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 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

More Standing Witnesses Cases Coming Soon

It's been a while since I've written about the standing witnesses, so it is time to get back to that topic. While it is fairly easy to see how their fabricated testimonies will mislead novice researchers today, there's more to it than that.

Soon, we will delve into a case where standing witness testimony might be playing a role in misleading and influencing our leaders in the Cherokee Nation today. You won't want to miss this, so stay tuned!


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, 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

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

Searching for Mrs. Fisher - Standing Witnesses-Part 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider these facts:

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

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

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

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



Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

"What Watt?" - Standing Witnesses Special

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

Those are easy questions to answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

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

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

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Rachel was not the mother of Pleasant Cumiford.

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

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


Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2014, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet