List of Choctaw Freedmen whose names were omitted from final rolls because no application was made or by. reason of mistake or oversight. Shows the names of 281 persons, all minors except 4. The approved roll of minor Choctaw freedmen contains 473 names. The large percentage of omissions in this class is explained elsewhere. It is quite probable that there are others of this class whose claims have not yet been presented or disclosed.
D. B. Vernon and 38 others applied for Choctaw Nation citizenship in 1896, citing ancestry from Richard and Sam Vernon, who were allegedly listed on the 1830 Choctaw roll. Despite witness testimony supporting their claims, the Dawes Commission denied their application. The U.S. court reversed this decision in 1897, enrolling multiple family members. However, in 1902, the Citizenship Court vacated this ruling, and in 1904, it denied their enrollment, questioning their Choctaw lineage and residency. Despite their community standing, their claims were ultimately rejected, contrasting with earlier rulings recognizing their Choctaw heritage.
Edward J. Horne and his family applied for Choctaw Nation citizenship by blood in 1896, citing descent from Davis Logan, a full-blood Choctaw. The Choctaw council initially approved their enrollment in 1892, but procedural issues delayed finalization. The Dawes Commission denied their application in 1896, but the U.S. court ruled in their favor in 1897. However, in 1902, the Citizenship Court vacated this ruling and later denied their enrollment in 1904, despite extensive evidence of Choctaw ancestry. Subsequent applications for their descendants were also rejected, leaving the family excluded from tribal citizenship despite earlier recognition.
Elizabeth Hignight and her family applied for Choctaw Nation citizenship in 1896, citing descent from Patsey Jane West, a full-blood Choctaw. Initially denied by the Dawes Commission, they appealed to the U.S. court, which ruled in their favor in 1898. However, in 1902, the Citizenship Court vacated this decision, and in 1904, it denied their enrollment. Despite unchallenged evidence of Choctaw ancestry and long-term residence in Indian Territory, they were ultimately excluded from the final rolls. Their counsel argued they were entitled to enrollment, as previous rulings had recognized their claims.
Emily J. Zumwalt applied for Choctaw Nation citizenship in 1896 for herself, her husband Nathan B. Zumwalt, her niece Amanda A. Zumwalt, and her brother James H. Whitney. The Dawes Commission admitted all except Nathan B. Zumwalt. The U.S. court upheld this decision in 1897. However, in 1902, the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court vacated the ruling, and in 1904, it denied their enrollment. Despite clear documentation of Choctaw ancestry, the applicants were ultimately excluded. Their counsel argued they were entitled to enrollment, as no evidence disputed their heritage.
The 1896 Choctaw Census Roll, in possession of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, provides detailed demographic data of Choctaw families, listing heads of families, children, and other household members with their ages and relationships. Notably, the roll, prepared uniformly by a single hand, includes remarks and notations, some incomplete or unclear, often added by the Dawes Commission. This census roll, derived from county enumerators’ lists, was authorized by Congress and used in fieldwork starting in 1897. Despite its generally high quality, the roll contains inconsistencies and missing data, reflecting the challenges of accurately documenting the population at the time.
David H. Folsom, Choctaw And Chickasaw Commission, No. . David H. Folsom, 1899. Appeared before Dawes Commission at Atoka and was rejected. June 4, 1900. Again appeared before commission and was told that he could not be enrolled. The applicant is three-sixteenths Chickasaw and one-sixteenth Choctaw. He was born in Blue County, Choctaw Nation, in 1846, His father was Noah Wall Folsom, who died in Blue County in 1800. His mother. Susan Folsom, was one-half Chickasaw. His sister, Catherine Robinson (formerly McGee), is now upon the final rolls. 1902. The Chickasaw Legislature by resolution requested the enrollment of applicant. The … Read more
Daniel T. Sledge applied for Choctaw Nation citizenship in 1899 for himself and his children, Nona and Leda R. Sledge, as citizens by blood, and his wife, Lula Sledge, as an intermarried citizen. The Dawes Commission denied their application in 1905, with appeals rejected by the Department of the Interior. Additional applications for younger children in 1906 were also refused. Daniel T. Sledge, a full brother of William Sledge, had resided in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for over a decade. Legal counsel argued for enrollment based on ancestry and long-term residence.
The Askew, Hill, Rhoades, and Bennett families sought Choctaw Nation citizenship based on descent from Aaron Askew, a half-blood Choctaw from Alabama. Their applications, filed in 1896, were initially denied by the Dawes Commission but later upheld by U.S. courts in 1897 and 1898. Some members were admitted by tribal authorities, while others were denied by the Citizenship Court in 1904. Despite unchallenged evidence of Choctaw ancestry and established residence in Indian Territory before 1898, their enrollment was ultimately revoked. Legal counsel argued for reinstatement based on prior rulings and tribal recognition.
At the conclusion of the enrollment work on March 4, 1907, the process was far from complete, resulting in significant confusion and ongoing litigation. The Department of the Interior faced a complex situation, as it had to balance the enrollment of citizens and freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes with numerous other responsibilities, such as allotting tribal lands, resolving land contests, segregating town sites, and managing rights of way for infrastructure projects. These tasks, combined with the necessity of creating and enforcing regulations, significantly constrained the time available for enrollment work. Additionally, the administrative and legal challenges, coupled with the pressures from various stakeholders, highlighted the impracticality of the March 4 deadline and its resultant injustices.
The document discusses the enrollment cases of individuals who were entitled to be listed as citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes but were omitted due to various reasons, including government oversight. Choctaw by Blood: Mary King; Chickasaw by Blood: Ecius Shields, Barney Shields; Choctaw Freedmen: Gilbert McKinney, Lena Dunford, Della Chester, Martha Ann Owens, Henry Owens, Sephus Liggins, Roberta Liggins.
The document discusses the enrollment cases of individuals who were entitled to be listed as citizens of the Choctaw Tribe but were omitted due to various reasons, including government oversight. Choctaw Freedmen Newborn: Si Johnson, Charley Johnson, Emerson James, Carl Harrison, Brillie Harrison, Ida Bird, Estoria Hall, Andy Butler, Georgan Butler, Hattie Burris, Isaac Burris, John Burris.
This text discusses the legal and historical aspects of land titles held by the Five Civilized Tribes, particularly the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, after their forced removal to Indian Territory. It examines treaties, such as the 1820 and 1830 agreements, which influenced land ownership rights. The document outlines claims by individuals of Choctaw and Chickasaw descent regarding their rights to land, the legal interpretations of these claims, and congressional involvement. Additionally, it highlights the difficulties of removal, tribal policies toward returning members, and later legal decisions impacting tribal land ownership.
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.
Lou Bumgarner and her children applied for enrollment as Choctaw Nation citizens in 1905, citing their 1897 enrollment by the Choctaw revisory board. The Dawes Commission denied their application, referencing a notation on the 1896 tribal roll that their enrollment had been “without authority of law.” Appeals were rejected, and later applications under the 1906 Congressional Act were also refused. Despite Bumgarner’s claims of Choctaw ancestry and continuous residence, federal authorities ruled that no timely application had been made. Legal counsel argued for reinstatement based on improper record alterations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.