CHEROKEES and THE CIVIL WAR : FULL BLOODED PRIDE MEANT TO BE OPPOSED TO WHITE SOCIETY : CHEROKEE AFFILIATE WITH CONFEDERACY : TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP CHANGES : TREATY OF 1866

Previously, the Cherokee, Creek, and Osage Nations who had suffered removal (Trail of Tears) from their territories and were now forced to live together  and signed a compact which was intended to establish unity - peaceful relationships and secure the general welfare. It was signed on November 2, 1843. The idea was to protect themselves from the United States.

Excerpt page 80 -

"Notably, Article I, Section 9, provided that "any citizen of one Nation may be admitted to citizenship in any other Nation, party hereto, by consent of the proper authorities of such Nation."

Excerpt page 81 -

"Throughout the 1840's and 1850's, as Cherokees settled into their new territory, the Nation found itself changing demographically... to be "full blooded" meant something more than racial pride; "it indicated a distinct social, political, and economic attitude" opposed to the impositions and relishes of white civilization. Traditionalists generally did not own slaves and largely disliked the practice... The tension (between Cherokee slave owners who were usually partly Caucasian and these Traditionalists) came to a boil by the time the Confederates asked the Cherokee Nation to join the Southern cause..."

The social divisions between Cherokee meant that there were different attitudes about joining up to fight in the Civil War, and because the Cherokee overall were cooperative, pressure was put up on them to do so, for the Confederacy, as the South was their original territory. Abolitionist Christian missionaries were also speaking out in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama - wherever they had churches.

Excerpt page 83 - 

"In May 1861, "Confederate forces annexed the Indian Territory as a military district" and by October of that year, Albert Pike, Confederate liaison to Indian Territory, had convinced each of the Five Tribes (ie. The Five Civilized tribes - Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole nations) to join the Confederacy.

The Treaty of 1866 came after the participation in the Civil War proved to damage the Cherokee Nation significantly.  As Union troops came through, many defected to the Union side, but the conflict included political divisions within the tribe as well as the consequences of violence.

This Treaty redefined membership and there were significant changes in who could become a member of the tribe - or remain a member, and it emphasized blood. This means that increasingly blood quotients were aligned with political viewpoints.

Excerpt page 83 - 84

... "The new Treaty defined citizenship of the Cherokee Nation as belonging to all native-born Cherokees, all Indians and whites legally adopted by members, all freedmen liberated by acts of their masters, and all free Black persons residing therein."

It's stated by the author, Aaron Kushner, that this Treaty has had ramifications to this day on who is or is not a member of the tribe.

If you are tracing your Native American heritage, please check the changes in such rules or laws as you go back documenting your ancestors, and by tribe. In the case of Cherokee, or perhaps the other nations who potentially agreed to unification in 18 43, who was where in 1866? (Check all Federal and State census...) The Treaty also put into place a time limit or line for those who fit these definitions within 6 months of the Treaty. Because both removal from native lands to new territories and the Civil War, people were displaced, fighting, or traveling, hiding, or had other reasons why they might not have been able to declare themselves or be recognized within those 6 months. 

In the genealogy I mentioned researching in my first post of this series, I found that my client had reason to think that at least some of his relatives (if not his direct line) married into Native American tribes. He also might have had melungeon relatives. Though in the South, he stated that his family had never had slaves and did not believe in slavery. The families he was closely related to did not show up on slave schedules as slave owners.  However a potential branch of the family in the deep south did own slaves. I found that one side of his family did fight for the Union, signing up in other states,  but also that there were Confederate highway robbers among his relatives. Relatives on both sides had married Native Americans. At least one unrelated Native American in their agricultural community - a neighbor so to speak - had owned a good number of slaves. Presently this client likely has relatives who are members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee whose DNA test would show them to have Scottish - Anglo - possibly French Huguenot ancestors. These Cherokee in general were not marched as they remained in North Carolina, in the mountains, married with Europeans.

If you are seeking tribal membership, whatever the tribe, it is my strong suggestion that you continue documenting from the present to the past. Document entire families with birth, marriage, and death records, not just direct ancestry, find anything you can, because you may have success that way showing the lineage going back past the Treaty of 1866.

C 2026 Ancestry Worship - Genealogy

All Rights Reserved including Internet and International Rights 

CHEROKEE : 64 TOWNS : WARLIKE OR PEACEFUL? : SLAVERY BEFORE EUROPEANS ARRIVED : CHEROKEE ADOPTED BUT ALSO SOLD CAPTURED SLAVES : WAS IT RACISM?

Excerpt page 29 -

"By 1700, "the Cherokee Nation" consisted of sixty-four towns," loosely categorized as upper, middle, and lower, towns, depending on their geographical locations.  These towns, or villages, were politically autonomous.  Edmond Atkin, member of the South Carolina Governor's Council and Indian trader, reported on the status of Cherokee towns in 1755, noting particularly the difference between the upper towns and the lower towns. "The upper and lower Cherokees," Atkin wrote, "differ from each other, as much almost as two different nations."  The upper Cherokees were "much more warlike," yet were better protected by the mountains than their southern neighbors, the lower Cherokees, "whose Towns being the most and nearest (are much exposed), are glad to accept the Mediation of the South Carolina Government,: due to their more precarious position..."

The governments were identified by if they were "white" (peace loving) or "red" (war loving). However the Native councils themselves were not as dictatorial as state governments, allowed men and women to speak, even if what they had to say might be unpopular. Consensus, harmony and justice, was the goal. In the cases of murder or incest the council would prevail but punishment for lesser offences were often dealt with by public shaming. 

Excerpt: page 39 - 40

"Slavery existed in parts of North American long before European settlers arrived. Though slaves were traditionally taken as prisoners of war, according to historian Rudi Halliburton Jr., there appeared to have been a commercial traffic in some places as well. From the time of their earliest contact with Europeans, Cherokees had engaged in a practice of "quasi-slavery" and forced adoption among their Indian captives - a practice later used in the treatment of Caucasian and African prisoners as well... ...chattel Slavery as an institution did not exist prior to  European settlement.  Once introduced by English traders, Cherokees were quick to accept the European brand of slave holding as one of the benefits of white civilization. English traders in the seventeenth century began to establish themselves among the Cherokees through marriage and the spread of material wealth...  

Many Cherokees also took to institutionalized Slavery because of the benefits they received from stealing or returning runaway slaves.  English and French colonialists frequently urged Cherokees to sell them slaves stolen from the plantations or villages of their European adversaries. .... The return or barter of runaway slaves became so common that Cherokees were often known colloquially as 'slave catchers." .... "

But was it racism?  According to author Aaron Kushner, not exactly. The Cherokee were more focused on the otherness of both Caucasians and Africans and considered them both inferior... at least early on. Eventually, the tribe tackled with notions that would not see Freedman or  people of African descent as worthy of the same tribal membership status...

C 2026 Ancestry Worship - Genealogy
All Rights Reserved including Internet and International Rights

MOUNTAIN COTTAGE

Where do you think this is? 

 

CHEROKEE NATION CITIZENSHIP - A POLITICAL HISTORY by AARON KUSNER : ANCESTRY WORSHIP - GENEALOGY BOOK RECOMMENDATION

This is an excellent book to read if you're interested in the Cherokee, the Cherokee Republic, and the twists and turns of what it was and is to have Cherokee Nation citizenship.  I'll be posting a few excerpts this month from this book, but I encourage you to get a copy because it's packed full of information.  A key question about tribal membership is this issue: Is it BLOOD AS ANCESTRY or is it BLOOD AS CULTURE?

The Cherokee are one of the native tribes that has government recognition from way back and numerous members to this day. They are counted on the Dawes Rolls. From the days of the mountain men, the trappers and traders, and then the ministers coming into the country, there have been intermarriages between Cherokee and persons of European descent. (One of the most famous, because of his writings, was James Adair.) While it is understood that many a European married a Native American woman, many a Native American man married an European settlers.  In the mid to late 1800's there were also "White squatters."

This book covers historical changes in tribal recognition that includes the cultural movement from a matriarchal society to one influenced by patriarchal world views, by the government of the United States and by Protestant Christian ministers. It shows that racism, in particular against slaves and Freedmen, had its impact on who gets to have a tribal identity.  Cherokee did hold slaves, and I know that this truth has been denied in college classrooms, but I've found that on census.  

Clan affiliation and a more communal view of responsibility to others and changes in attitudes about war and much else, including marriage, may confuse things further, as each of the 64 Cherokee towns had different cultural notions. As author Kushner states,  while some couples stayed together for life, polygamy was practiced and "divorce" was at will by either party. (What this means is that children being raised by a mother with several men as fathers to her children might actually be raised within a Clan due to the inter-dependence of Clan members, but some of the children might not have the same blood quotient or tribal identity.)

This book reminded me of my first big genealogy assignment because the person's heritage was in North Carolina, a state I knew nothing about at the time, and the Central to Western portion, where there were also Melungeons - then a mystery. On page 26 of this book is the mention of a Cherokee story that taught values and "Kanadi" which translates to "Lucky One." Faintly and badly written on a census was a marriage between one of his not-direct ancestors and a woman with this name. However, it had been interpreted as Canadi, Canada, and Kennedy.  On one census, one of his relatives with a large family, had three children identified as "Negroes" and a family photo did show these children to be darker than the others.  However, I came to think that they were actually all partially Native American. This was before DNA tests... but now that there is ...

I will be posting excerpts in the next weeks from this fascinating book that I hope will be of help to those of you interested in Native American and Cherokee Genealogy and family history!

C 2026 Ancestry Worship - Genealogy
All Rights Reserved including Internet and International Rights

BE HAPPY

 

TO YOU

 

ANCESTRY WORSHIP GENEALOGY