Author Topic: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion  (Read 97312 times)

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #60 on: January 18, 2010, 09:53:05 pm »
Quote
The problem with the others is that there is no way to know for sure how many there were that weren't found/didn't go.


This is true.  You can really only talk in general terms. 

Quote
I did a very rough quickie on those that can't be accounted for from the TOT. I think that about the absolute best one could hope for today from them would be around 20,000.

Your 20,000 number is high but I'm not going to argue about that.  I think the general idea is established. We can say a best case scenaro is this number, a most likely scenario is that number and this number is pure fiction ( meaning the 500,000+ number).  Now of course there are also other factors such as how many offspring did a Cherokee man or woman produce, and how many offspring did those offspring have etc, etc.  What we can say without a doubt is that most of the hordes of people in Georgia and a few other states who claim Cherokee heritage are bogus claims.  One would just have to look at history to understand that.  Some states that probably do have people with some legit claims of being Cherokees are Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas.  A few settled there and thus lost their Cherokee citizenship, so there are probably at least some people there who are Cherokee by blood.  The problem now is that even there its hard to sort out the fakes from the legit claims.

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #61 on: January 18, 2010, 10:03:18 pm »
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-15.pdf

There were 729,533 people on the 2000 Census who identified as Cherokee. This is on page 10.  I do'nt know what the poplation was of the three federally recognzied Cherokee tribes  back then.  But of course it would be less then the 300,000 of today.  So it would probably be safe to say that half a million of that number weren't enrolled in the year 2000. 

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #62 on: January 18, 2010, 11:09:38 pm »
I can't imagine what it would be like if you suddenly had 200,000 people showing up wanting 'in'.   ?? 

press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2010, 12:09:38 am »
Quote
I can't imagine what it would be like if you suddenly had 200,000 people showing up wanting 'in'.   ??

Thats already happened. 

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2010, 12:48:23 am »
Well, I mean physically showing up in one place.. congregating.. and demanding...  but I suppose it's not much different than having 200,000 across the country doing so. 
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #65 on: January 19, 2010, 04:19:59 am »
I found some more numbers that might be of some interest.  The Cherokee Census of 1835.  This was taken in the East right before the Trail of Tears.  You also hear hordes of people all over the SE and beyond claiming that their ancestors "walked off the Trail of Tears".  Well if thats the case then their ancestors should be on this roll/Census.  Here's the numbers I found for this Census.  The reason a lot of people can't find a Cherokee ancestor is because most likely that ancestor never existed in the first place.

Cherokee Census of 1835
16,542 Cherokees
1,592 Slaves
201 whites intermarried with Cherokees

What also should be noted about the Freedmen is that they were in fact Cherokee Citizens after the Treaty of 1866, so a freedmen at the time would be considered Cherokee even though they didn't have a BQ.  The same goes for intermarried whites.  They would have been Cherokee Citizens at the time.  Some of these Freedmen and white people who had Cherokee spouses even spoke Cherokee and were intergrated.

So one must be careful about looking at the History.  Also, the Dawes Rolls were put together about 40 years after the Treaty of 1866.

  Tribal citizens were enrolled under several categories under Dawes

Citizen by Blood
New Born Citizen by Blood
Minor Citizens by Blood
Citizen by Marriage
Freedmen (former black slaves of Indians)
New Born Freedmen
Minor Freedmen
Delaware Indians (those adopted by the Cherokee tribe were enrolled as a separate group within the Cherokee)

 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #66 on: January 19, 2010, 04:28:34 am »
Here's a few more Cherokee Rolls. If you really are Cherokee by blood, chances are you can prove it somehow and somewhere.  Even if your not enrolled in one of the 3 Real Cherokee Tribes for one reason or the other, then you should still be albe to come up with at least a shred of evidence somewhere.

 http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/heritage/native-american/

1817 Reservation Roll  (those requesting a reservation). The 1817 treaty allowed for a six hundred and forty acre life estate per head of household, which upon the death of the grantee, or abandonment of the land by the grantee, reverted to the state; microfilm Group 75.

1817 Emigration Roll  (1817-1835 Old Settlers) microfilm A21.

1835 Henderson Roll  (also called the Trail of Tears roll). 16,000 plus Cherokee residing in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee who were supposed to remove to Indian Territory under New Echota Treaty of 1835; microfilm T496.

1848 Mullay Roll  (resided in North Carolina). 1,517 Cherokee remaining in North Carolina after removal. Taken as a result of an Act of Congress; microfilm 7RA6.

1851 Old Settlers Roll  This is the Roll of those still alive in 1851, who were already resident in *Oklahoma* by 1839, when the emigrants arrived. This group was about 1/3 the total Cherokee population in what is now Oklahoma. Note: it is important to recognize that this census did not include those “Old Settlers” who remained in Arkansas, Texas, or Mexico; microfilm M-685, Reel 12.

1851 Siler Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm 7RA6.

1852 Chapman Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) The Chapman Roll was taken in 1851 by Alfred Chapman . This roll, which followed almost immediately the Siler Roll, was a result of many complaints by various Cherokees of having been omitted by Siler (JWJ) microfilm M-685.

1852 Drennen Roll  (Emigrant Cherokee in Indian Territory). This roll was the first census of the emigrants/new arrivals of 1839. This was the “Trail of Tears” survivors, or New Echota Treaty Group; microfilm M-685.

1854 Act of Congress Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm 7RA6.

1860 Census  (of whites in Cherokee Nation)

1867 Tompkin Roll  microfilm 7RA4.

1867 Census of Cherokee East of the Mississippi  microfilm 7A29.

1867 Kern-Clifton Roll of Cherokee Freedmen , January 16, 1867.

1869 Sweatland Roll  (resided in North Carolina ) NARA roll, but number not found.

1880 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA7.

1880 Lipe Roll  microfilm 7RA33.

1883 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA29 Reels 1 & 2.

1883 Cherokee Roll  microfilm 7RA56.

1883 Hester Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm M685.

1886 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA58.

1890 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA60.

1890 Cherokee Payment Roll  (The Receipt Roll) microfilm 7RA59.

1890 Wallace Roll  (of Cherokee Freedmen in Indian Territory)
((Wallace Roll of Cherokee Freedmen in Indian Territory. These rolls were created because the Cherokee citizenship of many ex-slaves of the Cherokee in Indian Territory was disputed by the Cherokee tribe. The establishment of their status was important in determining their right to live on Cherokee land and to share in certain annuity and other payments, including a special $75,000 award voted by Congress on October 19, 1888. A series of investigations was conducted in order to compile the rolls of the Cherokee Freedmen. These investigations were conducted by John W. Wallace, 1889-1890; Leo E. Bennett, 1891-92; Marcus D. Shelby, 1893; James G. Dickson, 1895-96; and William Clifton, William Thompson, and Robert H. Kern, 1896-97.))

1893 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA54.

1894 Starrs Roll  microfilm 7RA38.

1896 Old Settlers Payment  (for Descendants of Old Settlers) microfilm 7RA34.

1896 Cherokee Census  microfilm 7RA19.


 
1898-1902 (1914) Dawes Roll
((Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory consisting of 634 pages of names. The Dawes Commission was organized in 1893 to accept applications for tribal enrollment between 1899 and 1907 (some were added as late as 1914), mostly from Indians who resided in the Indian Territory which later became the State of Oklahoma. Tribal membership entitled qualified individuals to land allotments from the U.S. Government. These enrollment records were eventually published as the Dawes Commission, also known as The Five Civilized Tribes, which consisted of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole Tribes.))
 

as Found in the Dawes Commission Roll


Cherokee by Blood
“by blood” means the individual’s parent(s) were Cherokee, and (generally) that the parents had appeared on a previous census of the Cherokee - but not always.    Source: Glen Davis

Minor Cherokee by Blood
For purposes of Dawes, “minor” means the individual was born during the enrollment period which, for the Cherokee in Oklahoma ended 01 Sept 1902. (There are some children on Dawes who were born between 1902 & 1906 - they were admitted if their parents were on the 1902 Roll.)    Source: Glen Davis

Delaware Cherokee
Those listed as Delaware were adopted into the Cherokees. The Delaware reservation was in the very northeast corner of Indian Territory.    Source: Glen Davis

Cherokee by Intermarriage
White spouses who were adopted into the tribe as Cherokee.

Cherokee Freedmen
Ex-slaves (of African descent) of Cherokee citizens. Before the Dawes Commission Freedmen had to also established that if they removed from Indian Territory prior to or during the Civil War, they returned thereto prior to Feb. 11, 1867 and resided continuously therefrom. Once these two criteria were “proved up” Freedmen were admitted to Cherokee citizenship.    Source: Preston L. Washington


 

1900 Cherokee Nation Census 

1907 Council Roll of Eastern Band Cherokee  microfilm #M-1104, 1-348

1908 Churchill Roll  (Cherokee East of the Mississippi) microfilm #M-1104, 1-348.

1909 Guion Miller Roll . A Roll of Eastern Cherokee containing 343 pages. Many Cherokee living in Indian Territory or Oklahoma are included in this list.

1924 Baker Roll . The final roll for the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. The Eastern band was able to avoid allotment but the roll still exists and is now the enrollment roll. #M-1104, 1-348 

Offline BlackWolf

  • Posts: 503
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #67 on: January 19, 2010, 05:30:13 am »
I got this from the National Archives Website ( link on previous post.  It covers what I said before about how the descendents of White People who tried to sneak and bribe their way on the Dawes Roll to get allotments are now claiming to be Cherokee.

  Census of Intruders
If you haven't found your ancestor listed on any rolls of persons recognized as tribal members, you should check for lists of "Intruders". The correspondence between tribal officials and agents is full of complaints about non-Indians living on tribal land and sometimes includes lists of the names of these people with a request that they be removed. The Cherokees compiled a census of intruders in 1893 which has been microfilmed by the Fort Worth Branch (control number 7RA-55) and censuses taken by the tribe in 1880 and 1890 (microfilmed as 7RA07 and 7RA08) contain separate schedules of Intruders. Many of the persons enrolled by the Dawes Commission found non--Indians living on the lands they selected as allotments. The Commission investigated these complaints from 1901 to 1909 and the indexes to these intruder cases are available on microfilm (7RA5-3) at the Fort Worth Branch. Many Outalucks are the descendants of these "intruders".

Offline Paul123

  • Posts: 148
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2010, 12:34:59 am »
A researcher's dream come true would be if/when these rolls become available from the internet. Surely someone is digitizing those antiquated microfilms. But the likes of Ancestry.com and Footnotes.com would buy up the rights to them. 

I love rummaging through this sort of stuff. If you have any good links please post them. 

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2010, 04:11:16 pm »
I would say total reliance on a single roll,  written by a white man who was a racist, is like letting the British take a census before they evacuated Yorktown. Only those "Americans" on the list would be citizens. I don't believe that makes any more sense than using the Dawes Rolls as the sol determinant of who is and who is not Cherokee.
There is only one real reason for expelling the freedmens descendants, race. How can black people see it any other way. First who are the freedmen descendants of slaves owned by the Cherokee. It was called racial slavery, because it was solely based on race. They were segregated within the CNO based solely on race. Then they were expelled from the tribe, solely because of race. Its not about sovereignty, that's a politically correct  word for racism.

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2010, 04:32:53 pm »
Seriously, I can't take this any longer.  Don you cannot read, or rather, you cannot comprehend the meaning of words strung together in a sentence.   No, I'm not going to copy and paste the obvious points you apparently can not see.  That would be akin to showing a blind man a picture.  You cannot see it.. although, perhaps not entirely your fault .. 
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3289
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2010, 07:18:20 pm »
Its not about sovereignty, that's a politically correct  word for racism.

No, Don, Tribal Sovereignty is a damn serious issue. You seem really hell-bent on insulting NDNs here. I'm going to let your comments stand so people can see you for what you are. But be aware: You are treading on thin ice.

You are free to discuss your opinions on the rolls, but I haven't heard you say anything new for quite a while. The rest of us are watching you retread these same arguments, ad nauseum. It's tiresome. All that's changed is that the level of your insults to NDNs has increased. That is not acceptable.

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2010, 08:57:50 pm »
I am not a racist, and don't like being called one, simply because I disagree with some folks on some issues.

Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2010, 10:57:58 pm »
I am not a racist, and don't like being called one, simply because I disagree with some folks on some issues.

Just a guess.. but I'm thinking the people here...  And those you are calling racist...  feel the same way...  ?
press the little black on silver arrow Music, 1) Bob Pietkivitch Buddha Feet http://www.4shared.com/file/114179563/3697e436/BuddhaFeet.html

Offline Don Naconna

  • Posts: 257
Re: Cherokee Freedmen Discussion
« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2010, 03:37:19 am »
If I'm a racist what is John Cornsilk? Is Marilynn Vann a racist? What about David Cornsilk? I could go on and on. Its pretty clear to me that I'm in good company because those people agree with me. Like I said when you have no logical or rational argument, play racism. Sorry that doesn't work with me and with people who have been fighting racism all their lives.