Identity Fraud: Ghosting Gardiner Green

According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, ghosting is "pretending to be a deceased individual for monetary gain." Fifty-nine years after his death, Young Wolf, also known as Gardiner Green, was figuratively stolen from his grave, propped up in a family tree, and ghosted, but in a different way than we see today. Instead of stealing his identity for themselves, a family stole his identity and exchanged it for the identity of their long dead grandfather in a way that might bring them personal gain.

In 1896, a Congressional Act made it possible for people not recognized as citizens of the Cherokee Nation (and the other four "Civilized Tribes") to apply to the Dawes Commission for citizenship in the Nation. The Commission then began receiving letters from all over the United States asking how people could "get on the rolls" and "get Indian land." A letter, dated July 8, 1896, with the instructions on how to apply for citizenship was published in newspapers all over the U.S.

Muskogee Phoenix, July 16, 1896

According to Kent Carter's The Dawes Commission and the Allotment of the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893 - 1914, applications poured into the Commission and "...there were thousands of people who were very interested in the citizenship process; the July 8 circular produced a tidal wave of paper that overwhelmed the commission's three clerks. Many local lawyers had application blanks printed and charged their clients whatever they could to present them to the commission. In a classic understatement, [one commissioner] reported that the amount of "work has exceeded all expectations" and required "an immense amount of clerical work in correspondence, filing papers, numbering and indexing cases, and putting in form for permanent record and preservation all the proceedings pertaining to each case.""

In simple terms, there were a lot of people trying to gain citizenship in the Five Civilized Tribes, many more than anyone expected, and it was nearly impossible to process all of the applications by the deadlines set by Congress. 

One of the cases, Squire Green et al, was for the Green family of Missouri with most of the applicants living in Boone County. Their case included no evidence other than notarized statements by family members who swore their ancestor, Gardner Green, was on the 1835 Census of the Cherokee Nation.

One testimony, the first in the long file, claimed Gardner Green was the son of Benjamin Green and brother of James Green, the ancestor of all the claimants. It is unclear how this witness, TBH Green, is connected to the Green family of Missouri, but he insists they are his relation and that he knew Benjamin Shadrick Green, who was a Cherokee Indian. His testimony has the characteristics of those given by professional witnesses (paid witnesses who testified to whatever one wanted in a citizenship case.)

Squire Green et al, 1896 Citizenship application

 

Squire Green et al, 1896 Citizenship application

If this testimony were true (it's not), the Greens would not have been eligible because one had to be a direct descendant of a Cherokee.

The remainder of the applications, if any written testimony was given, suggested Gardner Green was the father of Benjamin Green who was the father of James Green, the ancestor of all the claimants.

Squire Green et al, 1896 Citizenship application

Every applicant claimed they were "Cherokee Indian by blood deriving the same from" Gardner Green who lived on Rockey Creek, Murray County, in the state of Georgia.

Squire Green et al, 1896 Citizenship application

There were 29 applications for approximately one hundred people. Those applications were filed by:

Names in red are the purported great grandchildren of Young Wolf, aka Gardiner Green

Their family tree from Gardner Green to the five living children of James Green that filed applications in 1896 (there were others living who did not file) would look like this:

There was only one Gardner Green listed on the 1835 Census of the Cherokee Nation. That man was Young Wolf, son of Mouse. As explained in this post, he was born in 1809 and was, at most, 28 years old when he died in 1837. He only had two heirs when he died, his wife, Aley, and his son, Ooahhusky who was born c. 1831.

In order for the Green family claimants to have been descendants of the "Gardner Green" on the 1835 roll, they would have had to descend through Young Wolf's only child, Ooahhusky. If the claim the Greens made was factual, then Ooahhusky would have been the father of James and the grandfather of Nancy, Squire, Louisa, Eli, and Margret. As you can see by the dates, the claim cannot be true. 

Ooahhusky was born two years AFTER Nancy Green, his purported granddaughter, and one year before Squire Green, his purported grandson.  He was born 42 years AFTER his purported son, James Green, was born. It is physically impossible for Ooahhusky to have been the father of James or grandfather of Nancy, Squire, Eli, Louisa, and Margret. None of these Green claimants descended from Ooahhusky or Young Wolf, aka Gardiner Green. 

So how did the Green claimants know "Gardner Green" was on the 1835 roll if they did not descend from him? It's simple. They, or someone they knew, looked at the roll and noticed  there was a Green on it. There were copies of the 1835 roll available for people to review. Thomas Skaggs, the notary public on nearly all of the 1896 claims the Green family filed, was also a claimant for citizenship in 1896, but through a different Cherokee. In a letter he wrote to Guion Miller years later, Skaggs said he was the one who found out about the "...Gardner Green decendants being entitled."

Eastern Cherokee Application, Thomas M. Skaggs, 36571

Also, on an Eastern Cherokee application filed years later by Green claimant, Martha Rosana Brown, the applicant wrote "gardner greens name is on page 188th of the roll 1835 taken in the state of georgia" in a response to Guion Miller when he needed additional information to process her claim.

Eastern Cherokee application, Martha Rosana Brown, 2033

If those pieces of evidence are not enough to convince you they looked at the roll and picked a name, there are also the 1896 claims themselves. Remember in school when kids would get caught copying each other? They never got caught if they got the answers right. It was copying a wrong answer that doomed them. That is what dooms the Green claimants as well.

There are a couple of things on the 1835 roll concerning Gardiner Green that they did not know. First, his name is spelled incorrectly. The census taker left out the letter "I". After his name change to Gardiner Green, Young Wolf's name was always spelled with an "I" by the Moravians. Not one self proclaimed descendant spelled his name with an "I". Instead they spelled it exactly as it was recorded on the 1835 roll.

The other thing the claimants didn't realize is that Young Wolf lived on ROCK Creek, not Rocky Creek. The only record that lists him as living on Rocky Creek is the 1835 roll. The other records of him made during his lifetime list him as living on ROCK Creek. Again, it appears the self proclaimed descendants copied where he lived as it was recorded on the 1835 roll rather than actually knowing where he lived.

Clearly this Green family claim was not a legitimate claim.

The Cherokee Nation attorneys correctly responded to the Green applicants' file with the following:

"Respondent not waiving his aforesaid demurrer, but insisting upon the same for answer to said application, says that Gardner Green through whom the petitioner claims to derive his right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation, is not now, and has not been a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, since the removal of the said Nation, west to the Indian Territory as at present located and defined; that his name does not appear on any of the authenticated rolls of said Nation; that he nor any of his ancestors now reside, or ever have resided in the Cherokee Nation and Indian Territory, as citizens thereof."

Squire Green et al, 1896 Citizenship application

The Greens did not obtain their desired citizenship.

One might hope that would have been the end of it and Young Wolf could have been left alone to rest in peace. Sadly that is not the case. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned for the next post about Young Wolf, his legacy, and what we can learn from it all.
  
Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

Click on images to enlarge.

For additional information on Young Wolf, Son of Mouse, please click here.

copyright 2018, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

When the Past Meets the Present - Part 3

Standing Witnesses and Unethical Lawyers

John R. Gourd (sometimes called Rattlinggourd) and Doog/Dug/Doug/Duge Webber made affidavits in the citizenship case of Chief Baker's maternal ancestors. 

These men were standing witnesses, or professional witnesses, meaning they would, for a fee, testify to anything a person wanted. The reputation of standing witnesses was bad and reputable Cherokees testified to that fact. 

C.W. Starr, the ex-chairman of the Senate Committee on Citizenship for the Cherokee Nation, swore that he knew the reputation of J.R. Gourd and Doog Webber (among others) and it was bad and the men were known as Standing Witnesses in citizenship cases and Starr would not believe them under oath.

Later, in a disputed Dawes enrollment case (D1207), John R. Gourd explained how the standing witness scam worked in his experience.  

• Gourd didn't know anything about the people or the family, other than he might have seen them in the past.
• William F. Rasmus would tell Gourd the people were Cherokee and then would write what he wanted on the affidavit without John R. Gourd knowing what was stated.
• Rasmus would put Gourd's name on the testimony.
• Gourd would be paid $5 and promised more if the case was approved.

While the above testimony by Gourd was not given in the RM Walker case, it still applies because it shows the unethical practices of William F. Rasmus. William Boyd, Chief Baker's maternal great grandpa, tried to fraudulently obtain Cherokee citizenship. Who were the lawyers handling William Boyd's case? The above mentioned William F. Rasmus and his partner, M.O. Ghormley.

Rasmus and Ghormley submitted 12 applications and 13 pages of evidence in the RM Walker case. Notice above, in the paid testimonies given by Gourd and Webber, M.O. Ghormley* was the notary public who signed that the testimonies were sworn before him. Rasmus* was the lawyer Gourd testified about, the one who wrote down whatever he wanted, while Gourd went on his way.

Was John R. Gourd a victim in this? Was he taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers? Maybe, but that isn't the point. The point is there are a lot of fraudulent affidavits in those old rejected citizenship applications. Whether Gourd or any of the others were taken advantage of doesn't matter. What matters is the standing witnesses accepted payment and allowed their names to be put on many fraudulent affidavits that are now cited by novice researchers as proof of Cherokee ancestry. 

Additionally, this shows that non-Indians were willing to bribe witnesses in their attempt to gain citizenship into the Cherokee Nation. Chief Baker's maternal ancestors were among the people who tried to do that. Sadly, despite the fact his maternal ancestors were not Cherokee; despite the fact his maternal ancestors used lawyers who were willing to perpetuate fraud; despite the fact his maternal ancestors used standing witnesses, Chief Baker and his family still claim they are Cherokee through his maternal line.** Because of those continued claims despite all the evidence to the contrary, it is not a stretch to believe Chief Baker's fabricated maternal Cherokee ancestry has a strong influence over the decisions he makes for the Cherokee Nation today. Any Cherokee who cares about our sovereignty should be concerned.

Stay tuned for the next installment in the series, When the Past Meets the Present - Motivation: Is a good deed really a good deed? 

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.





* M.O. Ghormley was Cherokee by blood. Rasmus was an Intermarried White. Both were listed on the Final Dawes Roll.

** After this series began, at least one member of Chief Baker's family has publicly written that they know they have more Indian blood than they get credit for on their CDIB, but they can't prove it. (Guess that proves my point, doesn't it?)

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

When the Past Meets the Present - Part 2

In their 1896 citizenship claim and following appeal, the RM Walker family (Chief Baker's mother's ancestors) claimed their ancestor, Edith (Rogers) Oxford, was the daughter of a Cherokee Indian named John Rogers who was listed on the 1835 Census of Cherokee Nation and living on the Coosawattee. They claimed to be Indian descent by blood through that specific John Rogers. That claim will be the focus of this post.

All the 1896 citizenship applications were thrown out due to overwhelming fraud. Some families appealed. The RM Walker family was among those who did so. From their appeal, we can see the John Rogers they claimed descent through is clearly defined:

RM Walker vs Cherokee Nation

The family said they were Indian descent by blood through Coosawattee John Rogers. The problem is, he was white. People who filed fraudulent claims were under the impression that the Cherokees had no records and therefore would be unable to disprove their claim. That wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Because this family claimed descent by blood through a white man, that exposes the claim as false. We could stop there, but I think it is important to use every false claim as an opportunity to share accurate Cherokee history and the documents we can use to learn about that history. (Please take note the two most common Cherokee genealogical sources, the Dawes and Eastern Cherokee applications, are NOT cited in this post.)

As an example of how good Cherokee records are, we will show:

• John Rogers was a white man
• He lived in on the Coosawattee River
• He emigrated west and returned to the east
• He got married in 1819
• His wife was Tiana Foster
• His father in law was James Foster
• His wife's cousins were John T. Adair and Elizabeth Candy
• He died in 1836

All of this information can be obtained from Cherokee records for a man who died prior to the Trail of Tears.

Below you see the John Rogers who lived on the Coosawattee River as he was listed on the 1835 Census of the Cherokee Nation.

The Coosawattee John Rogers family composition was 4 males under 18; 1 male over 18; 4 females under 16; and 1 female over 16, with one person being white connected by marriage. This information indicates we are probably looking at the family of John Rogers and Tiana Foster. 

In 1835, John and Tiana would have had at least three sons under the age of 18 (Hilliard, James and Thomas) and four daughters under the age of 16 (Elizabeth, Mary, Sarah and Rachel.) With another son's (Lewis) birth year calculated as about 1837, its possible he was born earlier and was listed on the census, or there could have been an unknown son born who died as a young child. Despite this discrepancy, this Coosawattee John Rogers family found on the 1835 Census of the Cherokee Nation appears to be the family of John Rogers and Tiana Foster. 

Testimony given by the former Associate Judge of the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court, John T. Adair, on 15 Mar 1888, further supports the theory that Coosawattee John Rogers was the husband of Tiana Foster. Adair gave information on all the Rogers he knew, including Coosawattee John Rogers.

John T. Adair said the John Rogers who married his cousin, a Foster, was a white man and lived on the "Chustawatie" River. 

On a valuation made for improvements credited to James Foster, a notation, dated 16 Sept 1837, says Foster "requested that the above valuation should be transferred to his daughter Tiana Rogers, as it was her just right and property."

We have the information from the 1835 Cherokee Nation Census that matches that of the John Rogers and Tiana Foster family. We have the testimony from John T. Adair that says his cousin, a Foster, was married to a white man named John Rogers who lived on the Coosawattee and died in the east. We also have James Foster's request that one of his valuations be transferred to his daughter, Tiana Rogers. That gives us the full name of John Rogers' wife, Tiana Foster Rogers. 

On 25 March 1842, Tiana Rogers filed a claim against the US government for lost property in the east. In the claim she reported that she intermarried with a white man by the name of John "Rodgers" in 1819

and that in 1836, he died.

There is a lot more information on this John Rogers and his family, but by now, hopefully it's clear that Coosawattee John Rogers was the husband of  Tiana Foster; he died in the east before the forced removal; and he was white.

But what about that notation on the 1835 Census that said Coosawatte John Rogers' family had removed to Arkansas? If Coosawattee John Rogers died in the east before the removal, it makes no sense that the census says he moved to Arkansas. 

Did Coosawattee John Rogers and family truly remove to Arkansas as the notation on the 1835 Cherokee Nation census suggests? A letter on the topic of the Emigration of Indians, dated, 17th August 1833, says, "Mr. Currey informs me that Samuel Ballard and John Rogers, two white emigrants at the head of Indian families, have returned to the old nation."

Document 512, Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, between the 30th November, 1831, and 27th December, 1833

A John Rogers, a white man who was the head of an Indian family, is documented as emigrating west and then returning to the east. No specifics were given on which of the numerous John Rogers this could have been, but an undated deposition given by Elizabeth Candy, wife of Judge George Candy, and cousin of Tiana Foster, sheds more light on the subject:

Genealogists Companion and Sourcebook, by Emily Croom, page 383

Underlined in red, we have John Rogers, husband of Tiana Foster, removing to Arkansas and then returning to the Old Cherokee Nation East afterward. Underlined in blue, we have information that says John got sick and died in the Old Cherokee Nation East. Those two little pieces of information explain the notation on the 1835 Census. Tiana Foster's husband, John Rogers, emigrated to the west, but later returned to the east and died.

While that appears to be the end of the story for Coosawattee John Rogers, it isn't. Approximately 60 years after his death, a family who had lived in Arkansas since 1829 attempted to gain citizenship into the Cherokee Nation based on purported descent through him. They went so far as to hire an attorney to help them prove their claim, probably assuming the Cherokees had no records, therefore the claim would be easily approved. They were wrong. Though they did all they could to try to convince everyone they were Cherokees and had a right to share in Cherokee Nation assets, they were rejected. They appealed and they were rejected again. They should have been. They were not Cherokee.

No matter how badly that family wanted it, no matter how much their descendants now desire it, "they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." All false claims of Cherokee ancestry fall apart under scrutiny.

The claim the family made was a weak one. It's clear they had no understanding of Cherokee history. They claimed whatever appeared might work in their favor. They started out claiming one John Rogers, who was white, and evolved into claiming another later. They claimed their ancestor was both an Old Settler Cherokee and an Emigrant Cherokee without realizing that was a problem. They also used standing witnesses, and we all now know what that means - they paid for false testimony. That's an indication that the claim was fraudulent and the family knew it.  

Stay tuned as the series continues. Coming soon are discussions about a different John Rogers, standing witnesses, the "sin" of living among Indians and why all this matters.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

When the Past Meets the Present - Part 1

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

*Note - While there were numerous problems with the 1896 claim and appeal filed by Chief Bill John Baker's maternal ancestors, the fact Coosawattee John Rogers was white completely disproves their claim that they obtained Indian blood through him. I assure you, the entire claim has been fully researched and there is absolutely NO indication that Chief Baker's maternal ancestors were connected in any way to the John Rogers who lived on the Coosawattee River. For questions or to request documentation, please email me by clicking the "Contact Me" button in the sidebar on the right or leave a comment. Tweet

When the Past Meets the Present - Part 1

 

While the above quote applies to humanity as a whole or to nations of people, I believe it also applies to us as individuals. It's why I believe the study of our own personal history is important. We all have family stories, and while that might be fine and good for sitting around the dinner table, if those stories are inaccurate or untrue, and we allow them to become engrained into our very being, they could lead us to make poor decisions based on lies and deception. Over time, that can become problematic and harmful. This harm is magnified if one who has been influenced by false family stories becomes a leader of a nation of people and he allows those false stories to play a role in the decisions he makes for that nation of people.

***

In 1896, a family group of approximately 54 people applied for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation and were rejected. They appealed to the US Northern District Court and were again rejected. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. In 1907, they filed Eastern Cherokee applications, attempting to get some of the money due the Cherokees for their land in the east. Once again the family was rejected. Still, this was not the end of it. To this day, though they have not one iota of proof to support their false claim, this family still says they are Cherokee. While we Cherokees are used to this type of claim and tend to roll our eyes when we hear these claims and then go on about our business believing the claim is more annoying than it is harmful, we can't do that this time. 

This time, the false claim is being made by our very own chief, Bill John Baker, and his mother, Isabel Baker. While Baker has Cherokee ancestry on his father's side, he has none on his mother's side but that doesn't stop him from claiming he does, according to sources who wish to remain anonymous. It also doesn't stop his mother from claiming it, as you can see in this comment she made in September, 2012, on Facebook:

In the 1896 claim that was appealed to to the US courts, in the case known as RM Walker v the Cherokee Nation, the ancestors of Isabel Baker claimed descent from a Cherokee man named John Rogers. They were very specific about which John Rogers they claimed.  He was white and well documented. They don't descend through him. 

By the time of the Eastern Cherokee applications, Isabel Baker's family were still very specific about which Cherokee John Rogers they claimed, but this time, it was a different John Rogers. He was a chief and also well documented. They don't descend through him either, but ironically, Cara Cowan Watts, Cherokee Nation council woman, does. (Yes, you read that correctly. Chief Baker's mom's family falsely claimed to descend through Cara Cowan Watts' ancestor!)

The Cherokee people have watched this administration closely and often wondered why our chief refuses to defend our sovereignty in these perilous times when the number of fraudulent groups are growing each day; when the BIA is considering weakening the federal recognition process; and when states consider giving fake tribes state recognition.

Stay tuned as we explore the ancestry of Chief Baker, through his mother's line, and examine whether Isabel Baker's family's false claim of Cherokee ancestry from the past has influenced her son's ability to make good decisions concerning our Nation's sovereignty today.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

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

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