The Children of Nelson Guess - Part 2

Sometimes it's best to let the documents tell the story. In The Children of Nelson Guess - Part 2, that's what I've decided to do. A lot of words aren't needed to explain how tragic and sad this was.

June 20, 1908, Albert Guess, the teenage son of Nelson Guess, died in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

July 9, 1908, Clarence Haggard, white stepfather and guardian of Albert, was appointed as administrator of Albert's estate.

August 6, 1908, Despite the fact she was purportedly the child of Nelson Guess and received an allotment because of it, Lena was listed as "Lena Haggard" and as the 1/2 sister of Albert in the estate papers listing his heirs. We know Albert and Lena had the same mother, so obviously Lena was not the child of Nelson Guess. (See Part 1 for more.)

June 22, 1909, Clarence was cited and summonsed to court for failure to follow through with the legal requirements in his role as guardian of the children of Nelson Guess.

March 2, 1910, another citation was issued commanding Clarence to appear in court on March 30, 1910, to face a complaint from the surety company that he had absconded with the estates of the children of Nelson Guess (as guardian) and had not complied with the requirements of guardianship for more than a year.

April 16, 1910, on the 1910 US Census, Lena was listed as Lena Haggard and Susie was listed as Susie Guess. Clarence was not listed in the household.

May 12, 1910, in Susie's estate, Lena was listed as Lena Haggard and as the 1/2 sister of Susie. That same day, Clarence signed for Lena in Susie's estate papers and signed her name as Lena Haggard.

July 9, 1910, Frances reported that Clarence was squandering the estates of her children (as guardian.) Clarence was therefore ordered to appear in court to answer to Frances' allegations against him. The court date was set for July 25, 1910.

October 10, 1910, the the court ordered that Clarence appear in court to answer the accusation that he absconded with Albert's estate (as administrator.) Later, the sheriff reported he could not find Clarence in his jurisdiction to serve him with the order to appear.

March 23, 1911, Clarence was again ordered to appear in court to answer to charges of absconding with the estates of the children of Nelson Guess (Albert, Eliza, and Susie.)

April 11, 1911, Clarence was removed as guardian of the estates the children of Nelson Guess; Albert, Eliza, and Susie; as well as removed as guardian for the estate of his own daughter, Lena Haggard, alias Guess.

 

After all those documents, it should be clear that Clarence Haggard took advantage of his role as guardian to Cherokee children and basically stole their estates. Though I didn't include the documents in this post, he did request and receive approval to sell at least part of the allotments received by Albert and Susie. After he sold the land, he then absconded with the money received from the sale.

In Part 3 of The Children of Nelson Guess, I'll summarize the facts surrounding the tragic story of theft perpetuated by Clarance and Frances Haggard against these three Cherokee children and the Cherokee Nation as a whole.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

Part One

*All probate documents above can be found on Ancestry.com: Oklahoma Wills and Probate Records of Albert Guess, Susie Guess and Lena Guess 

Copyright 2016, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Cherokee Nation Protest - Standing Witnesses-Part 8

The Cherokee Nation lawyers launched a strong protest against the Pleasant Cumiford family being enrolled by the Dawes Commission. Below is a timeline of the events that started with Cumiford's Dawes application on November 9, 1900, and concluded March 26, 1904 when the Department of the Interior made its final decision.

• November 9, 1900 - Pleasant Cumiford applied for enrollment by the Dawes Commission. The Cherokee Nation protested and the application was held up as doubtful.
• December 15, 1900 - Watt Christie appeared before the Commission and recanted his testimony that got Cumiford and his family admitted to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.
• March 8, 1902 - Rehearing in the case; Cumiford failed to appear.
• August 11, 1902 - Commission decision to admit Cumiford and family.
• August 26, 1902 - Cherokee Nation filed a formal motion to reopen the case.
• September 17, 1902 - Motion to reopen the case was allowed. Hearing scheduled for October 31, 1902
• October 31, 1902 - Hearing rescheduled for November 10, 1902.
• November 11, 1902 - Cumiford couldn't be located and delay was requested to find him.
• January 22, 1904 - Decision of Commission - fraud and bribery not proved.
• Between January 22, 1904 and February 8, 1904 - Cherokee Nation filed formal protest and appealed to the Department of the Interior.
• March 26, 1904 - Final decision, Cumiford admitted under Department of Interior's interpretation of the law.

In its final protest made to the Department of the Interior, the Cherokee Nation asked, 

"[W]ill the Great Government of the United States say that it is powerless to prevent Comiford from reaping the rewards of his own bribes and corruption?"

In the protest, the Cherokee Nation summarized the case, explaining Cumiford knew nothing of the family he claimed and that he relied solely on the testimony of Watt Christie, a well known standing witness, who had later recanted his testimony in the Cumiford citizenship case and confessed he only testified because Cumiford said he'd give him, Christie, a horse.

Because the Dawes Commission previously ruled the Cherokee Nation had not proved bribery took place, the Nation's legal staff went into great detail of the bribery and perjury in their protest to the Department of the Interior. 

They explained that the clause "Omit all such as may have been placed thereon by fraud or without authority of lawful right thereto" was added to the Curtis Act, "in order that jurisdiction might be confered upon the Commission to correct frauds which had heretofore been practiced upon the Cherokee Nation ... "

They emphasized the fact Cumiford had virtually disappeared and no one could find him. 

"The records will show that when Comiford took the stand to make the first application in his own behalf on November 9, 1900, he was then charged with having given Watt Christie a horse to testify in his behalf. Since that time conscious of his own guilt, conscious that he had committed bribery, conscious that he was guilty of subordination of perjury, this same Comiford fled from the Cherokee Nation and could not be found as shown by the testimony of J.C. Starr taken before the commission November 11, 1902."

The Cherokee Nation continued by proclaiming that while it was usually difficult to prove perjury, in this instance, Watt Christie, the witness, admitted to it.

"People do not usually go over the country and herald the fact that they are bribe-givers, or perjurers, but in this case the witness comes before the Commission and confesses his own guilt and at the same time Comiford conscious of it flees the country."

They explained why the Cumiford case slipped through, 

"... this is the only case where this Cherokee Commission, so far as we can find, ever admitted an applicant on the unsupported testimony of Watt Christie, [because] the putrid stench which attached to his reputation for veracity in citizen-ship cases soon came to the judicial nostrils of this Commission ... "

In conclusion, the Cherokee Nation stated, 

"If the Government of the United States is powerless because of any technicality to correct this fraud and injustice when the proof is so plain and convincing, then we say that it would be fruitless for the Cherokee Nation to request that any applicant be rejected on the ground of fraud being practiced."

Despite this grand effort by the Cherokee Nation lawyers to protect our nation from having its lands stolen by frauds pretending to be Cherokee, the Department of the Interior ordered the enrollment of Cumiford, saying their interpretation of the fraud clause in the Curtis Act did not apply to the circumstances in the Cumiford case. 

Though the Cherokee Nation lost in their attempt to keep a fraud out of our nation and off our Final Roll, it made a powerful promise in its final protest, should the US decide to rule against them. That promise grew from the pride Cherokees felt for their nation then and from the presumed pride we would all carry with us, even if we were born years after that final roll. Our forefathers knew the ever patriotic and loyal Cherokees would never allow for such fraud to be covered up or forgotten. 

 "If this Comiford family is permitted to reap the rewards of their own criminal corruption, ... the Government of the United States will rightfully be condemned by every ... [Cherokee] ... as long as there is left one to patriotically lisp: "I am Cherokee."

While that is the end of this standing witness case, it is not the end of this series. There is much more to be said, so join me next time when I discuss why this still matters.

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