<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Boomers &#038; Sooners, Part Two ~ An Editorial and a Carpenter	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Jun 2023 20:23:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Blue Cereal		</title>
		<link>https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/comment-page-1/#comment-118</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blue Cereal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost:8888/bluecerealwp/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/#comment-118</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/comment-page-1/#comment-117&quot;&gt;David Burton&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Freedmen&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;I appreciate the clarification, David - and yeah, that&#039;s my understanding as well. The suspicious cynic in me wondered if Boudinot was suggesting land grants were being given (or considered) to Freedmen from outside I.T. or some other such scheme. There were movements to make Oklahoma an &#039;all black&#039; state, and we had/have a substantial number of &#039;black towns&#039;, but all of the land assignments with which I&#039;m familiar prior to the first Land Run were in the context of the 5CT and their former slaves or presumed former slaves. Even those not fully &#039;integrated&#039; into the tribes were presumed by the Federal Government to be associated w/ one of the tribes enough to &#039;deserve&#039; the land... or that&#039;s my understanding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for commenting! Your words mean a great deal.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/comment-page-1/#comment-117">David Burton</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Freedmen</strong></p>
<p>I appreciate the clarification, David &#8211; and yeah, that&#8217;s my understanding as well. The suspicious cynic in me wondered if Boudinot was suggesting land grants were being given (or considered) to Freedmen from outside I.T. or some other such scheme. There were movements to make Oklahoma an &#8216;all black&#8217; state, and we had/have a substantial number of &#8216;black towns&#8217;, but all of the land assignments with which I&#8217;m familiar prior to the first Land Run were in the context of the 5CT and their former slaves or presumed former slaves. Even those not fully &#8216;integrated&#8217; into the tribes were presumed by the Federal Government to be associated w/ one of the tribes enough to &#8216;deserve&#8217; the land&#8230; or that&#8217;s my understanding.</p>
<p>Thanks for commenting! Your words mean a great deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Burton		</title>
		<link>https://bluecerealeducation.com/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/comment-page-1/#comment-117</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Burton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost:8888/bluecerealwp/blog/boomers-sooners-part-two-editorial-and-carpenter/#comment-117</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;&quot;The implication that&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&quot;The implication that freedmen were ever intended to be granted acreage in I.T. outside the procedure for tribal land allotment is – to the best of my knowledge – ridiculous.&quot;

It is my understanding that the during the negotiation of the post-war/reconstruction era treaties the tribes had to address the status of freedmen within their territories (all of the 5CTs allowed the legal owning of slaves): either freedmen had to be given full-fledged membership within the tribe or they had to give a chunk of their land to the freedmen. (The Cherokees are still in federal court litigation after having banished all of the &quot;black-Cherokees&quot; from tribal rolls a few years ago...but this is the legacy of rights to oil and casino revenues).

I share that to say that maybe ECB may not be as far off from his comments as you might think.

BUT...I just love reading your historic related posts/series!!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>&#8220;The implication that</strong><br />&#8220;The implication that freedmen were ever intended to be granted acreage in I.T. outside the procedure for tribal land allotment is – to the best of my knowledge – ridiculous.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is my understanding that the during the negotiation of the post-war/reconstruction era treaties the tribes had to address the status of freedmen within their territories (all of the 5CTs allowed the legal owning of slaves): either freedmen had to be given full-fledged membership within the tribe or they had to give a chunk of their land to the freedmen. (The Cherokees are still in federal court litigation after having banished all of the &#8220;black-Cherokees&#8221; from tribal rolls a few years ago&#8230;but this is the legacy of rights to oil and casino revenues).</p>
<p>I share that to say that maybe ECB may not be as far off from his comments as you might think.</p>
<p>BUT&#8230;I just love reading your historic related posts/series!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
