Determine if The Chickamauga Nation Has Ever Been Terminated and if Not, Why is it Not on the LIST?
© TCNPress.Org
By Line – YO-WA-NE-GV - The White Place @ The Old Gate named Belle Point
Saturday May 9, 2026, 8:00 pm
Determine if The Chickamauga Nation Has Ever Been Terminated
Congress Has Never Terminated the Chickamauga Nation
The complete absence of any legislative action by the United States to terminate the Chickamauga demonstrates absolutely that the Chickamauga have never been a terminated tribe.
It is well established that it is for Congress and Congress alone to decide if and when to terminate the United States' relationship with a particular tribe. As early as 1916, the Supreme Court observed: “Of course, when the Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of one sui juris, the tribal relation may be dissolved and the national guardianship brought to an end; but it rests with Congress to determine when and how this shall be done, and whether the emancipation shall at first be complete or only partial.”
1. United States v. Nice, supra at 598 (emphasis added)
2. Chippewa Indians v. United States, 307 U.S. 1, 5 (1939) (Court may not assume that Congress abandoned guardianship absent clear expression of that intent)
3. Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286,315 (1911) ("[C]ongress in pursuance of the long-established policy of the government, has a right to determine for itself when the guardianship which has been maintained over the Indian shall cease. It is for that body, and not the courts, to determine when the true interests of the Indian require his release from such condition of tutelage.")
4. Hence, federal common law dictates that the United States owes a continuing duty to The
Chickamauga Nation until and unless such time as Congress determines otherwise.
The federal common law rule that only Congress has authority to terminate a tribe was adopted by Congress in Pub. L. 103-454, portions of which amended the Indian Reorganization Act in 1994. In Pub. L. 103-454 Congress decreed that in the modem era tribes that have been (i) recognized by an act of Congress, (ii) recognized by Interior under its administrative acknowledgment regulations, and (iii) recognized by the decisions of U.S. courts cannot be terminated without express congressional action. Pub. L. 103-454 (§ 103(4))
Both the judge-made and statutory rules, then, require an Act of Congress to terminate the United States' acknowledged relationship with The Chickamauga Nation. Because Congress authorized the relationship with the Chickamauga through Treaty and has not repudiated the relationship, therefore, Interior is obliged now to confirm that relationship.
If No, Determine if The Chickamauga Nation is Federally Recognized by Statute
1786 – Article 1 Section 8 - To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
1786 – Article 6 Section 2 – “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.”
1786 – Article 6 Section 2 and Article 1 Section 8 - Article 6 Section 2, which makes Treaties the supreme law of the land, empowers Senators and Representatives in Article 1 Section 8 to demand the Secretary of Interior to fulfill their trust responsibilities [Public Law 103 – 454 Section 103 – (2), (6), (7), and (8) Federally Recognized Indian Tribes List Act]. This underscores the influential role that Senators and Representatives play in ensuring the United States government's recognition of Indian tribes, maintenance of a government-to-government relationship with those tribes, and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of those tribes.
1785 - 7 Stat 18 Treaty “Under the Jurisdiction” - At Least 28 of the 37 (73%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1791 – 7 Stat 39 Treaty “Under the Jurisdiction” - At Least 37 of the 41 (90%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1792 - 7 Stat 42 - All 6 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1792 November 6 - George Washington's 4th Annual Address to Congress
1794 - 7 Stat 43 - All 6 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1798 - 7 Stat 62 - At Least 37 of the 39 (95%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1804 - 7 Stat 288 - All 10 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1804 - 7 Stat 93 - All 33 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1805 - 7 Stat 95 - All 14 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1806 - 7 Stat 101 - All 17 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1807 - 7 Stat 103 - All 5 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1809 – Thomas Jefferson Land Trade with The Chickamauga – Preamble to 1817 - 7 Stat 156
1816 - 7 Stat 138 - At Least 3 of the 6 (50%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga
1816 - 7 Stat 139 - At Least 3 of the 6 (50%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga
1816 - 7 Stat 148 - All 16 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga
1817 – 7 Stat 156 “Lower Cherokee” “Western Cherokee” - At Least 26 of the 31 Signatories East of the Mississippi River are Lower Town Chickamauga - All 15 Signatories West of the Mississippi River are Lower Town Chickamauga
1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV
1819 - 7 Stat 195 - At Least 19 of the 21 (90%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga
1828 – 7 Stat 311 – “Western Cherokee” - All 7 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1834 – 7 Stat 414 – “Western Cherokee” - All 4 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga
1934 – Stat 984, 25 U.S.C. 461 “Indian Reorganization Act Definition”
1835 - 7 Stat 474 - All 2 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga
1835 – 7 Stat 478 – “Cherokee Nation” - All 20 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1835 - 7 Stat 487 - All 2 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1836 - 7 Stat 488 - All 20 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga
1836 – Drake – “Chickamauga 90 Miles South of the Cherokee”
1839 – On June 22, the United States allows, condones, and rewards the continued Genocide of the Chickamauga Chiefs and Leaders at the hands of John Ross’ Cherokees and his thugs
1840 – Agent Stokes Recognizes the Old Settlers (Chickamauga) as the Rightful Government
1901 – Montoya v. United States 180 U.S. 261 No. 43
1968 – 25 U.S.C. Chapter 15 “Indian Civil Rights Act Definition”
1978 – Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
1981 – Montana v. United States No. 79-1128
1994 – [Public Law 103 – 454 Section 202 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) Federally Recognized Indian Tribes List Act] Congress finds that the United States in the Act of June 19, 1935 (49 Stat 388 commonly referred to as the “Jurisdiction Act”) recognizes Tribes under the Jurisdiction of the United States as Federally Recognized Tribes. Tribes “Under the Jurisdiction of the United States” and omitted from the List of Federally Recognized Tribes are indeed Federally Recognized Tribes. This recognition is not arbitrary but based on the Tribe's status under the jurisdiction of the United States under the Treaty 7 Statute 18 of 1785 at the time of the passage of the [48 Statute 984 Section (19) Indian Reorganization Act], as confirmed by the Supreme Court in CARCIERI v. SALAZAR No. 07–526. Argued November 3, 2008—Decided February 24, 2009. Further, the Secretary does not have the authority to terminate the federally recognized status of an Indian tribe as determined by Congress; the Secretary may not administratively diminish the privileges and immunities of federally recognized Indian tribes without the consent of Congress; and Tribes under the Jurisdiction of the United States continue to be Federally Recognized Indian tribes.
2009 – Carcieri v Salazar 555 US 379 2009
2011 - United States v. Jacarilla Apache Nation 131 S. Ct 2313, 2324-25
2020 – McGirt v Oklahoma No. 18-9526
2024 – Loper Bright v Raimondo No. 22-451
Ex Post Facto Black’s Law
Ex Post Facto. After the fact, by an act or fact occurring after some previous act or fact, and relating thereto; by subsequent matter, the opposite of ab initio. Thus, a deed may be good ab initio, or, if invalid at its inception, may be confirmed by matter ex post facto
Ex Post Facto Law. A law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or deed. A law is unconstitutionally “Ex Post Facto” if it deprives the defendant of a defense to criminal liability that he had prior to enactment of the law. State v. Rogers, Ohio ComPl., 346 N.E.2d 352, 361. Art. I, § 9 (CL.3) and § 10 or U.S. Const. prohibit both Congress and the states from passing any ex post facto law. Most state constitutions contain similar prohibitions against ex post facto laws.
An “ex post facto law” is defined as a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done, which when it was committed, was innocent; a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; a law that changes the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony that was required at the time of the commission of the offense to convict the offender; a law which assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right which, when done, was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation of amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantages. Wilensky v. Fields, Fla., 267 SO.2d 1, 5.
EXAMPLE:
Public Law 103–454, November 2, 1994, 108 Stat 4791 4792, “Federally Recognized Serviced Tribes List Act,” is an Ex Post Facto Law in that it redefines “Federally Recognized Tribes” to an inaccurate List of Tribes, excluding Tribes already Federally Recognized by previous federal statutes and codes and including Congressionally Terminated Tribes that were never re-recognized by Congress.
PL 103-454, 108 Stat 4791 4792 strips Treaty Rights, Federal Statute and Code Rights, and Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights from all American Indians whose Tribes previously held these rights. By stripping the Treaty Rights of Tribes, PL 103-454, 108 Stat 4791 4792, creates a de facto termination of these tribes, creating a required Fifth Amendment, “Taking Clause” requirement for said Tribes. By the Executive Branch’s Secretary of Interior’s failure to keep an accurate list of Federally Recognized Tribes, a Takings Clause must be triggered which, according to the US Constitution, requires immediate payment for or immediate return of hundreds of millions of acres, at today’s value (including all Water Rights, Mineral Rights, Timber Rights, and improvements on the lands from the date of the first Treaty) for lands in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
It is time for Congress to Require the Secretary of the Interior to place The Chickamauga Nation back on the LIST