Due to the hateful tone of private messages I receive everytime I post a message to this list, I have chosed to unsubscribe. Michelle Michelle May wrote: > All of my life, my grandmother told me I was descended from a Cherokee "princess", and > come to find out, I am -- at least as close as you can get to a Cherokee > "princess"........ > > I am descended from Nancy Ward, the last Ghighau or "Most Beloved Woman" of the > Cherokees. She was "royalty" in that her mother was Tame Doe, who was the daughter of > Chief Moytoy. Tame Doe was the sister of Attacullaculla and Oconostota, both chiefs, > who went to visit "The Great White Father" (King of England) in the late 1600s, early > 1700s. Nancy was also related (Niece?) of Old Hop, another famed Cherokee chief. The > "Most Beloved Woman" status was bestowed upon her because of her bravery in battle -- > her husband died during a battle. Nancy (then Nan-ye-hi) was assisting her husband by > chewing his bullets. When he died, she took up his gun, rallied the warriors, and won > the battle. The Ghighau was the head of the women's council and had a seat at the main > council, where her brothers, father, and uncles were the rulers. The Ghighau had > supreme pardoning power as to all captives. Nancy became a staunch advocate for peace. > > My story is living testament that family rumors sometimes do come true! > > Michelle > > Doug Barkley wrote: > > > 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