The Night 100 ‘Negroes’ Declared They Were Indigenous: The Lost Debate of 1901
- Ishmael Bey
- 24 hours ago
- 5 min read
On the evening of April 9, 1901, more than one hundred Black residents of Minneapolis crowded into Bethesda Baptist Church for a public debate that few Americans today have ever heard about. The question before them was bold:
Should Black Americans establish their own self-governed commonwealth inside the United States?
Four prominent local speakers took the stage.
John W. Wright and Harvey Burke argued in favor.
J. C. Reed and McCant Stewart aka Coons opposed the plan.
Wright opened the debate with a message that resonated far beyond Minnesota. He argued that if Black people controlled their own territory, white mobs could no longer storm into their communities, seize an innocent man, and lynch him with impunity. A Black commonwealth, he insisted, would bring protection, dignity, and the political independence the U.S. government refused to guarantee.
Stewart countered that Black people needed equal opportunity not separation. Reed warned that a “Negro republic” would fail economically. The judges ultimately ruled that the pro-colony speakers won the debate, but when the crowd was polled, most listeners hesitated to endorse leaving their homes for an uncertain new homeland.
At first glance, the debate seems like a local curiosity. But what came next reveals an even deeper historical truth.
The Editorial That Changed Everything: “Descendants of the Aborigines”
The following morning, the Minneapolis Daily Times published a second article analyzing the debate. And in that commentary, the newspaper casually wrote something explosive:
Indian Territory was already “owned and controlled by descendants of the aborigines.”
In another passage, the paper referred to the population south of the 40th parallel as the “indigenous negro.”
These statements are historically seismic. A mainstream newspaper in 1901 openly acknowledged that many people classified as “Negro” in the United States were actually Indigenous to this land, not African immigrants.
This supports what thousands of families have always preserved in oral tradition:
Before the explosion of racial bureaucracy, many Southeastern and Midwestern Indigenous peoples were reclassified as Negro, Colored, or Black.
The newspaper laid it out plainly:
A “Negro commonwealth” would inevitably overlap with Indigenous populations.
Those “Negroes” were in fact the Aboriginal descendants of the region.
Indian Territory was already governed by these communities.
The editors knew that “Negro” was a political label not an origin.
John W. Wright and Harvey Burke Won the Debate
Legal & Political Significance: A Pre-1924 Record of Black–Indigenous Sovereignty Claims
Legally, this 1901 debate and editorial matter for several reasons:
1. It predates the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
This means the newspaper was acknowledging Aboriginal identity among Negro-classified people before the federal government imposed citizenship on Indigenous Nations.
2. It documents early Black–Indigenous political thought about territorial self-rule.
The Minneapolis meeting is one of the earliest recorded civic discussions of Black/Indigenous autonomy within U.S. borders, echoing later movements like the:
Black Belt Nation concept
Republic of New Africa
Indigenous sovereignty movements
Freedmen claims within the Five Tribes
3. It demonstrates that “Negro” in legal records cannot be assumed to mean African.
The newspaper’s use of “descendants of the aborigines” shows that contemporaries understood racial categories as misleading containers, not accurate ethnic descriptions.
4. It supports modern arguments under UNDRIP (Articles 8, 9, 33)
These articles protect Indigenous peoples from:
Forced assimilation,
Destruction of identity,
State-imposed misclassification, and
The right to determine their own identity and membership.
When a 1901 newspaper states that “Negroes” in Indian Territory were Aboriginal descendants, this becomes a powerful historical citation showing misclassification and therefore qualifying for redress.
Why This Matters Today
The 1901 Minneapolis debate was not simply a conversation about creating a Black colony. It was, consciously or not, a referendum on the fate of an entire population the newspaper itself considered Indigenous to America.
Today, as thousands reclaim their tribal lineages erased under “Negro” or “Colored,” the voices from that night in 1901 speak with renewed force. They debated the same questions facing communities now:
How do misclassified Indigenous people reclaim sovereignty?
How do we secure safety when the state refuses to protect us?
What forms of self-government remain possible?
The Minneapolis debate shows that more than 120 years ago, Black–Indigenous people were already imagining answers.
Remedy for the Misclassified People of North America!
How the 1901 Minneapolis Debate Fits Directly Into the UIHS / First Tribe Sovereignty Framework TRIBE UP!!
The 1901 debate at Bethesda Baptist Church is more than a historical curiosity it is a pre-federal-assimilation record of Indigenous-descended people openly discussing territorial sovereignty. For UIHS and First Tribe, this meeting becomes a cornerstone example of what our communities were already fighting for long before the U.S. government imposed racial reclassification regimes.
1. The Newspaper Admitted the Identity They Later Erased
When the Minneapolis Daily Times called the people in Indian Territory the “descendants of the aborigines” and described the population as the “indigenous negro,” it stated openly what UIHS and First Tribe assert today:
Many who were reclassified as “Negro,” “Colored,” or “Black” were not African migrants they were the Aboriginal peoples of this land.
The identity existed. The language existed. The recognition existed.
The erasure came later, through policy.
UIHS exists to undo precisely that misclassification.
2. Precedent for Self-Governance Before 1924
The Minneapolis debate shows that our ancestors were already:
planning territorial independence,
debating the structure of a Black–Indigenous commonwealth,
and envisioning a sovereign homeland before the U.S. forced citizenship on all Indians in 1924.
This matters because UIHS and First Tribe assert:
Indigenous sovereignty was not granted by Congress; it was exercised and articulated by our people long before federal labels or racial categories were imposed.
The 1901 meeting is hard evidence of that exercise.
3. Precedent for Self-Governance Before 1924
The Minneapolis debate shows that our ancestors were already:
planning territorial independence,
debating the structure of a Black–Indigenous commonwealth,
and envisioning a sovereign homeland before the U.S. forced citizenship on all Indians in 1924.
This matters because UIHS and TRIBE UP asserts
Indigenous sovereignty was not granted by Congress; it was exercised and articulated by our people long before federal labels or racial categories were imposed.
The 1901 meeting is hard evidence of that exercise.
4. UNDRIP Validates What the 1901 Citizens Were Seeking
The debate demonstrates that Indigenous-descended people were pursuing:
Protection from state-sanctioned violence
Self-determination
Political autonomy
Control over their identity
Those are the exact rights enumerated in UNDRIP Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, 26, and 33, which UIHS and First Tribe invoke today.
The 1901 meeting becomes a historical anchor point showing:
Our people sought these rights before UNDRIP even existed therefore these rights are ancestral, not newly invented.
5. The Minneapolis Community Recognized Itself as a Political Body
UIHS is a collective movement, a community asserting Indigenous identity and sovereignty.
This 1901 gathering proves that:
Black/Indigenous people in the Midwest were already forming their own political forums,
debating national futures,
and thinking in terms of community consensus,
not federal permission.
This is exactly how TRIBE UP frames its sovereignty today:
Sovereignty is a lived practice, not a federal designation.
6. Misclassification = Suppression of Nationhood
The editorial’s slip “descendants of the aborigines” proves the truth UIHS documents every day:
The state used “Negro” as an administrative erasure of Indigenous identity.
Once you acknowledge that, everything changes:
Treaty rights
Land claims
Identity rights
Reparative justice
Indigenous status
Eligibility for UNDRIP protections
The 1901 articles become evidence of intent evidence that authorities knew who these people truly were and chose to label them something else.
For UIHS / TRIBE UP and First Tribe, the 1901 Minneapolis debate stands as one of the clearest pre-1924 proofs that misclassified Indigenous people labeled “Negro” in federal records openly pursued self-government on their own ancestral lands, and were recognized at the time as “descendants of the aborigines.” This evidence reinforces our sovereign identity, our UNDRIP rights, and our demand for the restoration of Indigenous status stripped through coerced racial classification.
FIRST TRIBE
