Who Are the Chickamauga? Briefing

‍

Who Are the Chickamauga?

The Chickamauga Nation is a Federally Recognized Tribe that has been administratively omitted from the List of Federally Recognized Tribes, a clear violation of the 1994 Federally Recognized Tribes Act by the Secretary of the Interior.

Below you will find three Parts to this Document. Each Part will consist of an Overview of each Section within the Part, followed by an expanded explanation for each Section.
• Executive Summary – Pages 2 - 8
• Part 1: Identifying and Understanding the Chickamauga – Pages 9 - 46
• Part 2: Determining The Chickamauga Nation is Federally Recognized by United States Treaties, Statutes and Codes, and Supreme Court Rulings Pages 47 - 80

‍

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chickamauga Nation is a prime example of a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe that has been administratively removed from the List.

The Chickamauga Nation has already been placed on the List by multiple Congressional Acts.

First, the 1819 Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV places all the Tribes on the Western Frontier on the List by “providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes, adjoining the frontier settlements of the United States, and for introducing among them the habits and arts of civilization . . . to instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to their situation; and for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic.” This can be demonstrated by the United States government providing funds to the Chickamauga Mission, later the Brainard Mission, in Tennessee, and to the Dwight Missions in Arkansas along the Arkansas River. Further, the language of the Act itself, “That for the purpose of providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes, adjoining the frontier settlements of the United States,” means these Tribes are to be serviced and never allowed to be terminated or allowed to become extinct.

Therefore, from 1819 to 1829, the United States paid for the education and agricultural training of the Chickamauga at the Chickamauga Mission, later renamed the Brainard Mission in Tennessee, and at the Dwight Missions in Arkansas. The United States has failed to continue to provide these benefits to the Chickamauga since 1829, in direct contravention of the expressed will of Congress and the law still existing in 2016.

Second, in accordance with 48 Statute 984 Section (19) Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) The Chickamauga Nation is again placed on the List. The IRA states in Section 19, “The term ‘‘Indian’’ as used in this Act shall include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction.” The 1785, 7 Stat 18 Treaty in Article 3 states, “The said Indians for themselves and their respective tribes and towns do acknowledge all the Cherokees to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.” In addition, the 1791, 7 Stat 39 Treaty in Article 2 states, “The undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, for themselves and all parts of the Cherokee nation, do acknowledge themselves and the said Cherokee nation, to be under the protection of the said United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever; and they also stipulate that the said Cherokee nation will not hold any treaty with any foreign power, individual state, or with individuals of any state.” There is no doubt at the time of the writing of the IRA, The Chickamauga Nation was under the jurisdiction of the United States.

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 Act, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in CARCIERI v. SALAZAR No. 07–526. Argued November 3, 2008—Decided February 24, 2009. This case sets a precedent for accurately recognizing Indian tribes [Public Law 103-454 Section 103-(7)]. (See Appendix C)

Third, in accordance with the 1968, 25 U.S.C. Chapter 15 “Indian Civil Rights Act” The Chickamauga Nation is again placed on the list in that the definition of an Indian Tribe is, “"Indian tribe" means any tribe, band, or other group of Indians subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and recognized as possessing powers of self-government;”

Fourth, in accordance with 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.

Fifth, between 1785 and 1836, the Chickamauga Nation signed over 22 Treaties with the United States. The 1785 and 1791 Treaties place the Chickamauga Nation under the jurisdiction of the United States while others include land cessions, and others include lands offered in new locations. Most of the Treaties included annuities and other items to encourage the signing of the Treaties.

Sixth, The Chickamauga Nation has never specifically enumerated in any Treaty the relinquishment of mineral rights, water rights, above-ground rights such as grazing and timber rights, nor terrestrial rights. In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832) the Supreme Court first introduced the Indian Canons of Construction which is identified in Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, § 2.02, at 119 (Nell Jessup Newton et al. eds., 2005). The construction of the Treaties are to be read as laws of negative rights in which items not enumerated are retained by the “Indians” and must always be read and adjudicated in the interest of the “Indian.”

Seventh, the Secretary of the Interior, by failing to place the Chickamauga Nation on the List of Federally Recognized Tribes, the Secretary has “Administratively Terminated” a Federally Recognized Tribe in direct contravention of Public Law 103-454 Approved November 2, 1994, 108 Stat 4791 Title II Sec 202 Paragraph 3 and 4 which State: (3) the Secretary does not have the authority to terminate the federally recognized status of an Indian tribe as determined by Congress; (4) the Secretary may not administratively diminish the privileges and immunities of federally recognized Indian tribes without the consent of Congress. In light of Loper Bright Enterprises Et. Al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, Et. Al., Ni. 22-451 the Supreme Court on June 28, 2024, has Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled, and the Secretary of Interior is in violation of the Constitutional and Treaty rights of the Citizens of The Chickamauga Nation.

Eighth, Congress has expressed its will through Legislative Acts. Congress expressed its will concerning The Chickamauga Nation through 22 Treaties and legislation in the 1819, Indian Civilization Fund Act, the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act, and the 1994 Public Law 103-454, 108 Stat 4791. Congress expressed its will by defining a Federally Recognized Tribe as being under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Chickamauga Nation meets those criteria in that it holds more than 22 Treaties with the United States, in which the first of those Treaties, 7 Stat 18, expressly places The Chickamauga Nation under the jurisdiction of the United States in Article 3.

Nineth, the Secretary of the Interior, has created a Constitutional Tort. By definition, a constitutional tort is a violation of one’s constitutional rights by a government employee. The alleged constitutional violation creates a cause of action distinct from any otherwise available state tort remedy. “Constitutional tort” is a predominantly academic term originating in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape (1961), which held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a separate federal remedy for individuals suing state or municipal government officers who have violated their constitutional rights. The term is also used in the context of Bivens actions, which are lawsuits under federal common law for constitutional violations committed by federal government employees. As with common law torts, the usual remedy for constitutional torts is monetary damages. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_tort

Constitutional torts are violations of one's constitutional rights by a government servant. Constitutional tort actions are brought under 42 USCS § 1983 against government employees seeking damages for violating federal constitutional rights, particularly those arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights.
42 USCS § 1983 reads as follows:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the U.S. or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”

‍

Two Manners of Quick Relief for The Chickamauga Nation

Presidential
First, since legislation and irrefutable evidence exist that The Chickamauga Nation has been placed on the List numerous times, the President has the Constitutional authority to require the Secretary of the Interior to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List of Federally Recognized Tribes. As the Chief Executive of the United States, the President has the authority to order the Secretary of the Interior to follow Public Law 103-454, approved November 2, 1994, 108 Stat 4791 Title II Sec 202 Paragraph 3 and 4, and place the Tribe on the List with the understood, stipulated caveats as required by The Chickamauga Nation.

The Secretary, by refusing to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List, is committing a Constitutional Tort as a member of the Executive Branch, even as the Executive Branch swears to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States. The Statutes and Codes of the United States explicitly state that The Chickamauga Nation is a Federally Recognized Treaty Tribe under the jurisdiction of the United States. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson acknowledged the Lower Town (Cherokee) Chickamauga as an individual, separate tribe from the Cherokee.

Since this country's founding, numerous Presidents have expressed their commitment to upholding the trust responsibility with Indian Tribes. In the historic Special Message on Indian Affairs that marked the dawn of the self-determination age, President Nixon stated, "[t]he special relationship between Indians and the Federal government is the result of solemn obligations which have been entered into by the United States Government ... [T]he special relationship ... continues to carry immense moral and legal force. To terminate this relationship would be no more appropriate than to terminate the citizenship rights of any other American." Public Papers of the President: Richard M. Nixon, Special Message on Indian Affairs (July 8, 1970).

For more than four decades, nearly every administration has recognized the trust responsibility and the unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes. President Obama established a White House Council on Native American Affairs with the Secretary of the Interior serving as the Chair. President Barack Obama, Executive Order No. 13647, Establishing the White House Council on Native American Affairs (June 26, 2013). The Order requires cabinet-level participation and interagency coordination for the purpose of "establish[ing] a national policy to ensure that the Federal Government engages in a true and lasting government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes in a more coordinated and effective manner, including by better carrying out its trust responsibilities." See also President Barack Obama, Memorandum on Tribal Consultation (Nov. 5, 2009); President George W. Bush, Executive Order No. 13336, American Indian and Alaska Native Education (Apr. 30, 2004); President William J. Clinton, Public Papers of the President: Remarks to Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Leaders (Apr. 29, 1994); President George H.W. Bush, Public Papers of the President: Statement Reaffirming the Government-to-Government Relationship Between the Federal Government and Indian Tribal Governments (Jun.14, 1991); President Ronald Reagan, American Indian Policy Statement, 19 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 98 (Jan. 24, 1983); President Gerald L. Ford, Public Papers of the President: Remarks at a Meeting with American Indian Leaders (July 16, 1976); President Richard M. Nixon, Public Papers of the President: Special Message on Indian Affairs (July 8, 1970); President Lyndon B. Johnson, Public Papers of the President: Special Message to the Congress on the Problems of the American Indian: "The Forgotten American" (March 6, 1968).

With one phone call, memo, or public statement, the President has the legal authority to order the Secretary of the Interior to fulfill the Secretary’s legal and moral responsibility and place the Chickamauga Nation on the List of Federally Recognized Tribes. The Chickamauga Nation would be willing to host the Secretary in Arkansas, on Tribal land, for the final negotiations for inclusion on the List.

Congress
First, since legislation and irrefutable evidence exists that The Chickamauga Nation has been placed on the List numerous times, Members of Congress have the authority to require the Secretary of the Interior to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List of Federally Recognized Tribes. There is no need for another Act of Congress since many already exist.

Congress has also recognized the United States' unique responsibilities to Indian tribes and individual Indian beneficiaries. Recently, Congress passed a joint resolution recognizing the "special legal and political relationship Indian tribes have with the United States and the solemn covenant with the land we share" and acknowledged the "long history of depredations and ill-conceived polices by the Federal government regarding Indian tribes" and offered "an apology to all Native peoples on behalf of the United States." lllth Cong. 1st Sess., S.J. Res 14 (Apr. 30, 2009). Congress has expressly and repeatedly recognized the trust responsibility in its enactments impacting Indian Affairs. See, e.g., Indian Education and Self Determination and Assistance Act of 1975; Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000; American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994; Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994; Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 and Indian Education Act of 1972; Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978; Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982; Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act).

The Legislative branch of the United States has written more than 22 treaties with the Chickamauga, budgets from 1785 to at least 1845 providing services to the Chickamauga, budgets from 1785 to modern time providing annuities to the Chickamauga, budgets paying for the military to protect and massacre the Chickamauga, budgets paying for the military pensions for the soldiers who admit in open court to committing genocide against the Chickamauga, the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934 recognizing the Chickamauga being under the jurisdiction of the United States, the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act recognizing the Chickamauga being under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the 1994 Federally Recognized Indians List Act making it illegal for the Secretary of Interior not to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List.

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.”

Article 1, Section 8, and Article 6, Section 2, when taken together:
Therefore, Article 1, Section 8 specifically grants Congress the power and authority to execute the Laws of the Union, including Treaties with the Indians, which are the Supreme Law of the Land according to Article 6, Section 2.

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 to demand that the Secretary of the 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.

By Request,
Each Member of Congress has the authority under Article 1 Section 8 and Article 6 Section 2 to go to the Secretary of the Interior and request the Secretary to follow Public Law 103-454, approved November 2, 1994, 108 Stat 4791 Title II Sec 202 Paragraph 3 and 4, and place the Tribe on the List with the understood, stipulated caveats as required by The Chickamauga Nation.

Congress enacted the laws that make the Chickamauga Nation a Federally Recognized Tribe under the jurisdiction of the United States. Each Member of Congress has the authority to demand that their laws be followed. The Secretary, by refusing to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List, is committing a Constitutional Tort as a member of the Executive Branch, even as the Executive Branch swears to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States.

Members of the Senate or House have the right to request a meeting with the Secretary and ask the Secretary to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List. The Secretary can administratively place the Chickamauga Nation on the List because the Tribe is already Federally Recognized and under the Jurisdiction of the United States. This entire process would take the Secretary less than a minute to sign their name and order that it be done.

By Oversight
The House and the Senate have oversight authority over the Department of the Interior. The House and or Senate can demand the Secretary appear and ask why Public Law 103-454 – The Federally Recognized Tribes List Act is not being kept accurate. The simple question demonstrates that the Secretary is in violation of multiple Acts of Congress and has engaged in a Constitutional Tort.

The House and Senate have the authority to hold the Secretary in Contempt of Congress for failing to keep an accurate list of Federally Recognized Tribes.

While Recognizing The Chickamauga Nation as a Federally Recognized Tribe, the Legislative branch has never terminated the Chickamauga as it has many other Tribes. Since the Congress has not terminated The Chickamauga Nation, and The Chickamauga Nation is a Federally Recognized Tribe, the Congress must provide oversight and force the Secretary of Interior to place the Chickamauga Nation on the List of Federally Recognized Tribes with the understood, stipulated caveats as required by The Chickamauga Nation.

‍

Part 1 Identifying and Understanding the Chickamauga

OVERVIEW

EXHIBIT A Who are the Chickamauga?
EXHIBIT B Why are the Chickamauga called Cherokee?
EXHIBIT C Why did the British and the Colonies call the Lower Town people Cherokee?
EXHIBIT D Why did European superpowers and British Colonies often mistakenly identified the Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee as being ethnically Cherokee.
EXHIBIT E Who was the Emperor of the Cherokee and the 1730 Whitehall Treaty with the King of England?
EXHIBIT F Why were the Chickamauga involved in the various Confederacies of Indian Tribes?
EXHIBIT G How can you specifically identify the Chickamauga as a separate Tribe from the Cherokee?
EXHIBIT H How do we know the Chickamauga signed Treaties with the United States when the Treaties say Cherokee?
EXHIBIT I Why did the Chickamauga seek Spanish Protection?
EXHIBIT J Why did the Chickamauga move west?
EXHIBIT K Why were the Chickamauga known by so many names?
EXHIBIT L Are the Chickamauga and Cherokee legally the same Tribe?
EXHIBIT M Since the Chickamauga are not ethnically Cherokee, what do the Treaties mean?

Part 2 Determining The Chickamauga Nation is Federally Recognized by United States Treaties, Statutes and Codes, and Supreme Court Rulings

OVERVIEW

EXHIBIT 1 1786 – Article 1 Section 8
EXHIBIT 2 1786 – Article 6 Section 2
EXHIBIT 3 1786 – Article 1 Section 8 and Article 6 Section 2 when taken together:
EXHIBIT 4 1785 - 7 Stat 18 Treaty, Article 3, Article 5, and Article 12
EXHIBIT 5 1791 – 7 Stat 39 Treaty, Article 2
EXHIBIT 6 1792 - 7 Stat 42 Treaty
EXHIBIT 7 1792 November 6 - George Washington's 4th Annual Address to Congress
EXHIBIT 8 1792 November 28 – George Washington to the Senate and the House of Representatives
EXHIBIT 9 1794 - 7 Stat 43 Treaty Article 1 and Article 3
EXHIBIT 10 1798 - 7 Stat 62 Treaty Article 2, Article 3, and Article 6
EXHIBIT 11 1804 - 7 Stat 288 Treaty Article 2
EXHIBIT 12 1804 - 7 Stat 93 Treaty Article 1 and Article 3
EXHIBIT 13 1805 - 7 Stat 95 Treaty Article 1 and Article 3
EXHIBIT 14 1806 - 7 Stat 101 Treaty
EXHIBIT 15 1807 - 7 Stat 103 Treaty
EXHIBIT 16 1809 – Thomas Jefferson Land Trade with The Chickamauga – Prologue and Preamble to 1817 - 7 Stat 156
EXHIBIT 17 1816 - 7 Stat 138 Treaty
EXHIBIT 18 1816 - 7 Stat 139 Treaty
EXHIBIT 19 1816 - 7 Stat 148 – Treaty Preamble and Article 1
EXHIBIT 20 1817 – 7 Stat 156 Treaty Prologue, Preamble,
EXHIBIT 21 1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV
EXHIBIT 22 1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV
EXHIBIT 23 1819 - 7 Stat 195 Treaty Preamble and Article 6
EXHIBIT 24 1828 – 7 Stat 311 Treaty Prologue, Preamble, Article 2, Article 7, and Article 8
EXHIBIT 25 1828 – 7 Stat 311 Treaty
EXHIBIT 26 1832 – Worchester v. Georgia U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 27 1834 – 7 Stat 414 Treaty Prologue, Preamble, Article 1, and Article 4
EXHIBIT 28 1835 - 7 Stat 474 Treaty Preamble and Article 1
EXHIBIT 29 1835 – 7 Stat 478 Treaty Preamble and Article 2
EXHIBIT 30 1835 - 7 Stat 487 Treaty
EXHIBIT 31 1836 - 7 Stat 488 Treaty
EXHIBIT 32 1836 – Drake – “Chickamauga, on the Tennessee, 90 Miles below the Cherokees; many years since broken from them, under chief Dragomono”
EXHIBIT 33 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
EXHIBIT 34 1840 – Agent Stokes Recognizes the Old Settlers (Chickamauga) as the Rightful Government
EXHIBIT 35 1901 – Montoya v. United States 180 U.S. 261 No. 43 U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 36 1934 – Stat 984, 25 U.S.C. 461 “Indian Reorganization Act Definition”
EXHIBIT 37 1968 – 25 U.S.C. Chapter 15 “Indian Civil Rights Act Definition”
EXHIBIT 38 1978 - Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 39 1981 – Montana v. United States No. 79-1128 U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 40 1994 – [Public Law 103 – 454 Section 202 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) Federally Recognized Indian Tribes List Act]
EXHIBIT 41 2007 – Phase II Report: Cultural Affiliation Overview Study for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District. Contract Number: W912EQ-05-P-0153
EXHIBIT 42 2009 – Carcieri v Salazar 555 US 379 2009 U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 43 2011 – United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313, 2324-25
EXHIBIT 44 2020 – McGirt v Oklahoma No. 18-9526 U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 45 2024 – Loper Bright v Raimondo No. 22-451 U.S. Supreme Court Case
EXHIBIT 46 Ex Post Facto Black’s Law
EXHIBIT 47 Ex Post Facto Law.
EXHIBIT 48 Determine if The Chickamauga Nation Has Ever Been Terminated

‍

Part 1 Identifying and Understanding the Chickamauga

EXHIBIT A Origins of the Tiscamogee (Chickamauga) Not Ethnically Cherokee

While history is a great teacher, it requires a student to understand its reality, which is why it is essential to have a working definition of the term “Chickamauga.” The term “Chickamauga” itself is actually a bastardization of the original word “Tiscamogee.” The European superpowers' languages lacked the “tsch” sound at the beginning of “Tschiscamogee,” so the derivations or bastardizations began in the early to mid-1500s and continued.

“Who are the Chickamauga?” It is a question that most people have little understanding of its historical significance. It is not the fault of the normal person since almost all academically trained historians and anthropologists are ignorant of the facts as well. Almost all academically trained historians and anthropologists use a set of myths, legends, and intentional falsehoods as their basis for the history concerning the ethnic, political, cultural, and religious differences between the Lower Town Cherokee and the Over the Hills Cherokee.

Over the last ten years, the Chickamauga Nation has amassed over 1,000,000 pages of historical and archaeological research on this subject, with an overwhelming majority coming from the National Archives of the United States.

Here are some of their findings.

First, the Chickamauga are a group of people historically defined as descendants of the Mound Building culture, which originated in Mesoamerica and was formalized on this continent along the Mississippi River and its tributaries during the Mississippian Era, sometime between 500 and 900 A.D. (CE). The Southeast Ceremonial Complex is the political, cultural, and religious system most closely associated with the Southeast Woodlands Tribes, including but not limited to the Chickamauga, Muscogee Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Natchez.

Early in the Mississippian Era and extending to the Muscogean and Mobillian Eras, the Southeast Woodlands Tribes spoke a trade language known as the Mobillian Trade Language (MTL). MTL was contemporary in the area south of the Tennessee River and east of the Mississippi River and is the basis for the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Muscogee Creek languages today.

The Tiscamogee or Chickamauga are best understood as a Tribe of like-minded people who are bound together by blood, politics, culture, and religion. As traders along the vast Mississippian trade routes, which extended from the Great Lakes to the Gulf and from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, the Chickamauga quickly became a mixed-blood Tribe. The Chickamauga were tolerant of other Tribes and nationalities, especially when it came to being intimate and making babies.

Sometime during the late 1500s and early 1600s, numerous Tiscamogee moved from the Tennessee River area, near Muscle Shoals, Alabama, to the Mountainous areas of South Carolina, North Georgia, and South Tennessee.

The Chickamauga have a distinct identity that separates them from the Cherokee. While the Chickamauga share cultural and linguistic ties with the Cherokee Nation, their distinct identity is clearly evident in the historical and archaeological record. The Chickamauga are descendants of the Mound Building Culture and the Southeast Ceremonial Complex, while the du Chat Nation, the modern-day Cherokee, are from the Great Lakes region before their migrations southward in the late 1670s and 1680s. Ethnically, the Chickamauga are related to the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee Creek, Natchez, and Seminole. The Cherokee are ethnically related to the various Tribes of the Iroquoian Confederacy before the 1670s.

Additionally, in 1730, a Moravian Mission writer documented that there was a deep-seated ethnic racism and hatred against the Lower Towns (Chickamauga) by the Over the Hills Cherokee (Cherokee Nation).

Not all the Cherokee lived in the mountainous sections of their ancient territory. They are distinguished into two great divisions: the Ottare, or Upper Cherokee, and the Airate, who inhabited the lower Grounds and were known as the Lower Cherokees. They were lower than the Ottare, not only in sitnation (sic), but likewise in intelligence. While the Upper Cherokees had a well-defined mythological account of their origin, the Lower Cherokees believed they had come from a hole in the ground! Intermarriage between the Upper and Lower Cherokees was strictly prohibited.

Schwarze, Rev. Edmund, PhD (1923); The History of the Moravian Missions Among Southern Indian Tribes of the United States, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Page 20.

‍

EXHIBIT B Language(s)

Why are the Chickamauga called Cherokee? There is no good reason other than laziness, especially on the academic side.

In the Muscogean and Mobillian eras, 1200 – Contact, there was a somewhat cohesive use of the MTL. It is during this time that the language of the Chickamauga began to change. Because the Chickamauga were traders along the tributaries of the Mississippi River, the European superpowers began calling the language “Cherokee.” While the Chickamauga are not and have never been ethnically Cherokee, because they spoke Erate, which they called Cherokee, the Chickamauga were, for the first time, mislabeled as Cherokee.

While speaking MTL, the influences of Spanish, French, English, Shawnee, Powhatan, and Catawba began to transform their language. It is during this timeframe that the “Erate” or “Mountain” or “Southern” dialect language is born in the mountains of the Southeast Woodlands.

The Over-the-Hills Cherokee, who lived between Lake Erie and Lake Huron, among the Iroquoian Confederacy before being kicked out, had a somewhat Iroquoian dialect in the trade language they spoke. The Iroquois speakers called it the “strange language,” and it was not consistent with the other Iroquoian-based languages of the Great Lakes Region. Nor is it consistent with the other languages spoken in the Southeast Woodlands.

Here is where the academic laziness is found. During this period, people were identified by their language, not their nationality or ethnicity. A modern example is a person from South Africa, India, or the United States who speaks English. Are they ethnically English? Are people from Mexico, Honduras, or South Texas who speak the Spanish language ethnically Spanish? Of course, they are not, and the same is for the Chickamauga. The Chickamauga spoke the Erate trade language, but they are not Cherokee.

‍

EXHIBIT C British and Colonial Misidentification

Why did the British and the Colonies call the Lower Town people Cherokee? Again, it was out of laziness. The King of England, in 1729 – 1730, was seeking one Indian Chief to make treaties with instead of hundreds of local Chiefs, Warriors, and Headmen from multiple Tribes and locations. If the King could find one person to represent all of the Cherokee, then he would be able to spend less time on oversight and administration.

In the Colonial Records of South Carolina: Documents Relating to Indian Affairs 1754 – 1765, Edited by William L. McDowell, Jr. Published for the South Carolina Department of Archives & History by the University of South Carolina Press 1970, the Lower Towns are referenced more than fifty-six (56) times.

The British Colony of South Carolina in the 1600s devised a method for better dealing with the indigenous for the purposes of trade. They developed political divisions called “Cherokee Towns” since those living on their western boundaries spoke various dialects of what had become known as “Cherokee.”

The South Carolina Colonial Records identify six (6) different “Cherokee Towns”: The Lower, Out, Middle, Valley, Upper, and Over the Hills. The Erate speakers, who were the most politically, culturally, and religiously conservative or traditional, became known as the Lower Town Cherokee.

In 1684, some 350 years ago, the Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee signed their first Treaty with Britain and her Colonies in South Carolina.

2024 marked the 340th anniversary of the first Treaty signed by the Lower Town Chickamauga with the British Colony of South Carolina. The Chickamauga Nation holds at least twenty-two (22) Treaties with the United States, fifteen (15) Treaties with England and her American Colonies, three (3) Treaties with Spain, two (2) Treaties with Mexico, at least two (2) Treaties with the Republic of Texas, is provided for in the Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803) and the Treaty of Ghent (1814), as well as numerous Land Grants from Spain and Mexico and one Land Patent from the United States. These treaties, Land Grants, and Land Patents, while spanning centuries, are a testament to the enduring sovereignty and significance of the Chickamauga Nation.

‍

EXHIBIT D Origins of the Cherokee (Not Chickamauga)

The European superpowers and British Colonies often mistakenly identified the Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee as being ethnically Cherokee. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is where actual facts, historically and archaeologically provable, destroy the myths, legends, formulas, fairy tales, and bald-faced lies told to the Bureau of Ethnology (Smithsonian Institute) and accepted as facts, even when those facts are easily disproven today. Vladimir Lenin is absolutely correct when he said, “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

In the 73-volume set of Church records, The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, the Jesuit Priests document their missionary work beginning in 1610 in the Great Lakes area. They identify a group of people they called the “Erie” and the “du Chat Nation,” which were later kicked out of the Iroquoian Confederacy after the Beaver Wars. The “Erie” or “du Chat Nation” are the same people who are later identified as the Cherokee. It is impossible, according to Church records, for the Cherokee to have been in the Southeast Woodlands prior to the 1690s to 1710s.

This group of Canadians began immigrating southward in the late 1660s and 1670s. The “Cherokee” Chief named Charles Hicks wrote in letters to John Ross that this group of people from the Great Lakes area, who moved into the Southeast sometime around 1710, are in fact the ethnic Cherokees.

One of the most prolific research writers on the true history of the Cherokee is Chuck Hamilton.
Chuck Hamilton, writer for the Chattanoogan.com, resume https://notesfromtheninthcircle.blogspot.com/2012/08/chuck-hamilton-my-resume.html, and author of numerous articles documenting the origins of the Cherokee, being from the Lake Erie, Lake Huron area of Canada. His highly researched articles include: The Lost Nation of the Erie, Origin of the Cherokee, The True Origin of the Cherokee and the Pre-History of the Cherokee Country, Timeline of Cherokee History, and Timeline of the Beaver Wars, including many others. He documents the history of the Cherokee Nation and explains that it would be historically impossible for them to be the Lower Town Cherokee or Chickamauga.

‍

EXHIBIT E Emperor of the Cherokee (1729 – 1763) British Rule

Another question historians are often asked is, “Who was the Emperor of the Cherokee and the 1730 Whitehall Treaty with the King of England?”

This should be very informative concerning the power of identifying people by the languages they spoke instead of their actual ethnicity.

In 1729, Sir Alexander Cummings was given an assignment by King George I, to find a single Cherokee Chief to deal with instead of the hundreds of Cherokee Chiefs that existed. In 1730, two Chiefs were the finalists: a Chief in the Lower Towns named Attakullakulla and a Chief of the Middle Town named Amatoya Moytoy. The bloodlines of Amatoya Moytoy are Powhatan tracing his lineage back to King Powhatan. The bloodlines of Attakullakulla are Nippising. According to the Champlain Society, he was captured during a raid and raised by the “Cherokee.” The logical conclusion is that he was raised by the Lower Town Cherokee because he was a Chief in the Lower Towns in 1728.

There is a further complicating issue with the bloodlines of Attakullakulla, he is Tsi'yu-gunsini (Dragging Canoe)’s father. Tsi'yu-gunsini’s Mother, Nolle Olle, was a French Natchez slave given to Attakullakulla. This means that Tsi'yu-gunsini was not Cherokee by blood, though he was raised in the Lower Towns by his mother and taught in accordance with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex traditions.

Amatoya Moytoy was chosen by Cummings to be the “Emperor of the Cherokee” to lead a delegation to England to sign a Treaty with England. Moytoy sends Attakullakulla in his place, along with Moytoy’s relatives. When observing the delegates who were sent to England in 1730 to sign the Whitehall Treaty, most of the signers are Moytoy who are Powhatan and then you have Attakullakulla who is Nippising.

‍

EXHIBIT F Confederations (1750s – Today)

Why were the Chickamauga involved in the various Confederacies of Indian Tribes? The Chickamauga were historically traders, and they traded from the Great Lakes region to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic seaboard to west of the Mississippi River. They were comfortable with other Tribes and willing to support them against the invasion by the European Superpowers.

The Chickamauga (Cherokee) are members of the Iroquoian Confederacy as early as the 1760s, but become more active in the early 1770s. Tsi'yu-gunsini (Dragging Canoe) and his brothers and warriors were actively participating in the Western Confederacy of Indian Tribes in the 1770s, which consisted of the Iroquoian Confederacy and other Tribes of the Northwest. Responsible for the Fort Pitt raids and the open rebellion against the Henderson Treaty and the Watoga Compact. This is what led to the 1776 attacks on the Lower Towns by General Rutherford and others.

A Confederation of Native peoples seek peace with the United States, 1786
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/ite m/39863
In 1786, half a year before the Constitutional Convention, a collection of Native American leaders gathered on the banks of the Detroit River to offer a unified message to the Congress of the United States. Despite this proposal, American surveyors, settlers, and others continued to cross the Ohio River.

Speech of the United Indian Nations, at their Confederate Council held near the mouth of the Detroit River between the 28th November and 18th December, 1786

Present The Five Nations, the Hurons, Delewares, Shawnese, Ottawas, Chippewas, Pottawatomies, Twichtwees, Cherokees, and the Wabash Confederated

To the Congress of the United States of America

‍

EXHIBIT G Colonial Revolution Era 1770s - 1786

Another question which is often asked is how can you specifically identify the Chickamauga as a separate Tribe from the Cherokee? How about letting the United States National Archives prove the point.?

By the 1770s, the names Chickamauga and Lower Town Cherokee had become synonymous. This is best evidenced in the National Archives in the War Department Records, Presidential Papers, and various Colonial Records.

J. W. Powell, Director of the Smithsonian Institution in the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology 1897 – 1898 documents the differences between the Chickamauga of the Lower Towns and the Cherokee Nation on pages 71 and 72. He documents the Cherokee Nation left Choate in Tennessee and went to North Central Georgia, while the Lower Town Cherokee aligned with the Northern Tribes to declare war on the United States.

Gov. Henry of Virginia to Gov. Caswell Concerning the Reduction of the Chickamauga Settlements
Letter from Patrick Henry to Richard Caswell, Henry, Patrick, 1736-1799 Volume 14, Pages 243-246, dated January 08, 1779
Beginning on page 220 of the Territorial Papers of the United States Volume 4, the Territory South of the River Ohio 1790 – 1796, The Secretary of War, Henry Knox, writing to Governor Blount, on November 26, 1792 discusses the Chickamaggas at length including Congress’s multiple discussions of War and Peace. These discussions included Chickamauga Chiefs, Bloody Fellow, Chief John Watts, and the differences between the Cherokee Nation and the Chickamauga of the Lower Towns.

Notification of Divide in Cherokee Nation
On September 13, 1792, John Sevier writing to William Blount
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43570
Description: Sevier invited to join council held in Cherokee nation in town of Chota. At council Sevier was notified that the five lower towns had declared war on United States, J. Watts heads party. Hostile Indians plan on attacking frontier settlements. Assurances that every other part of the Cherokee nation is happily at peace with United States. Special note on Indian town names and names of chiefs that oppose declaration of war, Sevier provided those chiefs with Indian goods so as to foster good relations.

Support of Militia Against Cherokee War
On October 9, 1792, Henry Knox, writing to George Washington
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43663
Description: Received notification of declaration of war against U.S. by Cherokee Nation. Know consulted with the Sec. of Treasury and Sec. of State who unanimously agree that Gov. Blount should be afforded the "most ample powers" to draw for the militia for defensive protection of state. Noted all offensive measures will be reserved for Congressional approval.

Cherokee Declaration of War
On October 9, 1792, Henry Knox, writing to William Blount
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43660
Description: Received letter from Blount which contained proclamation of war on U.S. by the five lower Cherokee towns which is perplexing along with failed negotiations, violence, and leadership of the nations by J. Watts. Advised calling up militia and confining operations to defensive measures until Congress convenes. Requested Blount send an expedition to upper Creek towns to request that their banditti cease attacks.

Protection of Frontier
On October 30, 1792, Henry Knox, writing to Henry Lee of Virginia
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43737
Description: Congress to discuss war and peace with Chiccamagas. Only defensive action by state to be taken in dealing with Indians.

Information given by Red Bird, a Cherokee, respecting his nation
On September 15, 1792, Information concerning Chief John Watts, Chief Glass, and Chief Bloody Fellow
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43587
Description: Recounts Cockran's encounter with hostile Indians, their decision to go to war, and J. Watts acquisition of arms and ammunition. Countered claim that the Glass and Bloody Fellow and John Watts stopped the war party, it was in fact Unanecata who stopped the hostile warriors. Red Bird would inform Maj. Craig if the war party intended on moving against the U.S. after corn was harvested.

Running Boundary Lines in Cherokee Country
On December 16, 1792, William Blount writing to Henry Knox
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43971
Description: Governor Blount explains the implications of running the boundary lines established by the Treaty of Holston, especially those through the Nine-mile settlement which have been disputed by the Cherokees.

notable phrase: I have conceived that it will be satisfactory and acceptable to Government to be made fully acuainted of the geography of [Nine-mile] from actual measurement and of the operation of the [boundary] line on the Nine-mile settlers and especially so as a part of the [Cherokee] nation had declared war against the United States to the end that a better judgement might be formed as to the propriety or impropriety of their conduct.

Let the Hatchet Be Buried
On November 14, 1792 Governor Edward Telfair writing to the Headmen and Warriors of the Cherokee Nation
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43826
Description: The talk of the Governor of Georgia to the Head-men and Warriors of the Cherokee nation in which he urges the Cherokees to once again seek peace with their white neighbors.

Statement of Secretary of War to President of United States relative to South Western Frontiers
On December 12, 1793, Henry Knox writing to George Washington
https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/45725
Description: Second part of letter discusses territory of United States West of the Ohio and the Cherokees. Notes that Governor Blount made positive strides in creating peace with Cherokees in 1792, but on 12 June 1793, Captain Beard, called into service to protect the inhabitants, defied orders, crossed the Tennessee River and killed a number of Indians. Knox laments that the white perpetrators of injustice against Indians will likely go unpunished, the past and future expenses of paying and sustaining militia forces

Statement of Secretary of War to President of United States relative to South Western Frontiers
On December 4, 1793 Henry Knox writing to George Washington https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/45684

Description: Regarding the South West territory. Describes a limited state of war with the Cherokees, but also positive prospects for peace, which was broken by the actions of Captain John Beard, who defied Governor Blount's orders.
Refers to the great numbers of militia brought into service and the associated costs. Knox also suggests that it will be with an ill grace that Indians are punished while the white perpetrators escape with impunity.

Papers of the War Department, February 10, 1794. From Isaac Shelby To Henry Knox
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/docimage.php?id=9792&docColID=10772&page=3
SUMMARY: Governor Shelby fully expects that the Creek and Chickamauga Indians will attack frontier settlers as soon as winter breaks so he requests authority to take measures for the defensive protection of the frontiers of Kentucky.

Papers of the Department of War, October 30, 1792. From Henry Knox To Henry Lee
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/docimage.php?id=7506&docColID=8154
SUMMARY: Congress to discuss war and peace with Chiccamagas. Only defensive action by state to be taken in dealing with Indians.

Papers of the Department of War, February 15, 1793. From Henry Knox To Henry Lee
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/docimage.php?id=7989&docColID=8669
SUMMARY: Indians desire peace, Governor Blount to call general council to discuss terms.

Papers of the War Department, August 13, 1792. From Henry Knox To James Wood
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/docimage.php?id=7192&docColID=7795
SUMMARY: Advises against disputes with neighboring Indians for fear it will spread to all southern tribes. Result of Grand National Council was peace among Cherokees towards U.S.

Papers of the War Department, February 11, 1784. From Alexander Martin To Joseph Martin
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/docimage.php?id=166&docColID=175
SUMMARY: Governor Martin (of North Carolina) directs an investigation into murders committed in the Cumberland Gap. He states that if Cherokee or Chickamauga Indians are responsible a military expedition will be sent into their nation to obtain "satisfaction" unless they surrender the murderers. Directs that squatters be ordered off Indian Lands. Discusses an agreement between Spain and the Delaware Indians. Also mentions a treaty to be held with the Indians.

Notification of Divide in Cherokee Nation
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43570
Sevier invited to join council held in Cherokee nation in town of Chota. At council Sevier was notified that the five lower towns had declared war on United States, J. Watts heads party. Hostile Indians plan on attacking frontier settlements. Assurances that every other part of the Cherokee nation is happily at peace with United States. Special note on Indian town names and names of chiefs that oppose declaration of war, Sevier provided those chiefs with Indian goods so as to foster good relations.
document number 1792091390100

Campaign against Creeks and Cherokees
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/47869
General Robertson informs Major Ore that he is to defend the district of Mero against a large party of Creeks and Cherokees of the Lower towns. Ordered to "destroy the Lower Cherokee towns... taking care to spare women and children, and to treat all prisoners, who may fall into your hands, with humanity, and thereby teach those savages to spare the citizens of the United States, under similar circumstances."
document number 1794090690000

Report No 81 On Petition By Stephen Cantrill
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/61814
Report of Sec. of War on petition: Cantrill requested compensation for services provided related to expedition in Cherokee nations country. Cantrill ordered by General Robertson to destroy two indian towns (Running Water and Nickajack). Secretary of War did not sanction event.
document number 1798040500000

Peace with Lower Cherokee
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/48505
After having corresponded with Double-head, Chief of the Cherokees, Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory orders that General Benjamin Logan immediately desist from attempts to invade Lower Cherokee towns, who are in a state of peace with the United States. Rogue elements of the military had previously destroyed the friendly Cherokee towns of Nickajack and Running Water.
document number 1794110190000

Destruction of Lower Cherokee Towns
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/48475
Secretary Knox requests that Mr. Dandridge submit to President Washington the enclosed letter from Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory, regarding the destruction of two lower Cherokee towns, Running Water and Nickajack.
document number 1794103000000

Indian Hostilities
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43726
Intelligence from Gov. Blount states that five hundred warriors from Chickamaga towns and some banditti Upper Creeks plan hostilities against the U.S. and will strike the Cumberland settlements. Authorized Governor to make defensive preparations.
document number 1792102700100

Defensive Protection Of The Frontiers http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/45995
Governor Shelby fully expects that the Creek and Chickamauga Indians will attack frontier settlers as soon as winter breaks so he requests authority to take measures for the defensive protection of the frontiers of Kentucky.
document number 1794021040001

Avoiding Conflict With The Southern Tribes http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43876
Knox provides Blount with his assessment of the situation with the southern Indians and projected additions to the military establishment in the South. The Indians are not satisfied with the actions of the Cumberland settlements but it appears that the Creek chiefs are willing to council with Seagrove soon. Blount is asked to take whatever action is needed to end conflict with the Chickamaugas.
notable phrase - The Indians are dissatisfied about the Cumberland business and the President is exceedingly desirous of knowing the cause of it...In this event Sir, you could not do more acceptable service to the government, or more enhance your own reputation, than by terminating the affair with the said Chickamaugas without futher conflict.
document number 1792112600000

Murders In The Cumberland Gap http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/36554
Governor Martin (of North Carolina) directs an investigation into murders committed in the Cumberland Gap. He states that if Cherokee or Chickamauga Indians are responsible a military expedition will be sent into their nation to obtain "satisfaction" unless they surrender the murderers. Directs that squatters be ordered off Indian Lands. Discusses an agreement between Spain and the Delaware Indians. Also mentions a treaty to be held with the Indians.
document number 1792110840000

Conference with Cherokee leadership http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/48562
Conference between Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory, and several Cherokee representatives: Colonel John Watts of a Lower Cherokee town (Will's town), and Scolacutta (aka, Hanging Maw), along with other Cherokee chiefs. Also present were 400 warriors and several citizens of the United States. Briefly discuss the illegal destruction by Major Ore of the friendly Lower Cherokee towns of Nickajack and Running Water, along with illegal aggression by General James Robertson. Blount condemns these actions and stresses repeatedly that he wants permanent, sustained peace with the Cherokee, which the Cherokee desire as well. Both Blount and the Cherokee chiefs discuss hostility by the unfriendly Creek Nation, along with the American alliance with the Chickasaw and Choctaw. They also smoke a tobacco pipe during the conference as a sign of friendship.
document number 1794110890000

Provisions granted to Indian chief
http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/48531
Informs Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory that Indian chief Tickagiskee recently arrived at Tellico Block House with about 300 Indians. They requested provisions, which were granted. Writes that Colonel Watts has arrived to negotiate for an exchange of prisoners. Watts has informed him that one or two days before the illegal destruction of the Lower Cherokee towns, Nickajack and Running Watter, two scalps were brought into the former, one by a Cherokee.
document number 1794110490100

Punish Them in the Severest Manner http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/44422
Governor Blount provides General Robertson with his orders regarding the military prevention of incursions into peaceful settlements by hostile Cherokees and Creeks.

Bad Doings of the Creeks and Cherokees http://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/44905
Piamingo warns Smith of the depredations of the Creeks and Cherokees and wonders why the Americans even bother to treat with Indians that will be at war with them until they are defeated. They have even invited the Chickasaws and Choctaws to join them in a war against the United States.

‍

EXHIBIT H Signing Treaties

How do we know the Chickamauga signed Treaties with the United States when the Treaties say Cherokee?

First, the language of 7 Stat. 18 (1785) is explicit. The Preamble states, “Articles concluded at Hopewell, on the Keowee, between Benjamin Hawkins, Andrew Pickens, Joseph Martin, and Lachlan M'Intosh, Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, of the one Part, and the Head-Men and Warriors of all the Cherokees of the other.” Article 3 States, “The said Indians for themselves and their respective tribes and towns do acknowledge all the Cherokees to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.” At the time of the signing of the 1785 Treaty, there were at least 155 different “Cherokee” Tribes and Towns identified, this presents the issue that the King of England wanted to avoid in 1730 by having one Chief to deal with.

Second, George Washington, clearly identifies the Lower Town “Cherokee” as Chickamauga in his Fourth Annual Address to Congress in November of 1792.

While the Chickamauga are signatories to over 22 treaties with the United States, and many of those treaties were signed as the sole signatories and identified as the Cherokee Nation. The United States chose the specific language and the specific signatories to accomplish the desired effects. The United States demonstrates its laziness in Treaty writing all the time knowing that the Chickamauga and Cherokee were two different Tribes and ethnicities.

Even though the Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee had signed every treaty with the United States and were often the only signatories, their rights were denied by the ethnic Cherokee Nation because they dared to leave the Treaty lands in the east. The Laws of the Cherokee Nation (LCN) specifically stripped all rights, including Treaty rights, of the Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee as early as 1805 and codified them in 1817, 1819, and 1828.

The Chickamauga Nation, as the lineal descendants of more than 22 Treaties with the United States, is a political entity, not an ethnic entity, according to the Marshall trilogy of cases: Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831); and Worcester v. Georgia (1832).

The aforementioned treaties consistently distinguish between the two nations when negotiating land cessions and peace agreements. These legal documents serve as primary evidence, superseding arguments based solely on cultural similarities.

Treaties With Signatories Included

1785 – 7 Stat 18: At Least 28 of the 37 (73%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Koatohee, or Corn Tassel of Toquo, Tuskegatahu, or Long Fellow of Chistohoe, Ooskwha, or Abraham of Chilkowa, Newota, or the Gritzs of Chicamaga, Konatota, or the Rising Fawn of Highwassay, Tuckasee, or Young Terrapin of Allajoy, Toostaka, or the Waker of Oostanawa, Untoola, or Gun Rod of Seteco, Kostayeak, or Sharp Fellow Wataga, Chescoonwho, Bird in Close of Tomotlug, Tuckasee, or Terrapin of Hightowa, Chesetoa, or the Rabbit of Tlacoa, Chesecotetona, or Yellow Bird of the Pine Log, Sketaloska, Second Man of Tillico, Chokasatahe, Chickasaw Killer Tasonta, Onanoota, of Koosoate, Ookoseta, or Sower Mush of Kooloque, Umatooetha, the Water Hunter Choikamawga, Wyuka, of Lookout Mountain, Tulco, or Tom of Chatuga, Will, of Akoha, Amokontakona, Kutcloa, Kowetatahee, in Frog Town, John, of Little Tallico, Skelelak, Akonoluchta, the Cabin, and Cheanoka, of Kawetakac,

1791 – 7 Stat 39: At Least 37 of the 41 (90%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Chuleoah, or the Boots, Occunna, or the Badger, Enoleh, or Black Fox, Nontuaka, or the Northward, Tekakiska, Chutloh, or King Fisher, Tuckaseh, or Terrapin, Kateh, Kunnochatutloh, or the Crane, Cauquillehanah, or the Thigh, Chesquotteleneh, or Yellow Bird, Chickasawtehe, or Chickasaw Killer, Kulsatehe, Sawutteh, or Slave Catcher, Aukuah, Oosenaleh, Kenotetah, or Rising Fawn, Kanetetoka, or Standing Turkey, Yonewatleh, or Bear at Home, Long Will, Kunoskeskie, or John Watts, Nenetooyah, or Bloody Fellow, Chuquilatague, or Double Head, Koolaquah, or Big Acorn, Toowayelloh, or Bold Hunter, Kinnesah, or Cabin, Tullotehe or Two Killer, Kaalouske, or Stopt Still, Kulsatche, Talohteske, or Upsetter, Cheakoneske, or Otter Lifter, Keshukaune, or She Reigns, Toonaunailoh, Teesteke, or Common Disturber, Robin McLemore, Skyuka,

1792 – 7 Stat 42: All 6 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Iskagua, or Clear Sky (formerly Nenetooyah, or Bloody Fellow), Nontuaka, or the Northward, Chutloh, or King Fisher, Katigoslah, or the Prince, Teesteke, or Common Disturber, Suaka, or George Miller,

1794 – 7 Stat 43: All 12 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Tekakisskee, or Taken out of the Water, Nontuaka, or the Northward, Cinasaw, or the Cabin, Skyuka, Chuquilatague, or Double Head, John McCleemore, Chuleowee, Ustanaqua, Kullusathee, Siteaha, Chatakaelesa, or the Fowl Carrier

1798 – 7 Stat 62: At Least 37 of the 39 (95%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Nenetuah, or bloody Fellow, Ostaiah, Oortlokecteh, Chockonnistaller, or Stallion, Noothoietah, Utturah, or Skin Worm, Weelee, or Will, Oolassoteh, Tlorene, Oonatakoteekee, Kanowsurhee, or Broom, Yonah Oolah, Bear at Home, Tunksalenee, or Thick Legs, Oorkullaukee, Kumamah, or Butterfly, Chattakuteehee, Kettegiskie, Tauquotihee, or the Glass, Chuquilatague, Salleekookoolah, Tallotuskee, Neekaanneah, or Woman Holder, Kulsateehee, Tlorene, Keetakeuskah, or Prince, Jonnurteekee, Charley, Akooh, Sawanookeh, Yonahequah, or Big Bear, Keenahkunnah, Kaweesoolaskee, Teekakalohenah, Ookouseteeh, or John Taylor, Chochuchee

1804 – 7 Stat 288: All 10 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Tolluntuskie, Broom, J. McLamore, Quotequeskee, Path Killer, Tagustiskee, Tulio, Sour Much, Keatechee, James Vann.

1805 – 7 Stat 93: All 33 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Fox, or Ennollee, Path Killer, or Nenohuttahe, Glass, or Tauquatehee, Double head, or Dhuqualutauge, Dick Justice, Tounhull, or Toonayeh, Turtle at Home, or Sullicooahwolu, Chenawee, Slave Boy, or Oosaunabee, Tallotiskee, Broom, or Cunnaweesoskee, John Greenwood, or Sour Mush, Chulioah, Katigiskee, William Shawry, or Eskaculiskee, Taochalar, James Davis, or Coowusaliskee, John Jolly, or Eulatakee, Bark, or Eullooka, John McLemore, or John Euskulacau, Big Bear, or Yohanaqua, Dreadfulwater, or Aumaudoskee, Challaugittihee, Calliliskee, or Knife Sheath, Closenee, Challow, or Kingfisher, John Watts, jr., Sharp Arrow, or Costarauh, John Dougherty, or Long John, Tuckasee, or Terrapin, Tuskegittihee, or Long Fellow, Tochuwor, or Red Bird, Catihee, or Badgerson,

1805 – 7 Stat 95: All 14 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Black Fox, or Ennone, Broom, or Cannarwesoske, The Glass, or Tunnquetihee, Kutigeskeee, Toochalar, Turtle at Home, or Sullicookiewalar, Dick Justice, John Greenwood, or Eakosettas, Chuleah, or Gentleman Tom, Bald Hunter, or Toowayullau, John Melamere, or Euquellooka, Closenie, or Creeping, Double Head, or Chuquacuttague, Chickasawtihee, or Chickasawtihee Killer,

1806 – 7 Stat 101: All 17 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Double Head, James Vanu, Tallotiskee, Chulioa, Chulioa, Sour Mush, Turtle at home, Katihu, John McLemore, Broom, John Jolly, John Lowry, Red Bird, John Walker, Young Wolf, Young Wolf, Skeuha, Sequechu, Wm. Showry,

1807 – 7 Stat 103: All 5 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Eunolee, or Black Fox, Fauquitee, or Glass, Fulaquokoko, or Turtle at home, Richard Brown, Sowolotoh, king's brother,

1816 – 7 Stat 138: At Least 3 of the 6 (50%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; Colonel John Lowry, Major John Walker, Major Ridge,

1816 – 7 Stat 139: At Least 3 of the 6 (50%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; Colonel John Lowry, Major John Walker, Major Ridge,

1816 – 7 Stat 148: All 16 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; Toochalar, OohuIookee, Wososey, Gousa, Spring Frog, Oowatata, Sallocooke Fields, George Guess, Bark, Campbell, Spirit, Young Wolf, Oolitiskee
ADDENDUM: All 9 (100%) of the Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; Path Killer, The Glass, Sour Mush, Chulioa, Dick Justice, Richard Brown, Bark, The Boot, Chickasawlua

1817 – 7 Stat 156: At Least 26 of the 31 (84%) Signatories East of the Mississippi River are Lower Town Chickamauga; Richard Brown, Cabbin Smith, Sleeping Rabbit, George Saunders, Roman Nose, Currohe Dick, John Walker, George Lowry, Walter Adair, James Brown, Kelachule, Sour Mush, Chulioa, Chickasautchee, The Bark of Chota, The Bark of Hightower, Big Half Breed, Leyestisky, Souanooka, The Locust, Beaver Carrier, Dreadful Water, Chyula, John McIntosh, Katchee of Cowee, White Man Killer

All 15 (100%) Signatories West of the Mississippi River are Lower Town Chickamauga; Toochalar, The Glass, Wassosee, John Jolly, The Gourd, Spring Frog, John D. Chisholm, James Rogers, Wawhatchy, Attalona, Kulsuttchee, Tuskekeetchee, Chillawgatchee, John Smith, Toosawallata

1819 – 7 Stat 195: At Least 7 of the 12 (58%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; James Brown, Geo. Lowry, Cabbie Smith, Sleeping Rabit, Small Wood, John Walker, Currohee Dick.
ADDENDUM: At Least 19 of the 21 (90%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; Outahelce, Chulio, [L. S.] Naire, Dick Justice, Theelagathahee, Wausaway, The Raven, Big Cabbin, Two Killers, The Bark, Teeistiskee, John Boggs, Nettle Carrier,Seekeekee, Quotiquaskee, John Walker, Currihee, Dick, Ooseekee, Toochalee,

1828 – 7 Stat 311: All 7 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga;
• 1825, the Arkansas Gazette publishes the Constitution, which institutes immediate Death to anyone who sells or trades lands with the United States or Settlers.
• 1827 December – National Grand Council at Horsehead Creeks Elects Commissioners to Travel to Washington, D.C. to Obtain the Title and Survey for the Western Outlet Consisting of Lovely’s Purchase
• 1827 December - National Grand Council at Horsehead Creek Forbade the Chickamauga from Signing a Treaty to Sell or Trade Lands with the United States in Accordance with the 1825 Constitution
• Chickamauga Commissioners were held hostage at gunpoint for more than three (3) months by the United States Military as well as kept in a constant state of drunkenness. They were not allowed to leave Washington, D.C. until they signed the Treaty
• Chief Black Fox – Died in 1811
• Thomas Graves not a Chickamauga Chief,
• George Guess – Sequoyah not a Chickamauga Chief,
• Thomas Maw not a Chickamauga Chief – Paid by the United States to promote the Treaty to the Eastern Cherokee,
• George Marvis not a Chickamauga Chief – Claims to have been made Chief in 1830,
• John Looney not a Chickamauga Chief – Voted as the last “Western Cherokee” Chief in 1838 after Chief John Jolly, who did not sign,
• John Rogers Jr. not a Chickamauga Chief but became a Chief in 1839 and was deposed by John Ross in 1839.

1833 – 7 Stat 413: All 4 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; John Jolly, Black Coat, John Rogers, Glass

1835 – 7 Stat 474: All 2 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga; Dutch, David Melton

1835 – 7 Stat 478: All 20 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Major Ridge, James Foster, Tesa-ta-esky, Charles Moore, George Chambers, Tah-yeske, Archilla Smith, Andrew Ross, William Lassley, Cae-te-hee, Te-gah-e-ske, Robert Rogers, John Gunter, John A. Bell, Charles F. Foreman, William Rogers, George W. Adair, Elias Boudinot, James Starr, Jesse Half-breed,

1835 – 7 Stat 487: All 2 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; James Rogers, John Smith.

1836 – 7 Stat 488: All 20 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga; Major Ridge, James Foster, Tah-ye-ske, Long Shell Turtle, John Fields, James Fields, George Welch, Andrew Ross, William Rogers, John Gunter, John A. Bell, Jos. A. Foreman, Robert Sanders, Elias Boudinot, Johnson Rogers, James Starr, Stand Watie, John Ridge, James Rogers, John Smith,

Citizens of The Chickamauga Nation are heirs and descendants of the many Treaties. Definitions of Heirs and Descendants by Cornell Law

heir
An heir is a person who may legally receive property or assets from a deceased person's estate when there is no will or trust in place; this is called dying intestate , and state laws then determine who the heirs are and how the assets are passed down.
There are different types of heirs such as the heir apparent who is the first in line for inheritance , the presumptive heir whose right may be defeated, the adoptive heir who has the same rights as biological children, and the collateral heir who is a blood relative but not a direct descendant .
An heir's rights to an inheritance may be set out in a trust or will, but if there is no estate plan , the heirs are next of kin .
A beneficiary is a person named by the estate owner to receive property or assets from the estate. An heir and a beneficiary are different, as an heir is entitled to inheritance by law if there is no estate plan, but a beneficiary is someone named by the estate owner to receive property or assets.

heirs of the body
Heirs of the body refers to the lineal descendants of one's bloodline, such as children or grandchildren, until such time as there are no direct descendants . The term is intended to distinguish between a person’s natural descendants and the person’s other heirs , such as a spouse. If the bloodline runs out, the property will "revert" to the nearest relative traced back to the original owner.
See also: Lineal descendant

descendant
A descendant is a person born in a direct biological line. For example, a person's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are their descendants. In legal writing , the term "descendant" can have multiple meanings, including those who have been adopted as well as those who are descendants through lineal consanguinity . A person's stepchildren or the stepchildren of the person's descendants are not regarded as "descendants."

inheritors
Inheritors are individuals who are to be given at least some portion if not all of the estate of an ancestor upon the ancestor ’s or benefactor’s death as stated by the ancestor’s or benefactor’s will . Normally, if it is an ancestor, the ancestor is a parent or some other familial close relation as recognized by the laws regarding descent .
However, an individual could also even "inherit" said estate even if there was not a will , but only if those individuals were the legal heirs . Heirs are not necessarily always the same as inheritors. Inheritors are those who are specified in the will and who inherit the estate .
Heirs are individuals who inherit the estate of the deceased individual if the deceased did not leave behind a will . The heirs to an individual are discerned according to the rules regarding descent and distribution . A lineal heir is an individual in a line that descends from the deceased individual or ancestor or individual in question. A collateral heir is an individual who although is not descended from the deceased ancestor, they have some other relation such as an uncle, a sibling, or a cousin.
A simple way to discern the difference is that inheritors can be individuals who are not blood descendants of the deceased individual but are specified in the estate to receive some portion. Heirs are blood descendants of the deceased individual.

collateral descendant
A collateral descendant, also referred to as a collateral heir or collateral kin, descends from the same common ancestor as the decedent , but does not descend directly from the decedent. For example, siblings, cousins, nephews, nieces, aunts, and uncles are collateral descendants, while children and grandchildren are direct descendants.
In most cases involving intestacy , collateral descendants inherit property only if the decedent does not have any living direct descendants, such as children or parents. Some states narrowly limit intestate succession to only those collateral descendants within five degrees of kinship to the decedent. For example, North Carolina prohibits inheritance if a collateral heir is more than five generations removed from the decedent. Under this restriction, persons who are not descended from the deceased’s parents or grandparents are precluded from inheriting any property. By contrast, other states permit inheritance by remote collateral descendants in order to avoid escheat to the state.

succession
Succession, in legal terms, means succeeding to the rights of another. The word commonly refers to the distribution of property under a state's intestate succession laws, which determine who inherits the property when someone dies without a valid will . Succession denotes the transmission of rights and obligations of the deceased to the heirs . It not only includes the rights and obligations left by the deceased at the time of his or her death, but it also includes new charges, rights, and obligations that accrue to the existing ones after opening of the succession.

‍

EXHIBIT I Seeking Spanish Protection

Why did the Chickamauga seek Spanish Protection? The simple answer is that the Chickamauga never trusted the United States to honor its treaty obligations. Beginning in the late 1770s, the Chickamauga, or Lower Town, Cherokee began seeking Spanish protection from the Colonies and settlers, and slowly began immigrating west of the Mississippi River into Louisiana, now known as Southern Missouri and northern Arkansas.

The United States broke 7 Stat. 18 within days by allowing Settlers to illegally cross onto Treaty lands and then send in the militia to protect the settlers in violation of the Treaty. The United States failed to protect the Chickamauga when Spain offered to protect them and provide guns, ammunition, and other supplies, while Spain honored its promises and Treaties.

In the 1790s, the Chickamauga Chiefs, Bloody Fellow, and John Watts were dealing with Baron de Corondelet and signing Treaties with Spain as the Cherokee Nation. This is a simple explanation for the Spanish in calling the Chickamauga “Cherokee.” It is an impossibility for the Spanish to be dealing with the Cherokee Nation at this time because their Chief, Little Turkey, while trying to impress the United States, publicly humiliated the Spanish by calling them out as not being legitimately white, that they were Mulatos, and they are liars who would never tell the truth.

By the turn of the 19th Century, the trickle of Chickamauga immigrating west had become an exodus. Then in 1803, with the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson planned on sending the “Indians” into the vast new purchase.

‍

EXHIBIT J Moving West

Why did the Chickamauga move west? First, the Chickamauga no longer trusted the United States while living in the Southeast. Second, they were never ethnically part of the Cherokee Nation, so they had no historic, cultural, or religious ties that would have kept them near the Cherokee. Third, they were promised protection by the Spanish west of the Mississippi River. Finally, they wanted to have lands where they would not be molested by settlers.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 dramatically changed this for the United States and the Chickamauga. Jefferson was dealing with numerous Lower Town Chiefs, including Tahlonteskee, who in 1809 agreed to a land trade: lands east of the Mississippi for lands west. This land trade agreement serves as the preamble to 7 Stat. 148, the 1817 Treaty.

The Army Corps of Engineers documents the Chickamauga in Missouri and Arkansas.
Final Phase 2 Report: Cultural Affiliation Overview Study. December 2007. Project Number 40704. Contract Number W912EQ-05-P-0153
Pages 4-54 and 4-55
4.9.2 Cultural History
4.9.2.1 Colonial Historic Location West of the Mississippi River
The Cherokee presence west of the Mississippi began during the era of Spanish dominion in the
Louisiana Territory. In 1775, Spanish Lieutenant Govemor Cruzat reported to Governor Luis de Unzaga y Amezaga that Cherokees had driven the miners away from Mine La Motte, fifteen leagues from the Mississippi River settlement of Ste. Genevieve (Houck 19091:100) Shortly after 1785, Cherokee emigrants crossed the Mississippi River to settle the fertile lands along the banks of the St. Francis River. Some were known as Chickamaugas. They were dissatisfied with the Cherokee Treaty of Hopewell, a treaty signed between the new United States and the Cherokees in 1786 Myers 1997: 133). They traveled down the Mississippi River to the mouth of the St. Francis River, traveled up the St. Francis River and established a Cherokee town named Crow Town.

At this time, there was a rendezvous for hunters at L'Anse a la Graisse (GreasY, Cove), renamed Nuevo Madrid (New Madrid) in 1789, a location at which the Mississippi and St. Francis rivers were connected at high water by a chain of lakes and bayous (Myers 1997: 133) Cherokees in the region of New Madrid were said to be protected by the Spanish government when they raided east of the Mississippi River (King 2004:354).

In the late 1780s and early 1790s, several requests were sent by Cherokees to the Spanish government asking permission to emigrate. In 1788, Tourquin sought permission from Spanish authorities at L'Anse al a Graisse to emigrate and Esteban Miro, Commandant General of Louisiana, approved the establishment of up to six villages (Kinnaird 1946-1949, 2:255; Myers 1997 134). A traveler leaving New Madrid in 1793, found three Cherokee families living "just outside of town." In 1794, six or more villages were established "along the banks of the St. Francis River," "in the District of New Madrid," in "pine hills."

Eighteen families crossed the Mississippi and arrived in Cape Girardeau on April 12, 1794 (Houck 1909 II:837). In 1796, ten families led by Connetoo (John Hill), Will Webber (Red Headed Will), and Unacata (White Man Killer) were given permission by the Spanish to settle "about 40 miles west of Memphis" on the St. Francis River after being denied permission by the Quapaws to settle on the Arkansas River (Carter 1934-1969, 1456-57; Myers 1997:143). A tract of land on the St. Francis River was granted to the Cherokees by the Spanish government. A road running north from Arkansas Post to intersect with the old Southwest Trail to St. Louis ran through this town. Some Cherokees and Delaware also moved to a location on the White River (Royce 1975:76) that was north of the Memphis District.

The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program documents the Chickamauga in Missouri and Arkansas.
Logan, Charles Russell (1997); The Promised Land: The Cherokee, Arkansas, and Removal 1794 – 1839, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Pages 5 -

While the discovery of gold in Georgia in effect marked the beginning of the end for the Cherokee Nation in the east, Cherokee hopes for their homeland were doomed as far back as the 1780s. During the ratification process for the U.S. Constitution in the late 1780s, boundaries for the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia were drawn through Cherokee territory as if the tribe didn’t exist. Later, boundaries for the new states of Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama likewise included Cherokee lands, despite the fact that the federal government and the states recognized by various treaties the sovereignty of the tribe.8 Many white settlers showed the same lack of respect for Cherokee territorial claims, encroaching on Cherokee hunting grounds and depleting the game. Often, the Cherokee reaction to the growing white presence was a hostile one. After the American Revolution, in which the tribe sided with the British, bands of Cherokees intermittently warred with the United States. The Spanish encouraged the Cherokees to fight against the Americans, hoping the battles might halt U.S. expansion. The Cherokees
lost most of these small-scale wars, with the defeats typically resulting in the usurping of more tribal land by the United States.9

The myriad pressures led a few Cherokees to look to the trans-Mississippi area for relief. In the 1780s, in search of more abundant game, small numbers of Cherokees began to spend winters hunting in the valleys of the St. Francis, White and Arkansas rivers in Spanish Louisiana.10 Spanish colonial records indicate that the Cherokees traded furs at Arkansas Post in the late 1780s. In the early 1790s, the Cherokees traded exclusively with Carlos de Vilemont, the Arkansas Post commandant during the last decade of Spanish rule.11 In May 1792, a group of Cherokees contacted Estevan Miro, the Spanish governor of the Louisiana Territory, and received permission to settle in Spanish territory west of the Mississippi River.12 The Spanish welcomed Native Americans from eastern tribes as a buffer against attacks from the volatile Osage, who occupied south-central Missouri and western Arkansas. The Quapaw tribe, numbering less than a thousand at this time, was too
decimated by European diseases by the end of the eighteenth century to continue to serve this purpose. As part of this Spanish effort, Louis Lorimier, a Spanish agent, established in the early 1790s a “sizable” Shawnee and Delaware community in the vicinity of Cape Girardeau, Missouri.13 At this time a small group of Cherokees also relocated from the east to the area around New Madrid, a Spanish settlement in southeastern Missouri north of the St. Francis River. More Cherokees followed, settling along the St. Francis River in northeast Arkansas.14 By the turn of the century, perhaps as many as 1,000 Cherokees lived along the river.15 Many of these early emigrants were Chickamauga Cherokees, also known as the Lower Towns Cherokees, who resisted assimilation and sought to retain traditional religious and hunting traditions.

Among the first Cherokee emigrants to settle in Arkansas was a Chickamauga
leader called “the Bowl.” According to a written account by a missionary, in June 1794 a party of white emigrants traveling on rafts encountered a group of Cherokees at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, on the Tennessee River. The white emigrants saw a chance to make money and invited the Indians aboard to trade for goods, including whiskey. The Bowl suspected the pioneers of cheating his men and complained, but he received “no satisfaction.” With tensions high, the pioneers decided a resumption of their journey down the Tennessee might be wise. Three Cherokees dawdled in disembarking and the pioneers attacked them, killing one with a boat pole. The Indians on shore immediately retaliated, firing their rifles at the boat and later boarding it, where they killed all the white men in the party, sparing the women and children. The Bowl realized U.S. authorities would expect “an accounting for this incident,” and he and his followers boarded the rafts and fled down the
Tennessee and Ohio rivers, crossed the Mississippi River, and entered the St. Francis River valley in northeastern Arkansas. The Indians allowed the surviving white women and children and “four faithful black men” to float down the Mississippi to New Orleans, where they reported the "Muscle Shoals massacre."16

After more than 20 years of sporadic warfare with the U.S., in which the
Chickamauga Cherokees played a leading role, the Cherokee council decided to pursue a peace agreement with the Americans. The Cherokees and the U.S. agreed to terms in October 1794, and, with the exception of a faction of the tribe during the Civil War, the Cherokees have not fought a war against the U.S. since. The Muscle Shoals Massacre occurred during the tenuous time between war and peace, and the Cherokee council decided it would be fortuitous to condemn the Bowl and his band in an attempt to disassociate the tribe from the killing of whites. The council ordered the Bowl to return east
to face trial, but he refused, rendering himself and his followers renegades. The Cherokee council’s failure to believe his version of the Muscle Shoals Massacre angered the Bowl, creating the first of many rifts between Cherokees in the east and those in the west. Government officials who investigated the case eventually exonerated the Bowl and his followers, but they did not return to their homelands. Instead, they found the rich soil,
plentiful game and scarcity of white settlers in the St. Francis River valley to their liking. The Bowl’s endorsement of life in Arkansas trickled back to the east through migrating hunting parties and contributed to the continued emigration of Cherokees to the area through the turn of the century.17

The U.S. government’s policy of Indian removal had its genesis during the
administration of Thomas Jefferson. The desire to remove the Indians played a significant role in Jefferson’s decision to pursue the acquisition of a vast territory in the west from the French. Following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Jefferson hoped to lessen the trepidations between white settlers and Indians on the eastern frontier by convincing the Indians to remove west of the Mississippi River. Jefferson saw the Arkansas region of the Louisiana Purchase as an ideal home for the eastern Indians, chiefly because it was
relatively uninhabited. The Osage, who lived in western Arkansas, drove the Caddo out of the state in the 1780s, and the Quapaw did not exist in large enough numbers to pose a hindrance to emigration. Jefferson and his agents worked aggressively to convince the Cherokees to move to Arkansas and the Quapaw and the Osage to leave it.18 As cessions of Cherokee land continued at frequent intervals during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the number of Cherokees emigrating to Arkansas increased. Many of the new arrivals settled further west, between the Arkansas and White river valleys. The Cherokee population in this region grew so rapidly that in 1805 John B. Treat opened a trading post at Spadra Bluff, near present-day Clarksville, to serve the emigrants. A land cession obtained by the federal government from the Osages in 1808 (negotiated in St. Louis by William Clark, the renowned explorer) opened vast tracts of land in the northwest part of the state. Between 1809 and 1812, approximately 2,000 Cherokees settled along the White River and in the Arkansas River valley upstream from Little Rock.19

The Arkansas River valley in this area was fertile, the tributaries north of the river were full of fish, the mountains provided ideal areas for hunting and gathering, and the terrain looked much like the Cherokee homelands in the east.20 Despite these attractive selling points, Jefferson’s Indian agents were not above using chicanery to entice Cherokees to emigrate. The agents encouraged government traders to keep Cherokees in debt as a way of more easily obtaining their land. They also wantonly bribed Indian leaders
in an effort to convince them to sign away more territory.21

The most prominent of the Indian agents during this period was Return J. Meigs, who tirelessly promoted voluntary removal. His double-dealing was instrumental in securing numerous land cessions from Lower Towns Cherokees in 1805 and 1806, which he obtained by granting “special considerations” to town leaders such as Doublehead and Tolontuskee. The leaders of the Upper Towns were furious about the selling or trading of
more Cherokee land to whites, which violated a Cherokee tribal edict, and they contemplated enforcing the death penalty for the transgressions. Later, the Upper Towns chiefs learned that, in exchange for a cession, the U.S. secretly gave Doublehead a “reservation” at Muscle Shoals, where government officials hoped he would establish a village dedicated to the modes of modern civilization. Doublehead never had the opportunity to build this village; he was assassinated in August 1807 by, among others, the
Ridge, who later became one of the Cherokee’s most powerful leaders and played a significant role in Cherokee politics and culture during the 1810s, 1820s and 1830s.

Tolontuskee, Doublehead’s brother, also faced accusations of selling land to whites, but he denied it and continued to live on the land he ceded to prove his innocence. Meigs later wrote of Tolontuskee that he was “void of every principle of honesty,” but he became Meigs’ most valuable ally in the push for removal.22 Doublehead’s assassination revealed the extent of the enmity between the Upper and Lower Towns. The murder had the effect intended by the Upper Towns chiefs, almost stopping the cessions. Because of this, the number of Cherokees removing west in 1807 and 1808 dropped considerably. With removal at a standstill, Meigs began to doubt that coerced emigration was the only way to solve the “Indian question.” In a dispatch to the secretary of war, Meigs reported that “some mixed bloods” in the Nation had turned to
farming and husbandry with great success. He noted that a few “collected property,” which he considered a sign of growing civilization. Meigs also wrote of his belief that Cherokee inter-marriage with whites would one day cause the Cherokees as a people to “disappear.” This latter notion disturbed Meigs, and he was “torn between assimilation and preservation of tribal identity.” Eventually, though, the hostile factionalism among the Cherokees and the continued intrusions by whites into Cherokee hunting grounds ended Meigs’ ambivalence. “It is my opinion that there never will be quietness on any of these frontiers untill the Indians are removed over the Mississippi,” Meigs wrote from the Cherokee Agency in Tennessee in 1808.23

To rekindle interest in removal, for the first time federal authorities allowed Meigs to suggest exchanges of land in the east for land in the west. Indian agents also began to offer to pay emigration costs for Cherokees favoring Arkansas colonization. Rather than consider the new proposals, leaders of the agrarian-minded Upper Towns asked President Jefferson for individual land ownership in the east and the opportunity to seek U.S. citizenship. Jefferson, the proponent of agrarian democracy, was sympathetic to the aspirations of the Upper Towns, but his more immediate concern was the hunting-oriented
Lower Towns, whom he believed would continue to cause difficulties on the eastern frontier until they removed west. Thus, in his January 9, 1809, letter to Cherokee chiefs, Jefferson suggested the Lower Towns Cherokees “reconnoitre ... the Arkansas and White Rivers -- and the higher up the better.” If they “found a tract of country suiting,” Jefferson added, they might “exchange” equal amounts of their eastern lands for it.24 A Cherokee delegation, sponsored by the government, visited Arkansas in the summer of 1809 and returned with favorable reviews of the area.25

In September 1809, in an effort to restore harmony between the Upper and Lower Towns, chiefs from both regions met in council at Williston, Alabama, and selected a committee of chiefs to direct the nation’s business. The idea behind the formation of the committee was to keep individual Cherokees from making deals on their own to cede tracts of tribal land. The attempt at tribal unity and the agreement for strict monitoring of all land deals threatened to thwart several years of Meigs’ work. However, he still had support from
Tolontuskee, who remained convinced that removal was best for his people. In 1808, Tolontuskee wrote Jefferson of his determination “to cross the river towards the West. Our bad brothers may dispute, but with me 12 towns go.”26 He kept his word, and in 1809 he presented Meigs with a list of more than 1,000 Cherokees for removal. On the cusp of his first large-scale success, Meigs discovered the money he promised for removal was not forthcoming; James Madison’s presidential administration altered Jefferson’s Indian policy,
adopting a more “cautious” approach, including a withdrawal of Jefferson’s promise to pay for removals. Tolontuskee and some 1,200 Cherokees nevertheless emigrated to Arkansas at their own expense. The group took with it more than 1,000 cattle, hundreds of horses and pigs, and dozens of spinning wheels, looms and plows. The party also included 68 black slaves. Meigs’ only provisions to the emigrants were a blanket to each traveler and a gun to each man.27

Most of Tolontuskee’s people traveled by flatboat down the Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi rivers and settled in makeshift camps near the villages of the “St. Francis” Cherokees. They drove their livestock “straight overland,” probably crossing the Mississippi River into Arkansas from Lower Chickasaw Bluff, site of present-day Memphis.28 Among the group were many of the Lower Towns’ poorer members, and they struggled to survive on the limited resources Tolontuskee could provide. Since the flight of the Bowl in 1794, the eastern Cherokees tended to view their western counterparts with disdain. In 1808, eastern Cherokees exacerbated the rift between the two factions by refusing to share annuities from treaties. This left the Cherokees already residing in Arkansas little to share with the new arrivals. Tolontuskee petitioned Meigs for relief. With this denied, he then requested a trade of his lands in Alabama for property along the Arkansas River, where he and his people might settle permanently.29 His pleas were to no avail. The Arkansas Tolontuskee and his followers found in 1810 was far from “the promised land of the Cherokee future" he would later claim it to be.30

By 1811, however, the Cherokees who emigrated to Arkansas had started to
experience better times. They cultivated corn, raised cattle and hogs, wove clothing from their own looms and hunted buffalo on the prairie to the west. An influx of white settlers to the St. Francis area was a source of consternation, as were raids by Osage warriors in the west. Yet, for the most part, the western Cherokees were beginning to thrive in their new home when, in late 1811 and early 1812, disaster struck. The New Madrid earthquake and
its aftershocks lowered the land level of areas adjacent to the St. Francis River’s flood plain, inundating with water and destroying most of the Cherokee villages there. Nearly all the Cherokees abandoned their homes and fled west to join their tribesmen living between the White and Arkansas rivers. The Bowl, also known as Duwali, moved his people south of the Arkansas River, settling west of the Petit Jean River in what today is northern Yell County.31 Tolontuskee settled along Illinois Bayou, north of the Arkansas River near what is today Russellville.32 The disaster left the St. Francis Cherokees in “distress” and short of food. In desperation, they petitioned the U.S. War Department for an Indian agent who might voice their dire predicament to Washington. In January 1813, the department appointed William Lewis Lovely to the position.33 He established his post about a mile up Illinois Bayou on the north side of the Arkansas River opposite Dardanelle Rock.34 Lovely soon grew fond of his new surroundings, calling the area “the Garden of the World.”35

The assignment of Lovely as their agent was fortuitous for the Cherokees. Lovely, who had spent some time negotiating cessions in the east, was already friendly with many of the Indians, such as Tolontuskee, who in March 1813 even asked Lovely’s help in courting a woman. The agent tended to sympathize with the Cherokees in disputes with the Osage and with white settlers. This latter inclination was particularly important because in 1812 Congress created the Missouri Territory, which included the “county” of Arkansas, effectively bringing the Cherokees under U.S. civil law. Many of the whites who inhabited Arkansas at this time had moved west of the Mississippi to escape living under U.S. law and hence were not inclined to follow it when dealing with the Cherokees. Lovely wrote to William Clark in St. Louis requesting two companies of troops to protect the Cherokees,
adding “there are some whites of the worst character in this country whose influence with the Indians is dangerous to the peace of the land.” Whites resented Lovely’s loyalties and wrote Congress about the matter, claiming that Lovely was a drunk.36

Lovely spent most of his time mediating land disputes between whites and other Indians and attempting with little success to keep the peace between the Cherokee and the Osage. In the summer of 1816, Lovely persuaded the Osage to make a cession of territory north of the Arkansas River and west to the Verdigris River, which runs south out of present-day Kansas and joins the Arkansas River east of present-day Tulsa. Previously, Cherokee hunting parties and herders had to trespass on Osage land to reach the prairie, which often led to violence. The cession, called Lovely’s Purchase, in theory provided the Cherokees with long-desired access to the game and grasslands of the prairie.

Unfortunately, Lovely contracted a fever and died on February 24, 1817, and the peace he brokered disintegrated into a series of retaliatory and murderous raids by both tribes. Tolontuskee and his war chief, Takatoka, formed a coalition of Quapaw, Shawnee, Delaware and Choctaw to check the Osage “menace.” The western Cherokees’ legacy of cooperation with the late Lovely caused the U.S. government to lean toward the Cherokee side of the feud, and they prepared for a full-scale war with William Clark’s approval. Warriors from the east moved west to join Takatoka’s growing force. Armed with cannon and possessed of gunnery skills acquired while fighting with Andrew Jackson against the Red Stick Creeks in 1813-1814, the allied Cherokee army overwhelmed Clermont’s band of Osage in August 1817 in a battle on the Grand River, or what is today called the Neosho River in northeastern Oklahoma. The victory did not bring peace, however, as the Cherokee and Osage continued to fight until the mid-1820s. The balance of power in
western Arkansas, though, clearly shifted in favor of the Cherokees.37

With the Osage temporarily at bay, Tolontuskee and other Cherokee leaders in the west turned their attention to securing legitimate title to a reservation before whites claimed their land. The Arkansas chiefs also desired a federal trading factory to frustrate duplicitous private traders from St. Louis who often cheated the Cherokees, and they wanted a U.S. military post on their western border to maintain peace between the Cherokees, the Osage and the white settlers.38 Repeatedly, government officials told the Arkansas Cherokees that their sole chance for a deal rested in the exchange of land in the east for land in the west. However, by 1816, the Madison administration’s tactics had failed to produce a large land swap and emigration had slowed to a trickle following the departure of Tolontuskee’s group in 1809. Frustrated with the slow progress of removal, William Crawford, Madison’s secretary of war, wrote to Meigs in 1816 that he believed seizure by force of the eastern
Cherokee lands was a simple alternative to cessions, although he admitted such an action would be “abhorrent to the feelings of an enlightened and benevolent nation ... .”39

NOTES:
9. Robert Paul Markham, “The Arkansas Cherokees: 1817-1828,” diss., University of Oklahoma,
1872, 4-5, Beaumont Memorial Library, Harding University.
10. George Sabo III, Paths of Our Children: Historic Indians of Arkansas, Arkansas Archeological
Survey Popular Series No. 3 (Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1992) 96.
11. Gilbert C. Din, “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Indian Trade in Spanish Arkansas,”
Cultural Encounters in the Early South: Indians and Europeans in Arkansas, ed. Jeannie Whayne
(Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 1995) 116-117.
12. Markham 7.
13. Willard H. Rollings, “Living in a Graveyard: Native Americans in Colonial Arkansas,” Cultural
Encounters in the Early South: Indians and Europeans in Arkansas, ed. Jeannie Whayne
(Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 1995) 57-60.
14. Markham 7.
15. Sabo 96.
16. Markham 5, 8.
17. Emmet Starr, Cherokees West, 1794-1839 (Oklahoma City: Printers Publishing Co., 1910) 19-
22, Special Collections Division, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville; Markham 8-9.
18. Rollings 57-60.
19. Sabo 96-98; Markham 17.
20. Hester A. Davis, “The Cherokee in Arkansas: An Invisible Archeological Resource,” Visions
and Revisions: Ethnohistoric Perspectives on Southern Cultures, eds. George Sabo III and William
M. Schneider, Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 20, series ed. Mary W. Helms
(Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1987) 50.
21. Stan Hoig, Night of the Cruel Moon: Cherokee Removal and the Trail of Tears (New York: Facts
on File, Inc., 1996) 17.
22. Markham 11-13, 18; Hoig, Night of the Cruel Moon, 18.
23. Markham 18-20; Hoig, Night of the Cruel Moon, 18.
24. Markham 21-23.
25. “Some went West long before the rest,” Past Times, August 1990: 12.
26. Hoig, Night of the Cruel Moon, 18.
27. John P. Brown, Old Frontiers: The Story of the Cherokee Indians from Earliest Times to the
Date of Their Removal to the West, 1838 (Kingsport, Tennessee: Southern Publishers, Inc., 1938)
471, Cherokee National Historical Society Archives; Markham 25-27; Hoig, Night of the Cruel
Moon, 19.
28. Hoig, Night of the Cruel Moon, 19.
29. Markham 27-30.
30. Sabo 99.
31. Markham 31-35.
32. Sabo 98.
33. Markham 36.
34. Davis 50.
35. Markham 41.
36. Markham 36-38, 40.
37. Markham 52, 54, 56-57.
38. Markham 59.
39. Markham 65.

‍

EXHIBIT K A Tribe by Any Other Name is Still the Same

Why were the Chickamauga known by so many names? As has been discussed, it was, for the most part, out of laziness or misunderstanding. As traders, the Chickamauga were known along the Mississippi River, the Ohio River, the Cumberland River, the Tennessee River, the Holston River, and the Savannah River drainage basins. As members of various confederacies, the Chickamauga were known throughout the eastern, northern, southern, and southwest regions of what would become the United States. In the Southeast Woodlands, speakers of the Cherokee Trade Language were simply known as Lower Town Cherokee.

While the United States government called the Chickamauga various names, as documented in the National Archives, the names Lower Towns, Chickamauga, and the Cherokee Nation were most used. The official use of Chickamauga should have taken place after George Washington’s Fourth Annual Address to Congress in 1792, but it never overcame the general use of the term Cherokee by the military of other Tribes.

The name of the Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee took a dramatic transition in the early 1800s. The Chickamauga or Lower Town Cherokee existed on both sides of the Mississippi River. Those who remained on the east side were relatively well-to-do and were landed, hoping their way of life would last. Those who immigrated west, though not ethnically Cherokee, became pariahs and were ostracized.

After the immigration west, the United States government began identifying the Chickamauga as a separate people, the Western Cherokee. There were other names shared by the Chickamauga from the late 1700s to the early 1800s. They were sometimes called the Red Stick Cherokee (Red Stick Wars) or the Arkansas Cherokee (those who immigrated to Arkansas). The Texas Cherokee, another name given to the Chickamauga, were lineal descendants of the Lower Towns in that Chief Dawali Boles took his bands with him to , North, East, and Central Texas.

The Chickamauga were never able to retain their true name because others, including the United States and the Cherokee Nation, sought to have it removed from history.

The name Western Cherokee stuck for a while, until the United States again changed how it identified the Chickamauga. Sometime in the 1820s, the term Old Settlers was used to identify those who were in Arkansas prior to 1819.

Another name the United States used to further divide the Chickamauga was the Treaty Party, which began in 1835. These were the Chickamauga, or Lower Town Cherokee, who remained east; the well-to-do, or landed Chickamauga, who realized that John Ross was not the savior and that “Indian Removal” was going to happen.

Within the matter of sixty (60) years from 1775 to 1835, the United States government used the practices of eliminating or changing the name of the Chickamauga from Chickamauga to Lower Town Cherokee, Cherokee Nation, Red Stick Cherokee, Arkansas Cherokee, Western Cherokee, Old Settler Cherokee, Treaty Party Cherokee, and other lesser-known names.

‍

EXHIBIT L Chickamauga and Cherokee Are Legally Not the Same

Are the Chickamauga and Cherokee legally the same Tribe? History and Archaeology proves the Chickamauga are not ethnically, culturally, socially, or religiously connected with the Cherokee, but the Chickamauga are listed as Cherokee in Treaty because of their linguistic affiliation with the Cherokee Trade Language. The evidence is overwhelming that the Chickamauga are included in the Treaties with the United States because they spoke Erate, the Southern Dialect of the Cherokee Trade Language.

Legal documents like treaties serve as prima facia evidence, superseding arguments based solely on cultural similarities. This distinction aligns with the principles established in Montoya v United States (1901) No. 43 and Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955) 348 U.S. 900.

The Chickamauga Nation is not part of the Cherokee Nation as documented in Laws of the Cherokee Nation LCN. https://www.chickamauganation.com/post/laws-of-the-cherokee-nation-making-it-illegal-to-be-outside-of-jurisdiction

The Chickamauga Nation is not part of the Cherokee Nation, as documented by Rennard Strickland. https://www.chickamauganation.com/post/fire-and-spirits-strickland-rennard-1975-law-from-clan-to-court

The Chickamauga is not part of the Cherokee Nation, according to a Federal Lawsuit filed by the Cherokee Nation on July 19, 2019, one day after the National Executive Chief of The Chickamauga Nation met with the Legal Counsel of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in Washington, DC. www.chickamauganation.com/post/the-lower-towns-are-not-part-of-the-cherokee-nation-according-to-federal-lawsuit-filed-by-the-cherokee-nation-on-july-19-2019

The Chickamauga Nation is not part of the Cherokee Nation as documented LCN-Laws of the Cherokee Nation https://www.chickamauganation.com/post/laws-of-the-cherokee-nation-making-it-illegal-to-be-outside-of-jurisdiction

The Chickamauga Nation is not part of the Cherokee Nation, as documented by Rennard Strickland https://www.chickamauganation.com/post/fire-and-spirits-strickland-rennard-1975-law-from-clan-to-court

The Chickamauga Nation is not part of the Cherokee Nation, according to a Federal Lawsuit filed by the Cherokee Nation on July 19, 2019, one day after the National Executive Chief of The Chickamauga Nation met with the Legal Counsel of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in Washington, DC. www.chickamauganation.com/post/the-lower-towns-are-not-part-of-the-cherokee-nation-according-to-federal-lawsuit-filed-by-the-cherokee-nation-on-july-19-2019

Fire and the Spirits Page 225 – 188. A Resolution passed on October 31, 1829. Provisions relating to Citizens removing to Arkansas: (1) enrolled emigrants shall be treated as noncitizens; (2) sale of property to enrolled emigrants shall exclude seller from right to hold office as well as fine and lashes; (3) enrolled emigrants are intruders and must remove within 15 days. LCN 139-141.

The Constitution and Laws of the Cherokee Nation 1839 – 1851 – Page 45
Resolved by the National Council, That Alexander Foreman be, and he is hereby appointed and authorized to collect all public papers and records of the Later Western Cherokee Nation, and deliver the same to the National Council at its next session. Approved – JNO Ross.

Fire and Spirits Page 101 –
The provisions of Cherokee law that no Indian "shall possess. . . right nor power to dispose of their improvements in any manner whatever to the United States, individual states, nor individual citizens" was intended to exclude Cherokees who had migrated to Arkansas from ownership of property in the "old nation" in Georgia.117 The policy of discouraging migration became so strong that the National Committee and Council enacted a bill providing that "if any citizen of this Nation, shall bind themselves by enrollment or otherwise as emigrants to Arkansas [he] shall forfeit . . . all rights and privileges . . . as citizens of this Nation."118 The social purpose of this act is demonstrated by a decision of the Cherokee Supreme Court in 1830. An old Cherokee named Dark Horse who had four sons provided that each should have a part of the large estate that he had accumulated during his lifetime. However, the court refused to honor the will, which provided for equal distribution of land and divided the property between two sons who remained in the eastern Cherokee lands.119 The court reflected the attitude of Elias Boudinot in a Cherokee Phoenix editorial explaining the relationship with the Western, or Arkansas, Cherokees: "They are our brothers. But they have left us [and] have rights in their own country. They are citizens of another Nation."120
117 LCN 119, also consider LCN 139-140.
118 LCN 139-140.
119 Cherokee Phoenix, March 14, 1830.
120 Ibid., March 18, 1829.

Fire and Spirits Page 87 –
Park Hill Press was established by the Chickamauga in 1835. Chickamauga Chief John Jolly signs this document in Tahlonteskee, Indian Territory (Modern Day, Gore, Oklahoma). This, along with thousands of other documents, was stolen from the Chickamauga government by John Ross’ government in 1840.

In accordance with LCN, there are NO Cherokee West of the Mississippi until 1839. Then, they were not given political status by the Indian Removal Act; they were only ethnic Cherokee according to the Laws of the Cherokee Nation, and Chief John Ross admitted their ancient Council Fires were extinguished when they crossed the Mississippi River.

‍

EXHIBIT M Not Ethnically But Politically Cherokee – Big Difference

Since the Chickamauga are not ethnically Cherokee, what do the Treaties mean? The Chickamauga are not Cherokee, and the Treaties are addressed to the Chickamauga as Cherokee, so what does that mean? It actually goes to prove that the Chickamauga are a Federally Recognized Tribe in accordance with the United States' legal requirements for what constitutes a Federally Recognized Tribe.

First, the Citizens of The Chickamauga Nation have “Heir and Descendant” rights since most of the Citizens are related to signers of the Treaties. Second, the Citizens of The Chickamauga Nation are a Political Entity according to the United States Supreme Court and the Department of the Interior’s political categories of Cherokee. Legally, the Citizens of The Chickamauga Nation are part of a Tribe which is, by definition, Category 4 Cherokee, thus a political entity.

On April 13, 1844, the Principal Chief John Rogers, while addressing Congress (https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9468&context=indianserialset) provided evidence of the various name changes.

Distinguishing from Cherokee: Legal documents like treaties serve as prima facia evidence, superseding arguments based solely on cultural similarities. This distinction aligns with the principles established in Montoya v United States (1901) No. 43 and Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955) 348 U.S. 900.

Drake documented for Congress that the Chickamauga Nation is not part of the Cherokee Nation.

The United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs has identified four (4) “Categories” of Cherokee. Politically, The Chickamauga Nation is a Category 4 Cherokee as defined by the Department of the Interior and is Federally Recognized under treaty as politically Cherokee, not ethnically Cherokee.

Congress identifies The Chickamauga Nation as a political, treaty-writing Tribe by identifying them as Cherokee in more than 22 treaties.

The Department of the Interior lists categories for Cherokee, of which The Chickamauga Nation must be classified as Category 4 as a political entity. The Department of the Interior has determined that there are four (4) political categories of Cherokee. Category 4 was established to identify all “Cherokee” not included in Categories 1, 2, and 3. As a political entity that has been identified by the United States government as Cherokee, it is imperative that the United States government recognize The Chickamauga Nation as Category 4 Cherokee and place The Chickamauga Nation on the list of Federally Recognized Tribes.

‍

Part 2 Determining The Chickamauga Nation is Federally Recognized by United States Treaties, Statutes and Codes, and Supreme Court Rulings

OVERVIEW
Chronological Order

EXHIBIT 1 1786 – Article 1 Section 8 –

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

‍

EXHIBIT 2 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.”

‍

EXHIBIT 3 Article 1 Section 8 and Article 6 Section 2 when taken together:

Therefore, Article 1, Section 8 specifically grants Congress the power and authority to execute the Laws of the Union, including Treaties with the Indians, which are the Supreme Law of the Land according to Article 6, Section 2.

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 accordance with 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.

‍

EXHIBIT 4 1785 - 7 Stat 18 Treaty, Article 3, Article 5, and Article 12

Article 3: The said Indians for themselves and their respective tribes and towns do acknowledge all the Cherokees to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.

Article 5: If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall attempt to settle on any of the lands westward or southward of the said boundary which are hereby allotted to the Indians for their hunting grounds, or having already settled and will not remove from the same within six months after the ratification of this treaty, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him or not as they please

Article 12: That the Indians may have full confidence in the justice of the United States, respecting their interests, they shall have the right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.

- At Least 28 of the 37 (73%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 5 1791 – 7 Stat 39 Treaty, Article 2

Article 2: The undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, for themselves and all parts of the Cherokee nation, do acknowledge themselves and the said Cherokee nation, to be under the protection of the said United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever; and they also stipulate that the said Cherokee nation will not hold any treaty with any foreign power, individual state, or with individuals of any state.

- At Least 37 of the 41 (90%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 6 1792 - 7 Stat 42

It is hereby mutually agreed between Henry Knox, Secretary of War, duly authorized thereto in behalf of the United States, on the one part, and the undersigned chiefs and warriors, in behalf of themselves and the Cherokee nation, on the other part, that the following article shall be added to and considered as part of the treaty made between the United States and the said Cherokee nation on the second day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; to wit:

The sum to be paid annually by the United States to the Cherokee nation of Indians, in consideration of the relinquishment of land, as stated in the treaty made with them on the second day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, shall be one thousand five hundred dollars instead of one thousand dollars, mentioned in the said treaty.

- All 6 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 7 1792 November 6 - George Washington's 4th Annual Address to Congress

A part of the Cherokees, known by the name of Chickamagas, inhabiting five villages on the Tennessee river, have been long in the practice of committing depredations on the neighboring settlements.

It was hoped that the treaty of Holston, made with the Cherokee nation in July 1791, would have prevented a repetition of such depredations. But the event has not answered this hope. The Chickamagas, aided by some banditti of another tribe in their vicinity, have recently perpetrated wanton and unprovoked hostilities upon the citizens of the United States in that quarter. The information which has been received on this subject will be laid before you. Hitherto defensive precautions only have been strictly enjoined and observed.

It is not understood that any breach of Treaty, or aggression whatsoever, on the part of the United States, or their citizens, is even alleged as a pretext for the spirit of hostility in this quarter.

‍

EXHIBIT 8 1792 November 28 – George Washington to the Senate and the House of Representatives Requests the Congress to determine War or Peace with the Chickamauga.

‍

EXHIBIT 9 1794 - 7 Stat 43 Article 1 and Article 3

Article 1: And whereas the undersigned Henry Knox, Secretary for the department of War, being authorized thereto by the President of the United States, in behalf of the said United States, and the undersigned Chiefs and Warriors, in their own names, and in behalf of the whole Cherokee nation, are desirous of re-establishing peace and friendship between the said parties in a permanent manner, Do hereby declare, that the said treaty of Holston is, to all intents and purposes, in full force and binding upon the said parties, as well in respect to the boundaries therein mentioned as in all other respects whatever.

Article 3: The United States, to evince their justice by amply compensating the said Cherokee nation of Indians for all relinquishments of land made either by the treaty of Hopewell upon the Keowee river, concluded on the twenty-eighth of November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five, or the aforesaid treaty made upon Holston river, on the second of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, do hereby stipulate, in lieu of all former sums to be paid annually to furnish the Cherokee Indians with goods suitable for their use, to the amount of five thousand dollars yearly.

- All 6 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 10 1798 - 7 Stat 62 Article 2, Article 3, and Article 6

Article 2: The treaties subsisting between the present contracting parties, are acknowledged to be of full and operating force; together with the construction and usage under their respective articles, and so to continue.

Article 3: The limits and boundaries of the Cherokee nation, as stipulated and marked by the existing treaties between the parties, shall be and remain the same, where not altered by the present treaty.

Article 6: In consideration of the relinquishment and cession hereby made, the United States upon signing the present treaty shall cause to be delivered to the Cherokees, goods, wares and merchandise, to the amount of five thousand dollars, and shall cause to be delivered, annually, other goods to the amount of one thousand dollars, in addition to the annuity already provided for; and will continue the guarantee of the remainder of their country forever, as made and contained in former treaties.

- At Least 37 of the 39 (95%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 11 1804 - 7 Stat 288 Article 2

Article 2: For, and in consideration of, the relinquishment and cession, as expressed in the first article, the United States, upon signing the present Treaty, shall cause to be delivered to the Cherokees, useful goods, wares, and merchandise, to the amount of the five thousand dollars, or that sum in money, at the option (timely signified) of the Cherokees, and shall, also, cause to be delivered, annually, to them, other useful goods to the amount of one thousand dollars, or money to that amount, at the option of the Cherokees, timely notice thereof being given, in addition to the annuity, heretofore stipulated, and to be delivered at the usual time of their receiving their annuity.

- All 10 (100%) of the Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 12 1804 - 7 Stat 93 Article 1 and Article 3

Article 1: All former treaties, which provide for the maintenance of peace and preventing of crimes, are on this occasion recognized and continued in force.

Article 3: In consideration of the above cession and relinquishment, the United States agree to pay immediately three thousand dollars in valuable merchandise, and eleven thousand dollars within ninety days after the ratification of this treaty, and also an annuity of three thousand dollars, the commencement of which is this day. But so much of the said eleven thousand dollars, as the said Cherokee may agree to accept in useful articles of, and machines for, agriculture and manufactures, shall be paid in those articles, at their option.

- All 33 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 13 1805 - 7 Stat 95 Article 1 and Article 3

Article 1: Whereas it has been represented by the one party to the other that the section of land on which the garrison of South West Point stands, and which extends to Kingston, is likely to be a desirable place for the assembly of the state of Tennessee to convene at (a committee from that body now in session having viewed the situation) now the Cherokees being possessed of a spirit of conciliation, and seeing that this tract is desired for public purposes, and not for individual advantages, (reserving the ferries to themselves,) quit claim and cede to the United States the said section of land, understanding at the same time, that the buildings erected by the public are to belong to the public, as well as the occupation of the same, during the pleasure of the government; we also cede to the United States the first island in the Tennessee, above the mouth of Clinch.

Article 3: In consideration of the above cession and relinquishment, the United States agree to pay to the said Cherokee Indians sixteen hundred dollars in money, or useful merchandise at their option, within ninety days after the ratification of this treaty.

- All 14 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 14 1806 - 7 Stat 101

- All 17 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 15 1807 - 7 Stat 103

- All 5 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 16 1809 – Thomas Jefferson Land Trade with The Chickamauga – Prologue and Preamble to 1817 - 7 Stat 156

Prologue: Articles of a treaty concluded, at the Cherokee Agency, within the Cherokee nation, between major general Andrew Jackson, Joseph M'Minn, governor of the state of Tennessee, and general David Meriwether, commissioners plenipotentiary of the United States of America, of the one part, and the chiefs, head men and warriors, of the Cherokee nation, east of the Mississippi river, and the chiefs, head men, and warriors, of the Cherokees on the Arkansas river, and their deputies, John D. Chisholm and James Rogers, duly authorized by the chiefs of the Cherokees on the Arkansas river, in open council, by written power of attorney, duly signed and executed, in presence of Joseph Sevier and William Ware.

Preamble: WHEREAS in the autumn of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, a deputation from the Upper and Lower Cherokee towns, duly authorized by their nation, went on to the city of Washington, the first named to declare to the President of the United States their anxious desire to engage in the pursuits of agriculture and civilized life in the country they then occupied, and to make known to the President of the United States the impracticability of inducing the nation at large to do this, and to request the establishment of a division line between the upper and lower towns, so as to include all the waters of the Hiwassee river to the upper town, that, by thus contracting their society within narrow limits, they proposed to begin the establishment of fixed laws and a regular government: The deputies from the lower towns to make known their desire to continue the hunter life, and also the scarcity of game where they then lived, and, under those circumstances, their wish to remove across the Mississippi river, on some vacant lands of the United States. And whereas the President of the United States, after maturely considering the petitions of both parties, on the ninth day of January, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and nine, including other subjects, answered those petitions as follows: "The United States, my children, are the friends of both parties, and, as far as can be reasonably asked, they are willing to satisfy the wishes of both. Those who remain may be assured of our patronage, our aid and good neighborhood. Those who wish to remove, are permitted to send an exploring party to reconnoitre the country on the waters of the Arkansas and White rivers, and the higher up the better, as they will be the longer unapproached by our settlements, which will begin at the mouths of those rivers. The regular districts of the government of St. Louis are already laid off to the St. Francis.

"When this party shall have found a tract of country suiting the emigrants, and not claimed by other Indians, we will arrange with them and you the exchange of that for a just portion of the country they leave, and to a part of which, proportioned to their numbers, they have a right. Every aid towards their removal, and what will be necessary for them there, will then be freely administered to them; and when established in their new settlements, we shall still consider them as our children, give them the benefit of exchanging their peltries for what they will want at our factories, and always hold them firmly by the hand."

And whereas the Cherokees, relying on the promises of the President of the United States, as above recited, did explore the country on the west side of the Mississippi, and made choice of the country on the Arkansas and White rivers, and settled themselves down upon United States lands, to which no other tribe of Indians have any just claim and have duly notified the President of the United States thereof, and of their anxious desire for the full and complete ratification of his promise, and, to that end, as notified by the President of the United States, have sent on their agents, with full powers to execute a treaty, relinquishing to the United States all the right, title, and interest, to all lands of right to them belonging, as part of the Cherokee nation, which they have left, and which they are about to leave, proportioned to their numbers, including, with those now on the Arkansas, those who are about to remove thither, and to a portion of which they have an equal right agreeably to their numbers.

Now, know ye that the contracting parties, to carry into full effect the before recited promises with good faith, and to promote a continuation of friendship with their brothers on the Arkansas river, and for that purpose to make an equal distribution of the annuities secured to be paid by the United States to the whole Cherokee nation, have agreed and concluded on the following articles, viz:

‍

EXHIBIT 17 1816 - 7 Stat 138

- At Least 3 of the 6 (50%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 18 1816 - 7 Stat 139

- At Least 3 of the 6 (50%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 19 1816 - 7 Stat 148 – Preamble and Article 1

Preamble: To perpetuate peace and friendship between the United States and Cherokee tribe, or nation, of Indians, and to remove all future causes of dissension which may arise from indefinite territorial boundaries, the president of the United States of America, by major general Andrew Jackson, general David Meriwether, and Jesse Franklin esquire, commissioners plenipotentiary on the one part, and the Cherokee delegates on the other, covenant and agree to the following articles and conditions, which, when approved by the Cherokee nation, and constitutionally ratified by the government of the United States, shall be binding on all parties:

Article 1: Peace and friendship are hereby firmly established between the United States and Cherokee nation or tribe of Indians.

- All 16 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 20 1817 – 7 Stat 156 Prologue, Preamble,

Article 3: It is also stipulated by the contracting parties, that a census shall be taken of the whole Cherokee nation, during the month of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, in the following manner, viz: That the census of those on the east side of the Mississippi river, who declare their intention of remaining, shall be taken by a commissioner appointed by the President of the United States, and a commissioner appointed by the Cherokees on the Arkansas river; and the census of the Cherokees on the Arkansas river, and those removing there, and who, at that time, declare their intention of removing there, shall be taken by a commissioner appointed by the President of the United States, and one appointed by the Cherokees east of the Mississippi river.

Article 5: The United States bind themselves in exchange for the lands ceded in the first and second articles hereof, to give to that part of the Cherokee nation on the Arkansas as much land on said river and White river as they have or may hereafter receive from the Cherokee nation east of the Mississippi, acre for acre, as the just proportion due that part of the nation on the Arkansas agreeably to their numbers; which is to commence on the north side of the Arkansas river at the mouth of Point Remove or Budwell's Old Place; thence, by a straight line, northwardly, to strike Chataunga mountain, or the hill first above Shield's Ferry on White river, running up and between said rivers for complement, the banks of which rivers to be the lines; and to have the above line, from the point of beginning to the point on White river, run and marked, which shall be done soon after the ratification of this treaty; and all citizens of the United States, except. P. Lovely, who is to remain where she lives during life, removed from within the bounds as above named. And it is further stipulated, that the treaties heretofore between the Cherokee nation and the United States are to continue in full force with both parts of the nation, and both parts thereof entitled to all the immunities and privilege which the old nation enjoyed under the aforesaid treaties; the United States reserving the right of establishing factories, a military post, and roads within the boundaries above defined.

Article 6: The United States do also bind themselves to give to all the poor warriors who may remove to the western side of the Mississippi river, one rifle gun and ammunition, one blanket, and one brass kettle, or, in lieu of the brass kettle, a beaver trap, which is to be considered as a full compensation for the improvements which they may leave; which articles are to be delivered at such point as the President of the United States may direct: and to aid in the removal of the emigrants, they further agree to furnish flat bottomed boats and provisions sufficient for that purpose: and to those emigrants whose improvements add real value to their lands, the United States agree to pay a full valuation for the same, which is to be ascertained by a commissioner appointed by the President of the United States for that purpose, and paid for as soon after the ratification of this treaty as practicable. The boats and provisions promised to the emigrants are to be furnished by the agent on the Tennessee river, at such time and place as the emigrants may notify him of; and it shall be his duty to furnish the same.

Article 9: It is also provided by the contracting parties, that nothing in the foregoing articles shall be construed so as to prevent any of the parties so contracting from the free navigation of all the waters mentioned therein.

Article 12: The United States do also bind themselves to prevent the intrusion of any of its citizens within the lands ceded by the first and second articles of this treaty, until the same shall be ratified by the President and Senate of the United States, and duly promulgated.

- 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

‍

EXHIBIT 21 1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV

An Act making provision for the civilization of the Indian tribes adjoining the frontier settlements.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of providing against the further decline and final extinction of the Indian tribes, adjoining the frontier settlements of the United States, and for introducing among them the habits and arts of civilization, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in every case where he shall judge improvement in the habits and condition of such Indians practicable, and that" the means of instruction can· be introduced with their own consent, to employ capable persons of good moral character, to instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to their situation; and for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and performing such other duties as may be enjoined, according to such instructions and rules as the President may give and prescribe for the regulation of their conduct, in the discharge of their duties.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the annual sum of ten thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act; and an account of the expenditure of the money, and proceedings in execution of the foregoing provisions, shall be laid annually before Congress.

APPROVED, March 3, 1819.

‍

EXHIBIT 22 1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV

‍

EXHIBIT 23 1819 - 7 Stat 195 – Preamble and Article 6

Preamble: WHEREAS a greater part of the Cherokee nation have expressed an earnest desire to remain on this side of the Mississippi, and being desirous, in order to commence those measures which they deem necessary to the civilization and preservation of their nation, that the treaty between the United States and them, signed the eighth of July, eighteen hundred and seventeen, might, without further delay, or the trouble or expense of taking the census, as stipulated in the said treaty, be finally adjusted, have offered to cede to the United States a tract of country at least as extensive as that which they probably are entitled to under its provisions, the contracting parties have agreed to and concluded the following articles.

Article 6: The contracting parties agree that the annuity to the Cherokee nation shall be paid, two-thirds to the Cherokees east of the Mississippi, and one-third to the Cherokees west of that river, as it is estimated that those who have emigrated, and who have enrolled for emigration, constitute one-third of the whole nation; but if the Cherokees west of the Mississippi object to this distribution, of which due notice shall be given them, before the expiration of one year after the ratification of this treaty, then the census, solely for distributing the annuity, shall be taken at such times, and in such manner, as the President of the United States may designate.

- At Least 19 of the 21 (90%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 24 1828 – 7 Stat 311 – Prologue, Preamble, Article 2, Article 7, and Article 8

Prologue: Articles of a Convention, concluded at the City of Washington this sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, between James Barbour, Secretary of War, being especially authorized therefor by the President of the United States, and the undersigned, Chiefs and Head Men of the Cherokee Nation of Indians, West of the Mississippi, they being duly authorized and empowered by their Nation.

Preamble: WHEREAS, it being the anxious desire of the Government of the United States to secure to the Cherokee nation of Indians, as well those now living within the limits of the Territory of Arkansas, as those of their friends and brothers who reside in States East of the Mississippi, and who may wish to join their brothers of the West, a permanent home, and which shall, under the most solemn guarantee of the United States, be, and remain, theirs forever- a home that shall never, in all future time, be embarrassed by having extended around it the lines, or placed over it the jurisdiction of a Territory or State, nor be pressed upon by the extension, in any way, of any of the limits of any existing Territory or State; and, Whereas, the present location of the Cherokees in Arkansas being unfavorable to their present repose, and tending, as the past demonstrates, to their future degradation and misery; and the Cherokees being anxious to avoid such consequences, and yet not questioning their right to their lands in Arkansas, as secured to them by Treaty, and resting also upon the pledges given them by the President of the United States, and the Secretary of War, of March, 1818, and 8th October, 1821, in regard to the outlet to the West, and as may be seen on referring to the records of the War Department, still being anxious to secure a permanent home, and to free themselves, and their posterity, from an embarrassing connexion with the Territory of Arkansas, and guard themselves from such connexions in future; and, Whereas, it being important, not to the Cherokees only, but also to the Choctaws, and in regard also to the question which may be agitated in the future respecting the location of the latter, as well as the former, within the limits of the Territory or State of Arkansas, as the case may be, and their removal therefrom; and to avoid the cost which may attend negotiations to rid the Territory or State of Arkansas whenever it may become a State, of either, or both of those Tribes, the parties hereto do hereby conclude the following Articles, viz:

Article 2: The United States agree to possess the Cherokees, and to guarantee it to them forever, and that guarantee is hereby solemnly pledged, of seven millions of acres of land, to be bounded as follows, viz: Commencing at that point on Arkansas River where the Eastern Choctaw boundary line strikes said River, and running thence with the Western line of Arkansas, as defined in the foregoing article, to the South-West corner of Missouri, and thence with the Western boundary line of Missouri till it crosses the waters of Neasho, generally called Grand River, thence due West to a point from which a due South course will strike the present North West corner of Arkansas Territory, thence continuing due South, on and with the present Western boundary line of the Territory to the main branch of Arkansas River, thence down said River to its junction with the Canadian River, and thence up and between the said Rivers Arkansas and Canadian, to a point at which a line running North and South from River to River, will give the aforesaid seven millions of acres. In addition to the seven millions of acres thus provided for, and bounded, the United States further guarantee to the Cherokee Nation a perpetual outlet, West, and a free and unmolested use of all the Country lying West of the Western boundary of the above described limits, and as far West as the sovereignty of the United States, and their right of soil extend.

Article 7: The Chiefs and Head Men of the Cherokee Nation, aforesaid, for and in consideration of the foregoing stipulations and provisions, do hereby agree, in the name and behalf of their Nation, to give up, and they do hereby surrender, to the United States, and agree to leave the same within fourteen months, as herein before stipulated, all the lands to which they are entitled in Arkansas, and which were secured to them by the Treaty of 8th January, 1817, and the Convention of the 27th February, 1819.

Article 8: The Cherokee Nation, West of the Mississippi having, by this agreement, freed themselves from the harassing and ruinous effects consequent upon a location amidst a white population, and secured to themselves and their posterity, under the solemn sanction of the guarantee of the United States, as contained in this agreement, a large extent of unembarrassed country; and that their Brothers yet remaining in the States may be induced to join them and enjoy the repose and blessings of such a State in the future, it is further agreed, on the part of the United States, that to each Head of a Cherokee family now residing within the chartered limits of Georgia, or of either of the States, East of the Mississippi, who may desire to remove West, shall be given, on enrolling himself for emigration, a good Rifle, a Blanket, and Kettle, and five pounds of Tobacco: (and to each member of his family one Blanket,) also, a just compensation for the property he may abandon, to be assessed by persons to be appointed by the President of the United States. The cost of the emigration of all such shall also be borne by the United States, and good and suitable ways opened, and provisions procured for their comfort, accommodation, and support, by the way, and provisions for twelve months after their arrival at the Agency; and to each person, or head of a family, if he take along with him four persons, shall be paid immediately on his arriving at the Agency and reporting himself and his family or followers, as emigrants and permanent settlers, in addition to the above, provided he and they shall have emigrated from within the Chartered limits of the State-of Georgia, the sum of fifty dollars and this sum in proportion to any greater or less number that may accompany him from within the aforesaid Chartered limits of the State of Georgia.

- All 7 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 25 1828 – 7 Stat 311

This Treaty is not legal for numerous reasons and must be considered null and void.

Item 1: In 1824, the National Grand Council of the Western Cherokee (Chickamauga) adopted a Constitution that forbade the sale or trade of Tribal lands to the United States or to white people. The punishment for violating this law was immediate death. (Hoig, Arkansas Gazette)

Item 2: In December 1827, in the National Grand Council at Horse Head Creek, the National Council authorized the commissioners to go to Washington, D.C., for the expressed purpose of obtaining the Land Title and Survey for Lovely’s Purchase, which is known in the Treaties as the Western Outlet. They were expressly forbidden from entering into a treaty with the United States for the purpose of signing a treaty to sell or trade lands. (Hoig, Arkansas Gazette)

Item 3: The Chickamauga commissioners were held at gunpoint for more than three (3) months and refused to be allowed to leave Washington D.C. to return home. (Hoig, Arkansas Territorial Papers, and State Department Papers)

Item 4: The Chickamauga commissioners were held hostage by the U.S. Military and kept in a state of drunkenness until they relented and signed the Treaty. (Hoig, State Department Papers)

Item 5: There are four (4) signatures made in syllabary. Handwriting analysis of the first two signatures indicates that the George Guess (Gist) “Sequoyah” signature and the George Maw signature are written by the same person, since the final syllabary letter is incontrovertibly identical, which is impossible.

Further:
Chief Black Fox – Died in 1811,
Thomas Graves not a Chickamauga Chief,
George Guess – Sequoyah not a Chickamauga Chief,
Thomas Maw not a Chickamauga Chief – Paid by the United States to promote the Treaty to the Eastern Cherokee,
George Marvis not a Chickamauga Chief – Claims to have been made Chief in 1830,
John Looney not a Chickamauga Chief – Voted as the last “Western Cherokee” Chief in 1838 after John Jolly, who did not sign,
John Rogers Jr. not a Chickamauga Chief but became a Chief in 1839 and was deposed by John Ross in 1839.

‍

EXHIBIT 26 1832 – Worchester v. Georgia

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of Indian Tribes and the federal government’s obligation to honor treaties made with them. Chief Justice John Marshall famously declared that Tribes were “distinct, independent political communities” capable of managing their internal affairs. This decision underscores the legal significance of treaties in recognizing Tribal sovereignty and rights.

‍

EXHIBIT 27 1834 – 7 Stat 414 – Prologue, Preamble, Article 1, and Article 4

Prologue: Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Fort Gibson, on the Arkansas river on the fourteenth day of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, by and between Monffort Stokes, Henry L. Ellsworth and John F. Schermerhorn duly appointed Commissioners on the part of the United States and the undersigned Chiefs and Head-men of the Cherokee nation of Indians west of the Mississippi, they being duly authorized and empowered by their nation.

Preamble: WHEREAS articles of convention were concluded at the city of Washington, on the sixth day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, between James Barbour Secretary of War, being specially authorized therefor by the President of the United States and the chiefs and head men of the Cheerokee nation of Indians west of the Mississippi, which articles of convention were duly ratified. And whereas it was agreed by the second article of said convention as follows " That the United States agree to possess the Cheerokees, and to guarantee it to them forever, and that guarantee is solemnly pledged, of seven millions of acres of land, said land to be bounded as follows; viz, commencing at a point on Arkansas river, where the eastern Choctaw boundary line strikes said river, and running thence with the western line of Arkansas Territory to the southwest corner of Missouri, and thence with the western boundary line of Missouri till it crosses the waters of Neasho, generally called Grand river, thence due west, to a point from which a due south course will strike the present northwest corner of Arkansas Territory, thence continuing due south on and with the present boundary line on the west of said Territory, to the main branch of Arkansas river, thence down said river to its junction with the Canadian, and thence up, and between said rivers Arkansas and Canadian to a point at which a line, running north and south, from river to river, will give the aforesaid seven millions of acres, thus provided for and bounded. The United States further guarantee to the Cherokee nation a perpetual outlet west, and a free and unmolested use of all the country lying west of the Western boundary of the above-described limits; and as far west, as the sovereignty of the United States and their right of soil extend. And whereas there was to said articles of convention and agreement, the following proviso viz. Provided nevertheless, that said convention, shall not be so construed, as to extend the northern boundary of said perpetual outlet west, provided for and guarantied in the second article of said convention, north of the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude, or so as to interfere with the lands assigned, or to be assigned, west of the Mississippi river, to the Creek Indians who have emigrated, or may emigrate, from the States of Georgia and Alabama, under the provision of any treaty, or treaties, heretofore concluded, between the United States, and the Creek tribe of Indians- and provided further, that nothing in said convention, shall be construed, to cede, or assign, to the Cheerokees any lands heretofore ceded, or assigned, to any tribe, or tribes of Indians, by any treaty now existing and in force, with any such tribe or tribes."--And whereas, it appears from the Creek treaty, made with the United States, by the Creek nation, dated twenty-fourth day of January eighteen hundred and twenty-six, at the city of Washington; that they had the right to select, and did select, a part of the country described within the boundaries mentioned above in said Cherokee articles of agreement--and whereas, both the Cheerokee and Creek nations of Indians west of the Mississippi, anxious to have their boundaries settled in an amicable manner, have met each other in council, and, after full deliberation mutually agreed upon the boundary lines between them--Now therefore, the United States on one part, and the chiefs and head-men of the Cherokee nation of Indians west of the Mississippi on the other part, agree as follows:

Article 1: The United States agree to possess the Cheerokees, and to guarantee it to them forever, and that guarantee, is hereby pledged, of seven millions of acres of land, to be bounded as follows viz: Beginning at a point on the old western territorial line of Arkansas Territory, being twenty-five miles north from the point, where the Territorial line crosses Arkansas river--thence running from said north point, south, on the said Territorial line, to the place where said Territorial line crosses the Verdigris river--thence down said Verdigris river, to the Arkansas river--thence down said Arkansas to a point, where a stone is placed opposite to the east or lower bank of Grand river at its junction with the Arkansas--thence running south, forty-four degrees west, one mile--thence in a straight line to a point four miles northerly from the mouth of the north fork of the Canadian--thence along the said four miles line to the Canadian--thence down the Canadian to the Arkansas--thence, down the Arkansas, to that point on the Arkansas, where the eastern Choctaw boundary strikes, said river; and running thence with the western line of Arkansas Territory as now defined, to the southwest corner of Missouri--thence along the western Missouri line, to the land assigned the Senecas; thence, on the south line of the Senecas to Grand river; thence, up said Grand river, as far as the south line of the Osage reservation, extended if necessary-- thence up and between said south Osage line, extended west if necessary and a line drawn due west, from the point of beginning, to a certain distance west, at which, a line running north and south, from said Osage line, to said due west line, will make seven millions of acres within the whole described boundaries. In addition to the seven millions of acres of land, thus provided for, and bounded, the United States, further guarantee to the Cheerokee nation, a perpetual outlet west and a free and unmolested use of all the country lying west, of the western boundary of said seven millions of acres, as far west as the sovereignty of the United States and their right of soil extend--Provided however, that if the saline, or salt plain, on the great western prairie, shall fall within said limits prescribed for said outlet, the right is reserved to the United States to permit other tribes of red men, to get salt on said plain in common with the Cheerokees--and letters patent shall be issued by the United States as soon as practicable for the land hereby guaranteed.

Article 4: In consideration of the establishment of new boundaries in part, for the lands ceded to said Cheerokee nation, and in view of the improvement of said nation, the United States will cause to be erected, on land now guaranteed to the said nation, four blacksmith shops, one wagon maker shop, one wheelwright shop, and necessary tools and implements furnished for the same; together with one ton of iron, and two hundred and fifty pounds of steel, for each of said blacksmith shops, to be worked up, for the benefit of the poorer class of red men, belonging to the Cherokee nation--And the United States, will employ four blacksmiths, one wagon-maker, and one wheelwright, to work in said shops respectively, for the benefit of said Cherokee nation; and said materials shall be furnished annually and said services continued, so long as the President may deem proper--And said United States, will cause to be erected on said lands, for the benefit of said Cheerokees, eight patent railway corn mills, in lieu of the mills to be erected according to the stipulation of the fourth article of said treaty, of sixth of May, one thousand eight hundred twenty-eight, from the avails of the sale of the old agency.

- All 4 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 28 1835 - 7 Stat 474 – Preamble and Article 1

Preamble: Treaty with the Comanche and Witchetaw Indians and their associated Bands.
FOR the purpose of establishing and perpetuating peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Comanche and Witchetaw nations, and their associated bands or tribes of Indians, and between these nations or tribes, and the Cherokee Muscogee, Choctaw, Osage, Seneca and Quapaw nations or tribes of Indians, the President of the United States has, to accomplish this desirable object, and to aid therein, appointed Governor M. Stokes, M. Arbuckle Brigdi.-Genl. United States army, and F. W. Armstrong, Actg. Supdt. Western Territory, commissioners on the part of the United States; and the said Governor M. Stokes and M. Arbuckle, Brigdi. Genl. United States army, with the chiefs and representatives of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Choctaw, Osage, Seneca, and Quapaw nations or tribes of Indians, have met the chiefs, warriors, and representatives of the tribes first above named at Camp Holmes, on the eastern border of the Grand Prairie, near the Canadian river, in the Muscogee nation, and after full deliberation, the said nations or tribes have agreed with the United States, and with one another upon the following articles:

Article 1: There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between all the citizens of the United States of America, and all the individuals composing the Comanche and Witchetaw nations and their associated bands or tribes of Indians, and between these nations or tribes and the Cherokee, Muscogee, Choctaw, Osage, Seneca and Quapaw nations or tribes of Indians.

- All 2 (100%) Signatories are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 29 1835 – 7 Stat 478 – Preamble and Article 2

Preamble: WHEREAS the Cherokees are anxious to make some arrangements with the Government of the United States whereby the difficulties they have experienced by a residence within the settled parts of the United States under the jurisdiction and laws of the State Governments may be terminated and adjusted; and with a view to reuniting their people in one body and securing a permanent home for themselves and their posterity in the country selected by their forefathers without the territorial limits of the State sovereignties, and where they can establish and enjoy a government of their choice and perpetuate such a state of society as may be most consonant with their views, habits and condition; and as may tend to their individual comfort and their advancement in civilization.

And whereas a delegation of the Cherokee nation composed of Messrs. John Ross Richard Taylor Danl. McCoy Samuel Gunter and William Rogers with full power and authority to conclude a treaty with the United States did on the 28th day of February 1835 stipulate and agree with the Government of the United States to submit to the Senate to fix the amount which should be allowed the Cherokees for their claims and for a cession of their lands east of the Mississippi river, and did agree to abide by the award of the Senate of the United States themselves and to recommend the same to their people for their final determination.

And whereas on such submission the Senate advised "that a sum not exceeding five millions of dollars be paid to the Cherokee Indians for all their lands and possessions east of the Mississippi river."

And whereas this delegation after said award of the Senate had been made, were called upon to submit propositions as to its disposition to be arranged in a treaty which they refused to do, but insisted that the same "should be referred to their nation and there in general council to deliberate and determine on the subject in order to ensure harmony and good feeling among themselves."
And whereas a certain other delegation composed of John Ridge Elias Boudinot Archilla Smith S. W. Bell John West Wm. A. Davis and Ezekiel West, who represented that portion of the nation in favor of emigration to the Cherokee country west of the Mississippi entered into propositions for a treaty with John F. Schermerhorn commissioner on the part of the United States which were to be submitted to their nation for their final action and determination:

And whereas the Cherokee people at their last October council at Red Clay, fully authorized and empowered a delegation or committee of twenty persons of their nation to enter into and conclude a treaty with the United States commissioner then present, at that place or elsewhere and as the people had good reason to believe that a treaty would then and there be made or at a subsequent council at New Echota which the commissioners it was well known and understood, were authorized and instructed to convene for said purpose; and since the said delegation have gone on to Washington city, with a view to close negotiations there, as stated by them notwithstanding they were officially informed by the United States commissioner that they would not be received by the President of the United States; and that the Government would transact no business of this nature with them, and that if a treaty was made it must be done here in the nation, where the delegation at Washington last winter urged that it should be done for the purpose of promoting peace and harmony among the people; and since these facts have also been corroborated to us by a communication recently received by the commissioner from the Government of the United States and read and explained to the people in open council and therefore believing said delegation can effect nothing and since our difficulties are daily increasing and our situation is rendered more and more precarious uncertain and insecure in consequence of the legislation of the States; and seeing no effectual way of relief, but in accepting the liberal overtures of the United States.

And whereas Genl William Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn were appointed commissioners on the part of the United States, with full power and authority to conclude a treaty with the Cherokees east and were directed by the President to convene the people of the nation in general council at New Echota and to submit said propositions to them with power and authority to vary the same so as to meet the views of the Cherokees in reference to its details.

And whereas the said commissioners did appoint and notify a general council of the nation to convene at New Echota on the 21st day of December 1835; and informed them that the commissioners would be prepared to make a treaty with the Cherokee people who should assemble there and those who did not come they should conclude gave their assent and sanction to whatever should be transacted at this council and the people having met in council according to said notice.

Therefore the following articles of a treaty are agreed upon and concluded between William Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn commissioners on the part of the United States and the chiefs and head men and people of the Cherokee nation in general council assembled this 29th day of Decr 1835.

Article 2: Whereas by the treaty of May 6th 1828 and the supplementary treaty thereto of Feb. 14th 1833 with the Cherokees west of the Mississippi the United States guarantied and secured to be conveyed by patent, to the Cherokee nation of Indians the following tract of country " Beginning at a point on the old western territorial line of Arkansas Territory being twenty-five miles north from the point where the territorial line crosses Arkansas river, thence running from said north point south on the said territorial line where the said territorial line crosses Verdigris river; thence down said Verdigris river to the Arkansas river; thence down said Arkansas to a point where a stone is placed opposite the east or lower bank of Grand river at its junction with the Arkansas; thence running south forty-four degrees west one mile; thence in a straight line to a point four miles northerly, from the mouth of the north fork of the Canadian; thence along the said four mile line to the Canadian; thence down the Canadian to the Arkansas; thence down the Arkansas to that point on the Arkansas where the eastern Choctaw boundary strikes said river and running thence with the western line of Arkansas Territory as now defined, to the southwest corner of Missouri; thence along the western Missouri line to the land assigned the Senecas; thence on the south line of the Senecas to Grand river; thence up said Grand river as far as the south line of the Osage reservation, extended if necessary; thence up and between said south Osage line extended west if necessary, and a line drawn due west from the point of beginning to a certain distance west, at which a line running north and south from said Osage line to said due west line will make seven millions of acres within the whole described boundaries. In addition to the seven millions of acres of land thus provided for and bounded, the United States further guaranty to the Cherokee nation a perpetual outlet west, and a free and unmolested use of all the country west of the western boundary of said seven millions of acres, as far west as the sovereignty of the United States and their right of soil extend:

Provided however That if the saline or salt plain on the western prairie shall fall within said limits prescribed for said outlet, the right is reserved to the United States to permit other tribes of red men to get salt on said plain in common with the Cherokees; And letters patent shall be issued by the United States as soon as practicable for the land hereby guarantied."

And whereas it is apprehended by the Cherokees that in the above cession there is not contained a sufficient quantity of land for the accommodation of the whole nation on their removal west of the Mississippi the United States in consideration of the sum of five hundred thousand dollars therefore hereby covenant and agree to convey to the said Indians, and their descendants by patent, in fee simple the following additional tract of land situated between the west line of the State of Missouri and the Osage reservation beginning at the southeast corner of the same and runs north along the east line of the Osage lands fifty miles to the northeast corner thereof; and thence east to the west line of the State of Missouri; thence with said line south fifty miles; thence west to the place of beginning; estimated to contain eight hundred thousand acres of land; but it is expressly understood that if any of the lands assigned the Quapaws shall fall within the aforesaid bounds the same shall be reserved and excepted out of the lands above granted and a pro rata reduction shall be made in the price to be allowed to the United States for the same by the Cherokees.

– “Cherokee Nation” - All 20 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 30 1835 - 7 Stat 487

- All 2 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 31 1836 - 7 Stat 488

- All 20 (100%) Signatories Are Lower Town Chickamauga

‍

EXHIBIT 32 1836 – Drake – “Chickamauga, on the Tennessee, 90 Miles below the Cherokees; many years since broken from them, under chief Dragomono”

Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1836,
Bv Josiah DRAKE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts

Drake, Samuel G. (1837): Biography and History of the Indians of North America From its first discovery to the present time. Boston

‍

EXHIBIT 33 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

https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-western-cherokee-1828-0288

Three men had been mainly instrumental in making the treaty of 1835. They were Major Ridge, a full blood Cherokee of the Deer clan, horn at Hiwassee in 1771. When still a young man he adopted the manner of living of the white man, mastered their language and became a well educated man.

This course was at that time very unpopular, as the great mass of the Cherokee were still full bloods and very jealous of their old customs and any full blood that would attempt in any was to take up the ways of the backwoods provincials was certain to incur the scorn of his tribesmen. But by sheer force of character, integrity and worth he gradually forced himself to a high place in the nation. He had been president of the committee and was a major at the Cherokee allies of the Americans in the Creek war of 1814. His son, John Ridge, aged about forty years, had been educated in Cornwall, Connecticut, and had returned to the Cherokee nation in 1822. He was a close observer, a brilliant and convincing orator. The third of this trio was Elias Boudinot, born in 1804. He was the son of Oowatie, the interpretation of whose name was the ancient or revered. Oowatie was a full brother of Major Ridge. Killakeena or Buck (male deer) Oowatie or as they were later known as Watie, while on his way to school at Cornwall, where he attended with his cousin John Ridge, met in Philadelphia, Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, a signer of the national constitution and one of the most prominent men of his day. On account of some favor that he conferred, the boy Buck Watie adopted the name of his benefactor. Boudinot like his uncle and cousin had early ascended to high places in the councils of the nation and the three men seeing the hopeless condition of their exploited people in the east had made the treaty of 1835 that secured to the Cherokee Nation a splendid home in the west. Men of keen discernment, eloquent and fearless they were publicists to be dreaded.

Before daylight on the morning of Saturday, June 22, 1830 the home of John Ridge, near the northwest corner of Arkansas, was surrounded, entered and he was dragged into the yard where two men held his arms while others of their party stabbed hint repeatedly and then severed his jugular vein. A few hours later during the same morning while his father, Major Ridge, was traveling southward along the Cherokee Nation-Arkansas line road, he was fired on by an ambushed party and killed. This was some twenty-live or thirty miles from the scene of the murder of the son. At about the same time as the killing of Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot was shingling a new house near his residence and within two miles of the residence of Chief John Ross. Three Cherokees appeared and requested medicine of a sick child of one of the party. Mr. Boudinot had studied medicine so that he could give gratuitous services and medicines to the needy. He started with them to get the required treatment when one of the three stepping behind struck him in the spine with a bowie knife and his groan was the signal for the others to dispatch Uri with tomahawks. The place of his death was about thirty miles from the murder of Major Ridge and fifty miles from the assassination of John Ridge. Immediately after his death, Mrs. Boudinot sent word by Rufus McWilliams to Stand Watie and Watie sent his slave, Mike, to inform John Adair Bell, and in this manner those two escaped mobs that hunted them. Three days later a party that was hunting Stan Wade, searched the house of Rev. Samuel A. Worcester in their quest.

Chief Ross notified General Arbuckle on the twenty-second of the killing of Elias Boudinot and that Mrs. Boudinot had informed him that Stan Watie had determined on raising a company of men for the purpose of taking Ross’ life. He further wrote “I trust that you will deem it expedient forthwith to interpose and prevent the effusion of innocent blood, by executing your authority, in order that an unbiased investigation might he had in the matter.”‘ General Arbuckle invited Chief Ross to the post at Fort Gibson if he still thought that there was any danger, he also invited Chiefs Brown. Looney and Rogers to come to the post by the twenty-fifth so that they might concert action to avoid civil strife.’ Chief Ross on the twenty-third asked that a detachment of troops be sent to protect him.

‍

EXHIBIT 34 1840 – Agent Stokes Recognizes the Old Settlers (Chickamauga) as the Rightful Government

https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset/7101/

H.R. Doc. No. 188, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. (1840) Page 4

“Governor Stokes: Cherokee agent, announced by publication of 11th November, his intention of recognizing "the old Cherokee Chiefs and their government” until otherwise instructed.”

‍

EXHIBIT 35 1901 – Montoya v. United States 180 U.S. 261 No. 43

As it appears that the Mescaleros who committed the depredation were a part of Victoria's band, operating with them, and that such band was carrying on a war against the government as an independent organization, we think they were the band -- the unit -- contemplated by the act, and not the Mescalero tribe then living in peace upon their reservation near Fort Stanton, although the particular marauders in question had belonged to that tribe before they joined Victoria's band. If the Mescalero tribe were held responsible for their acts, it would follow that every tribe members of which allied themselves with Victoria and shared in his acts of hostility would be pecuniarily liable for all damages inflicted by a band over whom they could have no control. Such consequences would be so inequitable we cannot suppose them to have been contemplated by Congress.

‍

EXHIBIT 36 1934 – Stat 984, 25 U.S.C. 461 “Indian Reorganization Act Definition”

SEC. 19. 25 U.S.C. 5129 The term ‘‘Indian’’ as used in this Act shall include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction,

‍

EXHIBIT 37 1968 – 25 U.S.C. Chapter 15 “Indian Civil Rights Act Definition”

(1) "Indian tribe" means any tribe, band, or other group of Indians subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and recognized as possessing powers of self-government;

‍

EXHIBIT 38 1978 - Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez

This case affirms the principle of Tribal sovereignty and self-governance. The Court held that Tribes have the inherent authority to regulate their internal affairs, including membership criteria. This decision emphasizes the importance of respecting Tribal autonomy and self-determination.

‍

EXHIBIT 39 1981 – Montana v. United States No. 79-1128

Judge Stewart Opinion: Williams v. Lee, supra, at 358 U. S. 223; Morris v. Hitchcock, 194 U.S. 384; Buste v. Wright, 135 F. 947, 950 (CA8); see Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 447 U. S. 152-154. A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. See Fisher v. District Court, 424 U. S. 382, 424 U. S. 386; Williams v. Lee, supra at 358 U. S. 220; Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County, 200 U. S. 118, 200 U. S. 128-129; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 169 U. S. 273. [Footnote 15]
No such circumstances, however, are involved in this case. Non-Indian hunters and fishermen on non-Indian fee land do not enter any agreements or dealing with the Crow Tribe so as to subject themselves to tribal civil jurisdiction. And nothing in this case suggests that such non-Indian hunting and fishing so threaten the Tribe's political or economic security as to justify tribal regulation. The complaint in the District Court did not allege that non-Indian hunting and fishing on fee lands imperil the subsistence or welfare of the Tribe. [Footnote 16] Furthermore, the District Court made express findings, left unaltered by the Court of Appeals, that the Crow Tribe has traditionally accommodated itself to the State's "near exclusive" regulation of hunting and fishing on fee lands within the reservation. 457 F. Supp. at 609-610. And the District Court found that Montana's statutory and regulatory scheme does not prevent the Crow Tribe from limiting
or forbidding non-Indian hunting and fishing on lands still owned by or held in trust for the Tribe or its members. Id. at 609.

‍

EXHIBIT 40 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.

‍

EXHIBIT 41 2007 – Phase II Report: Cultural Affiliation Overview Study for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District. Contract Number: W912EQ-05-P-0153
4.9.2.1 Colonial Historic Location West of the Mississippi River

The Cherokee presence west of the Mississippi began during the era of Spanish dominion in the Louisiana Territory. In 1775, Spanish Lieutenant Governor Cruzat reported to Governor Luis de Unzaga y Amezaga that Cherokees had driven the miners away from Mine La Motte, fifteen leagues from the Mississippi River settlement of Ste. Genevieve (Houck 1909 I:100). Shortly after 1785, Cherokee emigrants crossed the Mississippi River to settle the fertile lands along the banks of the St. Francis River. Some were known as Chicamaugas. They were dissatisfied with the Cherokee Treaty of Hopewell, a
treaty signed between the new United States and the Cherokees in 1786 (Myers 1997:133). They traveled down the Mississippi River to the mouth of the St. Francis River, traveled up the St. Francis River and established a Cherokee town named Crow Town.

At this time, there was a rendezvous for hunters at L’Anse a la Graisse (Greasy Cove), renamed Nuevo Madrid (New Madrid) in 1789, a location at which the Mississippi and St. Francis rivers were connected at high water by a chain of lakes and bayous (Myers 1997:133). Cherokees in the region of New Madrid were said to be protected by the Spanish government when they raided east of the Mississippi River (King 2004:354).

In the late 1780s and early 1790s, several requests were sent by Cherokees to the Spanish government asking permission to emigrate. In 1788, Tourquin sought permission from Spanish authorities at L’Anse al a Graisse to emigrate and Esteban Miro, Commandant General of Louisiana, approved the establishment of up to six villages (Kinnaird 1946-1949, 2:255; Myers 1997:134). A traveler leaving New Madrid in 1793, found three Cherokee families living “just outside of town.” In 1794, six or more villages were established “along the banks of the St. Francis River,” “in the District of New Madrid,” in “pine hills.”

Eighteen families crossed the Mississippi and arrived in Cape Girardeau on April 12, 1794 (Houck 1909 II:837). In 1796, ten families led by Connetoo (John Hill), Will Webber (Red Headed Will), and Unacata (White Man Killer) were given permission by the Spanish to settle “about 40 miles west of Memphis” on the St. Francis River after being denied permission by the Quapaws to settle on the Arkansas River (Carter 1934-1969, 14:56-57; Myers 1997:143). A tract of land on the St. Francis River was granted to the Cherokees by the Spanish government. A road running north from Arkansas Post to intersect with the old Southwest Trail to St. Louis ran through this town. Some Cherokees and Delaware also moved to a location on the White River (Royce 1975:76) that was north of the Memphis District.

‍

EXHIBIT 42 2009 – Carcieri v Salazar 555 US 379 2009

Judge Thomas Opinion: Because the term “now under federal jurisdiction” in §479 unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was enacted in 1934, and because the Narragansett Tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, the Secretary does not have the authority to take the 31-acre parcel into trust. Pp. 7–16.

We agree with petitioners and hold that, for purposes of §479, the phrase “now under Federal jurisdiction” refers to a tribe that was under federal jurisdiction at the time of the statute’s enactment. As a result, §479 limits the Secretary’s authority to taking land into trust for the purpose of providing land to members of a tribe that was under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was enacted in June 1934. Because the record in this case establishes that the Narragansett Tribe was not under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was enacted, the Secretary does not have the authority to take the parcel at issue into trust. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

We hold that the term “now under Federal jurisdiction” in §479 unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under the federal jurisdiction of the United States when the IRA was enacted in 1934. None of the parties or amici, including the Narragansett Tribe itself, has argued that the Tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. And the evidence in the record is to the contrary. 48 Fed. Reg. 6177. Moreover, the petition for writ of certiorari filed in this case specifically represented that ‘‘[i]n 1934, the Narragansett Indian Tribe . . . was neither federally recognized nor under the jurisdiction of the federal government.’’ Pet. for Cert. 6. The respondents’ brief in opposition declined to contest this assertion. See Brief in Opposition 2–7. Under our rules, that alone is reason to accept this as fact for purposes of our decision in this case. See this Court’s Rule 15.2. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judge Breyer, Concurring: Second, I am persuaded that “now” means “in 1934” not only for the reasons the Court gives but also because an examination of the provision’s legislative history convinces me that Congress so intended. As I read that history, it shows that Congress expected the phrase would make clear that the Secretary could employ §465’s power to take land into trust in favor only of those tribes in respect to which the Federal Government already had the kinds of obligations that the words “under Federal jurisdiction” imply. See Hearings on S. 2755 et al.: A Bill to Grant to Indians Living Under Federal Tutelage the Freedom to Organize for Purposes of Local Self-Government and Economic Enterprise, before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, pp. 263–266 (1934). Indeed, the very Department official who suggested the phrase to Congress during the relevant legislative hearings subsequently explained its meaning in terms that the Court now adopts. See Letter from John Collier, Commissioner, to Superintendents (Mar. 7, 1936), Lodging of Respondents (explaining that §479 included “persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized tribe that was under Federal jurisdiction at the date of the Act”).

Third, an interpretation that reads “now” as meaning “in 1934” may prove somewhat less restrictive than it at first appears. That is because a tribe may have been “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934 even though the Federal Government did not believe so at the time. We know, for example, that following the Indian Reorganization Act’s enactment, the Department compiled a list of 258 tribes covered by the Act; and we also know that it wrongly left certain
tribes off the list. See Brief for Law Professors Specializing in Federal Indian Law as Amicus Curiae 22–24; Quinn, Federal Acknowledgment of American Indian Tribes: The Historical Development of a Legal Concept, 34 Am. J. Legal Hist. 331, 356–359 (1990). The Department later recognized some of those tribes on grounds that showed that it should have recognized them in 1934 even though it did not. And the Department has sometimes considered that circumstance sufficient to show that a tribe was “under Federal jurisdiction” in 1934—even though the Department did not know it at the time.

‍

EXHIBIT 43 2011 - United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313, 2324-25

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly opined on the meaning of the United States' trust responsibility. Most recently, in 2011, in United States v. Jicarilla, the Supreme Court recognized the existence of the trust relationship and noted that the
"Government, following 'a humane and self-imposed policy ... has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust,' obligations 'to the fulfillment of which the national honor has been committed.'" The Court further explained that "Congress has expressed this policy in a series of statutes that have defined and redefined the trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. In some cases, Congress established only a limited trust relationship to serve a narrow purpose. In other cases, we have found that particular 'statutes and regulations ... clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government' in some areas. Once federal law imposes such duties, the common law 'could play a role.' But the applicable statutes and regulations 'establish [the] fiduciary relationship and define the contours of the United States' fiduciary responsibilities."'

While the Court has ruled that the United States' liability for breach of trust may be limited by Congress, it has also concluded that certain obligations are so fundamental to the role of a trustee that the United States must be held accountable for failing to conduct itself in a manner that meets the standard of a common law trustee. "This is so because elementary trust law, after all, confirms the commonsense assumption that a fiduciary actually administering trust property may not allow it to fall into ruin on his watch. 'One of the fundamental common-law duties of a trustee is to preserve and maintain trust assets."' United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 475 (2003) (internal citations omitted).

‍

EXHIBIT 44 2020 – McGirt v Oklahoma No. 18-9526

Judge Gorsuch Opinion: Mr. McGirt’s appeal rests on the federal Major Crimes Act (MCA). The statute provides that, within “the Indian country,” “[a]ny Indian who commits” certain enumerated offenses “against the person or property of another Indian or any other person” “shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.” 18 U. S. C. §1153(a). By subjecting Indians to federal trials for crimes committed on tribal lands, Congress may have breached its promises to tribes like the Creek that they would be free to govern themselves. But this particular incursion has its limits—applying only to certain enumerated crimes and allowing only the federal government to try Indians. State courts generally have no jurisdiction to try Indians for conduct committed in “Indian country.” Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U. S. 99, 102–103 (1993).

The Creek Nation has joined Mr. McGirt as amicus curiae. Not because the Tribe is interested in shielding Mr. McGirt from responsibility for his crimes. Instead, the Creek Nation participates because Mr. McGirt’s personal interests wind up implicating the Tribe’s. No one disputes that Mr. McGirt’s crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute. But, in seeking to defend the state-court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today.

At another level, then, Mr. McGirt’s case winds up as a contest between State and Tribe. The scope of their dispute is limited; nothing we might say today could unsettle Oklahoma’s authority to try non-Indians for crimes against non-Indians on the lands in question. See United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 624 (1882). Still, the stakes are not insignificant. If Mr. McGirt and the Tribe are right, the State has no right to prosecute Indians for crimes committed in a portion of Northeastern Oklahoma that includes most of the city of Tulsa. Responsibility to try these matters would fall instead to the federal government and the Tribe. Recently, the question has taken on more salience too. While Oklahoma state courts have rejected any suggestion that the lands in question remain a reservation, the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion. Murphy v. Royal, 875 F. 3d 896, 907–909, 966 (2017). We granted certiorari to settle the question. 589 U. S. ___ (2019).

Start with what should be obvious: Congress established a reservation for the Creeks. In a series of treaties, Congress not only “solemnly guarantied” the land but also “establish[ed] boundary lines which will secure a country and permanent home to the whole Creek Nation of Indians.”1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368; 1833 Treaty, preamble,7 Stat. 418. The government’s promises weren’t made gratuitously. Rather, the 1832 Treaty acknowledged that “[t]he United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove to the country west of the Mississippi” and, in service of that goal, required the Creeks to cede all lands in the East. Arts. I, XII, 7 Stat. 366, 367. Nor were the government’s promises meant to be delusory. Congress twice assured the Creeks that “[the] Treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the United States.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XV, id., at 368; see 1833 Treaty, Art. IX, 7 Stat. 420 (“agreement shall be binding and obligatory” upon ratification). Both treaties were duly ratified and enacted as law.

These early treaties did not refer to the Creek lands as a “reservation”—perhaps because that word had not yet acquired such distinctive significance in federal Indian law. But we have found similar language in treaties from the same era sufficient to create a reservation. See Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U. S. 404, 405 (1968) (grant of land “‘for a home, to be held as Indian lands are held,’” established a reservation). And later Acts of Congress left no room for doubt. In 1866, the United States entered yet another treaty with the Creek Nation.

To determine whether a tribe continues to hold a reservation, there is only one place we may look: the Acts of Congress. This Court long ago held that the Legislature wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 566–568 (1903). But that power, this Court has cautioned, belongs to Congress alone. Nor will this Court lightly infer such a breach once Congress has established a reservation. Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U. S. 463, 470 (1984).

Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did. A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the “supreme Law of the Land.” Art. I, §8; Art. VI, cl. 2. It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them.

Likewise, courts have no proper role in the adjustment of reservation borders. Mustering the broad social consensus required to pass new legislation is a deliberately hard business under our Constitution. Faced with this daunting task, Congress sometimes might wish an inconvenient reservation would simply disappear. Short of that, legislators might seek to pass laws that tiptoe to the edge of disestablishment and hope that judges—facing no possibility of electoral consequences themselves—will deliver the final push. But wishes don’t make for laws, and saving the political branches the embarrassment of disestablishing a reservation is not one of our constitutionally assigned prerogatives. “[O]nly Congress can divest a reservation of its land and diminish its boundaries.” Solem, 465 U. S., at 470. So it’s no matter how many other promises to a tribe the federal government has already broken. If Congress wishes to break the promise of a reservation, it must say so.
History shows that Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation when it can muster the will. Sometimes, legislation has provided an “[e]xplicit reference to cession” or an “unconditional commitment . . . to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land.” Ibid. Other times, Congress has directed that tribal lands shall be “‘restored to the public domain.’” Hagen v. Utah, 510 U. S. 399, 412 (1994) (emphasis deleted). Likewise, Congress might speak of a reservation as being “‘discontinued,’” “‘abolished,’” or “‘vacated.’” Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S. 481, 504, n. 22 (1973). Disestablishment has “never required any particular form of words,” Hagen, 510 U. S., at 411. But it does require that Congress clearly express its intent to do so, “[c]ommon[ly with an] ‘[e]xplicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of all tribal interests.’ ” Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 481, ___–___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).

Missing in all this, however, is a statute evincing anything like the “present and total surrender of all tribal interests” in the affected lands. Without doubt, in 1832 the Creek “cede[d]” their original homelands east of the Mississippi for a reservation promised in what is now Oklahoma.1832 Treaty, Art. I, 7 Stat. 366. And in 1866, they “cede[d] and convey[ed]” a portion of that reservation to the United States. Treaty With the Creek, Art. III, 14 Stat. 786. But because there exists no equivalent law terminating what remained, the Creek Reservation survived allotment.

In saying this we say nothing new. For years, States have sought to suggest that allotments automatically ended reservations, and for years courts have rejected the argument. Remember, Congress has defined “Indian country” to include “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation . . . notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including any rights-of-way running through the reservation.” 18 U. S. C. §1151(a). So the relevant statute expressly contemplates private land ownership within reservation boundaries. Nor under the statute’s terms does it matter whether these individual parcels have passed hands to non-Indians. To the contrary, this Court has explained repeatedly that Congress does not disestablish a reservation simply by allowing the transfer of individual plots, whether to Native Americans or others. See Mattz, 412 U. S., at 497 (“[A]llotment under the . . . Act is completely consistent with continued reservation status”); Seymour

‍

EXHIBIT 45 2024 – Loper Bright v Raimondo No. 22-451

Judge Roberts Opinion: In a statute designed to “serve as the fundamental charter of the administrative state,” Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U. S. 558, 580 (2019) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted), Congress surely would have articulated a similarly deferential standard applicable to questions of law had it intended to depart from the settled pre-APA understanding that deciding such questions was “exclusively a judicial function,” American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S., at 544. But nothing in the APA hints at such a dramatic departure. On the contrary, by directing courts to “interpret constitutional and statutory provisions” without differentiating between the two, Section 706 makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes—like agency interpretations of the Constitution—are not entitled to deference. Under the APA, it thus “remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.” Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92, 109 (2015) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).4

The text of the APA means what it says. And a look at its history if anything only underscores that plain meaning. According to both the House and Senate Reports on the legislation, Section 706 “provide[d] that questions of law are for courts rather than agencies to decide in the last analysis.” H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 44 (1946) (emphasis added); accord, S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 28 (1945). Some of the legislation’s most prominent supporters articulated the same view. See 92 Cong. Rec.5654 (1946) (statement of Rep. Walter); P. McCarran, Improving “Administrative Justice”: Hearings and Evidence; Scope of Judicial Review, 32 A. B. A. J. 827, 831 (1946). Even the Department of Justice—an agency with every incentive to endorse a view of the APA favorable to the Executive Branch—opined after its enactment that Section 706 merely “restate[d] the present law as to the scope of judicial review.” Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 108 (1947); see also Kisor, 588 U. S., at 582 (plurality opinion) (same). That “present law,” as we have described, adhered to the traditional conception of the judicial function. See supra, at 9–13.

A In the decades between the enactment of the APA and this Court’s decision in Chevron, courts generally continued to review agency interpretations of the statutes they administer by independently examining each statute to determine its meaning. Cf. T. Merrill, Judicial Deference to Executive Precedent, 101 Yale L. J. 969, 972–975 (1992). As an early proponent (and later critic) of Chevron recounted, courts during this period thus identified delegations of discretionary authority to agencies on a “statute-by-statute basis.” A. Scalia, Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law, 1989 Duke L. J. 511, 516.

Chevron, decided in 1984 by a bare quorum of six Justices, triggered a marked departure from the traditional approach. The question in the case was whether an EPA regulation “allow[ing] States to treat all of the pollution emitting devices within the same industrial grouping as though they were encased within a single ‘bubble’” was consistent with the term “stationary source” as used in the Clean Air Act. 467 U. S., at 840. To answer that question of statutory interpretation, the Court articulated and employed a now familiar two-step approach broadly applicable to review of agency action.

The first step was to discern “whether Congress ha[d] directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id., at 842. The Court explained that “[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter,” ibid., and courts were therefore to “reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent,” id., at 843, n. 9. To discern such intent, the Court noted, a reviewing court was to “employ[] traditional tools of statutory construction.” Ibid.

Without mentioning the APA, or acknowledging any doctrinal shift, the Court articulated a second step applicable when “Congress ha[d] not directly addressed the precise question at issue.” Id., at 843. In such a case—that is, a case in which “the statute [was] silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue” at hand—a reviewing court could not “simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation.” Ibid. (footnote omitted). A court instead had to set aside the traditional interpretive tools and defer to the agency if it had offered “a permissible construction of the statute,” ibid., even if not “the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding,” ibid., n. 11. That directive was justified, according to the Court, by the understanding that administering statutes “requires the formulation of policy” to fill statutory “gap[s]”; by the long judicial tradition of according “considerable weight” to Executive Branch interpretations; and by a host of other considerations, including the complexity of the regulatory scheme, EPA’s “detailed and reasoned” consideration, the policy-laden nature of the judgment supposedly required, and the agency’s indirect accountability to the people through the President. Id., at 843, 844, and n. 14, 865.

Employing this new test, the Court concluded that Congress had not addressed the question at issue with the necessary “level of specificity” and that EPA’s interpretation was “entitled to deference.” Id., at 865. It did not matter why Congress, as the Court saw it, had not squarely addressed the question, see ibid., or that “the agency ha[d]from time to time changed its interpretation,” id., at 863. The latest EPA interpretation was a permissible reading of the Clean Air Act, so under the Court’s new rule, that reading controlled.

Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute dele gates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.

‍

EXHIBIT 46 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

‍

EXHIBIT 47 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.

‍

EXHIBIT 48 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, 241 U.S. 591 (1916) supra at 598 (Only Congress can dissolve national guardianship over Indian Tribes)

2. Chippewa Indians v. United States, 307 U.S. 1, 5 (1939) (Court may not assume that Congress abandoned guardianship absent a 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 the 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 modern 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 the Treaty and has not repudiated it, Interior is now obliged to confirm that relationship.

‍

Who Are the Chickamauga? Briefing - Text

The Chickamauga Nation - TCN

Who Are the Chickamauga? Briefing

Who Are the Chickamauga?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

‍

Two Manners of Quick Relief for The Chickamauga Nation

Part 1 Identifying and Understanding the Chickamauga

Part 1 Identifying and Understanding the Chickamauga

EXHIBIT A Origins of the Tiscamogee (Chickamauga) Not Ethnically Cherokee

EXHIBIT B Language(s)

EXHIBIT C British and Colonial Misidentification

EXHIBIT D Origins of the Cherokee (Not Chickamauga)

EXHIBIT E Emperor of the Cherokee (1729 – 1763) British Rule

EXHIBIT F Confederations (1750s – Today)

EXHIBIT G Colonial Revolution Era 1770s - 1786

EXHIBIT H Signing Treaties

Citizens of The Chickamauga Nation are heirs and descendants of the many Treaties. Definitions of Heirs and Descendants by Cornell Law

EXHIBIT I Seeking Spanish Protection

EXHIBIT J Moving West

EXHIBIT K A Tribe by Any Other Name is Still the Same

EXHIBIT L Chickamauga and Cherokee Are Legally Not the Same

EXHIBIT M Not Ethnically But Politically Cherokee – Big Difference

Part 2 Determining The Chickamauga Nation is Federally Recognized by United States Treaties, Statutes and Codes, and Supreme Court Rulings

OVERVIEW Chronological Order

EXHIBIT 1 1786 – Article 1 Section 8 –

EXHIBIT 2 1786 – Article 6 Section 2 –

EXHIBIT 3 Article 1 Section 8 and Article 6 Section 2 when taken together:

EXHIBIT 4 1785 - 7 Stat 18 Treaty, Article 3, Article 5, and Article 12

EXHIBIT 5 1791 – 7 Stat 39 Treaty, Article 2

EXHIBIT 6 1792 - 7 Stat 42

EXHIBIT 7 1792 November 6 - George Washington's 4th Annual Address to Congress

EXHIBIT 8 1792 November 28 – George Washington to the Senate and the House of Representatives Requests the Congress to determine War or Peace with the Chickamauga.

EXHIBIT 9 1794 - 7 Stat 43 Article 1 and Article 3

‍

EXHIBIT 10 1798 - 7 Stat 62 Article 2, Article 3, and Article 6

EXHIBIT 11 1804 - 7 Stat 288 Article 2

EXHIBIT 12 1804 - 7 Stat 93 Article 1 and Article 3

EXHIBIT 13 1805 - 7 Stat 95 Article 1 and Article 3

EXHIBIT 14 1806 - 7 Stat 101

EXHIBIT 15 1807 - 7 Stat 103

EXHIBIT 16 1809 – Thomas Jefferson Land Trade with The Chickamauga – Prologue and Preamble to 1817 - 7 Stat 156

EXHIBIT 17 1816 - 7 Stat 138

EXHIBIT 18 1816 - 7 Stat 139

EXHIBIT 19 1816 - 7 Stat 148 – Preamble and Article 1

EXHIBIT 20 1817 – 7 Stat 156 Prologue, Preamble,

EXHIBIT 21 1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV

EXHIBIT 22 1819 – Indian Civilization Fund Act Stat 3 Chapter LXXXV

EXHIBIT 23 1819 - 7 Stat 195 – Preamble and Article 6

EXHIBIT 24 1828 – 7 Stat 311 – Prologue, Preamble, Article 2, Article 7, and Article 8

EXHIBIT 25 1828 – 7 Stat 311

EXHIBIT 26 1832 – Worchester v. Georgia

EXHIBIT 27 1834 – 7 Stat 414 – Prologue, Preamble, Article 1, and Article 4

EXHIBIT 28 1835 - 7 Stat 474 – Preamble and Article 1

EXHIBIT 29 1835 – 7 Stat 478 – Preamble and Article 2

EXHIBIT 30 1835 - 7 Stat 487

EXHIBIT 31 1836 - 7 Stat 488

EXHIBIT 32 1836 – Drake – “Chickamauga, on the Tennessee, 90 Miles below the Cherokees; many years since broken from them, under chief Dragomono”

EXHIBIT 33 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

EXHIBIT 34 1840 – Agent Stokes Recognizes the Old Settlers (Chickamauga) as the Rightful Government

EXHIBIT 35 1901 – Montoya v. United States 180 U.S. 261 No. 43

EXHIBIT 36 1934 – Stat 984, 25 U.S.C. 461 “Indian Reorganization Act Definition”

EXHIBIT 37 1968 – 25 U.S.C. Chapter 15 “Indian Civil Rights Act Definition”

EXHIBIT 38 1978 - Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez

EXHIBIT 39 1981 – Montana v. United States No. 79-1128

EXHIBIT 40 1994 – [Public Law 103 – 454 Section 202 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) Federally Recognized Indian Tribes List Act]

EXHIBIT 41 2007 – Phase II Report: Cultural Affiliation Overview Study for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District. Contract Number: W912EQ-05-P-01534.9.2.1 Colonial Historic Location West of the Mississippi River

EXHIBIT 42 2009 – Carcieri v Salazar 555 US 379 2009

EXHIBIT 43 2011 - United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313, 2324-25

EXHIBIT 44 2020 – McGirt v Oklahoma No. 18-9526

EXHIBIT 45 2024 – Loper Bright v Raimondo No. 22-451

EXHIBIT 46 Ex Post Facto Black’s Law

EXHIBIT 47 Ex Post Facto Law.

EXHIBIT 48 Determine if The Chickamauga Nation Has Ever Been Terminated

OVERVIEW
Chronological Order

EXHIBIT 41 2007 – Phase II Report: Cultural Affiliation Overview Study for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District. Contract Number: W912EQ-05-P-0153
4.9.2.1 Colonial Historic Location West of the Mississippi River