Blood Quantum, Land Theft, and the Erasure of Dark-Skinned Indigenous Nations: How the Dawes Rolls Weaponized Race in Indian Territory

By Katherin Joyette | Livity.Blog

The story of Indian Territory—what colonizers renamed “Oklahoma”—reveals one of the most sophisticated mechanisms of Indigenous dispossession in American history. Through the Dawes Commission and its notorious rolls, the United States government didn’t just steal land. It weaponized racial categories to fragment resistance, erase dark-skinned Indigenous peoples, and create divisions that echo through sovereignty struggles today.

This is the story of how documentation became a weapon, how “Black” and “Indian” were made mutually exclusive, and how nations like the Washitaw, Freedmen communities, and Muur peoples were systematically erased from their territories through the violence of colonial classification.

The Unassigned Lands: Manufacturing “Empty” Territory

In 1889, approximately 50,000 settlers lined up at the border of Indian Territory for the infamous Oklahoma Land Run. They were racing to claim two million acres the US government had declared “unassigned” and open for white homesteading. The scene—captured in photographs and celebrated in American mythology—showed white settlers stampeding across “virgin” land to claim their piece of the frontier.

But this land was far from empty or unassigned.

The first theft happened in 1866, when the US government forced the Creek and Seminole nations to cede these lands as punishment for some tribal members’ Confederate alliances during the Civil War. The treaties specified these lands would be used to settle “freed slaves and other tribes.”

The second theft was the broken promise. The government never settled freed people there. Instead, they held the land in limbo for over two decades, then declared it available for white settlement.

The third theft was the erasure. By calling these lands “Unassigned,” the government disappeared the Creek and Seminole peoples who had been forcibly relocated there during the Trail of Tears. It disappeared the freed people who had been promised homesteads. And it disappeared the Indigenous nations—including dark-skinned Muur and Washitaw peoples—who had territorial claims the government refused to recognize.

The Land Run didn’t happen in empty territory. It happened in territory that had been systematically cleared through documentation violence, broken treaties, and the strategic deployment of racial categories that rendered certain peoples invisible.

The Dawes Rolls: Documenting People Out of Existence

Between 1898 and 1914, the Dawes Commission traveled through Indian Territory with a mission that would fundamentally reshape Indigenous identity in North America. Their task: create rolls listing every member of the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole) to dissolve communal landholding and assign individual allotments.

But the Dawes Rolls did far more than count people. They created categories that separated families, erased complex ancestries, and institutionalized racial hierarchies that tribes had not traditionally maintained.

The categories imposed:

• “By Blood”: Those deemed authentically Indigenous based on blood quantum calculations
• “Intermarried Whites”: Non-Indigenous spouses with limited rights
• “Freedmen”: Descendants of enslaved people, listed separately regardless of Indigenous ancestry
• “Minor Freedmen”: Children of Freedmen, often with Indigenous parentage erased
• “Doubtful”: Those whose claims were questioned, often dark-skinned applicants

Notice what this system accomplished: It made “Black” and “Indian” mutually exclusive categories, even when individuals had ancestry from both African and Indigenous peoples. A child with a Creek mother and African-descended father could be classified as “Freedmen only,” erasing the matrilineal kinship system that would have granted full tribal membership through the mother’s line.

This wasn’t documentation. This was reclassification.

The Dawes Commission wasn’t recording pre-existing identities—they were creating new ones that served colonial land theft. By separating people into rigid racial boxes, they:

1. Reduced the number of “recognized” Indigenous people, justifying land seizures
2. Created internal tribal conflicts over membership that weakened collective resistance
3. Established precedents for blood quantum that would haunt Indigenous communities for generations
4. Erased dark-skinned Indigenous peoples by forcing them into “Freedmen” or “Black” categories

The Freedmen: Caught Between Nations and Erasure

The Freedmen were descendants of people enslaved by the Five Civilized Tribes. But this simple designation obscures tremendous complexity:

• Many had Indigenous ancestry through mothers or grandmothers
• Many had lived as tribal members for generations before enslavement
• Some, particularly among the Seminole, had never been enslaved in the chattel sense but lived in tributary relationships
• Many were Indigenous people from other tribes who had been enslaved during intertribal conflicts

After the Civil War, the 1866 Reconstruction Treaties theoretically granted Freedmen:

• Freedom from enslavement
• Full citizenship in their respective nations
• Equal rights to land and annuities

But the Dawes Rolls shattered these promises.

How Each Tribe’s Freedmen Were Dispossessed:

Cherokee Freedmen: Listed on separate rolls from “Cherokees by blood.” Granted citizenship but systematically discriminated against. In 2007, the Cherokee Nation voted to remove Freedmen descendants from tribal citizenship—a move a federal judge overturned in 2017, though struggles continue.

Creek Freedmen: Granted citizenship and allotments, but often received inferior land. The separate roll system allowed the tribe to later challenge their citizenship status, creating generations of legal battles.

Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen: Denied citizenship entirely. Instead of equal allotments like tribal citizens, they received only 40 acres each—and even these small plots were often the rockiest, least arable land available.

Seminole Freedmen: Received the most egalitarian treatment, with full citizenship and equal land rights. This reflected the Seminole’s more integrated relationship with Black Seminoles, but even here, federal pressure and blood quantum politics created later divisions.

The Pattern: Regardless of tribal citizenship status, Freedmen faced:

• Smaller allotments than “by blood” members
• Inferior quality land
• White “guardians” appointed to manage their property, who systematically defrauded them
• Legal restrictions preventing them from selling or developing land
• Exclusion from tribal decision-making
• Ongoing challenges to citizenship and land rights

The Washitaw Case: When Dark-Skinned Indigenous Sovereignty Challenged the System

In 1999, the Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Nation took their sovereignty claims to federal court, asserting rights to millions of acres across Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Washitaw identify as Indigenous peoples of African descent—Muurish nations who have occupied the Mississippi River Valley since time immemorial, long before European colonization.

The courts dismissed their case. Legal scholars often cite Washitaw Nation v. Department of Interior as an example of “frivolous” Indigenous claims. But this dismissal reveals more about colonial legal systems than it does about the validity of Washitaw sovereignty.

The Washitaw argued:

1. Pre-Columbian presence: They are Indigenous to the Americas, not descendants of enslaved Africans brought during the transatlantic trade
2. Continuous occupation: They maintained communities, practices, and territorial claims throughout colonization
3. Fraudulent land transfers: The Louisiana Purchase couldn’t legally transfer lands they already occupied and never ceded
4. Muurish heritage: They descend from ancient nations with African phenotypes who were Indigenous to the hemisphere

Why the courts rejected them:

The legal system’s rejection rested on the same colonial logic that created the Dawes Rolls:

• The Black/Indian binary: Courts assumed African descent = enslaved ancestry, making Indigenous claims “impossible”
• Documentation requirements: Demanded European colonial records to prove Indigenous status, ignoring how those very systems erased dark-skinned peoples
• Blood quantum and recognition politics: Required federal recognition under criteria designed to exclude exactly these types of complex-ancestry nations
• The “authentic Indian” myth: Enforced narrow phenotypic and cultural expectations that erased Indigenous peoples who didn’t match stereotypes

The Washitaw case wasn’t dismissed because their claims were false. It was dismissed because the legal system cannot recognize Indigenous peoples whose existence challenges the fundamental categories—“Black” and “Indian” as mutually exclusive—that justified land theft in the first place.

Muur and Creole Nations: The Peoples Documentation Disappeared

Throughout the Gulf Coast, Mississippi River Valley, and into what became Oklahoma, there existed Indigenous nations that colonial systems worked systematically to erase:

Muur/Moorish Indigenous Peoples: Communities identifying as Indigenous peoples of African descent, often asserting pre-Columbian presence or descent from ancient transoceanic migrations. These nations maintained that African phenotypes among Indigenous peoples predated the transatlantic slave trade.

Creole Nations: Communities of mixed Indigenous, African, and sometimes European ancestry who formed distinct nations with their own territories, governance, and cultural practices. In Louisiana and the surrounding territories, these included:

• Redbones
• Melungeons
• Brass Ankles
• Turks
• Guineas

Why colonial systems targeted them:

These nations were particularly dangerous to colonial land claims because:

1. They challenged racial categories: Their existence proved “Black” and “Indian” weren’t mutually exclusive, undermining the Dawes Rolls’ logic
2. They held prime territory: Mississippi River Valley lands were agriculturally rich and strategically valuable
3. They couldn’t be “removed”: Unlike recognized tribes subject to Indian Removal policies, these nations weren’t on official tribal lists—they were just “there”
4. They preserved African-Indigenous connections: Their presence suggested deeper hemispheric networks and migrations that challenged European-centric historical narratives

How they were erased:

The mechanism was documentation violence:

• Census categorization: Classified as “mulatto,” “colored,” or “free people of color”—never as Indigenous
• Dawes Rolls exclusion: Denied the right to even apply for tribal enrollment
• Land title challenges: Their traditional territories weren’t recognized as Indigenous lands, so they had no federal protections
• Segregation laws: Jim Crow systems forced them into “Black” legal categories, erasing Indigenous identity
• School and church records: Systematically documented them as “Negro” or “colored,” creating paper trails that denied Indigenous ancestry

By the time of the Oklahoma Land Runs, these nations had been documented out of existence. Their lands became “Unassigned” not because they were empty, but because the peoples occupying them had been reclassified in ways that erased their territorial claims.

The Mechanics of Dispossession: How Land Was Actually Stolen

Understanding how land was stolen from Freedmen, Washitaw, Muur, and Creole nations requires seeing the system as a whole:

Phase 1: Reclassification (1860s-1890s)

• Force Indigenous peoples to cede lands through coerced treaties
• Categorize dark-skinned Indigenous peoples as “Black,” “Freedmen,” or “colored”
• Create separate rolls that fragment communities by race
• Promise land to freed people but never deliver

Phase 2: Documentation (1898-1914)

• Dawes Commission creates rigid racial categories
• Apply blood quantum to determine “authentic” Indigenous identity
• Place Freedmen on separate rolls regardless of Indigenous ancestry
• Classify Muur and Creole peoples as “non-Indian”
• Create “Doubtful” category for dark-skinned applicants
• Reject applications from those who don’t match phenotypic expectations

Phase 3: Allotment (1890s-1920s)

• Give smaller allotments to Freedmen (40 acres vs. 160+ for “by blood” members)
• Assign inferior quality land—rocky, non-arable, far from water
• Declare Freedmen “incompetent” and appoint white guardians
• Allow guardians to sell or lease allotted lands, pocketing proceeds
• Create complex legal restrictions preventing Freedmen from selling or developing land
• Ignore allotment claims from non-recognized Muur and Creole nations entirely

Phase 4: Theft (1900s-1940s)

• White guardians systematically defraud Freedmen landholders
• “Grafters” use legal schemes to separate Freedmen from allotments
• Oil discoveries on Freedmen land lead to murders and forced sales
• Non-Indian Certificate process strips lands from “mixed blood” individuals
• Tax foreclosures target Freedmen unable to pay due to systemic poverty
• Entire communities displaced, lands consolidated into white ownership

Phase 5: Erasure (1950s-present)

• Tribes remove Freedmen descendants from citizenship rolls
• Courts uphold tribal sovereignty to exclude based on race
• Muur and Creole descendants have no tribal affiliation to claim
• Federal recognition requirements designed to exclude nations without colonial documentation
• Historical narratives celebrate Oklahoma as “opened” to settlement, erasing Indigenous and Freedmen presence
• Contemporary sovereignty struggles framed as “new” rather than continuous resistance

The Numbers Tell the Story

By 1920, of the millions of acres allotted through the Dawes process:

• Freedmen had lost 90%+ of allotted lands through guardian fraud, legal restrictions, and forced sales
• “By blood” tribal members had lost 60-70% through similar schemes, though they had more legal protections
• White settlers had gained millions of acres through land runs, allotment purchases, and fraudulent transfers
• Muur and Creole nations had zero acres recognized as Indigenous territory, their lands fully absorbed into Oklahoma

The Unassigned Lands—theoretically set aside for freed people in 1866—went entirely to white homesteaders through the 1889 Land Run and subsequent openings. Not a single acre went to Freedmen communities as promised.

Why Documentation Violence Matters: Connecting to Today

The Dawes Rolls weren’t just a historical injustice. They created systems that continue to dispossess and divide:

Blood Quantum Today: The categories created by Dawes Rolls became the foundation for modern tribal enrollment. Cherokee Nation’s 2007 vote to exclude Freedmen descendants cited the separate rolls created by Dawes. The same logic—that “Freedmen by blood” aren’t “Cherokee by blood”—weaponizes colonial documentation against people whose ancestors were tribal citizens.

Federal Recognition: The Washitaw and other Muur nations face impossible barriers to federal recognition because:

• They lack European colonial documentation (which was designed to erase them)
• They don’t fit phenotypic expectations (because those expectations are racist)
• Their oral histories aren’t considered “proof” (because only colonial records count)
• Their territorial claims challenge narratives of “empty” land (which justified white settlement)

The Black/Indian Binary: Contemporary discussions of race and Indigeneity still enforce the mutual exclusivity created by Dawes Rolls. When dark-skinned people assert Indigenous identity, they face accusations of:

• “Pretending” to be Indigenous to escape anti-Black racism
• Appropriating Native identity
• Not looking “Indian enough”

These accusations rely on the colonial logic that made Freedmen, Washitaw, and Muur peoples legally impossible—the logic that African ancestry and Indigenous identity cannot coexist.

Land Back Movements: The dispossession of Freedmen and dark-skinned Indigenous nations is often erased from Land Back discourse. But returning lands to “recognized tribes” doesn’t address:

• Freedmen whose ancestors held allotments stolen through guardian fraud
• Muur and Creole nations whose territories were never legally recognized
• The millions of acres in Oklahoma that were stolen through documentation violence before being stolen again through allotment fraud

The Erasure Continues: Modern Sovereignty Struggles

The patterns established through the Dawes Rolls and the Unassigned Lands echo through contemporary Indigenous struggles:

Cherokee Freedmen (2007-present): Cherokee Nation’s attempt to exclude 2,800 Freedmen descendants from citizenship sparked a federal case that went on for a decade. The tribe argued that separate Dawes Rolls meant Freedmen were never “real” Cherokees. Courts have ruled they must honor the 1866 treaty granting citizenship, but resistance continues within tribal politics.

Washitaw Sovereignty (1990s-present): Though courts dismissed their land claims, the Washitaw continue to assert sovereignty through:

• Maintaining traditional governance structures
• Issuing their own passports and identification
• Teaching traditional knowledge and languages
• Challenging the legal fiction that they don’t exist

Freedmen Land Claims: Descendants of allottees defrauded by white guardians have filed claims seeking reparations, but face barriers:

• Proving ownership across generations with incomplete records
• Navigating legal systems that favor documentary “proof” over oral histories
• Fighting statute of limitations arguments that time-bar claims for century-old thefts
• Challenging the legitimacy of sales that were fraudulent but technically “legal”

Muur and Creole Recognition: Contemporary descendants seeking federal recognition face:

• Requirements for continuous community existence documented by colonial records
• Anthropological “verification” of cultural practices
• Genetic testing that can’t distinguish African from Indigenous American ancestry
• Courts that view their claims through the Black/Indian binary

Connecting to Broader Patterns: The Colonial Reclassification System

The dispossession in Indian Territory wasn’t unique—it was a perfected version of systems deployed globally wherever colonizers encountered dark-skinned Indigenous peoples:

In the Caribbean: Taíno, Kalinago, and Arawak peoples were reclassified as “Black” or “mixed race” to support extinction narratives. Their descendants face the same barriers to recognition: demands for colonial documentation of continuous community existence, despite those very colonial systems working to erase them.

In the Americas broadly: From the Garifuna to the Black Seminoles to the Freedmen, Indigenous peoples of African ancestry face unique erasure because their existence challenges the racial categories that justified colonization.

The Purpose: These classification systems serve land theft. By making “Black” and “Indian” mutually exclusive, colonial powers:

• Reduce the number of people with Indigenous land claims
• Pit marginalized communities against each other
• Create documentation trails that “prove” certain peoples don’t exist
• Justify ongoing occupation of territories deemed “unassigned” or “abandoned”

What Justice Looks Like: Beyond Recognition Politics

Addressing the dispossession of Freedmen, Washitaw, Muur, and Creole nations requires more than federal recognition or citizenship in existing tribes. It requires:

1. Rejecting Colonial Documentation as Truth

• Oral histories must be valued equally with written records
• The absence of colonial documentation doesn’t mean absence of peoples
• Dawes Rolls and similar systems were tools of dispossession, not neutral records

2. Challenging Blood Quantum and Racial Categories

• Indigenous identity shouldn’t depend on phenotype or percentages
• African ancestry and Indigenous identity aren’t mutually exclusive
• Matrilineal kinship systems must be honored over patrilineal colonial frameworks

3. Land Return to Dispossessed Communities

• Freedmen descendants whose allotments were stolen through fraud
• Muur and Creole nations whose territories were never legally recognized
• Communities whose lands became “Unassigned” through documentation violence

4. Reparations for Documentation Theft

• The Dawes Rolls stole identity, citizenship, and land through paperwork
• This violence has compound interest: generations denied inheritance, annuities, rights
• Financial reparations must account for century-long dispossession

5. Sovereignty Without Federal Approval

• Nations like the Washitaw assert sovereignty regardless of federal recognition
• Self-determination doesn’t require colonial validation
• Traditional governance and territorial claims predate and supersede colonial law

Conclusion: Whose Land, Whose Story, Whose Future

The Oklahoma Land Runs are celebrated in American mythology as brave pioneers claiming opportunity in empty land. The Dawes Rolls are presented as benevolent government efforts to help Indigenous peoples transition to “civilization.” The rejection of Washitaw and Muur sovereignty claims is framed as courts preventing “fake Indians” from exploiting the system.

But when we center the voices and histories of those who were dispossessed, a different story emerges:

Land runs were land theft from territories that had been cleared through documentation violence, broken treaties, and forced reclassification.

The Dawes Rolls were weapons that fragmented resistance, erased dark-skinned Indigenous peoples, and created divisions that serve colonial interests 130 years later.

Court rejections of sovereignty claims reveal the inadequacy of colonial legal systems, not the illegitimacy of Indigenous nations whose existence challenges racial categories.

The descendants of Freedmen, Washitaw, Muur, and Creole peoples continue to fight for recognition, citizenship, land rights, and sovereignty. Their struggles reveal what has always been true: colonial systems didn’t just steal land through guns and treaties. They stole it through paperwork, through categories, through documentation that reclassified peoples out of existence.

Understanding this history means recognizing that “unassigned lands” were never empty, that Freedmen are Indigenous peoples denied full citizenship, that Washitaw sovereignty doesn’t require federal recognition, and that the Dawes Rolls accomplished exactly what they were designed to do—fragment, dispossess, and divide.

The land was never empty. The peoples were never gone. And the fight for justice continues in every sovereignty struggle, every citizenship battle, every assertion of identity that refuses colonial categories.

---

This article is part of the Colonial Reclassification Series examining how documentation systems weaponize racial categories to fragment Indigenous resistance and facilitate land theft. For more on how these patterns echo across the African diaspora and Indigenous Americas, visit Livity.Blog.

References and Further Reading

Legal Cases and Federal Documents

Washitaw Nation v. Department of Interior, Civil Action No. 96-3419 (E.D. La. 1999)

Cherokee Nation v. Nash (Freedmen case), Case No. 03-CV-0169-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. 2017)

Treaty with the Cherokee, 1866 (14 Stat. 799) – Reconstruction Treaty granting Freedmen citizenship

Treaty with the Creek, 1866 (14 Stat. 785)

Treaty with the Seminole, 1866 (14 Stat. 755)

Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1866 (14 Stat. 769)

Dawes Commission Records, National Archives, Record Group 75 – Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, 1898-1914

Indian Appropriation Act of 1889 (25 Stat. 1004) – Authorized opening of Unassigned Lands

Curtis Act of 1898 (30 Stat. 495) – Dissolved tribal governments and mandated allotment

Scholarly Works on Freedmen and Indian Territory

Chang, David A. The Color of the Land: Race, Nation, and the Politics of Landownership in Oklahoma, 1832-1929. University of North Carolina Press, 2010.

Krauthamer, Barbara. Black Slaves, Indian Masters: Slavery, Emancipation, and Citizenship in the Native American South. University of North Carolina Press, 2013.

Miles, Tiya. Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom. University of California Press, 2005.

Saunt, Claudio. Black, White, and Indian: Race and the Unmaking of an American Family. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Zellar, Gary. African Creeks: Estelvste and the Creek Nation. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.

Wickett, Murray R. Contested Territory: Whites, Native Americans, and African Americans in Oklahoma, 1865-1907. Louisiana State University Press, 2000.

The Dawes Rolls and Allotment

Debo, Angie. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton University Press, 1940. [Classic documentation of allotment fraud]

Sturm, Circe. Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. University of California Press, 2002.

Garroutte, Eva Marie. Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America. University of California Press, 2003. [Blood quantum politics]

Hoxie, Frederick E. A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

Bowes, John P. Land Too Good for Indians: Northern Indian Removal. University of Oklahoma Press, 2016.

Guardian Fraud and Land Theft Mechanisms

Grann, David. Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI. Doubleday, 2017. [Documents guardian fraud and murders for oil-rich allotments]

Wilson, Terry P. The Underground Reservation: Osage Oil. University of Nebraska Press, 1985.

Chang, David A. “Where Will the Nation Be at Home? Race, Nationalisms, and Emigration Movements in the Creek Nation.” In Crossing Waters, Crossing Worlds: The African Diaspora in Indian Country, edited by Tiya Miles and Sharon P. Holland, 80-99. Duke University Press, 2006.

Oklahoma Land Runs and “Unassigned Lands”

Hoig, Stan. The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889. Oklahoma Historical Society, 1984.

Baird, W. David and Danney Goble. The Story of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.

Reese, Linda Williams. Women of Oklahoma, 1890-1920. University of Oklahoma Press, 1997. [Includes analysis of who benefited from land runs]

Gibson, Arrell M. Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries. University of Oklahoma Press, 1981.

Washitaw Nation and Muur Indigenous Claims

Verdiacee “Tiari” Washitaw-Turner Goston El-Bey. The Emperial [sic] Constitution of the Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu’ur Nation. Washitaw Nation Publications, 1999.

Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. “The Question of Genocide in US Indian History.” In Reframing the U.S. and Global Histories of Indigenous Peoples, edited by Kelley and Shelby, 31-54. Duke University Press, 2018. [Context for Indigenous erasure mechanisms]

Forbes, Jack D. Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples. University of Illinois Press, 1993.

Katz, William Loren. Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. Atheneum, 1986.

Creole and Multiracial Indigenous Communities

Vaughan, Alden T. Roots of American Racism: Essays on the Colonial Experience. Oxford University Press, 1995.

Ogunleye, Tolagbe. “The Self-Emancipated Africans of Florida: Pan-African Nationalists in the ‘New World.’” Journal of Black Studies 27, no. 1 (1996): 24-38.

Kennedy, N. Brent. The Melungeons: The Resurrection of a Proud People. Mercer University Press, 1997.

Berry, Brewton. Almost White. Macmillan, 1963. [Study of tri-racial isolate communities]

Perdue, Theda. “Mixed Blood” Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. University of Georgia Press, 2003.

Blood Quantum and Racial Classification Systems

TallBear, Kim. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. University of Minnesota Press, 2013.

Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387-409.

Byrd, Jodi A. The Transit of Empire: Indigenous Critiques of Colonialism. University of Minnesota Press, 2011.

Smithers, Gregory D. Slave Breeding: Sex, Violence, and Memory in African American History. University Press of Florida, 2012. [Includes discussion of racial classification]

Cherokee Freedmen Contemporary Struggles

Conley, Robert J. The Cherokee Nation: A History. University of New Mexico Press, 2005.

Vann, Marilyn. “Separate and Unequal: The Plight of the Cherokee Freedmen.” Human Rights Magazine 33, no. 2 (2006).

Smithers, Gregory D. The Cherokee Diaspora: An Indigenous History of Migration, Resettlement, and Identity. Yale University Press, 2015.

Sturm, Circe. Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century. School for Advanced Research Press, 2011.

Matrilineal Systems and Colonial Disruption

Mann, Barbara Alice. Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas. Peter Lang Publishing, 2000. [Matrilineal governance structures]

Perdue, Theda. Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700-1835. University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

Klein, Laura F. and Lillian A. Ackerman, eds. Women and Power in Native North America. University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

Documentation Violence and Colonial Records

Axtell, James. “Colonial America without the Indians: Counterfactual Reflections.” Journal of American History 73, no. 4 (1987): 981-996.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Beacon Press, 1995.

Stoler, Ann Laura. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Rifkin, Mark. “Indigenizing Agamben: Rethinking Sovereignty in Light of the ‘Peculiar’ Status of Native Peoples.” Cultural Critique 73 (2009): 88-124.

Broader Context: Indigenous-African Connections

Miles, Tiya and Sharon P. Holland, eds. Crossing Waters, Crossing Worlds: The African Diaspora in Indian Country. Duke University Press, 2006.

Mulroy, Kevin. The Seminole Freedmen: A History. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.

Littlefield, Daniel F., Jr. Africans and Creeks: From the Colonial Period to the Civil War. Greenwood Press, 1979.

Littlefield, Daniel F., Jr. Africans and Seminoles: From Removal to Emancipation. University Press of Mississippi, 1977.

Bateman, Rebecca B. “Africans and Indians: A Comparative Study of the Black Carib and Black Seminole.” Ethnohistory 37, no. 1 (1990): 1-24.

Land Back and Contemporary Sovereignty

Estes, Nick. Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance. Verso, 2019.

Coulthard, Glen Sean. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. University of Minnesota Press, 2014.

Simpson, Audra. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Duke University Press, 2014.

Tuck, Eve and K. Wayne Yang. “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 1-40.

Primary Source Collections

Oklahoma Historical Society Collections – Dawes Commission correspondence, tribal rolls, allotment records

National Archives, Fort Worth – Bureau of Indian Affairs records for Five Civilized Tribes

Western History Collections, University of Oklahoma – Indian-Pioneer Papers, interviews with early Oklahoma settlers and tribal members

Gilcrease Museum Archives – Creek Nation records, Freedmen documentation

Cherokee National Historical Society Archives – Cherokee Freedmen materials, citizenship records

Additional Resources on Reclassification and Erasure

Simpson, Audra and Andrea Smith, eds. Theorizing Native Studies. Duke University Press, 2014.

Byrd, Jodi A., Alyosha Goldstein, Jodi Melamed, and Chandan Reddy. “Predatory Value: Economies of Dispossession and Disturbed Relationalities.” Social Text 36, no. 2 (2018): 1-18.

Wolfe, Patrick. Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race. Verso, 2016.

---

Note on Sources and Methodology

This article draws on historical records, legal documents, scholarly research, and oral histories. The Dawes Rolls themselves are problematic sources—they are tools of colonial documentation violence. Using them as references requires acknowledging their role in dispossession while extracting information about the peoples they attempted to erase.

The Washitaw Nation’s own publications and sovereignty claims are treated as primary sources reflecting their perspective, even as mainstream legal and historical scholarship dismisses them. This methodological choice centers Indigenous voices over colonial validation.

For Muur and Creole nations, sources are limited precisely because of the erasure documented in this article. Oral histories, community claims, and descendants’ testimonies are weighted equally with academic sources, rejecting the colonial hierarchy that privileges written documentation over lived experience.

For those researching their own Freedmen or mixed-ancestry heritage:

• Dawes Rolls are searchable at: https://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/dawes-final-rolls.htm
• National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/dawes
• Oklahoma Historical Society: https://www.okhistory.org/

Support contemporary Freedmen sovereignty struggles:

• Descendants of Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes Association: https://www.freedmen5tribes.com/​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​