Five Civilized Tribes In Oklahoma Collections – Page 7 of 7

Cases McPheteridge, Sledge, Gordon, Tapp, Choctaws

James McPheteridge, Harriet Gordon, William Sledge, and others sought enrollment as Choctaw citizens based on descent from Thomas Frazier, a Choctaw Indian. Their claims were initially approved by the Dawes Commission and upheld by U.S. courts but were later vacated by the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in 1902. Despite residing in Indian Territory for decades, their applications and those of their descendants were denied. Counsel argued they should be enrolled alongside their half-sister, Maggie F. Richerson, whose Choctaw citizenship was recognized.

Buster Orphan, Chickasaw Minor

The case of *Buster Orphan v. Chickasaw Nation* concerned the posthumous enrollment of Buster Orphan as a Chickasaw citizen by blood. His parents, Levi Orphan and Rena Orphan (née Folsom), were Chickasaw citizens, with Levi being a full-blood Chickasaw. Testimonies from multiple witnesses confirmed Buster’s birth in 1905 and death in 1908. His father had recorded his birth date in a Choctaw hymn book. However, no application for his enrollment had been made during his lifetime. The Department of the Interior determined that Buster could not be enrolled without Congressional authorization, highlighting the strict legal limitations on late applications.

Annie McGee, Chickasaw

The case of *Annie McGee v. Chickasaw Nation* involved a petition to transfer Annie McGee from the Chickasaw freedmen roll to the Chickasaw by blood roll. Filed in 1900, the petition asserted that Annie was the daughter of Jesse McGee, a recognized Chickasaw citizen by blood. However, a 1906 hearing revealed that Annie’s mother was Caroline Wilson, a freedwoman. Since Annie was over 18 in 1902 and had never been formally recognized as a Chickasaw citizen, her application was denied in 1907. Despite her siblings being enrolled as Chickasaws by blood, Annie’s case was not reconsidered.

Annie Ensharky, Chickasaw Minor

The case of Annie Ensharky v. Chickasaw Nation involved an application for her enrollment as a Chickasaw citizen by blood. Testimony established that Annie was the daughter of Sophia Arpealer and C. A. Ensharky (also recorded as Edlow Sharkley). Born around March 1900 in the Chickasaw Nation, Annie was raised by her mother and later by her maternal relatives after Sophia’s death. She never lived with her father. Witnesses confirmed her Chickasaw ancestry through her maternal family. Despite this, her enrollment depended on legal recognition by the Chickasaw Nation and U.S. government authorities.

Angus A. Spring, Choctaw Claim

This claim details the extensive legal journey of Angus A. Spring and his family in their quest for recognition as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. Initially listed on the Choctaw tribal roll in 1896, their application faced multiple rejections and appeals. The family’s legal battle spanned over a decade, involving various courts and commissions, and highlighted the complexities of citizenship claims within the Choctaw Nation. Despite favorable judgments, their status was repeatedly challenged, culminating in a final denial of enrollment by the citizenship court in 1904.

Anderson F. Cowling, Choctaw by Blood

Anderson F. Cowling, identified as a Choctaw by blood, applied for enrollment in 1896. The Dawes Commission and U.S. court initially ruled in his favor, but the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court later denied his claim. His name appeared on the 1885 Choctaw census, and his children were ultimately enrolled as Choctaws by blood. Despite his active role in the Choctaw Nation—voting, holding office, and owning land—he was denied enrollment in 1904. His counsel argued that his established Choctaw identity and his children’s enrollment justified his inclusion as a citizen by blood.

Amanda Coyle, Choctaw

Amanda Coyle applied for Choctaw citizenship by blood in 1899 and again in 1902, citing her mother, Mary Pierce, as a recognized half-blood Choctaw. Supporting affidavits confirmed her lineage, but her application was denied because neither her name nor her mother’s appeared on later Choctaw rolls. Despite evidence of her mother’s prior enrollment before her 1875 death, officials relied on posthumous records from 1885 onward. The decision was upheld in 1904, with counsel arguing that her Choctaw ancestry and lifelong residence in Indian Territory justified enrollment.

Aleck Brown, Chickasaw

The case of Aleck Brown et al. v. Chickasaw Nation involved the application for enrollment of Aleck Brown and Sibbie (or Seber) Johnson as Chickasaw citizens by blood. Both applicants were children of Temene (or Tamena), a full-blood Chickasaw woman whose other children were listed on the final Chickasaw rolls. Despite evidence of their Chickasaw ancestry and residency, the Dawes Commission denied their enrollment on February 26, 1907, citing their absence from tribal rolls. The decision was upheld by the Department of the Interior on March 4, 1907, despite arguments that they were entitled to recognition under tribal law.

Agnes O. Mallory, Choctaw

Agnes O. Mallory and her family applied for enrollment as Choctaws by blood in 1896, claiming descent from Jesse Turnbull, a full-blood Choctaw. Despite settling in the Choctaw Nation in 1894 and providing supporting affidavits, their application was initially denied. A U.S. court later ruled in their favor in 1898, granting them Choctaw citizenship. However, in 1904, the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court reversed this decision, citing delayed relocation from Mississippi. Legal disputes continued, with conflicting interpretations of treaty obligations, affecting their final status within the tribe.

Affidavit of W. J. Thompson, Exhibit A½

William J. Thompson’s affidavit, dated November 21, 1908, provides a detailed account of his father, Giles Thompson, and his family’s history in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Thompson asserts that his father, a recognized Choctaw citizen, was listed on the 1830 tribal roll and the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Despite evidence of his lineage and residency, William J. Thompson’s application for enrollment was denied, while his father’s former slaves were enrolled as Choctaw freedmen.

Acts under which the Work of Enrollment was Prosecuted

It has been pointed out above that the intervention of the United States in respect to the making of the tribal rolls was necessary because the tribal authorities had themselves failed to make correct rolls, owing to their corrupt practices, and that many persons who were entitled to citizenship were unjustly deprived of their rights. From all that has been said it is apparent that Congress intended to. and actually did, repudiate the tribal rolls in a large measure. In undertaking the work of making the rolls Congress legislated as guardian upon the theory that the Indians were wards of … Read more

Acts of Special Character

The Choctaw and Chickasaw Agreement, ratified in 1902, significantly impacted tribal enrollment processes, particularly by restricting new applications after a set deadline. It also established the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court to review prior enrollment decisions, leading to the controversial Riddle case, which nullified many previous rulings. Similarly, the Cherokee Agreement of 1902 maintained enrollment limitations and faced legal disputes over application deadlines and roll confirmations.

Acts of General and Preliminary Character

The Acts of 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1900 shaped the complex enrollment process of the Five Civilized Tribes, often creating legal confusion and disenfranchisement. The 1896 Act underestimated the work involved and imposed restrictive deadlines, while the 1897 Act failed to produce a definitive roll. The 1898 Curtis Act emphasized correcting existing rolls but limited new enrollments. The 1900 Act further restricted applications, prioritizing expediency over fairness. These laws favored elimination over inclusion, resulting in numerous rejected claims based on jurisdictional technicalities rather than merit, complicating the path to citizenship and land allotments.

Acts of a Supplemental Character

(7) Act of March 5, 1905 (33 Stat., 1048,1060} This act was supplemental to the regular enrollment acts and authorized the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, for 60 days following the approval of the act, to receive and consider the applications of certain newborn children for whose enrollment no provision had been made. This act was restrictive in three respects: (a) It restricted the right to make application to the offspring of persons whose enrollment had theretofore been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. This was probably an unintentional defect in the law, but nevertheless it operated to … Read more

Action Which Should be taken to Complete Unfinished Work

The enrollment process for the Five Civilized Tribes remained incomplete by March 4, 1907, leaving many individuals disenfranchised due to administrative errors, restrictive laws, and procedural inefficiencies. Assistant Attorney Joseph W. Howell proposed granting the Secretary of the Interior broader authority to correct errors, address overlooked cases, and ensure fairness without reopening the rolls. He emphasized the urgency of action while experienced officials and records were still available. Howell outlined specific cases requiring review, including minors, orphans, freedmen, and individuals misclassified on tribal rolls, advocating a localized, efficient approach to resolving these outstanding enrollment issues.

Abraham H. Nail, Choctaw

Abraham H. Nail and his family applied for Choctaw citizenship based on his descent from Rev. William Nail, a quarter-blood Choctaw. Initially admitted by the Choctaw National Council in 1875, he was later denied in 1888 due to new filing deadlines. However, in 1891, a U.S. Indian agent ruled in his favor. The Dawes Commission and U.S. court reaffirmed his citizenship in 1896 and 1897, respectively. In 1904, the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court reversed these decisions. A final 1907 ruling upheld this denial, despite later corrections to a legal misinterpretation, preventing enrollment due to timing constraints.

A Bill to Reopen the Rolls of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Tribe

This letter from the Department of the Interior, dated July 2, 1912, to Hon. John H. Stephens, discusses H.R. 19123, a bill proposing to reopen the rolls of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Tribe and address rights from the 1830 treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. It outlines the history and challenges of the Mississippi Choctaws’ claims, emphasizing difficulties in proving lineage and compliance with the treaty. The letter critiques the feasibility of the bill’s provisions, particularly the extensive evidence required and the unrealistic timeline for re-investigating claims, and recommends against its enactment. The document is signed by First Assistant Secretary Samuel Adams.