After 187 years, the Cherokee Nation wants its seat in Congress
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A few years ago, Kimberly Teehee had her family genealogy done, wanting to learn about her Native American roots “pre-removal.”
Using a memorial in North Carolina, with names of the Cherokee people who were forcibly moved west, her family discovered at least eight Teehee ancestors who were pushed out of Tennessee and Georgia before settling in Oklahoma. They were among the fortunate ones who survived the infamous Trail of Tears, in which the U.S. military forced five tribes out of their eastern lands, leading to thousands of deaths.
Now, more than 185 years later, Teehee is knocking on doors across Capitol Hill asking to reclaim a part of the 1835 treaty that the Cherokee Nation signed: a seat in Congress.
“It’s a very personal story when you consider that my family were forcibly removed,” Teehee, a former Obama administration adviser on tribal issues, said during a recent interview outside a coffee shop three blocks from the Capitol.
She would not be a fully vested member of the House of Representatives, but a nonvoting delegate similar to what other U.S. territories and the District of Columbia receive. If approved by the House, the delegate could sit on legislative committees, request meetings with Cabinet officials, push policy positions and even collect narrowly crafted funding projects called earmarks.
The 1835 treaty included unequivocal language that a delegate “shall” be included in the House for the Cherokee, a provision that was essentially forgotten as they and other tribes tried to survive and rebuild after forced removal.
In recent years, the Cherokee have decided to collect what was promised to them. And all it would take is a resolution passed by the House. The Senate approved the treaty ― by the narrowest of margins, just a single vote — and President Andrew Jackson signed it into law in early 1836.
No matter how long ago that was, many in Indian Country and their supporters in Congress believe a treaty is a binding document that must be respected.
“A very basic proposition,” said Chuck Hoskin Jr., elected as the Cherokee’s principal chief in 2019. “Should the United States keep its word?”
Hoskin prioritized getting the delegate seated soon after his 2019 election as chief, choosing Teehee because of her two decades of work in Congress and the executive branch. The delegate is then ratified by the tribal legislature.
While other tribes have somewhat similar language in their treaties, Cherokee leaders believe theirs is the most ironclad, and Teehee wants to be a voice for the millions of Natives scattered across all 50 states.
“The honor isn’t about me, it’s about the United States finally upholding an agreement, an agreement that led to so much death and despair in our history, and to give some measure of justice to the past,” she said.
This comes as tribes have unprecedented representation in Washington’s power circuit. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland made history as the first Native American Cabinet secretary, and there are six members of tribal nations in the House, including three Republicans.
The House Rules Committee, under the leadership of Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the Chickasaw Nation, plans to hold a hearing on the Cherokee delegate debate during the lame duck session after November’s election.
With the House majority potentially set to flip, which could require a new round of lobbying to new House leaders, the Cherokee tribe wants a vote before the end of this year.
“All that’s left to do is for the House of Representatives to do what the treaty says,” Hoskin said in a recent telephone interview.
But, according to Cole, it isn’t that simple.
He believes, like Hoskin, that treaties must be upheld. “As an Oklahoman and Native American I certainly don’t have any objection to the Cherokees getting a delegate. That’d be a good thing in a lot of ways,” Cole said.
But the implementation opens up several questions that Cole, long considered an institutionalist of the House, isn’t sure will be well-received by other lawmakers.
For instance, the House has always been allowed to determine its own representation without interference from the president or Senate.
“The House determines its own members. So that’s an interesting question,” Cole said, before noting that Hoskin has appointed Teehee, rather than a direct election of voters like every other member of the House. “The tradition here is everybody’s elected. All the delegates are elected.”
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a member of the Cherokee Nation poised to receive a political promotion to the Senate, pointed out that there were three splits within the Cherokee during the 19th century.
Many members of the tribe opposed the treaty and stayed to fight, particularly in North Carolina. Mullin wants to consult with those tribes to determine whether they have any claim to the delegate seat in the House.
“I really need to know what the angle is, and who’s talking to who, what it is. I’m Cherokee, so yeah, once again, we want to try to be supportive,” Mullin said.
Cole also suggested there would be a dual representation issue that might come up, because Cherokee citizens already vote for a representative in whichever congressional district they live in.
The other House delegates, such as Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D. C.) and Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), represent regions in which no other representative serves in Congress promoting interests of those constituents.
“We’re going to try to have a productive hearing where we get different people with different points of view that come in,” Cole said. “And I don’t know where we will come down as a body.”
Finishing this up before there’s a change in power would be key, according to supporters of tribal interests. Republicans might view Teehee, who worked for House Democrats in the early 2000s before joining the Obama administration, as a lifelong Democrat whose voice they do not want to amplify.
Just two of the six nonvoting members of Congress, Aumua Amata Radewagen of American Samoa and Jennifer González-Colón of Puerto Rico, is a Republican.
Hoskin rejected the idea that there’s a partisan tilt to the tribe’s assertion of its delegate rights, noting their long-standing ties to Republicans like Cole, Mullin and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is the ranking minority-party member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
“Indian Country issues are unique,” he said.
Still, he understands the history: “We have to take the long view. The United States has never handed something over to us easily.”
For Hoskin and Teehee, a new Cherokee delegate would serve as a rare moment of pride from the Treaty of New Echota , which gave the Cherokee nation $5 million and land in present-day Oklahoma. Eventually thousands of U.S. soldiers forced the Cherokee west on a dangerous journey in which an estimated 10 percent to 25 percent died.
“It’s inescapable that’s where our minds go,” Hoskin said.
Teehee views this effort in the most personal of terms, claiming a long forgotten seat of power that came from an act of Congress that led to such horrors.
“I just think about the blood, sweat, and tears of my ancestors,” she said. “It would be almost like a full circle moment to, after all those years, to have a connection to that history, to be the delegate that our ancestors died for.”
Article. VI. - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Do we really believe that Congress will honor the Constitution and enforce the 1836 treaty??
I could support this.
It sounds like the biggest impediment is Indians already in congress. Not surprising considering who they are.
Native Americans presently in Congress -
Tom Cole - Chickasaw
Markwayne Mullen - Cherokee
Sharice Davids - Ho Chunk
Deb Haaland - Laguna Pueblo
Yvette Herrell - Cherokee
Mary Peltola - Yup'ik
Feel like explaining how they are the "biggest impediment" - "considering who they are"??
Did you read your own article?
Cole and Mullen have ''concerns''...
Haaland is no longer in congress.
Mullen wants to ensure that all Cherokee will be included. Cole didn't express the questions he and the committee will have in November. Deb is still a driving force in Congress
.
Mullen wants to ensure that all Cherokee will be included. There are three Cherokee Bands it would be Hoskin's job as President of the Cherokee Nation to ensure that.
Cole is concerned about procedural items. Which IMO is nonsense.
Haaland may still be a force in the house but she is not a member of the house.
Just do it. The effect on legislation would be minimal and it would symbolize growing empowerment for native Americans within the US political system. Sometimes the symbolism has to precede more concrete steps.
The idea that it should not happen because it "violates" House procedures is ludicrous. Change the procedure.
Come on JR, you know the truth. With our two party system, the House only changes procedures when the party in power can benefit from the change.
It’s fine with me. Do it.
While they’re at it, I’d like to see more members in general. This body, which represents the people, has had the same 435-count membership for over 110 years now. Meanwhile, the population has more than tripled - diluting the influence that individual citizens can have on their representatives.
And there is no law that prohibits increasing the number of members of congress.
I would certainly be in favor of expanding the number.
On June 11, 1929, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435.
You are correct. I believe that the founders had said something to the effect of no more than one rep for 30,000 people which was probably the catalyst for the 1929 law.
I’m not a legal scholar when it comes to treaties.
According to this article, this treaty was from 1835, didn’t the Cherokee fight for the South in order to keep their slaves? Wouldn’t declaring succession from the Union and taking up arms against it void the treaty? This would be an interesting case for the Supreme Court.
If this treaty is upheld, the Rep should be a full voting member unlike DC’s
Great questions.
I wonder if any of our resident internet lawyers will take a shot at answering?
The Five Civilized Tribes did not fight in the Confederacy "in order to keep their slaves". They fought in the Confederacy in order to keep their lands from the Blue Coats who were raiding and stealing everything in sight in Kansas, OK, Texas and Ark.
Why?? Because the Blue Coats represented the U.S. government - something the tribes/nations had their fill with. I mean, after all, the Blue Coats had already taken 93 million acres of lands that didn't belong to them and the Confederacy was there to help them keep their lands from being taken away AGAIN.
I do believe the question was of by fighting against the Union, how would that effect treaties?
See 6.3
Part of the Cherokee nation fought for the North. The Eastern Band of Cherokee domiciled in NC did not join or fight for the Confederacy.
Let me reword that to make more sense. The Cherokee Nation was divided and part fought for the North and part for the South. The Eastern Band of Cherokee nominally fought for the south only to protect their lands and not for any love of the confederacy. The third major Cherokee band, the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee fought for the Union.
Thanks Kavika.
Treaties were not abrogated as a result of the War between the States.
Read the Constitution - The President - Article 1, Section 2, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". No one else in the Executive/Legislative offices can make treaties.
Read Kavika's response in 6.2 and 6.2.1.
Now, answer me this - the U.S. Constitution states specifically that Native Americans are not part of the United States and they ARE NOT covered by the Constitutional protections. In fact, it wasn't until June 2, 1924, when President Calvin Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act/Native Indian Freedom Citizenship Suffrage Act of 1924 and 1925) that Native Americans were "granted" U. S. Citizenship. Hell, the 14th Amendment didn't even apply to them until after 1924.
That means that the Native Americans COULD NOT have "succeeded" from the U.S. as they were not a part of the U.S. ('Member, OK wasn't granted statehood until 10/7/1907) The lands/reservation lands given the Five Civilized Nations were never a part of the state of OK because those treaties of Jackson's have never been abrogated so the lands still belong to the Tribes/Nations - although they are being held "in trust" by the U.S. government.
Since the President and Congress bartered and ratified the Treaty of New Echota with representatives of the Cherokee Nation, and President Jackson signed the treaty in 1836 with the Cherokee Nation, only Congress could have/could abrogate the provisions of the treaty, making it null and void. If that were done, then the lands that the Cherokee "gave" to the U.S. would have reverted back to the Cherokee.
But, that didn't/hasn't happened hence the treaty is still a valid treaty and "supposedly" should be honored as stated in the Constitution where "treaties are the law of the land".
March 7 and 8 marked the 150th anniversary of the Civil War Battle of Pea Ridge, fought in northwest Arkansas near the Oklahoma border. Victory at Pea Ridge was important for the Union Army, which was trying to defend Western states, such as Kansas and Missouri. This battle was also significant because it saw the biggest engagement of American Indian soldiers in the war, with almost 1,000 of the 16,500 Confederates who fought there.