My Grandfather, John W. Morrison was Town Marshal of Sasakwa, I.T. (as well as a Deputy U.S. Marshal). He was killed in the line of duty on July 17 or 18, 1907 near the Davis store on Little River while trying to apprehend the men who had robbed the Evans Store in Spaulding, I.T. the previous night. He was born 9/16/1869 in Missouri He left behind a wife (Sarah, nee Bowman) and two sons: John and Clyde (my father). That's about ALL I know. I don't know anything about Sasakwa, Spaulding, the two stores mentioned, when he arrived in Sasakwa or I.T., where he came from, when he became a marshal, what happened to the men who killed him (supposedly John Street and Joe Harkins (or Barkins or Barkus), where my Grandmother went (Family divorce, not much contact with my father's side - they're all gone now) or anything else. I'm interested in any or all documentation or information or leads. Can anyone help??? Thanks in advance. Charles C. Morrison morrison@calweb.com

Jerri, Clap-Clap-Clap- Encore! Encore! great job Jerri informative and intertaining. Thanks, Jackie:-) -----Original Message----- From: Jerri Chasteen [mailto:jerri@cherokee.net] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 4:07 PM To: Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Question! Dear List; These questions were sent to me from another source, but I have eliminated the names, the information is more or less "universal", and if the information can help more than one person- then so much the better! jc ~~~ A--- wrote: > Jerri, I honestly thank you for correcting my mistake, for the message > I posted about my grandfather, Joseph. I'm obviously new at this, and > working on family rumor only. I do have a question that you may be > able to answer for me, if you would. How do I find out what happened > to anyone on any of the rolls before or after that year? I have found > a Joseph who was married in 1853 in the same county in MO where my > grandmother was born. Is it possible he was Cherokee? Another Joseph > had a land holding of 161 acres in an adjacent county in AR, acquired in 1896, > near what is called Cherokee Town. I have no clue how to find out if they are > one and the same, or if he was Cherokee. I appreciate any help or pointers > you can give me. An error than many people make, dear-- no big deal. I'll answer the question on Cherokee Town Arkansas first, because that's an easy one. A person who lives in or nearby the town (originally a sub-division) called "Cherokee Town, AR" would have no more reason to claim a relationship to the Cherokee Tribe than a person bowling in a bowling alley "nearby" a group calling themselves "The Cherokee Bowling Team of Hackensack, New Jersey". ALL of the legal Cherokee citizens were removed from Arkansas into Indian Territory by 1830. On the Joseph who is in Missouri in 1851-- contrary to popular belief (and myths), the Indians could live anywhere they wanted to, as long as they paid the same taxes and lived under the same laws as their neighbors. A better question would be -- "would they?", and my answer to that is "It is very unlikely"--- for several reasons. Sorry that this part is so long-- but this is important! If an Indian separated themselves from their tribe, they forfeited all of their rights that they held as tribal members, not only for themselves-- but also for their descendants-- FOREVER. This is not "an Indian thing", or "a U.S. thing"-- it was-- and is a world-wide-thing! The people who moved from Germany and became U.S. citizens forfeited all of their rights and privileges as German citizens in the same way. The Indians who left the tribe to live in the United States (and we were a separate nation) would have to compete on the open market to purchase land, they would be required to pay taxes on this land and to serve in the military at the whim of any local or U.S. official. If the Indian had a degree of blood that would have been obvious (1/4th or more), then that person would have usually been an outcast in the white society that he lived in. Because it may have been an interracial marriage, the spouse would have been an outcast, as well. It is doubtful of the children would have been allowed to attend anything but "a colored school", and then-- who would the children have an opportunity to marry under such a society? The Indians were well aware of their advantages under the many treaties made with the U.S. government. Would you "sell" a very valuable property to "an unrelated person" (the U.S. government) under "a mortgage" (a treaty) which provided for an annual payment forever -- and then -- for no consideration-- choose to give up, not only all of your rights to the payments for said property-- , but also the rights of your heirs, forever? I-don't-think-so! But that's what they did if they moved away from the tribe. On the other hand- if they stayed with the tribe they had a vested right to one equal share in all of the tribal lands and assets, the rights to use any of the land that they needed -- free, as long as they did not infringe upon their neighbor's use. They would own their own improvements to said land, could sell or trade it, but only to another citizen of the same tribe. They did not have to pay taxes, were not subjected to the laws of the states, had free mission schools for the children at the same time that the people in Missouri were having to PAY for their children to go to "subscription schools". They were not obligated to serve in the U.S. military, and they received their equal share of the periodical cash payments under the old treaties, as well as the future payments for the sale of land. They suffered no discrimination socially-- in fact, if a white person wanted to marry a Cherokee, by tribal law the non-Indian would have to obtain sworn statements from five Cherokee citizens as to his good character before a tribal license was issued! As I said-- the Indians knew all of this. Did the non-Indians know it as well?-- In 1896 over 140,000 people from all over the WORLD applied "to be recognized as a tribal member" of the Five Civilized Tribes. 95% of these applications were rejected, most of them because they just were not Indian. In 1906 a payment to the Cherokees was announced. Of the 101,000 people who applied, 60% were rejected, and many of those who were rejected were lying, cheating and bribing "witnesses" to try to be enrolled! I'm one of the VERY few people who can make such a "politically incorrect" statement as that, because I had family on either side of the blanket! Some of my family were eligible on this roll, did apply, and were paid, BUT-- another part of my family (100% "white"- I have them back to the boat) applied from Missouri, were "lying, cheating and bribing witnesses" (the same as their neighbors), and in personal family correspondence between them they were laughing about the stories that they and the lawyers were making up about their mythical Indian ancestors and making all manner of fun of "those dumb Indians". But the Indians weren't quite as "dumb" as they thought and had the last laugh! All of them AND their neighbors, were rejected. :- ) As for your questions- "how do I find out what happened to a person who was listed on the rolls"-- that's not the way to do it AT ALL. First find out what happened to YOUR ancestor -- do your own research, using standard genealogical methods. After you know exactly where your ancestor was living at the time of that roll, then study the tribal laws connected with said enrollment, the requirements and compare it to your ancestor and the U.S. census and records where he lived. Example-- say that your ancestor was "James Johnson". There is "a" James Johnson, 1/4th degree of Indian blood who is listed on the 1902 Dawes Roll. You check the 1900 census of the area where your family information-- the death certificate of your grandfather and the family bible, and they say that your grandfather, the son of James Johnson, was born in 1899 in Greene County MO. You find that the family on the U.S. census with your grandfather and all of his known siblings, living in Springfield Missouri in 1900. Then you check the eligibility laws concerning the Dawes roll and find that "continuous residence with the tribe in Indian Territory from at least 1880 through 1906" was required. But your grandfather and his siblings; the children of your James Johnson, were all born in Missouri between 1885 and 1900. You still WANT to believe that this is your ancestor who is on the Dawes Roll, because you had been so proud of your Indian ancestry and had been told all of your life that great-grandfather Johnson was a "full-blood Cherokee Chief"! But no matter HOW much you want it-- "Wants" do not change history nor the facts! But wait!-- (hang on-- your BRAIN is kicking into gear!)-- if he were really "a full-blood Cherokee", then both of his parents, all of his grandparents (etc), HAD to have been full bloods, too! Where on earth did the anglo name of "Johnson" come from? And-- if he were "a chief"-- what was he doing living in Missouri? Would the President of the United States live in Canada? <sob> " -- but my grandfather wouldn't LIE"! OK-- so can you say the same thing for your grandfather's "drinkin' Uncle Charlie", who may have been the very one who told your grandfather that in the first place? Do you REALLY want all of your research, the expenses of doing it (it isn't cheap) and years of your time to totally depend on 100 year old unverified "hear-say" from an unknown (possibly drunken) source? You then check the 1900 census for Indian Territory-- there IS another James Johnson shown- almost the same age, but from the family bible and his death certificate you know the year and month that your ancestor was born -- and it's different. This man is shown with a totally different family, living in the Cherokee Nation of Indian Territory, and he is shown on the census AS a quarter-blood Indian (a specific question asked in 1900). Rechecking the Dawes enrollment for that James Johnson, shown below his entry are the same children who are shown with the James Johnson on the 1900 Indian Territory census! Guess-which-James-Johnson-is-NOT-your-ancestor! I have said the same thing so many times that I feel like a broken record; genealogy is a matter of some information as to available research material and how to access it, a medium amount of intelligence, and a large amount of common sense! Bottom line--: our ancestors had to take "what was given to them" ("us"), the same way that we must take "what was given to us" ("our ancestors"). If anyone finds a way to get around this, I have a couple of dishonest, lying reprobates in MY family that I would like to talk to you about! :- ) Jerri Chasteen

Jerri, Excellent, sometime I'm amazed at the misconception that many people have of Indian citizenship. I'm sure that you will agree that there are few individual exceptions thare are a few. I have a document that granted a land grant to a fullblood Choctaw a parcel of land in Arkansas, as late as the 1840s. This is the only one I am aware of after many years of research. I had family who, even though living in Indian Territory did not claim their rights! I have not found any reason for it. As strange as it may seem, I had a lady tell me her ancestor was a " Cherokee Indian Princess" from Indiana, and a man told me of a Oklahoma history book he is working on with tow professors at OSU that would make everyone mad. The only problem was he didn't know the name proposed for Indian Territory, he said it was "Redman". like I said some folks have some interesting Ideas. Thanks for your insight. Doug Barkley Jerri Chasteen wrote: > Dear List; > > These questions were sent to me from another source, but I have eliminated the > names, the information is more or less "universal", and if the information can > help more than one person- then so much the better! > > jc > ~~~ > > A--- wrote: > > > Jerri, I honestly thank you for correcting my mistake, for the message > > I posted about my grandfather, Joseph. I'm obviously new at this, and > > working on family rumor only. I do have a question that you may be > > able to answer for me, if you would. How do I find out what happened > > to anyone on any of the rolls before or after that year? I have found > > a Joseph who was married in 1853 in the same county in MO where my > > grandmother was born. Is it possible he was Cherokee? Another Joseph > > had a land holding of 161 acres in an adjacent county in AR, acquired in 1896, > > > near what is called Cherokee Town. I have no clue how to find out if they are > > one and the same, or if he was Cherokee. I appreciate any help or pointers > > you can give me. > > An error than many people make, dear-- no big deal. > > I'll answer the question on Cherokee Town Arkansas first, because that's an easy > > one. A person who lives in or nearby the town (originally a sub-division) called > > "Cherokee Town, AR" would have no more reason to claim a relationship to the > Cherokee Tribe than a person bowling in a bowling alley "nearby" a > group calling themselves "The Cherokee Bowling Team of Hackensack, New Jersey". > ALL of the legal Cherokee citizens were removed from Arkansas into Indian > Territory by 1830. > > On the Joseph who is in Missouri in 1851-- contrary to popular belief (and > myths), the Indians could live anywhere they wanted to, as long as they paid the > > same taxes and lived under the same laws as their neighbors. A better question > would be -- "would they?", and my answer to that is "It is very unlikely"--- for > > several reasons. Sorry that this part is so long-- but this is important! > > If an Indian separated themselves from their tribe, they forfeited all of their > rights that they held as tribal members, not only for themselves-- but also for > their descendants-- FOREVER. This is not "an Indian thing", or "a U.S. thing"-- > > it was-- and is a world-wide-thing! The people who moved from Germany and became > U.S. citizens forfeited all of their rights and privileges as German citizens in > the same way. > > The Indians who left the tribe to live in the United States (and we were a > separate nation) would have to compete on the open market to purchase land, they > would be required to pay taxes on this land and to serve in the military at the > whim of any local or U.S. official. If the Indian had a degree of blood that > would have been obvious (1/4th or more), then that person would have usually > been an outcast in the white society that he lived in. Because it may have been > an interracial marriage, the spouse would have been an outcast, as well. It is > doubtful of the children would have been allowed to attend anything but "a > colored school", and then-- who would the children have an opportunity to marry > under such a society? > > The Indians were well aware of their advantages under the many treaties made > with the U.S. government. Would you "sell" a very valuable property to "an > unrelated > person" (the U.S. government) under "a mortgage" (a treaty) which provided for > an annual payment forever -- and then -- for no consideration-- choose to give > up, not only all of your rights to the payments for said property-- , but also > the rights of your heirs, forever? I-don't-think-so! But that's what they did if > they moved away from the tribe. > > On the other hand- if they stayed with the tribe they had a vested right to one > equal share in all of the tribal lands and assets, the rights to use any of the > land that they needed -- free, as long as they did not infringe upon their > neighbor's use. They would own their own improvements to said land, could sell > or trade it, but only to another citizen of the same tribe. They did not have to > pay taxes, were not subjected to the laws of the states, had free mission > schools for the children at the same time that the people in Missouri were > having to PAY for their children to go to "subscription schools". They were not > obligated to serve in the U.S. military, and they received their equal share of > the periodical cash payments under the old treaties, as well as the future > payments for the sale of land. They suffered no discrimination socially-- in > fact, if a white person wanted to marry a Cherokee, by tribal law the non-Indian > would have to obtain sworn statements from five Cherokee citizens as to his good > character before a tribal license was issued! > > As I said-- the Indians knew all of this. Did the non-Indians know it as well?-- > > In 1896 over 140,000 people from all over the WORLD applied "to be recognized as > a tribal member" of the Five Civilized Tribes. 95% of these applications were > rejected, most of them because they just were not Indian. In 1906 a payment to > the Cherokees was announced. Of the 101,000 people who applied, 60% were > rejected, and many of those who were rejected were lying, cheating and bribing > "witnesses" to try to be enrolled! I'm one of the VERY few people who can make > such a "politically incorrect" statement as that, because I had family on either > side of the blanket! Some of my family were eligible on this roll, did apply, > and were paid, BUT-- another part of my family (100% "white"- I have them back > to the boat) applied from Missouri, were "lying, cheating and bribing witnesses" > (the same as their neighbors), and in personal family correspondence between > them they were laughing about the stories that they and the lawyers were making > up about their mythical Indian ancestors and making all manner of fun of "those > dumb Indians". But the Indians weren't quite as "dumb" as they thought and had > the last laugh! All of them AND their neighbors, were rejected. :- ) > > As for your questions- "how do I find out what happened to a person who was > listed on the rolls"-- that's not the way to do it AT ALL. First find out what > happened to YOUR ancestor -- do your own research, using standard genealogical > methods. After you know exactly where your ancestor was living at the time of > that roll, then study the tribal laws connected with said enrollment, the > requirements and compare it to your ancestor and the U.S. census and records > where he lived. > > Example-- say that your ancestor was "James Johnson". There is "a" James > Johnson, 1/4th degree of Indian blood who is listed on the 1902 Dawes Roll. You > check the 1900 census of the area where your family information-- the death > certificate of your grandfather and the family bible, and they say that your > grandfather, the son of James Johnson, was born in 1899 in Greene County MO. You > find that the family on the U.S. census with your grandfather and all of his > known siblings, living in Springfield Missouri in 1900. Then you check the > eligibility laws concerning the Dawes roll and find that "continuous residence > with the tribe in Indian Territory from at least 1880 through 1906" was > required. But your grandfather and his siblings; the children of your James > Johnson, were all born in Missouri between 1885 and 1900. You still WANT to > believe that this is your ancestor who is on the Dawes Roll, because you had > been so proud of your Indian ancestry and had been told all of your life that > great-grandfather Johnson was a "full-blood Cherokee Chief"! But no matter HOW > much you want it-- "Wants" do not change history nor the facts! > > But wait!-- (hang on-- your BRAIN is kicking into gear!)-- if he were really "a > > full-blood Cherokee", then both of his parents, all of his grandparents (etc), > HAD to have been full bloods, too! Where on earth did the anglo name of > "Johnson" come from? And-- if he were "a chief"-- what was he doing living in > Missouri? Would the President of the United States live in Canada? <sob> " -- > but my grandfather wouldn't LIE"! OK-- so can you say the same thing for your > grandfather's "drinkin' Uncle Charlie", who may have been the very one who told > your grandfather that in the first place? Do you REALLY want all of your > research, the expenses of doing it (it isn't cheap) and years of your time to > totally depend on 100 year old unverified "hear-say" from an unknown (possibly > drunken) source? > > You then check the 1900 census for Indian Territory-- there IS another James > Johnson shown- almost the same age, but from the family bible and his death > certificate you know the year and month that your ancestor was born -- and it's > different. This man is shown with a totally different family, living in the > Cherokee Nation of Indian Territory, and he is shown on the census AS a > quarter-blood Indian (a specific question asked in 1900). Rechecking the Dawes > enrollment for that James Johnson, shown below his entry are the same children > who are shown with the James Johnson on the 1900 Indian Territory census! > Guess-which-James-Johnson-is-NOT-your-ancestor! > > I have said the same thing so many times that I feel like a broken record; > genealogy is a matter of some information as to available research material and > how to access it, a medium amount of intelligence, and a large amount of common > sense! > > Bottom line--: our ancestors had to take "what was given to them" ("us"), the > same > way that we must take "what was given to us" ("our ancestors"). If anyone finds > a > way to get around this, I have a couple of dishonest, lying reprobates in MY > family that I would like to talk to you about! :- ) > > Jerri Chasteen

Jerri, Excellent, sometime I'm amazed at the misconception that many people have of Indian citizenship. I'm sure that you will agree that there are few individual exceptions thare are a few. I have a document that granted a land grant to a fullblood Choctaw a parcel of land in Arkansas, as late as the 1840s. This is the only one I am aware of after many years of research. I had family who, even though living in Indian Territory did not claim their rights! I have not found any reason for it. As strange as it may seem, I had a lady tell me her ancestor was a " Cherokee Indian Princess" from Indiana, and a man told me of a Oklahoma history book he is working on with tow professors at OSU that would make everyone mad. The only problem was he didn't know the name proposed for Indian Territory, he said it was "Redman". like I said some folks have some interesting Ideas. Thanks for your insight. Doug Barkley Jerri Chasteen wrote: > Dear List; > > These questions were sent to me from another source, but I have eliminated the > names, the information is more or less "universal", and if the information can > help more than one person- then so much the better! > > jc > ~~~ > > A--- wrote: > > > Jerri, I honestly thank you for correcting my mistake, for the message > > I posted about my grandfather, Joseph. I'm obviously new at this, and > > working on family rumor only. I do have a question that you may be > > able to answer for me, if you would. How do I find out what happened > > to anyone on any of the rolls before or after that year? I have found > > a Joseph who was married in 1853 in the same county in MO where my > > grandmother was born. Is it possible he was Cherokee? Another Joseph > > had a land holding of 161 acres in an adjacent county in AR, acquired in 1896, > > > near what is called Cherokee Town. I have no clue how to find out if they are > > one and the same, or if he was Cherokee. I appreciate any help or pointers > > you can give me. > > An error than many people make, dear-- no big deal. > > I'll answer the question on Cherokee Town Arkansas first, because that's an easy > > one. A person who lives in or nearby the town (originally a sub-division) called > > "Cherokee Town, AR" would have no more reason to claim a relationship to the > Cherokee Tribe than a person bowling in a bowling alley "nearby" a > group calling themselves "The Cherokee Bowling Team of Hackensack, New Jersey". > ALL of the legal Cherokee citizens were removed from Arkansas into Indian > Territory by 1830. > > On the Joseph who is in Missouri in 1851-- contrary to popular belief (and > myths), the Indians could live anywhere they wanted to, as long as they paid the > > same taxes and lived under the same laws as their neighbors. A better question > would be -- "would they?", and my answer to that is "It is very unlikely"--- for > > several reasons. Sorry that this part is so long-- but this is important! > > If an Indian separated themselves from their tribe, they forfeited all of their > rights that they held as tribal members, not only for themselves-- but also for > their descendants-- FOREVER. This is not "an Indian thing", or "a U.S. thing"-- > > it was-- and is a world-wide-thing! The people who moved from Germany and became > U.S. citizens forfeited all of their rights and privileges as German citizens in > the same way. > > The Indians who left the tribe to live in the United States (and we were a > separate nation) would have to compete on the open market to purchase land, they > would be required to pay taxes on this land and to serve in the military at the > whim of any local or U.S. official. If the Indian had a degree of blood that > would have been obvious (1/4th or more), then that person would have usually > been an outcast in the white society that he lived in. Because it may have been > an interracial marriage, the spouse would have been an outcast, as well. It is > doubtful of the children would have been allowed to attend anything but "a > colored school", and then-- who would the children have an opportunity to marry > under such a society? > > The Indians were well aware of their advantages under the many treaties made > with the U.S. government. Would you "sell" a very valuable property to "an > unrelated > person" (the U.S. government) under "a mortgage" (a treaty) which provided for > an annual payment forever -- and then -- for no consideration-- choose to give > up, not only all of your rights to the payments for said property-- , but also > the rights of your heirs, forever? I-don't-think-so! But that's what they did if > they moved away from the tribe. > > On the other hand- if they stayed with the tribe they had a vested right to one > equal share in all of the tribal lands and assets, the rights to use any of the > land that they needed -- free, as long as they did not infringe upon their > neighbor's use. They would own their own improvements to said land, could sell > or trade it, but only to another citizen of the same tribe. They did not have to > pay taxes, were not subjected to the laws of the states, had free mission > schools for the children at the same time that the people in Missouri were > having to PAY for their children to go to "subscription schools". They were not > obligated to serve in the U.S. military, and they received their equal share of > the periodical cash payments under the old treaties, as well as the future > payments for the sale of land. They suffered no discrimination socially-- in > fact, if a white person wanted to marry a Cherokee, by tribal law the non-Indian > would have to obtain sworn statements from five Cherokee citizens as to his good > character before a tribal license was issued! > > As I said-- the Indians knew all of this. Did the non-Indians know it as well?-- > > In 1896 over 140,000 people from all over the WORLD applied "to be recognized as > a tribal member" of the Five Civilized Tribes. 95% of these applications were > rejected, most of them because they just were not Indian. In 1906 a payment to > the Cherokees was announced. Of the 101,000 people who applied, 60% were > rejected, and many of those who were rejected were lying, cheating and bribing > "witnesses" to try to be enrolled! I'm one of the VERY few people who can make > such a "politically incorrect" statement as that, because I had family on either > side of the blanket! Some of my family were eligible on this roll, did apply, > and were paid, BUT-- another part of my family (100% "white"- I have them back > to the boat) applied from Missouri, were "lying, cheating and bribing witnesses" > (the same as their neighbors), and in personal family correspondence between > them they were laughing about the stories that they and the lawyers were making > up about their mythical Indian ancestors and making all manner of fun of "those > dumb Indians". But the Indians weren't quite as "dumb" as they thought and had > the last laugh! All of them AND their neighbors, were rejected. :- ) > > As for your questions- "how do I find out what happened to a person who was > listed on the rolls"-- that's not the way to do it AT ALL. First find out what > happened to YOUR ancestor -- do your own research, using standard genealogical > methods. After you know exactly where your ancestor was living at the time of > that roll, then study the tribal laws connected with said enrollment, the > requirements and compare it to your ancestor and the U.S. census and records > where he lived. > > Example-- say that your ancestor was "James Johnson". There is "a" James > Johnson, 1/4th degree of Indian blood who is listed on the 1902 Dawes Roll. You > check the 1900 census of the area where your family information-- the death > certificate of your grandfather and the family bible, and they say that your > grandfather, the son of James Johnson, was born in 1899 in Greene County MO. You > find that the family on the U.S. census with your grandfather and all of his > known siblings, living in Springfield Missouri in 1900. Then you check the > eligibility laws concerning the Dawes roll and find that "continuous residence > with the tribe in Indian Territory from at least 1880 through 1906" was > required. But your grandfather and his siblings; the children of your James > Johnson, were all born in Missouri between 1885 and 1900. You still WANT to > believe that this is your ancestor who is on the Dawes Roll, because you had > been so proud of your Indian ancestry and had been told all of your life that > great-grandfather Johnson was a "full-blood Cherokee Chief"! But no matter HOW > much you want it-- "Wants" do not change history nor the facts! > > But wait!-- (hang on-- your BRAIN is kicking into gear!)-- if he were really "a > > full-blood Cherokee", then both of his parents, all of his grandparents (etc), > HAD to have been full bloods, too! Where on earth did the anglo name of > "Johnson" come from? And-- if he were "a chief"-- what was he doing living in > Missouri? Would the President of the United States live in Canada? <sob> " -- > but my grandfather wouldn't LIE"! OK-- so can you say the same thing for your > grandfather's "drinkin' Uncle Charlie", who may have been the very one who told > your grandfather that in the first place? Do you REALLY want all of your > research, the expenses of doing it (it isn't cheap) and years of your time to > totally depend on 100 year old unverified "hear-say" from an unknown (possibly > drunken) source? > > You then check the 1900 census for Indian Territory-- there IS another James > Johnson shown- almost the same age, but from the family bible and his death > certificate you know the year and month that your ancestor was born -- and it's > different. This man is shown with a totally different family, living in the > Cherokee Nation of Indian Territory, and he is shown on the census AS a > quarter-blood Indian (a specific question asked in 1900). Rechecking the Dawes > enrollment for that James Johnson, shown below his entry are the same children > who are shown with the James Johnson on the 1900 Indian Territory census! > Guess-which-James-Johnson-is-NOT-your-ancestor! > > I have said the same thing so many times that I feel like a broken record; > genealogy is a matter of some information as to available research material and > how to access it, a medium amount of intelligence, and a large amount of common > sense! > > Bottom line--: our ancestors had to take "what was given to them" ("us"), the > same > way that we must take "what was given to us" ("our ancestors"). If anyone finds > a > way to get around this, I have a couple of dishonest, lying reprobates in MY > family that I would like to talk to you about! :- ) > > Jerri Chasteen

Dear List; These questions were sent to me from another source, but I have eliminated the names, the information is more or less "universal", and if the information can help more than one person- then so much the better! jc ~~~ A--- wrote: > Jerri, I honestly thank you for correcting my mistake, for the message > I posted about my grandfather, Joseph. I'm obviously new at this, and > working on family rumor only. I do have a question that you may be > able to answer for me, if you would. How do I find out what happened > to anyone on any of the rolls before or after that year? I have found > a Joseph who was married in 1853 in the same county in MO where my > grandmother was born. Is it possible he was Cherokee? Another Joseph > had a land holding of 161 acres in an adjacent county in AR, acquired in 1896, > near what is called Cherokee Town. I have no clue how to find out if they are > one and the same, or if he was Cherokee. I appreciate any help or pointers > you can give me. An error than many people make, dear-- no big deal. I'll answer the question on Cherokee Town Arkansas first, because that's an easy one. A person who lives in or nearby the town (originally a sub-division) called "Cherokee Town, AR" would have no more reason to claim a relationship to the Cherokee Tribe than a person bowling in a bowling alley "nearby" a group calling themselves "The Cherokee Bowling Team of Hackensack, New Jersey". ALL of the legal Cherokee citizens were removed from Arkansas into Indian Territory by 1830. On the Joseph who is in Missouri in 1851-- contrary to popular belief (and myths), the Indians could live anywhere they wanted to, as long as they paid the same taxes and lived under the same laws as their neighbors. A better question would be -- "would they?", and my answer to that is "It is very unlikely"--- for several reasons. Sorry that this part is so long-- but this is important! If an Indian separated themselves from their tribe, they forfeited all of their rights that they held as tribal members, not only for themselves-- but also for their descendants-- FOREVER. This is not "an Indian thing", or "a U.S. thing"-- it was-- and is a world-wide-thing! The people who moved from Germany and became U.S. citizens forfeited all of their rights and privileges as German citizens in the same way. The Indians who left the tribe to live in the United States (and we were a separate nation) would have to compete on the open market to purchase land, they would be required to pay taxes on this land and to serve in the military at the whim of any local or U.S. official. If the Indian had a degree of blood that would have been obvious (1/4th or more), then that person would have usually been an outcast in the white society that he lived in. Because it may have been an interracial marriage, the spouse would have been an outcast, as well. It is doubtful of the children would have been allowed to attend anything but "a colored school", and then-- who would the children have an opportunity to marry under such a society? The Indians were well aware of their advantages under the many treaties made with the U.S. government. Would you "sell" a very valuable property to "an unrelated person" (the U.S. government) under "a mortgage" (a treaty) which provided for an annual payment forever -- and then -- for no consideration-- choose to give up, not only all of your rights to the payments for said property-- , but also the rights of your heirs, forever? I-don't-think-so! But that's what they did if they moved away from the tribe. On the other hand- if they stayed with the tribe they had a vested right to one equal share in all of the tribal lands and assets, the rights to use any of the land that they needed -- free, as long as they did not infringe upon their neighbor's use. They would own their own improvements to said land, could sell or trade it, but only to another citizen of the same tribe. They did not have to pay taxes, were not subjected to the laws of the states, had free mission schools for the children at the same time that the people in Missouri were having to PAY for their children to go to "subscription schools". They were not obligated to serve in the U.S. military, and they received their equal share of the periodical cash payments under the old treaties, as well as the future payments for the sale of land. They suffered no discrimination socially-- in fact, if a white person wanted to marry a Cherokee, by tribal law the non-Indian would have to obtain sworn statements from five Cherokee citizens as to his good character before a tribal license was issued! As I said-- the Indians knew all of this. Did the non-Indians know it as well?-- In 1896 over 140,000 people from all over the WORLD applied "to be recognized as a tribal member" of the Five Civilized Tribes. 95% of these applications were rejected, most of them because they just were not Indian. In 1906 a payment to the Cherokees was announced. Of the 101,000 people who applied, 60% were rejected, and many of those who were rejected were lying, cheating and bribing "witnesses" to try to be enrolled! I'm one of the VERY few people who can make such a "politically incorrect" statement as that, because I had family on either side of the blanket! Some of my family were eligible on this roll, did apply, and were paid, BUT-- another part of my family (100% "white"- I have them back to the boat) applied from Missouri, were "lying, cheating and bribing witnesses" (the same as their neighbors), and in personal family correspondence between them they were laughing about the stories that they and the lawyers were making up about their mythical Indian ancestors and making all manner of fun of "those dumb Indians". But the Indians weren't quite as "dumb" as they thought and had the last laugh! All of them AND their neighbors, were rejected. :- ) As for your questions- "how do I find out what happened to a person who was listed on the rolls"-- that's not the way to do it AT ALL. First find out what happened to YOUR ancestor -- do your own research, using standard genealogical methods. After you know exactly where your ancestor was living at the time of that roll, then study the tribal laws connected with said enrollment, the requirements and compare it to your ancestor and the U.S. census and records where he lived. Example-- say that your ancestor was "James Johnson". There is "a" James Johnson, 1/4th degree of Indian blood who is listed on the 1902 Dawes Roll. You check the 1900 census of the area where your family information-- the death certificate of your grandfather and the family bible, and they say that your grandfather, the son of James Johnson, was born in 1899 in Greene County MO. You find that the family on the U.S. census with your grandfather and all of his known siblings, living in Springfield Missouri in 1900. Then you check the eligibility laws concerning the Dawes roll and find that "continuous residence with the tribe in Indian Territory from at least 1880 through 1906" was required. But your grandfather and his siblings; the children of your James Johnson, were all born in Missouri between 1885 and 1900. You still WANT to believe that this is your ancestor who is on the Dawes Roll, because you had been so proud of your Indian ancestry and had been told all of your life that great-grandfather Johnson was a "full-blood Cherokee Chief"! But no matter HOW much you want it-- "Wants" do not change history nor the facts! But wait!-- (hang on-- your BRAIN is kicking into gear!)-- if he were really "a full-blood Cherokee", then both of his parents, all of his grandparents (etc), HAD to have been full bloods, too! Where on earth did the anglo name of "Johnson" come from? And-- if he were "a chief"-- what was he doing living in Missouri? Would the President of the United States live in Canada? <sob> " -- but my grandfather wouldn't LIE"! OK-- so can you say the same thing for your grandfather's "drinkin' Uncle Charlie", who may have been the very one who told your grandfather that in the first place? Do you REALLY want all of your research, the expenses of doing it (it isn't cheap) and years of your time to totally depend on 100 year old unverified "hear-say" from an unknown (possibly drunken) source? You then check the 1900 census for Indian Territory-- there IS another James Johnson shown- almost the same age, but from the family bible and his death certificate you know the year and month that your ancestor was born -- and it's different. This man is shown with a totally different family, living in the Cherokee Nation of Indian Territory, and he is shown on the census AS a quarter-blood Indian (a specific question asked in 1900). Rechecking the Dawes enrollment for that James Johnson, shown below his entry are the same children who are shown with the James Johnson on the 1900 Indian Territory census! Guess-which-James-Johnson-is-NOT-your-ancestor! I have said the same thing so many times that I feel like a broken record; genealogy is a matter of some information as to available research material and how to access it, a medium amount of intelligence, and a large amount of common sense! Bottom line--: our ancestors had to take "what was given to them" ("us"), the same way that we must take "what was given to us" ("our ancestors"). If anyone finds a way to get around this, I have a couple of dishonest, lying reprobates in MY family that I would like to talk to you about! :- ) Jerri Chasteen

Jerri, thanks for taking the time to answer the Question! I've heard the same story all my life about my maternal great grandmother, "she was a Cherokee Indian princess". I finally realized it probably was not true and if it were, something verifiable would eventually turn up in the course of my research. However, I still wish it were true! Thanls again for taking the time. Sharolyn

I am looking for any information on William Booker, who had at least two children: Beulah, who married James K. Conner, and Alice, who married William James Sparks, Jr. The Bookers had a farm somewhere in southern OK, probably Indian Territory, from the mid to late 1800s through the early 1900s. I have a picture of William Booker with his daughters, sons-in-law and grandchildren that was taken in the early 1900s and I know that the Conners lived in McClain county in 1920 and in Caddo County a little later. Some of the family also lived in McGarvin County. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated as I am at a standstill in finding where the Bookers came from before Oklahoma.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------72293D0330035E95DBD7C54D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------72293D0330035E95DBD7C54D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <Indian-Territory-Roots-L-request@rootsweb.com> Received: from po1.namesecure.com ([205.229.232.3]) by isp.viagrafix.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-54402U2500L250S0V35) with SMTP id net for <jchasteen@viagrafix.net>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:44:39 -0600 Received: (qmail 6440 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 1999 20:38:49 -0000 Delivered-To: redirect-admin@cherokee.net Received: (qmail 6429 invoked from network); 4 Feb 1999 20:38:48 -0000 Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (204.212.38.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 1999 20:38:48 -0000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA06395 for owner-Indian-Territory-Roots@lists.rootsweb.com; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:27:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:27:16 -0800 (PST) X-From_: TXRoadkil2@aol.com Thu Feb 4 12:27:15 1999 Received: from bl-3.rootsweb.com (bl-3.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.19]) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA06370 for <Indian-Territory-Roots-L@bl-14.rootsweb.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:27:15 -0800 (PST) From: TXRoadkil2@aol.com Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by bl-3.rootsweb.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA04509 for <indian-territory-roots-l@rootsweb.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from TXRoadkil2@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id OPGPa07792 for <indian-territory-roots-l@rootsweb.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:32:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <efd9c98e.36ba03cc@aol.com> Old-Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:32:12 EST To: indian-territory-roots-l@rootsweb.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list Subject: {not a subscriber} information X-Envelope-To: Indian-Territory-Roots-L X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 I am searching for geneaolgy records for Edgle Leonvard Leonard born on indian territory by colbert Oklahoma, any information would be appreciated... --------------72293D0330035E95DBD7C54D--

Here is the continuing...index of the Indian Pioneer Papers--Western History Collection---University of Oklahoma. There are 1012 microfiche in the whole collection, the index to the family history catalog states: These contain interviews (done during 1930s) of people married to Native Americans, living on or near a reservation, and other valuable information concerning life in Oklahoma Territory. VOLUME 87----MICROFICHE #6016952------10 FICHE--- NAME ADDRESS STAPLES, Ben Pittsburg, OK STAPLES, H.L. McAlester, OK STAPLETON, George Pawnee, OK STAPP, Charles D.(Dr.) Altus, OK STAPP, Gertrude " " STARBUCK, J.M. Blanchard, OK STARK, Annie Bartlesville, OK STARK, John F. Wynona, OK STARK, George (Mrs) Altus, OK STARNS, John C. Pauls Valley, OK STARR, Clarence Vinita, OK STARR, Daniel Henryetta, OK STARR, Harry Fort Gibson, OK STARR, Mandy Avery, OK STARR, Sam J., Sr. Stilwell, OK STARR, William Lee Muskogee, OK STARUS, Stanton Altus, OK STEANSON, Johanne Oklahoma City, OK STEEL, Cally Geary, OK STEELE, Hampton A. Altus, OK STEEN, Minnie Edmond, OK STEINBACH, Kate Pawnee, OK STEPHENS, C.A. Ninnekah, OK STEPHENS, J.M. Lawton, OK STEPHENS, J.W. Tallahassee, OK STEPHENS, John S. Sulphur, OK STEPHENS, L.E.(Mrs) Elk City, OK STEPHENS, Leona Leota Claremore, OK STEPHENS, M.L. Pauls Valley, OK STEPHENS, Spencer Seago Claremore, OK STEPHENSON, James A. Blanchard, OK STEPHENSON, Will Chickasha, OK STEPHESON, L.E. Altus, OK STEPP, Andrew J. Miami, OK STERBA, John W. Lahoma, OK STEVENS, Elmira Tahlequah, OK STEVENS, Mary E. McAlester, OK STEVENS, Nellie Tulsa, OK STEVENSON, Henry J. El Reno, OK STEWARD, John Henry Henryetta, OK STEWART, David L. Bartlesville, OK STEWART, Frank Pauls Valley, OK STEWART, J.J. Checotah, OK STEWART, Joseph Tulsa, OK STEWART, Mary Jane Hennessey, OK STEWART, R.O.(Rev.) Muskogee, OK STEWART, Robert L. Oklahoma City, OK STEWART, William Tulsa, OK STEWART, William R. Clinton, OK STICKLER, Vera Bland Tulsa, OK STILES, Robert H. Eagletown, OK STILL, Amanda L. Tahlequah, OK STIMAN, C.W. Cordell, OK STINNETT, Carrie P. Cherokee, OK STINNETT, Edward Enid, OK STIPES, D.L. Henryetta, OK STIPES, Rex Oklahoma City, OK STITTS, Ella Cole Dover, OK STOCKING, Etta (Mrs) Los Angeles, OK STOCKTON, D.S. Wynona, OK STOKES, Andy, et al Tulsa, OK STOKES, Ira Chickasha, OK STOKES, J.A. Pauls Valley, OK STONE, Evie Waurika, OK STONE, J.H. Tonkawa, OK STONE, Mattie E. Sulphur, OK STORMS, J.A., & FRERICHS, M.L. Okemah, OK STOUGH, D.B.(Dr.) Vinita, OK STOUT, Ina Okmulgee, OK STOUT, J.R. Altus, OK STOUT, Sam McMillian, OK STOVALL, Amos (Mrs) Anadarko, OK STOVALL, Green Wilburton, OK STOVER, Francis A. Chickasha, OK STOVER, Gold Geary, OK MORE TO COME...............

This couldn't possibly be any of us.......could it? http://members.xoom.com/guru_rod/Pics/English/go2bed.jpg LOL KP ><>

I need help finding MELISSA LAUREN born. Alabama of Cherokee heritage Married JESSE CALVIN SULLIVAN born Sept. 1851 Tennessee They had 2 children KATHERINE ELIZABETH SULLIVANborn Dec. 1885 WILLIAM THOMAS SULLIVAN bornJuly 14,1888 in Lonoke Arkansas Melissa died when Will was 4 years old and Katie was 6 TOM& GAY LOVAL took them in . They lived in Lonoke until Jesse married in 1894 Can any one help? Thank you, Karlene Sullivan Pendleton ,Or.

The address to view the choices for the new $1 coin are with the US Mint Page at: http://www.usmint.gov/dollarcoin/finalist_home.cfm I personally like the view #99, and also recommend reading the site: http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/9626/NativeAmericans.html Karla Shahan ktshahan@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

My grandfather was actually a George Casey, also. But he was George Washington Casey from Hugo, Oklahoma. So, I do not think we are related? Thanks Rita Colorado

I would be interested in that map also! Barbara

Were there Cherokee born in Indiana? The name I have is Emma Dale. Also, where could I look at a map showing a road traveled from Morrilton, Conway Co. AR to Sebastian Co. AR & Indian Territory around 1880-1890? Is there such an Atlas or map?

--WebTV-Mail-1591887368-937 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit I have a George Truman Casey & wife Carrie Augusta (Knight) Casey who spent some time in OK. George from AR and "Gussie" born in Paris, TX. She spent some time in Franklin Co. AR, they eventually ended up in TX. --WebTV-Mail-1591887368-937 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.98) by postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:10:37 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <Indian-Territory-Roots-L-request@rootsweb.com> Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (bl-14.rootsweb.com [204.212.38.30]) by mailsorter-101-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id PAA02929; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA01318; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:52:42 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:52:42 -0800 (PST) From: Rbdaycare@aol.com Message-ID: <62c627ba.36b780f4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:49:24 EST Old-To: Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com, Indian-Territory-Roots-D@rootsweb.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Indian-Territory-Roots-D Digest V99 #51 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 76 Resent-Message-ID: <"ZQjlX.A.CT.zG4t2"@bl-14.rootsweb.com> To: Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/2334 X-Loop: Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Indian-Territory-Roots-L-request@rootsweb.com Please list some of the Casey members that you are related to that invited to your reunion. I am searching for Casey family in Oklahoma. Thanks --WebTV-Mail-1591887368-937--

Please list some of the Casey members that you are related to that invited to your reunion. I am searching for Casey family in Oklahoma. Thanks

Sure, be glad to: go to http://www.nara.gov/ scroll down to the 'Genealogy Page' click on it, then scroll down to 'Search Hints for DATA in NAIL' click, scroll to Fort Smith and follow their instructions. When you get the results from the search then click 'Display results.' When you open one of the results scroll down to 'series description' and click to see images of Wyatt Earp's and Belle Star's. Melinda crystalwoman wrote: > Melinda-can you share this site with all of us on IT Roots, that which you > are speaking about in your e-mail here? Thanks, Happy Trails, J > Also, visit my personal home page on spirituality and genealogy: > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/3718/ > -----Original Message----- > From: E Schrock <edges@mail.gci-net.com> > To: Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com > <Indian-Territory-Roots-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 4:07 PM > Subject: Fort Smith > > >I found some names that corresponded with two of my relatives, too. So, > >I called an attorney friend to see if he could view them as a > >professional to see if they were mine. He said that it sounds like these > > > >are paper documents on file, not scanned, because unless a case goes to > >appellate court (and perhaps setting some kind of legal precedent) it > >isn't scanned for computer access. > >I did view the example of what the cases look like. Did you see down > >below where you send off that they have a case example on Belle Star? > >Pretty primitive records, but fun to read. > >Good luck, > >Melinda > >

I found some names that corresponded with two of my relatives, too. So, I called an attorney friend to see if he could view them as a professional to see if they were mine. He said that it sounds like these are paper documents on file, not scanned, because unless a case goes to appellate court (and perhaps setting some kind of legal precedent) it isn't scanned for computer access. I did view the example of what the cases look like. Did you see down below where you send off that they have a case example on Belle Star? Pretty primitive records, but fun to read. Good luck, Melinda