Origins of "cherokee in the family" stories

Thanks for the explanation Kathryn, it will make it a little bit easier for me.

Alamathea Souche (Cherokee Princess) <~~~ I wanted to bring this profile to the attention of a curator as we all know there were no Cherokee “princesses” cold someone look into this profile if they have the chance.

I don’t know if she was a real person or not, but someone born in Pennsylvania in 1658 certainly was not Cherokee. Pennsylvania was not colonized until 1681 and there are no records prior to that date. The profile also says she had a daughter in Kentucky in 1678, long before Kentucky was settle by whites and that the daughter married a Shawnee indian. The first recorded white visitor to the Shawnee arrived in 1674. This looks like a mish-mash of Internet junk to me.

This profile ?

Alamathea D'Joan

It’s from FamilySearch, tree starts here https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LY5B-SX5

Lazareth Knoll b 1710 with a Cherokee image?

This is a German and French family. Souche (la Zouche) (Huguenots) emigrated from France to Dublin and later generations to America. So the locations are internet mixups in origins perhaps. I was thinking of marking the tree fictional but now I’m thinking of just editing out impossible locations and inappropriate tribal designations. What do you think ?

The connecting profile for me is Anna ‘’Catherina’’ Waltman

According to the narrative in her husband’s profile her name is unknown, however we do have Catherina named as mother in her children’s records.

There is a profile named Kathis Knoll here

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MJJL-VXZ

With no further information.

So I’ve disconnected Mrs Waldmann from parents, which makes the Geni tree of Afnore Katis “unconnected” to the World Family tree.

If anyone sees any images to detag, please let me know.

I don’t know what to suggest. They weren’t Cherokee, they weren’t Shanee, they didn’t live in Kentucky (first settled in 1774). Detached is good, do gou have any kind of ‘uncertain existence’ message.?

Curators have been debating labeling. We’ve determined (so far) that since we now have abilities to detach trees from the world family tree, and also to “mark a tree as fictional,” we should be conservative with additional labeling.

And this way we can preserve origin stories and genealogies from our cultures without having anyone descend from them.

It’s an onerous task but making rapid progress now.

In fact, this is exactly what we’ve achieved, thanks to you, on the Moytoy tree.

See for example https://www.geni.com/projects/Testing-for-Fake-Medieval-and-Ancient...

So for a garbled family line like the Souche / Katis etc, I think the “real” family could emerge, and they’ll be able to be merged. The Waldman wife was Mis identified as a Knoll daughter and that’s now been fixed.

“Uncertainty” is a dangerous path for a site as large as Geni, I think. We need to be more binary and less speculative.

I’m reading the Estes, Goins ... study, “Melungeons: A Multi-Ethnic Population”

http://jogg.info/pages/72/files/Estes.pdf

There’s a fact “snip” on Page 79

In 1809, US Agent Return J. Meigs counted 341 intermarried among the Cherokee Nation; Cherokees numbers 12,395. The removal roll of 1835 reported 211 intermarried whites, "mixed bloods" counted for slightly less than 23% of the population. Chickasaw and Choctaw had a comparable percentage.

According to Meigs, one third of the whites in the Cherokee Nation in 1819 were white women. These women had been captured as children, were adopted into Cherokee clans, and as far as the Cherokee and the women were concerned, they were full Cherokee, not white. Their children were not mixed, but Cherokee, regardless of their father's ethnicity. Paternal ethnicity played no role in the identification of children.

Meigs may have been correct, but that would be less than 100 women out of a population of 14-18000 people. I’m not sure how accurate his estimate was, because the Moravian Diaries don’t reference a population of white women married to the Cherokee. The last captives were taken in the early 1790’s. If captured women didn’t return home (and records show some did) we have mo way of knowing who they were. One well-documented woman who returned with her Cherokee children found that her Kentucky neighbors were not accepting of her mixed-blood children.

Both points are consistent with the much smaller population of Cherokee in the early 1800s than I had expected. It’s really helpful to get a better picture.

* Turtle At Home

* Alexander Cameron, (an adopted white)

* John Stuart was a soldier at Fort Loudon who was adopted by Attakullakulla and who later became Superintendent of Indian Affairs.
http://www.aaanativearts.com/cherokee/Oconostota.htm

--------------------

Of the paint clan
Note: Geni Profile: partner of Attakullakulla
Mother: Do-Yo-Sti (Polly) Unknown Paint Clan b: ABT 1710
Father: Oconastota Moytoy First Beloved Man of the Cherokee b: ABT 1704 in Cherokee Territory

Marriage 1 Attakullakulla "Little Carpenter" Onacona, Ukwaniequa Moytoy Cherokee Emissary to England b: ABT 1699 in Seviers Island, Tennessee
Married: 1735 in Cherokee, Alabama, USA
Ni-ki-tie "Hannah Rebecca" Nikitie b: ABT 1731 in Cherokee Capital of Chota
Tai Ya Gansi Ni (Tsí-yu-gûnsí-ní) "Dragging Canoe" Principal Chief b: ABT BET 1734 AND 1738 in Overhill Settlements, Monroe, Tennessee, United States
Little White Owl Attakullakulla b: 1736 in Cherokee, Alabama, United States
Ghi Go Ne li b: 1736 in Cherokee Nation Bird Clan
Da-Tsi (Tah Chee) "Dutch" Carpenter b: ABT BET 1738 AND 1748 in Eastern Cherokee Territory
Ooskiah Oskuah . . b: 1723
Oocumma "The Badger" Attakullakulla b: ABT 1739 in Cherokee, Alabama, USA
Enola Black Fox Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation from 1801 to 1811 b: ABT 1745
Ookoonaka Nahoola Ookoovsdi . . b: 1726
Turtle at Home . b: ABT 1758
Ollie Mollie Attakullakulla Paint Clan b: 1754 in Great Tellico, Tennessee
Wurtagua Atta Kullakulla b: ABT 1760 in Paint, Cherokee, Alabama, United States
Au-muh-su-yih "Amasa Jane" Jay b: 1764
Attakullakulla . .
Old Abraham (Ooskiah Oskuah) of Chillowe Chillhowie b: 1745 in Cherokee, Alabama, United States
White Mankiller
Kay I Oh b: in Cherokee, Alabama, United States
John Stuart
Marriage 2 "Young Hop" Moytoy

Marriage 3 Rising Fawn Fox Conjuror b: 1706

Children
Catherine "Rising Fawn" Self Of Chota b: 1726 in Choto Town, Cherokee Nation - East
oo loo tsa
chief gray eagle
jennie moytoy
Title: 1734 - Birth of Dragging Canoe

Most of the information in the above family listing is unsupported by any documentation and there is no evidence that many of those named even existed.

Attakullakulla was born about 1710 (described as a young man when he went to London in 1730). His parents are unknown, but he was referred to as the uncle of Nancy Ward. That could mean a blood relative, or simply that they were of the same clan.

Attakullakulla was the father of three documented sons, Dragging Canoe, Little Owl, and Turtle-at-home. His wife's or wives name(s) and any other information about them is completely unknown. None of these men has any documented modern descendants.

John Stuart had a son by Susannah Emory,Cherokee grand-daughter of Ludovic Grant. That son was known as Bushyhead. There are many Bushyhead descendants.

Alexander Cameron also had Cherokee children, but no known modern descendants He took or sent his Cherokee family to the West Indies after the Revolutionary War. Only one returned to the Cherokee Nation, and she and her only daughter died without descendants.

I still cannot wrap my head around this topic. I have been advised to "disconnect" myself from a "fictional" profile that is ....according to Geni representatives and Cherokee representatives ......false but there are new matches coming in daily from MyHeritage. Why is this? How can a "fictional" profile still exist and the "false" pedigrees continue to roll in?
I am speaking about Sarah Elizabeth Taylor is your fourth great grandmother.
She was a Howard.
Why perpetuate a "false" individual in history? Lettica ‘Lettie Hatchet Grey’ Howard

People perpetuate these fictional trees for two main reasons: 1) they have a family story of a Cherokee ancestor and don’t want to give it up, or 2) they didn’t do any actual research on their family and just copied something they found on the Internet. I’m sure there are thousands of people with fictional “Native Americans” in their trees.

Not about Letty, but I’m going to throw out another (general) reason for a Native woman showing up in family stories. The “real” woman may have had African Ancestry & it was concealed.

And sadly, money enters into the mix. All of the rolls made of Cherokee in the East after Removal involved money, so people claimed Cherokee ancestors hoping to get the payment. I think a lot of the stories are just garbled over time: great-great grandma lived near the Cherokee, she lived in a town or county called Cherokee, or she witnessed the Cherokee Removal, but after a couple of generations people only remember that there was a story about a grandma that had Cherokee in it, and the two magically become one.

Kathryn, that indeed seems to be the case for one of my “Cherokee in the family” stories, and my family and I are quite grateful for being able to figure it out, with your help.

I had a pair of genealogist great aunt (something) sisters who did a lot of paper trail in the 1970s. They likely believed there was “Cherokee in the Family,” but seem to have been responsible people, and kept their speculations off endless internet trees.

Again, this has nothing to do with Letty, specifically.

wow, Kathryn Forbes...and sadly the Cherokee nation in Oklahoma revolves around money as well....Does the CNO honestly think that they are the only Cherokees left?.....NO, they are not and it is a shame how they forgot what it means to be Cherokee...I promise you this , they have people on the rolls that aren't even Cherokee, I know more than you think about the CNO

The CNO doesn't want anything to do with anybody who is not one of them in Oklahoma, that is their mentality

Cherokee Nation actually has people going through the records to find errors. We know mistakes were made back at the time of the Dawes and also since the 70’s. Those people won’t lose their citizenship but their descendants won’t be able to register. Whether you agree with the decisions or not, the requirements for Cherokee citizenship for all three tribes were set long ago. People who are of Cherokee descent but not eligible for tribal membership must live with their ancestors’ decisions to live apart from the tribe. I have no claim to Welsh citizenship just because my great-grandparents were Welsh before they became Americans. It’s the same with Cherokee, and yes, there are thousands of people with Cherokee ancestors who aren’t citizens, but the vast majority of non-citizens who claim to be Cherokee have no Cherokee ancestors and no connection to any Native American tribe. .

Do you work for the CNO?..CNO doesn't do genealogy..and if it's taken since the 70's somebody is seriously slacking and I have never heard them going through the records, their not studying it.....I am well versed in the requirements of the CNO, and I have several relatives who live there. Actually no they don't have to live apart from the tribe, one drop of Cherokee blood and you are Cherokee period, Chief Wilma Mankiller made that clear, someone may have Cherokee blood line and does not have to be part of the tribe to be Cherokee, that person already is Cherokee, there are State recognized Cherokees they can apply for and yes they still have to prove the ancestry. I'm Cherokee, Choctaw, German and Irish...Instead of putting people down , help them, that's why your hear right?...my friends' cousin is Chief baker and we all talk often. And it wasn't their ancestors' decision to live apart, a lot of them BEFORE the Removal actually said they were white in hopes of keeping their land, their homes, Many came back after arriving in Oklahoma, many ran and hid in the Smokies,..Stop putting the Old Cherokee Families down, a lot of people come from them, and I am one of them...after all WE ALL came from the East, the CNO has forgot that...it was the US Govt that actually set the blood quantum, Charles Dawes said those who were less than a quarter were not Indian...who is he to say?...who is the govt to say?..one drop and you are. even today the Govt is still trying to get rid of us....you may not claim your welsh blood but it is in you reguardless,..the CNO does not have blood quantum anymore, and if you can prove DIRECT dependency from an ancestor on the final rolls, you can apply for citizenship....there are a lot of people who want to know and there is no harm in that, believe me not everyone wants to join the CNO, it doesn't make you any more Cherokee. You know who Dennis Banks is?,,, you know AIM?.even he stated that there is no problem with State recognized tribes if you can't go federal....so is that plastic card gonna make you any more Cherokee then someone who has the blood line and can't get one?......how about..NO, it'doesn't.

I don’t work for Cherokee Nation, I am a citizen. The Registration Office IS verifying records, but it’s a very slow and difficult process. I spend time almost every day helping people look for a Cherokee ancestor. I am thrilled every time I find a real connection but it is rare. People who can document their descent from a Cherokee person can have their line verified by the Cherokee Heritage Center and can join the First Families of the Cherokee. There is no such thing as a “state tribe.” States have no authority to recognize or treat with Indian nations. There are hundreds of groups claiming to be tribes, in most cases based on absolutely no descent from any actual tribe member. There are a handful of groups composed of actual descendants of actual tribes that can’t qualify for Federal recognition, but that is also rare.

kathy you are wrong , there are State Recognized tribes......and they are listed throughout the US, some are listed as tribe some are listed as whatever name they call themselves, but States Tribes REQUIRE proof of native descendency and yes the States do have the authority to recognize...the CNO does not have the authority to tell the state what to do, you see the CNO is a sovereign nation, and as a sovereign nation they cannot step out of their bounds and interfere with any State business, it's the law.....as for the First Families of the Cherokee, I qualify........

No state has the authority to recognize a tribe. They can recognize clubs,
non-profits, heritage groups, any kind of organization. The groups “recognized” by states do not meet the seven criteria for tribal recognition by the Federal government or they would be Federally recognized. A few of the state groups are composed of actual tribal descendants, usually from a single family, but most are complete frauds with few or no members with an actual documented tribal ancestor. Many are descendants of the 60,000 whites who applied for the Eastern Cherokee payment in 1907, perpetuating those false claims. Cherokee Nation has satellite communitties all over the U.S. for dispersed citizens.

So this has become a she said/she said discussion, may be best to decide to agree to disagree and get back on track of our ultimate goal for this tree. Which IS to dismantle the unknown/unproven/undocumented branches and reassemble the known and DOCUMENTED NA lineage.

Linda, I sympathize with you, but I also very much understand Kathyrn's point of view. I have tried my hardest to prove mine as so many others have such as Diane Collins, Jason Floyd and many, many others. It is frustrating but we have to keep pushing to tell the truth. This tree is about documents and proven history, without that, all we have is just like the rest of much of the garbage that is on the Internet. And I got caught up in that and we are now reworking most of our NA branches.
So if we work towards finding proven facts and documents to prove our heritage, no one can argue that.

What part of you line leads back to the Cherokee Linda, perhaps we can help document it. I have been working a great deal today on some lineage that ties into your tree, as it does many others on here. I've grown tired of trying to prove my NA, mostly try to help others now.

If a person has a genuine Cherolee ancestor, it’s not super difficult to find him or her. Folks who “didn’t sign up,” or didn’t remove, or went to Indian Territory “too late” had relatives who did get recorded, who did sign up, who listed their relatives and neighbors when they filed damage claims, applied for payments or allotments, or when they testified in citizenship cases. Both the U.S. government and the Cherokee themselves kept good records. People want to assume that if they can’t find a relative in records that somehow means they were Cherokee (or occasionally another tribe) when that is simply not true.

Thus the title of this discussion, we all think we have a "Princess" buried in our background, I have heard the same stories that every child of Appalachia heard, some likely are true, perhaps more than we will ever know.
At the risk of sounding dramatic, I will leave it at this. Many just wanted to assimilate, to be accepted and have a life in the surroundings they had always been in, even if it meant becoming "white". Most of them will remain that way, unknown. That is why the documents are so scarce. Likely many that were listed or questioned may have denied it and that is why we see "white" on so many census records when we believe otherwise. Perhaps we are best to allow them to rest in peace in knowing they did what they had to do to survive, protect their children and hope that they could survive in the new world.