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