When the Past Meets the Present - Part 4

Motivation: Is a good deed really a good deed?
 
While we don't always get to learn a person's motives in his own words, this time we do. The words of William Boyd, Chief Baker's great grandfather, were recorded by his daughter and shared in an Indian Pioneer Paper interview. In this post, we will dissect that interview to learn why Boyd moved into the Cherokee Nation and what motivated him to advocate for changes in the Cherokee Nation.

***

 

William Boyd, Chief Baker's great grandpa, was born in Arkansas, not the Cherokee Nation. He moved to Indian Territory in 1893, just before the family started trying to gain citizenship into the Cherokee Nation. His family had lived in Arkansas for 64 years and never moved across the state line into the Cherokee Nation. They always lived as white people. Nothing in any record shows any indication of Indian ancestry or that they considered themselves Indian. As soon as they crossed the state line from Arkansas into Indian Territory they started claiming to have Cherokee ancestry and they haven't given up the claim since. Notice Boyd didn't even say he was Cherokee or Indian. Instead, he said his mother was. It's a peculiar way to say something when one believes they are entitled to rights as an Indian, isn't it?

 

Boyd's first task after arriving in Indian Territory was to make friends with the full blood Cherokees he refers to as "these natives." He said he made friends with them by treating them as his neighbors. Whether Boyd realized it or not, his comments not only indicate he was white, they also had negative undertones. His words suggest he thought he was better than the Indians, but he treated them as his equal in order to gain their friendship.

It's important to understand what "claim" meant to U.S. citizens in the 1800s. They would settle on a piece of land they had no legal title to and "claim" it. This appears to be the type of claim Boyd was referring to because he didn't establish a claim to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. He was repeatedly rejected and never gained the right to live legally on Cherokee land. Of course, that didn't stop him from illegally squatting there and using Cherokee Nation assets (land) to benefit himself and his family. He readily confessed that in 10 years time, he had cleared and cultivated about 40 acres of (Indian) land. He also admitted he used a lot of (Indian) land for his livestock, taking advantage of the free range available.

According to Nancy Hope Sober in the book, "The Intruders: The Illegal Residents of the Cherokee Nation 1866-1907", white citizens of the U.S. who falsely claimed to have an ancestor of Cherokee blood entered the nation presumably under the pretense it gave them the right to be there. Sober also wrote, "It was a common belief among intruding whites that "residence alone [would] give them a title to land in the Nation in the event it became a United States territory." "

We know Boyd falsely claimed to have an ancestor of Cherokee blood and that he squatted on Cherokee land, making his "claim." In my humble opinion, his actions were the same as many others who illegally moved into Indian Territory - it was an attempt at a land grab. He didn't move there to help anyone other than himself and his family.

Does it get any more clear than that? "As there were few whites in the neighborhood" the white teachers usually boarded at HIS house. Why? Because Boyd was white too!

This is where it is important to pay close attention to what William Boyd said. His motivation for his family doing "good deeds" starts to be revealed. He said the Indians did not want to change from their ways of living to that of the white man, but his greatest ambition was to do all he could do to bring about that change. Clearly he didn't care about what the Indians wanted. His greatest ambition was to change things to the way HE wanted. And what was his motivation for wanting things to change?

He wanted things to change because he was raising children in the Cherokee Nation. If a parent, one might be able to forgive a person who wanted change so their children could have a better life, but if able to forgive Boyd for that, it would be short lived. Immediately after he said he wanted improved social conditions because he was raising his children in Indian Territory, he followed with:

I don't think an explanation is needed but in the event someone missed it, William Boyd's greatest ambition was to see that the conditions in the Cherokee Nation changed from the Indian ways to the ways of the white man because he lived there with his children and it was, apparently, in his opinion, a place so abominable that it was a sin to raise those children there. If that doesn't scream that he thought Indians were "savages" or "heathens", I don't know what does!

Does anyone still believe this family was Indian? If you do, then either you are thick headed or living in a fantasy world. William Boyd's words expose him as a white man who thought he was better than Indians. Any good deed he did was clearly motivated by his desire to have a less "sinful" environment for his children.

Since this series began, it's received both positive and negative reactions. One of the most common negative responses comes from Cherokees who claim Chief Baker's maternal ancestors have done much work to improve the Cherokee Nation, therefore they should be given a pass on their false claim.  While I disagree with anyone getting a pass on a false claim, let's stay focused on the "deeds". At face value, those "good deeds" might seem like a positive thing, but on closer examination, when the true motivation is revealed, one  might begin to question whether those "good deeds" were truly good deeds. 

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below. (And stay tuned for Part 5, coming soon!)

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

All Witnesses Were Not Created Equally - Standing Witnesses-Part 7

Those who applied for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation had to prove their relationship to an ancestor on one of the four rolls mentioned above. It wasn't an option, but instead a requirement. 


Cumiford originally filled out his citizenship claim using the name of his actual mother, Mary Sitton.

The problem was, Mary Sitton's name wasn't on any of the Cherokee rolls. Without a name on the roll, Cumiford's citizenship claim would have been denied.

At some point in time, after filling out his claim forms and prior to his hearing before the citizenship court, Cumiford began to claim through Rachel Fisher instead of his mother, Mary Sitton. Notice how Mary's name is crossed through and Rachel's is written instead.

It's unclear if Cumiford decided to claim through Rachel Fisher before or after talking to Watt Christie, but it's clear Cumiford never would have been admitted if not for Christie's testimony.

As shown in his testimony, Cumiford knew very little about the Fisher family. 

Compare that to all the information Christie shared about the Fisher family in two different testimonies.

Anyone could look at the rolls and find a name, but it took more than that to gain citizenship. A claimant needed others to testify they were actually Cherokee but Cumiford couldn't find honest people to testify. He was making a false claim. This is why Watt Christie became important to him. Christie got on the stand and under sworn oath, lied. 

The plan appears to have been well orchestrated. 

Both men said:

• Rachel Fisher was Cumiford's mother.
• Cumiford was born in the Cherokee Nation.
• Cumiford was taken out of the Cherokee Nation, after the Civil War, when he was about 7 years old.

If two people tell the same story and it proves true, no harm, no foul; but if two people tell the same story and it proves false, then there had to be some planning involved. It is not a stretch to believe Watt Christie and Pleasant Cumiford conspired to defraud the Cherokee Nation. 

Christie's role didn't stop there. He also made a point to say Rachel Fisher's name should appear on the Rolls of 1852 and he later gave the name of Rachel's grandfather in Cherokee so it could be found on the Roll of 1835.

The name Fisher is not found on the Roll of 1835. It appears the citizenship court wanted to find the family on more than one roll so they recalled Christie to the stand for more information (second testimony).  Christie explained the family lived together (so only one head of household would be on the Roll of 1835.) He offered the name Hatchet and a Cherokee name, Dee kul loos ki. There is no Hatchet on the Roll of 1835. The court put an interpreter on the stand who explained the Cherokee name would have been recorded as Chopper. There was a Chopper, living on the Ellijay, near Turnip Town.

Cumiford might have been able to pull a name from the Drennen Roll on his own, but he never could have linked that name to the name Chopper on the Roll of 1835. He might have found other witnesses, but those witnesses never could have linked Rachel Fisher to her family listed on the Roll of 1835 either. Only a Cherokee with intimate knowledge of the family and who was willing to lie could have helped Cumiford get his claim approved. This is the reason the standing witness testimonies were harmful. While non-Cherokee witnesses could lie, they couldn't provide details that would get the citizenship court to believe those lies. A Cherokee could. Watt Christie proved that. 


Stay tuned for the next installments in this series for more about the Fisher family; why the standing witness testimonies are harmful; and why we as Cherokees should care.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

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

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

Introduction - Standing Witnesses-Part 1

 

What is a "standing witness"? In the confines of Cherokee history, a standing witness was a Cherokee Nation citizen who was used or hired by lawyers to testify in citizenship cases, and payment of some sort was given. These cases were brought by non-Cherokees attempting to gain citizenship, obtain land, and payments.  Eventually this false testimony from the standing witnesses became such a problem for the Cherokee Nation that several Cherokee men were brought up on perjury charges and other Cherokees testified to the fact these standing witnesses were known liars and could not be trusted.

Because this series will expose an ugly part of our history, I understand this will not be a popular series with some Cherokees. The descendants of the men who were known as standing witnesses and the descendants of those who were fraudulently enrolled will likely not be happy about this information being shared. I've put blogging about this research off for over a year, debating whether I should post about it or not. After much discussion with trusted Cherokee friends, I decided it was time to write this series.  The damage these witnesses did was too great and is still causing problems for the Cherokee Nation today. It is important this part of our history be shared. 

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet