, Jackson’s successor, Martin Van Buren, sent the Army to forcibly remove every Cherokee from the state of Georgia.
Summarizing Cherokee accounts of the Trail of Tears, anthropologist James Mooney describes men, women and children being ripped from their homes at bayonet point, placed in shackles and marched off to stockade forts. Many were arrested in corn fields or in church with only the clothes on their backs. Others turned for one last glance of home, only to witness their cabins looted and set ablaze by white squatters. In all, about 17,000 Cherokee were forced into concentration camps and subsequently marched West. Demographers estimate that 8,000 people — nearly half of the Cherokee population — died on the Trail of Tears.
After the forced removal of the Cherokee to Indian Country, the federal government then insisted on breaking up communally held land into individual plots. This was carried out by the passage of the Dawes Act of 1887, which assigned allotments of private property to tribal members, without tribal approval, and the Curtis Act of 1898, which abolished tribal laws and courts. These laws opened up land to white settlers, and paved the way for Oklahoma statehood in 1907.
In the 1950s, the U.S. government abolished federal recognition of Native tribes and their structures of self-governance, a period known as the termination era. The effects of this policy were disastrous and led to widespread poverty and insecurity. It was not until 1976 that the Cherokee Nation was able to ratify its first modern constitution. Since then, the Cherokee Nation has made significant investments in health care, education, housing and community development. Hoskins recently announced a proposal to quadruple the size of the Cherokee Language Master Apprentice Program and to double the size of its career training initiatives. These investments speak to the Cherokee people’s commitment to halt the devastating loss of language, kinship and culture that was the product of the termination era.
All of this history carries into the present.
Resisting Colonial Governance
What does the Cherokee Nation want out of Teehee’s representation? How will the presence of this delegate shift relations of power between the Cherokee Nation and the colonial government? Is there a risk that this appointment will result in a further entrenchment of the Cherokee Nation within U.S. political power structures?
Teehee’s nomination is not happening in a vacuum, and it raises a fundamental question about how Indigenous communities engage with electoral politics and participation within a colonial system that is actively determined to ensure their erasure and elimination. On the one hand, sending a delegate to Congress means acknowledging the political structure imposed by the United States and actively taking part in it. On the other hand, a delegate can bring forward real changes not just by proposing legislation, but also by reframing legislative agendas to better serve Indigenous people.
This appointment is also deeply complicated by the current business dealings between the Cherokee Nation and the U.S. federal government. Part of the reason the tribe has been able to bolster its economic position is because of defense contracts it has made with the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. Cherokee Nation Businesses, in particular its Red Wing division , has significant investments in military armaments, guidance systems and surveillance technologies — all of which directly support ongoing colonial governance domestically and imperialist projects abroad. In other words, while Teehee’s nomination to Congress is predicated on the assertion of treaty rights, the Cherokee Nation is also actively expanding its role in supporting U.S. militarism. Herein lies an inherent contradiction: The enactment of this treaty right seems to be a concrete assertion of tribal political authority that recognizes and upholds Indigenous governance. But at the same time, the Cherokee Nation has become part of the military machinery that, in fact, enables the reproduction and expansion of U.S. colonial power. Is it possible to advance Indigenous self-determination while simultaneously working in the interests of the colonial power that is responsible for holding that sovereignty captive in the first place?
It may also be argued that a Cherokee delegate is a largely symbolic gesture, a small move toward inclusion that has been offered to other occupied territories. Currently, the House has six non-voting members: a resident commissioner from Puerto Rico, and five individual delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Critical questions need to be asked about what this congressional appointment actually means in terms of negotiating power and influence, especially within the context of a nation that is already acting in the political interests of a colonial settler state.
Tags
Who is online
491 visitors
Teehee stands as a delegate of a sovereign nation; it is the power of treaties which recognize nation-to-nation agreements that make Teehee’s presence in Congress possible.
“You can say that in a theoretical sense, but to actually do it, we’re demonstrating in a real concrete way that the treaty is still alive, it’s a living and breathing document.”
Teehee’s nomination is not happening in a vacuum, and it raises a fundamental question about how Indigenous communities engage with electoral politics and participation within a colonial system that is actively determined to ensure their erasure and elimination. On the one hand, sending a delegate to Congress means acknowledging the political structure imposed by the United States and actively taking part in it. On the other hand, a delegate can bring forward real changes not just by proposing legislation, but also by reframing legislative agendas to better serve Indigenous people.
Critical questions need to be asked about what this congressional appointment actually means in terms of negotiating power and influence, especially within the context of a nation that is already acting in the political interests of a colonial settler state.
For those who don't know, haven't read, nor don't understand, the "colonial settler state" has already been influenced in a very big way by Native American "politics" through the U.S. Constitution. The "Founding Fathers" met with the Six Nations and admired their governmental fundamentals. They utilized many of the individual rights that the Iroquois governments kept within their governmental freedoms and placed them in our U. S. Constitution.
Some historians, including Donald Grinde of the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, have claimed that the democratic ideals of the Gayanashagowa provided a significant inspiration to Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and other framers of the U.S. Constitution. They contend that the federal structure of the U.S. constitution was influenced by the living example of the Iroquois confederation, as were notions of individual liberty and the separation of powers. Grinde, Bruce Johansen and others also identify Native American symbols and imagery that were adopted by the nascent United States, including the American bald eagle and a bundle of arrows. Their thesis argues the U.S. constitution was the synthesis of various forms of political organization familiar to the founders, including the Iroquois confederation.
Franklin circulated copies of the proceedings of the 1744 Treaty of Lancaster among his fellow colonists; at the close of this document, the Six Nations leaders offer to impart instruction in their democratic methods of government to the English. Franklin's Albany Plan is also believed to have been influenced by his understanding of Iroquois government. John Rutledge of South Carolina, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, is said to have read lengthy tracts of Six Nations law to the other framers, beginning with the words "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..."
In October 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Concurrent Resolution 331 to recognize the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Native American delegates can have a much further influence on American governmental practices.
I'm sure that there are many that will oppose this move.
Hopefully, it will work out in the best interests of the Cherokee Nation and all other Indigenous tribes in the US.
Although I cannot see Ms Teehee representing all native nations.
Don't think she'll ever try to cross those lines.
An organization of Tribal Consultation in Fed agencies I belonged to worked with her during Obama's tenures as President. During our sessions, she was very adamant about Tribal/Nation rights as agreed upon and established by Treaties and continually stressed our responsibilities to ensure the Fed boundaries never crossed Tribal/Nation boundaries, or vice versus. She, occasionally, would stress her Cherokee enrollment and being an activist for the Cherokee Tribe/Nation, but emphasized that she would never, as the Senior Policy Advisor, even imply that she could/would speak for any tribe/nation other than the Cherokee.
I enjoyed working with her - very fair minded, very aggressive in Indian Policy and Federal Indian Law.
That's really good to hear. She will have to do a hell of a balancing act.
The very best wishes to Ms. Teehee.
Perhaps Ms. Teehee will join with other representatives from Samoa/Virgin Islands/Guam/Northern Marianna Islands/Puerto Rico since all are indigenous.
There are many groups representing various members that have things in common. (For example, The Black Caucus-- and of course many others). It makes it easier for Congressperson from similar backgrounds and/or similar interests to exchange ideas as well as to have more influence.
So as the number of Indians in Congress increases, they might create a caucus. Perhaps a general "Indigenous Peoples' Caucus" at first-- and as more Indians are elected a general "Indian Caucus".
She's a beginning. Foot in the door as they say.
Exactly!
Meh. Sounds like a decent idea, TBF.
Hey, Jack -
Just curious. What do you mean by that remark?
It sounds as though you feel TeeHee's attendance in congress is not a good idea.
Why is that?
Not sure what you're saying Jack...Please explain your comment.
Sounds like her being there is a good idea.
I'm not convinced very many people are going to oppose this.
I'm struggling to see why they would.
OK, thanks for the explanation.
From 78 years of experience Jack. Some will look at it like it's a special benefit for Indians when in fact it's part of a treaty that SCOTUS states are the supreme law of the land.
Thanks for making the effort to clarify.
Well, I'll defer to your experience in that area.
Personally, even if it were some sort of special benefit, I'm struggling to see why we wouldn't want to include representatives from the sovereign nations wholly contained within US borders.
Is there some sort of "no representation without taxation" argument to be made here that I don't understand?
Not at all, Jack...We pay taxes even though there are many that think that we don't pay taxes. I wish I had all the federal/state/ etc etc that I've paid over the years.
I guess that the answer to your question can get long and technical (Indian law/US constitution).
There are many, this includes politicians, both past and present, that have no idea that we are sovereign nations within the current borders of the US,
The US federal government recognizes tribal nations as ''dependent domestic nations''.
First, it is more accurate to say “Domestic Dependent Nations”. Whatever the doctrinal underpinnings of tribal sovereignty may be, it is clear that the sovereignty of American Indian tribes has been progressively and systematically diminished by the actions of the federal government, including the Supreme Court.
We are sovereign nations when the federal government wants us to be. And we are not when they don't want us to be...It's a win/win for the feds.
Here are just a couple of decisions by SCOTUS and congress that took away the sovereignty of native nations.
You see Jack, that Indians are constantly fighting in the courts to protect our land and people. The time and money to constantly fight for our rights are costly in numerous ways.
So, to say I'm a bit jaded by the US government's treatment of us is an understatement, to say the least.
I agree.
Excellent Kavika - thanks.
I wasn't sure.
You and me both.
We're not short of ignorance in the US.
I can see that. Frankly the govt double standard applies to all of us, sometimes.
I read of this proposal a while back and was very happy to hear about the chance of Ms TeeHee's being sent as the Delegate of the Cherokee Nation. Being of the Cherokee Tribe I am very proud of the progress that has been made over the years, and this is one of many I hope will be seen in the near future.
There won't be any steps taken for Ms TeeHee to represent other Tribes, but, hopefully, her acceptance will open the door for other Tribes to be able to send their own Delegates as well.
It's a proud time, not just for the Cherokee Nation, but, for all Native Americans to one day have the kind of representation in Congress they truly deserve.
TeeHee is a brave individual.
I hope her presence encourages other Nations to send representatives to congress. The sooner, the better.
I believe that this will increase the number of Native Americans who will run for Congressional seats in both the Senate and House. Deb and Sharise, along with Tom Cole and MarkWayne are a strong start.
I find this statement curious.
In my line of thinking, courage requires one to overcome fear. What has she to fear? Serious question.
I mean...she has a new job. It's not like they're going to disembowel her or something. If I were appointed as an ad hoc member of a congressional committee on tall people, I'm struggling to imagine how I would be scared. What am I missing?
Hey Jack -
I am thinking of the fear of failing.
Failing to accomplish the goals she has set for herself.
Failing to project the image of a Native American to be admired and respected.
Failing to preserver when encountering unanticipated challenges.
It takes a brave person to embark on a journey, where failure can adversely affect others.
Just my personal assessment.
And a very good one!
If you have a leader who is afraid to embark on that kind of journey, you would have chosen somebody else.
The kinds of failure you describe indicate very low expectations. I really hope we're not talking about a person who questions whether or not she will persevere or whether or not she can comport herself in such a way as to do her constituents proud. Those things are completely within her control and require nothing more than willpower and discipline. I can't believe you doubt for a minute that she has that.
Expect this to be successful. Expect to win.
Let's hope she is successful.
Thank you for the seed 1st.
It is time to begin watching Congress from a new perspective now.
We will see.
Thanks for the article 1st. I'm happy if it gives native Americans more of a voice in government. I liked the history portion of that article. I wonder how many Americans know it?
(there is an eastern band of Cherokee that are descended from a small group, who somehow managed to remain on their ancestral lands).
There are three federally recognized Cherokee bands..
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The United Keetoowah band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma and the Eastern band of Cherokee Indians of NC.
Thanks for that info. So maybe I am wrong in assuming that the Eastern band is on ancestral land? Is the Cherokee nation native to the state of Georgia?
You're correct the Eastern Band is on ancestral land.
Yes, the Cherokee (all bands) are native to parts of GA, NC, SC, TN, VA, AL and WV.
I am of the Eastern Band of Cherokee on both sides of my family. My Paternal Ancestors were of the Northern area of GA, and my Maternal Ancestors were of the Shenandoah Valley area of Northern VA.