Tracing back to Sally Hughes

Now that I have shown the Mhoons have no documentation or evidence to support their claim that they descend from the Cherokee Sally Hughes, I will show the documentation and evidence I have that says I do descend from Sally.

Working backwards, which is the standard way genealogy is done, means I start with myself. Because both my mother and I are living, and because we have proved our ancestry linked back to Dawes in accordance with Cherokee law, I will start with my grandpa, who has passed away, and his parents who were both original Dawes enrollees.

My maternal grandpa was Aaron Carey.

He was the son of Dick Carey and Nancy Fisher. Nancy descended through Sally Hughes so her ancestry is the one I will show.

Per the birth affidavit in Dawes application #5126, Nancy was the daughter of Johnson Fisher and Darkie Tadpole. (Notice the midwife who attended Darkie was Polly Tadpole, her mother.)

In that same application, Darkie's parents are listed as Dave and Polly Tadpole. (Also notice Darkie's  number from the 1880 Census of the Cherokee Nation.)

Darkie died prior to the date of the final roll, therefore was not enrolled, but her husband and daughters were.

Darkie was found on both the 1880 and 1890 Cherokee Nation censuses with her parents.

1880 Cooweescoowee Dist
#2973 David Tadpole, Native Cherokee, 41
#2974 Mollie Tadpole, NCher, 43 (The name difference is settled below.)
#2975 Tiger Tadpole, NCher, 14
#2976 Darkie Tadpole, NCher, 10 (Matches the 1880 number in the above document.)
#2977 Rosie Tadpole, NCher, 8

1890 Cooweescoowee Dist
David Tadpole, NCher, 52
Polly Tadpole, NCher, 54
Darkey Tadpole, NCher, 20
Rose Tadpole, NCher, 18

Polly Tadpole, mother of Darkie, was still living at the time of the Dawes Roll and the Guion Miller Roll. Per Dawes application #2461, where the information was translated from her to the commission by an interpreter since she didn't speak English, her parents were Ave and Betsy Vann. She was also asked if her name was Mollie or Polly. She said Polly. (Also notice her number from the 1880 Census of the Cherokee Nation. It matches the number above.)

Per Eastern Cherokee Application #8972, Polly Tadpole said her parents were Ave Vann and Betsy Vann nee Scott. She did not know the names of her paternal grandparents.

Per the card at the front of the Eastern Cherokee application for Polly, a notation was made that she was admitted and that she was enrolled in 1851, Tahl #569 as Oo-te-ee Vann.

That means we can look at the 1851 Drennen Roll and find her listed with her family. (Notice the name David Vann on the second page has the number 2183 beside it!)

The number 2183 references an Eastern Cherokee application for Polly Tadpole's brother, David Vann, so I checked his application to see if he listed his paternal grandparents. He said his paternal grandfather was Claw-see Vann.

Also, this page from David Vann's Eastern Cherokee application makes reference to his being listed on the Drennen Roll, Tahl #569, and claiming through Ave Vann on both the 1851 Drennen Roll and the 1835 Roll.

George Pumpkin/Pumpkinpile was still alive at the time of the Guion Miller Roll and filed an Eastern Cherokee application. Because he married into another line of my family, I had already done extensive research on him, and knew he listed his maternal grandfather's Cherokee name as "Claw-sene" and English name as James Vann. I checked his application #2804 to to see if he connected with Polly Tadpole and David Vann who filed the applications above. Notice on the second page, George listed Ave Vann as one of the children of his grandparents, thus, his uncle. He was a first cousin to Polly and David.

Now that I have verified the names of Polly Vann Tadpole's, father, Ave Vann, and his father, James "Claw-see" or "Claw-sene" Vann, I can look for them in 1835.

From the Cherokee Census of 1835, transcribed by James W. Tyner, better known as "Those Who Cried, the 16,000", I find Ave Vann listed as Dave Vann living on the Oostenolee River. (Make note of "No farm. One farmer.")

Dave Vann Two fullbloods and one quarterblood. No farm. One farmer. One weaver and one spinner.

He is living next to his father-in-law, Dick Scott, and near Alexander Brown, John Ridge, Watie, Major Ridge and Charley Moore. (It is important to know these men lived near this Ave Vann later.)

From the Cherokee Census of 1835, transcribed by the Trail of Tears Association, Ave Vann is living at Floyd County, Amuchy Creek, Oostenalla River. (Make note of "No farms or acreage in cultivation." and "1 farmer over 18 years.")

Ave Vann - 1 male under 18 years, 1 male over 18 years, 0 females under 16 years, 1 female over 16 years, total Cherokee 3. No slaves. No whites connected by marriage. No farms or acreage in cultivation, 3 houses. 1 farmer over 18 years. 0 Halfbloods, 1 Quadroon, 2 Full bloods. 1 weaver and 1 spinner.

He is living next to his father-in-law, Dick Scott, and near the same men listed above.

My James or Claw-sene Vann is not found in 1835 so it would make one wonder if he died before then.

Looking for claims filed by Ave Vann led me to:

Record Group 75 - Records of the BIA
Entry 236 - Miscellaneous Claims Papers of the 1st Board of Cherokee Commissioners
Folder of Ave Van

Ave Vann filed a claim, February 1, 1837, for two small fields that were included in Sally Hughes' valuation; one field about 6 acres and the other 4 acres.

The claim included testimony by Charles Moore where he said Ave Vann was the son of James Vann, who was the son of Sally Hughes.

The statement of Cherokee Charles Moore in reference to the above - Says that the father of Ave Vann owned a small field of about six acres which he cultivated three years - and when his mother, Sally Hughes, she occupied it, and it is said has been valued to her. The father of Ave Vann's name was James Vann, son of Sally Hughes. [emphasis mine] Moore further says that Ave had a-bout four acres of land that he cleaned himself and cultivated - He frequently saw him at work - that also he understands has been valued to Sally Hughes as part of her improvements.
Sworn to  & subscribed                         Charles (his mark) Moore
before me 1 Feb. 1837
Jno Ridge (illegible)

There is additional testimony from Elijah Moore that said Ave Vann was the grandson of Sally Hughes and the son of James Vann.

I hereby certify that the Ave Vann claimed two small fields that were considered as part of the improv-ments of Sally Hughes. Ave Vann is the grandson of Sally Hughes, [emphasis mine] I was residing with her when he cleaned one of the fields - The other belonged to his father James Vann. [emphasis mine]                             
Sworn to & subscribed          
before me this 1st Feb. 1837.      Elijah Moore
Jno Ridge (illegible)

Do you see it coming together? It was that easy to connect myself, with supporting documentation, to my great great great great great great Cherokee grandmother, Sally Hughes. Did you get that? She is my 6th great grandmother. She is Cherokee. There are records.

My line is as follows:

Me 
My mom, daughter of 
Aaron Carey, son of 
Nancy Fisher, daughter of 
Darkie Tadpole, daughter of 
Polly Vann, daughter of 
Ave Vann, son of 
James Vann, son of 
Sally Hughes

And people say it is hard to prove Cherokee ancestry. Ha! Not true. Despite the fact most of these people didn't speak English; despite the fact these people were Indians; despite the fact Darkie Tadpole died young; despite the fact Polly Tadpole did not know the names of her paternal grandparents; despite the fact James "Claw-sene" Vann was not found in 1835; and despite the fact Sally Hughes was born about 1777-1780, over 57 years before the Trail of Tears, we can still trace this line WITH supporting documentation. And guess what? There's more!

Stay tuned for the next installment in this series about Sally Hughes!

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

**Unless otherwise stated, all documents were obtained from Fold3.com.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Mhoon Family Character and False Claims

Throughout history, any time there was a reason to benefit from being Cherokee, many people claimed it, even when they weren't. Any time a rejected application is found, the motives of the person making it, as well as the character of the person or family making it, should be considered. Many people believe no one would claim to be Indian back in the day if they weren't, but that isn't true. Many times, if a non-Indian thought they could get something out of it, they didn't hesitate to claim to be Cherokee. That is why we must consider motive and character when reviewing a rejected application.

There are many Mhoon descendants who believe they are Cherokee and descend from my ancestor, Cherokee Sally Hughes, simply because their ancestor, William Green Mhoon, filed an 1896 application for Cherokee citizenship and said his father's mother was named Sally Hughes. The problem is, Cherokee Sally Hughes is not their ancestor and there is nothing to indicate they are Cherokee. Because the 1896 application was rejected, it is important to search for information that gives insight into the character of the Mhoon family.

There is a Fort Smith Criminal File from 1894 on two sons of William Green Mhoon. Though the case mainly focuses on George, it also included William. 

Ancestry.com

The charge was "Sending Obscene Material through the U.S. Mail." In the end, they were found "Not Guilty" on the 2nd and 3rd counts (I can't find information on the 1st count), but remember, this does not necessarily mean they were innocent. It could mean there was just not enough evidence to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Ancestry.com

Also, there is a lot of testimony about George stabbing a witness thirteen times for saying he, George, wrote and sent the obscene letters. The criminal file is very large (over 100 pages) so I won't post it all here, but there is one document I would like to make sure everyone sees. Please notice the following document from the criminal file refers to George and William as "white men and not Indians."

Click to enlarge

Ancestry.com

Do you notice how investigating one topic helped us find information on another? Looking for documentation on the character of the family members led us to a document that clearly says these Mhoons were white men and not Indians.

Do you remember that some people gave sworn testimonies for William Green Mhoon saying the family was known as Cherokee Indians? Funny they were only known as Cherokee Indians for that application in 1896, isn't it? The Mhoons weren't known as Cherokee Indians when George was on trial in 1894, two years before the application was made. (Remember in a previous post when I said the 1896 applications were thrown out due to widespread fraud and false testimony?)

What was William Green Mhoon's motive for filing an application in 1896? Land and money. His 1896 application clearly says this - "to be placed on the (unclear) Rolls of the Cherokee Tribe who are about to share in the distribution of funds and allotments..."

Ancestry.com

We have found a motive for making a false claim of being Cherokee and we have found some insight into the character of not only this Mhoon family, but also those people who gave sworn testimonies for them. As we continue our exhaustive search for documentation on the Mhoons, it is becoming more and more clear that they do not descend from Cherokee Sally Hughes or any other Cherokee.

Stay tuned as we take this search in a different direction and continue to show why the Mhoon family does not descend from the Cherokee woman, Sally Hughes.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Should You Trust the Testimonies in the 1896 Applications?

Please review the 1896 application of William Green Mhoon by clicking on the following link - 

William Green Mhoon 1896 application

Pay attention to the number of times the name Sally/Sallie Hughes is mentioned and how many times she is mentioned as Cherokee.   

Did you see it? One, and I say ONE, mention of Sally Hughes, which may or may not have been the correct name of Stark Mhoon's mother. Since William Green never knew Stark's mother, he could have easily confused the names Susannah and Sally. He also could have seen the 1835 roll and assumed Sally was his ancestor or he could have intentionally picked that name, knowing it was not his ancestor, but assuming no one could disprove it. Whatever the reason, as shown by the information posted yesterday, it seems William Green Mhoon was probably mistaken on the name of his father's mother.

If you missed it, the one mention of "Sallie Hughes" is on the third page down in the posted application and says this at the bottom of the page, "I knew nothing of my Fathers family except that his Mother was Sallie Hughes and was a cherokee."

 
That is the ONLY mention of a woman named Sally Hughes and the only mention of that Sally being Cherokee, yet despite the fact that no other documentation supports this statement as true, the descendants have accepted it as true. That was a big mistake. Genealogy is based on documentation, not assumption.

Per the History of Benton, Washington, Carroll, Madison, Crawford, Franklin, and Sebastian Counties, Arkansas. Chicago, IL, USA: Goodspeed Publishing, 1889, William Green Mhoon was of German descent and there was no mention at all of any Cherokee ancestry.

 

Notice the date they first moved to Washington County, Arkansas - 1836. 

Click to enlarge

Per much of the testimony given in the 1896 application, the Mhoons stopped in Washington County when the Cherokees were being moved. Excerpt from the Lucy Trammel testimony which is similar to many others. "...was a Cherokee Indian and resided with the tribe in the old Eastern reserve and came here with the Cherokees as they were being moved..."

Click to enlarge

This is where we can show the testimonies were not based in truth by comparing them to historical fact.

Stark Mhoon's family moved to Washington County, Arkansas shortly after it was opened up to white settlement and when there was an influx of whites to the area. This is land that was taken from the Old Settler Cherokees, thus, those who settled there benefited from Cherokee oppression and why it is an insult that the descendants of those early settlers would now claim to be Cherokee.

From The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture  :

"The county was formed after the Cherokee were removed and the area was deemed safe for white settlement. History records the names of several white pioneer families who settled in what is now Washington County, among them Alexander, McGarrah, and Simpson. The first white families came to Washington County about a year before the Arkansas territorial legislature opened the area to white settlement, thus making trespassers of the new pioneers. These squatters lived on their homesteads, anticipating quick federal intervention to gain the land from the Cherokees, making it possible for permanent white settlement. [emphasis mine.] The land formally became available to white settlement in 1828."

Also worth noting, based on history, Stark Mhoon and family moved to Washington County, Arkansas two years before the forced removal of the Emigrant Cherokees started. Those Cherokees were moved from 1838-39, therefore the Mhoons could not have stopped in Washington County in 1836 when they were being "moved with the Cherokees"! It is clear, they were NOT being moved with the Cherokees when they settled in the area as the testimony given in this 1896 application says.

Why would someone give testimony to something that wasn't true? There could be a lot of reasons. One said they knew the family but knew nothing of their heritage. Most said the same thing:

"came here with the Cherokees when they were being moved..."

Notice people are giving testimony saying they knew a Cherokee woman (Betsey Sutton, not Sally Hughes) who lived in the domain of the Cherokee Nation and said they knew she was listed on the roll? Interesting that these people didn't live in Cherokee domain, isn't it? Exactly how did they know this woman, know she was listed on a roll, and know she moved with the Cherokees? Makes you think something fishy was going on, doesn't it?

Perhaps these people testified to this because it is what the lawyer told them to say. Or perhaps it is because they were just trying to help a friend. Or, perhaps it is because they knew if William Green Mhoon's application was accepted, their application would be as well. Sarah Bledsoe, one person who gave testimony for Mhoon, also made an 1896 application through the same ancestors, so her motives are suspect as having an interest in the Mhoon application being approved. No matter the reason, we can show the testimony given is not true based on known historical facts.

One might ask, is it possible William Green Mhoon filed an 1896 application knowing he wasn't Cherokee? I guess that would fall upon the character of Mhoon and his family. Were they upstanding citizens? Could their word be trusted? 

Stay tuned for more as we look at some documentation that gives us insight into the character of the William Green Mhoon family!

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Mhoon Descendants - Take Note

I received a message and some information from a reader and think it would be unfair to the Mhoon descendants not to share it. 

"Hey Twila. Well, I got to admit that I’ve been captivated by what you've posted on your blog the last few days. I've looked up some of the names and was dumbfounded and nauseated, too, how many people have forced fit your ancestor onto their family tree. Kind of like a toddler trying to force a piece of a puzzle in the wrong spot, but insisting it fits!"

"I have found some documents that I think will help you show that it’s probably Susannah Hughs who is their ancestor, not Sallie Hughes."

"Here is what I have found:

In 1793, Joel Mohun/Mhoon was named as being the orphan of Hezekiah Mohun/Mhoon of Bertie County in Hezekiah’s estate papers. Joel was bound to William Gray who was the bondsman when he married Mary Ashburn in Bertie County on September 8th, 1800.

In Feb 1809, he posted a bastardly bond in Bertie County for Susanah Hughs and the bond states “Joel Mohon hath Begotten a Bastard Child on the Body of Susanah-Hughs”. On May 1811, he posted another bastardly bond for Susannah Hughs. One of the children is believed to be Stark Mhoon.

Bertie County Susanah Hughs is not Sallie Hughes and never was.

Joel died on or about 1833 in Bertie Co., according to his own estate papers, and a John Moore was appointed guardian of his orphans Mary Ann Medicus and Thomas Mhoon."

"Now, if I could find this out in a few hours, so could those relatives that were posting all over the net for a decade thinking they were Cherokee royalty. What’s especially irritating is that there was a Tuscarora reservation smack dab in the county were the Mhoons and Mullen’s lived and yet, they still manage to make their relative Cherokee! If you’ve ever been to NC, you see how geographically stupid that is.

Also, Mathernia Mullen was no full-blooded Cherokee. Both her parents came from land rich people in Bertie that migrated down from Virginia, where most of the landowners from that time period came from. I found her father mentioned in his father, Abraham Mullen, estate papers. This family migrated from Colonial Virginia.

I’m attaching the bastardly bond for Joel Mhoon/Mohun and Susannah Hughs and estate papers showing that Joel was deceased by 1833. I found a partial transcription and transcribed the rest. Hope this helps."

"Transcription of bastard bond of Joel Mhoon/Mohun for Susannah Hughs. I can't make out the last line, I tried enhancing the picture and still couldn't read it:"

State of N Carolina
Bertie County
Know all men by these Presents that we, Joel Mhoon, John Webb, and Thomas Worley -- are held of firmly bound unto the Justices of the County of ... in the ... of full sum of one hundred Pounds Currency to be paid to the said Justices their lac upon or against for/to the Payment of which are of truly to be made we bind ourselves of each of us one of each of our Heir Executors Administrators of ... ... of severatty firmly by the Presents. Sealed with our Seals and dated this 17th day of February 1809.

The condition of the above obligation is such that when as the above bounden Joel Mohon hath Begotten a Bastard Child on the Body of Susanah-Hughs now if the said Joel Mohon shall well and truly keep harmless then parish of society fears (?) all the Charges of Trouble that shall accrue from the maintenance of said child then their obligations to be void likewise to remain ??? "unable to transcribe the rest".

Joel Mhoon Seal
Thomas Worley Seal
John Webb Seal

Jos. Blount   

Are any of us, at this point, going to say this is, without a doubt, the line of Stark Mhoon? No, but we will say that there are some good hints here that suggest further research in a direction that does not suggest Cherokee ancestry. On initial evaluation, this seems to be some information that would fit with the history of Stark Mhoon's ancestry, while the claim to Sally Hughes, Cherokee, does not.

Stay tuned! More coming on this saga of the mistaken identity of Cherokee Sally Hughes and the quest for truth! 

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.





*Note - I did not use the name of the reader because I do not have permission to do so. If and when this reader/quality researcher decides to give permission to credit her with the information, I will do so. But I do want to send a big thank you out to her! 

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

Theory + Imagination = Fiction

In the last post, I shared one theory of the Mhoon descendants that has spread like wildfire among them and is now widely accepted, even though it is not true. In this post, I would like to share something that seems to be loosely based upon that theory, yet expands on it by adding a dose of imagination. Though it makes a good story, it isn't true. It is nearly all fiction with a few facts thrown in to make it believable. Is this how family lore is born?

Please read, "Why Grandmother is Cherokee, but I'm not." It is important that you read it before you continue on or you might not understand the rest of this post.

To break it down -

"Around 1750 A.D., Sallie Sonicooie was born to Cherokee parents in Cherokee Territory and raised as Cherokee."

The Sally the writer is referring to is our Sally Hughes, Cherokee. We have never found any documentation that suggested the names of her parents. I know there was a notation in the index of a book that listed her name as Sally Hughes with "(Sonicooie)" beside it, but there is no other reference to this found.  Also, research suggests she was much younger than this writer says. 

"She was my great, great, great, great grandmother."

Based on what documentation? The research suggests she is not his ancestor.

"As she grew up, more and more white settlers were moving into Cherokee Territory and little by little the land of the Cherokee was being taken over."

Again, based on what documentation? First it was Cherokee Nation, not Cherokee territory. It was a nation unto itself and not part of the United States. According to the letters of Benjamin Hawkins, the Cherokee children in 1796 were extremely frightened when they saw him which would lead me to believe they were not accustomed to seeing a lot of white people at that time. Sally Hughes was grown by this time so it seems that the writer is taking liberty with Cherokee history by this comment.

"Sally fell in love with and married a white trader named Bernard Hughes."

Documentation does not support this statement. Sally never married Bernard Hughes nor did she have children with him. There is also no documentation that we have ever found that says who Sally might have "fallen in love with." We know who she married or had children with, but we don't know if she was "in love." No matter what, her life is not a "Pocahontas Story" so no need to over romanticize it.

""Barney" died and left Sallie two 40 acre parcels.  Her house and farm was on one parcel."

Not only did Sally not marry a "Barney", Cherokees didn't own land. Whites didn't own land in Cherokee Nation. No one owned land in Cherokee Nation which is where Sally lived. The land was held in common by the nation as a whole. No husband, whether he would have been white or Indian, left his wife any "parcel" in the Cherokee Nation. Cherokees only owned the improvements on the land but never owned the land individually. Once again, the writer seems to be taking liberty with Cherokee history.

"It also provided her with a good income from a ferry that transported travelers across the river that ran through her property."

Sally did have a ferry, but she also had partners in that venture per documentation.

"The other parcel contained a gold mine."

The plot Sally had her improvements on was part of the Gold Land Lottery in Georgia. The valuations I have seen did not mention "a mine."

"Because Sally was Cherokee, the government forced her to auction off the parcel with the mine since Indians were not allowed to own mines."

Ok, excuse the language, but bull sh*t! Cherokees could have owned mines in the Cherokee Nation if they wanted. They were not subject to US law. They had their own! Once again, the writer is taking liberty with Cherokee history and frankly, it is starting to get on my nerves! What documentation does this writer have that says Sally auctioned off this "parcel"? If she had sold that land, she would have met the same fate as the Treaty Party leaders! Selling Cherokee land without council approval was an offense punishable by DEATH!

"She also lost the ferry when her white neighbor convinced the county to change the road to cross the river on his property."

This is not supported by documentation either. Sally wrote a letter that discussed some white men who redirected the road so that it would lead to their ferry and take her business. She didn't lose her ferry, though she did lose business and apparently every attempt was made by the whites to dispossess her of her ferry. Also, Sally wrote this letter in the 1830s, long after the writer claims she had already been married to Joel Mhoon and given birth to Stark.

"Joel Mhoon was an English immigrant’s son who moved to Cherokee Territory to seek his fortune."

According to what documentation? I've seen nothing that suggests Joel Mhoon ever lived in Cherokee Nation. Revising history again.

"There he met Sallie and fell in love."

Again, "love." Ugh.......she isn't Pocahontas, remember? And what documentation says Sally ever met Joel Mhoon?

"When he asked the Cherokee elders what he must do to become Cherokee and properly marry Sallie, he was told that if he lived as a Cherokee he was Cherokee."

Ok, I just threw up in my mouth a little! Disgusting! That is such a romantic notion not based in truth, I don't even know what to say other than it isn't true! Show me the proof of this claim! What were the names of these so called elders who said this?

"They married sometime around 1810 and in 1811 they had a son."

Once again, based on what documentation? By the date of birth this writer has for Sally, she would have been about 60 or 61 years old when she supposedly gave birth to Stark Mhoon. How many 60+ year old women do you know who have given birth? 

"Stark Mhoon was my great, great, great, grandfather."

That may or may not be true. I am not interested in the Mhoon genealogy, other than to dispel the myths they have created in which they claim Sally Hughes, Cherokee, as their ancestor.

"Stark Mhoon, married Mathenia Mullen, a full blood."

Documentation that she was a full blood?

"They were very suspicious of the white-man and his lists and avoided being listed on any lists other than the census."

Um, I don't believe this. Sally Hughes, who they claim as their ancestor, was on the "lists", so why wouldn't her son be? (Her real children were on "the lists"!) Plus, those "lists" were not optional. If they were Cherokee, they would have been on them whether they wanted to be or not.

"When they got wind of plans to re-locate the Cherokee, they packed up and moved to Missouri, thus avoiding the Trail of Tears."

Sure. Sure. That's why they moved. There is no documentation to show they ever lived in Cherokee Nation. There is no documentation to show they were Cherokee, but they packed up and moved to avoid the Trail of Tears after the Treaty of Echota was signed, and despite the fact they could remain in the east if they wanted to give up Cherokee citizenship. By moving, if they were Cherokee, they gave up the citizenship anyway, so what was the big deal in moving at all? Why not just stay in the east? Others did.

"They hid their heritage in fear that they might be forced to relocate to Oklahoma."

Shut up! It is getting to be too much! Come on! Did he forget that if they were Cherokee and raised in Cherokee Nation, they would have most likely in those days, only spoken Cherokee? And if Stark's wife was a full blood, how could she have hidden her heritage from people who looked at her?  Common sense! Also, there was no Oklahoma back then. It was Indian Territory.

"In 1896, Stark’s son petitioned thru friends under the Dawes Act, stating their heritage, tried to enroll Stark and himself in the Cherokee nation."

That is not what he did. He filed an application to try to get citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. He petitioned himself, using family and friends to give testimony on his behalf. Stark was dead so he could not be included. Also, that was one of the 1896 applications, which were all thrown out.

"Since Stark’s mother was not registered on the Dawes list and since he could not produce her birth certificate (she probably didn’t have one), they were declined."

No, that isn't why they were declined. The "Dawes list" wasn't even finalized until 1902, with some additions later. Stark's son applied in 1896, remember? 

"I find it ironic that the Cherokee denied citizenship to Stark based on the white man’s list."

Um, whatever. That isn't true and it is always non-Indians who call the Dawes Roll a "white man's list." They forget the Cherokees had an important role in deciding who was or was not included on that roll.

"Clearly, in the two generations since Joel Mhoon had become Cherokee simply by living as a Cherokee, attitudes had changed."

Revisionist history. What documentation does he have that Joel Mhoon ever lived in the Cherokee Nation, that he was married to a Sally Hughes, or that he was the father of Stark Mhoon?

"If my great, great, great grandfather was not accepted as Cherokee, then, of course, I have no chance of being able to claim to be Cherokee either."

Stark Mhoon is not the one who applied. It was his son, William Green Mhoon, which I believe would be the writer's great great grandfather. And right, if they weren't Cherokee, then neither is he.

"To members of the Cherokee Nation, “being Cherokee” means being a member (or citizen) of the Cherokee Nation.  It has nothing to do with race just as being a citizen of the United States has nothing to do with race.  To be Cherokee, you must be accepted by the Cherokee based upon the laws of the Cherokee Nation."

Wow! He finally got something right!

"So, by Cherokee law, just because my grandmother was Cherokee, that does not make me a member of the Cherokee Nation!  However, I think I have the right to say that I am Cherokee-American.  It is in my blood!"

First, the writer needs to prove his grandmother was Cherokee. He has not done so. He just makes the claim and expects his reader to believe it. Until he can prove his ancestors were actually Cherokee, he has no right to claim he is Cherokee, of Cherokee descent or Cherokee-American because he has no proof it is "in his blood." 

Do you see the conflicts between this story and the timeline of factual events? Do you see the conflicts between this story and actual historical facts? Do you see the conflicts between this story and documented genealogical facts? That is how we can tell the difference in things based in truth and those that are not. I think we just saw how family lore gets started. Someone decides to add some pretty ideas to a few facts that may or may not be connected and then boom, you have a story that will be passed down from generation to generation until the family makes it such a part of their lives, they will never accept it is not true. 

Stay tuned! Documentation coming to tell the real story of Sally Hughes, the Cherokee woman who owned the ferry. You will see who she was and who she wasn't, no lore included! 
  
Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.







**Note of interest - The writer of this piece I dissected above posted on an Indian Country Today piece about Elizabeth Warren, apparently making the argument, using his own false claims as an example, that she might have been Cherokee. See the last comment on this article - What's the Deal With Elizabeth Warren?

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet