Donna You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Many books that are written on the pre-tot Cherokeewere NOT researched from primary resource documents BUT from other books. The snowball effect occurred. John Doe wrote a book then Jane Doe researched her book from John's book then Sam Jones researched his book from theirs and the errors perpetuated on and on and on. If you ask any true Native American researcher who knows about the pre tot they will tell you to steer clear of many of these books. I've several of them gathering dust on my shelves. Did you know there are hundreds of rolls of microfilm with very early NA/Cherokee records on them. We, as routine, every day researchers don't have access to them. Major NARA and branch libraries have them and if you are lucky your local library will have a few of them but for the most part they are largely unavailable to us. We are somewhat limited in what we can do without access to these records. There is a good number of records in the counties on the earliest levels for the Cherokee. For instance, here in McMInn County we see several land transaction and court records for the mixed blood Cherokees. It is up to us a researchers to locate the myriad resources available for us. The American State Papers online are very telling. The actual document transcriptions at the Appalachian Summitt site are wonderful. The census rolls definately aren't the only means of researching NA heritage.....not at all. That is akin to saying there are no records for researching white heritage other than census's. It just ain't so. Joyce Gaston Reece ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Fischer" <donna_fischer2003@yahoo.com> To: <tnwilson@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [TNWILSON] Cherokee roots > Hi, > > Well if the rolls are not even correct, then they > should not be depended upon to determine who is or who > is not a Cherokee. > > They should only be used for the welfare system to the > tribal persons who were living in OK at that time. > > Now the North Carolina Cherokee reservation, that more > recently received federal recognition may not be on > the rolls either, since they may not have been a > reservation at the time the rolls were taken. > > The way I see it is that the Rolls were a instrument > of the government, to limit access to government funds > to Indians, and allotment of land. Most of the tribes > had a requirement of being 1/4 Indian to become a part > of the tribe. The Cherokee had a 1/16th blood because > of the great influx of whites who had married/had > children with the Cherokee. > > But this instrument of identifying Indians to get > benefits by checking rolls is not the correct or most > exhaustive way to find out if you have Native > ancestry. There are people who were of Native/white > heritage in the 1700's, and their descendants may not > have married other Indians later in the years where > they became absorbed in the white race. So the Rolls > would have nothing to do with their genealogy search > for their heritage, since their tribal affiliation > would have ended by the late 1700's. So telling > someone like this to search the rolls is incorrect and > has nothing to do with their genealogy. > > And now we hear that the rolls can be incorrect and > some think that the historians who write history books > are incorrect. So it appears everyone can be > incorrect, and there is nothing to go on. So why have > we not seen a history book written by the Cherokee > tribe, NC or OK. focusing on the early history?? > Whatever I have seen that was written by one of the > Cherokee tribes speaks little about the days before > the Trail of Tears. (Very little on the Indians in the > 1700's and before.) It usually focuses on the days > leading up to the Trail of Tears, and the > reestablishment in OK and what happened along the way > and the people who hid out in NC. > > The Cherokee nations need to write more books and tell > the world their story. Genealogy is a hot topic today. > > Donna > > > > > --- "Joyce G. Reece" <bjreece@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> Many of the rolls were taken by white men who knew >> how to write in >> English....not Cherokee. If someone gave the census >> taker a Cherokee name >> and he didn't know how to spell it he would write >> down something >> else....something in English. Many Indians got >> English spelled names in >> that manner. >> >> >> Joyce Gaston Reece >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Salisbury, Rita" <RHOSTER@seaford.k12.de.us> >> To: <tnwilson@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:52 PM >> Subject: Re: [TNWILSON] Cherokee roots >> >> >> > Kudos for reminding people that not all books and >> rolls are accurate or >> > complete. I have a collateral ancestor who was >> given early reservation >> > land in Alabama because she was a Native. Her full >> sister (my lineal >> > ancestor) would have been the same, but neither >> appears on a tribal >> > roll. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: tnwilson-bounces@rootsweb.com >> > [mailto:tnwilson-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf >> Of Sara Binkley Tarpley >> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:44 PM >> > To: tnwilson@rootsweb.com >> > Subject: Re: [TNWILSON] Cherokee roots >> > >> > Yes, and it is important not to discount family >> stories. Just label >> > them as family stories or family tradition until >> you can prove them. >> > As so many have stated, that may never happen with >> traditions of >> > Native American ancestry; but it would be a >> mistake to discard the >> > story. >> > >> > My roots are firmly in NC, VA, and TN. So, when I >> started >> > researching, I thought that the story that one of >> my >> > great-grandmothers was born in Buenos Aires, >> Argentina, had children >> > by her first husband in Mexico, came to New >> Orleans where she met my >> > great-grandfather, and then had my grandmother in >> Nashville was just a >> > little too exotic to be true. Every record >> confirmed it. I have also >> > found that family stories can carry a grain of >> truth even when they >> > are not entirely accurate; so, while I don't >> necessarily believe them, >> > I never discount them entirely. >> > >> > Sara Binkley Tarpley >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Joyce G. Reece >> <bjreece@bellsouth.net> >> > wrote: >> >> There are actually few very old families in the >> southeast who will not >> > have >> >> 'some' Native American Heritage and that is a >> fact BUT as to >> > researching >> >> YOUR Native American heritage, it could be a bit >> tricky. It isn't >> > like your >> >> usual, run-of-the-mill research. There are many >> N.A. reserchers who >> > don't >> >> comprehend the people who 'want-to-know' as >> opposed to 'want-to-be'. >> >> >> >> . >> >> Joyce Gaston Reece >> >> >> >> >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to >> > TNWILSON-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to >> > TNWILSON-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG. >> > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1357 - >> Release Date: 4/3/2008 >> > 10:48 AM >> > >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to TNWILSON-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster > Total Access, No Cost. > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TNWILSON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1357 - Release Date: 4/3/2008 > 10:48 AM > >