Searching for Mrs. Fisher - Standing Witnesses-Part 6

As discussed earlier in this series on Standing Witnesses, Pleasant Cumiford claimed descent through a Cherokee woman named Rachel Fisher. Watt Christie, Cherokee, gave testimony regarding Rachel and her father, Fisher, making it possible for Cumiford to gain citizenship into the Cherokee Nation. The problem with it all is that Cumiford paid Christie to give false testimony and Cumiford did not descend through any Cherokee, let alone, Rachel Fisher.

It is important to show the ancestry of the Cherokee, Rachel Fisher, so it is clear the records of the Cherokee Nation can always be used to expose a fraudulent or fabricated ancestry like that of Pleasant Cumiford.

Watt Christie never mentioned the name of the mother of Rachel.  He mentioned Rachel and Fisher, her father. He said Rachel should be found on the roll of 1852 and Fisher should be found on the roll of 1835. But what of Rachel's mother? Christie said Rachel's parents lived together near Turnip Town on the Ellijay and that they went to Indian Territory with the Emigration, but he never gave the mother's name. So who was Rachel's mother?

According to the Eastern Cherokee Applications of Fisher's grandchildren, his wife was Polly Fisher, no maiden name given.

While I don't think anyone has ever found definitive proof that identifies Polly Fisher's parents, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests she was the daughter of Lacy and/or Betsy Christie and at least a half sister to Watt Christie.

In her Eastern Cherokee application, Watt Christie's daughter, Quaitsy (Betsy) Wolf, listed a Polly Fisher as an aunt on her father's side.

In her Eastern Cherokee application, Watt Christie's niece, Polly Ross, daughter of Arley Christie Grease, listed Polly Wa-gi-gu as a 1/2 aunt. Wa-gi-gu connects this aunt to her mother's side.

As you can see, both women listed Lacy Christie (War-kee-coo and Wa-gi-gu) as their grandfather and "Bittie"/a white woman as their grandmother. This matches what Mary (Christie) Manus, daughter of Watt Christie, said about her grandparents in her Eastern Cherokee application. 

Quaitsy Wolf and Mary Manus were siblings. Polly Ross was their first cousin. Quaitsy and Polly both reported a child of their grandparents, Lacy and/or Betsy Christie, named Polly. This means Quaitsy identified Polly Fisher as a sibling to her father, Watt Christie, and Polly Ross identified Polly Wa-gi-gu as a 1/2 sister to her mother, Arley Christie Grease/Greece. Watt and Arley were siblings and the children of Lacy and Betsy Christie. This information, in a family tree form, would look like the diagram below.

In order to avoid making the mistake of same name/different person, it is important to do an exhaustive search for information, extract the facts and then evaluate those facts to see if a conclusion can be formed as to whether Polly Fisher, sister to Watt and daughter to Lacy and/or Betsy Christie is the same Polly Fisher who was the wife of Fisher and mother of Rachel.

Watt Christie testified that Rachel's parents lived near Turnip Town on the Ellijay in the Old Cherokee Nation. This is true, per the 1835 Valuations and the 1838 Claims before Emigration, made in the name of Rachel's father as Hatchet. Lacy Christie was also living in the same area. This area was mountainous and travel was difficult (Hill), therefore, the Cherokees who lived in this region were fairly secluded from other Cherokee communities. There were only 38 families living on the Ellijay in 1835. Considering the topography of this region, and the fact not all who lived in the area would be single and marrying age, there would likely only be a small group of women available for Fisher to marry. Based on the approximate birth year of their son,Watt, it is possible Lacy and/or Betsy Christie's daughter, Polly Wa-gi-gu, was the right age to have been the wife of Fisher.

In Cherokee records from 1835 through 1851, the Fisher family is always found living near Lacy Christie and other members of his family. Fisher and Lacy Christie were even in the same detachment on the Trail of Tears. While this doesn't prove there is a familial connection between Fisher and Lacy, it suggests the possibility of one. Until the upheaval caused by the Civil War, it was quite common to find large, extended members of a Cherokee family living in close proximity to one another.
 

While there is no record of Fisher's wife's death, documentation indicates she probably died  before 1860, possibly as early as 1850. Polly's youngest child, born sometime between 1850-54, had no knowledge of her mother which suggests the child was quite young when Polly died. Additionally, prior to 1860, the Fisher surname was virtually unheard of in the Cherokee Nation. While there were Kingfishers, I've found no Fishers, specifically Fisher, on any rolls of the Cherokee Nation until the Drennen Roll of 1851-52. This roll had only one person named Fisher and he was the father of Rachel Fisher. Time and proximity make it highly likely the daughter of Lacy and/or Betsy Christie referred to as Polly Fisher by Quaitsy Wolf had a connection to Fisher. During the time frame in which Polly Wa-gi-gu appears to have lived, there were no other Fishers in the same area as the Christies.

Is all of this circumstantial evidence? Yes. Does that mean it leads us to make the wrong conclusion? No. The evidence and documentation allows a strong argument to be made that the Polly Fisher mentioned by Quaitsy Wolf and the Polly Wa-gi-gu mentioned by Polly Ross was the same Polly who was the wife of Fisher.

Consider these facts:

• Watt Christie knew a lot about the Fisher family.
• Watt Christie claimed kinship to the Fisher family.
• The Fisher family lived near Lacy Christie in 1835 - Turnip Town/Ellijay.
• The Fisher family lived near Lacy Christie in 1838 - Ellijay/Ellijay Town
• The topography of the Ellijay area caused the Cherokees there to be secluded from other Cherokee communities, therefore limiting the pool of possible choices for a spouse for both Fisher and Polly Wa-gi-gu.
• Fisher and Lacy Christie removed with the same detachment.
• After the Trail of Tears, Fisher and Lacy Christie settled in the same area.
• The Fisher family is found living among many from the Christie family on the Drennen Roll.
• #563 - Lacy Christie
• #564 - Arch Christie
• #566 - Katy/Caty Christie
• #568 - Fisher
• #576 - Arley Christie
• The Fisher surname was virtually nonexistent among the Cherokees before the Civil War.
• Cherokee naming conventions suggest that if Polly Wa-gi-gu married Fisher, she would have taken his given name as her surname, thus becoming Polly Fisher, to represent "Polly, wife of Fisher". 

Is this enough information for us to conclude there was only one Polly Fisher who was both the daughter of Lacy and/or Betsy Christie AND the wife of Fisher? Not yet, but it is enough to make us consider it as a strong possibility. This is also enough information for us to conclude that Watt Christie did know the Fisher family and that he gave Pleasant Cumiford the details needed about that family to fool the citizenship court of the Cherokee Nation. 

While Pleasant Cumiford may have gone to his grave believing he pulled off his con against the Cherokee Nation, he couldn't foresee that, with the passage of time, more information would become available and allow his deception to be discovered. Slowly, through this series on standing witnesses, we have been peeling back the layers of lies to uncover the truth. We haven't just looked at Cumiford's family to show he fabricated a Cherokee ancestry. We've also looked at the family Cumiford claimed, the Cherokee Fishers. In stark contrast to Cumiford's non-Indian ancestry, we find the Fishers repeatedly in Cherokee records, which attests to the fact no fraudulent claim to Cherokee ancestry will be able to withstand the scrutiny of a thorough examination of documents and records. 

This isn't the end of Polly Fisher's story. Stay tuned for the next installment in this series where the fabricated ancestry, created by Pleasant Cumiford and Watt Christie, continues to collapse under the weight of the true story of Rachel Fisher and her family.



Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

"What Watt?" - Standing Witnesses Special

How do you know you have the right Watt Christie? There were a lot of Watt Christies. How do you know which Watt Christie it was that gave all those false testimonies? 

Those are easy questions to answer.

There was only one Watt Christie who had a daughter married to Sam Manus. Remember the testimony Manus gave? In that testimony, he said he was the son in law of the standing witness, Watt Christie.

Manus gave the information to the Dawes Commission about Watt Christie's death. He also said he was Christie's son in law on this document.

 
This means we need to know the name of the wife of Sam Manus so we can figure out "What Watt?". We find Sam Manus on the 1900 US Census and see that Watt Christie is found in the same household as him and his wife, Mary.

 
Now we know Mary was the name of the wife of Sam Manus. By looking up her Eastern Cherokee Application from 1907, we learn her father was Watt Christie and she was the widow of Sam Manus. This matches the information we've already collected from the Manus testimony, Watt Christie's death affidavit, and the 1900 census.

 
Page two of Mary's application is important because she gives the names of her siblings, grandparents and some of her aunts and uncles. For this research, the people worth noting on this page are Goback Christie, her brother; War-ke-kar Christie and Quatie Christie (white), her paternal grandparents; and Arch Christie (descendants living), her uncle.

To narrow down "What Watt?" with clear and convincing documentation, it is important to identify the parents of the standing witness, Watt Christie. Mary Christie Manus said her father's parents were War-ke-kar Christie and Quatie Christie (white). To verify that, since they apparently had no living children in 1907, we need to check the application of another of their grand children. This is why Goback Christie, Mary's brother, is important. He was listed as still living at the time of the Eastern Cherokee applications, so we can pull his app and see what he reported.

On page one (not shown), Goback said his father was Watt Christie. On page two, he reported Mary Manus as his sister; Wah-kee-coo Tah-lah-see-ni as his paternal grandfather; and Arch Christie as an uncle.

Now we have verified Mary Manus and Goback Christie were siblings, the children of Watt Christie, standing witness. We have their grandfather's name reported as "War-ke-kar Christie" and "Wah-kee-coo Tah-lah-see-ni." Both report an uncle as Arch Christie.

Because we want to clearly identify the father of Watt Christie, standing witness, so no one gets confused about "What Watt?", now we want to check the Eastern Cherokee application of another grandchild, but instead of a sibling, we will check the application of a cousin to Mary Manus and Goback Christie.  This is why the name Arch Christie, their uncle, is important to know.

In Part 5 of the Standing Witness series, I included a page from the Drennen Roll used by Guion Miller. It shows the Fisher family and their living in close proximity to Lacy Christie. Arch Christie is the head of household in the family that is listed after the Lacy Christie household. It is partially covered by the arrow I put on the page, but you can read it. Beside Arch's name is the number 1828. This is a cross reference notation to an Eastern Cherokee application. 

By pulling up application #1828, we find it was made by Susie Swimmer. On the first page, she says her father is Arch Christie. 

Is he the same Arch Christie who was an uncle to Mary Manus and Goback Christie? We have to check page two of Susie's application to get an answer.

Susie said her paternal grandparent was Lacy Wakeecoo and that she had an uncle named Watt Christie. The documention strongly points to a kinship between Mary Manus and her brother, Goback Christie, and Susie Swimmer. It appears they have the same grandparent and their fathers were brothers, which would make them first cousins.

Names given, so far, for the father of Watt Christie and his brother, Arch, are War-ke-kar Christie, Wah-kee-coo Tah-lah-see-ni, and Lacy Wakeecoo. Because there is no "R" sound in the Cherokee language, phoenitically, War-ke-kar, Wah-kee-coo, and Wakeecoo are an extremely close match in the Cherokee language and are likely the same word. If we wanted to stop there, we would probably be safe in doing so. We have one name matching on all three documents, with one offering the name "Lacy." But, just for fun, because there is so much more documentation on this out there, let's throw in another application.

This one is for a niece of  Susie Swimmer. The link is not as clearly spelled out, so analytical skills become important.

Guion Miller made a notation on the card that goes with the application of Lizzie Smith that connected her to Susie Swimmer (application #1828) as niece.

It's important to remember Susie Swimmer was the daughter of Arch Christie (and his wife Caty/Katy.) On page one, Lizzie Smith claims through (1) Ah chi Christie, Cherokee name Ahchi Wa gi goo, as her grandfather; and (2) Ka ti, her grandmother. Also notice (15) Lacy Christie, great grandfather.

On page two, Lizzie's maternal grandparents are listed as Arch Christie and Katy. This is a match to the parents of Susie Swimmer. Sally Christie, the mother of Lizzie Smith, was Susie Swimmer's sister.

Now we have the names given for the father of Watt Christie and his brother, Arch, as War-ke-kar Christie, Wah-kee-coo Tah-lah-see-ni, Lacy Wakeecoo and Lacy Christie.

We could continue on, looking at more applications and recording the variants of names given for the father of Watt Christie and his siblings, but because we have additional information giving us the name of the father, it is not necessary.

The Watt Christie, who was the standing witness, made an application to the Dawes Commission in 1900. He was not included on the final roll because he died before September 1, 1902, but his census card from that application is still valuable because of the information it includes. 

The card says Watt Christie's father's name was Lacey Christie, Cherokee, and Betsy Christie, a non-citizen.

So "What Watt?" It is the Watt who was born about 1817 in the old Cherokee Nation, in what became the state of Georgia, and who lived a very long life, fathering many children, including the famous Ned Christie. Per the documentation, the father of standing witness,Watt Christie, was Lacy Christie in English, Lacy being short for Talaseeni. Did you get that? Watt Christie, the standing witness, was the son of LACY CHRISTIE.

Note: As I understand it, there are some who either won't do their own research or can't do their own research and they wrongly claim an Edward "Ned" Christie was the father of Watt. This information comes from the book, "The Killing of Ned Christie", Ned being the son of the standing witness, Watt Christie. The documentation above clearly shows the book is in error, therefore anyone who quotes the information from the book is in error as well. If my saying this isn't enough, I would urge readers to contact Roy Hamilton (*1), who has worked for the Cherokee Nation in History and Preservation, or Gene Norris (*2), senior genealogist at the Cherokee Heritage Center. They have done extensive research on the Christie family and their conclusion, after their research, is in agreement with my conclusion after my independent research - Lacy Christie was the English name of the father of Watt Christie.

Now, why so much emphasis on the name of the father of the standing witness, Watt Christie? Stick with me for the next post in the series, Standing Witnesses, and you'll find out.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

*1 -  In his review of the book, The Killing of Ned Christie, found on Amazon.com, Hamilton says, "Some names are found to be in error such as refering to Ned's paternal grandfather as Ned, his name was Lacy (in English)"

*2 - Information about the Christie Cemetery, compiled by certified genealogist, Gene Norris, states, "Watt Christie was the son of Lacy, “Wa-ki-gu Da-la-si-ni,” and Betsy Christie."   

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Devil is in the Details - Standing Witnesses-Part 5

There's more than meets the eye in the citizenship case of Pleasant Cumiford. While Watt Christie tried to downplay his role in citizenship cases by claiming he often didn't know what he testifying to, this can't be true in the Cumiford case.  Christie gave oral testimony in that case. He had to know what he was testifying to, under sworn oath, because it came out of his own mouth, in his own language.

In Christie's testimony, he admitted he and Cumiford talked for a while. Christie said that was when he recognized Cumiford as his kin, the son of Rachel Fisher. Is it possible this conversation is when the two men set their plan in place to get Cumiford a Cherokee citizenship?

At some time, the two men must have conspired to blend the history of two families in order to make Cumiford appear to be a Cherokee.While it is possible, it is not probable, that the surname Fisher was an impromptu choice by Christie. It would have been quite a coincidence considering Pleasant Cumiford's mother's mother was a Fisher; not a Cherokee Fisher, but a Fisher, nonetheless.

Pleasant's mother, Mary E. Sitton, was the daughter of Vincent Ridley Sitton and Amilly Fisher, who were married August 18, 1833 in Pettis County, Missouri.

Knowing this is enough for us to realize this Fisher family could not have been the one Christie gave many details about because he said Rachel Fisher's family lived near Turnip Town on Ellijay before the removal and that they went to Indian Territory with the emigrants. If true, that means they were in the Cherokee Nation East until late in the year 1838. Cumiford's maternal grandmother was in Missouri five years before the removal, as seen in the marriage record above.

Except for the surname of Cumiford's maternal grandmother, everything Christie shared was about a different family, an authentic Cherokee family. Christie elaborated in his original testimony by saying Rachel's father was named Fisher and her family lived in Goingsnake District after the removal. On the page below, taken from the Drennen Roll, see family #568. The head of the family is "Fisher". Listed later is a family member named Rachel. They were living in Goingsnake District, not far from Watt Christie's father, Lacy.

In 1838, Fisher was a witness in a claim his mother, Ailcy, made against the US government for losses. Ailcy lived in Turnip Town. Fisher lived near Turnip Town on Ellijay. This is verified again with Fisher's own claim in 1838 that said he lived on Ellijay. Remember, Christie said Cumiford's mother's family lived near Turnip Town on Ellijay.

Later, Fisher (aka Fishing Hatchet) filed a claim in 1842 and said he removed from the east with the Elijah Hicks detachment. Lacy Christie's (Watt's father) family also traveled with this detachment.

Notice the name of the witness on Fisher's claim - Wattee. Coincidence that Watt Christie's name in Cherokee is Wa-de? Maybe or maybe not. Since they were kin, it is quite possible Christie was a witness for Fisher.

The devil is in the details, folks. Watt Christie furnished all the information needed to bamboozle the Cherokee citizenship court and he did it by presenting facts about a real Cherokee woman and her family. He would have had intimate knowledge of the family he helped Cumiford steal because, not only did he live near the family, in both the old and new Cherokee Nations, but also because he was related to them.

• Rachel did exist. 
• Rachel's father was named Fisher.
• Rachel's family did live in the Goingsnake District after the removal. 
• Rachel's parents did live near Turnip Town in the old Cherokee Nation East.
• Rachel's family left the Cherokee Nation East in the fall of 1838.
• Rachel was related by blood to Watt Christie.*

But Rachel was not the mother of Pleasant Cumiford.

Rachel Fisher was the mother of many children, but Pleasant Cumiford wasn't one of them. It is unlikely Cumiford realized, that while he was living in the Cherokee Nation enjoying citizenship, Rachel was alive and well and living in the Cherokee Nation too. Unfortunately, she was unaware of the fraud being perpetuated against her and therefore could not have done anything to prevent it.

Stay tuned for the next installments in the Standing Witness series where I share more about Rachel Fisher, her family and the fact she almost missed out on her Eastern Cherokee payment because of the confusion about her family. 


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Call to Action!

This painting is by Cecil Dick. It previously hung in a place of honor in the lobby of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma complex. Because some prudish individuals were offended by the women with bare breasts, it was moved to the administration conference room where the public cannot see it. Cecil's granddaughter is on a crusade to have it restored to its place of honor. Please contact your Cherokee Nation councilor or call (918)207-3500 or (918) 456-0671 and insist this painting be moved back to it's place of honor.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Pleasant Cumiford: In His Own Words - Standing Witnesses-Part 4

In 1887, a man named Pleasant Cumiford applied for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. According to the testimony of standing witness, Watt Christie, Cumiford was born in Goingsnake District, Cherokee Nation, about 1857, to a Cherokee woman named Rachel Fisher. Christie testified that Cumiford's mother, a cousin to Christie, left the nation with her husband after the war and he never saw her again. Christie continued by adding that Cumiford's mother, Rachel Fisher, was about 3/4 Cherokee and she was small when she came with the Emigration. He said Rachel's parents lived near Turnip Town in the Old Nation and that her father's name was Fisher.

Pleasant Cumiford was admitted citizenship into the Cherokee Nation based on this testimony by Watt Christie.

 

But should Cumiford have received citizenship into the Cherokee Nation? Only an examination of his earlier life will reveal the answer to that question.

Pleasant Cumiford is found on the 1860 US Census, four years old, living with his father, Henry S. Cumiford (see Eastern Cherokee application) and a woman named Mary Cumiford, in Henry County, Missouri. His birthplace is recorded as MISSOURI. *Also note this is before the war. According to Watt Christie, Pleasant wasn't taken out of the Cherokee Nation by his mother until AFTER the war.

In 1870, Cumiford is found on the US census of that year, as 13 years old, again living with his father, Henry, and the woman named Mary, in Bates County, Missouri. His birth place is once again recorded as MISSOURI. His race is listed as WHITE.

I don't find Cumiford in another record until 1887 when he applied for and received citizenship into the Cherokee Nation, but the two censuses above bring into question the legitimacy of his claim that Rachel Fisher was his mother and that he was born in the Cherokee Nation. 

As stated earlier, Pleasant Cumiford acknowledged that his father's name was Henry. 

Henry Cumiford married a Louisa Thompson on January 20, 1848, in Missouri. Two sons, Benjamin and Wiley, were born to them before Louisa's death in 1853. Henry then married Mary E. Sitton, daughter of Vincent Ridley Sitton, in Pettis County, Missouri, on November 1, 1855.

Because of the gap between marriages, it is important to narrow down the birth year of Pleasant to evaluate whether he might have been born before or after the marriage to Mary Sitton. 

From 1860 through 1902, his birth year is consistently recorded as 1856 or 1857.

Not only does it appear that Pleasant was born AFTER Henry's marriage to Mary, the approximate birth year also strongly suggests Mary was his mother, as well as the mother of the children that were born after Pleasant. 

Odd as it is, knowing they were all born AFTER their father's marriage to Mary Sitton, Pleasant's siblings filed several applications for citizenship into the Cherokee Nation, claiming they, too, were the children of Rachel Fisher.

In their 1896 application, there were three affidavits that stated the four siblings; Pleasant, Vincent, Robert and Wilbi, were full siblings. One of those sworn testimonies included, in his own words, from Pleasant Cumiford himself:

"I am 39 years of age. Vince and Robert Cumiford and Wilbi J. Masingill (nee Cumiford) is my full brothers and sister. And our mother was one and the same woman."

Henry S. Cumiford married Mary E. Sitton before these children were born and he was living with her after these children were born, so it is logical for us to think she was the mother of his children. Pleasant Cumiford swore under oath that he and his three younger siblings were full siblings and they all had the same mother. 

So who was their mother? 

According to Vincent Ridley Cumiford's death certificate, his mother, and therefore the mother of his three full siblings, including Pleasant Cumiford, was MARY SITTON, a white woman born in Missouri. *Note that Vincent was named after Mary's father. 

Pleasant Cumiford was NOT the son of Rachel Fisher, nor was he Cherokee. But he gained citizenship into the Cherokee Nation with the help of standing witness, Watt Christie. Stay tuned for the next installment in the Standing Witness series, The Devil is in the Details, where I continue to debunk the lies told by both Pleasant Cumiford and Watt Christie.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Watt Christie: In His Own Words - Standing Witnesses-Part 3

In 1887, Pleasant Cumiford applied for citizenship into the Cherokee Nation. He needed a witness and sought out an old Cherokee, Watt Christie. Christie gave oral testimony that he knew the man's mother, that she was a relative of his, and that she had left the Cherokee Nation after the war and never returned. 

(note - the date is the file date, not testimony date)

Cumiford was admitted. But, he wasn't Cherokee. This was one of the early cases in which Watt Christie acted as a standing witness. It slipped through, only to come up again, 9 years later.

***

In 1896, Cumiford's brother, who had already been denied citizenship, applied again. True to form, Watt Christie acted as a standing witness, but this time, Sam Manus, Christie's son-in-law, also testified. The truth about the 1887 Pleasant Cumiford citizenship case finally came to light. Manus, under oath, repeated what Christie had told him:  Christie didn't know Cumiford; he didn't know Cumiford's people; and he didn't know if Cumiford was a Cherokee or not.

Manus' testimony prevented Cumiford's brother from gaining citizenship into the Cherokee Nation, but it did nothing to change the citizenship of Cumiford himself. But it wouldn't be long before the 1887 case would come up yet again. 

***

In 1900, Cumiford applied for the Dawes Roll. During questioning, after hearing Cumiford was admitted to the Cherokee Nation solely on the testimony of Watt Christie, the Cherokee Nation attorneys protested and the case was put on hold. About two weeks later, Christie testified before the commissioner. Apparently Cumiford didn't pay him for that testimony, because Christie actually told the truth. 

Christie didn't know Cumiford, or Cumiford's mother, or Cumiford's father. He didn't know any of Cumiford's people.

Though too little, too late, in his own words, Watt Christie admitted he lied and that he received compensation to do it. 

Unfortunately the confession did not fully disclose Christie's deceit in this case, nor did it undo the damage the preceding lies had caused.  Join me next time when, after 112 years, this case comes up yet again. I'll discuss Pleasant Cumiford, the ancestor-stealing conman, who capitalized on the availability of standing witnesses to bribe his way into Cherokee citizenship.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Nadia Dean - "A Demand of Blood:The Cherokee War of 1776"

If you are going to read one book about the Cherokees and their role in the American Revolution, "A Demand of Blood: The Cherokee War of 1776" by Nadia Dean should be it. Well researched and beautifully written, this is the first book I've read that gives a detailed account of all the major players in the War of 1776; the colonists, the British, the British loyalists, and the Cherokees. While there are many other books about the Revolution, few include the Cherokees and none paint such an impressively detailed picture of the Cherokee Nation and its citizens in this time period.

While the book is not without error, it is still the best I have found covering the Cherokee resistance  within the framework of the American Revolution. Thoroughly researched, the book contains 65 pages of end-notes; ten appendices; and many illustrations. Anyone with an interest in history should find this an educational and enjoyable read, while those with an interest in Cherokee history or research will find it an invaluable resource.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Who Were They? - Standing Witnesses-Part 2

According to the late Cherokee historian and genealogist, Jerri Chasteen, Clem Rogers, father of the famed Will Rogers, testified about one standing witness by saying he would "not believe him if his tongue came notarized." After reading many of the 1896 Citizenship Cases, it became clear, Rogers was justified in what he said.

While there may have been up to 32 people considered standing witnesses in the Cherokee citizenship cases, some were more prolific at testifying than others.

The names I've run across the most as standing witnesses in the citizenship cases are:

• Watt/Walter Christie
• John Ross (not the former chief!)
• Thomas/Tom White
• Thomas/T.J. Taylor
• John R. Gourd/Rattlinggourd
• William Tackett (white, married to the great great grandmother of the current CN Chief, Bill John Baker)
• George W. Vann (freedman)
• Doug/Doog Webber

Other names that I've found as possible standing witnesses are George Dreadfulwater, Watt Sanders, Henry Hawkins, William Matoy, and George Wilkerson.

These men are found giving testimony as early as 1878 and as late as 1896. The problem with standing witnesses got so bad, the Cherokee Nation prepared an affidavit form that Cherokees of good character would sign attesting to the fact specific other people were known as professional witnesses. These forms are found, notarized, in many of the citizenship applications and court cases.

Emily Green, 1896 Citizenship Claims, Ancestry.com

Dorcas A Lackey appeal - Northern District, Ancestry.com

Dorcas A Lackey appeal - Northern District, Ancestry.com

Perry/Isham West appeal - Northern District, Ancestry.com

Perry/Isham West appeal - Northern District, Ancestry.com

There are also sworn statements by Cherokees, stating certain individuals are known as professional witnesses. The following is a sworn statement made by Clement V Rogers, father of the famed Will Rogers, against well known standing witness, Watt Christie.

William B. Tidwell, 1896 Citizenship Claims, Ancestry.com

The arguments made by the Cherokee Nation lawyers who defended and protected the Cherokee Nation against fraudulent citizenship claims often refer to many of the above named men as "disreputable witnesses."

Perry/Isham West appeal - Northern District, Ancestry.com

Even Judge William M. Springer (Northern District, Indian Territory, United States Court of Appeals) knew the reputation of the standing witnesses, as seen below, where the witnesses were Susan J. Davis, Wat Sanders, William Matoy, George W Vann, and John Ross.

Dorcas A Lackey appeal - Northern District, Ancestry.com

In my introduction to this series, I gave the definition for standing witness. In part two, I have shown why they are called "standing witnesses" and how they were identified through research. Stay tuned for the next installment where I share documentation showing one of these standing witnesses admitting they sold their testimony for a price.


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.





Standing Witness Series - Part 1

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet