I understand all of this, Joy. I have not implied at any time that any thing was not listed in Chalkey therefore it did not exist. If anyone took it that way, my sincere apologies. I merely pointed out I had found the abstract and that it is worthy of discussion because it calls into question some of the "traditionally accepted", but undocumented, information about this union. It may not mean anything at all, but it should be investigated by any serious Pearis researcher and they may not have known it existed. I thought it was very interesting that a Pratchey was listed as an Indian slave on this transaction and this also happened to be his Cherokee wife's name. There were supposedly many Cherokee and mixed blood Cherokee slaves in VA at this particular time. The Cherokee had not completely removed themselves from the area, but they were well on their way to withdrawing to the south. Almost all of the information available about Pratchey has no source documentation because there was little to none available for that time frame. In fact, this is the only time I have seen any mention of her in anything remotely connected to an "official" document, using that term lightly as it is an abstract of the document (and I have not seen any Miller applications that might reference her, although they should not as they only require information back to 1835). It's just too coincidental for her name to be listed in a transaction as "property" when she is generally accepted as Richard Pearis' wife. It is very possible the Cherokee considered her a wife, but this abstract makes a case for him believing her to be chattel. In the VA of his day, it would have been extremely difficult for him to marry her legally. Laws had been enacted with harsh penalties. It also seems a bit of a stretch for this particular name to be a transcription error, especially the way it is worded. Unless Chalkey was a Cherokee researcher, the chances are he would not have a clue about the Pearis/Prachey marriage, let alone her name, and the chances are remote he would have added it. While it is true we need to see the original, if it even still exists, it is also true someone on the list might have a copy of it. It may just be he was referring to property in SC he owned, or in GA or TN although I have seen no reference to property in those last two locations, and Pratchey was at that location, but then again not. He may have freed her, but the laws of VA at the time required him to petition the government for the permission to do so and there should be a document somewhere supporting that. She may have been there of her own free will or at the request of her father. She may even have run away with her children or been set free by soldiers and returned to the Cherokee Nation giving rise to the notion her children were born there. Some of the families her children married into had VA connections. There are many possibilities. Keeping an open mind and thinking outside the box brings down lots of walls. It is always good to look at any potential information and re-evaluate what is already accepted. As we document our way through the Cherokee nation, look at how many family relationships have emerged that are not the "traditionally accepted" versions of the family, yet when all the documentation is on the table, Starr's genealogies, the traditional versions that have been accepted for years, have been proven inaccurate and the family trees have to be rewritten. It happens all the time in genealogical research. Blessings, all! Susan