more specifically chicken chickasaw referred to specifically the former slaves of the chickasaw indians. and so the reason the land designated for indian free people in the treaties of 1866 is different and it is significant is because this was through american governmental action. the russian republicans had not been able to give african americans in the united states land. it was frankly impossible for the majority republicans were moderates and often taking from a white person and giving it to a black person as i'm sure you know property ownership was and continues to be one of the most revered american values. but, public and such the secretary of interior mission of indian affairs of the time, could not imagine inland people of african dissent. because in these men's opinions they value plans because they valued private land ownership the same way white americans. also indian use of land is on supervised. it is not properly utilizing their land. therefore to them, giving indian land away to people of african descent felt a lot idealistic of black land ownership was still allowed wh

i want to tell you that chickasaws man and the way he talks about his former owners. and he says at that time, the indians did not have anything but small farms and of course among them, they worked like they should. the slaves enough corn to make the bread. and so this may seem maybe this isn't that bad language that he uses, they didn't work like they should. i mean, using the idea of americanness as craig will but the native americans were really looking to survive. so anything is with american and people were capable of working harder, the way they should if they were only given the model and the opportunity. and so this is strategic language use in the increase of the words and very aware that was the united states it had negotiated for the freedoms and for the land ownership, let the former slave owners. some of them align themselves with white americans and the definitions of civilization and productivity. as for five people look to move west, we see some of them also using these ideas about native americans laziness or lack of productivity or civilization. in

they didn't bother to speak to any chickasaws. they killed seven of the americans and sent the rest flying and on their way home, they rode through chickasaw towns displaying the scalps of these americans that they had killed. chickasaws were shocked that this creek violence on their own land. at this violation of their sovereignty. the justification was that the chickasaws ceded land which belongs to my nation. now this was an audacious claim the chickasaws had someone youed a group that had jurisdiction over their land and could punish the chickasaws for making decisions over it. chickasaw land was now confederacy land, at least vis-a-vis the americans. chickasaw's, chocktaws and most cherries rejected an aggressive creek move and would make their own paths hanging on to their own national identities. similarly, wile some indians joined the call for indians to come together as one people and fight the united states, many more rejected twhat saw as an assault on their national sovereignty. they declared, indians were once differe

trading post on chickasaws lane to have more access to trade. and they granted the united states some land on the border. basically to try to get rid of a squatter settlement that have been set up by recently -- to push them off further from the heart of chickasaws country. in response to these decisions it wore party of creeks rode into chickasaws contrary, not bothering to speak to any chickasaws, they killed seven of the americans, sent the rests flight. on their way home they rode through chickasaws pans displaying the scalps of these americans they had killed. chickasaws were shocked that creek violence on their own land, this violation of their sovereignty. monolith raise justification was that the chickasaws has ceded land which belonged to my nation. now this is an audacious claim that the chickasaws had somehow joined a confederacy that and now jurisdiction over the land. that could punish the check us all waiters for making decisions about it. the proponent of it, check us all and was now confederacy land. at least vis-À-vis the americ

the chickasaw and choctaw nations had to give them specifically 40 acres of land. during reconstruction or black history in general african-americans in the u.s. didn't get it. this is united states coming into indian nations that are supposed to have the right to create drama and be completely sovereign and just about every of the way in the u.s. is saying we are going to force you to free people but we ourselves are going to force it to adopt citizens and give them the accompanying rights of citizenship something we in 1866 have not yet done and give them land. now was this right? legally no. the nation had emancipation 19 -- 1863 so they decided to do this without direct coercion. the creek seminoles chickasaw and choctaw had they emancipated slaves without american emancipation? did they give them rights and citizenship? probably not. would they have given them land? probably not but this land to the former slaves down a different lane of african-americans in united states. swept through the colonies. >> we've been talking about the founding of the american

the force migrations of the five civilized tribes the cherokee the muskogee creek the choctaw the chickasaw the seminoles out of the southeastern united states into what was the indian territory in the 1830s and 1840s, but we don't talk about the fact that all five of those tribes enslaved black people. we don't talk about the fact that on those trails of tears were people of african ancestry as members of those tribes many enslaves some free. so that's how people event african ancestry got to oklahoma in the first instance with the five civilized tribes really important. we don't talk about the fact that. the five civilized tribes officially sided with the confederacy during the civil war. the confederacy lost that war by the way, and those tribes executed trees with the federal government post civil war general called the trees of 1866. in those treaties those tribes with the exception of the chickasaws agreed to accept their formally enslaved africans as tribal members, that's really significant because ultimately those black tribal members would receive land allotments parcels of land a

in those treaties, those tribes, with the exception of the chickasaws agreed to accept their formally enslaved africans as tribal members. that's really significant because ultimately, those black tribal members would receive land allotments, parcels of land. and land in the late 1800s, early 1900s really was an accession to wealth. these people called freed men got their 40 acres and more. other people of african ancestry in america, we talk of 40 acres and a mule, those people never got that. these freed men, these black people who were tribal members because of their affiliation received land allotments. again, land is an accession to wealth. some of them pulled the allotments and created the all-black towns. oklahoma had more all-black towns than any other state in the union. the land allotments allowed these people wealth such that they could support successful communities like the greenwood district, which actually '70s land that once belonged to both cherokees and muskogee creek citizens. so those freed men, those people who were members of the muskogee creek nation, the cherok