Freedmen Tribal News-Stand

Before we can move toward a better future we must first understand the past.

There has been so much false information published online by these tribal organizations, media, members and educational organizations we found it rather difficult for anyone to find the truth and understand it.

We think it's important to first learn and understand the sequence of events that persuaded congress to make decisions regarding india tribes.

First, let us say, the trail of tears, that took place in 1831 was not a forced removal, tribes wishing to relocate out of rebellion were transported by steam boats to present day to oklahoma. Tribal members wishing to remain had the option to become a citizen and remain on their ancestral homeland. This was nothing more than a land swap agreement with benefits. Nothing forced about it

1820 The Treaty of Doak’s Stand was the first of treaties involving the Choctaws of Mississippi. Where a portion of the tribe intially relocated to to southwest Arkansas Territory.

1821 Missouri became a state.

1824 Quapaw ceded their lands in Arkansas Territory, moving to northwest Louisiana and residing with the Caddo. Fort Gibson and Fort Towson were established in Indian Territory to provide protection for tribes moving from the East.

1828 Andrew Jackson is elected president.The Western or Old Settler Cherokee removed from Arkansas Territory to Indian Territory. This removal began a protracted war with the Osages, as the Cherokee were encroaching on Osage lands.

1830 The Indian Removal Act fostered by President Jackson passed Congress. The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek stipulated the removal of Choctaws from Mississippi.

1831 Choctaw Nation began removal from Mississippi to Indian Territory present day oklahoma , becoming the first of the Five Tribes to be transported up river by steamboats. Several tribes in Ohio signed treaties requiring removal from the state, including the Seneca, Shawnee, and Ottawa.

1832 The Treaty of Payne’s Landing began the process for removal of the Seminoles of Florida. It would take almost twenty years and 15 million dollars before the tribe relocated

The Treaty of Pontotoc in Mississippi required the removal of the Chickasaw from their lands.

Andrew Jackson was reelected president.

The Wyandotte (Huron) of Ohio ceded lands through the Treaty of McCutchensville.

The following tribes concluded various treaties with the United States and are forced to give up lands:

The Sac and Fox ceded lands east of the Mississippi River for land in Kansas.

The Prairie Band of Potawatomi ceded lands in Indiana for land in Kansas.

The Shawnees and Delawares ceded lands in Missouri for land in Kansas.
The Kaskaskia and Peoria ceded lands in Illinois and Missouri.
The small tribes of Stockbridge, Munsee, Brotherton, and New York Oneida ceded lands. These tribes in particular relocated in the northeast corner of Indian Territory.
The Piankashaw and Wea in Illinois and Missouri ceded lands.

1833 The Quapaw of Arkansas concluded a treaty that removed the tribe to Indian Territory, located in the extreme northeast corner bordering Kansas and Missouri.

The Illinois Kickapoo removed to Kansas. The Ottawas of Ohio concluded a treaty that ceded land and requires removal.

1834 A treaty required the Caddo of Louisiana to remove beyond the limits of the United States. They are virtually left landless, ultimately migrating into the Republic of Texas.

The Apalachicola of Florida (part of the Muscogee-Creek Confederacy) began removal. The Indian In*******se Acts designates territories west of Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana as “Indian Territory.” Indian Territory at this time extended from the Red River of Texas north to the Canadian border.
The Muscogee (Creek) tribe began removal.

1835 The Treaty of New Echota provided for the removal of all Cherokees east of the Mississippi River.

1836 Arkansas becomes a state.

The Seminoles of Florida began removal. The removal of Muscogee and Creek began. The Republic of Texas was established.

1837 The Chickasaws voluntarily remove, settling on the western fringe of the Choctaw Nation in Indian Territory being being forced into signing with the Choctaw the Treaty of Doaksville 1838, submitting to the Choctaws,waiving soverneity, and paying $580,000 to the Choctaw for rights to access viable land

Accordingly The Indian Removal Act, signed on May 28, 1830, gave the president power to make treaties with every tribe residing east of the Mississippi River, for their land in exchange for territory west of the MISSISSIPPI river --- an area, known as the Louisiana purchase.

The Removal of tribal members, to an area west of the Mississippi River began with the Choctaws in 1831, allowing Choctaws to become the first tribe to lay claims to the most viable land.

And because the Choctaws were the 1st tribe to lay claims on the new land the, gained prosperity, over other tribes resulted in a Large-scale system of slavery utilising involuntary sexual labor.

In other words, prisoners of enslavement were most often used to replace a dead loved one, within the family who would then be forced to take on a deceased person’s culture, sexual, and/ or labour-related capacities,

After certain instances occured for an example, the Choctaws of Oklahoma forced the Chickasaw citizens into signing the Doaksville treaty of 1837, becoming the largest slave-holding nation of the Five Tribese.

The additional counting of the slave population resulted in political power, allowing the south dominated the government and the presidency for years. And the Choctaw Nations issue with”slaving owning “past” is said to have been caused by the Choctaw nation’s own system of “permanent enslavement” using reproductive labor for the purpose of domestically producing" (property) human slaves, a social identity position and ideology about race and class gained after two century 200 years of lying and deceiving for social gain and cultural privileges led to The Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 authorizing for the creation of individual allotments to protect those tribes from being dominated by wealthier tribes by ganting each individual Indian their own allotments because no black man, mixed, or a.whitemam, even today, is exempt from the pain cause by these deceitful tribes, or the experience of being dehumanized, criminalized and subject to economic and social exclusion because of their skin color.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1851" authorized the creation of individual allotments to protect those tribes from being dominated by wealthier tribes by ganting each individual Indian their own allotments.

n 1857, for instance, after the ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford effectively denied citizenship to black people of all statuses. Where Southern states also passed harsh laws regulating the conduct of free blacks, —in several cases banning them from entering or settling in the state [or tribal territory] .where In Mississippi, a free Negro could be sold into slavery after spending ten days in state. When Arkansas passed a law in 1859 that would have enslaved every free black person still present by 1860; although it was not enforced, it succeeded in reducing Arkansas's population of free blacks to below that of any other slave state.

In 1861, -President Abraham Lincoln, issued the emancipation Proclamation declaring that "all person's held as slaves within the Rebellious States are, and henceforward shall be free"; wagering war against confederate tribes of disloyal states

However, As a sovereign nation President Abraham's proclamations or constitutional amendments seeking to end slavery wasn't effective in Indian Territory, who hadnt yet entered into STATEHOOD. Where Members of a foreign nation the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Nations (known as the Five Tribes) could own slaves legally outside the territorial boundaries of the US (modern-day Oklahoma), with soverneity ----Congress passed a Second Confiscation Act, which included provisions that freed the slaves of disloyal owners, authorized the president to employ African Americans in the suppression of the rebellion, and called for exploring voluntary colonization efforts. Congress also passed the Militia Act, which authorized the employment of African Americans in the military, to free their families owned by those disloyal to the Union.

Then Under President Abraham Lincoln, Congress, starting in 1961, passing several laws to aid slave to gain a semblance of freedom during the American Civil War including the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Act and the Militia Act allowing black men to enroll in military service., laws that allowed fugitive (slaves) who escape behind Union lines “to remain free” declaring them "contraband" of war.

They were called the United States Colored Troops. lWhere black participation in fighting proved essential to Union victory under Confiscation Act of 1861 by allowing fugitives and their family (slaves) to escape behind Union lines “to remain free”by the laws of war declaring them "contraband" of war. — By law, the United States Colored Troops ,proved successful in returning, captured slaves under the Confiscation Act of 1862 guaranteeing both fugitive/slave and families everlasting freedom at the ending of the civil war in 1965 —-in this way Black participation, in fighting the civil war, proved essential to Unions victory

In 1865, the Union won the Civil War, and states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, outlawing slavery (except as punishment for a crime) Mississippi Black Code (the first to pass and the best known) distinguished between "free negroes" (referring to those who had been free before the war, in some places called "Old Issues"), (newly free) "freedmen", and "mulattoes" — though placing similar restrictions on freedom for all. US-born blacks gained legal citizenship with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, followed by the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause.[20]

Also in June, or so, of 1866, U.S. treaties with all five tribes was enacted, in an agreement as follows

After the Civil War, the Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee tribes all were considered defeated foes by the U.S. federal government. As such, the tribes were forced to renegotiate treaties with the federal government. These treaties required several sacrifices by the tribes, not the least of which was a large measure of their own tribal sovereignty.

This information will be helpful with your next assignment: creating a visual presentation showing the impact of the Civil War and the resulting Reconstruction Treaties on the Five Tribes.

“Reconstruction Treaties With the Five Civilized Tribes”

by Joyce Ann Kievit

“These agreements were made between the United States and the Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee nations between February and August 1866. All five Native groups had signed treaties of alliance with the Confederacy in 1861; as a result, the federal government declared that the tribes had lost all rights to annuities and land promised in former treaties.

The negotiations with the five nations began in September 1865 with a 12-day meeting at Fort Smith, Arkansas. During the conference, the federal government stated the seven basic stipulations required in each treaty.

First, each nation had to enter into a treaty of peace and friendship with the United States, with other Native American nations, and between tribal factions.

Second, they were to assist the federal government in pacifying the western Native peoples.

Third, slavery had to be abolished, all slaves were to be unconditionally emancipated, and the freed slaves had to be incorporated into the tribes or other suitable provisions made for former slaves.

Fourth, involuntary servitude could be tolerated only as punishment for a crime.

Fifth, each nation holding land in Indian Territory had to set aside land for the settlement of Kansas Natives.

Sixth, all tribes of Indian Territory were expected to prepare for the eventual consolidation of all Natives under one government.

Finally, no white persons, except those connected with the military or assigned as Indian agents and employees of the government and of internal improvement agencies, were to be permitted to reside in Indian Territory unless they had been formally incorporated into the tribe. The Natives would have some ability to negotiate how much land each nation forfeited, the size of rights-of-way for railroads, and the status of former slaves.

“The Seminole delegation was the first to arrive in Washington. The inexperienced and impoverished representatives were war weary and just wanted to go home; consequently, they put up little resistance to the demands of federal negotiators. In the Treaty with the Seminole (1866), they agreed to all the demands of the Fort Smith meeting, ceding their entire homeland for 15 cents an acre, and they agreed to purchase 200,000 acres from the Creek Nation at 50 cents an acre. Their treaty established rights-of-way for railroads, abolished slavery, and stated that all Seminole, freedmen, and adopted white people would have equal rights within the nation.

“The harsh treaty with the Seminole was followed a few weeks later by the far more benevolent Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw (1866). The two nations hired an attorney and worked closely together. Overall, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and their attorneys proved to be very able negotiators, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw did not incur any liability or forfeiture of land as a result of their alignment with the Confederacy. They were not forced to grant citizenship to their former slaves. If the two nations did not pass legislation providing for the civil rights of their former slaves, the United States would use $300,000 of Choctaw and Chickasaw money to relocate the people of African descent elsewhere. Rights-of-way were established for railroads, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw made provisions to purchase stock in the company that built through their nation. They were to pay for the stock by selling to the railroad sections of land six miles wide on each side of the track.

“The Creek Nation's negotiations in many ways mirrored the Seminole negotiations. The delegates did not resist federal demands, and they accepted all the Fort Smith demands. In the Treaty with the Creek (1866), they ceded the west half of the Creek domain, estimated to contain 3,250,560 acres; they adopted their freedmen, established rights-of-way for the railroads, and accepted provisions for the eventual consolidation of all Natives under one government.

“The most contentious negotiations were with the Cherokee, who sent both Southern and Union representatives; federal officials played the two factions against each other. After months of bitter debate, federal negotiators dismissed the Loyal Cherokee delegation and concluded a treaty with the minority Southern representatives. This treaty was never recognized, and a few weeks later, the Loyal delegation was invited back. In the end, the Cherokee agreed to most of the Fort Smith provisions with the Treaty with the Cherokee (1866). Former slaves were granted citizenship and were to have equal rights with other Cherokee citizens. The nation was also forced to sell the Neutral Lands, but they refused to sell the Cherokee Strip. Fortunately, on the issue of land cession, the Loyal faction negotiated better terms than the other four nations did. The land was to be appraised by two disinterested parties and then to be sold to the highest bidder, and the Cherokee Nation was guaranteed at least $1.25 per acre.

“The unique sovereign status of the five nations allowed Indian commissioners to make demands of the slave-owning Native Americans that were not made of former Confederate states. No former Confederate state was required to give up territory as war reparations, yet all five nations were required to cede or lease land so the federal government could concentrate all unwanted indigenous people in Indian Territory. Furthermore, although Southern slave owners simply had to free their slaves, Natives were required to give their freedmen land and, in some cases, tribal membership and a share of tribal funds. In effect, three nations lost the right to determine their own tribal membership.”

https://jenks.instructure.com/courses/21950/pages/reconstruction-treaties-more-info

Also see http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/

TREATY WITH CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW, Apr. 28, 1866.

14 Stats., 769.

1866. Proclaimed July 10, 1866.

Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties.

Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904.

Articles of agreement and convention between the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations of Indians, made and concluded at the City of Washington the twenty- eight day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty- six, by Dennis N. Cooley, Elijah Sells, and E. S. Parker, special commissioners on the part of the United States, and Alfred Wade, Allen Wright, James Riley, and John Page, commissioners on the part of the Choctaws, and Wi******er Colbert, Edmund Pickens, Holmes Colbert, Colbert Carter, and Robert H. Love, commissioners on the part of the Chickasaws. ARTICLE 1.

Permanent peace and friendship are hereby established between the United States and said nations; and the Choctaws and Chickasaws do hereby bind themselves respectively to use their influence

[*919] and to make every exertion to induce Indians of the plains to maintain peaceful relations with each other, with other Indians, and with the United States.

ARTICLE 2.

The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby covenant and agree that henceforth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all members of the particular nation, shall ever exist in said nations ...

See Chickasaw/Choctaw Treaty 1866 at ..

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/u-s-treaty-choctaw-chickasaw-nations-1866

The treaty was made with the Chickasaw Freedmen) with their Choctaw slaveowner

where the Choctaw promised to end slavery. With the US promising to protect all freedmen as well as purchase freely “new home land” (freed of the Choctaw burden) I’m doing so, The renamed Chickasaw Tribe identified as being all black, white, and or mixed slaves, and future descendants (of Choctaw) were to be forever freed of slaver unless “incarcerate for a crime .

As american union forces approached indian TERRITORY members of the Five Tribes involved themselves in the Civil War militarily specifically to preserve their practice of slavery and political autonomy and the Choctaws became the first tribe, during a civil war, to develope their own confederate flag similar to Choctaw Nations flag today.

During the Civil War ending in 1866 the largest force in Indian Territory was commanded by Confederate Brigadier General Stand Watie, who was also a chief of the Cherokee Nation "Dedicated" to the Confederate cause-unwilling to admit defeat to become the last Confederate general to surrender even After other confederate leaders agreed to surrender on April 9, 1865 thw Stand Watie refused, until after Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre at 7:22 a.m. on April 15, 1865 finally, then and only then, did the Confederate Brigadier General Stand Watie, admit defeat, becomimg the last Confederate general to surrender in Fort Towson, Oklahoma

By the end of the civil war enslaved Members of all nations had sided with the federal Union against Confederate tribes after a number of battles had promised freedom to those enslaved and ended slavery

After the Civil War the regions slave-based economy took a hard hit and the Choctaw capital was moved to Chahta Tamaha, where it would remain until 1882, before relocating to Tuskahoma, Oklahoma

In 1866 Congress reclaimed the western half of Oklahoma after tribes sidied against the US during the civil war.however the eastern half would remain indian territory if tribes agree never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary servitude exist in their nation otherwise than in the punishment of crime. See where tribes sided with confederacy.againat the federa union l government. But of course, as usual, tribal REBELLION continued which led to The indian Appropriation Act of 1871, ending tribal Soverneity for good


The indian Appropriation Act of 1871,~ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 71: Put an End to Indian Sovereignty, designating tribes, as Wards of the United States rather than an independent nation.

- Public Law 280 1968 with tribal consent put an end to tribal government Prior to the Indian Appropriation Act enacted by congress of March 3, 1871,' 666 treaties with Indian tribes appear in the statutes. THE Indian Appropriation Act 1871: stated No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty; . Such treaties, and any Executive orders and Acts of Congress under which the rights of any Indian tribe to fish are secured, shall be construed to prohibit (in addition to any other prohibition) the imposition under any law of a State or political subdivision thereof of any tax on any income derived from the exercise of rights to fish secured by such treaty, Executive order, or Act of Congress if section 7873 of title 26 does not permit a like Federal tax to be imposed on such income.

In other words, the Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1871, says no longer was any group of Indians in the United States recognized as an independent nation by the federal government.Moreover, Congress directed that all Indians should be treated as individuals and legally designated "wards" of the federal government.Before this bill was enacted, the federal government signed treaties with different Native American tribes, committing the tribes to land cessions, in exchange for specific lands designated to Indians for exclusive indigenous use as well as annual payments in the form of cash, livestock, supplies, and services. ---These treaties, which took much time and effort to finalize, ceased with the passage of the 1871 Indian Appropriation Act,

After the Civil War, the Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee tribes all were considered defeated foes by the U.S. federal government. As such, the tribes re-renegotiated treaties with the federal government that required several sacrifices by the tribes which was a large measure of their own tribal sovereignty.

After tribes signed treaties of alliance with the Confederacy in 1861; the federal government declared that the tribes had lost all rights to annuities and land promised in former treaties

“These agreements were made between the United States and the Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee nations between February and August 1866. All five Native groups .

The negotiations with the five nations began in September 1865 with a 12-day meeting at Fort Smith, Arkansas. During the conference, the federal government stated the seven basic stipulations required in each treaty.

First, each nation had to enter into a treaty of peace and friendship with the United States, with other Native American nations, and between tribal factions.

Second, they were to assist the federal government in pacifying the western Native peoples.

Third, slavery had to be abolished, all slaves were to be unconditionally emancipated, and the freed slaves had to be incorporated into the tribes or other suitable provisions made for former slaves.

Fourth, involuntary servitude could be tolerated only as punishment for a crime.

Fifth, each nation holding land in Indian Territory had to set aside land for the settlement of Kansas Natives.

Sixth, all tribes of Indian Territory were expected to prepare for the eventual consolidation of all Natives under one government.

Finally, no white persons, except those connected with the military or assigned as Indian agents and employees of the government and of internal improvement agencies, were to be permitted to reside in Indian Territory unless they had been formally incorporated into the tribe. The Natives would have some ability to negotiate how much land each nation forfeited, the size of rights-of-way for railroads, and the status of former slaves.

“The Seminole delegation was the first to arrive in Washington. The inexperienced and impoverished representatives were war weary and just wanted to go home; consequently, they put up little resistance to the demands of federal negotiators. In the Treaty with the Seminole (1866), they agreed to all the demands of the Fort Smith meeting, ceding their entire homeland for 15 cents an acre, and they agreed to purchase 200,000 acres from the Creek Nation at 50 cents an acre. Their treaty established rights-of-way for railroads, abolished slavery, and stated that all Seminole, freedmen, and adopted white people would have equal rights within the nation.

“The harsh treaty with the Seminole was followed a few weeks later by the far more benevolent Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw (1866). The Choctaw and Chickasaw did not incur any liability or forfeiture of land as a result of their alignment with the Confederacy.
They were not forced to grant citizenship to their former slaves. If the two nations did not pass legislation providing for the civil rights of their former slaves, the United States would use $300,000 of Choctaw and Chickasaw money to relocate the people of African descent elsewhere. Rights-of-way were established for railroads, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw made provisions to purchase stock in the company that built through their nation. They were to pay for the stock by selling to the railroad sections of land six miles wide on each side of the track.

“The Creek Nation's negotiations in many ways mirrored the Seminole negotiations. The delegates did not resist federal demands, and they accepted all the Fort Smith demands. In the Treaty with the Creek (1866), they ceded the west half of the Creek domain, estimated to contain 3,250,560 acres; they adopted their freedmen, established rights-of-way for the railroads, and accepted provisions for the eventual consolidation of all Natives under one government.

“The most contentious negotiations were with the Cherokee, who sent both Southern and Union representatives; federal officials played the two factions against each other. After months of bitter debate, federal negotiators dismissed the Loyal Cherokee delegation and concluded a treaty with the minority Southern representatives. This treaty was never recognized, and a few weeks later, the Loyal delegation was invited back. In the end, the Cherokee agreed to most of the Fort Smith provisions with the Treaty with the Cherokee (1866). Former slaves were granted citizenship and were to have equal rights with other Cherokee citizens. The nation was also forced to sell the Neutral Lands, but they refused to sell the Cherokee Strip. Fortunately, on the issue of land cession, the Loyal faction negotiated better terms than the other four nations did. The land was to be appraised by two disinterested parties and then to be sold to the highest bidder, and the Cherokee Nation was guaranteed at least $1.25 per acre.

“The unique sovereign status of the five nations allowed Indian commissioners to make demands of the slave-owning Native Americans that were not made of former Confederate states. No former Confederate state was required to give up territory as war reparations, yet all five nations were required to cede or lease land so the federal government could concentrate all unwanted indigenous people in Indian Territory. Furthermore, although Southern slave owners simply had to free their slaves, Natives were required to give their freedmen land and, in some cases, tribal membership and a share of tribal funds. In effect, three nations lost the right to determine their own tribal membership.”
https://jenks.instructure.com/courses/21950/pages/reconstruction-treaties-more-info

DECISIONS MADE IN JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS, MADE BY OKLAHOMA TRIBES, IN MCGIRT WITHOUT STATE CONSENT IS MOOT.--RIGHT?

According to Tulsa World "New Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a landmark case that has dramatically affected how crimes involving tribal land and members are prosecuted.

The 2020 McGirt ruling and subsequent state appeals court rulings held that certain tribe’s reservations were never disestablished and that therefore the state does not have criminal jurisdiction to prosecute major crimes involving Native Americans in a large portion of eastern half of Oklahoma, including the city of Tulsa.

The Supreme Court ruled that Jimcy McGirt, a convicted child ra**st, should have been prosecuted in federal court because he is Native American and the crime happened within a tribal reservation.

The petition says the case was wrongly decided and has had unprecedented disruptive effects in Oklahoma.

“While the court believed that compromise or congressional action could limit the disruption from its decision, it is now clear that neither is forthcoming,” the petition says.


Basically, this comes down too one question. Did Congress ever express clear intent to remove or relinquish tribal governments in Indian Territory- present day, Oklahoma

Intiially, according to our research "Public Law 280" passed in 1953, turned power over to (option) state governments to enforce most of the regular criminal laws on reservations, as they were doing in other parts of the states, but Tribes disapproved of the law without tribal consent.

However In 1968, Fifteen years later, Public Law 280 was amended to provide that thereafter, no state could assume jurisdiction under the act without the voting approval of tribal membership at an election

According to the Department of Justice {cited in Criminal Resource Manual 674; JM 9-20.100] 688. State Jurisdiction} where jurisdiction has been conferred by Public Law 280, 18 U.S.C. § 1162 the following applies

---------------------------------------------------------
*Non-Indian Vs Non-Indian

State jurisdiction is exclusive of federal and tribal jurisdiction.

Non-Indian Vs. Indian

"Mandatory" state has jurisdiction exclusive of federal and tribal jurisdiction. "Option" state and federal government have jurisdiction. There is no tribal jurisdiction.

*Indian Vs Non-Indian

"Mandatory" state has jurisdiction exclusive of federal government but not necessarily of the tribe. "Option" state has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts.

Indian vs. Indian

"Mandatory" state has jurisdiction exclusive of federal government but not necessarily of the tribe. "Option" state has concurrent jurisdiction with tribal courts for all offenses, and concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts for those listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1153.

Non-Indian Vs Victimless

State jurisdiction is exclusive, although federal jurisdiction may attach in an option state if impact on individuaVs.l Indian or tribal interest is clear.

*Indian Vs Victimless

There may be concurrent state, tribal, and in an option state, federal jurisdiction. There is no state regulatory jurisdiction :Source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-689-jurisdictional-summary
---------------------------------------------------------

Clearly Tribal nations leaders and publishers had already acknowledged publicly, the fact, of already having a mechanism, through Public Law 280, for consenting to state jurisdiction by requesting a special election from the Department of Interior and membership. A N D ---- it's as true today, as it was in 1983, when the Choctaw Nation Chief----Hollis Roberts, proposed the same question before Choctaw voters in May 1983 ------ """S h a l l the tribal court's jurisdiction be extended to include general civil, criminal and probate matters?""" with 2,567 voting "no," and 1,161 voting "yes. " tribes consented. SEE" Durant Democrat newspaper article, May 25, 1983 ----Of course, this information was rarely mention or discussed publicly prior to and after McGirt's decision, however, t's no surprise to now see tribes, soon after the announcements came that Oklahoma Governor Stitt’s had requested congressional action to decide that ""Congressional involvement was unnecessary"" while they also continue falsely asserting that "it undermines the sovereignty of all tribal nations.

But to hear tribal leaders tell it "The governor has never attempted to cooperate with the tribes to protect all Oklahomans,” Hoskin said. “It is perfectly clear that it has always been his intent to destroy Oklahoma’s reservations and the sovereignty of Oklahoma tribes, no matter what the cost might be.----When the fact of the matter is decisions made in 1983 had nothing to do with Governor Stitt. As the Constitution of the Choctaw Nation was ratified July 9, 1983, long before Governor Stitt's became Oklahoma governor, pursuant to a federal court order in Morris v. Watt, CIV-77-1667, District Court of the District of Columbia when voters cast ballots on eleven fundamental differences between the 1860 Historic Choctaw Constitution and the 1979 Provisional Choctaw Constitution. The One question put before the Choctaw voters in May 1983 was "[s]hall the tribal court's jurisdiction be extended to include general civil, criminal and probate matters?" (see Durant Democrat newspaper article, May 25, 1983, attached as Exhibit 1). The Choctaw voters defeated this proposition by 2,567 voting "no," and 1,161 voting "yes." during an election was supervised by an observer team from the Department of Interior. Interior who approved the proposed Constitution on June 9, 1983, and verified the ratification of the Constitution on July 25, 1983.

The Choctaw Constitution has not been amended since July 9, 1983. And Tribal voters have never extended the judicial department to include a general civil, criminal and probate jurisdiction tribal court as The Choctaw Court of Indian Appeal also ruled, in Morrison v. Choctaw Nation, CA-01 (September 23, 1995),

To sum up any more confusion the Choctaw people have already decided that the sovereignty of the Choctaw Nation does not include sovereignty over the criminal acts

Unless, Oklahoma consents to reliquiish their jurisdiction over crimes committed on a reservation there's nothing for congress to decide . And after investigating tribal leaders claims of a desire to protect all Oklahomans, we found this also couldn't have been further from the truth.

To hear tribal experts tell it "For more than 35 years, United States law stripped all Indian nations of their criminal authority over non-Indians. As a result, until recent changes in the law, (See: McGirt) Indian nations were unable to prosecute NON-INDIANS, who reportedly commit 88% of the violent crimes against Native women on tribal lands. While other reports say, "the issue of violence against Indigenous (indian) people, namely women and girls, is a problem across the country. Adding, SB 172 "will make "Oklahoma" safer for "Native American women" who still experience unacceptably high rates of violence, mostly by "non-Native "perpetrators" ----leading non -indians, to believe, recent tribal claims of criminal jurisdiction on indian reservations is evidence of a planned attack against non indians.especially after seeing how tribal influenced pursuaded OKLAHOMA governor Stitt, (who's also a tribal member) decision to implement SB 172 into law effective Nov, 1, 2021,

As far as soverneity is concerned the Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1871, said no longer was any group of Indians in the United States recognized as an independent nation by the federal government.Moreover, Congress directed that all Indians should be treated as individuals and legally designated "wards" of the federal government.Before this bill was enacted, the federal government signed treaties with different Native American tribes, committing the tribes to land cessions, in exchange for specific lands designated to Indians for exclusive indigenous use as well as annual payments in the form of cash, livestock, supplies, and services. ---These treaties, which took much time and effort to finalize, ceased with the passage of the 1871 Indian Appropriation Act,

Thus, it cant be argued that congress clearly expressed it's intent to diminish tribal Soverneity, as well as, criminal jurisdiction obtained by consent, without at least obtaining State's consent.--- but of course the final decision rest on the courts. However, "Silence" in this particular case,, in our opinion, isnt an option--- It's a mistake!!! The law is clear. Clearly the court cannot hold their position that congress had never clearly express it's Intent.

All Legal objections are welcome below in this discussion We come with report of behalf of all non-indian citizens living within the boundaries of present day Oklahoma

Also See ---The Felterng Problem of Indian Soverneity. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-festering-problem-of-indian-sovereignty/