Barb, the reason people are asking for documentation on some of these statements is because there are historical problems. We really would like to believe but there has to be some proof, not vague statements to the effect of go find it yourself. Please know I'm not being ugly, we're all looking for the truth, too. Let me explain You wrote: 'It was predominate and common in the 1600's to 1700's. and later. all Cherokee goes back to Pocahontas or to her sister, Nikkia....and MOYTOY and Quatsie.' Response: True the Indian Nations married their cousins - that's all they had most of the time. But this was not a Cherokee phenomenon, it was a HUMAN phenomenon and all people did/do it. In fact, we all go back to first man and first woman, however we think they arrived here, so we are ALL cousins whether we wish it so or not. How is it ALL Cherokee go back to Pocahontas (see the next paragraph). Who was her Cherokee husband or lover? Those we call the Cherokee today were chronicled by DeSoto in the 1500s and were not in Virginia. Did they live there at some point? Yes, but it must be remembered that what was called Virginia THEN and what is called Virginia now are two different things. In the Virginia Company charter of 1609 almost all of what we call Kentucky (except the far western part), Tennessee and North Carolina were called Virginia. So yes, they lived in Virginia then but not around the settlements and not near the Powhatans, likely not in what we know as modern Virginia. They certainly might have traded with them, the Nations did have a large and robust trade system, but there is no evidence they lived in close proximity. So, if you have that evidence, please, please, please share it. I would love to explore it and maybe do my thesis on it! You wrote: "For example, General Robert E Lee was cousin to General John B Gordon. Both men married their cousins. And that is just one example. After Eleven years of intense study and research. Both men, in fact, all of them, were Powhowtan-Cherokee." Response: The Powhatan Nation states Pocahontas, proper name Matoaka, is the only child of Powhatan's whose name is known. http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html She was a little girl when the first Jamestown settlers arrived and was dead by the age of 21 in 1617 in England. She had only one known child, Thomas Rolfe, and I have never found a link between Thomas Rolfe and the Lees and it would almost certainly have to come from this line if they are Powhatan and who was the Cherokee ancestor? The people in Lee's line are documented right back to England with no breaks I have been able to find. I do leave that with an open mind, though, hoping for more information. Please, do share your documentation. There are plenty of records on the Lees and I just can't find it. The Powhatans hated whites, this is well known, so people are going to view this skeptically. Was there more intermarriage? It's possible certainly but it's not noted in early records. Most of what we know took place around Jamestown and there ARE records for there. It's entirely possible the "lost colony" of Roanoke was absorbed into the Powhatan Nation and its history forever lost in the mists of time. Please, though, give us the straight scoop rather than an answer that could be taken as evasive. That will never convince anyone. You wrote: "Four hundred years ago there was a Native American Nation here named the Algonquin Nation. Most tribes were destroyed. They were directly related and the same family" Response: True the Powhatans are Algonquian and the Powhatan confederacy and many of the tribes of the confederacy were largely destroyed by 1644. The Cherokee are Iroquoian though and were not known to be part of this confederacy by any name associated with the Cherokee (and yes, Cherokee is a European phonetic corruption of one of the names the Cherokee have for themselves - Tsa-la-gi. It just doesn't translate phonetically very well.) I promise you, I'm not being ugly or poking at you. I have very high standards in my research and, like any good historian or genealogist I want the science to be right and the proof provided. I don't want my passion to be seen as quackery or junk science. If there is nothing more than a whispered something in a dark corner, it will never be accepted and people will throw stones and hurt you. I have just finished a research project for class on Jamestown and I would dearly love to know what records you have. I want to put my hands on them if I can. I have a ton of old books and access to many documents that are begging to be read. Happy time travels! Susan

susan you mentioned you have info about jamestown 1640,my ancestors were there around that time ,wonder what you have on type of place & conditions were there. the name is dabbs(dobbs) from england. earleene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Reynolds" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [CherokeeGene] genealogy > Barb, the reason people are asking for documentation on some of these > statements is because there are historical problems. We really would > like to believe but there has to be some proof, not vague statements > to the effect of go find it yourself. Please know I'm not being ugly, > we're all looking for the truth, too. Let me explain > > You wrote: > 'It was predominate and common in the 1600's to 1700's. and later. > all Cherokee goes back to Pocahontas or to her sister, Nikkia....and > MOYTOY > and Quatsie.' > > Response: True the Indian Nations married their cousins - that's all > they had most of the time. But this was not a Cherokee phenomenon, it > was a HUMAN phenomenon and all people did/do it. In fact, we all go > back to first man and first woman, however we think they arrived here, > so we are ALL cousins whether we wish it so or not. How is it ALL > Cherokee go back to Pocahontas (see the next paragraph). Who was her > Cherokee husband or lover? Those we call the Cherokee today were > chronicled by DeSoto in the 1500s and were not in Virginia. Did they > live there at some point? Yes, but it must be remembered that what > was called Virginia THEN and what is called Virginia now are two > different things. In the Virginia Company charter of 1609 almost all > of what we call Kentucky (except the far western part), Tennessee and > North Carolina were called Virginia. So yes, they lived in Virginia > then but not around the settlements and not near the Powhatans, likely > not in what we know as modern Virginia. They certainly might have > traded with them, the Nations did have a large and robust trade > system, but there is no evidence they lived in close proximity. So, > if you have that evidence, please, please, please share it. I would > love to explore it and maybe do my thesis on it! > > > You wrote: "For example, General Robert E Lee was cousin to General > John B Gordon. Both > men married their cousins. And that is just one example. After Eleven > years > of intense study and research. Both men, in fact, all of them, were > Powhowtan-Cherokee." > > Response: The Powhatan Nation states Pocahontas, proper name Matoaka, > is the only child of Powhatan's whose name is known. > http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html She was a little girl when the > first Jamestown settlers arrived and was dead by the age of 21 in 1617 > in England. She had only one known child, Thomas Rolfe, and I have > never found a link between Thomas Rolfe and the Lees and it would > almost certainly have to come from this line if they are Powhatan and > who was the Cherokee ancestor? The people in Lee's line are > documented right back to England with no breaks I have been able to > find. I do leave that with an open mind, though, hoping for more > information. Please, do share your documentation. There are plenty > of records on the Lees and I just can't find it. The Powhatans hated > whites, this is well known, so people are going to view this > skeptically. Was there more intermarriage? It's possible certainly > but it's not noted in early records. Most of what we know took place > around Jamestown and there ARE records for there. It's entirely > possible the "lost colony" of Roanoke was absorbed into the Powhatan > Nation and its history forever lost in the mists of time. Please, > though, give us the straight scoop rather than an answer that could be > taken as evasive. That will never convince anyone. > > > You wrote: "Four hundred years ago there was a Native American Nation > here named the > Algonquin Nation. Most tribes were destroyed. They were directly > related and the same family" > > > Response: True the Powhatans are Algonquian and the Powhatan > confederacy and many of the tribes of the confederacy were largely > destroyed by 1644. The Cherokee are Iroquoian though and were not > known to be part of this confederacy by any name associated with the > Cherokee (and yes, Cherokee is a European phonetic corruption of one > of the names the Cherokee have for themselves - Tsa-la-gi. It just > doesn't translate phonetically very well.) > > I promise you, I'm not being ugly or poking at you. I have very high > standards in my research and, like any good historian or genealogist I > want the science to be right and the proof provided. I don't want my > passion to be seen as quackery or junk science. If there is nothing > more than a whispered something in a dark corner, it will never be > accepted and people will throw stones and hurt you. I have just > finished a research project for class on Jamestown and I would dearly > love to know what records you have. I want to put my hands on them if > I can. I have a ton of old books and access to many documents that > are begging to be read. > > Happy time travels! > Susan > =====*NOTICE THIS*===== > this is a generic list; and not topic specific because certain chatting is > required to do genealogy; and sort fact from fiction. > > Rude people will be moderated asap! > List archive > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=cherokeegene > Dual admin. > Dan and Joyce > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message