For the most part whites were not allowed to "settle" in Indian Territory by law. They could visit but they weren't allowed to live there unless they had a tie to the Indians, like married to an Indian woman/man. The Chickasaw were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes". I don't know to much of the Chickasaw history, but I assume it parallels the Cherokee fairly well. Probably by the late 1800's there were a lot of very well [ college ] educated people in the nation. About the only thing they lacked was a written language of their own. The Cherokee were the only ones I know of that did. If she was born in the Chickasaw nation it's very probable she was Chickasaw. But, there is a chance she could have been Choctaw, Cherokee or any other tribe. There are instances of someone from one nation living in another. Also many instances of, say, a Choctaw marrying a Chickasaw. On 10/20/2011 05:52 PM, donkelly wrote: > Also of interest is the 1895 map of the area. There were an astounding number of labeled towns in the Chickasas Nation. > > Can I assume that most of those towns were built by Indians, OR did the Indians allow white people to come in and build the towns? > > don > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "donkelly"<[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:37:55 PM > Subject: Re: [TTTP] Learned something > > Mom was born outside the nearest fair size town north of Texas. That would be the closest Indian territory to the border with Texas. Mom didn't mention Cherokee, but she did often mention Chickasas. > > don > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Billie Walsh"<[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 2:45:51 PM > Subject: Re: [TTTP] Learned something > > Henry may not have been part Indian. From my reading it's pretty obvious > that by 1900 it was pretty hard to find a lot of full blood Cherokees. I > don't know that much about the other four "civilized tribes" [ or other > nations either ], but the Cherokees were mostly mixed blood. I suspect > it was very common by 1900 to be of mixed blood in most tribes/nations. > Remember also that during that time it was very unfashionable to be > "Indian". Many that could pass as white preferred not to admit Indian > blood. Vehemently denied it in fact. Large numbers of mixed blood, as > well as full blood, people denied their heritage and avoided the Dawes > Commission. > > On 10/20/2011 03:48 PM, donkelly wrote: >> My mother Velma Gladys Pruitt was born in Oklahoma 1908 just after statehood. She always said it was Indian territory, and though grandma Pruitt was part Indian, no evidence has been presented to show that her husband Henry Pruitt from Kentucky was part Indian. Another family mystery. >> >> don >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Billie Walsh"<[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:40:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [TTTP] Learned something >> >> December of 1905: >> >> I recommend that Indian Territory and Oklahoma be admitted as one state >> and that New Mexico and Arizona be admitted as one state. There is no >> obligation upon, us to treat territorial subdivisions. of convenience >> only, as binding us on the question of admission to statehood. Nothing >> has taken up more time in the congress during the past few years than >> the question as to the statehood to be granted to the four territories >> above mentioned, and after careful consideration of all that has been >> developed in the discussion of the question, I recommend that they be >> immediately admitted as two states. There is no justification for >> further delay, and the advisability of making the four territories into >> two states has been clearly established. ---Theodore Roosevelt. >> >> On 10/20/2011 10:55 AM, Billie Walsh wrote: >>> I never knew that at the time of the debate over admitting Oklahoma and >>> Sequoyah as separate states or a single state, there was also talk of >>> combining Arizona and New Mexico territories as one state. Seems that >>> some of the congress critters of the day thought that was a good idea. >>> Not a very popular idea back in those two territories. >>> >> >> > > -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb." - Benjamin Franklin - _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._

Thackerville is Chickasaw. The Loves and Stewarts were from Thackerville. Off the top of my head, but if it is not Garvin Co. it is probably Love Co. g On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Billie Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: > For the most part whites were not allowed to "settle" in Indian > Territory by law. They could visit but they weren't allowed to live > there unless they had a tie to the Indians, like married to an Indian > woman/man. The Chickasaw were one of the "Five Civilized Tribes". I > don't know to much of the Chickasaw history, but I assume it parallels > the Cherokee fairly well. Probably by the late 1800's there were a lot > of very well [ college ] educated people in the nation. About the only > thing they lacked was a written language of their own. The Cherokee were > the only ones I know of that did. > > If she was born in the Chickasaw nation it's very probable she was > Chickasaw. But, there is a chance she could have been Choctaw, Cherokee > or any other tribe. There are instances of someone from one nation > living in another. Also many instances of, say, a Choctaw marrying a > Chickasaw. > > On 10/20/2011 05:52 PM, donkelly wrote: > > Also of interest is the 1895 map of the area. There were an astounding > number of labeled towns in the Chickasas Nation. > > > > Can I assume that most of those towns were built by Indians, OR did the > Indians allow white people to come in and build the towns? > > > > don > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "donkelly"<[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:37:55 PM > > Subject: Re: [TTTP] Learned something > > > > Mom was born outside the nearest fair size town north of Texas. That > would be the closest Indian territory to the border with Texas. Mom didn't > mention Cherokee, but she did often mention Chickasas. > > > > don > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Billie Walsh"<[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 2:45:51 PM > > Subject: Re: [TTTP] Learned something > > > > Henry may not have been part Indian. From my reading it's pretty obvious > > that by 1900 it was pretty hard to find a lot of full blood Cherokees. I > > don't know that much about the other four "civilized tribes" [ or other > > nations either ], but the Cherokees were mostly mixed blood. I suspect > > it was very common by 1900 to be of mixed blood in most tribes/nations. > > Remember also that during that time it was very unfashionable to be > > "Indian". Many that could pass as white preferred not to admit Indian > > blood. Vehemently denied it in fact. Large numbers of mixed blood, as > > well as full blood, people denied their heritage and avoided the Dawes > > Commission. > > > > On 10/20/2011 03:48 PM, donkelly wrote: > >> My mother Velma Gladys Pruitt was born in Oklahoma 1908 just after > statehood. She always said it was Indian territory, and though grandma > Pruitt was part Indian, no evidence has been presented to show that her > husband Henry Pruitt from Kentucky was part Indian. Another family mystery. > >> > >> don > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Billie Walsh"<[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:40:24 PM > >> Subject: Re: [TTTP] Learned something > >> > >> December of 1905: > >> > >> I recommend that Indian Territory and Oklahoma be admitted as one state > >> and that New Mexico and Arizona be admitted as one state. There is no > >> obligation upon, us to treat territorial subdivisions. of convenience > >> only, as binding us on the question of admission to statehood. Nothing > >> has taken up more time in the congress during the past few years than > >> the question as to the statehood to be granted to the four territories > >> above mentioned, and after careful consideration of all that has been > >> developed in the discussion of the question, I recommend that they be > >> immediately admitted as two states. There is no justification for > >> further delay, and the advisability of making the four territories into > >> two states has been clearly established. ---Theodore Roosevelt. > >> > >> On 10/20/2011 10:55 AM, Billie Walsh wrote: > >>> I never knew that at the time of the debate over admitting Oklahoma and > >>> Sequoyah as separate states or a single state, there was also talk of > >>> combining Arizona and New Mexico territories as one state. Seems that > >>> some of the congress critters of the day thought that was a good idea. > >>> Not a very popular idea back in those two territories. > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. > Liberty is a well-armed lamb." - Benjamin Franklin - > > _ _... ..._ _ > _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._ > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Tschüß, Gail "Be who you are and say what you want because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."