Amazon.com Widgets

Zydeco, French Slave Indian Resistance

(ThyBlackMan.com) Contrary to popular belief, African Americans are by no means a homogeneous population. They are composed of a variety, of now overlapping, but originally much more distinct, ethnic strands. In coastal South Carolina, there are the Gullah people, and in coastal Georgia the Geechies. (The two terms are often used interchangeably.) The Gullah are said to be descended from the Gola people of Angola, and the Geechies from the Gidzi people of Sierra Leone.

In Louisiana there are Creoles. The French colonizers of Louisiana were virtually all male. Hence, their children, “crillios,” or “those born in the colonies,” had to be Black and Native American. For example, Jean Baptiste Pont du Sable, who founded Chicago was a Creole. There is still a large community of Creoles in Louisiana today. Many Jazz bandleaders were  Creoles. It is said that, as intermediaries between the Blacks and the whites, they got European instruments into the hands of African musicians and thereby facilitated the development of jazz.

In New England we find Cape Verdians, Africans who migrated here in the 18th and 19th century aboard whaling ships that stopped in Cabo Verde, an island off the coast of West Africa, to resupply and pick up extra hands. In South Florida we have the Bahamian people who have for centuries been crossing over from the nearby Bahama islands, the most populous of which, are north of Miami. (The Bahamas are not in the Caribbean Sea but the Atlantic Ocean.)

Black Indians

It has been said that most African Americans are, in part, descended from Native Americans. However, few really celebrate this aspect of their heritage. Fifty years ago, in North Carolina especially, there were large groups of people who saw themselves as Black Indians. E. Franklin Frazier discusses them in depth in The Negro Family in the United States.

He also talks about “racial islands,” areas of the country where large numbers of enslaved Africans had lived in the midst of a surrounding sea of Europeans and Native Americans. After the Civil War they gradually intermixed with the surrounding peoples creating enclaves of individuals of what Frazier calls “indeterminate race.” He identifies Ahoskie, North Carolina and Mahwah, New York as just two examples. Also, we have the Caribbean and the recent immigrant African communities. In truth however, the Africans and Caribbean peoples have been coming here for nearly 150 years and blending in, over time, with the Africans already here. Doubtless, the process will continue.

This is a story of Indian and African resistance to white colonial rule in Louisiana during the earliest days of French occupation. We live here. We are a product of this legacy. In order to understand how this land came to be what it is, we must know its history. We must not dismiss the genocide against Indians and Africans or the clever and fierce resistance that Indians and Africans put up in the wake of an unholy tumult perpetrated by Europeans.

If ever a group of people was so incapable of living independently as to justify the enslavement of others more capable, it was these French trespassers. Indians viewed them as children because they were puerile in their dependence on the mercy of others to supply them their daily bread. It only took them seven years to acquire their first slaves, from whom they could order their daily bread rather than request it.


The Invasion Of Louisiana

In late February, 1699, Pierre le Moyne d’Iberville, his brother Jean Baptiste le Moyne de Bienville, and a small group of soldiers, sailors, and artisans dropped anchor in Biloxi Bay. They cut pine trees to build Fort Maurepas, the first of several forts in the region. Without even so much as a “Bon jour” to the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Natchez and other nations they had invaded, they planted their flag and declared that tens of millions of acres of land in the Louisiana Territory now belonged to France. Indians watched cautiously from a distance, out of sight of the intruders.

Leaders from several Native towns in the vicinity finally got around to approaching the foreigners in the spring of 1699. Iberville, commandant of the newly constructed fort, declared friendly intentions of the French by smoking the ceremonial calumet with the visiting dignitaries. For Indians, this ceremonial gesture was as serious as business ever gets: Smoking the pipe represents a sacred trust between the two groups of people, that members of each group are bound to help members of the other under any circumstance.

And the French needed plenty of help. Even though six outposts were established within the first few years, few “settlers” were willing or able to do even the minimal amount of work required to produce their own food. Most lacked the knowledge or energy required even to gather nuts and berries or to scoop up the bountiful shellfish that proliferated in the waters around the Gulf of Mexico. Soldiers at the forts considered a good day’s work was getting drunk by noon and then talking an influential Indian into supplying women to satisfy their sexual appetites. When their wishes were denied, soldiers often turned to rape and other forms of brutality against Indian women. Washitaw Women

For more than 20 years, the French interlopers regularly faced starvation. In their times of need, even soldiers from the military garrisons abandoned their barracks and sought refuge in Indian towns. Indians always took them in and fed and housed them for weeks and even months at a time. After all, they were sworn to friendship through the calumet.

The exchange of gifts was not entirely one directional. The French brought some of their own presents, and bestowed upon Indian communities the traditional European hospitality, including dysentery, smallpox, cholera, Christianity, horses and pigs, rats and cockroaches.

He Kills A Priest

The arrival of French colonists set off a chain reaction of disease and dislocation in Indian communities throughout the Gulf Coast area. American Indians had never been exposed to the diseases Europeans brought with them, and consequently lacked the immunities Europeans had built up over countless generations of exposure. Entire villages were destroyed in epidemics.

Further, Indian religious leaders and Elders complained bitterly when young people in their towns began to rely on European trade goods guns, knives, iron kettles instead of making their own tools in the traditional way. The proselytizing of Christian missionaries was especially reviled.

As the French expanded their base of control, some Indian Nations simply packed up and moved, not wanting even to be near the French and their strange religion and habits. But dislocated Indians had to live somewhere, and they invariably wound up in the proximity of other Indian communities, threatening the resources of the people who were already there. When the Taensa were driven from their homes on the present-day Lake St. Joseph, they moved to land occupied by the Bayogoulas and Chitimachas further south. War erupted and the Taensa took several Chitimachas captive.

Washitaw Slave

Both the Bayogoulas and the Chitimachas were well aware that the entire incident had been brought about by the travesties inflicted by the French incursion. So the Chitimachas resolved to redress the situation in the traditional manner. When grievances mount and continue despite fair warning, a stronger and clearer message is sent to the offending people on the assumption that the aggrieving party or nation will curtail the offenses. Hence, a Chitimacha man took a life to avenge injuries caused by the French. It was probably no accident that the selected victim was a priest.

Slavery Comes To Louisiana

The French then retaliated in the traditional manner of European kingdoms. In the summer of 1706, they assembled an army of 100 soldiers, marched to the nearest Chitimacha village, and killed everyone in sight except for 20, mostly women and children, whom they dragged back and claimed as slaves.

Still not satisfied with the payback for the single murder committed by a Chitimacha, the French continued raiding and sacking Chitimacha towns for the next 12 years, always killing nearly all, but always taking a few slaves on each successive raid. In this manner, the French built the core of their slave population among the Chitimacha women and children they spared the torment of their terrible swift swords.

The French ignored Chitimacha leaders” pleas for peace until 1718. Then, they listened when new land grants along the Mississippi for French settlers gave them some incentive to end the hostilities. The Peace Treaty meeting was held in New Orleans, at the home of Louisiana’s colonial Governor Bienville. A Chitimacha orator told of the conditions his country experienced during the long reign of terror inflicted by the French: “Formerly the sun was red, the roads filled with brambles and thorns, the clouds were black, the water was troubled and stained with blood, our women wept unceasingly, our children cried with fright, the game fled far from us, our houses were abandoned, and our fields uncultivated, we all have empty bellies and our bones are visible.” His speech was translated by a young Chitimacha slave, herself the property of Antoine Le Page Du Pratz.

Louisiana was sparsely populated by colonists for nearly 20 years. A census taken in 1708 revealed more Indian slaves (80) than settlers (77), although soldiers (122) outnumbered them both. It was, after all, an invasion, and the soldiers were there to protect the investment of the Company of the Indies which sponsored the colony.

Africans Arrive

Indian slaves, however, did not solve the colonists” problems in keeping food on the table and raising enough tobacco and indigo to keep the Company of the Indies happy. They were reluctant to work at all and quick to slip away in the night and make their way back to the safety and protection of their own Tribe. Colonists saw their best chance of survival in the purchase of African slaves. Africans, they reasoned, would have a tougher time finding their way back home. Bienville proposed that colonists be allowed to “sell these [Indian] slaves in the American islands [the Caribbean] in order to get Negroes in exchange.”

The first African slaves in Louisiana were half a dozen lost souls captured as plunder by the French army in the Spanish War of Succession, 1710. The years 1717-1721 saw the first importation of African slaves to Louisiana, when eight boatloads brought some 2,000 Africans to the colony. The death rate among these was nearly as high as it had been for Indians facing the perils of European diseases. Scurvy, dysentery, respiratory and intestinal flues claimed about half of them within a few years of their abduction.

These first Africans in Louisiana were predominantly Malinke-speaking Bambaras from the western interior of the continent, who provided a cohesive group, especially in New Orleans. They were joined by smaller numbers of people from coastal African groups, including Wolofs and Sereers.

Some 7,000 Europeans also arrived in Louisiana during this four-year span of time. These were mostly French and mostly either indentured servants or convicted criminals released from the crowded prisons of France to take their chance in the New World. Only 119 were lucky enough to have land grants from the Company of the Indies, on which they built the plantations that would make Louisiana a moneymaker.

The African-Indian Alliance

African slaves realized early on that their best chance for earning freedom was in banding together with fellow Indian slaves. By the 1720’s, the French had added considerable numbers of Taensa and Alabamon slaves to their already sizable collection of Chitimachas. Natchez and Chickasaw slaves would soon join them, along with smaller numbers of Indians from other nations.

Despite differences in languages among Tribes, most Indians at the time also spoke a Mobilian “jargon” widely understood among the diverse groups. Indians held the key to successful uprisings because they knew the geography, the languages, and the indigenous peoples of the country.

Incidents of Indian and African collaboration occurred often enough and with sufficient mayhem inflicted on the colonists” plantations that colonial officials quickly grew alarmed. Prior to the arrival of Africans, runaway slaves usually just returned to their hometowns to resume a normal life. But as the slave population swelled and became more diverse, groups of runaway Indians and Africans often stayed together in makeshift villages. They openly resisted slavery and the French colonial regime by killing horses, pigs, and cattle, stealing property from settlers, and wreaking miscellaneous acts of vandalism and arson. It was on the heels of one such incident in 1726 that the Attorney General of the colony, Francois Fleuriau, urged the Supreme Council to “take prompt and sweeping action against runaway slaves” by offering bounties to “neighborhood Indians” willing to apprehend the fugitives.

The bounties didn’t work. After all, groups of runaways invariably included Indians, and most other Indians simply refused to sell them or their African compatriots back into slavery, no matter what the incentive.

One Indian slave named Sancousy discovered a village of runaways in 1727. Having misplaced his owner’s ox, he decided to vacate the plantation and happened upon fifteen African and Indian fugitives living together in a camp they called Natanapalle. They reportedly possessed a veritable arsenal, a smorgasbord of guns and ammunition sufficient to resist a small army.

The arrest of other runaways who had seen Natanapalle and its cache of arms eventually influenced Governor Etienne Boucher de Perier, who took over from Bienville in 1726, to recommend that trade in Indian slaves be stopped entirely. According to the Governor, “these Indian slaves being mixed with our negroes may induce them to desert with them, as has already happened, as they may maintain relations with them which might be disastrous to the colony when there are more blacks.”

Governor Perier’s remarks are something of an understatement. Not only did Indian and African runaways “maintain relations” with each other, they banded together on assorted community-service projects that included raiding livestock, stealing guns and ammunition, and burning the occasional plantation house. Once a mixed group of runaways even attacked a public executioner whose chores included hanging recalcitrant Indians and Africans.

Is Not Death Preferable To Slavery?

The French had been annoyed with the Natchez since 1722, when they refused to turn over an African runaway whom Governor Bienville accused of making “sedition speeches against the French nation.” The French had designs on Natchez land, among the richest delta soil in the south, and in 1729 they ordered the inhabitants of one Natchez town to vacate the premises and give the land to the French.

Natchez Elders met in council to discuss their options. They had been paying tribute to the French for years, supplying them with free corn and meat in an effort to forestall French military action against them. One Elder at the council summarized the feelings of many: “Before the French came amongst us, we were men, content with what we had. But now we go groping, afraid of meeting thorns, we walk like slaves, which we shall soon be, since the French already treat us as if we were such…Is not death preferable to slavery?”

Several Africans joined Natchez warriors in their attack on the morning of November 18, 1729. They killed more than 200 French and liberated nearly 300 African slaves and about 50 white women and children.

Divide And Conquer

In the aftermath of the Natchez-African victory, one colonist wrote that, among the “several negroes” who joined the Natchez were two plantation foremen “who gave other Negroes to understand that they would be free with the Indians.” That Indians and Africans were in cahoots in a full-scale war against the French naturally gave pause to whites in the neighborhood.

The French inaugurated divide-and-conquer tactics in an effort to forestall further collaboration of Indians and Africans and generate animosity between the two racial groups. Just days after the Natchez assault, in December, Governor Perier dispatched a group of armed African slaves to a Chaouacha town downstream from New Orleans, killing everyone in the village.

The Chaouacha had nothing to do with the uprising of allied Natchez and African forces. But Perier explained that the expedition against the innocents would keep “the other little nations up the river in a respectful attitude.” The Governor also indicated that he “should have destroyed all these little [Indian] nations which are of no use to us, and which might on the contrary cause our negroes to revolt.” Anyone who was of “no use” to the French was better off dead, at least in the eyes of the French.

The French took their revenge on the Natchez-African alliance by enlisting allied Choctaw men to besiege their towns. They killed 100 Natchez warriors and returned about as many African slaves to their “rightful owners.” In his report on the excursion, Governor Perier noted that “this defeat would have been complete if it had not been for the Negroes” who, of course, fought valiantly alongside their Natchez hosts.

Black-Indian-Family1

Inspired by the temporary success of the Natchez and Indian-African runaway groups, slaves in New Orleans plotted their own rebellion for June, 1730. Word of the uprising leaked out, however, and it was suppressed. French authorities seized it as yet another opportunity to divide and conquer Indians and Africans. Leaders of the New Orleans insurrection were tied to a wheel and literally broken an ancient trick from the arsenal of European torture. Servants were forced to watch while one of the female conspirators was hanged.

Meanwhile, three African leaders who had helped the Natchez freedom fighters were shipped to the Choctaw with orders to burn them alive. A New Orleans priest, Mathurin Le Petit, in that same summer of retribution, wrote that the divide-and-conquer tactic “has inspired all the Negroes with a new horror of the Savages, but which will have a beneficial effect in securing the safety of the Colony.”

Indian Family Portrait

Dead Or Alive

Enslavement of Indians, although discouraged by French authorities because of the frequent uprisings they undertook, was never outright banned until the Spanish takeover of Louisiana in 1763. The French continued to raid Indian villages and seize survivors, but from the 1730’s on, they were increasingly sold to commercial ventures in the Caribbean or swapped for African slaves there.

As it was in early English colonial settlements, the slave trade of Indians helped finance the colonization process as well as clear the coveted land of its original occupants. The French paid bounties for captured Chickasaw slaves (one gun, one pound of powder, and two pounds of bullets) AND a bounty for Chickasaw scalps (80 French livres, a reward equivalent to nearly a year’s salary for a French soldier). Of course, no one could tell whether the hair of a dead Indian had belonged to a Chickasaw or an Indian from another Tribe, and so the killing fields spread well beyond Chickasaw country. Dead or alive, they paid to rid Louisiana Territory of its Indians, just as the English had done before them along the Atlantic seaboard.

Indian-African Legacy

Most of the slaves brought from Africa to Louisiana were male. Most Indian slaves were female, sought largely by French men for cooking, cleaning, farming, translating, and sex. Because of the preponderance of male African slaves and female Indian slaves, many slave families in the first half of the 18th century comprised African husbands and Indian wives.

The slave communities on plantations and in cities like New Orleans developed as the respective Indian and African cultures melded and evolved into one common fabric. Children of African-Indian parentage were called “mulatto.” Children of Indian females and French men were called “colored.” By the turn of the 19th century, “colored” was used to describe people of either African or Indian heritage.

The Original Creole OrchestraIn New Orleans, both Africans and Indians could be seen on Sundays in Congo Square, the Sacred Ground. The singing, drumming, dancing, and story-telling of west African traditions melded nicely with their counterparts in Indian traditions. Congo Square was the only place in America where slaves were allowed to congregate on their own and do as they pleased. Out of these gatherings, the heritage of western Africans and Gulf Shore Indians became the roots of the blues, jazz, swing, r & b, country, rock n” roll, soul, funk, rap, and hip hop that entertain Americans even today.

One notable by-product of this cultural confluence emerged in southwest Louisiana, original home of the Atakapa Tribe. A lively social dance, the dance of the youths, consisted of heavy rhythms and sensual dancing. The Atakapa word for “dance” is “shi” (rhymes with “sky”) and their word for “the youths” is “ishol.” Spaniards in 1528 were the first Europeans to contact the Atakapa, and they translated “shi ishol” as “zy ikol.” Four hundred years later, the mixed-blood descendants of Atakapas and Africans would still do the synchronized swaying to the raucous music, but with a slightly evolved name: Zydeco.

 

 

Stand Owners & Traders Natchez Trace

Stand Owners Along The Natchez Trace

By Stacy R. Webb 2007

Presentation and Handout Copies

Redbone Heritage Foundation

Melungeon Heritage Association presentation 2007

 

Origins of the Natchez Trace

The Old Natchez Trace, one of the oldest roadways in the world, saw its beginnings as a trail cut through the wilderness by herds of buffalo and other animals. It was later used by America’s First People, the native tribes of Mississippi, who connected these series of trails to use as hunting and trade routes. The Natchez Trace was a 440-mile-long path extending from Natchez, Mississippi to Nashville, Tennessee, linking the Cumberland, the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers.  It was used extensively by Native Americans and early Caucasian explorers as both a trade and transit route in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Today, the trail has been commemorated with the 444-mile-long Natchez Trace Parkway which follows the trail’s approximate path The three major tribes that the Natchez Trace was once home to were the Choctaw, Natchez and the Chickasaw. The Choctaws lived in central Mississippi. The Chickasaws lived in Northern Mississippi, close to Tupelo, MS. Their village consisted of huts (not tepees). The Natchez is an extinct tribe today, but in the 1600’s, they lived in southern Mississippi. After Native Americans first began to settle the land, they began to blaze the trail further, until it became a relatively (for the time) well-worn path traversable by horse in single-file, though it may have been traveled in part before, particularly by famed Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto. These tribes continued to use the trail up until the time that the white European settlers of the new United States began forging west to claim the lands. Between 1699, when the French first arrived on the Mississippi gulf coast, to 1733, they had explored the area well enough to draw a map. The map showed an Indian trail running from Natchez to the Choctaw villages near present day Jackson, Mississippi, and then on to the Chickasaw villages in the northeastern part of the state. At this time the southern portion of the Natchez Trace was known as the “Path to the Choctaw Nation”, while the northern part of the Trace was called “Chickasaw Trace”. The first recorded Caucasian to travel the Trace in its entirety was an unnamed Frenchman in 1742, who wrote of the trail and its “miserable conditions.” To Caucasians, who were not conditioned to the rigors of the journey, the assistance of Native Americans—specifically, the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw—was vital. The earliest formal usage of the trail, in fact, was for trade between those three Native American nations through which the trail passed. But these 3 Indian tribes were not the first humans to settle in this region. Archeological evidence has found in the many ceremonial mounds and village sites on the Trace, human habitation and remains which date back as long ago as 8000 years. Indian burial grounds called mounds still exist along the Trace. Indians were buried in these hill shaped graves, often a whole tribe together. Pottery, beads, and weapons were also buried in the graves.

Early Trade Routes

The word “trace” is an old French word which meant a line of footprints or animal tracks. This is the first known use of the word “trace” being used to describe the trail. French traders, missionaries, and soldiers traveled over the old Indian trade route during this time. By the time the French arrived only a remnant of the Mississippian nations survived, and the Chickasaws claimed the Tennessee region along the river. In birch-bark canoes Pere Jacques Marquette and Louis Joliet passed by the future state in 1673. Robert Cavelier de La Salle and his men landed near the mouth of the Hatchie in 1682, where they constructed Fort Prudhomme. Following these early explorations, the French settled the middle Mississippi Valley in the early 1700s, trading down river to the French port of New Orleans.  Bold and without racial arrogance, the French found the Indians sympathetic and their women attractive. Wherever they journeyed they established liaisons which ripened into marriages, and so was created a type of men who were bred by the fur trade and belonged to the trade and the company. As the trade moved westward, so did the men, and now the brides were no longer Huron but Cree and Chippewa (Salteaux). The hybrid offspring were sometimes known as Bois-Brulés (the people whose skin was like scorched wood) and sometimes as Métis (Mixedblood). Their patois was a French dialect out of Normandy and Picardy to which was added much Algonkian (Cree); the language grew more French as they dealt with outsiders and more Indian around the domestic fire. By the mid-eighteenth century they numbered about 30,000 and were neither Indian nor White, but exhibited the qualities of the hybrid. Not yet a people, a tribe, or a nationality, they shared a common status and an attachment to the fur trade. In the East and on the rivers, they used the canoe and traded in beaver; in the West and on the Great Plains, they hunted bison and developed the Red River Cart, on which they could haul hundreds of pounds of meat and hides. Many followed the Indian custom of having gardens along the river beds, and the European custom of running some livestock in a commons.

In the mid-1700’s, the Ohio River, the Mississippi River and the Natchez Trace were important trade routes. Explorers, shopkeepers, and pioneers transported their goods down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to Natchez, Mississippi. They then used the Natchez Trace to travel back home. This allowed trade to increase because people in the central United States could sell their goods to people in the lower Mississippi region.  In 1716, the French established Fort Rosalie at present-day Natchez, Mississippi. This fort was the first European settlement near the Natchez Trace. The Natchez Indians lived near the fort in the Grand Village of the Natchez. By 1743, the French wiped out the Natchez. A settlement near Fort Rosalie took the tribe’s name. Today, this town is called Natchez, Mississippi. Natchez was an important town because it was located on the Mississippi River. First France ruled the town, then Spain, and then Britain. In 1783, the United States gained control after defeating Britain in the American Revolution. On April 7, 1798, the U.S. Congress established the Mississippi Territory, and Natchez became the territory’s capital.

Once Europeans learned of the river, it became the target of diplomatic and territorial battles between the French, Spanish, and English, who viewed the river system as the key to an inland North American empire. In 1763 the Spanish gained control of New Orleans and attempted to assert their rights in the Tennessee region, which was also claimed by England and later the United States. In 1785, in an effort to establish land warrant claims, North Carolina sent Henry Rutherford to survey the “Western District.” Beginning at Key Corner, he laid out land grants on Coal Creek Bluff. In 1795 the Spanish became concerned about American activities in the territory along the Mississippi and sent Don Miguel Gayoso de Lemos to erect Fort San Fernando de las Barrancas near the Chickasaw Bluffs at the mouth of the Wolf River. The struggle for control of the east bank ended with the Treaty of San Lorenzo (1795), and the Spanish dismantled Fort San Fernando in 1797. The United States took control of the Mississippi Valley in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. A brisk traffic in flatboats and keelboats carried Middle Tennessee pork, corn, whiskey, and hides down the Mississippi to New Orleans, where goods and boats were sold; crews returned home by way of the Natchez Trace. The first steamboat on the Mississippi, the New Orleans, passed by Tennessee in December 1811, and the crew witnessed the destructive force of the New Madrid earthquake. By 1816, the continued development of both Memphis and Jackson’s Military Road, a direct line to New Orleans, Louisiana from Nashville, began shifting trade both east and west rich history, filled with brave explorers, dastardly outlaws and daring settlers.

Importance of stands along the Natchez Trace.

Stands gave people a place to eat and rest. Between 1800 and 1820, more than twenty stands were built along the trail. Although the stands were mostly shacks, they gave people a place to eat and rest. Smaller stands served greasy food and provided soggy cots. Travelers preferred to stay in these stands rather than eating nothing and sleeping on the ground.

The best known stands were Doak’s Stand, French Camp, Mount Locust, and Red Bluff. Doak’s Stand later became a stagecoach stop. French Camp was opened by Frenchman Louis Le Fleur in 1810. Mount Locust and Red Bluff were large enough to be called inns. Today, Mount Locust is the only restored stand remaining along the Natchez Trace.

The stands were still a dangerous place because of robbers. Travelers tried to protect themselves by burying their valuables before entering the stands or taking turns sleeping?

Nashville to Natchez

Stands Along the Trace

Nashville

Joshlin’s Stand (TN) 1797

Gordon’s Stand (TN) 1802

John Gordon

Gordon’s Ferry across the Duck River.

Keg Springs Stand (TN) 1812

Sheboss Place (TN)

Dobbin’s Stand (TN) 1808

David Dobbins, Swan Creek

Griner’s Stand (TN) 1808

McLish’s Stand  (TN) 1806

William McLish, N/S Buffalo Creek

Young Factor’s Stand  (TN) 1805

McGlamery’s Stand (TN)

A modern populated place, on the Natchez Trace just

below Collinwood in Wayne County TN. We have not yet

seen an early date for McGlamery’s Stand.

(Submitted by David Cage.)

Toscomby’s Stand  (TN) 1810

Toscomby, an Indian’s name

George Colbert’s Stand  (AL) pre 1806

George Colbert, 1/2 Chickasaw

Colbert’s Ferry across the Tennessee River.

Buzzard Roost Stand  (AL) 1812

Levi Colbert’s Stand (AL)

Brown’s Stand  (MS) 1815

Old Factor’s Stand  (MS) 1812

Levi Kemp’s Stand (MS) 1825

James Colbert’s Stand (MS) 1812

James Allen

Tockshish’s Stand, McIntosh’s Stand, Chickasaw Old Town (MS) 1797

This became the junction with “the Notchey” or so called

West Prong of the Natchez Trace.

Wall’s Stand (MS) 1811

Pigeon Roost Stand (MS) 1800

Mitchell’s Stand (MS) 1806

French Camp, LeFleur’s Stand (MS) 1810 Duke Family

Hawkins’s Stand, Harkin’s Stand (MS) 1811

Shoat’s Stand, Choteau’s Stand (MS) 1811

Anderson’s Stand (MS) 1811

Crowders Stand (MS) 1813

Doak’s Stand (MS) 1810 The Treaty of Doak’s Stand: Signed on October 20, 1820, in Madison County, Mississippi, between Canton and Farmhaven, the treaty gave the Mississippi Choctaw a large western territory in exchange for land sales to settlers. The terms of the treaty became a sore point in latter relations between the tribes and the government. General Andrew Jackson supervised the treaty’s signing.

Ward’s Stand (MS) 1811

Brashear’s Stand (MS) 1806 Turner Brashear The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek: Signed on September 27, 1830, in Noxubee County, Mississippi, near Macon, the treaty gave the Choctaws the option of moving to the western territories in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The government made it clear, however, that the tribe really needed to move and not remain in Mississippi. A few Choctaws stayed in Mississippi (in fact, some stayed on with the Gaines family at Peachwood), but the majority went west over a period of several years.

Jackson (MS)

Ogburn’s Stand (MS) 1810

Hayes’s Stand (MS) 1815

Dean’s Stand (MS) 1821,

Red Bluff Stand, McRover’s Stand and Smith’s Stand (MS) 1806

Rocky Springs

Wooldridge’s Stand (MS) 1806

Grindstone Ford (MS) 1797

Port Gibson (MS)  (settled by Samuel Gibson )

Coon Box Stand (MS)

Greenville (MS)

Uniontown (MS)

Selserville (MS)

Washington (MS)

Natchez (MS)

In 1818 the Chickasaws relinquished their claims to the Western District, and settlement began in the Mississippi Valley. Towns quickly sprang up on the Tennessee bank of the river, and the steamboat trade flourished. By 1834 some 230 steamboats plied the Mississippi. Memphis emerged as an inland port city and a destination for immigrants arriving in the United States through New Orleans. Towns along the Mississippi tributaries benefited as well. The Forked Deer was navigable for steamboats to Dyersburg, although a few managed to reach Jackson. The Hatchie was navigable for several miles, and some boats went as far as Bolivar, though this area could not as easily engage in shipping despite its rich agricultural land.

One branch went southeast through the Cumberland Gap and was known as the Wilderness Road or Boone’s Trail, while another division swung southwest through Nashville and was called the Natchez Trace, or Boatman’s Trail. The main branch of the Old Miami Trace traveled due north up from the Indian town of Chattanooga on the Tennessee and then connected with the other Indian trails branching off toward the Gulf of Mexico.

As was mentioned, the trail started at Chattanooga, bounded along the west bank of the Tennessee River, branched off at Harriman, Ky., moved up the valley of the Emory River over to the Valley of the Cumberland River. Thence to the Indian settlement at the junction of the north and south forks of the river at Burnside, Ky. It then proceeded to the Indian settlements of Central Kentucky at Danville, Lexington and Paris, where it followed the ridge of the Licking to its mouth; it then it crossed the Ohio to what is now Cincinnati. (The Wyandotte name for Cincinnati was Tu-ent-a-hab-whag-ta, “the place where the road leaves the river.”)

At this point numerous important trails met. From the Ohio northward the trail is called the Old Miami Trail, obviously the name being taken from the powerful Indian tribe, the Miamis, who occupied this region. The old trail was sometimes called the Fort Miami Trail, simply because it led to old Fort Miami, the oldest fortification in the State of Ohio. This fort was built under the direction of Fontenac, Governor of Canada, in 1680, as a military trading post. Its location was about fifteen miles up the Maumee from Lake Erie. The French later moved it farther up the river; the English, in 1785, rebuilt it. The Native Americans followed certain routes for both trade and warfare. The water courses and the ridges along the watersheds were used as their earthworks now show. Both the Indians and the whites followed these same trails and used the same sites for their towns,

In the decades prior to the American Civil War, market places where enslaved Africans were bought and sold could be found in every town of any size in Mississippi.  Natchez was unquestionably the state’s most active slave trading city, although substantial slave markets existed at Aberdeen, Crystal Springs, Vicksburg, Woodville, and Jackson. Natchez played a significant role in the southward movement of the existing slave population to the waiting cotton plantations of the Deep South. Slave sales at Natchez were held in a number of locations, but one market place soon eclipsed the others in the number of sales. This was the market known as “The Forks of the Road,” located at the busy intersection of Liberty Road and Washington Road about one mile east of downtown Natchez. (Today, Washington Road is named “D’Evereux Drive,” which changes to “St. Catherine Street” at the Liberty Road intersection.) The market site occupied a prominent knoll, straddling what was then the city’s eastern corporation line.

Washington Road connected Natchez with the nearby town of Washington and with the Natchez Trace, a vital interstate route extending northeast into northern Alabama and Tennessee.  Liberty Road, also known as “Old Courthouse Road” or “Second Creek Road,” linked Natchez with points to the east and southeast, and ultimately with the southern reaches of Alabama and Georgia. Although the Forks of the Road became best known as a slave market, livestock and other items were also sold there.

The Forks of the Road intersection appears in maps of the Natchez area as early as 1808. The earliest known map illustrating slave markets at that location is a plat of St. Catherine Street drawn in 1853 (see map). In the 1853 map, two “Negro Marts” are shown at the Forks of the Road intersection: one inside the angle of the fork and another across Old Courthouse Road (Liberty Road) to the southwest.  The map also shows the City of Natchez “Corporation Line,” which intersected both slave markets and provides a way to accurately locate the market sites today.

The Traders

The importance of the Forks of the Road as a slave market increased dramatically when Isaac Franklin of Tennessee rented property there in 1833.  Franklin and his business partner, John Armfield of Virginia, were soon to become the most active slave traders in the United States.  Franklin and Armfield were among the first professional slave traders to take advantage of the relatively low prices for slaves in the Virginia–Maryland area, and the profit potential offered by the growing market for slaves in the Deep South.

Armfield managed the firm’s slave pen in Alexandria, Virginia, while Franklin established and ran the firm’s markets at Natchez and New Orleans. By the 1830s, they were sending more than 1,000 slaves annually from Alexandria to their Natchez and New Orleans markets to help meet the demand for slaves in Mississippi and surrounding states.

When our country was formed by treaty in 1783, the western boundary was the Mississippi River and the southern boundary was the 31st Parallel.  By then, Fort Natchez, located on the Mississippi River as a well established trading post in the Great Wild South West of this young country.  Some old Indian trading trails were the only way by land to get from what became Nashville, Tennessee to Fort Natchez.  As the new farmers west of the

Allegheny Mountains grew their crops of cotton, tobacco, corn, wheat, they needed a place to sell it.  Fort Natchez became the place to trade.  In the fall, farmers would load their crops on flat boats, float down the Ohio, Tennessee, Cumberland to the Mississippi and then to Fort Natchez, later to just Natchez.  Here the farmers sold their crops and even the flat boat they came on for gold or various forms of paper money.  Then, they walked more than 400

miles back to their homes by using the Indian foot path to what is now Nashville, Tennessee and then on to their home.  This foot path became known as the Natchez Trace.  Some called it The Devil’s Backbone because of the crime committed on it, robbing and killing the farmers/traders for their money.  In spite of this, it became a trail of commerce, the main mail route to the southwest, and a vital trail in development of the great southwest of the young USA between 1790 and about 1830.

The Hudson’s Bay Company differed in certain important particulars in both organization and operations from its American rivals. The fortified trading post was common to both systems; the rendezvous was peculiarly an American institution; the company’s trapping brigade contained several important elements that were foreign to the typical American trapping party. The usual American fur-trading expedition, for example, consisted almost exclusively of men; a Hudson’s Bay Company brigade contained fifteen or twenty whites, fifty or more French-Canadian, Indian, or half-breed trappers, and a multitude of women and children.

This large and heterogeneous personnel necessitated the use of much larger supply trains and many more horses than the American system required; so that a fur brigade, bound for a distant hunt of eighteen months’ or two years’ duration, resembled a small-scale tribal migration. The women of the brigade did the work of the camp, dressed the pelts, tanned the skins for shirts and moccasins, and relieved the men of innumerable other essential details. They and the children became a liability only when the brigade suffered major disaster, such as epidemic, serious shortage of food, or defeat at the hands of hostile Indians.

Over the past century, considerable attention has been paid to the political history of the aspiring Metis nation but the processes by which Metis identity was formed, the content of Metis culture, and the mechanisms by which it was transmitted intergenerational still remain obscure. Perhaps this is because, despite Louis Riel’s impassioned declaration of Metis consciousness “that we honor our mothers as well as our fathers,” 3 the native women who mothered and nourished the growth of a Metis society have been overshadowed by their white male partners and fathers.

This essay does not hope to answer the larger questions of Metis identity and culture formation but instead explores the motivations prompting native females to marry whites in the early stages of fur trade expansion south and west of the Great Lakes, and seeks to resolve an apparent anomaly with regard to the role of women in subsequent Metis cultural development. On the one hand, as Jennifer S. H. Brown has noted in a path-breaking article, native women were both center and symbol in the emergence of Metis communities. 4 Since Metis daughters of Indian-white marriages were more likely than Metis sons to remain in the West and to maintain close ties with native mothers and kin, they were the primary contributors via their own marriages to incoming whites and Metis males to the rapid growth of a Metis population in the fur trading zone. It is not surprising, therefore, that Metis life appears to have been characterized by matriorganization, with the female and native side exercising the predominant influences over residence and community, behavioral roles, and ethnic filiation. Ultimately, to be Metis was to claim descent from, and the rights of, a native mother, rather than of a white father.

On the other hand, a core denominator of persistent Metis identity has been a strong attachment to Christianity. Especially among French-speaking Metis, Catholic belief and practice did, and often still does, act as the demarcator between themselves and their Indian relatives. Simply put, Metis attend Mass, not the Sun Dance. But if Metis life was matricentered and native women and their female descendants were the transmitters and translators of Metis culture and identity, what are we to make of the prominence of an intrusive European belief system? How are we to reconcile the apparently mutual influences of strong-minded, perhaps exceptional native women and the religious ideology of the colonizer? What role did Christianity play, if any, in propelling native women toward white males and why did certain women chose, or so it would seem, to abandon the traditions and lifeways of their own people?

The term certain women is deliberate. It may be fairly assumed that the majority, or even the preponderance, of tribal women did not take white husbands or succumb to the appeals of Christian missionaries at any time during the early contact phase in North America. Carol Devens has argued that among the “domiciled” Indian groups of New France, women led the resistance against missionary efforts at conversion. 5 It may also be assumed, thanks to the remarkable portrait of “women in between” painted by Sylvia Van Kirk and to Jennifer S. H. Brown’s seminal ethnohistorical analysis of fur trade families, that the native wives of fur traders and their Metis daughters were neither degraded drudges, commodities to be bought or sold, or the casual purveyors of sexual favors, stereotypes best buried with the likes of Walter O’Meara’s Daughters of the Country. 6

Van Kirk, in particular, has ably illustrated the intelligence and forceful personalities of a number of wives of fur traders, women capable of exerting considerable influence within both native and fur trade circles. Although her sources tend to favor the native wives and daughters of men of rank, or women who aroused comment, the women she describes had their counterparts throughout fur trade country, on both sides of the international boundary. 7 In the western Great Lakes region alone, women such as Madame Cadotte, Susan Johnston, Sally Ainse, Madame LaFramboise, Therese Schindler, Marinette Chevalier, Domitille Langlade, and Sophia Mitchell achieved prominence as traders, church founders and patrons, and leaders of fur trade communities, while their Metis daughters and granddaughters perpetuated many of these traditions, adding the roles of teacher, translator, and interpreter. 8

Van Kirk and Brown have pointed to a number of factors that may have persuaded native women to marry white traders, among them heightened material comfort and physical security, access to trade goods, and personal role expansion. Other factors — the demographic pressure caused by a possible female surplus among hunting tribes, the benefits to kin of an alliance with whites, the appeal of a more permissive sexual code, a preference for monogamous marriage, and the influence of Christianization

Such a process of expansion was general in the nation during the 1750s and 1760s, but in the late 1760s the outbreak of the Creek wars checked it in the east and south. Romans, on entering the nation from the east in 1771, had to pass through the deserted towns of Osapa issa and Itokchako before he reached the first inhabited settlement, East Abeka, and he later mentioned deserted towns along the Tombigbee. The end of the Creek wars, in turn, opened the way for renewed expansion particularly in the south and east. The Spanish census of 1784, the first detailed enumeration of towns since Romans’s list of 1771, revealed four new settlements in the south, two in the east, and two in the west. 12

According to John Stuart, the Creeks possessed “the most extensive hunting-ground of any nation to the southward.” 8 Large ranges were necessary, for one deer requires approximately one hundred acres for sustenance. 9 Muscogulge hunters could travel freely anywhere under Creek jurisdiction in search of game. Still, it seems that most hunters tended to range in fairly well-defined areas over which their town or tribe had some claim through long occupation, assimilation, or conquest. 10 Hunters from Coweta and neighboring towns tended to stalk game to the east and north, where Creek lands adjoined Cherokee and Georgia lands, and especially along the Oconee and Ogeechee rivers. According to Alexander McGillivray, this area was among the most valuable Creek hunting grounds and produced over three thousand deerskins annually. 11 Hunters from the southernmost Lower Creek Towns moved south and west into the Florida peninsula. The Tallapooses and Abeikas ranged in what is today northern Alabama and central Tennessee, even crossing into non-Creek territory beyond the Tennessee River. Alabama tribesmen pressed westward toward the Tombigbee River, which was the boundary with Choctaw lands, and southward along the Alabama River and toward Pensacola in their search for deer. 12 The fertile forests along the Tensaw and Escambia rivers were highly prized hunting grounds for all Creeks. 13 Creek hunters from Chehaw and Tallassee ventured into the Okefenokee Swamp in search of deer, bear, and alligator. 14 The Latchoways and other East Florida villagers hunted all along the Florida peninsula, even as far south as the cape. 15 During the long winter huntingseason, Creek hunting parties could be found from Tampa Bay to the Cumberland River valley, and they trekked as far west as the Trinity River in Texas. 16

The Choctaws continued to settle new towns in the 1790s and the early nineteenth century, but at that time the direction of settlement shifted considerably. Of the towns appearing for the first time in the censuses and treaty conferences between 1794 and 1804, fourteen were in the northeast, five were in the west, and only one was in the south. The creation of new towns in the south during the late 1770s and early 1780s probably represented the dispersal of people previously confined by the Creek wars. The south, bordered by pinelands and with less arable land than any other district, reached its environmental limits relatively quickly, however. In the 1790s and early 1800s its people would not take up new lands within the district except within the established towns; instead, they migrated across the Mississippi to settle new villages where game was still abundant and the old economy could be reestablished in toto. 13

In the northeastern and western districts, however, no such environmental constraints existed. Their borderlands were not pinelands but rich loessal and prairie soils. Still, the mere existence of these lands explains nothing. Northeastern and western Choctaws faced the same crippling of the subsistence cycle as the southern Choctaws; more fertile farmland could not stop droughts and could not bring the deer back. They needed more than rich land if they were to escape continued dependence. People still devoted to the traditional hunting and farming economy did not move into the borderlands in great numbers; they moved west of the river.

Bushwhackers, Bibles and Boats

Despite its brief lifespan, the Trace served an essential function in the years it was in existence. It was the only reliable and most expedient link between the goods of the North and the trading ports of Louisiana. This brought all sorts of people down the Trace: itinerant preachers, highwaymen and traders were just a few.

The circuit preachers were some of the most notable of the lot. Unlike its physical development, the “spiritual development” of the Trace started from the Natchez end up: several Methodist preachers began working a circuit along the Trace as early as 1800, and claimed a membership of 1,067 Caucasians and 267 African-Americans in 1812. The Methodists were soon joined in Natchez by other Protestant religions, including the Baptists and Presbyterians. The Presbyterians and their offshoot, the Cumberland Presbyterians, were more active than the Methodists or Baptists in procuring converts along the Trace itself, including the Native American population—the Presbyterians starting from the south, the Cumberland Presbyterians from the north. As with much of the unsettled West, the Trace was also a hotbed for banditry. Much of it centered around Natchez Under-The-Hill, as compared with its more tame sister city at Natchez On-The-Hill. Under-the-Hill, where the port to the Mississippi was located, was a hotbed for gamblers, prostitutes and drunkenness. The rowdiest of them all were the Kaintucks, the wild frontiersmen from upriver who came in on the steamboats and flatboats loaded with goods, left them in Natchez in exchange for pockets full of cash, and summarily treated Natchez Under-the-Hill as what could be generously called an early 1800s Las Vegas, Nevada or Amsterdam. Still worse dangers lurked in the wilderness outside the city boundaries on the Trace itself. Highwaymen such as John Murrell and Samuel Mason terrorized travelers along the road, and operated large gangs of organized brigands in one of the first examples of land-based American organized crime.

The following claims were originally derived from Stewart’s “History of the Detection, Conviction, Life, and Designs of John A. Murel….” (see above):

•           He was known as a ‘land-pirate,’ using the Mississippi River as a base for his operations. He used a network of anywhere from 300 (Stewart estimate) to 1,000 (as quoted in Mark Twain’s Life on the Mississippi) to 2,500 (as some newspaper reports claimed) fellow bandits collectively known as the Mystic Clan to pull off his escapades. Many of these were members of cultural/ethnic groups such as the Melungeons and the Redbones. He was also known as a bushwhacker along the Natchez Trace.

•           To cover up his misdeeds, he played the persona of a traveling preacher. Twain’s work and others say he would preach to a congregation while his gang stole the horses outside. However, the accounts are unanimous that Murrell’s horse was always left behind.

•           Just before he was apprehended, he was about to spearhead a slave revolt in New Orleans in an attempt to take over the city and install himself as a sort of potentate of Louisiana.

•           The disputed details about Murrell are more numerous and controversial than the known facts. Even today, his place of birth is in question: Some sources claim Williamson County, Tennessee, others say Jackson, Tennessee. In any case, it is clear that he grew up in Williamson County, Tennessee, just south of Franklin.

•           Even more in debate is the location of his hideout and operations base. Once again, Jackson or Madison County are bandied about, but other places include Natchez, Mississippi in an odd depression on a bluff called Devil’s Punch Bowl, Tunica County, Mississippi, the Neutral Ground in Louisiana, and even the tiny Island 37, part of Tipton County, Tennessee. One record, a genealogical note,[1] even places him as far east as Georgia; in fact Atlanta historian Franklin Garrett makes it clear there was a lawless district in that town named for him, “Murrell’s Row” in the 1840s. Because Murrell has come to symbolize Natchez Trace lawlessness in the antebellum period, it’s understandable that his “hideouts” (whether there were any hideouts or not) have been said to have been located at most of the well-known areas of particular lawlessness along the Natchez Trace.

•           Some say he began to plot his takeover of New Orleans in 1841, although he was in the sixth year of a ten year sentence in the prison at Nashville at the time, and Stewart had already published his account of Murrell’s plot in 1835. Others say he was in operation from 1835 to 1857; he was in prison for ten of those years, and died of tuberculosis in 1845 shortly after leaving prison and taking up a quiet life as a Christian and blacksmith.

•           A river feature in Chicot County, Arkansas called Whiskey Chute is named for his raid on a whiskey-carrying steamboat that was sunk after it was pillaged. It was named such in 1855. However, he is also claimed to have been born in 1791 [2]. We know from Record Group 25, “Prison Records for the Main Prison at Nashville, Tennessee, 1831-1922,” that Murrell was born in 1806, most likely in Williamson County, Tennessee.

The traders also introduced the Indians of North America to distilled liquor. Very early they discovered that the Indians had no cultural resistance to the pleasures of rum or whiskey, and that these constituted the ideal means for lubricating the trade of furs or the sale of land. All that the Whites required, beyond the liquor, was caution (or a stout fort), for the drunken Indian men usually went on a wild emotional spree, fighting, shooting, and even killing. President Jefferson secured from Congress authority to prevent the sale of liquor to Indians, and 30 years later Congress passed further legislation to restrain this traffic. But, as with the later attempt at general Prohibition, the law was difficult to enforce; the Indian desire for liquor was too strong and the profit from conveying it to them was fantastic. The American Fur Company, the creature of John Jacob Astor, was repeatedly accused of violating liquor regulations, and smuggling into Indian territory great quantities of whiskey and rum, which its agents then exchanged for furs at the most outrageous rates. The Indian agent at Camp Leavenworth estimated that from 1815 to 1830 the fur trade on the Missouri had totaled over $3 million, and that half of this was clear profit. About the same time, William B. Astor was acknowledging that the operation of the fur company was yielding even larger returns, namely $500,000 per year ( Myers, 1909, Vol. I, p. 124). Livestock became important only in the context of this larger economic and social breakdown. Those people who first moved into the borderlands were not traditionalists. The pioneers of this new settlement were the intermarried whites and the mixed-bloods, and they came not to reestablish the old economy but to raise cattle as Franchimastabe predicted the whole nation must do. Many full-blood Choctaws settled with them in the borderlands, and gradually the way of life and the interests of these people would diverge from their kinsman in the old towns. White men had first settled extensively among the Choctaws and intermarried with them in the years preceding the Revolution. These men, who were French, American, and English, largely traders and ex-traders, recognized in the borderlands surrounding them an excellent cattle range. The prairies, the open forests with their grassy floors, and the canebrakes all promised abundant forage. Intermarried whites first introduced cattle among the Choctaws sometime around 1770, but initially the animals seem to have reThe Choctaw herds fueled this expansion and then symbiotically grew because of it. By 1805 John Pitchlynn’s property consisted mainly of livestock. His children and other mixed-bloods grew to adulthood not as hunters but herdsmen; their earliest duty was watching their parents’ cattle and horse herds. The full-bloods’ herds, stocked in part with animals stolen from the Americans who had settled along the Mobile and lower Tombigbee rivers, and in part with animals acquired from the herds of intermarried traders, grew at a considerably slower rate. 19  Greenwood Leflore born of a French father, Louis LeFleur, and Choctaw mother, Rebecca Cravat, niece of Chief Pushmataha, he had adopted the language and culture of both. At the age of twelve his father, by then a successful tavern keeper in the Choctaw Nation, had allowed him to go to Nashville with Major James Donly, who had a government contract to carry the mails between Nashville and Natchez on the Natchez Trace, a road made possible by the Treaty of Fort Adams in 1801. Leflore was educated in Nashville, at seventeen married the fifteen-year-old daughter of his benefactor, returned to the Choctaw Nation, and at twenty-two was elected chief of the Western District. Though never popular with many of the full-blood tribesmen, he became aIn a later conversation with Samuel James Wells, a historian whose Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Southern Mississippi had been “Choctaw Mixed Bloods and the Advent of Removal, ” I learned that the Brashears family was well known in the Creek, Chickasaw, and Choctaw tribes. They were widely scattered, and the given name “Turner” was common. One Turner Brashears furnished liquor to the Chickasaws at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, in the early 1790s. Another Turner Brashears, or the same one, had a trading stand northeast of what is now Jackson, Mississippi. Another, or the same one, helped the Spanish with maps and treaties, and a Turner Brashears went to Washington with the Choctaw chiefs as interpreter in 1804. Any one of these things might have been enough to entitle him to the land which was to become Providence. Still, the treaty stated that a Turner Brashears lived on Section Thirteen in 1830. It is not likely that a mixed or full-blooded Choctaw of such accomplishments would have been living on the edge of these remote bluffs in 1830 when he had access to land along the Tennessee River in Alabama, a trading post on the Natchez Trace, or even a spread in northern Florida. So what am I to conclude about the Turner Brashears who was given Section Thirteen under the terms of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek? Did he join his brother Bolokta in Oklahoma? Did he become William McKendree Gwin. Then I discovered such lettering did not become fashionable until around the turn of the century. I located many examples of the same pattern in front of fashionable Jackson homes built about that time. It was during that search that I first came across the name “Providence” referring to Section Thirteen and the surrounding area. It had to do with a famous outlaw band of the 1820s–40s known as the Murrell Gang. Operating out of a cave near Tchula, they carried on a slave and horse-stealing traffic and were notorious for their violence. Often victims were robbed and then murdered along the Natchez Trace. Slaves and horses were stolen under cover of darkness and hidden in the swamps of the Big Black River until they could be taken to a distant market, where they were sold. I had heard the stories of how Murrell was captured by a farm woman and her husband named Nevels. In a bicentennial edition of the Durant, Mississippi, Plaindealer, published in 1976, I found a story that described the capture of John Murrell, leader of the gang. Having assigned his highwaymen and thieves to other chores, Murrell was in the Delta region alone. In early morning he stopped at the Nevels’s home and demanded that Mrs. Nevels fix him breakfast. Pretending to go to the smokehouse for meat, she alerted her husband of Murrell’s presence. The husband waited until Murrell sat down to eat, then, seeing the outlaw’s gun carelessly leaned against an outside door, Nevels grabbed the gun, captured Murrell with no resistance, and took him to Vicksburg for trial. The article stated, “Tradition holds that Murrell was captured at Providence Plantation near Tchula at the home of the Nevels family.” Although there was a sizeable reward offered for Murrell’s capture, Nevels declined to accept it, insisting he had only done his civic duty.

The trail led up the river to Natchez, and this far, through the Spanish territory, it was tolerably policed. Leaving Natchez, however, the road plunged straight through the wilderness, swampridden, Indian-infested. “The road from Nashville to Natchez was estimated to be five hundred and fifty miles. The road was a mere trace or bridle-way through the woods and cane-brake.” This road was the Natchez Trace. “Kentuckians and Tennesseeians took boats laden with produce down the river, which they sold at Natchez or New Orleans, and then returned to their homes by this route, carrying their money, which was sewn in raw hides. . . .” For years, the Natchez Trace had a bloody history–of robbery, of ambush, of murder–as the bandits prowled there. Toward the close of the century, a Government mail route had been established, linking the American settlements and the Spanish province: from 1796 until about 1810 he was one of its messengers. His memoirs give a graphic picture of the conditions at the time. The mail consisted of “a few letters and government dispatches, with a few newspapers”: beside his mail-pouch, he carried “one-half bushel of corn for his horse, provender for himself, an overcoat or a blanket, and a tin trumpet.” It took him ten days for the trip to Natchez.

“He would leave Nashville on Saturday night at eight o’clock”; he would go clattering down Market Street from William Tab’s store where the postoffice was located, and so out through the cabins of the town, already darkened for the night.

Toward midnight, he would reach the Big Branch of the Harpeth River: here lay Tom Davis’ cabin and clearing. Davis’ dogs would bark at his galloping passing; Swaney would answer with a hailing cry. This was the last white man’s dwelling: beyond lay the wilderness.

“Sunday morning he would get to Gordon’s Ferry on the Duck River, 51 miles from Nashville, which was then the line between Tennessee and the Choc taw Nation. There he fed his horse and ate breakfast.

“He had then to ride 80 miles to Colbert’s Ferry, on the Tennessee River, before night set in, where the Indians would set him across.” This was a hard day’s riding, after a night in the saddle, but he had to make it. “The Indians were contrary, and would not come across the river for him if he failed to get to the landing before bed-time.”

This ferry was operated under the auspices of old James Colbert, chief of the Chickasaws; on the opposite shore they maintained a kind of inn, where Swaney stayed the night. It afforded the rudest kind of shelter, and its hospitality was colored by native superstition. Mrs. Thomas Martin, following the Trace, spent a night there and described it: the Indians were very agreeable to them–gave them a supper of venison, potatoes and coffee, while “Mrs. Colbert,” wife of the old chieftain, paraded about, wearing a Paris hat, but barefoot–but would not let them sleep in the house: “They assigned us to another, where slept not less than fifty Indians, many of them drunk, while my husband and others sat up all night. It is not their custom to let strangers sleep in the house with their families.”

Leaving here, Swaney pushed on deeper into the wilderness: “He would have to go to the Chickasaw Agency, 120 miles, before he would see a house, or even an Indian wigwam, and would have to lie out one night in the woods or cane brake. . . .” At the Chickasaw Agency he encountered the first white men since leaving Nashville. Even these were, in a certain sense, outlaws. “The Chickasaw Agency was kept by McGee, who was the agent, with Jim Allen as interpreter. Allen was a man of fine address, and was a lawyer who came from Nashville, but failing in business, went off among the Indians. . . .”

Two hundred miles farther on lay the Choctaw Agency: “The route was entirely through Indian country”: compared to this, the first half of the journey had been populous. One hundred miles farther still, and he entered Natchez. It was here, in this three hundred mile wide strip of canebrake, swamp and desolation ruled by the Chickasaws and Choctaws, that the danger to travelers lay. The danger was not in the Indians, or rarely. Occasionally a wandering band of Creeks-“great warriors”–cut through the land, but the others were “kind and peaceable. The Chickasaws always boasted that they had never shed the blood of a white man in anger. Allen often told Mr. Swaney that the Chickasaws and Choctaws were the happiest and best people he had ever known. They could not say anything in their native tongue worse than ‘skena’ (bad) and ‘pulla’ (mean) and in all his knowledge he never heard of the crime of adultery being committed but once. The punishment in such a case was to cut off the end of the nose of the woman. . . .

Happy Jim Allen! He had lived but a year among these pleasant savages, when his eye grew desirous of one of their virtuous maidens. “The manner of choosing a wife among the Chickasaw Indians was for the swain to make his desire toward a particular maiden known to the chief, and having gained his consent, the suitor would return to his wigwam and there wait until his lady love should be sent to him.” In Allen’s case the matter had certain complications: his choice had fallen upon no less a person than Susie, daughter of the chief, James Colbert himself. Many braves had been her suitors. Allen, however, paid formal visit to the potentate, made his plea. He then, as custom demanded, retired to his wigwam, closed its flaps and waited there in the darkness while the elders of the tribe debated his request. “He waited until nearly dark, when Susie Colbert made her appearance at his door with a blanket drawn closely around her head, leaving only space enough for her to find her way, and in response to his invitation, walked in and took a seat. This was Jim Allen’s courtship and marriage.” The union thus formed was fruitful, of a daughter: her name was Peggy Allen. In Swaney’s time she had grown into young girlhood: he reported that she was “the prettiest woman he ever saw,” and in those days, in the womanless West the fame of a lovely girl spread all through the territory: men would come traveling hundreds of miles, like zealots on a pilgrimage, to settle their longings and look upon her. “Mr. Swaney said it was almost incredible the number of travelers and boatmen who stopped at the Agency to see her, attracted alone by her reputation. She was known to all the boatmen as a great beauty.” But she was wilful. Allen’s brother, a substantial man, came out from North Carolina to visit them; he tried to persuade Peggy to come east with him; he offered to school her, and launch her out as a belle in eastern society. She refused. Sam Mitchell, the agent in the Choctaw territory, fell madly in love with her. He found no favor with her but he did gain the support of her grandmother, old Chief Colbert’s wife. With craft, this beldame invited the girl to visit her in the Indian encampments: she immediately dispatched her, perforce, to Mitchell’s cabin, “with eight or ten negroes and as many ponies as dowry.” Here was danger of an involuntary bridal, but Peg still showed her spirit. She told Sam Mitchell “she would never marry a drunken white man or an Indian”; she locked the doors of the man’s own cabin against him. Baffled, after two weeks Mitchell sent her home again. Allen was proud, but he was also sensible. They were alone in the wilderness. If Mitchell chose to seek vengeance through his Choctaws they had no defense among the Chickasaws: in fact his greater fear was that Grandma Colbert, more spiteful still, might be moved to savage reprisals. But Peggy had another suitor, young Simon Burney, the son of a Natchez planter. She had dallied Simon for years but now, in the uncertainty, she grew more lenient toward him. “He would almost give his life for you,” her father told her. So they were married; Peg was whisked downriver to Natchez, away from the dark threat the wilderness had conjured to oppose her beauty. They settled at Natchez; their fate was happy: “Birney amassed a large fortune, and raised and educated a nice family.”

 

 

The Outlaw Years: The History of the Land Pirates of the Natchez Trace. Contributors: Robert M. Coates – author. Publisher: University of Nebraska Press. Place of Publication: Lincoln, NE. Publication Year: 1986. Page Number: *.

Title: Indian Americans: Unity and Diversity. Contributors: Murray L. Wax – author. Publisher: Prentice Hall. Place of Publication: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Publication Year: 1971. Page Number: 51.

http://imahero.com/readingprogram/trailnatchez.html

http://www.tngenweb.org/campbell/hist-bogan/MiamiTrail.html

http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature30/gsgaines.html

http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/features/feature36/forks_of_the_road.html

http://www.us-census.org/native/choctaw.html

This Reckless Breed of Men

The Trappers and Fur Traders of the Southwest BY ROBERT GLASS CLELAND 1963 NEW YORK ALFRED A. KNOPF

Western Women: Their Land, Their Lives. Contributors: Janice Monk – editor, Vicki L. Ruiz – editor, Lillian Schlissel – editor. Publisher: University of New Mexico Press. Place of Publication: Albuquerque. Publication Year: 1988

http://newdeal.feri.org/guides/tnguide/ch03.htm

http://www.muzzleblasts.com/vol3no6/articles/mbo36-4.html

Studies in American Indian Literature                                                                                      Series 2       Volume 11, Number 1       Spring 1999 http://oncampus.richmond.edu/faculty/ASAIL/SAIL2/111.html

Stands  and Travel Accommodations

on the Natchez Trace by Dawson Phelps in the Journal of Mississippi

History, Jan 1949

Definitions

The Cumberland River is an important waterway in the southern United States. It is 687 miles (1,106 km) long. It starts in Letcher County in eastern Kentucky on the Cumberland Plateau, flows through southeastern Kentucky before crossing into northern Tennessee, and then curves back up into western Kentucky before draining into the Ohio River at Smithland, Kentucky. The native American name for the Cumberland River was the Warrito.

In 1748, Dr. Thomas Walker led a party of hunters across the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia. Walker, a Virginian, was an explorer and surveyor of renown. He gave the name “Cumberland” to the lofty range of mountains his party crossed, in honor of Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland whose name became popular in America after the Battle of Culloden (Stewart, 1967

John Murrell (also spelled as Murel and Murrel), a near-legendary bandit operating in the United States along the Mississippi River in the mid-1800s.

Yellow Rose of Texas?

Yellow Rose of Texas?

yellow rose

Emily D. West, a mulatto, is reported to have greatly influenced the battle of San Jacinto, which resulted in a victory for the Texians and ultimately freedom from Mexican rule, by entertaining General Santa Anna in his tent at the hour of attack. There is a legend that the “Yellow Rose of Texas” is one Emily West, a mulatto, possibly originally from Bermuda. While the song’s writer is unknown, we do know that the song appeared in the mid-1830’s, and the writer may have been Negro, a solider, and from Tennessee.

There’s a yellow rose in Texas, that I am going to see,
No other darky knows her, no darky only me
She cryed so when I left her it like to broke my heart,
And if I ever find her, we nevermore will part.
She’s the sweetest rose of color this darky ever knew,
Her eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;
You may talk about your dearest May, and sing of Rosa Lee,
But the Yellow Rose of Texas beats the belles of Tennessee.

Later in the1850’s and after, the song was performed by Negro Minstrels. Through the years, the song was changed and during the latter part of the Civil War, it acquired a stanza about Confederate General John B. Hood’s retreat from Nashville.  Then came the unkindest cut of all. Mitch Miller’s 1955 version so “whitewashed” our Yellow Rose that she appeared much less than she was.

While many Americans are familiar with the song, “The Yellow Rose of Texas,” few know the story of Emily West, the African American woman who was the inspiration for its creation.  In the excerpt below from a longer article that first appeared in 1996, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill English Professor Trudier Harris explains that history.  

I would venture to say that most Americans are familiar with the folksong, “The Yellow Rose of Texas:” If they cannot recall all of the lyrics, there is still a resonant quality about the song. I would also venture to say that few of those Americans—Texans notwithstanding—have reflected overly long on the implications of the fact that the song is not just about a woman, but about a black woman, or that a black man probably composed it. Scholars such as Martha Anne Turner have linked the song to its contextual origins—that of the Texas war for independence from Mexico in the 1830s and a specific incident in 1836—and others have argued its irrelevance to that event. It was only in 1989, however, when Anita Richmond Bunkley published Emily, The Yellow Rose, a novel based on the presumed incidents that spawned the fame of the yellow rose, that the fictionalized expansion of the facts encouraged a larger and perhaps different audience to become aware of the historical significance of Emily D. West, the hypothetical “Yellow Rose of Texas:”‘ This publishing event certainly re-centered the song and the incident in African-American culture, for over many years and numerous versions, the song had been deracialized. Bunkley, herself an African American woman, researched the complex history of another African American woman and imaginatively recreated and reclaimed it.

The presumed historical facts are simple and limited. Emily D. West, a teenage orphaned free Negro woman in the northeastern United States, journeyed by boat to the wilderness of Texas in 1835.  Colonel James Morgan, on whose plantation she worked as an indentured servant, established the little settlement of New Washington (later Morgan’s Point). When Santa Anna and his troops arrived in the area, he claimed West to take the place of his stay at home wife in Mexico City and the traveling wife he had acquired on his way to Texas. The traveling wife had to be sent back when swollen river waters prevented him from taking her across in the fancy carriage in which she was riding. Santa Anna was either partying with West or having sex with her when Sam Houston’s troops arrived for The Battle of San Jacinto, thus forcing him to escape in only a linen shirt and “silk drawers;” in which he was captured the next day. West’s possible forced separation from her black lover and her placement in Santa Anna’s camp, according to legend, inspired her lover to compose the song we know as “The Yellow Rose of Texas.”

Publicity surrounding the hotel in San Antonio that was named after Emily Morgan asserts that West was a spy for Texas. Other historians claim that there is absolutely no tie between West and the events of the Texas war for independence from Mexico. Still others claim that it was only West’s heroic feat of keeping Santa Anna preoccupied that enabled the Texas victory. Broadening perceptions of how texts are created and the purposes to which they are put provide the context, during the course of this paper, from which I want to explore West’s story and take issue with the assigning of heroic motives to her adventure.

Bunkley’s novelistic representation of the events provide motive, emotion, sentiment, and introspection to flesh out the bare bones of the presented history. According to Bunkley, a twenty year old orphaned Emily D. West journeyed to Texas in the hope that its status as Mexican territory would help her to realize more freedom than she had experienced in the so called free environment of New York. Upon arriving in Texas, West discovered that her freedoms were minimal, that the land was much more harsh than she had anticipated, and that her circumstances were not appreciably different from those of enslaved African-Americans. She fell in love with a black man, a musician, thought to be a runaway from slavery. Bounty hunters and the pressures of the fast-approaching war for independence from Mexico interrupted their sustaining relationship.  Her lover attempted to get away from his pursuers and the war, while West found herself in the midst of both; their separation led to his composing “The Yellow Rose of Texas.”

Unfortunately for West, the plantation on which she worked lay directly in the path of the oncoming Mexican soldiers, led by Santa Anna. Upon arriving, burning most of the plantation, and killing several of its inhabitants, Santa Anna discovered West and ordered that she be taken captive. Forced to engage in sex with…Santa Anna, West unknowingly but greatly aided the Texan cause. After an…encounter with West, Santa Anna fell into a slumber from which he could not arouse himself sufficiently before Sam Houston’s troops attacked his camp, killed many of his soldiers (who were quickly scattered without the commanding voice of their leader), and captured Santa Anna. During the battle of San Jacinto, West made a convenient escape.

The presented history and the novelistic depiction of it are certainly the stuff of which legends are made, and Bunkley appropriate subtitles her novel “A Texas Legend.” As the events come to us today, therefore, West is considered to be “the yellow rose;” the woman in the song, and the incident of its composition is equated to lovers being separated during the war for Texan independence, with West subsequently playing her alleged historical, legendary role with Santa Anna. The black woman, Santa Anna, the black male composer, April 21,1836, The Battle of San Jacinto, the song—these are the people, the time, the place, the incident, and the creation surrounding it that have merged history, legend, biography, and musical composition. No matter who would desire otherwise, the links are now inseparable in viewing the story of the song and its presumed subject, Emily D. West.

What fascinates about the story beyond its legendary proportions is its centering of an African-American woman in a significant piece of American history. The forced separation of the lover from his loved one, with the events of the war as backdrop, led to the composition of the song. Following are the first verse and the chorus:

There’s a yellow rose in Texas
That I am a going to see
No other darky [sic knows her]
No one only me
She cryed [sic] so when I left her
It like to broke my heart
And if I ever find her
We nevermore will part.

Chorus

She’s the sweetest rose of color
This darky every knew
Her eyes are bright as diamonds
They sparkle like the dew
You may talk about dearest May
And sing of Rosa Lee
But the yellow rose of Texas
Beats the belles of Tennessee.

The centering of the black woman in the song and its ensuing historical significance comprise an unprecedented circumstance matched only by the second fascination—a love story between black people that was powerful enough to be immortalized in song. The woman and the song serve Texas history well, but they serve African American history, folklore, and culture even better…

A search through African American folklore reveals that few black women have been painted as desirable and sexually healthy persons.  One little known strand of the lore has vestiges of viewing black women in the way that Emily D. West came to be viewed in “The Yellow Rose of Texas:” I refer to nineteenth-century courtship rituals during slavery and Reconstruction. These rituals suggest the black women to whom they were addressed were viewed as special females indeed….  I like to read “The Yellow Rose of Texas” as presaging that strand of African-American folklore. I like to think that the composer of the song so revered the woman he compared to a rose that his choice of expressing her beauty through nature elevated her to a position of value that has few comparative patterns. We cannot say, “the song about Emily’s value is like…” because there is no immediately comparable “like:” What we can say is that the separation, the pain this composer felt, led him to create a song about a beautiful woman, one who became the center of his existence as well as his creativity. The fact that she was “yellow” (mulatto) was less important to him than the human longings that are the essence of love.

How he viewed her as woman, lover, universal human partner, however, is obviously not how she or the legacy she left came to be used in American history or folklore studies. Her name has certainly served the tourist trade in San Antonio. Her presence or not at The Battle of San Jacinto has engaged many lively minds….In being transformed into a state icon, West loses the individuality of a personal life, but not the individuality of a symbol. Her name, the song, and the circumstances of Texan triumph become emblems of the best the American frontier had to offer….  In this script, West is subsumed under the great American concept of Manifest Destiny—with a slight detour southward—that did not allow for fissures in the sometimes fragile pot of nationalism. The history and the song suggest that in the killing frontier, where true blooded Americans were always subject to attack by some ungodly force, these Americans lived up to the best of their inheritance from back east; they fought, some of them died, but they ultimately triumphed over the forces of evil and repression….

West’s physical body, subject to exploitation as readily as those black persons who were legally enslaved, serves in this legendary capacity to elide the brutality to which black female bodies were potentially victim. There is a clash between the ideal (romanticized Texas history) and the real (a black woman being raped during the process of history-making events). By elevating West’s role in the capture of Santa Anna, by making her a seeming voluntary participant in the sequence of events, commentators and appreciators of the tale and the song could effectively deny slavery or certainly deny black women’s exploitation during slavery (since technically West was not an enslaved person). More specifically, they deny the brutal fact of rape, which West experienced not only from Santa Anna, but from a Texas soldier as well. Territorial and national unity implied in the events behind the song does not allow for the fact that black people were treated as badly, in this instance, by the Texans as they were by the Mexicans. The song becomes a pretty site, a pretty body, on which troubling issues about war, slavery, and sexual exploitation can be overlooked in the praise for a beautiful woman who evoked images of a yellow rose…
Ultimately, “The Yellow Rose of Texas” is a fascinating study in elision, erasure, and transformation. The song, its subject, its history, and its creator have all been used. Obviously there are good uses and bad uses to which any work of art, any historical event, can be put. Add to these usual patterns the fact of folklore and legend and the uses become even more expansive. Where all of this ends, however, is with the exploitation of the creator of the song. He who created the yellow rose is more lost to us than the subject about which he sang. Yet it is because of this black man’s song that researchers have been able to uncover as much as they have about Emily D. West. We have all, collectively, “taken his song and gone” far beyond the pleasure of appreciating it, far beyond the popular interest in transmitting it. Folklorists, historians, and scholars have made the song as much a legend as its subject, have made the events surrounding the composition of it as much an issue of erasure of composer as erasure of Emily D. West.

Sources:
Trudier Harris, ‘“The Yellow Rose of Texas’: A Different Cultural View” in Juneteenth Texas: Essays in African-American Folklore, ed. Francis Edward Abernethy et. al. (Denton, Texas: University of North Texas Press, 1996).

Contributor(s):

Harris, Trudier
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

 

More about Emily D. West sometimes referred too as “Emily Morgan”

https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/texas175/emilywest.html

http://libraries.uta.edu/speccoll/crose05/West.htm

http://www.emilymorganhotel.com/emily-morgan

http://www.texasescapes.com/LindaKirkpatrick/Yellow-Rose-of-Texas.htm

Alabama Coushatta

Alabama-Coushatta

Though recognized as two separate tribes, the Alabamas and Coushattas have long been considered one tribe culturally. They migrated from present-day Alabama beginning in 1763, eventually settling in the Big Thicket area of Southeast Texas. The Alabamas and Coushattas were skilled warriors but preferred to stay at peace. They fought with Stephen F. Austin in his campaigns against the Karankawas and in the Fredonian Rebellion, and successfully drove the Comanches out of their territory in 1839. Their assistance to the Texans during the Runaway Scrape in 1836 won them the friendship of even such an inveterate Indian fighter as Mirabeau B. Lamar.

In 1853, the Alabamas moved to a reservation in Polk County, where they were joined by the Coushattas in 1859. They helped move military supplies for Texas during the Civil War. Their support won praise from Confederate governors Francis R. Lubbock and Pendleton Murrah. However, the 1870s saw the two tribes reach a low point, as an influx of white settlers into their lands destroyed their traditional way of life.

In the 1880s, the Alabamas and Coushattas began to build new lives, becoming experts in the burgeoning lumber industry and embracing both Christianity and education as anchors in their lives. During these years, an attorney from Livingston, J.C. Feagin, became a tireless advocate for the tribes. Feagin worked for decades to gain federal assistance for land and educational opportunities that would enable the tribes to be economically self-sufficient once again. This effort finally began to pay off in the 1920s, when the government purchased an additional 3000 acres of land that helped make the Alabama-Coushatta more competitive farmers. The federal government also paid for additional educational facilities, a gymnasium, and a hospital.

Since then, Alabama-Coushatta affairs have been alternately under both state and federal jurisdiction. The tribes formally incorporated under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and developed both a constitution and by-laws.

One of only three Indian reservations in Texas, the Alabama-Coushatta reservation represents the distinctive heritage of this small yet proud group. Until recently, the tribe offered tours, a museum, and cultural events for tourists; unfortunately, these services are no longer in operation. Regardless, visitors are encouraged to spend time at the reservation’s campground or fishing on Lake Tombigbee.

Located on 4,600 acres of dense woodland close to the center of the Big Thicket National Preserve, the Alabama-Coushatta reservation was established in 1854 by Sam Houston as a reward to the tribes for their courage in remaining neutral during the Texas War for Independence from Mexico. Both groups had been living in the Big Thicket area since circa 1800, when they migrated westward to hunt and build homes out of the abundant East Texas timber.

White settlers displaced countless tribe members, prompting many Coushattas to relocate near Kinder, Louisiana, where a majority still resides today. Malnutrition and disease took their toll on the Alabama-Coushatta, resulting in a disturbingly low population of 200 members in the late 1800s.

By the 1920s, the state and federal government recognized their poor living conditions and appropriated funds to purchase additional land, construct frame houses to replace meager log cabins, dig wells to help eliminate long water treks to natural springs, and provide medical and educational resources.

Despite the recent closing of the tribe’s cultural facilities, the reservation still operates the popular Lake Tombigbee Campground, offering primitive sites, teepees, full-capacity RV stations, new restrooms with bathhouses, swimming areas, and hiking and nature trails.

Call 936/563-1221 or 800/926-9038 for camping information and to obtain a map of the facilities. For additional information about the tribe, call 936/563-1100 or visit www.alabama-coushatta.com.

© Andy Rhodes from Moon Texas, 6th Edition

Pakana Indians

Pakana Indians of Polk Co., Texas

Redbones & Pakana Indians Texas Burgess Settlement

We now come to peoples incorporated in the Muskhogean confederation which were probably distinct bodies and yet not certainly possessed of a peculiar dialect like the Hitchiti, Alabama, and other tribes of foreign origin already considered. The Pakana are given by Adair as one of those people which the Muskogee had “artfully” induced to incorporate with them, and he is confirmed as to the main fact by Stiggins, whose account of them is as follows:

The Puccunnas at this day are only known by tradition to have been a distinct people and their ancient town or habitation is called Puccun Tal ahassee which is Puccun old town. This ancient town is in the present Coosa County of this State [Alabama]. The Au-bih-kas have a tradition that they were a distinct people and that they in old times were very numerous, but do not say whether they were immigrants or not, or at what time they became one of the national body. But they say as they belonged to the national body one and inseparable there was no distinction made so that by continual intermarriage with the other tribes they at length became absorbed and assimilated with their neighbors without distinction and no other knowledge is left regarding them but the name of their ancient habitation. Whether in conversation they had a separate tongue of their own or not tradition is silent.1

Not much can be added to this. There is a tradition among the modern Creeks that the Pakana separated from the Abihka, but it is evidently due to the proximity of the two peoples in ancient times and the number of intermarriages which took place between them. Again, an old Hilibi man told me that this town was founded by a Wiogufki Indian named Bakna, who held the first busk in his own yard, and whose name became attached to the new town. But Pakana was in existence long before Wiogufki. Wakokai, the mother town of Wiogufki, and the Pakana town were, however, located near each other, and to the close relations thence arising we may attribute the tradition. It is confusing to find the name Pakan tallahassee [Påkån talahasi] (“Pakana old town”) used for these people in the very earliest mention of them, the De Crenay map of 1733.2 Since we hear shortly afterwards of a Pakana tribe-distinct from the Pakan tallahassee, which first settled near Fort Toulouse and later migrated to Louisiana — a suggestion is raised whether the Pakan tallahassee may not have been Muskogee or other Indians who had occupied a site abandoned by the Pakana proper. We have something similar in the case of the Tukabahchee talla-hassee, who were really an outsettlement of Okfuskee Indians.3 While such an interpretation is possible I think the real fact was that a single tribe split in two after Fort Toulouse was established, one part locating near it as a convenient market. At that time the original body may have received the name “old town Pakana” to distinguish them from the emigrants. It is indeed strange that on the De Crenay map we find ”old town Pakana” (Pakanatalaché), but no Pakana.2 Still, this is not conclusive, for Fort Toulouse had probably been in existence 18 years when the map was prepared and the Pakana in its neighborhood may well have been overlooked. Both bodies appear in the lists of 1750, 1760,4 and 1761, in which last year William Struthers and J. Morgan were the officially recognized traders.5 In 1797 the trader was “John Proctor, a half-breed.”6 The division known as Pakan tallahassee appears also in the list of 17387 and those of Bartram, Swan, and Hawkins, and on the census rolls of 1832.8 In 1768, or shortly before, it was burned by the Choctaw.9 Hawkins derives the name “from E-puc-cun-nau, a may apple, and tal-lau-has-see, old town.” The first word signifies properly “a peach” — Katabuya is May apple — but it is doubtful whether its original meaning was related to either. The name Pakana may have a long antecedent history and a totally different origin. Hawkins adds:

It is in the fork of a creek which gives name to the town; the creek joins on the left side of Coosau, forty miles below Coo-sau town.10

Alabama and Coushatta Indians of Louisiana & Texas http://redbonenation.com/2013/02/22/alabama-coushatta/

Alabama and Coushatta Indians of Louisiana & Texas
http://redbonenation.com/2013/02/22/alabama-coushatta/

After the removal they settled in the southern part of the Creek Nation near Hanna, Oklahoma, and have maintained their square ground in the same place ever since.

The Pakana who settled near Fort Toulouse probably never rejoined their kindred. From a letter written by M. d’Abbadie, governor of Louisiana, April 10, 1764, we know that they emigrated to Red River at the same time as the Taensa and Apalachee.11 He calls them “Pakanas des Alibamons,” either from the name of the French post or from the fact that they were supposed to be related to the Alabama Indians. The former supposition is, I believe, correct, since in the census of 1760 we find them classed as ” Alybamons,” not merely with the Koasati and Tuskegee, but also with the Okchai, some Coosa Indians, and some Indians called ”Thomapas”; while, on the other hand, the Muklasa, Tawasa, and part of the Coosa are put among the ”Talapouches,”13 Indians on Tallapoosa River. Evidently the classification is geographical, not linguistic. Later these Pakana settled upon Calcasieu River in southwestern Louisiana, as shown in the following account given by Sibley:

Pacanas, are a small tribe of about thirty men, who live on the Quelqueshoe [Calcasieu] River, which falls into the bay between Attakapa and Sabine, which heads in a prairie, called Cooko prairie, about forty miles southwest of Natchitoches. These people are likewise emigrants from West Florida, about forty years ago. Their village is about fifty miles southeast of the Conchattas; are said to be increasing a little in number; quiet, peaceable, and friendly people. Their own language differs from any other, but speak Mobilian.14

Still later some or all of these Pakana united with the Alabama living in Texas, where they are still remembered. The last survivor was an old woman who died many years ago. Her language was said to be distinct from Alabama, which would naturally be the case if it was Muskogee.

Redbones & Pakana Indians Texas Burgess Settlement

map15_earlytrailsoftejas

PAKANA MUSKOGEE INDIANS. In 1834 the Pakana Muskogee Indians, a branch of the Muskogee or Creek Indian group, entered Texas and established a village near the site of present Onalaska in western Polk County. The Pakana Muskogees had lived near the Alabama and Coushatta Indians in the vicinity of Fort Toulouse, a few miles north of Montgomery, Alabama, and moved to Louisiana shortly after 1763. Dr. John Sibley, Indian agent for the United States, reported in 1805 that approximately 150 Pakana Muskogees were living on Calcasieu Bayou, forty miles southwest of Natchitoches, Louisiana. An early chief of the Pakana Muskogees, John Blount, received a silver medal for his services as a guide for Gen. Andrew Jackson during the Seminole War in Florida. After the death of John Blount while enroute to Texas in 1834, this medal was passed to subsequent chiefs of the tribe: David Ellett, Bill Blount, John Blount (grandson of the earlier chief with the same name), and Alex Davis. In 1834 the Pakana Muskogees moved to a site on Penwau Slough two miles east of its junction with the Trinity River in the area of present Polk County. This location was on a high hill, generally believed to be the peninsula that extends into Lake Livingston and is known as Indian Hill. John Burgess, a Frenchman who purchased 640 acres of land along Kickapoo Creek, married a member of the Pakana Muskogees and later invited the other tribal members to move to the Burgess Survey. This property was inherited by Burgess’s wife and subsequently by other members of the tribe and became the permanent home of the Pakana Muskogees in Polk County. In 1859 Texas Governor Hardin R. Runnels appointed James Barclay to serve as agent for the Muskogees, as well as for the Alabamas and Coushattas who lived in Polk County. Responsibility for the Muskogees was included also in the duties of agents appointed for the Polk County Indians in 1861–65, 1867, 1868, and 1872. On November 12, 1866, the Texas legislature passed an act granting the Polk County Muskogees 320 acres of land. Unfortunately for the Muskogees, this land was never purchased, and they continued to live on the John Burgess Survey. The population of this Pakana Muskogee community declined slowly almost from the date of the tribe’s first appearance in Polk County: fifty were counted in 1859; forty-two were reported in 1882. Illness and absorption by the nearby Alabamas and Coushattas probably were the main reasons for the Muskogee’s decreasing population. In 1899, persuaded by Creek Indians from Oklahoma, John Blount and many of the Polk County Muskogees went to the Creek Nation in Oklahoma to live. Only a few-less than ten-Pakana Muskogees remained in their settlement on the John Burgess Survey.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ralph Henry Marsh, The History of Polk County, Texas, Indians (M.A. thesis, Sul Ross State Teachers College, 1941). John R. Swanton, Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73 (Washington: GPO, 1922). John R. Swanton, The Indians of the Southeastern United States (Washington: GPO, 1946). John R. Swanton, The Indian Tribes of North America (Gross Pointe, Michigan: Scholarly Press, 1968). Dorman H. Winfrey and James M. Day, eds., Texas Indian Papers (4 vols., Austin: Texas State Library, 1959–61; rpt., 5 vols., Austin: Pemberton Press, 1966).

Howard N. Martin

Citation

The following, adapted from the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, is the preferred citation for this article.

Howard N. Martin, “PAKANA MUSKOGEE INDIANS,” Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/bmp97), accessed July 31, 2015. Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

Footnotes:

  1. Stiggins, MS., p. 5.
  2. Plate 5; also Hamilton, Col. Mobile, p. 190.
  3. See p. 247.
  4. MSS., Ayer Lib.; Miss. Col. Arch., I, p. 95.
  5. Ga. Col. Docs., VIII, p. 523.
  6. Hawkins in Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., IX, p. 169.
  7.  MS., Ayer Lib.
  8. Bartram, Travels, p. 461; Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, IV, p. 578; V, p. 262; Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, p. 25; Senate Doc. 512, 23d Cong., 2d sess., IV, pp 285-286.
  9. Eng. Trans., MS., Lib. Cong.
  10. Ga. Hist. Soc. Colls.,III, p.41.
  11. Amer. Antiq., XIII, pp. 252-253.
  12.  Miss. Prov. Arch, I, p. 94.
  13. Sibley in Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 3d sess., 1086 (l806-07).

 

Notes About Book:

Source: Swanton, John R., Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Pub. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 73. Washington, 1922.

Notes about Online Publication: This manuscript has been ocr’d and heavily edited. Many of the Native American words have been reproduced as clearly as online publication will allow us, but not all are exactly the way they were in the original work. The structure of this manuscript has been changed to allow better online presentation.

Coushatta Connections

Redbone connections to the Coushatta’s and a small band of Muskogee Creek Indians of Texas. Reportedly Elizabeth Burgess who is my Great Grandmother was the daughter of a full blooded French man and a Coushatta wife. Elizabeth Burgess was the wife of Leonard Covington Sweat of the notorious & bloody Rawhide Fight, in Louisiana, and the parents of Matilda “Tilly” Sweat who married Emanuel Command Nash. Here is my favorite pic of out of all the pics of my ancestors I am fortunate to have.
Elizabeth Sweat Mason Nash, my great-great Grandmother holding her son, my great grandfather Guide Emanuel Nash.
 

PAKANA MUSKOGEE INDIANS. In 1834 the Pakana Muskogee Indians, a branch of the Muskogee or Creek <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/indians/CREEK%20INDIANS.cfm> Indian group, entered Texas and established a village near the site of present Onalaska in western Polk County. The Pakana Muskogees had lived near the Alabama <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/indians/ALABAMA-COUSHATTA.cfm> and Coushatta <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/indians/COUSHATTA%20INDIANS.cfm> Indians in the vicinity of Fort Toulouse, a few miles north of Montgomery, Alabama, and moved to Louisiana shortly after 1763. Dr. John Sibley <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/Rivers/red/SIBLEY.cfm>, Indian agent for the United States, reported in 1805 that approximately 150 Pakana Muskogees were living on Calcasieu Bayou, forty miles southwest of Natchitoches, Louisiana. An early chief of the Pakana Muskogees, John Blount, received a silver medal for his services as a guide for Gen. Andrew Jackson during the Seminole War in Florida. After the death of John Blount while enroute to Texas in 1834, this medal was passed to subsequent chiefs of the tribe: David Ellett, Bill Blount, John Blount (grandson of the earlier chief with the same name), and Alex Davis. In 1834 the Pakana Muskogees moved to a site on Penwau Slough two miles east of its junction with the Trinity River <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/Rivers/TRINITY%20RIVER.cfm> in the area of present Polk County. This location was on a high hill, generally believed to be the peninsula that extends into Lake Livingston and is known as Indian Hill. John Burgess, a Frenchman who purchased 640 acres of land along Kickapoo Creek, married a member of the Pakana Muskogees and later invited the other tribal members to move to the Burgess Survey. This property was inherited by Burgess’s wife and subsequently by other members of the tribe and became the permanent home of the Pakana Muskogees in Polk County. In 1859 Texas Governor Hardin R. Runnels <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/people/hrRUNNELS.cfm> appointed James Barclay to serve as agent for the Muskogees, as well as for the Alabamas and Coushattas who lived in Polk County. Responsibility for the Muskogees was included also in the duties of agents appointed for the Polk County Indians in 1861-65, 1867, 1868, and 1872. On November 12, 1866, the Texas legislature passed an act granting the Polk County Muskogees 320 acres of land. Unfortunately for the Muskogees, this land was never purchased, and they continued to live on the John Burgess Survey. The population of this Pakana Muskogee community declined slowly almost from the date of the tribe’s first appearance in Polk County: fifty were counted in 1859; forty-two were reported in 1882. Illness and absorption by the nearby Alabamas and Coushattas probably were the main reasons for the Muskogee’s decreasing population. In 1899, persuaded by Creek Indians from Oklahoma, John Blount and many of the Polk County Muskogees went to the Creek Nation in Oklahoma to live. Only a few-less than ten-Pakana Muskogees remained in their settlement on the John Burgess Survey.
map15_earlytrailsoftejas
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ralph Henry Marsh, The History of Polk County, Texas, Indians (M.A. thesis, Sul Ross State Teachers College, 1941). John R. Swanton, Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73 (Washington: GPO, 1922). John R. Swanton, The Indians of the Southeastern United States (Washington: GPO, 1946). John R. Swanton, The Indian Tribes of North America (Gross Pointe, Michigan: Scholarly Press, 1960. Dorman H. Winfrey and James M. Day, eds., Texas Indian Papers (4 vols., Austin: Texas State Library, 1959-61; rpt., 5 vols., Austin: Pemberton Press, 1966).
Howard N. Martin
Recommended citation:
“PAKANA MUSKOGEE INDIANS.” The Handbook of Texas Online. <<http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/PP/bmp97.html>>
Send mail to info@rra.dst.tx.us <mailto:info@rra.dst.tx.us> with questions or comments about this website
Copyright © 1999-2004 Red River Authority of Texas
This page dynamically generated: Thu, February 24, 2005 at 19:23:39 CST
Notes
  BATTISE TRACE. The Battise Trace was one of the trails radiating from the village of Long King,qv the principal chief of the Coushatta Indians in Texas during the first three decades of the nineteenth century. This trace connected Long King’s Village in southern Polk County with Battise Village, near the mouth of Kickapoo Creek on the Trinity River in San Jacinto County. From Long King’s Village the Battise Trace extended northwestward on the east side of the Trinity River in Polk County, went across Garner’s Prairie south of Blanchard, led through the headwaters of Penwa Slough, and then crossed Caney Creek, Sandy Creek, and Kickapoo Creek. Next, the trail turned southeast near Onalaska, crossed the Trinity River near the mouth of Kickapoo Creek at a point where Duncan’s Ferry (later Patrick’s Ferry) was established, and proceeded to Battise Village in San Jacinto County. The Coushatta Traceqv crossed the Trinity at the same place, and Patrick’s Ferry continued to be used until the development of automobiles and a state system of roads and bridges.
The trail between Long King’s Village and Battise Village is mentioned six times in surveyors’ field notes for land surveys in western Polk County. A typical entry related to the Battise Trace may be found in the field notes for the Thomas Burrus Survey, which refer to “a road leading from the Long King’s Village to the Baptiest (Battise) Village.”
KICKAPOO TRACE. The Kickapoo Trace was a trail leading from the village of the Kickapoo Indians in the area of present Frankston in northeastern Anderson County to the John Burgess survey in the area of western Polk County. The trail followed a route southward near the site of present Neches and Slocum in Anderson County, across present Houston County fifteen miles east of Crockett, through the area of Trinity County eight miles west of Groveton, and then across the present western boundary of Polk County to merge with the Coushatta Traceqv in the John Burgess survey on Kickapoo Creek. The length of the Kickapoo Trace was ninety miles. The trail was apparently used by the Kickapoo Indians to contact Coushatta Indians along the Trinity River and to get to the Coushatta Trace for travel to the interior of Texas. Although a creek in western Polk County was named Kickapoo Creek, there is no evidence that members of the Kickapoo tribe ever established a village in this area.

Founders of America

Image

Founders Of America

FROM THE EARLIEST MIGRATIONS
TO THE PRESENT

Francis Jennings

Such intrusion was beyond toleration by Louis XIV, “the Sun King,” who had taken personal charge of his government in 1661, intending to conquer a great empire and to rule it absolutely. He was as aggressive in North America as in Europe (though a mite thriftier) and his government took steps to stop the advance of those rude Carolinians. Thus, missions were founded at Cahokia (1699) and farther south where the Kaskaskia River falls into the Mississippi (1703).

 

Most important in terms of long-range strategy, the ministry chose Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville to campaign on the Gulf coast and in the Mississippi Valley to assure France’s control. Iberville was a veteran of such frontier struggles in New France. He promptly built Fort Maurepas (1699) at Biloxi (Mississippi), and laid the groundwork for a new colony of Louisiana which flourished in the eighteenth century and did indeed thrust the Carolinians back east of the Appalachians.


Ca. 1  Teotihuacán rose to prominence 
500  Identifiable remains of Hohokam, Anasazi, and Mogollon peoples (in U.S. Southwest) 
600  Beginnings of Cahokia (Ill.) 
Ca. 750  Teotihuacán abandoned 
Ca. 800  Mesoamericans in the Mississippi Valley; introduction to Mississippi Valley of improved variety of maize 
900-1110  Toltecs flourished at Tula 
1132  City of Texcoco founded according to Sahagún’s informants 
1200  Probable maximum population of North American Indians 
1000-1300  Anasazi communities flourished 
1300  Most recent migration of Delawares from west to east; Mississippians withdrew southward; Onondaga culture showed marked change; Apacheans began to separate into tribes 
1358  Tlatelolco founded 
1390  Traditional origin date of the League of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) 
1400  Athapascans migrated to U.S. Southwest 
1428  Alliance of Tenochtitlán, Tlatelolco, and Texcoco defeated Azcapotzalco 
1430  Ruler Itzcoatl ordered destruction and substitution of Tenochtitlán’s records 
1473  Tenochtitlán triumphed over Tlatelolco 
1486  Huitzilopochtli’s new temple dedicated in Tenochtitlán 
1490  Spain began to colonize the Canary Islands 
1492  Columbus made landfall in the Caribbean Sea 
1493  Pope Alexander VI granted Amerindian lands to the Spanish crown 
1494  Columbus sent 500 enslaved Indians to the market in Seville; Rome was invaded by French King Charles VIII 
1498  Census by Bartholomew Columbus listed 1,100,000 natives in half of Hispaniola 


1500  Royal decree arrived in Hispaniola making Indians vassals of the crown, otherwise personally free; it was generally ignored 
1502  Las Casas arrived in Hispaniola 
1511  Montesinos preached against slavery on Hispaniola 
1513  Balboa claimed for Spain the lands bordering the Pacific Ocean 
1515  Las Casas converted to anti-slavery for Indians 
1517  Martin Luther’s attack on Papal Indulgences 
1518  Population of Central Mexico estimated at 25,200,000 by Borah and Cook 
1519  Cortés landed on coast of Mexico 
1520  Smallpox carried from Cuba to Mexico 
1521  Ponce de León failed to conquer Florida 
1525  Probable time of Apacheans’ arrival in U.S. Southwest; three of Cortés letters describing conquest published 
1527  City of Rome plundered by army of Emperor Charles V 
1534, 1535  Jacques Cartier voyaged and wintered among St. Lawrence Iroquoians 
1536  Royal College of Santa Cruz founded in Mexico 
1539  De Soto invaded Florida and the Gulf region 
1540  Coronado invaded Acoma and other Pueblos 
1551  Emperor Charles V founded the National University of Mexico 
1559  Establishment of the Spanish Inquisition’s Index of forbidden books 
1564  Beginning of the annual fleet of trading galleons from Mexico to the Philippines 
1565  Menéndez massacred the French colony at Fort Caroline; San Agustin founded in Florida 
1570  Jesuit mission founded and destroyed by local Indians on Chesapeake Bay 
1571  The Inquisition came to New Spain; it had little interest in Indians 
1579  Francis Drake’s Golden Hind harbored near San Francisco on its trip around the world 
1580  By this year, 500 vessels per year took part in North American fisheries, making them one of Europe’s biggest industries 
1585
  Ralegh’s Roanoke colony founded 
1588  The Netherlands and England defeated the Spanish “Invincible Armada” 
1597  Guale Indians (of Georgia) rebelled against Spanish missions and were suppressed 
1598  Juan de Oñate conquered the Rio Grande Pueblos; Philip II of Spain died 
1607  Jamestown (Va.) founded 
1608  Quebec founded 
1609  Champlain aided Algonquins and Montagnais in war against Mohawks 


1610  Santa Fé founded 
1614  Dutch traders founded a year-round trading post on the upper Hudson River 
1620  New Plymouth founded 
1622  Powhatan rising against Virginia colony 
1624  Dutch West India Company founded Manhattan and built Fort Orange (Albany, N.Y.) 
1630  Massachusetts Bay founded 
1632  Publication of Chronicles of Bernal Diaz del Castillo 
1634  Maryland founded 
1636  Massachusetts and Connecticut warred against Pequots; Harvard College founded 
1638  New Sweden founded 
1640  New Netherland’s Willem Kieft warred against surrounding tribes, and had to hire English mercenaries to win. 
1642  Montreal founded; Maryland defeated Susquehannocks 
1643  Susquehannocks, with Swedish help, defeated Maryland; Mayhew mission began on Martha’s Vineyard 
1644  The second rising and suppression of the Powhatans 
1646  Massachusetts founded John Eliot’s mission with Col. Daniel Gookin as administrator 
1648  Semen Dezhnev’s voyage through the Bering Strait 
1649-1655  Mohawks and Senecas broke up the Huron confederation and drove the people out of Ontario, after which they scattered the other Iroquoian tribes between lakes Erie and Ontario 
1656  Jesuit mission founded near Ontario; Timucuans of Florida rebelled against missions and were suppressed 
1658  Mohawks ruined the mission near Onondaga; Esopus Indians rose against New Netherland 
1659  10,000 Florida Indians died of measles 
1659-1660  Des Groseilliers and Radisson traded near Hudson Bay for the first time 
1661  Louis XIV began personal rule 
1664  Second Esopus rising; New Netherland conquered by Duke of York’s fleet 
1666  De Tracy burned Mohawk villages 
1668  Des Groseilliers sailed from England to Hudson Bay wintered there at “Charles Fort”; Fathers Claude Dablon and Jacques Marquette founded Mission Saulte Ste. Marie 
1669  Praying Indians of Massachusetts attacked Mohawks and were defeated 
1670  Charles Town (S.C.) founded; English crown chartered Hudson’s Bay Company 
1671  Hudson’s Bay Company set up its first “factory”; Father Mar
 quette founded Mission Saint-Ignace at Michilimackinac; Dau
mont de Saint-Lusson officially claimed the entire Northwest for France; a French trading post was set up to compete with the Hudson’s Bay Company 
1673  Jolliet and Marquette found the Mississippi for the French, and canoed down it to Arkansas; Iroquois pleaded with Frontenac to save them from his rampaging allies 
1674  Edmund Andros arrived as New York’s governor 
1675  Intersocietal wars in New England and the Chesapeake Bay region 
1677  The Covenant Chain founded 
1680  South Carolina, with Shawnee allies, destroyed the Westos; Pueblos, outraged by efforts to ruin their religion, revolted, captured Santa Fe, and drove out Spaniards 
1681  French crown chartered Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson; English crown chartered colony of Pennsylvania; proprietors of Carolina ordered trade in guns as means of creating tribal dependence 
1682  La Salle cruised down the Mississippi River to its mouth; French took prisoner the crews of English ships in Hudson Bay; the Hudson’s Bay Company expanded from one post to three 
1684  Onondaga chief Garangula humiliated New France’s Governor La Barre 
1685  New York’s Governor Dongan sent a successful trading party from Albany to Michilimackinac 
1686  French intercepted a large trading party from Albany (intending to go to Michilimackinac) and confiscated its goods; French seized all but one Hudson Bay English posts 
1691  Jacques Le Tort’s expedition from Burlington (N.J.) via Susquehanna, Allegheny, Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers made contact with “over forty” native peoples 
1692  Shawnee band, with Martin Chartier, arrived in Pennsylvania after leaving Tonty’s Fort St. Louis; Spaniards reconquered Pueblo Indians and restored Santa Fé 
1698  Dr. Daniel Coxe planned a giant English colony to be called Carolana which would conflict with territories pre-empted by the French; it never came to anything 
1699  Le Moyne de Iberville built Fort Maurepas at Biloxi (Miss.); French mission founded at Cahokia 
1700  Hopis massacred male villagers of Awatovi who had decided to receive Spanish priests 


 
1701  Iroquois made peace with New France and its allies; French founded Detroit; Iroquois refused to attack Detroit, but gave New York a 
“deed” to it; William Penn treated with the Susquehannocks for trade and cession of their valley 
1701-1713  Queen Anne’s War 
1703  French mission founded at junction of Kaskaskia River with Mississippi 
1708  By this date, Carolina traders had seized 10,000 to 12,000 Spanish mission Indians and had sold them into West Indian slavery 
1710  Treaty at Conestoga between Pennsylvania and the Iroquois League was kept secret from New York 
1711  Mobile (Ala.) made capital of Louisiana 
1712  Dubuisson and allies massacred Foxes fleeing from Detroit; Tuscaroras warred against Virginia; large-scale immigration began to Pennsylvania from Rhineland and Ulster; Louis XIV gave Louisiana to Antoine Crozat 
1715  Yamasees warred against South Carolina 
1716  Louvigny led a trading expedition in the guise of war against the Foxes 
1717  Antoine Crozat surrendered his profitless charter for Louisiana 
1718  New Orleans founded as new capital of Louisiana; John Law given Louisiana as the Company of the Indies which soon went bankrupt ; Michel Bisaillon gave information to James Logan that stimulated the English Board of Trade to aggressive new policies; William Penn died in England 
1724  Local French commander exterminated the Natchez nation to gain their lands; some survivors were given refuge and protection by the Chickasaws 
1728  Vitus Bering’s voyage through Bering Strait 
1730  French and allies massacred Foxes trekking eastward in hope of sanctuary among Iroquois 
1731  Company of the Indies surrendered its Louisiana charter 
1733  English colony of Georgia founded 
1734  French defeated by Foxes and allies in battle of Butte des Morts 
1737  Beauharnois made peace with Foxes under pressure from his Indian allies; the “Walking Purchase” took place in Pennsylvania 
1738  Gaultier de La Vérendyre made the first official visit to the Mandans ; coureurs de bois had preceded him 
1741  Bering’s voyage to mainland Alaska 
1742  Acceding to Pennsylvania’s wishes, Onondaga Chief Canasatego ordered the Delawares off their land; he fabricated an Iroquois conquest supposedly making the Delawares into “women”; this became a support for the myth of a giant Iroquois “empire” over other Indians 
1744  The Russian fur trade was extended to the Aleutian Islands 
1744-1748  King George’s War 
1749  Céloron de Blainville toured Ohio tribes to demand expulsion of Pennsylvania traders and was rebuffed 
1750  The Ohio Company of Virginia formed 
1752  Virginia’s treaty at Logstown (Ambridge, Pa.) with tribes resident in Ohio Country 
1753  French expelled Pennsylvania’s traders from Ohio Country; George Washington took Virginia’s demand that French abandon their forts in the Ohio Country 
1754  Washington capitulated to French at Fort Necessity; Albany Congress of English colonies with Iroquois 
1754-1763  The Seven Years War (or “French and Indian War”) 
1755  Braddock routed at Fort Duquesne; Vaudreuil instigated Indian raids on English outpost colonials 
1758  At a treaty at Easton (Pa.), Delawares agreed to leave the French in return for a promise of a boundary line between Indians and colonials; Forbes captured Fort Duquesne 
1763  Treaty of Paris took France out of North America by cession of claimed lands to Britain and Spain; “Pontiac’s Conspiracy” besieged British forts in the Old Northwest; Fort Pitt’s garrison created a smallpox epidemic among the Delawares; British crown proclaimed a boundary line between colonials and Indians 
1769  Captain Will’s Shawnees captured Daniel Boone and freed him after confiscating his goods and gear; Spaniards founded Mission San Diego as the first in a series extending northward along the California coast 
1773  Creeks ceded territory 
1774  Lord Dunmore warred against the Shawnees; Iroquois refused to help them; Mingo James Logan’s family massacred; the Quebec Act legislated a boundary between English colonies and crown lands reserved to the Indians 
1776  United States declared Independence; Cherokee rising suppressed by South Carolina and Virginia 
1776-1783  The War for American Independence 
1777 1778  The Battle of Oriskany set Iroquois against Iroquois; Iroquois grand council “covered the council fire”; Americans won the Battle of Saratoga Delawares proposed creation of an Indian state with themselves at its head; Congress ignored the proposal; Captain James Cook landed on Vancouver Island 
1779  Sullivan’s army destroyed Iroquois towns 
1783  Treaty of Paris recognized U.S. independence and ceded British territorial claims; it made no mention of Indian rights 
1784  Treaty of Fort Stanwix between Iroquois and U.S. 
1786  New Mexico’s Governor Bernardo de Galvez inaugurated policy of treaties and trade with Apacheans; Grigori Shelikhov began Russian conquest of Alaska 
1787  Northwest Ordinance provided for organization of Old Northwest into States 
1788  Kentucky lands claimed by Shawnees, ceded by Iroquois 
1790  General Harmar’s army defeated by western Indian confederation ; the Trade and Intercourse Act enacted 
1791  Vermont admitted as a State; General St. Clair’s army routed by western Indian confederation 
1792  Kentucky admitted as a State 
1794  Russian missionaries arrived on Kodiak Island; General Wayne defeated the western confederation at Fallen Timbers 
1795  The Treaty of Greenville re-established a boundary between Indian territories and the U.S. 
1796  Tennessee admitted as a State 
1799  Russian American Company granted monopoly of fur trade; most Russian missionaries died in a shipwreck; Onondaga Handsome Lake had a vision that began the Longhouse religion 


 
1802  Tlingit Indians destroyed New Archangel (Sitka) 
1803  William Henry Harrison’s Treaty of Fort Wayne obtained cession of 1,152,000 acres under dubious circumstances; Napoleon Buonaparte sold the Louisiana Territory to the U.S. 
1804-1806  Meriwether Lewis and William Clark explored the U.S. Northwest all the way to the Pacific Coast 
1805  Tlingit Indians destroyed Yakutat 
1807-1808  Black Hoof’s Shawnee farm and mission ruined by official decision after hopeful start 
1811  William Henry Harrison defeated Tenskwatawa’s Shawnees and allies at Tippecanoe 
1812-1815  “The War of 1812” 
1813  William Henry Harrison defeated the British and Indian allies at the Battle of the Thames in which Tecumseh was killed 
1814  Andrew Jackson defeated the Creeks at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, after which he forced cession of 20,000,000 acres 
1815  Jackson and Lafitte won the Battle of New Orleans 
1818  Jackson seized Pensacola (Florida) 
1820-1823  Mexico became independent and abolished the legal status of “Indian” by absorbing it into “citizen” 
1821  Stephen Austin brought “Anglos” to Texas; Hudson’s Bay Company acquired North West Company 
1823  Oneidas settled at Green Bay 
1825  Erie Canal opened 
1830  President Jackson’s administration enacted the Indian Removal Law to force Indians west of the Mississippi; ultimatum given to Choctaws at Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek 
1831  De Tocqueville observed Choctaws on their “trail of tears” 
1833  Japanese junk wrecked near Queen Charlotte’s Island after drifting across the Pacific 
1834-1836  California missions secularized by Mexico 
1835  Cherokees, at Treaty of New Echota, accepted removal west of the Mississippi 
1836  Cherokee “trail of tears”; Texas seceded from Mexico 
1837  Seminole Chief Osceola was seized at treaty negotiations and imprisoned; he died in prison 
1837-1838  Smallpox destroyed the Mandan Indians 
1838  The “blatantly corrupt” purchase of Seneca land by the Ogden Land Company 
1841  Migration began on the Oregon Trail 
1842  Allegany and Cattaraugus reservations were confirmed to the Seneca Indians 
1845  Texas admitted as a State 
1846-1848  War between the United States and Mexico 
1848  Mexico’s provinces north of the Rio Grande were ceded to the U.S. by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; most Senecas replaced their traditional hereditary government with elected officers; Tonawanda kept the traditional system 
1849  The gold rush to California began 
1854  Japan was opened to western trade by Admiral Matthew Perry 
1857  Seminoles accepted a cash payment to move west; massacre at Mountain Meadows (Utah) 
1861  Texas seceded from the United States to join the Confederate States 
1861-1865  The Civil War in the United States 
1867  Russia sold its North American colony to the U.S. 
1869
  Texas re-admitted to the United States 
1870  Congress substituted “agreements” for “treaties” 
1875  Comanches surrendered after war with the U.S. 
1876  Massacre of Custer’s cavalry troop at Little Big Horn 
1880  Full publication of Fr. Diego Durán’s manuscript about Mexican Indians 
1887  The General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) passed 
1890  U.S. Indian population at nadir; massacre of Chief Big Foot’s Sioux at Wounded Knee; U.S. census proclaimed “the end of the frontier” 
1893  Oklahoma Territory opened to homesteaders; Spanish-American War and cession to U.S. of Philippines and Puerto Rico


 
1900  Hawaii annexed as a U.S. territory 
1900-1910  18,000,000 acres of tribal lands taken by U.S. 
1924  American Indians made U.S. citizens 
1934  John Collier’s Indian Reorganization Act enacted 
1946  The Philippines given independence by U.S. Congress; the Indian Claims Commission enacted 
1950  BIA initiated a relocation program to move Indians from reservations to urban areas; by this date 13.4 percent of American Indians had become urban, mostly by personal action 
1953  “Termination” begun with 13 tribes released from federal supervision ; American Society for Ethnohistory founded 
1959  Hawaii admitted as the 50th State 
1971  Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act enacted 
1973  “Wounded Knee II” on the Pine Ridge reservation; Menominee termination rescinded 
1977  Final report of U.S. Congress American Indian Policy Review Commission 
1978  American Indian Religious Freedom Act enacted; U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish leaned toward tribal termination 
1982  English translation of Sahagún’s manuscript about the Aztecs completed and published 
1990  At least half of U.S. Indians have become urban 


Miscegenation Laws

Miscegenation refers to sexual relations between people from different racial groups. It stems from the Latin words “miscere” and “genus,” which mean “to mix” and “race,” respectively. Various American states prohibited miscegenation, also referred to as race-mixing.

Act to Prohibit Intermarriage of Races P260

  • 1514 Spanish law of 19 October explicitly permits intermarriage with Indians; permission of intermarriages reenacted in 1515 and 1556; intermarriage with blacks neither encouraged nor prohibited.
  • 1527 Spanish royal decree of 11 May recommends that male slaves ought to marry female slaves as much as possible: “with marriage and their love for wives and children and orderly married life they will become more calm and much sin and trouble will be avoided.”
  • 1541 Another Spanish decree for the colonies recommends that black men be married to black women since reportedly Negro slaves kept “great numbers of Indian women, some of them voluntarily, others against their wishes.”
  • 1630 1 Laws of Virginia 146; Hugh Davis in Jamestown ordered whipped for “abusing himself to the dishonor of God and the shame of Christians by defiling his body in lying with a Negro” (Higginbotham and Kopytoff note that “we cannot tell the gender of the Negro” and speculate that the “extremely strong language may have reflected the Council’s revulsion at a homosexual rela-tionship”).
  • 1638 Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherland prohibits adulterous intercourse between whites and heathens, blacks or other persons, upon threat of exemplary punishment of the white party.
  • 1640 1 Laws of Virginia 552; “Robert Sweat is to do penance in church according to the law of England, for getting a negro woman with child, and the woman to be soundly whipped.”
  • 1649 ” William Watts and Mary (Mr. Cornelius Lloyds negro woman) are ordered each of them to doe penance by standing in a white sheete with a white Rodd in their hands in the Chapell of Elizabeth River in the face of the congregation on the next sabbath day that the minister shall make penince service and the said Watts to pay the court charges” ( Virginia case).
  • 1661 Maryland act condemns free-born English women who intermarry with Negro slaves: “whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarrywith any slave, shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; all the issues of such free-born women, so married, shall be slaves as their fathers were.” (According to Reuter, 78, children are condemned to 30-year slavery. Twenty years later amended to promise freedom to women and children if owner’s permis-sion was secured.)
  • 1662 First Virginia laws against intermarriage and against interracial sex: “if any christian shall committ ffornication with a negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending shall pay double the ffines imposed by the former act (which set fines for fornication at 500 pounds of tobacco].”
  • 1677 Pennsylvania law.
  • 1678 Political council of Cape colony prohibits marriages between Dutch burghers and freed slaves; reaffirmed by edict in 1685.
  • 1681 Maryland statute threatens punishment of any master who “instigated or merely allowed marriage between his white female servants and Black male slaves.”
  • 1685 Dutch Cape law prohibits marriage between white men and slave women; some legal unions of white men with free women of color continued to take place, but with decreasing frequency.
  • 1685 Article 9 of Code noir of Louis XIV threatens those men who live in concubinage with a (Negro) slave woman with the high fine of 2000 livres (pounds of sugar). Penalty could be avoided if the man so charged was unmarried and married the slave woman, which also legitimated any earlier offspring.
  • 1686 Code noir permits intermarriage between white men and slave women, but penalizes cohabitation.
  • 1691 Virginia law against “abominable mixture and spurious issue”: penalty for intermarriage is permanent removal from the domin-ion; white mothers of an illegitimate child by a Negro or Mulatto have to pay 15 pounds sterling and the child becomes a servant until age 30; 3 Laws of Va. 86, 87; reenacted in 1696(3 Laws of Va. 140) and 1705 (3 Laws of Va. 252, 453); punishment: banishment of white partner, minister who performs marriage has to pay 10,000 pounds of tobacco.
  • 1692 Acts of Maryland 76.
  • 1705 Virginia penalty for ministers performing intermarriages: 10,000 pounds of tobacco.
  • 1705 Massachusetts “Act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue” bans interracial fornication and marriage by statute. Section 1 prohibits fornication of “any negro or molatto man” “with an English woman, or a woman of any other Christian nation within this province,” punishable by whipping of both partners, the selling of the man out of the province within six months (after con-tinuous imprisonment), and pressing the woman into servitude if she is unable to maintain a child. Section 2 bans fornication of “any Englishman, or man of another Christian nation within this province.” “with a negro, or molatto woman,” punishable by whip-ping of only the man, who also shall pay a fine of five pounds and, if applicable, child support, and by the selling of the woman out of the province. Section 4 prohibits the contracting of matrimony between one of “her majesty’s English or Scottish subjects, [or] of any other Christian nation within this province” and “any negro or molatto,” threatening persons authorized who solemnize such a marriage with a fine of 50 pounds. Samuel Sewall polemicizes, without success, against the Act.
  • 1715  Laws of Maryland, ch. 44, sec. 25, providing for forced servitude of white women who had sexual relationships with black men.
  • 1715  North Carolina prohibits interracial marriage.
  • 1717  3 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, no. 383, at 20.
  • 1721  Delaware intermarriage ban.
  • 1724  French edict (of March) by Louis XV bans intermarriages between whites and blacks (but not whites and Indians) in Louisiana; this special Code noir for Louisiana also prohibits whites “or freeborn or
  • freed blacks” to live in concubinage with slaves; article 6 says: “Défendons à nos sujets blancs, de l’un et de l’autre sexe, de con-tracter mariage avec les Noirs, à paine de punition et d’amende arbitraire; et à tous curés, prêAtres ou missionaires, séculiers ou réguliers, et méme aux aumôniers de vaissaix de les marier.” (“We forbid our white subjects of either sex to contract marriage with blacks, under threat of punishment and fines; and forbid all clerics, priests, or missionaries, lay or ordained, and even ships’ chaplains, to marry them.”)
  • 1725  Pennsylvania forbids interracial marriage and cohabitation.
  • 1728  Maryland extends law to prohibit intermarriage and cohabitation between free mulatto women and black slaves; and subjects Negro women who have bastard children by white men to the same penal- ties as white women and Negro men.
  • 1738  Declaration prohibits the marriage of a slave while in France, open-ly ignored by Church.
  • 1741  1 Laws of North Carolina, ch. 35, sec. 15, at 157.
  • 1748  5 Laws of Virginia 548.
  • 1753  6 Laws of Virginia 111, 325, 361.
  • 1769  8 Laws of Virginia 358.
  • 1771  Viceroy of Portuguese Brazil orders degradation of an Amerindian chief, who, “disregarding the signal honours which he had received from the Crown, had sunk so low as to marry a Negress, staining his blood with this alliance.”
  • 1778  5 April: “Order of the Council of State forbidding all marriages between whites and blacks in France, on penalty of being expelled at once to the colonies.”
  • 1778  Spanish marriage regulation of 1776, requiring parental consent for couples under twenty-five (in order to prevent unequal alliances), is extended to overseas possessions with proviso that it is not to be applied to “Mulattoes, Negroes, Coyotes and other Cas-tas and similar races.”
  • 1780  Pennsylvania repeals its law of 1725.
  • 1786  Virginia bill, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, revises colonial mar-riage law, omitting reference to ecclesiastical authority but reenact-ing the following: “A marriage between a person of free condition and a slave, or between a white person and a negro, or between awhite person and a mulatto, shall be null.”
  • 1786  22 June: Massachusetts reenacts the colonial law, “That no person by this Act authorized to marry, shall join in marriage any white person with any Negro, Indian or Mulatto, on penalty of the sum of fifty pounds. . .; and that all such marriages shall be absolutely null and void.”


  • 1800-1900  “During the nineteenth century, as many as thirty-eight [U.S.] states prohibited interracial marriages.”
  • 1805  Spanish royal decree requires that persons of “pure blood” obtain permission of the viceroy or the audiencia in order to marry “ele-ments of Negro and Mulatto origin.”
  • 1808  Louisiana Civil Code 1808, page 24, article 8: “Free persons and slaves are incapable of contracting marriage together; the celebra-tion of such marriages is forbidden, and the marriage is void; it is the same with respect to the marriages contracted by free white persons with free people of color.”
  • 1819  First reported U.S. (postcolonial) case.
  • 1819  Midway v. Needham, 16 Mass. 157, upheld the validity of a marriage between a Mulatto man and a white woman, both domiciled in Massachusetts, “although celebrated in Rhode Island in order to avoid the Massachusetts law.”
  • 1825  Louisiana Civil Code continues the prohibition of marriage between slaves, free persons of color, and whites.
  • 1837  5 June: Texas act provides “It shall not be lawful for any person of Caucasian blood or their descendants to intermarry with Africansor the descendants of Africans.”
  • 1839  20 March: Lydia Maria Child petitions the Massachusetts House of Representatives to abolish antiamalgamation legislation.
  • 1841  19 January: Massachusetts House of Representatives petition by Wm. E. Channing and 42 other Bostonians to repeal intermarriage ban.
  • 1841  Rhode Island repeals its law banning intermarriage.
  • 1841  Pennsylvania bill passed in the House but defeated in the Senate.
  • 1843  Massachusetts repeals law.
  • 1849  Virginia Code, ch. 109, sec. 1, at 471 makes “any marriage between a white person and a Negro absolutely void without further legal process” (Higginbotham and Kopytoff 2007n, stress that before then children of mixed marriages were not illegitimate).
  • 1861  Ohio law forbids intermarriage between a person of pure white blood and one having a visible admixture of African blood.
  • 1869  Scott v. Georgia, 39 Ga. rep. 321, 324 ( 1869): “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the off-spring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate, and that they are inferior in physical development and
  • strength, to the full-blood of either race. It is sometimes urged that such marriages should be encouraged, for the purpose of elevating the inferior race. The reply is, that such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive ofevil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.”
  • 1869  Missouri supreme court approves a miscegenation law because “mixed marriages cannot possibly have any progeny and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid intermarriage of blacks and whites.”
  • 1871  State v. Gibson, 36 Indiana 389, 404, citing with approval: “The natural law which forbids their [black and white] intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures.”
  • 1871  Tennessee: Doc. Lonas v. State, 50 Tenn. 287, 310-11: “The laws of civilization demand that the races be kept apart in this country. The progress of either does not depend upon an admixture of blood. A sound philanthropy, looking to the public peace and the happiness of both races, would regard any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
  • 1877  Alabama supreme court, in Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190, 195, asserts state’s right to enforce intermarriage bans: “Manifestly, it is for the peace and happiness of the black race, as well as of the white, that such laws should exist. And surely there can not be any tyranny or injustice in requiring both alike, to form this union with those of their own race only, whom God hath joined together by indelible peculiarities, which declare that He has made the two races distinct.”
  • 1877  In the Virginia case of McPherson v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. 292, Judge Moncure decided that Rowena McPherson was permitted to marry a white man because “less than one-fourth of her blood is negro blood. If it be but one drop less, she is not a negro.”
  • 1877  Colorado passes the following laws only for the part settled by the United States (not valid in the part of Colorado settled by Mexico):  “All marriages between Negroes and mulattoes of either sex andwhite persons are declared absolutely void. . . . provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as to prevent people living in that portion of the State acquired from Mexico from marrying according to the custom of that country.” Penalties: “Fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not less than three months, nor more than two years.” Chapter 63, 1736, sec. 2, and 1737, sec. 3.
  • 1878  Virginia supreme court, in Kinney v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. 858, 869, considers it the state’s duty to protect the moral welfare of both races and ban miscegenation: “The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of our cherished southern civilization, under which two distinct races are to work out and accomplish the destiny to which the Almighty has assigned them on this continent — all require that they should be kept distinct and separate, and that con-nections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.”
  • 1880  Mississippi code bans intermarriage, declaring it to be “incestuous and void.” Statute provides the same punishment as for incest. Sec-tion 3244: “any party thereto, on conviction, shall be punished as for a marriage within the degrees prohibited by the last two sec-tions.”
  • 1881  Alabama supreme court, in Pace v. State, 69 Ala. 231, 232, upholds a statute more severely punishing adultery when it is interracial and stresses the hazardous effects of racial mixing: “Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound public policy affecting the highest interests of society and government.”
  • 1881  Florida act provides twelve months’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of $500 for a Negro and a white person of opposite sex who occupy the same room habitually. Penalty for violation of intermar-riage prohibition is prison up to ten years and a maximum fine of $500; for clergymen, priests, or public officials who solemnize such a union, it is prison up to one year and a fine up to $1000.
  • 1882  U.S. Supreme Court rules the Alabama Code’s harsher punishment of interracial fornication constitutional in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 — on the grounds that both black and white get punished more severely for interracial than for intraracial fornication: “The two sections of the code cited are entirely consistent. The one pre-scribes, generally, a punishment for an offense committed between persons of different sexes; the other prescribes a punishment for an offence which can only be committed where the two sexes are of different races. There is in neither section any discrimination against either race. Sect. 4184 equally includes the offence when the persons of the two sexes are both white and when they are both black. Sect. 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black. Indeed, the offence against which this lat-ter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving the persons of both races in the same punishment. Whatever discrimi-nation is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offence designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.”
  • 1883  Maine and Michigan laws repealed.
  • 1883  Missouri: State v. Jackson, Mo. 175, 179: “It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the issue of a black man and a white woman, and a white man and a black woman, intermarry, they can-not possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites, lay-ing out of view other sufficient grounds for such enactments.”
  • 1883  Constitution of North Carolina, art. 14, sec. 8: “All marriages between a white person and a Negro, or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.”
  • 1886  New Mexico repeals its law.
  • 1887 Ohio legislature repeals all laws establishing or permitting distinc-tions of color, including intermarriage bans.
  • 1888  U.S. Supreme Court, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (not an intermarriage case), decides that marriages are not contracts in the sense of those constitutionally protected.
  • 1889  Georgia II Code, sec. 2422: “The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent is forever prohibited, and such marriage shall be null and void.”
  • 1890  Constitution of Mississippi, art. 14, sec. 263: “The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void.”
  • 1890  Federal District Court of Southern Georgia determines, in State v. Tutty, 41 Fed. 753, that Georgia laws forever prohibiting marriage between whites and persons of African descent cannot be circum-vented by contracting a marriage in another state.
  • 1891  Colorado: Mill’s Annotated Statutes, secs. 1320-2989: “All marriages between Negroes or Mulattoes, of either sex, and white per-sons are declared to be absolutely void.”
  • 1892  State Constitution of Florida, art. 16, sec. 24: “All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation, inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.”
  • 1893  Kentucky Statutes, sec. 2097, prohibits and declares void marriage “between a white person and a negro or mulatto”; intermarriages from other states are not recognized; no property rights come from such a marriage.
  • 1895  The Constitution of South Carolina, art. 3, sec. 33: “The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void.”
  • 1895  Georgia, II Code, sec. 2422: “The marriage relation between white persons and persons of African descent is forever prohibited, and such marriage shall be null and void.”
  • 1896  Constitution of Tennessee, art. 11, sec. 14: “The intermarriage of white persons with negroes, mulattoes, or persons of mixed blood, descended from a negro to the third generation, inclusive, or their living together as man and wife in this State is prohibited. The leg- islature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation.”
  • 1897  Transvaal passes law no. 2 — 1897, “Wet tot tegengaan van deontucht,” immorality legislation against extramarital intercourse between consenting white women and black men (defined to include all members of indigenous and colored races of South Africa as well as Coolies, Arabs, and Malays). Penalties for the white woman (in cases other than rape) were up to five years’ imprisonment or expulsion from the republic; for black men, six years of hard labor and up to 50 lashes. This law and its amendments (no. 46 — 1903, “Immorality Ordinance,” and no. 16 — 1908, “Criminal Law Amendment Act”) provided the models for other South African laws, including the 1927 “Immorality Act.”
  • 1897  Transvaal law no. 3 — 1897 regulating marriages of coloured people, “Wet regelnde de huwelijken van kleurlingen,” which specified only the possibility that colored people marry other colored people, whereas the previous marriage law of 1871 was only for whites; colored marriages contracted before 1897 were legalized with ordinance no. 29 — 1903.
  • 1898  Utah Revised Statutes, sec. 1184: “Marriage is prohibited and declared void: between a negro and a white person” and “between a Mongolian and a white person.”

  • 1901  Alabama State Constitution (amended), sec. 102: “The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a negro, or a descendant of a negro.”
  • 1901  Arizona Revised Statutes, sec. 3092: “All Marriages of persons of Caucasian blood, or their descendants, with Negroes, Mongolians or Indians, and their descendants, shall be null and void” (followed by incest ban).
  • 1902  Oregon: Bellinger and Cotton Code, sec. 5217: “What marriages are void. 3. When either of the parties is a white person and the other negro, or Mongolian or a person of one-fourth or more of negro or Mongolian blood.” Sec. 1999: “Hereafter it shall not be lawful within this state for any white person, male or female, to intermarry with any negro, Chinese, or any person having one- fourth or more negro, Chinese or Kanaka blood, or any person having more than one-half Indian blood, . . . . and all such marriages, or attempted marriages, shall be absolutely null and void.”
  • 1902  Cape Colony law no. 36- 1902, “Betting Houses, Gaming Houses, and Brothels Suppression Act,” prohibits voluntary sexual relationsfor the purpose of gain between white women and Africans (“aboriginal natives”); the maximum punishment for women is two years’ imprisonment at hard labor (sec. 24), for procuring up to five years at hard labor, and for male procurers additionally up to 25 beatings (secs. 35 and 36). In the House of Assembly debates of 1902(pp.438 and 486ff) the law was advocated by Mr. Graham as a protection of women, and by Mr. Merriman as a device in the interest of white and black in order to prevent riots of the kind that were familiar from the southern United States. (Prostitution and procuring were only punishable when they were interracial. Unlike in the model of this law from Transvaal, the black men in these cases were not subjected to punishment. The law did not affect white men and black prostitutes or white women and colored men.)
  • 1903  The British colonies in what was to become South Africa enacted laws similar to but going beyond that of the Cape Colony. Natal: No. 31-1903, “Criminal Law Amendment Act,” prohibits indecent relations between white women and colored persons (sec. 16); colored were defined in the “Vagrancy Law” 15-1869 as “Hot tentots, coolies, bushmen, Lascars, and members of the so-called kaffer population.” Orange Free State: No. 11 — 1903, “Suppression of Brothels and Immorality Act,” sec. 14-16. Transvaal: No. 46-1903, “Immorality Ordinance,” similar to Natal, but with harsher punishment and with a very broad definition of “native” as including natives of the indigenous or colored races of Africa, Asia, or St. Helena; in addition Transvaal had no provisions for (though also no direct ban of) intermarriages since 1897.
  • 1903  Rhodesian “Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act” (by Cecil Rhodes’s British South African Company) makes illegal and punishable sexual relations between a white woman and a black man (but not those between a white man and a black woman).
  • 1904  Arkansas, Kerby’s Statues, sec. 5174: “All marriages of white persons with Negroes or Mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void.”
  • 1906  Kerr’s Code of California, vol. 2, part 3, paragraph 60: “All marriages of white persons with negroes, mongolians, or mulattoes are illegal and void.”
  • 1906  Missouri Statutes, ch. 50, see. 4312: “All marriages between white persons and mongolians, are prohibited and declared absolutely void, and this prohibition shall apply to illegitimate as well as legit-imate children and relatives.” Sec. 2174: “No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood; and every person who shall knowingly marry in violation of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years, or by fine of not less than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and the jury trying any such case may determine the proportion of negro blood in any party to such marriage from the appearance of such person.”
  • 1906  Texas Criminal Statutes, art. 346: “If any white person and negro shall knowingly intermarry with each other within this state, or, having so intermarried, in or out of the state, shall continue to live together as man and wife within this state, they shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for a term not less than two or more than five years.”
  • 1906  West Virginia Code, sec. 2917: “Void marriages: 1. All marriages between a white person and a negro.”
  • 1908  Natal Native Affairs Committee publishes report in which desirability of intermarriage ban is discussed (but not formally proposed); the report invoked Herbert Spencer’s condemnation of intermarriage on the ground that it leads to incalculably chaotic character traits in the second generation.
  • 1908  Indiana statutes make void marriage between a white person and one of one-eighth or more of Negro blood.
  • 1908  Louisiana Act 87 makes “concubinage between a person of the Caucasian race and a person of the negro race a felony, fixing the punishment therefore and defining what shall constitute the concubinage”; penalty imprisonment of one month to one year with or without hard labor.
  • In the same year the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Tread away (126 La. 1908) acquits Treadaway of miscegenation charge “because his companion was an octoroon, and an octoroon was not ‘a person of the negro blood or black race.'” This, the court argues, is because ” [t] here are no negroes who are not persons of color; but there are persons of color who are not negroes” (see 1910 for Louisiana’s legislative response). Louisiana Civil Code, art. 94, prohibits and voids marriage between white persons and persons of color.
  • 1909  Montana statutes passed declaring marriages between whites and persons of whole or part Negro blood or Chinese or Japanese null and void.
  • 1909  North Dakota makes marriage of white state residents with persons of one-eighth or more Negro blood unlawful and void, punishable by prison of up to ten years and/or a fine of up to two thousand dollars.
  • 1910  Louisiana legislature, in act 206, House bill no. 220, amends interracial concubinage prohibition to extend to any “person of the colored or black race.”
  • 1910  Natal case of Biscombe and Bissesseur v. Rex: The white woman Biscombe was acquitted of miscegenation charges for her relation with the Indian man Bissesseur because the court determined that “coolies” was not a racial term but included class features: for example, a barrister of Indian parentage was not a “coolie” and Bissesseur was a “free” Indian and hence not a “coolie.”   1910  North Carolina case of Ferrall v. Ferrall turns down a husband’s request to evade a property settlement and alimony on the grounds that his wife was “negro within the prohibited degree”: “Years ago the plaintiff married a wife who, if she had any strain of negro blood whatever, was so white he did not suspect it until recently. . . . Now. . . he seeks to get rid of her . . . in a method that will not only deprive her of any support while he lives by alimony, or by dower after his death, but which would consign her to the association of the colored race which he so affects to despise. . . . The law may not permit him thus to bastardize his own children.”
  • 1910  Oklahoma Revised Laws, sec. 3894: “The marriage of any person of African descent, as defined by the constitution of this State to any person not of African descent to any person of African descent, shall be unlawful and is hereby prohibited within this State.” The state constitution, art. 23, sec. 11, defines races as follows: “Wherever in this Constitution and laws of the State the word or words ‘colored’ or ‘colored race,’ ‘negro’ or ‘negro race’ are used the same shall be construed to mean or apply to all persons of African descent. The term ‘white race’ shall include all other persons.”
  • 1911  Nebraska Compiled Statutes, ch. 25, sec. 31, Consanguinity or Miscegenation: “Upon the dissolution by decree or sentence of nullity of any marriage that is prohibited on account of consanguinity between the parties, or of any marriage between a white person and a negro, the issue of the marriage shall be deemed to be illegitimate.”
  • 1912  Nevada Revised Laws, sec. 6517: “If any white person with any person shall live and cohabit with any black person, mulatto, Indian, or any person of the Malay or brown race or of the Mongolian or yellow race, in a state of fornication, such person so offending shall, onconviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and not less than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than six months or more than one year, or both.”
  • 1912  17 January: Ban of racial intermarriages in German Samoa.
  • 1912  8 May: German Reichstag defeats proposal to ban intermarriage in colonies and resolves (202 to 133 votes) that Bundesrat enact legislation securing the validity of marriages between whites and natives in German colonies and regulating the rights of illegitimate children; sponsors: Zentrum, supported by Social Democrats.
  • 1913  Nebraska Laws, ch. 72, sec. 5302. Void marriages: “First — when one party is a white person and the other is possessed of one-eighth or more negro, Japanese or Chinese blood.”
  • 1913  South Dakota Compiled Laws, ch. 166, sec. 1: “The intermarriage or illicit cohabitation of any persons belonging to the African, Corean, Malayan or Mongolian race, with any person of the opposite sex, belonging to the Caucasian or white race, is hereby prohibited, and any person who shall hereafter enter into any such marriage, or who shall indulge in any such illicit cohabitation shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding ten years or both such fine and imprisonment.”
  • 1913  South African Assaults on Women Committee, p. 36, criticizes 1902 “Brothels Suppression Act” for not including sexual relations between white men and native women.
  • 1915  Michigan Compiled Laws, sections 5700-5703 makes intermarriages expressly valid.
  • 1915  28 U.S. states have statutes prohibiting interracial marriages or cohabitation; ten among them have constitutional prohibitions.
  • 1919  Idaho law (amended 1921) declares marriage between whites and Mongolians, Negroes, or Mulattoes to be illegal and void; penalty for cohabitation is imprisonment up to six months and a maximum fine of $300.
  • 1920  Statutes of Louisiana, act 220, prohibits marriage between persons of Indian race and of colored or black race; act 230 forbids cohabitation between Negroes and Indians.
  • 1920  Wyoming Compiled Statutes prohibit marriage of a white and a Negro, Mulatto, Mongolian, or Malay.
  • 1921  Georgia act makes felonious and void the intermarriage of whites and persons with an ascertainable trace of African, West Indian, Asiatic Indian, or Mongolian blood. Provisions for detecting such blood could not be enforced for lack of appropriations.
  • 1921  Montana Revised Codes, sec. 5700, declares null and void the marriage between a white person and a Negro or a person with some part of Negro blood.
  • 1923  Public Acts of Michigan, no. 7, declares intermarriages legal.
  • 1923  Oklahoma Supreme Court, in Blake v. Sessions, declares void the marriage between a man of 3/4 Indian and 1/4 Negro blood and a woman with 3/4 Indian and 1/4 white blood (reason: 1910 Oklahoma Laws, sec. 1677, prohibits marriages between persons of African descent and persons of non-African descent).
  • 1924  27 February: Virginia Senate passes 23 to 4 the “Act to Preserve Racial Integrity,” requiring racial ancestry certificate for all citizens born before 14 June 1912 and sharpening previous intermarriage bans: “It shall be unlawful for any white person in this state to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term ‘white person’ shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-caucasic blood shall be deeemed to be white” (previously persons of less than one-quarter Negro blood did not count as Negroes).
  • 1927  South African Union House of Assembly (under Hertzog government) passes “Immorality Act,” no. 5 — 1927, which bans all extramarital interracial sexual relations between Europeans and Africans. “Illicit carnal intercourse” is defined as an “offence” punishable with prison up to five years for men and up to four years for women. In the House of Assembly Debates 1926, p. 36, and 1927, pp.37ff., the minister of justice Tielman Roos defended the proposed act as protecting the native women of South Africa, and, second, in order to teach the populace that intercourse between Europeans and natives was not a thing to be taken lightly. From 1928 to 1938 about 550 Europeans (among them 75 women) and 600 natives (among them 510 women) were punished.
  • 1927  Georgia passes law requiring citizens to provide information on racial antecedents.
  • 1930  Virginia requires persons to provide racial genealogy.
  • 1934  South West Africa enacts “Immorality Proclamation,” no. 19-1934, modeled on South Africa’s 1927 “Immorality Act.”
  • 1935  15 September: “Nürnberger Gesetze” prohibit interracial sex and marriage between “Aryans” and “Jews” in Nazi Germany; “Gesetzzum Schutz des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre” and”Reichsbürgergesetz,” Reichsgesetzblatt 1146.
  • 1936/37  Proposals for union-wide bans of interracial marriages are introduced to South African House of Assembly by Major Roberts and General Pienaar but defeated; the minister of the interior, Jan H. Hofmeyr, strongly opposed the proposals. A Mixed MarriageCommission is formed.
  • 1938  17 November: “Provvedimenti per la difesa della razza italiana,”Reggio Decreto Legge no. 1728 in fascist Italy: “Ilmatrimonio del cittadino italiano di razza ariana con persona appartenente ad altrarazza è proibito.”
  • 1945  End of World War II; racial legislation in Italy and Germanyannulled.
  • 1948  California supreme court case of Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198P. 2d 17, declares state miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
  • 1949  South African Union passes “Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act” which makes intermarriage between Europeans and all non-Europeans illegal.
  • 1950  South African Union amends 1927 “Immorality Act” to extend it to “Coloureds”; sexual intercourse or even “immoral or indecent acts” between whites and all nonwhite groups prohibited; maximum punishment of seven years of hard labor, corporal punishment for men; only exceptions are couples legally married before 1949 Act. “Sexual relations between persons of African, Coloured, and Asiatic origin are not forbidden by law.” According to Wauthier, Literature and Thought of Modern Africa, 181, the official number of those found guilty from the enactment to June 1964 exceeded 5000:”Europeans: men 2,614, women 118; Africans: men 119, women 1,208; Coloureds: men 76, women 1,072; Asians (mainly of Indian origin): men 17, women 28.”
  • 1950  Intermarriage prohibited in 30 of 48 U.S. states
  • 1944; by the 1967 Supreme Court ruling, 13 states had repealed their laws).
  • 1951  Oregon repeals interdiction.
  • 1953  Montana terminates prohibition.
  • 1955  North Dakota laws voided.
  • 1955  In Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E. 2d 749, Virginia supreme court sustains miscegenation statute; state’s legislative purpose was “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens” and to prevent “the corruption of blood,” “the obliteration of racial pride,” and the ereation of “a mongrel breed of citizens.”
  • 1957  South Dakota and Colorado repeal laws.
  • 1959  Louisiana supreme court upholds the state’s miscegenation law, arguing that the state could protect the children from such marriages from “a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone” ( Zabel, 121 notes that this was a sarcastic verbal echo of the Supreme Court’s 1954 school integration ruling in Brown v.Board of Education).
  • 1959  California, Idaho, and Nevada repeal ban.
  • 1961  Rhodesian “Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act” of 1903 abrogated.
  • 1962  Arizona law repealed.
  • 1963  Nebraska and Utah revoke intermarriage prohibitions.
  • 1964  In McLaughlin et al. v. Florida, U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Florida criminal statute 798.05, which prohibits an “unmarried interracial couple from habitually living in and occupying the same room in the nighttime” with a penalty of jail up to one year and a fine up to $500; ruling explicitly overturns Pace v. Alabama ( 1882). Court avoids the intermarriage issue as it rejects Florida’s argument in support of the interracial cohabitation ban “without reaching the question of the validity of the State’s prohibition against interracial marriage. . . . For even if we posit the constitutionality of the ban against the marriage of a Negro and a white, it does not follow that the cohabitation law is not to be subjected to independent examination under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
  • 1965  Wyoming laws removed.
  • 1966  19 U.S. states (17 in the South) have intermarriage proscriptions.
  • 1967  12 June: Loving v. Virginia. U.S. Supreme Court rules (9 to 0) that antimiscegenation laws are unconstitutional within the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren: “There can be no question that Virginia’s miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. . . .Marriage is one of ‘the basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” The case was that of the white construction worker Richard Loving and his Negro wife Mildred Jeter, who had married in the District of Columbia and then returned to Virginia. Decision affected Virginia and the following sixteen states with statutes or constitutions outlawing interracial marriage: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mis-sissippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Maryland had initiated a repeal of the law.
  • 1968  South African parliament votes to consider null and void any interracial marriage, solemnized abroad, between white South Africans and nonwhites.
  • 1977  Limited Constitutional Convention eliminates prohibition of
    interracial marriages from Tennessee Constitution by resolving
    unanimously that “Article XI, of the Constitution is hereby amended by deleting therefrom in its entirety Section 14 prohibiting interracial marriages.”
  • 1978  31 March: Tennessee proclaims repeal of the 1896 constitution’s art. 11, sec. 14, prohibiting racial intermarriage after narrow approval of electorate with 199,742 against 191,745 votes.
  • 1985  15 April: Home Affairs Minister Frederik W. de Klerk announces that South African government accepts recommendation from three-chamber parliamentary committee to overturn the 1949 “Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act,” the “Immorality Act,” and other legislation prohibiting interracial sex or marriage. In the five preceding years, 918 people had been prosecuted for violations of these laws.
  • 1987  4 December: Mississippi Secretary of State proclaims that section 263 of 1890 constitution, prohibiting interracial marriage, is deleted based upon House Concurrent Resolution #13 (Laws 1987, ch.672) and ratification by the electorate on November 3.

7 Daughters & 27 Step Daughters of Eve

app_full_proxy-php-e1282975015711Click the picture here to link to this article at http://parrotsgrl.wordpress.com/?s=7+daughters

(Untitled)

Postit’s From A Redbone

I loved words. I love to sing them and speak them and even now, I must admit, I have fallen into the joy of writing them. Anne Rice

Ethnic DNA Testing Poll!

(Untitled)

(Untitled)

Posit’s from a Redbone

Registered Free People of Color

Registered Free People of Color

Gowin, William

20th May 1814
William Gowin No 31
A man of colour, 21 years of age, about five feet 10 or 11 inches high, of yellow complexion; lame in his right knee and left hip, occasioned by a rheumatic complaint; was born of a free mulatto woman, and was bound out by the overseers of the poor for the Corporation of Staunton.

Teste Vincent Tapp CC

Going, Lewis

7th June 1814
Lewis No. 32
About 40 years of age, 5 feet 7 or 8 inches high, of a light black complexion, and scars on his right foot, right leg and right hand, occasioned by burns in his youth; was emancipated by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana, as appears from the certificate of his Excellency William C. C. Claibourne Govenor of the said State of Louisiana, with the seal of that State annexed the 7th day of April 1813.

Teste Vincent Tapp CC

Going, John

1823 January 22
John Going, No. 58
A mulatto man about 29 years of age, with a scar about 1 1/4 inches in length on his left cheek bone, and was born free, as appears by a certificate of the County Court of Augusta bearing date the 30th day of May 1822; and registered in this office.

Teste Vincent Tapp CC

Going, Aggy

June 11th 1823
Aggy Going, No. 61
Formerly Aggy Connelly (now) about forty three years of age, a mulatto woman about five feet high, and born free, as appears by a certificate of Reynolds Chapman Clerk of Orange County Court, bearing date the 27th day of January 1803, and registered in this office.

Teste Vincent Tapp CC

Goings, Chapman

No 305 Chapman Goings of bright mulatto complexion, aged now about thirty eight years, six feet two and half inches high, was born free in the County of Albemarle.
Copy delvd, July 5th 1852.

Goings, Hannah

No 306 Hannah Goings (wife of Chapman Goings) of dark mulatto color aged thirty eight years with a scar on the left wrist & arm, was born free in the County of Augusta.
Copy delvd dated 18th Jany 1852.

Goins, James Henry

No 322 James Henry Goins (son of Chapman & Hannah Goins) of bright mulatto complexion five feet eight inches high and about thirteen years of age with a scar under the left jaw and was born free in the County of Augusta.

Goins, Stephen

No 323 Stephen Goins (son of same parents as above) of dark mulatto complexion aged elven years four feet 7-3/4 inches high and was born free in Augusta Countv.

Goins, Jonathan

No 335 Jonathan Goins of bright mulatto complexion, aged about sixty years five feet six inches with a nick in the right side of the nose and piece off the top of the left ear, and was born free in Albemarle County
Copy delvd. June 27th 1853

Goins, Mahulda

No 336 Mahulda Goins aged about fifty years, five feet four inches high of yellow complexion, a small scar on the upper lip and was born free in the County of Albemarle
Copy
delvd June 27 1852

Goins, Kisiah

No 337 Kisiah Goins of yellow complexion aged thirty five years, live feet three and a half inches high, a small scar on her left wrist and was born free in Augusta County

Goins, Thomas

No 345 Registered in this office in pursuance to an order of the Court aforesaid entered on the 28th day of July 1851 Thomas Goins aged now about thirty one years five feet six inches high bright complexion has a scar upon the forefinger of the left hand and was born free as appears from a copy of his register from the Clerk under seal of the Court of Albemarle County. Given under my hand this 30th July 1851.
J. Kinney, Clerk
(Copy granted 17 Octr. 1854 & delvd)

Goen, Eliza Jane

No 356 Registered in the Clerks office of tne County Court of Augusta – in pursuance to an order of the Court of said County entered the 27th day of June 1853. Eliza JaneGoenof bright mulatto complexion aged about twenty two years, five feet four and an half inches and was born free in Albemarle County.
Given under my hand this 29 day of July 1853.
(Copy granted 29th July 1853) Jefferson Kinney, Clk.

Goens, Albert

No 408 Registered in the Clerk office of the County Court of Augusta by an order of said Court, entered on the 26th day of May 1856.
Albert Goens of dark complexion – twenty two years of age on the 15th of March last – five feet 5 inches high, no apparent marks or scars and was born free in the County of Albemarle. Given under my hand this 30th day of May 1856.
Jefferson Kinney, Clk.
Copy delvd. at date. No 408 Albert Goens. Renewed May 27th 1861 – age added making age at date of renewal twenty seven years on the 15th March 1861 – Old copy returned and destroyed.
New copy delivered May 27th 1861.
Teste: John Paris DC

Minor, Wesley

No 422 The following Registers were directed by an order of the County Court of Augusta enteered on the 24th day of November 1856.
Wesley Minor of dark color aged thirty six years five feet and three fourth inches high a scar above his right eye and another on the little finger of his right hand and was born free in Augusta County.

Goings, Huldah Catherine

No 477 Registered in this office, in pursuance of an order of the County Court of Augusta. Entered on the 27th day of February 1860,
Huldah Catharine Goings of copper color aged nineteen years, five feet two inches high and has a scar on ththe forehead. Given under my hand this 27th day of March-h 1860.
John D. Imboden, Ck.

Minor, Elizabeth

No 423 Elizabeth Minor of dark complexion aged thirty two years feet 4/8 inch high, a small scar on her nose & one on the first finger of the left hand and was born free in Augusta County.

Minor, Martha

No 424 Martha Minor of dark complexion, aged twenty five years 5 feet 7 inches high, a scar on the first finger of the left hand and was born free in Augusta County.

Goings, Frances Ann

No 481 Registered in this office in pursuance of an order off the County Court of Augusta. Entered on the 27th day of February 1860.
Frances Ann Goings of copper color 5 feet 5 1/2 inches high, has a scar on the middle knuckle of the left hand, aged twenty three years. Given under my hand this 24th day of September 1860.
John D.Imboden, Clk
Copy delvd at date

http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/govdoc/fblack.late.html

Dean’s (Dr Thomas Goings) Stand

For Further Reading visit “Stand’s Along The Trace” a presentation at RHF Conference 2007

Natchez Trace Trips-Thomas Goings owner of Dean’s Stand

June 13, 2005 I left from our farm in Ky bound for Nashville 90 miles away and entered the Natchez Trace Parkway at its head just south of Nashville.  I was immediately struck with how beautifully manicured and attractive the parkway was.  Throughout the trip you are not very far off the well beaten paths (interstates, major cities etc.) however you would never know in a million years..it was like being transformed into another time and place…absolutely one of the most peaceful and awe-inspiring trips I have ever taken.  I compare it to seeing parts of the Oregon Trail dotting the landscapes out west, with ruts wore shoulder-high in some spots into the rock trail, the only traces left of the hundreds of Conestoga Wagons that traveled its trail and the many families it took west.  The Natchez Trace was even more amazing, as I know my ancestors lived, traveled, traded and existed on it and along it.

Research Notes;  Thomas Goings owner of Dean’s Stand on the Natchez Trace

“DEAN’S STAND”

Natchez Trace: A Road Through the Wilderness.

Along the old Natchez Trace there grew up places to rest and possibly buy provisions. The common term for these hostelries came to be stands. Prior to 1820 there had been as many as 50 of these stands established along the route of this national road between Nashville and Natchez.

In October of 1820 the Choctaw Indians signed a treaty with the United States, where the Choctaw gave up a large part of land on the south and west of their territory. This land was quickly claimed by pioneer families. One such family was William Dean and Margaret his wife. They settled in 1823, and in addition to farming the land, they allowed the travelers and mail riders and boatmen and preachers who came along the old road, to lodge in their house. This stop along the Natchez Trace came to be known as DEAN’S STAND.

  • Stands on the old Natchez Trace, running north to south.
  • (Nashville to Natchez)
  • Nashville
  • Joshlin’s Stand (TN) 1797
  • Gordon’s Stand (TN) 1802
  • John Gordon
  • Gordon’s Ferry across the Duck River.
  • Keg Springs Stand (TN) 1812
  • Sheboss Place (TN)
  • Dobbin’s Stand (TN) 1808
  • David Dobbins, Swan Creek
  • Griner’s Stand (TN) 1808
  • McLish’s Stand  (TN) 1806
  • William McLish, N/S Buffalo Creek
  • Young Factor’s Stand  (TN) 1805
  • McGlamery’s Stand (TN)
  • A modern populated place, on the Natchez Trace just
  • below Collinwood in Wayne County TN. We have not yet
  • seen an early date for McGlamery’s Stand.
  • (Submitted by David Cage.)
  • Toscomby’s Stand  (TN) 1810
  • Toscomby, an Indian’s name
  • George Colbert’s Stand  (AL) pre 1806
  • George Colbert, 1/2 Chickasaw
  • Colbert’s Ferry across the Tennessee River
  • Buzzard Roost Stand  (AL) 1812
  • Levi Colbert’s Stand (AL)
  • Brown’s Stand  (MS) 1815
  • Old Factor’s Stand  (MS) 1812
  • Levi Kemp’s Stand (MS) 1825
  • James Colbert’s Stand (MS) 1812
  • James Allen
  • Tockshish’s Stand, McIntosh’s Stand, Chickasaw Old Town (MS) 1797
  • This became the junction with “the Notchey” or so called
  • West Prong of the Natchez Trace.
  • Wall’s Stand (MS) 1811
  • Pigeon Roost Stand (MS) 1800
  • Mitchell’s Stand (MS) 1806
  •   French Camp, LeFleur’s Stand (MS) 1810
  • Hawkins’s Stand, Harkin’s Stand (MS) 1811
  • Shoat’s Stand, Choteau’s Stand (MS) 1811
  • Anderson’s Stand (MS) 1811
  • Crowders Stand (MS) 1813
  • Doak’s Stand (MS) 1810
  • Ward’s Stand (MS) 1811
  • Brashear’s Stand (MS) 1806
  • Turner Brashear
  • Jackson (MS)
  • Ogburn’s Stand (MS) 1810
  • Hayes’s Stand (MS) 1815
  • Dean’s Stand (MS) 1821
  •   Red Bluff Stand, McRover’s Stand and Smith’s Stand (MS) 1806
  • Rocky Springs
  • Wooldridge’s Stand (MS) 1806
  • Grindstone Ford (MS) 1797
  • Port Gibson (MS)
  • Coon Box Stand (MS)
  • Greenville (MS)
  • Uniontown (MS)
  • Selserville (MS)
  • Washington (MS)
  • Natchez (MS)

 

SMU Natchez Trace Collection – Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Choctaw Treaty, eliminating the boundary between the British Colony of West Florida British, and the Choctaws.

March 26 1765

Rowland, Miss Territory Archives I 476

Mississippi Herald/Natchez Gazette, 21 October 1807

Letters-J. Moore, Postmaster at Port Gibson, has the following letters in his office as of 01 October 1807:  William Scott; Vance Scott; Rev. Thomas Sacley; Joshua Clark; Miss Sally Griffin; John Murdock; Stephen Bullock; James Milligan; William Pope; Mrs. Mary Elliot; Miss Rebecca Milborun; Hon. Peter Byan Bruin; Archibald Griffing; David M Farlane; Jesse Benton; Henry Trent; Rev MolesFloyd; Thomas Norris; Soloman Walker; William R Richey; Dr. Thomas Going; Berryman Watkins; Abner Wilfenson; Major John Barkley; Caleb Roberts; Caleb Roberts; Francis M’Cleland; Samuel Beach; Ignatus Flowers; William Dickson; James Thompson; Walter Slaughter; Colonel THomas White; James Knewlard; John Boothe; Mrs. Harriet Turnbull; John Saxon; Joseph D Lewis; Roger Gypson; Joshua Rundle; Joshua Rundie; David Spurlock; Solomon Walker.

JOURNEY OF THOMAS NIXON TO ATTAKAPAS

Thomas Nixon writes of his journey to Attakapas where he was appointed to serve.  He and Mr. Menefee rode to Mr. Overaker’s where they were hospitably entertained.  The next morning they rode to Washington and dined with Dr. Rollins, then spent the night in the country with one of the Tooley’s (probably James) before turning toward Midway where they had an appointment to preach, preceding the Bishop who would preach on Sunday.  Then they spent the night with Mr. Sojourner, dined with Brother Hodges and spent the night with

Mr. Richardson near Midway.  People flocked to hear them preach the next day.  On Monday the Bishop presided at McCalley’s Church.  On Tuesday he preached in Liberty, the county town of Amite.  He took quite ill while in Liberty, but rode eleven miles on his way to Franklin County.  Wednesday he appeared better and he and his companions rode 28 miles to Mr. Pickett’s.

The Pickett settlement was then one of the strongholds of Methodism in Franklin County.  The Bishop intended to preach there the next morning, but a chill kept him in bed all day. Having other engagements to keep, he rode six miles that night to Mr. King’s where he spent a rainy night.  They left early the next morning and rode 30 miles in the rain to Randall Gibson’s.  The Bishop was confined to bed the next day and missed his appointment for that day.  He was so ill that day that Randall sent to Port Gibson for Dr. Thomas Going.  By evening he was much better and came downstairs for a cheerful conversation with the family. Also convalescing at the Gibson home was James Dixon who had missed the Conference due to illness.  He asked the Bishop’s permission to leave the country as soon as he could travel and was granted a transfer back to Tennessee. Nixon and Menefee rode ten miles that night, and stayed with Mrs. Evans to preach to the blacks at Old Hebron, and had a gracious time.

An ACT for Thomas Going, a free man of color Thomas Going is authorized to give testimony in court.  December 1, 1814.

Dean’s Stand

William Dean patented 80.09 acres W1/2 NW1/4 Section 32 T5N R3W March 26, 1823.

Hinds County Tract Book

See Mrs. Ratliff, Raymond also, Phil Armintage, grandson of Wm Dean who operated stand at present site of Dillons.

55. pg 191

Dean’s Stand. Site marked by family graveyard of Col. W.S. Dillon, who in 1839 acquired “a tract of land known as Dean’s stand.”

Dillon’s Stand formally Dean’s Stand

Francise B Lee, administrator of estate of Thomas Goeng..hath given, bargained and sold to Wilson F Dillon ass that tract of land W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of sec 33 T9R4E, also a tract of land N 1/2 of W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of sec 33 T9 R4E also a tract of land known as Dean’s Stand lying and being in  the situated in the county of Hinds and state aforesaid on the road leading from Port Gibson to Raymond Containing 850 acres.

Feb 20, 1839

Hinds Co Deed Book, Vol 2. p227-78

Mrs. Margaret Dillon acquired the property from F. B. Lee adm. 1939

Thom. Going.

Dillon’s Stand

Interrog “State whether or not Mrs. Margaret Dillon dec’d under the purchase as stated in the bill of complaint, had possesion of all land which were originally conveyed to you[her] by Francis B Lee as adm of Thomas Going which were then known as Dean’s Stand”

Ans “She had possesion of all said land from the time of her purchase up to the time of her death”

Interrog.  WF Dillion, Hinds Co chauncery Records.  Nov 27, 1874 No 1141

New Series left section.

Colonel Wilson F Dillon- Obituary, May 17, 1876.

Hinds County Gazzette, Raymond, Miss., Wednesday, May 17 1876m No. 36, Page 1.

“Death of Col. WF Dillon-We greatly regret to announce the death of Col. Wilson Dillon, which event occured at his residence near this place on 13th inst.  Col. Dillon was one of the most subsantial citizens of the county of Hinds, one of our most valued friends, and a prompt paying subscriber to the Gazette from it’s first issue.  He was born in Prize Edward County, Va, 1797, and, consequently died in the 79th year of his age. He removed to Mississippi in 1827, forty-nineyears ago, and settled on the palce where he died, 6 miles from Raymondwhen this country was a wilderness.  Maby years ago he connected himself with the Methodist Church, of which he continued a highly useful and devoted member, and died with true christian fortitude and resignation.  Col. Dillon was an upright and positive man; was a public spirited and well informed citizen; and in early times was a power and ever delighted in speaking of their characteristics and peculiaristies.  For many years he was president of the board of Police of the county, and managed our public affairs  most honestly, intelligently and satisfactorily.  We mourn the death of our friend, but woe for the bright land ‘beyond the sunset,” and where he may be joined by his many kindred, friends and aquintances.”

Dillons Stand (formally Dean’s Stand)

Abner & Sarah Wise to John Cook,

“all those lots or parcels of land being lots No One and two of fractional section & two acres & twenty nine hundreths of an acre”

Dec 45, 1834.

Claiborne County Deed Book, O, 3607.

Note:  This document was aknowledged before Wilson F Dillon, an acting justice of the peace for Claiborne County.

“The following described property, their intire interest in the lands known a Margret Dillon estate.  All of S31 exet 16 a. in NE corner also W1/2 of NW1/4 and E1/2 of SW1/4 of set 32, Except 25 acres in NE Part of NW1/4 of sec. 32 T5 R3W.”

Deed of Trust given by John B Herrod & Julia A Herrod March 26, 1877.

Hinds County Deed Book, Vol 48, p.401.

In the Name of God I Samuel Going in Claiborne County in the State of Mififippi being in feble health

Edmund P Goines

The Natchez Trace assignment marked the first public task of any signifigance committed to the young lieutinant….In 1801 there commissioners, headed by General James Wilkinson, negotiated with the Chickasaws and Choctaws for the right to improve the old trace through their lands, and succeded in obtaining the right to construct a military road. Thereupon Leiutenant Goines, with ten companies of soldiers accompanied by Indian guides, pushd the work so rapidly that by the summer of 1802 the United States opened that section from Nashville to Duck River Ridge of the officially named Columbian Highway.

Silver JW Edmund P Goines, Baton Rouge 1949, 6.

Edmond P Goyens will out of Nacagdoches, he names James Going as his executor.  I will transcribe the will as I can.

Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic

Angie Debo

Library of Congress CC No 61-7973

Second printing of the second edition 1967

pg 34

As soon as the Choctaws established their homes in the new country, they began to build their school system.  The initiative was taken by the missionaries of the American Board, who in 1836 reported 11 schools with an enrollment of 228 Choctaw children.  Agent FW Armstrong encouraged the Choctaws to construct log buildings and organize the schools provided by the treaty annuities.

Pg 41

Only three years after the Battle of New Orleans, the Choctaws made another decision that consolidated the interests of the two races, when they invited missionaries to establish stations in their country.  This request seems to have been due to the influence of the younger generations of Folsoms, LeFlores, and Ptchlynn’s, whose fathers had given them some schooling, and who felt that the only hope for their people lay in education and the adoption of civilized institutions; but there is no doubt that the Choctaw people as a whole were ready for this further aquisition of the white man’s customs.

Gaines

Draper Collection, Tecumseh Manuscripts pg 46-48

Pushmataha then returned to his home. which was in the vicinity of St Stephens, and told Gaines he was ready to join the United States in the War against the Creeks.

Cushman, History of the Choctaw “Indian Trails of the Southeast” Myer, pg. 824

Another source of white influence was the increasing activities of traders, and the construction of roads in the Choctaw Country.  The most important trading post was St Stephens, established by the United States in 1802.  It was located on the Tombigee close to its junction with the Alabama, on the old east-west Indian trail from the Natchez to the lower Creeks; it thus tapped the trade of the old Spanish Camino Real, and could compete for all the trade coming the Alabama and Tombigee rivers, and all the trails converging towards towards Mobile.  George S Gaines, a native of Virginia, who came to this place in 1805 and served first as assistant, and later as principle factor, was greatly loved and trusted by the Choctaws.  Gaines was assisted by a clerk, a skinsman, and an interpreter, all of whom received substantial salaries from the United States.  The Choctaws brought bear’s oil, kegs of honey, beeswax, bacon, groundnuts, kegs of tobacco, and ammunition, and plows kept in stock by the Federal Government.

At first the Choctaw products were shipped from Mobile, but the United States soon secured permission from the Chickasaw tribe to carry them on packhorses to Colbert’s Ferry on the Tennessee, in the extreme northwestern part of Alabama.  This route, known as Gaines Trace, followed the Tombigee to the mouth of the Okibbeha; it was probably identical with a primative trail from the Chickasaw settlements in the north, through Choctaw country, to the lower Creek towns.  The road constructed under the Treaty of 1801 crossed the Choctaw country from southwest to northwest from Natchez to Nashville.

The white people who traveled these trails found the Choctaws hospitable and friendly, willing to welcome them in their homes or accept employments as guides.  Public Inns were established in some places, but apparently these enterprises were usually conducted  by the mixed bloods or white citizens.  The most famous was Pitchlynn’s Place on Gaines Trace, where the goods brought up the Tombigee were unloaded for the overland part of the journey.  John Pitchlynn and his sons, Peter and John, owned most of the land in that region, and their home was a favorite stopping place for travelers.  Pitchlynn was employed by the United States as interpreter and was a good friend of both Indians and whites.

Hodgeson, Letters from North America, Morse report to the Secretary of War, pg 183

The white citizen, Nathaniel Folsom, also entertained numerous travelers; he told Adam Hodgson, who visited him in 1820, that there were scarcely five days in the year when he failed to have guests, and that seventy or eighty often stopped in one day.

Nash-Perkins-Rees Families

Nash, Perkins/Pickens, Reese Anderson County South Carolina

James Nash. Wife: Ann Nash. Sons: Larkin Nash, James Nash, George Nash, Valentine Nash. Daughter: Nancy Nash. Exors: Wife, Ann Nash, sons, Larkin Nash and George Nash. Wit: none named. Date: 31 July 1805. Probate: 19 Jan. 1807. Bk. A p. 81, roll 511. Anderson Co, SC.

Isaac Perkins. Wife: “dear and loving wife” not named. Son: Richard Perkins. Daughters: none named. Exor: Wife, not named. Witnesses: John C. Patrick, Alexander Patrick, Barthoolmew Wollam. Date: 10 Feb. 1794. Probate: 20 April 1795. Source: Bk. C p. 53, Roll 557. Rec. April 1795, roll 557. Anderson Co, SC.

Ezekiel Pickens of St. Thomas Parish: Wife: Elizabeth Pickens. Sons: Ezekiel Pickens (oldest), Samuel Bonneau Pickens. Daughters: Elizabeth Bonneau Pickens. (Sons & daughter above from first marriage). Children of the second marriage were: Thomas Jones Pickens, Andrew Calhoun Pickens, and Mary Barksdale Pickens. “Wife shall have a right to reside on any or either of my plantations in the lower or upper country.” (All children were under age 21).Exors: Wife Elizabeth Pickens, my brother, Col. Andrew Pickens., my friend John Caldwell Calhoun of Abbeville. Wits: Pant Weston, George P.B. Hasell, Roger Pinckney. Date: 19 May 1813. Probate: 13 September 1813. Bk. A p. 16 Israel Pickens 0, Roll 530. (Not in the probate file)(This date does seem to be correct). Anderson Co, SC.. Wife: mentioned by not named. Sons: Ezekiel Pickens, Andrew Pickens, John Pickens. Daughters: Elizabeth Pickens Stewart, Matilda Pickens, Sally Pickens Williams, Ellender Pickens, Mary Pickens. Land: “I formerly lived on Rocky River.” Exors: James Casper, David Boid. Wits: John Davis, Samuel Norris, John Berill. Date: 5 Jan. 1829. Probate: 2 March 1829. Bk. A p. 384, Roll 563. Anderson Co, SC.

John Pickens. Wife: not named. Sons: Joseph Pickens, John Pickens. Daughters: Hannah Caldwell, Elinor Pickens, Sarah Pickens. Comments: Land 340 Acres with the mill … To my son John if he returns. Exors: Wife, not named, son, Joseph Pickens. Witnesses: John McAlister, James Gordon, Alexander McAlister. Date: 22 Sept. 1795. Probate: 27 June 1796. Source: Bk. C p. 84, Roll 562, Rec. 27 June 1796. Anderson Co, SC. (Not in Probate Court Files).

Robert Pickens. Wife: not mentioned. Sons: Robert Pickens and Andrew Pickens. Daughter: Jain Norwood. Other Heirs: gs John Pickens, gd, Martha Pickens, gd Margaret Pickens, gd, Elizabeth Pickens. Elinor Prater. Exors: son, Robert Pickens, Miriam Pickens. Witnesses: James Seawright, Samuel Reed, Margaret Sharp. Date: 20 Jan. 1783. Probate: 1 June 1793. Source: Bk. C p. 15, Roll 533, Recorded 14 Sept. 1793. Anderson Co, SC.

Robert Pickens. Wife: Dorcas (dec’d 1829-30). Sons: Robert Pickens, Andrew Pickens, John Pickens. Daughters: Margaret Pickens, Elizabeth Pickens, Mary Bowman, Dorcas Paris, Ann Bolding. Exors: sons Andrew Pickens and Robert Pickens. Wits: J. Douthit, James Smith, James Oliver. Date: 3 Jan. 1823. Probate: 6 Sept. 1830. Bk. A p. 405, Roll 534. Anderson Co, SC.

William Pickens. Wife: not named. Sons: Josiah Pickens, Joshua Pickens, Moses Pickens. Daughters: Ruth Pickens w/o Aaron Phillips, Sarah Pickens w/o Shadrach Harrison. Land: “Lying on both sides of Colonels Fork of Conoross Creek.” Exors: John C. Kilpatrick, Josiah Foster. Wits: R.H. Grant, Aaron Terrell, Aaron Shannon. Codicil Exors: John C. Kilpatrick, Peter Kilpatrick, William Simpson, Asa Smithson. Date: 29 March 1816. Probate 3 March 1827. Bk. A. p. 353, Roll 541. Anderson Co, SC.

Thomas Reese (Clergyman). Wife: Jane Reese. Sons: Edwin Reese, Thomas Sidney Reese, Elihu Harris Reese, Henry Dodson Reese. Daughters: Leah Reese, Lydia Reese, Susannah Reese. Land Location: “lies on the north side of 23 Mile Creek” Exors: Wife, Jane Reese, Ezekiel Pickens, George Reese, John Harris, Robert M. Cann. Witnesses: William Steel, William Hunter, Elizabeth Miller. Date: 28 April 1796. Probate 19 Sept. 1796. Source: Bk. C p. 92, Roll 593. Anderson Co, SC. (Not in Probate Court Files).

Thomas Sidney Reese. Wife: not mentioned. Sons: not mentioned. Daughters: not mentioned. Other Heirs: Edwin Reese (Bro), Henry D. Reese (Bro). Land Location: 20 Mile Creek. Exors: not named. Witnesses: Lewis D. Martin, John Taylor. Date: not given. Probate: 16 April 1798. Source: Bk. C p. 129, Rec. 16 April 1798. Anderson Co, SC.

Tobias Gibson Redbone Methodist Church and Settlement

Early Mississippi Territory History and People

History of the Scots-Irish Settlement in Misissippi

http://www.geocities.com/twincousin2334/History_Scotch_Settlement.html

Mullins family history and the Scots-Irish in Mississippi

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~pmullins/chapter05.htm

TOBIAS GIBSON – AREAS OF MINISTRY AND CHURCH MEMBERS

http://www.rootsweb.com/~msswterr/bren1.htm#ministry

Tobias Gibson

On his trip he stayed at wayside inns “kept by the Indians and half-bloods” when he could find one, and when he could not, he stopped about dark near water, provided for his horse by feeding him from his saddle blanket the corn he carried.  He made a fire with steel, flint and a punk, and ate his frugal meal.  After his devotions, he used his saddle bag for a pillow and slept, aware of the danger.  Once he reached Strother’s, he met Francis Asbury, the bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church.   Asbury was afflicted with rheumatism and had to be carried to and from meetings.  Mr. Gibson listened to preaching by William McKendree, Learner Blackman, Lewis Garrett, John Page and others at the Conference.  He reported 85 white and two colored members of the Natchez Circuit, a decrease of 13 for the year.  He made his plea for help in traveling his territory, and was assigned Moses Floyd, of Georgia. The Natchez territory was reassigned, placing it in the Cumberland District with John Page aspresiding elder.

The Cumberland District included:

Nashville- Thomas Wilkerson and Levin Edney
Red River- Jesse Walker
Barren- James Gwinn and Jacob Young
Natchez- Moses Floyd and Tobias Gibson

South Carolina

Tobias Gibson ( 1771-1804) was the founder of Methodism in Mississippi, to which he was appointed in 1800. He was born in Liberty (now Florence) County, South Carolina, and admitted to the conference in 1792. He served circuits in the area, including Holston and North Carolina, until he went to Mississippi. He died at Natchez on April 5, 1804. (See Minutes, 1805.) 121  Tobias was appointed to the Little Pee Dee and Anson Circuit in South Carolina early in 1799. In January, 1800, he was appointed to Natchez, and sometime during the year he made a famous and perilous canoe voyage down the Mississippi and became the founder of Methodism in Mississippi. Jones ( Methodism in Mississippi, I, 24 ff.) argues that Gibson reached Natchez late in March of 1799, which was nine months before he was officially appointed. If he gave notice of Asbury’s presence in Buncombe County, North Carolina, and it was effective as late as November 1800 it would seem that he must have lingered in the Blue Ridge area for a period before departing for his appointment in Natchez.

 greatwagonroadinnc

Tobias went to Lexington in Kentucky, and Jacob Lurton went to the Cumberland Circuit in Tennessee. (See Minutes, 1794.)

[2] During the early 1800s Tobias Gibson, an itinerant preacher sent from South Carolina, brought Methodism into the Natchez area of Mississippi. His ministry covered several hundred miles ( Miller, 1966). Due to the lack of trained Methodist ministers and the settlement patterns of colonial America, ministers were responsible for covering large geographic areas. One outcome of this situation was that select individuals residing in the different regions where ministers made their stops were selected to be “class leaders.” According to the class leader booklet of the United Methodist Church, “As a present-day class leader you will help a class of fifteen to twenty members shape their daily lives. . . .” ( Guidelines, 1992 :5).

John Garvin had been appointed to Savannah and St. Mary’s. At this conference Tobias was appointed to Natchez in Mississippi from Charleston in the South Carolina Conference to the Mississippi District of the Western Conference. Since Tobias Gibson had been sent to Mississippi in 1799, eight circuits had been formed, and there were 639 white and 150 colored members there.

The Journal and Letters of FRANCIS ASBURY

[3] Thursday, 20. I directed my course, in company with my faithful fellowlabourer, Tobias Gibson, up the Catawba, settled mostly by the Dutch. A barren spot for religion. Having ridden in pain twenty-four miles we came, weary and hungry, to 0–‘s tavern; and were glad to take what came to hand. Four miles forward we came to Howes Ford, upon Catawba River, where we could neither get a canoe nor guide. We entered the water in an improper place, and were soon among the rocks and in the whirlpools: my head swam, and my horse was affrighted: the water was to my knees, and it was with difficulty we retreated to the same shore. We then called to a man on the other side, who came and piloted us across for which I paid him well. My horse being afraid to take the water a second time, brother Gibson crossed, and sent me his; and our guide took mine across. We went on, but our troubles were not at an end: night came on, and it was very dark. It rained heavily, with powerful lightning and thunder. We could not find the path that turned out to Connen’s. In this situation we continued until midnight or past; at last we found a path which we followed till we came to dear old father Harper’s plantation; we made for the house, and called; he answered, but wondered who it could be; he inquired whence we came; I told him we would tell that when we came in, for it was raining so powerfully we had not much time to talk: when I came dripping into the house, he cried, “God bless your soul, is it brother Asbury? wife, get up.” Having had my feet and legs wet for six or seven hours, causes me to feet very stiff. 76  Asbury always desired to go to Mississippi since Tobias Gibson established Methodism there in 1800, but was never permitted by the conference to do so.

The Catawba River and the Wateree River are essentially one river that begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina and flows through the Charlotte metropolitan area into Lake Wateree in South Carolina. The name of the river changes to the Wateree River in Lake Wateree and eventually joins with the Congaree River in Lake Marion. 

Further Reading on the history of Catawba River History, and the Redbones of South Carolina,  article coming soon!

Map_of_North_and_South_Carolina_By_J_Denison_Doolittle_Sculp

Methodism in Early Mississippi Territory;

warrenton
 

Religious groups offer their members social support, opportunities for leadership development, and numerous other nonspiritual benefits. While positive outcomes of church participation are worthy of attention, significant attention has not been placed on potentially negative aspects of church life. This is especially the case in the literature on the Black Church. This article examines the creation and maintenance of power structures (formalized power) and conflict in a Black United Methodist church. Themes derived from qualitative data reveal a number of paradoxes related to power, such as the observation that not all people in positions of power welcome the trappings of power. Also, results indicate that power structures are the result of a nexus between micro and macro factors which operate at both local and nonlocal levels. You can read more details about the Redbone Settlement established by Tobias Gibson, a progenitor of the People Known as Redbones near Vicksburg, Ms. here!

 

Redbone Church

Vicksburg Mississippi

Redbone Methodist Church post card

Bethel Redbone Methodist Church
Warren Co., Miss. Built 1854
Used by the Federals at one time
during the Civil War.

Located near Redbone Rd. along the Mississippi River about three miles north of Vicksburg

Welcome Center.

Bridge at Vicksburg Redbone

Historical Monument

Redbone Methodist Church Vicksburg plaque

Redbone Church in background

 

Redbone United Methodist Church Cemetery

redbone plaque vicksburg

“A Revolutionary Soldier David Greenleaf can be found buried here”

“This is the original cemetery of the Redbone Church and the oldest grave carries date of 1815”

Redbone Graveyard Vicksburg Ms 2003

Unfortunately I never noticed any familiar Redbone names in the cemetery. Most headstones are broken and lying at the edge of trees and fences. There was extensive damage to several large Oak Trees throughout the cemetery while and impending hurricane made for a short and hasty visit. A large limb from a beautiful Old Oak that lies on the ground from obvious recent past storm damage can be viewed in the left corner of photo.

Works Cited:

  1. BECOMING SOUTHERN
    The Evolution of a Way of Life, Warren County and Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1770-1860

CHRISTOPHER MORRIS

New York Oxford

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

1995

  1. POWER AND PARADOX IN AN AFRICAN

AMERICAN CONGREGATION*

John F. Toth Jr.

West Virginia Wesleyan College

Review of Religious Research, Vol. 40, No. 3 (March, 1999)

  1. The Journal and Letters of FRANCIS ASBURY

In Three Volumes

VOLUME II

The Journal 1794 to 1816

ELMER T. CLARKEditor-in-chief J. MANNING POTTS JACOB S. PAYTON

Published Jointly By EPWORTH PRESS ABINGDON PRESS London Nashville

Fur Trade West British Florida’s

Fur Trade WBF-1763-1783

Mentions John Nash/McGillivray/Struthers/Gibson/Stuart and others Nash/Allen
The Economy
of
British West
Florida, 1763-1783

ROBIN F. A. FABEL

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA PRESS

Tuscaloosa and London

hazard of ocean travel, the fur trade did not die. The officer commanding the British troops in West Florida wrote to the plantations secretary that the merchants of Pensacola were prepared, if they were denied a convoy or escorts, to run the maritime gauntlet with their valuable cargoes of furs. 25

All the cargoes just mentioned went from and to British ports. In the 1760s and 1770s a great quantity of skins were certainly also exported from West Florida to New Orleans, where the prices at times were higher and duties were nonexistent. Governor Johnstone estimated the consequent loss to the British treasury at £50,000, an incredible figure, although the total value of the skins traded was probably at least that much. It galled John Stuart that French traders, hangovers from the previous regime over whom he exercised no control, regularly traveled among the Indian nations, especially the Choctaw, to buy their skins, which normally they resold in New Orleans. 26 Johnstone’s suggested remedies were for the government to remit all duties on the export of skins and instead to offer a bounty of sixpence apiece. 27 As with other expensive recommendations he had made to the government, these too were ignored, and the trade with foreigners on the Mississippi flourished.

General Thomas Gage, the overall commander of British troops in North America, was concerned at the blatant flouting of trade regulations, but no recourse was ever made to an obvious and often suggested check–siting a customshouse in that part of British Florida on the Mississippi. While many of the skins from up the Mississippi were sold in New Orleans and went to Europe in French or Spanish ships, exceptionally vessels brought Mississippi skins and furs to London. One was the Florida Packet, Robert Ross master, with 1,000 bundles of peltry aboard. Gage was sure that the snow must have been trading illicitly in foreign ports and caused inquiries to be made about her in London. 28 Two years later a cargo of furs worth £30,000 arrived in London from the Mississippi, part of whose cargo may well have passed through the hands of John Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick was a middleman, one of many in a chain which stretched from the beaver building its dam on a tributary of the Mississippi to the fine felt tricorne on the head of a London dandy. His letters relating to the trade in furs and skins were written from 1768 to 1784. 29 Despite the assertion sometimes found that prices for deerskins were higher in New Orleans than could be obtained by exporting them to English markets, Fitzpatrick’s regular customers for the skins he bought from Indian traders were British firms in Mobile, usually the partnership of John McGillivray and William Struthers but sometimes that of John Miller and William Swanson, who shipped them to England. That he traded with them from patriotism is most unlikely: Fitzpatrick did not like trading in skins. Several times he expressed the wish to give up that branch of business. 32 They were risky goods. If his skin consignments arrived too late to catch the annual boat that sailed to England from Mobile, the price went down. If he had to carry a stock of them through the summer, they had to be unpacked and regularly beaten to keep them free of worms. On occasion they were spoiled by water on the voyage from Fitzpatrick’s trading house at Manchac to Mobile, while the insurance and freight payable on the complicated voyage added to the merchants’ expenses. 33 Despite his distaste, Fitzpatrick had no choice. A mainstay of his business was to supply goods suitable for Indians to traders and hunters operating from as far north as the Illinois country. The shortage of cash in those remote regions meant that his customers could pay him only in furs and skins.

John Stuart believed that buying hides in hair enabled Indians to be cheated more easily than if dressed hides were traded, but in England was a demand for hides in the hair. It is no surprise to discover that the bulk of Fitzpatrick’s stock was invariably of undressed hides. He also dealt in martin and beaver, getting a much higher price per skin, as much as seven reals (almost a dollar per pound) for beaver, 34 but his main business was in deerskins, of which the price varied in the decade from 1768 between thirty and forty-eight sols per pound. 35 The price for dressed hides was about five sols less per pound. The average weight of a deerskin was about two and a half pounds, but good ones weighed three. 36 They were normally bundled up in packs of fifty.

Sending cargo to Mobile involved two steps. Fitzpatrick shipped his skins downriver in the vessel of a “Captain Jerome,” who was almost certainly Jerome Matulich, who plied the Mississippi. Somewhere along the river, either at New Orleans when the political situation allowed or, when it did not, at Rançon’s plantation, near the mouth of the Mississippi, the cargo was transshipped to the vessel of Thomas McMin, who carried the goods to Mobile in the aptly named snow Indian Trader. 37 A simpler method of exporting skins than having to unload and reload them somewhere along the Mississippi was occasionally possible when what Fitzpatrick called “the New Englanders,” probably the Nash family, would buy the skins from him, usually at a good price, to sell them in their native Rhode Island. 38 Exact

totals are impossible to assess, but from the numbers of skins which Fitzpatrick mentions in his letters as stored in his house and, bearing in mind that he shipped them out as often as he could and certainly more than once a year, we can see that the volume of skins traded by this West Floridian was considerable. In January 1771 he had 8,000 pounds of skins in his house awaiting shipment. In May he had another 11,370 pounds. In January 1773 he had only 4,000 pounds of deer but expected a similar amount to arrive before the end of the month. The highest amount recorded is 16,000 pounds, which he had at the end of October 1774. 39 Thereafter, perhaps because of the disruptions caused by war, amounts are smaller–2,150 pounds in 1777 and 2,508 in 1784. 40 Fitzpatrick’s letter book contains evidence of a continuing and, on the whole, thriving business in fur and skins, and there is no reason to doubt that the half dozen or so merchants of Manchac all participated in the trade in a similar way. They formed a lawless community, the province’s wild west.

John Thomas, the deputy superintendent, indignantly reported that not one of them had a license and that they all sold rum freely to Indians, which was then against the law of the province. Fitzpatrick himself, according to Thomas, consistently swindled Indians, sometimes beat them, and had a penchant for dueling, not with the pistols or swords of gentlemen, but with the fusee, a light musket. 41 He and his fellows flouted the authority of Thomas with impunity. The deputy superintendent was not particularly well balanced, and in the end was recalled for himself dueling and killing George Harrison, one of the Manchac traders. 42

The British government treasury papers available at Kew in Britain show, as surviving customs papers do not, how significant the importation of furs and skins into Britain had become in the years leading up to the American Revolution. Unfortunately they do not distinguish between the two Floridian provinces, although the amount from the eastern colony would be small compared to that from West Florida. Taken together, the Floridas exported, in the years 1773, 1774, and 1775, a total of skins (mostly deer) and furs worth just under £40,000. This amount was far short of what Canada exported and a little less than the export of neighboring Georgia, which was worth £47,000 in the same period, but more than the Carolinas and much more than Virginia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvanlia, or New England. 43

Among other things the letter book shows what kinds of goods were then being supplied by English merchants at Mobile, Pensacola, the Illinois country, and Natchez to New Orleans. They included flour, slaves, strouds, blankets, checked cloth, and bear oil. It shows too what goods were in demand at the Illinois, from which Fitzpatrick’s correspondent had floated down goods on a bateau. Fitzpatrick was asked to sell the vessel and remit the proceeds in tafia and barrels of pitch. Payment in kind was normal in New Orleans at the time, although in West Florida skins were more welcome than pitch, which was produced locally, but also acceptable were bills of exchange ultimately payable by respected British firms or the government. Fitzpatrick’s letters also demonstrate that O’Reilly’s exclusion edict was not as comprehensive as his official report would suggest. Any Britons married to Louisianans or who were planters were exempt.

Fitzpatrick had to wind up the affairs of eleven British firms or individuals in a matter of days. They included McGillivray and Struthers at Mobile; John Ritson, Valens Comyn, John Falconer, and James Amoss, all at Pensacola; Henry Le Fleur, Alexander McIntosh, Robert Barrow, and John Bradley at Natchez; and the Illinois branch of the Philadelphia firm of Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan. 66 Britons with whom he did not correspond at this time but whom Fitzpatrick mentions and with whom he had dealings are also numerous, and his letters do confirm the existence of many Britons with a commercial stake in the city. By 1769, however, the scale of their dealings was paltry. The largest outstanding debt mentioned was for $254. The figures would probably have been much larger if a desperate shortage of specie had not throttled a great deal of potential trade. The advent of O’Reilly, who presumably came with a treasure chest, was not therefore seen as an unmixed disaster by Fitzpatrick because, prior to the general’s arrival, his Spanish debtors had been unable to meet their obligations and Fitzpatrick had lost potential customers because he was compelled to refuse Spanish paper.

Actually he saw commercial opportunity in the expulsion of all British merchants from New Orleans. There would be an increased demand for goods there, which Fitzpatrick intended to satisfy. He would operate from the West Floridian side of the Mississippi with a stock of $3,000 worth of textiles, mostly cottons. As close to the market as he was, Fitzpatrick must have felt confident of selling them. In exchange he was prepared to take almost all the items of local produce–deerskins, indigo, tobacco, rice, or raw cotton. He excepted lumber products as, presumably, too difficult to transport. 67

Fitzpatrick was not alone in seeing the arrival of O’Reilly as reason for hope because of the half million dollars that he reputedly brought with him. The South Carolina and American General Gazette of 13 September 1769 described the general’s coming as “good news for West Floridians.” Another newspaper opined that it would be better for the West Floridians to have Spanish neighbors than French because ” Great Britain has too often experienced the intriguing temper of the latter.” 68 Lax Spanish enforcement of their commercial regulations was taken for granted, and many adventurers with merchandise of different kinds at once left Pensacola for New Orleans, hoping to exchange it for dollars. They were lucky because by Io October, only a few days after the British merchants had been expelled, it was reported from Pensacola that O’Reilly had relaxed his initially rigid exclusion of British goods. 69

Three months after his arrival, O’Reilly handed over the governorship of Louisiana to Luis de Unzaga, formerly colonel of the Regimiento Fijo de la Habafia. Unzaga was well aware that, though some trade with the English

was desirable, the general effect of the large and growing British presence in the region was injurious to Louisiana’s economy. Effective British control of the pine forests on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain barred Louisianans from the manufacture of pitch and tar. The amount of deerskins and fur locally available was vastly reduced because of the energy of British hunters. The Indians and habitants of the Spanish province also found it convenient to sell their furs to the ubiquitous British traders. Legal Louisianan exports were thus reduced to indigo, lumber, and in some years, rice, wrote the governor, and he railed against the “fraud and malversion” of the British traders. 70

Unzaga’s view of this subject may be contrasted with that of an Englishman who, as an army officer, had no stake himself in the trade. He was John Thomas, who served as deputy commissioner to the Indians at Fort Bute at Manchac on the Mississippi. Thomas admitted that there was much justice in the Spanish governor’s complaints. Frenchmen from Louisiana who had bought Indian goods on credit at New Orleans were selling the pelts they acquired in exchange to the English merchants at Manchac and not returning to New Orleans to satisfy their creditors. But Natchitoches and Opelousa, both in Spanish Louisiana, were flourishing, in Thomas’s opinion, because of the “vast quantity” of indigo and tobacco that Englishmen were buying there. 71

Not only the Spanish in New Orleans had sometimes desperate needs which their compatriots could not but which the British could supply. In August 1770 two English brigantines with cargoes of flour arrived in the Mississippi. Unzaga persuaded their captains to go to Campeche on the Yucatan Peninsula, where the colonists were starving. Although Unzaga explained to his superiors that, if he had not diverted them, the flour would have been covertly sold elsewhere in Louisiana, he was reprimanded for his action.

It was a source of frustration to the governor that British vessels had a perfect legal right to sail under his very nose at New Orleans on the pretext that they were going to English Manchac and Natchez, when he knew full well that they intended to dispose of their cargoes to Spanish subjects. Usually he confined himself to warning them against illegal trade. 72

Some of his warnings may have deterred merchants from planning voyages to the Mississippi, since the severe penalties for smuggling were well publicized in such places as New York and Rhode Island. Importers of cloth made from cotton or a cotton mixture in Louisiana, for instance, were informed that they were liable, not merely to have their cargoes confiscated, but also to pay a fine of twenty bits (that is, over two dollars) for every yard of illegal

textile. 73 Despite all threats, British trade with Louisiana intensified, so much so that when Francis Murphy, acting for the Philadelphia firm of Barnard and Michael Gratz, arrived in New Orleans in the spring of 1772, he was disgusted to find such a glut of English goods there that, other than two saddles and some chintzes that he sold on credit, he had great difficulty in disposing of his merchandise. There were half a dozen vessels at anchor off the city when he got there, and more continued to arrive. Not only did Murphy have difficulty in selling, but he was also quite unable to buy any of the Louisiana products he sought. A French vessel had, shortly before his arrival, taken all the local produce available. He ruefully noted that the season for the sale of dry goods ran from August to March. In other words he had arrived to sell his goods precisely when the slack season had begun. 74 Murphy was not so discouraged that he never returned to New Orleans; in 1776 he had a residence in the town. 75

Winking at breaches of the law for a time and then abruptly enforcing it was characteristic of English customs officials in Britain’s North American colonies after 1767. Unzaga did the same in Louisiana.

One who suffered from this practice was the Rhode Island merchant John Nash, who, with his partner, Christopher Whipple, owned a sloop, The Two Pollies, which plied between their native colony and New Orleans with cargoes of New England goods. One such voyage began on 1 October 1773. The sloop was in the charge of her master, Ephraim Carpenter, probably one of a Newport family which did business with and settled in West Florida. 76 In the following month Nash and Whipple also left Rhode Island for the Mississippi in the sloop Hope, arriving safely in December. They found The Two Pollies anchored about six miles below New Orleans. After transferring Hope‘s cargo of merchandise to her, Nash then took The Two Pollies past the Spanish city and cast anchor a couple of leagues above it. Nash’s story was the usual one that the goods were strictly for sale to English settlers in the various British settlements farther upriver. The Spanish doubted it. While at anchor on 17 February 1774, a Spanish sergeant and a corporal boarded The Two Pollies and asked to buy some codfish for their men in New Orleans. After the fish was weighed the sergeant begged successfully for the loan of a boat to carry it back to the town. With him Nash sent a sailor, William Proud, to bring the craft back. Instead of being allowed to do so, Proud was seized by Spanish soldiers and jailed. Nash himself then went to New Orleans to untangle the affair but was denied access to the governor. Instead of redress, on the morning of 20 February a squad of Spanish troops with drawn swords and fixed bayonets tried to board The Two Pollies, allegedly on governor’s orders.

Being 3,000 feet from the shore, Nash thought that he could legally refuse but, in the face of force, allowed his sloop to be taken to New Orleans, where she was stripped of her rigging and her cargo, which, together with confiscated cash amounting to $5,760, were deposited in the royal warehouse. Pilfering soldiers and black laborers ensured that not all of the cargo got as far as the warehouse. The thieves seem to have been uncommonly literate and pious, for among the stolen items, if Nash is to be believed, were Young Night Thoughts, Thomson Seasons, Pope Essay on Man, a Book of Common Prayer, a Bible, and French and English grammar books. Five days later Spanish officials appraised the cargo in the warehouse and The Two Pollies. On 4 March the cargo was sold for $482. Meanwhile Nash, Carpenter, his mate Benjamin Pilcher, and the crewman William Proud were all in jail.

On 2 May Nash was told that he was charged with illegally introducing fish for sale in New Orleans. He protested to Governor Unzaga. His petition was successful, perhaps because of a letter of remonstrance from Governor Chester of West Florida of 16 May 1774. On 17 June Unzaga revoked all proceedings against Nash and refunded $3,535 and 4 ½ ryals. He and his fellow prisoners were released after four and a half months in confinement; Nash and Carpenter had stayed not in the common jail but with a Mr. Murphy, perhaps the Francis Murphy who once sold saddles in the town. Together with the necessary expense of translating Spanish documents, Nash’s lodging had cost him $385 and 5 ½ ryals. He estimated his total loss at $9,127 and 1 ½ ryals, of which he received scarcely a third in compensation. He asked in vain for a juster amount from Unzaga and then addressed his complaints to Governor Chester for transmission to Lord Dartmouth, the plantations secretary in Britain. 77

This case illustrates several aspects of Unzaga: he was not vindictive, but he was negligent in supervising subordinates. Sergeant Hildago and his corporal were both dismissed from the Spanish service for their part in buying English fish. The case also suggests that there was probably a regular commerce between Spanish Louisiana and Rhode Island. Thanks to this case too we know in detail the kind of cargo which sold along the Mississippi, certainly to English settlers but also, probably, to habitants on the western shore. The vast bulk of the cargo was an amazing variety of textiles, much of them coarse and cheap, all of them from Europe, mostly from England. Such would certainly have been the origin of the beaver hats which were part of Nash’s cargo, since he would scarcely have declared in a memorial to the British government items that could not legally be manufactured in the colonies. The sum of money confiscated from The Two Pollies was large enough to suggest that Nash had probably engaged in some trading with

Louisianans before her seizure. 78 The Two Pollies episode illustrates the misfortunes attending entanglement with the Spanish authorities. If an indignant press may be believed, it was not an isolated instance of Unzaga’s rigor. Two days before, dry goods to the value of $12,000 belonging to a merchant named Basset had also been seized in New Orleans. 79 Undeterred by his treatment Nash remained on the Mississippi and by February 1778 was an inhabitant of Manchac. 80

Other British traders were also persistent. Shipping lists for the year 1774 show that well over a dozen voyages took place to the Mississippi from mainland colonial ports alone. 81 The coming of revolution to the mainland colonies in 1775 did not end traffic with the Mississippi, but it certainly did introduce several new factors into the trade.

For example, ever since the foundation of West Florida, guns, ammunition, and powder had been exported to the Mississippi. For defense and hunting they were a necessity for white settlers and Indians alike. The imaginative George Johnstone had sought without success to stimulate local production of gunpowder. 82 When the quarrel between Britain and her colonies turned into war, George III found it necessary to restrict the export of munitions to North America. The result was that the provincial authorities began in 1775 to intervene in what previously had been considered purely private transactions. In November the ship Ann, William Reid master, arrived from London at Pensacola. Its cargo, 9,000 pounds of powder, 925 Indian guns, and a quantity of bullets, had been ordered by James Mather, an English merchant residing in New Orleans, and intended for sale up the Mississippi. The West Florida council ordered it unloaded and stored in the provincial magazine at Pensacola, after which 1,000 pounds of the powder might be sent to Manchac, not by way of the Gulf of Mexico, where it would be liable to interception, but via the lakes and the Iberville. Its sale on the Mississippi would be supervised by Thomas, the previously mentioned deputy Indian commissioner. After its use, another 1,000 pounds could be sent to the Mississippi. 83 The same rule was applied two months later when the brig Norton arrived from London with 2,000 pounds of powder and a similar quantity of ball. Captain William Pickles asked for but was denied permission to carry it directly to Manchac, a sensible precaution in the light of Pickles’s later proAmerican activities.

The Continental Congress was undoubtably keen to obtain military supplies from New Orleans by way of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. In 1776 a large barge containing nineteen men and a boy left Fort Pitt on the Ohio, sailed into the Mississippi, and arrived on August I at Walnut Hills ( Vicksburg) in the northwest corner of West Florida, where the American flag was

raised by their captain, George Gibson. He carried dispatches from Congress to Governor Unzaga and to his royal master, but Gibson also wanted to trade his cargo (presumably of skins) for gunpowder. The success of this type of trade, about which Unzaga was only initially cautious, worried the British authorities. 84

Competition for Spanish customers increased, to the detriment of British Mssissippi traders in 1777, thanks to a Franco-Spamish agreement of the previous year which Bernardo de Gálvez, who succeeded Unzaga as governor of Louisiana, had to implement. Exports to France and the French West Indies were made legal on payment of a 5 percent export duty. Direct imports from France were also permitted, thus eliminating any further need for the French to resort to subterfuges like purchasing vessels of British registry to practice commerce with Louisiana. 85 Now slaves could be sent from the French West Indies in payment for the products of the Spanish colony. John Fitzpatrick of Manchac saw a gloomy future for British rivals to the French traders: “They certainly undersell us and their goods are better calculated for this province” he wrote. 86

Nevertheless there was no hint that Gálvez would suddenly and vigorously stifle existing British trade with Louisiana. One writer noted that successive governors had “for years past,” in return for a small share of the profits, connived at such activity. 87 The word on the river was that Gálvez was even more liberal toward English traders than his predecessors. “The new governor,” wrote Fitzpatrick in February, “allows the English liberty to trade or hunt up any of the rivers on the Spanish side they please; further–all the English merchants that kept their stores on board the vessels have now their shops in town.” 88 The sense of security into which they had been lulled must have been profound indeed if they had abandoned the sensible practice of maintaining their floating warehouses in favor of building in New Orleans, but disillusion was soon to follow, as Gálvez reversed his tolerant policy.

It is now half a century since John W. Caughey analyzed Gálvez’s motives for this policy reversal. They included the new instructions opening his colony to French traders which simultaneously ordered the exclusion of the British, Gálvez’s discovery that Louisianans were ready to inform against Britons, and his pique at a new British insistence on seizing small Spanish vessels violating British regulations on Lake Pontchartrain. 89

Lieutenant George Burdon had been legally correct but perhaps overofficious in seizing, early in April 1777, two schooners going from Bayou St. John to the Pearl River at the eastern end of Lake Pontchartrain. They were smuggling wine and tobacco; one of them had 160 “sticks,'” or “carrots,” of tobacco, or something less than three-quarters of a ton. 90 Had they not been caught, the schooners presumably would have loaded up with tar or staves for the return voyage. This legal justification appropriately prevailed in Gálvez’s explanation to the governor of Cuba of his retaliation. 91

(Untitled)

 

Postit’s From A Redbone

I try to leave out  put in the parts that people skip. Elmore Leonard 

MEHRA!

French Dominion-Kaskaskia Ms Valley

French Domination in Mississippi Valley-Kaskaskia

CHAPTER II.
FRENCH DOMINATION IN THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY.
DURING the whole of the period that the French held the control of the valley, Missouri, as such, had no separate legal existence and not a single settlement that has proved to be permanent, except, perhaps, Ste. Genevieve. Exactly when the “old” village of this name was founded is a matter that cannot be positively determined; and it is not important that it should be, except in so far as it may serve to throw light upon the time when the French began to familiarize themselves with the resources of the region west of the Mississippi. Upon this point the testimony of Pénicaut is of interest. He arrived in lower Louisiana in 1699, and in 1700 he made one of the party that ascended the river with Le Sueur for the purpose of opening a copper mine which was supposed to be on one of the tributaries of the Minnesota. In the journal which he kept of that expedition, he refers to the salt licks near Ste. Genevieve, and says that they were resorted to by the French and Indians, and that “presently” there was a settlement of the French at that place. He also speaks of a mine situated fifty leagues west of the Mississippi, from which the Indians got their supply of lead, and to which they went by way of the Maramec. These statements are explicit; they are borne out by the facts as they now exist, and if they do not fix the precise date when Ste.Genevieve was first settled, they at least justify the inference that it was shortly after the arrival of the French at the village of Kaskaskia, on the other side of the river, and hence, that it must have been early in the eighteenth century, and not about the middle, as sometimes supposed. They also indicate, with reasonable certainty, the date when the French began to make use of the mineral and other natural resources in which the region lying between the Mississippi and the Maramec abounded.
From this time forward, the career of the French in “the Illinois,” as this portion of the colony was called, can be easily traced. At first, and for a quarter of a century or more, it would seem as if they must have been given over almost altogether to the search after silver and copper. At all events, this is the not unnatural inference from the prominence accorded to this pursuit, in all the official documents. As a matter of fact, however, there are two sides to the shield, though there can be no question that, so far as it was possible for the home authorities to make it so, the search for silver was, for a number of years, the controlling interest in the little colony. As early as 1703, a party of twenty set out to go from Kaskaskia to New Mexico, by way of the Missouri River, for the purpose of . . . “visiting certain mines which were said, by the Indians, to yield a kind of lead that was white and of no account because it did not melt in the fire,” as did the true lead found nearer home. Of the fate of this expedition nothing is known, but the feasibility of the journey is placed beyond doubt by the fact that, in 1714, specimens of silver were forwarded to La Mothe Cadillac, at Mobile, and the report that they had been taken from mines nearKaskaskia brought that official up the river only to find that he had been deceived, and that the specimens had really come from Mexico. In spite of disappointments like these, and of the fact that thus far not a particle of silver had been found in this region, the colonial authorities were satisfied that it would ultimately be discovered, and they ascribed the failure to find it to the want of skill on the part of their agents.
Impressed with this belief, the directors of the Mississippi Company, who had come into the possession of the charter of the colony after its relinquishment by Crozat, in 1717, sent out several parties composed of men who were supposed to be accustomed to this kind of work, though Charlevoix, for reasons that appear to be good and sufficient, doubts their capacity. Among the first to arrive was the Sieur de Lochon, who came out in 1719. He “dug in a place that was showed him, took up a pretty large quantity of the mineral, a pound of which, that took up four days to melt, produced, as they say, two drachms of silver; but some persons suspect that he put in the silver.” A few months later he tried for lead, “and from two or three thousand weight of the mineral he extracted fourteen pounds of very bad lead, which cost him 1,400 livres.” Disheartened by this failure, he gave up the work and returned to France. Other parties followed in quick succession, but met with no better success. They found no silver, or, if they did, they put it into the melting pots themselves; and though lead was abundant, yet they got but little, for the reason that “they did not know how to construct their furnaces.” Finally, in 1720, there came the Sieur Renaud, one of the directors of the company, who is said to have surveyed these Maramec mines verythoroughly. He fared no better in the search for silver than did his predecessors, and his errand here would not call for further comment but for the fact that, in 1723, the earliest grants of lands in what is now known as the State of Missouri were made to him, and because, either directly or indirectly, he was the means of introducing negro slavery into this portion of the colony. According to the chronicles of the day, there came with him “many families who had received concessions of lands in the neighborhood of Kaskaskia, and who brought with them a number of negroes, granted to them by Bienville, for the purpose of cultivating these lands.” After this we hear but little of silver, though as late as 1744 Vaudreuil forwarded to France certain specimens of copper, which were said to have been found in the district of the Illinois. The lead mines of this region, however, were steadily worked, and among the articles sent down the river, lead was not the least important.
But whilst the authorities at New Orleans and Paris were dreaming of silver mines and squandering large sums of money in a vain search for them, the colonists in this district, consisting almost entirely of emigrants from Canada, were quietly pursuing the even tenor of their way, and devoting more or less of their attention to the trade in furs, and to the more prosaic but not less useful business of farming. Besides the expedition up the Missouri, to which reference has already been made, they explored the Des Moines and the Osage, and penetrated into Kansas among the Panis, where Dutigné, in 1719, planted the arms of France. This steady progress westward excited the jealousy of the Spaniards, and, in 1720, they fitted out an expedition for the purpose of taking a position on the Missouri which would enable them to check the advance of the French in this direction, and divert the trade of the Indians from Kaskaskia to Santa Fé. In this they were unsuccessful, as the expedition fell among hostile tribes and was destroyed.
Alarmed by the boldness of this expedition, and with the view of guarding against future danger from this quarter, as well as in the expectation of extending their trade, the French sent a force up the Missouri, and built a fort near a village of the tribe of that name, which they called Fort Orleans. 1 At the date of their arrival here, a general war was raging between the Padoucas on one side, and the Missouris, Osages, Iowas, Pawnees, Ottos, Mahas, etc., on the other. As these last were all friends of the French, and the war interfered very seriously with the trade in “buffalo’s wool,” it became a matter of the first importance to bring about a peace between these tribes. Accordingly, M. de Bourgmont, the commandant of Fort Orleans, summoned them to meet him at a council which was held in 1724, at a point situated on one of the western tributaries of the Kansas, when and where the pipe was smoked, and a general peace was concluded. Soon after this, Fort Orleans was destroyed and the garrison massacred, probably by the Missouris, though upon this point there is room for doubt. Bossu, however, ascribes it to them, and intimates that the outbreak was due to the frauds practiced upon them in the way of trade, and to the fact that the French debauched their women.These were the only occasions, during the rule of the French, upon which the settlers in this portion of the colony were exposed to serious danger, though they bore their share of the loss entailed by Bienville’s unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws, and took a prominent part in the fighting which began about the middle of the century, on the head waters of the Ohio, and ended in the treaty of Paris, February, 1763, and the expulsion of the French from the North American continent.
During all these years the little settlement on the Illinois, left in a great measure to itself, and separated by a thousand miles and more from the intrigues and exactions that prevailed at Quebec and New Orleans, continued to grow slowly but steadily in population and prosperity. Besides the fur-trade which now extended some three or four hundred leagues up the Missouri, and the lead mines of the Maramec from which the yield was, practically, unlimited, the agricultural products of the district began to assume important proportions. From the first arrival of the French in this quarter, they had given more or less of their attention to the cultivation of the soil, and it was owing to this fact that they were exempt from the oft recurring seasons of scarcity to which the inhabitants of New Orleans and the settlers on the Gulf coast were subject. As early as 1721, Charlevoix, writing from Kaskaskia, says that the French in that neighborhood were living “pretty much at their ease.” They cultivated wheat and corn, and had domestic cattle and fowls. The Indians, too, whose villages adjoined the settlements of the French, were “very laborious, and cultivated their fields in their own fashion.” A few years later, the farm products of this “district” had increased to such an extentthat they constituted a regular article of shipment. Le Page du Pratz and Bossu both speak of the amount of flour which was sent to New Orleans, and Vaudreuil who, in 1743, succeeded Bienville as governor, and who was not a partial witness, in a letter to the minister, says that every year, in the latter part of December, there came from “the Illinois” boats loaded with “flour, corn, bacon hams, both of bear and hog, corned pork and wild beef, myrtle and beeswax, cotton, tallow, leather, tobacco, lead, copper, buffalo-wool, venison, poultry, bear’s grease, oil, skins, fowls, and hides.” Varied as is this list, it is not complete, for Captain Pittman, who traveled up the river soon after the eastern portion of the valley fell into the hands of the English, adds “beer and wines.” This is certainly a very creditable showing, and furnishes good grounds for doubting Vaudreuil’s sincerity, when he seeks to justify his grant to Deruisseau of the monopoly of the fur-trade of the Missouri, by saying that the only way in which he could make the people in this part of the colony abandon their wandering mode of life and settle down to farm work, was by preventing them from trading with the Indians, and by prohibiting them from acquiring any more negro slaves. The two statements, to say the least, do not harmonize. A wandering life is never compatible with the successful employment of slave labor, and the fact that, in 1745, the negroes in this district were half as many as the whites, is not only conclusive as to the profitable use of this form of labor, but it is equally decisive as to the manner of life of the owners of these slaves, even without the confirmatory evidence of the products which they annually sent down the river.

White Servitude

White Servitude

Race and Family in the Colonial South

Essays by THAD W. TATE DANIEL BLAKE SMITH PHILIP MORGAN RUSSELL R. MENARD PATRICIA GALLOWAY ROBERT MIDDLEKAUFF

Edited by WINTHROP D. JORDAN and SHEILA L. SKEMP

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF MISSISSIPPI Jackson and London

The Composition of the Lowcountry Work Force, 1670-1730

Estimates made by local officials reveal the structure of Carolina’s population at the beginning of the eighteenth century, in 1703 and 1708 ( Table 2 ). White servants were only a minor part of the unfree work force, numbering 200 in 1703, less than 3 percent of the total population and 6 percent of the bound workers. Over the next five years, some servants died or gained their freedom and few arrived to take their place. Their number fell, to only 120, roughly 1 percent of the total and 2 percent of the unfree laborers. Slaves, on the other hand, increased markedly over the period. The Lowcountry was already a slave society in 1703, when its 3,000 blacks and 350 Indians made up 47 percent of the population. Between 1703 and 1708 the white population, battered by “the Late sickness” and held down by the “small supply from other parts,” barely held its own, rising from 3,800 to 4,080. The colony gained 1,100 blacks, however, through natural increase and from the West Indies, and 1,050 Indian slaves “by reason of our late conquest over the French and Spaniards and the success of our forces against the Appallackys and other Indian engagements.” 16 In 1708 there were 5,500 slaves in the Lowcountry, 4,100 of them black, 1,400 Indian, accounting for 57 percent of the total population.

No similarly comprehensive data remain for earlier or later years, but a combination of tax lists, parish census records, postmortem inventories, and contemporary observations permit a description of the work force in 1730. The message of these data is clear: the Lowcountry work force was overwhelmingly enslaved, black, and African. South Carolina’s population was two-thirds enslaved in 1730, and only a handful were Indians. There were few indentured servants and free white workers, most of them craftsmen or overseers on the larger plantations. And the composition of the black population had changed as West Africa replaced the sugar islands as the major source of new slaves. 17

Data for the seventeen century are scarce, but it is clear that Carolina had a much different work force early in its history. Records of headrights — warrants for land awarded to immigrants — are full of pitfalls for the historian, and those of Carolina seem especially problematic. Nevertheless, they provide precious clues to the composition of the labor force during the seventeenth century. In the 1670s, servants outnumbered slaves among new arrivals by more than 6 to 1, while white immigrants outnumbered blacks by 13 to 1 ( Table 3 ). White servants were the major source of unfree labor during the initial decade of the English occupation of the Lowcountry. 18 drawn increasingly from West Africa. 19 We can gain insight into these shifts through a close examination of the Lowcountry labor market, by surveying the changing supply of servants, Indians, and blacks, and by assessing the demand for workers among South Carolina planters. 20

The First Transition: From Servants to Slaves

By the time the first permanent English settlement was established in the Lowcountry, colonizers were able to draw on more than a half-century of experience in developing British America. All the English colonies faced the problem of recruiting a labor force, and a variety of methods and populations had been tried. Indentured servitude represented one of the more successful and enduring responses. By 1670 it had played a central role in the development of the British West Indies and the Chespeake colonies, accounting for perhaps 85 percent of the white migration to those regions and financing the Atlantic passage of roughly 150,000 settlers to English America as a whole. Not surprisingly, the promoters of South Carolina anticipated that indentured servants would supply a major share of the colony’s work force and they took steps to organize their recruitment immediately. 21

Their timing was unfortunate, for the days when servants willingly left England in numbers sufficient to the needs of colonial planters had already passed. British migration to America peaked in the 1650s and then declined, largely in response to falling population and improved opportunities at home. Carolinians recruited among a diminishing supply of willing migrants and they did so in the face of increased competition from other colonial regions, particularly the sugar islands and the tobacco coast but also from William Penn’s new colony in the mid-Atlantic area. 22

While the rapid disappearance of servants from field work is simple enough to account for, their failure to dominate plantation crafts and supervisory positions early in the Africanization process is a puzzle. In the West Indies and the Chesapeake colonies the transition from servitude to slavery occurred in two phases: blacks first displaced whites in routine agricultural labor and only later, with the rise of an acculturated, country-born slave population, dominated skilled work and supervision. 53 Peter Wood argues that a more complex pattern prevailed in the Lowcountry as blacks captured, lost, and then recaptured a dominant position in skilled jobs. 54 The evidence from probate inventories does not support Wood’s contention: none of the slave men who appear in inventories probated before 1720 were described as skilled, but 7 percent of those who appear in the 1720s and 10 percent in the 1730s were so described, a pattern similar to that found elsewhere in British America in the early stages of the rise of slavery. 55 What distinguishes Carolina from the other British colonies is the failure of Lowcountry planters to import white servants to perform such tasks before a substantial number of skilled blacks appeared in the region.

Another distinguishing feature of the Lowcountry labor system during the process of Africanization was the key role played by Native American slaves. While Indian slaves appear in South Carolina as early as 1683, they were rare during the seventeenth century. In 1700 there were roughly 200 enslaved Indians in the Lowcountry, 3 percent of the total population and 7 percent of the unfree work force. During the next decade they were the most rapidly growing group in the colony. By 1710 there were 1500 Native American slaves accounting for 15 percent of the total and 26 percent of the bound laborers. They continued to increase in the next decade, but much less rapidly. In 1720, there were 2000 Indians, but they made up only 11 percent of the total and 17 percent of the slaves. Thereafter both their numbers and their

share fell sharply: in 1730 there were 500 Indian slaves in South Carolina, less than 2 percent of the total and only 2.4 percent of the unfree workers ( Table 1 ).

While the subject merits a detailed investigation, the pattern is consistent with an explanation based on the supply of Indians and the demand for labor. During the seventeenth century before the rapid expansion of the Carolina export sector, Lowcountry planters met their labor needs with servants and West Indian blacks. Few Indians were turned into slaves and most of them were exported to earn foreign exchange. In this period the slave trade was a secondary activity, subordinate to the trade in deer skins and the political aims of the English and their Native American allies. Indian slaves were captured almost incidentally, as a by-product of other processes. After 1700 the Lowcountry export boom led to a sharp increase in demand for labor which transformed relationships between the English and the Indians. The slave trade gained in importance and was no longer subordinated to the deerskin trade or to political concerns. More Indians were captured and more of those captives were kept in the Lowcountry to make rice, grow provisions, and produce naval stores. 56

The intensification of the slave trade proved devastating to the aboriginal population. It was a bloody, violent business, impossible to institutionalize, that demanded increased warfare and ever more raiding. It produced sharp demographic decline and the total destruction of several smaller tribes. And it led to major political changes as Indians struggled to protect themselves by forming larger and more effective federations and by elaborating a “play-off ” system in which rivalries between the English, French, and Spanish were exploited in efforts to control the worst excesses of the European invasion. Population decline and political restructuring quickly lowered the supply of Indian slaves, reducing it to a mere trickle by the 1720s. 57

It is unlikely that planter preferences for Africans played a major role in the decline of Indian slavery. True, Indians were more vulnerable to Lowcountry diseases than blacks and were thus more often sick and more likely to die young. Indians also may have found escape easier given their geographic knowledge and the presence of nearby tribes who might take them in. And it is possible that tradition and prior work experience made Indians less productive as agricultural laborers. However, such differences were compensated for by the higher prices blacks commanded: during the 1720s adult blacks were worth 40 to 50 percent more than adult Indians. If planter preferences were responsible for the decline of Indian slavery one would expect a sharp fall in price to accompany the fall in numbers. Prices rose, rather than fell, by 50 to 100 percent from the 1720s to 1730s, indicating that planters would have purchased more Indian slaves had they been available. 58

Although the preferences of planters as individual managers of labor played little role in the decline of Indian slavery, their political concerns, the preferences of planters as a collective, as members of an emerging ruling class, were critical to the fall of the native slave trade. In the late stages of the Yamasee War the Carolina Assembly passed an Indian Trading Act which, among other things, restricted dealing in Native American slaves. Perhaps that reflected the tension between the extravagant violence of the slave trade and the growing gentility of Lowcountry life, a tension that Bernard Bailyn has identified as a central theme of colonial history. 59 More likely it was a reaction to the dangers posed by the Indian slave trade. Those dangers were clearly revealed in the Yamasee War, which engulfed the colony in 17151717. While the origins of that conflict are complex, it is clear that Indian grievances against the slave trade helped initiate it and that the slave traders welcomed it as an opportunity to increase supplies and prevented an early settlement. The war devasted the colony: some 400 people were killed, more than £100,000 in property was lost, half the cultivated land was abandoned, food supplies were so short that starvation threatened, commerce was disrupted, and taxes rose sharply. And it was nearly worse. Only

luck and skillful diplomacy prevented the alliance of Creeks, Choctaws, and Yamasees from overwhelming Carolina and pushing the settlers into the sea. By 1715, the Carolina planters had too much at stake to tolerate such risks, especially since an alternative (and safer) source of labor was available through the African trade. 60

The rapid growth of the slave trade to the West Indies during the seventeenth century, long before Africans emerged as a dominant source of unfree labor in the Lowcountry, played a central role in the rise of slavery in South Carolina and in all the other mainland colonies. In only two decades around 1650, Barbados was transformed from a struggling tobacco colony into a major sugar producer. By 1660 there were 34,000 blacks in the British West Indies and annual slave deliveries approached 3,000. The transformation is usually credited to the Dutch, who, “being ingaged on the coast of Giney in Affrick for negros slaves having lost Brasille not knowing where to vent them they trusted them to Barbados.” The English played at least a minor role in this early West Indian slave trade and, by the 1660s, had wrested the African trade (as well as all the other major trades with its colonies) from Dutch control. 61 During the third quarter of the seventeenth century, English slavers greatly improved the efficiency of their operations. Prices fell dramatically, reaching a low point in the 1680s. At the same time, volume rose sharply: in the 1680s the Royal African Company delivered more than 5,000 slaves annually to the British sugar islands, a figure that excludes the apparently substantial trade conducted by interlopers. 62 The supply of slaves to British America improved during the seventeenth century, the larger numbers and lower prices reflecting more efficient markets, cheaper transport costs, and the exploitation of new African sources. At the very least the long-run supply curve for slaves was highly elastic, and despite rising prices evident by the 1690s, it remained so into the early decades of the eighteenth century.

In 1708 over half of the Charleston population of 9,580 was said to have been composed of slaves: 1, 400 American Indian slaves and 4,100 black slaves. In addition, Indian slaves were being exported from Charleston to colonies to the north as well as to the West Indies. Some of these were undoubtedly Cherokees, though most were perhaps from tribes closer to the colony ( Thomas 1903:94-96).

 

GREAT AMERICAN LAND BUBBLE

Land Grabbing-Kaskaskia

The GREAT AMERICAN LAND BUBBLE
The Amazing Story of Land-Grabbing, Speculations, and Booms from Colonial Days to the Present Time
by A. M. SAKOLSKI ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF FINANCE COLLEGE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS NEW YORK AND LONDON 1932

Redbones early settlers of Kaskaskia
It will be recalled by the reader that just prior to the Revolution, the Indiana and Illinois lands were “prOmpted” by a group of politicians and Indian traders through spectacular purchases from the supposed Indian owners. Largely to offset opposing claims to the territory, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War, sought possession of the region and sent George Rogers Clark to drive out both the Indians and the English. In 1780, the Virginia authorities established a court at Vincennes (then a wellestablished French settlement) which assumed the right of granting lands freely to every applicant whom they approved.
The members of the court naturally were kind to themselves. “An arrangement was made,” notes William Henry Harrison, Governor of Indiana Territory in 1802, “by which the whole country, to which the Indian title was supposed to be extinguished, was divided between the members of the court.” Most of them, however, abandoned the land in a few years, because they could find no purchasers. When settlement in the territory began, however, after 1800, the claims of these “grantees” were bought up by speculators who infested the western country. These resold to others in different parts of the United States. “The price at which the land is sold,” wrote Governor Harrison to James Madison, “enables anybody to become a purchaser; one thousand acres being frequently given for an indifferent horse or a rifle gun.”
Many ignorant persons were induced to buy these fraudulent titles, and a number began to settle upon the land. “I should not be surprised,” wrote Harrison, “to see five hundred families settling under these titles the ensuing Spring.” He feared that upon learning of their invalid titles, the settlers would petition Congress to confirm their ownership. “The extent of these speculations was unknown to me until lately,” the governor stated. “I am now informed that a number of persons are in the habit of repairing to this place [Vincennes] where they purchase two or three thousand acres of this claim, for which they get a deed properly authenticated and recorded, and then disperse themselves over the United States to cheat the ignorant and credulous. To check this practice, I have forbidden the recorder and prothonotary of this county from recording or authenticating any of these papers.” 11
Though William Henry Harrison, hero of Tippecanoe, railed against the unprincipled land jobbers that “infested” his Indiana territory, he, himself, participated in one of the questionable and corrupt speculations in the Old Northwest. When George Rogers Clark, and his Virginians, took possession of the Illinois country and drove out the British, he found French colonies established along the Kaskaskia River. These simple-minded French pioneers feared the Americans because of both their pillaging and their Protestantism. Some fled the country and settled in Louisiana. Others who remained were sought to be appeased by grants of land. Thus, in Vincennes, each head of a family was given 400 acres, drawn by lot. After the Ordinance of 1787, many again became frightened, as they were told they would be required to change their religion–and left their settlements.
As might be expected, they sold their land titles for almost anything. Their claims were eagerly bought up by both resident and non-resident land grabbers. Among those who bought these titles were William Henry Harrison, the first secretary, and General Arthur St. Clair, the first governor of the Northwest Territory. Neither, however, went into this business of land grabbing on a large scale.
But Harrison’s name appears several times, in the lists of those who presented claims to the Frenchmen’s lands in Kaskaskia. 12 St. Clair personally presented no claims, but it is clearly evident that his son, John Murray St. Clair, was closely associated with one John Edgar, merchant of Illinois, who garnered more land claims in this region than any other individual. St. Clair, as governor of the territory, passed upon the validity of these claims, and he seems to have approved a vast number held by John Edgar and, jointly, by Edgar and his son.
John Edgar settled in Kaskaskia in 1784. He was a native of Ireland, and brought with him to the Illinois country a stock of merchandise, useful to the pioneer inhabitants. He soon built up an extensive trade, established a flour mill, and entered local politics. He was also appointed a “Major General of Militia” as well as a “judge” in the Northwest Territory. He became very friendly with Governor Arthur St. Clair, whom he occasionally entertained in his sumptuous backwoods palace.
In the St. Clair Papers, published in 1883, there is a letter written by Edgar to Governor St. Clair, which indicates their close association. On April II, 1801, after congratulating the governor on his reappointment “in spite of the opposition of your enemies,” he wrote, “I must now take the liberty of refreshing your memory concerning the deeds for the three surveys which I sent you last Spring, for which I now begin to feel myself anxious.” And, in a more familiar vein, he added: “Present if you please, Mrs. Edgar’s and my compliments to Mrs. Dill, Mrs. Vance and the rest of the family. 13
St. Clair brought upon himself severe criticism because, among other things, of his approval of several Kaskaskia claims. He was rebuked by Washington for his actions, and finally was removed by Jefferson in November, 1802. His confirmation of a grant of 30,000 acres to John Edgar and his son was subsequently annulled on the ground that it was made after St. Clair had authority to act as a land commissioner. St. Clair’s son, however, remained in Illinois, but the general returned to western Pennsylvania after his dismissal, where he died in 1818, a poor and broken-down old man. He acquired no wealth because of his political position in the Old Northwest; though, when surrounded by ravenous land jobbers in this back country, he undoubtedly was under great temptation to join in their schemes. But he seems to have passed up the opportunity.
Next to Edgar, to whom were confirmed 49,200 acres, the largest jobbers in the Kaskaskia claims were William Morrison and Nicholas Jarrot. Jarrot was a jobber of no political importance, but Morrison, like Edgar, was prominent in early Illinois politics. He was a native of Pennsylvania, who emigrated to Kaskaskia in 1790. He also was a leading merchant in the Illinois country, to estimate it, but there is much evidence indicating that British speculative interest in American growth and prosperity was greatly aroused in this period and that agents were employed by British capitalists to acquire both agricultural lands and urban real estate in the United States.
Red River settlers from Kaskaskia
The titles to these and other New Mexican land claims were as troublesome to settle as those in California. Congress, however, did not take up the problem until a decade or more after the California mess was attended to. The courts, moreover, were slow in adjusting New Mexico claims, and as late as 1890 there were still 107 claims pending, covering 8,704,785 acres. It was not until 1904 that most of these were settled.
Here, also, the lawyers found the land claim business highly lucrative. One, who became exceedingly wealthy, was Stephen B. Elkins, in later life a West Virginia millionaire, cabinet ofricer and United States Senator. Elkins went to New Mexico in 1863. He learned the Spanish language, entered politics, was then sent to the state legislature and later to Congress. His chief occupation in New Mexico, however, was in defending the titles to lands granted under the Mexican régime–and incidentally, he acquired a substantial financial interest in them.
George W. Julian, who in 1868 was appointed United States Surveyor-General of New Mexico, in a speech at Indianapolis on September 14, 1892, thus characterized the land dealings of Elkins:
Elkins’ dealings were mainly in Spanish grants, which he bought for a small price. Elkins became a member of the land ring of the territory, and largely through his influence, the survey of these grants was made to contain hundreds of thousands of acres that did not belong to them. He thus became a great land holder, for through the manipulation of committees in Congress, grants thus illegally surveyed were confirmed with their fictitious titles …. By such methods as these, more than 10,000,000 acres of public domain in New Mexico became the spoil of land grabbers. 21
As in the case of California, excessive claims were the rule rather than the exception in New Mexico. Although under the Mexican régime the maximum acreage granted to an individual
was eleven leagues (about 50,000 acres), several claims embraced a much larger area. The Las Vegas grant comprised a million acre tract, and the so-called “Maxwell Grant” almost two million acres, i.e., about 3,000 square miles.
The Maxwell Grant was one of the most notorious of the New Mexico land claims, and in this Elkins “made himself particularly conspicuous as the hero. “Lucien Benjamin Maxwell, a native of Kaskaskia, Ill., and one of the most striking early figures along the Rocky Mountain frontier, acquired it in 1864, from Carlos Beaubien and Guadelupe Miranda, the original grantees. It was adjacent to the Red River in northern New Mexico and contained almost the whole of the present Colfax County. In extent, it would make three states the size of Rhode Island. Here Maxwell, while living in barbaric splendor, attempted to found an American barony, but his principal business was raising sheep.
He probably would have continued as America’s greatest sheep herder, Had it not been for the discovery of gold on his domain. This gave him plenty of excitement. By disposition a gambler, he forthwith invested large sums in developing placer mining. The result were negative. Like Sutter in California, he was met by an army of squatters and free-lance miners, who refused to be ousted except by force. In order to save a remnant of his fortune, he sold his grant to an English syndicate for $1,250,000-onehalf of which sum was paid to his sales agents.
The syndicate formed the Maxwell Land Grant and Railroad Company and tried to unload its obligations on the public. It did succeed in selling bonds to Dutch investors, who were undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the “Hon.” Stephen B. Elkins was president of the company. All this was done before the validity of the grant was fully established. In the meantime, the finances of the company went from bad to worse, and by 1875 it was bankrupt. Its lands were sold for unpaid taxes, and its personal property disposed of at sheriff’s sale to satisfy creditors.
After the Maxwell Land Grant failure, Stephen B. Elkins left for West Virginia, where he married the daughter of its wealthiest citizen and statesman, Senator Henry Gassaway Davis, and where he also became a United States Senator. Maxwell’s subsequent career was less fortunate. He invested a large part of the proceeds from the sale of his land in the bonds of the Texas and Pacific Railroad. Through subsequent bankruptcy of the railroad, the bonds became almost worthless. He also essayed banking, and organized the First National Bank of Santa Fé. As its first president, he pictured himself on its notes with a cigar in his mouth. He died in comparative poverty, July 25, 1875. Sheep raising on his New Mexico property would have been more profitable to him and more beneficial to the country than the exploitation of its gold mines.
Another notorious New Mexico land claim which became a securities gamble, and which was, in 1895, adjudged a criminal forgery, was the so-called “Peralta-Reavis Grant.” This fraudulent scheme to obtain title to about 1,3000,000 acres under a supposed gift from the King of Spain dating back to 1748, was concocted by James Addison Reavis, a St. Louis real estate dealer. Reavis, in 1871, met George M. Willing, Jr., who represented himself as the proprietor of an immense tract of land on the borders of New Mexico and Arizona, that he had purchased from the heirs of Don Miguel de Peralta. Reavis visited the location with Willing, and while at the latter’s home, it is charged, stole a deed to the property made out in blank and signed by Willing. Armed with this document, he proceeded, in 1883, to seek the validation of his land claim under the Act of Congress of July 22, 1854. In the meantime, he married a squaw, who, he claimed, was the direct heir and descendant of the original grantee. He then assumed the name of Addison Peralta-Reavis.

Widows of Virginia

Widows of Virginia

But the unusually large role played by physicians in the colony was the least important consequence of Virginia’s continuing high death rate. More significant was the effect on the role of women. In a society where men died early, the relatively small number of women could expect to wear widow’s weeds and to wear them often, though not for long. Women were too rare in Virginia to be left for long without husbands. The case of Jane Sparrow in 1660 was doubtless extreme. She was sick, and her husband called in a doctor. The cure was successful, but the husband died, leaving the doctor to collect 1,200 pounds of tobacco from his estate. The recovered wife remarried five days later. 25
Most Virginia women waited a couple of months; but they were, in the records at least, a singularly unlovely lot. Given their small numbers, they account for a high proportion of the cases of
slander heard by the courts, and they were also in court too often for abusing their servants. In three cases where servants died after abusive treatment, women were defendants. 26 In none of these cases was the woman found guilty, but one, Anne Charlton (widow of Stephen Charlton, a Northampton commissioner), was required to give bond for good behavior in the future. The commissioners had had trouble with her before, when she was the widow of Anthony West. At that time, she had gone after her overseer with a club. 27 Another commissioner, Henry Woodhouse, of Norfolk, had to be given protection from the unkind usage of his wife while he was sick. His fellow commissioners ordered that the neighbors should “have free libertie to resorte to the house of Mr. Woodhouse to see that hee have what shalbe both sufficient and necessarie for him dureinge his sickness, and according to his quallitye.” At the same session the court placed in the sheriff’s custody for protection a maidservant of Mrs. Woodhouse who had been “Most unchristianlike used by her mistress.” But the court’s efforts were not enough. By the next session both Woodhouse and the maid were dead. Within the year Mrs. Woodhouse had remarried. 28
If an awareness of their scarcity value induced an imperiousness or even downright tyranny in Virginia’s women, it also gave them greater economic advantages than they enjoyed in England. By Virginia’s law, as by England’s, a widow was entitled to a life interest in one-third of her husband’s estate, 29 and in Virginia the annual usufruct of an estate was likely to amount to a larger proportion of its value than in England. Furthermore, men of property generally favored their wives with more than the law required. It was common to give specific bequests to the children and everything else to the wife, 30 but there was great variety in wills. John Valentine gave his widow one-third of the estate as her own and the use of the rest of it while she remained a widow. 31 Rowland Burnham gave his wife half the servants, half the cattle, all the furniture, but non of them
land. 32 Abraham Peirsey gave his widow one-third plus one-twelfth. 33 Adam Thorowgood gave his widow a mare and a foal, one of the best cows in the pen, half a dozen goats, four sows, and part of his plantation for life, “all which I give her as a memorial of my love— not any ways intending to cut her off from a equal share in my estate with my children.” 34
Besides getting a large share of the estate, the widow was often appointed administrator. This meant that claimants against the estate had to make their claims to her, and she, by delaying payment, might continue to enjoy the whole for some time. Captain John Sibsey left most of his land, his servants, his plate, and two-thirds of everything else to his widow, one-third to his daughter. But the daughter’s husband had to sue her mother in order to get what was given her. 35 If a widow had a jointure (which excluded a part of the estate as belonging to her before any inventory was taken), she was in a particularly advantageous position. Whether she had a jointure or not, she was not responsible for her husband’s debts beyond the value of his estate. 36
The wealthy widow has always had an edge on competitors in the marriage market. In Virginia the death rate produced such a rapid turnover of husbands and wives that widowhood became a principal means for the concentration of wealth. It has been suggested that the men who made their way to the top in the I620s and I630s in Virginia were unable to perpetuate their family lines; the famous first families of Virginia came to the colony later. 37 In a patrilineal sense this was the case. But while the high mortality lasted, with women apparently resisting it more successfully than men, Virginia was on the way to becoming an economic matriarchy, or rather a widowarchy. The man who needed capital could get it most easily by marrying a widow. And she was likely to get it back again, with whatever return he had added to it, when he died. The next husband would have an even larger base to build on.

Natchez District Court Recordings- Nash

Natchez Court Records-Thomas Ash/Nash

Phillip Goin mark and Thomas Nash mark the intitials TA not Thomas Nash, as he is named in the document. 

 

Thomas Nash
Joseph Grubb from Gibson Johnson 640 acres West side of Bayou Kisatchie gave witness Ethelred Smith and  Major Smith that said tract was occupied cultivated and inhabited since prior to 1819.  Claim was granted.  Kisatchie Bayou land claim and many other related claims listed at link below

West of Pearl River 

Maps West of Pearl River
Natchez Court Records 1781-1805
1788
Thomas Nash is listed as indebted to Richard Carpenter, a merchant of Natchez.
14 May 1789
Thomas Nash indedted to Don Juan Girault, 10.00 Robert Miller, as security. Signed Thos Nash, Robert Miller.
(others listed on the page is David Mulkey, dated 6 June 1789 mortages his estate, etc)
p315 His creditors versus William Henderson, Peter Walker, an agent for the creditor of the late Wm. Henderson, we think it our duty to have an inventory of the esstate made immediately, in order that it may not be embezzled, of which we are apprehensive.  We asked to be authorized to take the above mentioned inventor, as agent and greatest creditor 18 Apr 1793 signed: Peter Walker, John O’Connol// granted same date.  The document to be returned attested by two witnesses to be present at the proceedings. Signed Manuel Gayoso de Lemons// In virtue of the foregoing decree, we Peter Walker and John O’Connor attended at the dwelling house of the late Wm Hendersonaccompanied by Mr Joseph Bernard and Mr George Fitzgerald, as witnesses and having applied to Dorothy, the widow, for a statement of property left in her hands by her late husband when he left the country, she gave in the following accounts: One tract of land situated on the Bluffabout two legues northeast of Fort Panmure containing 800 acres with house and improvements, on which she and her family now dwell (the above tract mortaged to James Carrick, merchant in N.C.); One tract of land on the Homochitto, 500 acres on which there is a ferry, authorized by the goverment, one tract on Bayou Pierre, 400 acres on which there is likewise a ferry; three tracts situated at the Big Black, one on which there is a ferry, 250 acres; another 250 acres; and another 200 acres, four negroes, horses, cattle, and hogs and the following notes, number as in the margin: Mordecai Richards, Wm Robinson, Soloman Witley, William Atchinson, Abraham Mayes, William Kelsey, Edmond Quirk, Samuel Head, William Owens, Samuel Murphy, Stephen Minor, Stephen Minor’s order on Nathaniel Thomlinson, other papers etc., tools, household furniture, kitchen furniture and milk house utensils.  Further Mr Burrel Stroud said that when Wm Henderson died in Kentucky, he had in his possesion several obligations and other effects, and that they remained in the hands of Capt. James Morrison, who is expected down very shortly.  Above inventory certified by Peter Walker, John O’Connor, Joseph Bernard and George Fitgerald 22 Apr 1793// obligations in hands of John O’Connor, where they were lodged by the late Moses Armstrong, Wm. Bassett, Christy Bolling, Samuel Heady, William Burnet, Daniel Burnet, Gibson Clark, George Cochran, Jacob Coburn, Louis Chardoneau, Wm Cheney, Thomas Evans, John Farquhar, John Ferguson, Benjamin Grubb, John Burnet, John Booth, George Bailey, Thomas Beans, Charles Carter, Waterman Crane, Silas Chambers, Wm. Curtis, John Chambers, Isaac Fyffe, John Ford, Robert Miller, Samuel Gibson, James Glasscock, Ezeckial Hoskinson, Margaret Harmon, Tho. Hubbard, Joseph Dove, Thomas Jordan, Joseph King, Justice King, Wm Kelsey, Thos Kelsey, James Lobdel, James Layton, Richard Miller, John Montgomery, Ralph Humphries, Nathaniel Duty, Rosewell Mygatt, Thomas Nash,
William Lee vs Daniel Harrigal, Sandy Creek District, William Cooper, JP. where before me appeared , Mrs. Susannah Lee who made oath that Daniel Harrigill told her that he helped THomas Nash kill two hogs the prorety of Alexander Farrar and one Moore, and that he helped Silas McBee catch a horse, the property sd David Willams, deceased, and the said horse ran about the pond where David Odam now lives, and that he piloted the said McBee out of the settlement and to the other side of William Caliut’s with the said horse and negro man that satyed at the said Hargill’s and that the said negro had hired himself from his master to trade for himself and the said negor had come from below and the said Williams had wrote 2 free pass for the negro. Susannah S Lee 21 Jul 1794  There is further testimonies, however they do not pertain to THomas Nash.
p209 Claim No 370 6 Feb 1804 William Curtis to Thomas Nash, for $100 my claim in Jefferson County now in actual possesion of Thomas Nash, adj lands of John Hamberlin, Robert Duncan and the donation right of Hugh Slater all my right of donation in sd tract signed William Curtis wit John Hamberlin, Wm McDuggle. Ack. before David Phelps, J.P. of Jefferson Co// p210 7 Feb 1804 Thos Nash, for $600 paid to Joseph Bullen, land as above, settled the last od Dec 1797 by Wm Curtis.  Thos Nash Wit Armstong Ellis, Wm Fugeson, Ack before Thos Rodney, Justice of the Superior Court 13 Feb 1804// File wit: Abraham Maye and John Griffin 10 Mar 1806.  Certificate B-88 issued 3 Feb 1807. Bullen claims a donation of 640 acres as above.
Betsy Nash
Natchez Court Records 1781-1805
No. 709 Claimant, Joseph Bullen, 19 Mrh 1804 Wit: Abraham Mayes, Certificate D-294 issued 29 Dec 1806.  Joseph Bullen claims preemption right to 640 acres on the waters of Cole’s Creek, sold to me by Betsy Nash 6 Feb 1804.  This tract the said Betsey did actually inhabit and cultivate on 3 Mar 1803 and was then the head of a family and more than 21 years of age.  By plat Hugh Slayter and sd Joseph Bullen adj lands // Betsey Nash for $30 pid me, to Joseph Bullen, now living in Jefferson Co., all my right to the preemption right to the improvements, on the land on which he now lives in sd county, about 2 miles southeast of the courthouse, suppose to contain 600 acres.  Feb , 1804 Wit; John Hamberlin, William McDuggle. Betsy Ash 1810 Opelousas Parish Cenus with many other related family members.
Wibble Nash
1810 Claimed Baton Rouge W of Pearle River

Cyrus assignee Elizabeth Nash
1806 claimed 240acres St Helena (cultivated 1810-1820)

Ira and Elizabeth Nash
1804  claimed 1600 acres 131 niles north of mouth of Missouri (granted)

Webb Nash
1810 (Feb) claimed or purchased W. of Pearle River

Joseph Nash
1781 claimed as fifer and private 6th  Maryland Regt unknown location (granted)

ASH

William Ash
1815 claimed 640 acres Natchitoches in what was once Nuetral Territory and lieing on the east bank of Sabine River about two miles below the Coushatta Village.  Vincent Jackson and Morris Mc Laughlin gave testimony of inhabitants and cultivation of potatos, peach trees etc. Claim was denied for non continuation of inhabitants??

John Ash
claimed 400 acres Kaskaskias in virtue of improvements, grant denied for purjery?

I have more info on all the relatives int his area Kaskaskia and this area was in the Nuetral Zone

Thomas Ash
No 1061 Claimant: Robert Childress, 24 March 1804 Rejected May 12, 1807
Robt Childress, a citizen of the Mississippi Terrirory, Adams Co., legal rep of Thomas Ash claims 160 acres in sd county on the waters of Sandy Creek, by virtue of the said tract having been inhabited and cultivated by said Thos. Ash in the month of Oct 1794, who was then the head of a family and continues in possesion until he conveyed the premises to Willford Hogatt, who sold the same to this claimant, under sect of the Act of Congress Regulating the Grants of Land.

More on the Nash family and related

Natchez records

Free People of Color-Misc Indian Petitions

Free People of Color-Indian Misc Petitions

Location: Nansemond County, VA   •   Year: 1831
Abstract: Free people of color are neither freemen nor slaves. “The mark set on them by nature precludes their enjoyment, in this country, of the privileges of the former; and the laws of the land do not allow them to be reduced to the condition of the latter,” a group of whites argues. “Hence they are of necessity, degraded, profligate, vicious, turbulent and discontented.” The petitioners state that they do not want to be cruel or unchristian, but they seek to rid themselves of the “ill-fated class” within their midst.
Location: Gates County, NC   •   Year: 1790
Abstract: The petitioners request the legislature to pass a law validating acquisition of land by a group of descendants of American Indians and blacks. In 1724, the Chowan Indians received 11,360 acres of land in Chowan County, later Gates County. The Indians “sold” most of the land. The Native American men all died, and the women “mixed with Negroes.” The free blacks and their mixed-blood children served as soldiers for the colonials in the Revolution. Supported by William Lewis, Samuel Harrell, and other white men, they seek title to “Small Remnants of the aforesaid Tract of Land.”
Named Petitioner:LEWIS, William ()
FNAME:William
LNAME:Lewis
COLOR:White
GENDER:Male

No relatives associated with this petitioner.
Named Petitioner:HARRELL, Samuel ()
FNAME:Samuel
LNAME:Harrell
COLOR:White
GENDER:Male
No relatives associated with this petitioner.
Location: Northampton County, VA   •   Year: 1784
Abstract: A six-hundred acre Native American reservation has become “an Asylum for free Negro & other disorderly persons, who build Hutts thereon & pilage & destroy the Timber without controul.” There were only five or six of the Gingaskin tribe left on the land. The petitioners request that trustees be appoint to lay off “a convenient part of the said Land” for the Indians while leasing out and taxing the remainder. The rents would be divided among the Gingaskin.

Location: King William County, VA   •   Year: 1843
Abstract: Freeholders and other white inhabitants of King William County ask the legislature to sell fifteen hundred acres on the Pamunky River and other lands that were set apart during the colonial era for the Pamunky Indians. The lands were only “set apart,” not “granted away.” Now the Pamunkys form only a “small remnant” of the population, having “so largely mingled with the negro race as to have obliterated all striking features of Indian extraction.” The lands, the petitioners state, are now inhabited by two “unincorporated bands of free mulattoes in the midst of a large slave holding community.” These free people of color might easily be converted “into an instrument of deadly annoyance to the white inhabitants by northern fanaticism.” The areas have become resorts for free people of color, “worthless and abandoned whites,” and runaway slaves. In short, the tracts are a “harbor for every one who wishes concealment.”
Petition Details

PAR #:11684302
Salutation:A PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Location:King William City/County, Virginia
Filing Date:circa 20 January 1843
PetitionersNo petitioner records associated with this petition.

Number of Petitioners: 1
Is/Are petitioner(s) slave owner(s)? No

Free People of ColorNo FPOC records associated with this petition.

DefendantsNo defendant records associated with this petition.

SlavesNo slave records associated with this petition.

Subjects:American Indians; class attitudes; confiscation; fpoc; fpoc and slaves; fpoc attitudes; fugitive; insurrection; land ownership; mulattoes; poor whites; runaways
Abstract:Freeholders and other white inhabitants of King William County ask the legislature to sell fifteen hundred acres on the Pamunky River and other lands that were set apart during the colonial era for the Pamunky Indians. The lands were only “set apart,” not “granted away.” Now the Pamunkys form only a “small remnant” of the population, having “so largely mingled with the negro race as to have obliterated all striking features of Indian extraction.” The lands, the petitioners state, are now inhabited by two “unincorporated bands of free mulattoes in the midst of a large slave holding community.” These free people of color might easily be converted “into an instrument of deadly annoyance to the white inhabitants by northern fanaticism.” The areas have become resorts for free people of color, “worthless and abandoned whites,” and runaway slaves. In short, the tracts are a “harbor for every one who wishes concealment.”
Petition Result:rejected circa 27 February 1843
Location Description:Legislative Petitions
Pages:4
Repository:184:LVA
Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia
Richmond, Monroe City or County, VA
Gen Notes:1

PAR #: 11383906
Salutation: The State of South Carolina To the Honorable Legislature of the said State
Location: Edgefield County/District, South Carolina
Filing Date: circa 09 December 1839
Petitioners
Name Name Ext. Alternate Name
Frederick Chavis    
Lewis Chavis    
Durany Chavis    
James Jones    
Bartley Jones    

Number of Petitioners: 8
Is/Are petitioner(s) slave owner(s)? No

Free People of Color
No FPOC records associated with this petition.
Defendants
No defendant records associated with this petition.
Slaves
No slave records associated with this petition.
Subjects: American Indians; fpoc; fpoc regulations; interracial mixing; taxation
Abstract: Eight citizens of the Edgefield District request a refund of their poll taxes. Two among them, Polly Dunn and Bartley Jones, are free people of color, but their ages–sixteen and seventeen years–exclude them from being taxed. Six others do not qualify under the term “free person of color” as they are of Indian ancestry.
Location Description: Records of the General Assembly; Document Number 1859 #12; Page frames 463-64; Microfilm Info: Reel #1, frames 463-464
Pages: 2
Related Documents: Sponsor, Francis Hugh Wardlaw, House, Edgefield District (1834-1835, 1838-1839, 1850)
Repository: 170:SCDAH
South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South Carolina
Columbia, Richland County or District, SC
Gen Notes:1
PAR #: 11678401
Salutation: To the Honourable the Speaker & Gentlemen of the House of Delegates
Location: Northampton City/County, Virginia
Filing Date: circa 26 November 1784
Petitioners
Name Name Ext. Alternate Name
Litt Savage    
E. Armistead    
John Upshur    
D. Godwin    
Isaac Avery    

Number of Petitioners: 21
Is/Are petitioner(s) slave owner(s)? No

Free People of Color
No FPOC records associated with this petition.
Defendants
No defendant records associated with this petition.
Slaves
No slave records associated with this petition.
Subjects: American Indians; fpoc regulations; interracial mixing; land ownership; slave economy; taxation; timber; wa toward fpoc
Abstract: A six-hundred acre Native American reservation has become “an Asylum for free Negro & other disorderly persons, who build Hutts thereon & pilage & destroy the Timber without controul.” There were only five or six of the Gingaskin tribe left on the land. The petitioners request that trustees be appoint to lay off “a convenient part of the said Land” for the Indians while leasing out and taxing the remainder. The rents would be divided among the Gingaskin.
Petition Result: reasonable
Location Description: Legislative Petitions
Pages: 2
Repository: 184:LVA
Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia
Richmond, Monroe City or County, VA
Gen Notes:1
PAR #: 11278704
Salutation: . . . to the hon’ble Houses of the general Assembly now Setting
Location: North Carolina
Filing Date: circa 21 November 1787
Petitioners
Name Name Ext. Alternate Name
Samuel Ashe    

Number of Petitioners: 1
Is/Are petitioner(s) slave owner(s)? No

Free People of Color
No FPOC records associated with this petition.
Defendants
No defendant records associated with this petition.
Slaves
No slave records associated with this petition.
Subjects: American Revolution; Britain; debts; military; wa toward slaves
Abstract: Executor of the last will and testament of Major General John Ashe, Samuel Ashe seeks relief for the general’s heirs, charged 6,385 pounds “depreciated Money” for an unpaid debt. During the Revolution, the general had been forced to flee from British troops invading Wilmington; shortly before leaving, with the assistance of a black man, he buried his papers. Unfortunately, the general died a short time later, and when the papers were dug up, Ashe says, they were either defaced or destroyed. The papers would have proved that the claims being made against his estate were false.
Location Description: General Assembly, Session Records, Joint Select Committee, Reports and Papers, November–December 1787
Pages: 4
Repository: 148:NCDAH
North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina
Raleigh, Cumberland County, NC
Gen Notes:1

Goyne/Goings Wilkes Co., Ga

Please see a more complete registry of legal notices and familial information at

LumbeeGoinsbannerblank copy

Goyne/Goings Wilkes Co., Georgia FPC

ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA: PASSED AT LOUISVILLE, IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1799.

1799 Vol. 1 — Page: 118

Sequential Number: 023

Full Title: An act to admit Thomas Going, a free person of colour, to the privileges of a citizen of this state, so far as is therein expressed.

WHEREAS Thomas Going a free person of colour, has petitioned this legislature, praying to be made a free citizen of this state,

SECT. 1. BE it therefore enacted, by the Senate and [Illegible Text] of [Illegible Text] of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the [Illegible Text], That from and after the passing of this act, that the aforesaid Thomas Going of the county of Wilkes, be and he is hereby vested with and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities belonging to a free citizen of this state: Provided [Illegible Text], That nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to entitle the said Thomas Going to serve in the capacity of a juror, in any cause whatever; nor to render him a competent witness in any cause or case where the personal rights or property of any white person are or is concerned; nor to entitle the said Thomas Going to vote at elections, nor to have or hold directly or indirectly any [Illegible Text] of trust or emolument, civil or military within this state.

DAVID MERIWETHER, speaker of the House of Representatives.

ROBERT WALTON, President of the senate.

JAs. JACKSON, GOVERNOR.

Approval Date: Assented to, February 18, 1799.

 Citizenship Granted to Thomas Going, a free person of colour
Citizenship Granted to Thomas Going ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF … An act to admit Thomas Going, a free person of colour, to the privileges … therein expressed. WHEREAS Thomas Going a free person of colour, has petitioned … that the aforesaid Thomas Going of the county of Wilkes, be and … entitle the said Thomas Going to serve in the capacity of a
http://www.giddeon.com/wilkes/legislative/going-thomas.shtml

Page 312–GOYNE (Signed Going), MOSES to John Lumpkin, 200 acres on waters of Long creek adj said Lumpkin. Dec. 5, 1789. Thos. Routledge, Geo. Lumpkin, Aaron Springfield, test.
SCHRODER, ISABELLA dec’d. est. Henry Thompson, excr. Receipts of Alex. and Isabel Schroder and of Wm. Going for Nancy Going in full of their legacies, L5 each, Nov. 12, 1796.Early Records of Georgia, Wilkes County, Vol II, pages 289-319
goods Oct. Dec. 1795. SCHRODER, ISABELLA dec’d. est. Henry Thompson, excr. Receipts of Alex. and Isabel Schroder and of Wm. Going for Nancy Going in full of their legacies, L5 each, Nov. 12, 1796. SHEATS, SAMUEL dec’d. Nicholas Sheats, admr. Returns Aug. 1803. Note of Samuel Sheats and Isaac Welborn Dec. 1798 to Denial Gunn $100.00. Note to Peter Hoff of
http://www.giddeon.com/wilkes/books/early-records-of-ga-vol2/289-319.shtml
Page 7–LUMPKIN, GEORGE and wife Ann to Vinson Greer 150 acres on Buffalo creek adj. Moses Going, Daniel Bankston, orig. grant 1785. 1786.Early Records of Georgia, Wilkes County, Vol I, pages 255-266
1785 to said Geo. 1786. Page 7–LUMPKIN, GEORGE and wife Ann to Vinson Greer 150 acres on Buffalo creek adj. Moses Going, Daniel Bankston, orig. grant 1785. 1786. Page 8–LUMPKIN, GEORGE and wife Ann to James Greer 600 acres on Buffalo creek adj. Vines Collier and John Lumpkin. Apr. 15, 1786. Page 9–COLLIER, VINES and wife Sarah to James Echols sale of
http://www.giddeon.com/wilkes/books/early-records-of-ga-vol1/255-266.shtml
 Wilkes County, Georgia 1791 Tax List
Henry Clay Garrot, John Clay Garrot, Thomas Clay Gibson, Henry Collier Gibson, John Pruet Gilmore, Uriah Ragan Going, James Simmons Goode, William Mccormack Graham, James Simmons Gray, William Ragan Greathouse, Jacob Pruet Green, Collier Green, George Clay Green, Henry Pruet Green, James Gresham Green, William Gresham Greene, Henry Pruet Greene, James Pruet
NELMS, James and Nancy Going, Nov. 22, 1810. Andrew B. Stephens, J. P.
The Early Records of Georgia, Volume II, Wilkes County abstracted and compiled by Grace Gillam Davidson, published in 1933 at Macon, GAGOIN — GOING, Drury 318, 326
John 318
Moses 256, 262
Wm. 318
GOYNE, John 172, 173, 326
GOING, Nancy 291, 323
Samuel 338
Wm. 291

Lower Cherokee Settlements-

Lower Cherokee Settlements

Some History of The Lower Cherokee Settlements

Below: Composite Map from 1823 Tanner maps which showed Indian Territory after 1819. Note that white counties have surrounded the Cherokees and Creeks. By now, the Overhill and Valley Towns are all that is left of the old Nation in North and South Carolina. They are now called the Upper Towns and the newer towns in north Alabama and Georgia are called the Lower Towns. The Creek Nation joined the Cherokee lands below the text: Cherokee Boundary 1830.

SOUTH CAROLINA
A Short History 1520-1948

By DAVID DUNCAN WALLACE

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA PRESS · COLUMBIA

The Cherokees Join South Carolina. –Vital was the attitude of the Cherokees. They had so far taken little part beyond the murder of a few traders. The nation wavered for months. Maurice Moore with 300 men was sent up the eastern side of the Savannah River into the heart of the Lower Cherokee settlements. The Lower Cherokees were for helping the English, but there were great searchings of heart, especially among the Middle Towns in the Little Tennessee Valley. Creeks lurked in the forest to fall upon the white men as diplomacy strove in the council house. An act of passionate impulse decided the crisis in favor of the Carolinians when, on January 27, 1716, the Creek envoys were suddenly slain and the red stick of war was dispatched through the villages.

The war thus entered upon its third phase. The Lower Creeks, unable to stand before the Cherokee-Carolina combination, withdrew from their homes in central Georgia back to the Chattahoochee. Winning the friendship of the Cherokees, Governor Craven considered winning the war. He sailed April 23, 1716, leaving Colonel Robert Daniel deputy governor. Daniel’s skill in the war and his assistance in long-needed legislation won the praise of even the enemies he had made in the factional quarrels of former years. Skulking murders were common into the mid-summer of 1717. For £960 currency Governor Daniel bought for frontier garrisons thirty-two of the Scottish rebels being sold into servitude for the rebellion of 1715 and urged the public to buy more from others soon to arrive.

The Cherokees proved invaluable allies. They brought numerous tribes to make peace and put an end to the supplying of other Indians with arms by the Cheraws, who were actively in trade in Virginia. The ugly business charged against Virginia traders of seeking to engross South Carolina’s old Indian trade during her prostration was a feature of the long and bitter rivalry for this lucrative business.

The Cherokees knew their advantage, and “the last time they were here” in Charles Town in January, 1717, “they insulted us to the last degree, and indeed by their demands (with which we were forced to comply) made us their tributaries.” The Cherokees had saved the colony, even though at the cost of its humiliation. They had acted shrewdly in their own interest, for the spirit of the whites laid them under no obligation to act otherwise. All Indians were merely pawns in the white man’s game of trade and empire.

Peace with the Creeks formally closed the war. The Creek “Emperor” Brims was shrewdly playing his policy of keeping the French, the Spaniards, and the English all suitors for Creek support by keeping on good terms with all but in subjection to none. This very summer of 1717 the French built Fort Toulouse in the heart of the Upper Creek country, and seven Lower Creek chiefs went to Mexico and swore allegiance to Spain. In November, 1717, the last treaty with the Creeks, closing the Yemassee War, was signed in Charles Town; but how precarious a peace it was the next ten years were to show.

Why was my Granny listed as a Mulatto? by Steven Pony Hill

Why was my Granny listed as a Mulatto? by Steven Pony Hill

By

Steven Pony Hill

If you are looking for information on mixed blood families, please do not miss articles and research by Steven Pony Hill.  Pony has done some extensive work and has wonderful informative articles on the net.  I will attempt to collect all of his publication links here.

http://sciway3.net/clark/freemoors/Indian.htm

“A Rose by any other name is a Cactus” defining mixed-blood Indians in colonial Virginia and the Carolinas

Dictionary accounts

1656…Thomas Blount’s Glossographia….”Mulato (Spanish) the son of a Blackmore and a man of another Nation, or e contra one that is of a mongrel complexion.”

1702…John Kersey’s A New English Dictionary…”A Mulatto, the son of a Negro, or Indian woman and a man of another Nation; or of a Negro man and a woman of another country.”

1715…Corominas’ Diccionario (Published in French, mainly in Mobile area)…”Mulattoes, the children of Frenchmen and Indian women.”

1727-1741…Chamber’s Cyclopedia…”Mulatto, a name given, in the Indies, to those who are begotten by a negro man on an Indian woman; or an Indian man on a negro woman.”

 

Virginia Law

1705…”and for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon the construction of this Act, or any other Act, who shall be accounted a mulatto; …Be it that the child of an Indian, and the child, grandchild, or great grandchild of a negro shall be deemed, accounted, held, and taken to be a mulatto.”

 

Augusta County, VA (Orders 1773-1779)

19 AUG 1777….Nat, an Indian boy in the custody of Mary Greenlee who detains him as a slave complains that he is held in unlawful slavery. Commission to take depositions in Carolina or elsewhere.

17 SEP 1777….On the complaint of Nat an Indian or Mustee Boy who says he is to be set free from service of Mary Greenlee…nothing appeared to this Court but a bill of sale for ten pounds from one Sherwood Harris of Granville County, NC that through several assignments was made over to James Greenlee deceased, late husband to the said Mary….said Mulattoe or Indian Boy is a free man and no slave.

( Nat was most likely half-Indian, so therefore Mulatto or Mustee could be used interchangeably, use of these terms were influenced by the status of his servitude)

 

Charles City County, VA (Orders 1687-95)

DEC 1690….Thomas Mayo an Indian belonging to Jno. Evans is adjudged 14 years old.

 

Chesterfield County, VA (Orders 1767-71)

6 APR 1770…On motion of Sibbell, an Indian woman held in slavery by Joseph Ashbrooke, have leave to prosecute for her freedom in forma pauperis.

         Sibbell an Indian wench V. Joseph Ashbrooke, for pltf. To take deposition of Elizabeth Blankenship and Thomas Womack.

         Sybill a Mulatto V. Joseph Ashbrooke – dismissed.

(Sibell was most likely less than full blooded Indian…she was described as Indian up to the point it was determined that she was legally a slave, then she was described as mulatto…use of the term is influenced by the status of her servitude)

 

Dinwiddie County, VA

18 AUG 1794…registered free papers of “Nancy Coleman a dark brown, well made mulatto woman..freed by judgement of the Gen’l Court of John Hrdaway being a descendant of an Indian.”

10 FEB 1798…registered free papers of “Daniel Coleman a dark brown free Negro, or Indian…formerly held as a slave by Joseph Hardaway but obtained his freedom by a judgment of the Gen’l Court.”

14 AUG 1800…registered free papers of “Hagar Jumper a dark brown Mulatto or Indian woman short bushy hair, obtained her freedom from Stephen Dance as being a descendant of an Indian.”

27 MAY 1805…registered free papers of “Betty Coleman a dark brown Negro woman…formerly held as a slave by John Hardaway…liberated by judgment of the Gen’l Court as descended of an Indian.”

 

Goochland County, VA

7 MAR 1756…Elizabeth, daughter of Ruth Matthews, a free mulattoe, baptized by the Rev. William Douglas of St. James Northam Parish.

26 SEP 1757….Cumberland County Court to bind out the children of Ruth Matthews, an Indian woman, to William Fleming.

(Ruth is described as ‘a free mulatto’ at one time, ‘an Indian’ at another.)

 

Henrico County, VA

5 MAY 1712…..Thomas Chamberlayne brings before this Court his servant Mulatto man Robin and informed the Court that he hath several times run away. Ordered to serve one year from (release date).

         Robin Indian (filed) against Major Chamberlayne…next Court.

FEB 1712….Robin Indian  ordered free from Thomas Chamberlayne’s service at end of year’s service.

MARCH 1713….Thomas Chamberlayne against his servant Robin Mulatto hath unlawfully absented himself for 16 weeks.

(Robin is described as Mulatto until he is determined to be illegally held as a slave, then he is described as Indian…use of the term is influenced by his servitude…his former master tactfully uses the term Mulatto to influence the Court to return him to slavery)

APR 1722…Peg an Indian woman servant belonging to Richard Ligon appeared…be adjudged free..he be summoned.

JUN 1722…Peg a Mulatto servant born in this County whose mother was an Indian intitled to freedom at the age of thirty years, having petitioned for her freedom against her master Richard Ligon.

(Mulatto is used here to describe an Indian half-blood)

JAN 1737….petition of Tom a Mulatto or Mustee setting forth that he is the grandson of a white free woman and hast a just right to freedom but that his master Alexander Trent contrary to law or equity detains him in slavery.

(the terms Mulatto and Mustee are used here interchangeably)

JUL 1739…On the petition of Indian Jamey alias James Musttie is exempted from paying County Levyes.

NOV 1740…petition of Thomas Baugh it is ordered that the Church Wardens of Dale Parish do bind out Joe a Mulatto the son of Nan an Indian woman according to law.

(Mulatto is used here to describe an Indian half-blood)

18 NOV 1747….will of Richard Randolph…to my son John the third part of my slaves, he taking my two Negroes, Indian John and Essex as a part of his third which two Negroes I propose he should have.

(an Indian is described here as a ‘Negro’…the term is influenced by his servitude)

2 DEC 1754….Church wardens of Henrico Parish do bind out Ezekiel Scott and Sarah Scott, children of John Scott, Tommy son of Indian Nan, Henry Cockran son of John Cockran, and Isham Roughton an Indian according to Law.

5 MAR 1759….Ordered that the Church Wardens of Henrico Parish bind out Ben Scott and Roger an Indian Boy according to Law.

 

Lunenburg County, VA (Orders 1748-52)

JUL 1749…..Dublin an Indian of the Tugyebugg Nation came into Court and petitioned for her freedom, she being held in slavery.

 

Louisa County, VA

10 APR 1764…will of Patrick Belches…”to my wife Judy Belches all my land in Louisa..also the following Negroes to wit Indian Ben and wife Beck Kinney and their son Thom.”

1798…..Kinney family released from slavery based on testimony on William Denton that they descended from an Indian woman named Joan Kenny who was an elderly woman in 1729 and she came from the Indian town on Pamunkey.

(Indian Ben and Beck Kinney described as “Negroes’, later released based on being Indians…the term is based on their servitude)

 

Northumberland County, VA

OCT 1713…trial for examining George an Indian Mulatto criminal…inhabitant of Wiccomocoe Indian Town..for murdering Allen Dorrett…confesses he struck him with a stake…John Veazey carried him into the house of Indian John.

(use of the term Mulatto here to describe an Indian half-blood)

mulattos, or Indians shall be accounted tithables.”

 

Stafford County, VA

Will Book Liber M, 1729-48….will of George Crosby…I bequeth unto George Crosby junior the son of my son George, one Indian mulatto woman Frank & her increase as also one Indian mulatto boy Jno Cooper.

(use of the term Mulatto here to describe an Indian half-blood)

 

Surry County, VA

2 JUL 1659…I Kinge of the Waineoaks doe firmely bargaine and make sale unto Elith Short her heires a boy of my Nacon named Weetoppin…until the full term of his life in consideration (of) a younge horse foale aged one yeare.

(not only did Indians sell their war captives into slavery, but they even sold their own)

20 MAR 1712….will of Francis Maybury…to wife Elizabeth, one Indian man named Robin and one Indian boy Jack and a mulatto girl.

20 AUG 1712…inventory of estate of Francis Maybury….two Indian slaves and one Indian Mulatto.

(girl first described as a mulatto later described as an Indian mulatto)

 

 

 

 

1741-1745…..Robin a Negro Man now in possession of Thomas Cocke, Gent., petitioning for leave to sue for his freedom.

         Robin, an Indian Plt. Against Thomas Cocke Genbt. Deft. In Trespass Assault and false imprisonment…We find that James Jones late of Prince George County in the year of our Lord 1693 was in the possession of an Indian girl named Sarah as a slave and that we did find the said girl in the year aforesaid was 4 years old. We find that the parents and Native Country of the sd. girl were Heathens and Idolators. We find that the aforesaid girl did live and die in the service of the aforesaid James Jones as a slave. We find that the Plt. Robin is the issue of the aforesaid Indian Sarah.

(Robin is described as a Negro until he proves his Indian descent, then he is described as Indian…use of the term is influenced by his servitude)

 

Sussex County, VA

1818…..”James Hix, a free man of color, brown complexion 34 years old, born free of Indian mother per certificate from Sussex County.”

(non-white persons are held under suspicion of servitude, and thus Negro ancestry, until proven otherwise)

 

Westmoreland County, VA

29 JAN 1700…..James Loggin, an Indian Mulatto, bound to Henry Wharton until the age of 21 by the Court.

(use of the term Mulatto here to describe an Indian half-blood)

 

Coastal North Carolina

“In 1761, The Rev. Alex Stewart baptized 7 Indians and mixed-blood children of the Attamusket, Hatteras, and Roanoke tribes and 2 years later he baptized 21 more.” – Swanton

 

North Carolina

1857…..a William Chavers (Chavis) was arrested and charged as a “free person of color” with carrying a shotgun, a violation on NC state law. He was convicted, but promptly appealed, claiming that the law restricted free Negroes not persons of color. The appeals court reversed the lower Court finding that, “Free persons of color may be, then, for all we can see, persons colored by Indian blood, or persons descended from Negro ancestors beyond the fourth degree.”

(desire of legal system to lump all non-whites into one category still exists in mid-1800’s)

1871……The North Carolina Joint Senate and House Committee interviewed Robeson County Judge Giles Leitch about the “free persons of color” residing within his county:

               Senate: Half of the colored population?

                  Leitch: Yes sir; half of the colored population of Robeson County were never slaves at all…

                  Senate: What are they; are they Negroes?

                  Leitch: Well sir, I desire to tell you the truth as near as I can; but I do not know what they are; I

                              think they are a mixture of Spanish, Portuguese and Indian….

                  Senate: You think they are mixed Negroes and Indians?

                  Leitch: I do not think that in that class of population there is much Negro blood at all: of that

                              half of the colored population that I have attempted to decribe all have always been

                              free…They are called ‘Mulattoes’ that is the name they are known by, as

                              contradistinguished from NegroesI think they are of Indian origin.

                  Senate: I understand you to say that these seven or eight hundred persons that you designate

                               as mulattoes are not Negroes but are a mixture of Portuguese and Spanish, white

                               blood and Indian blood; you think they are not generally Negroes?

                  Leitch: I do not think the Negro blood predominates.

                  Senate: the word ‘mulatto’ means a cross between the white and the Negro?

                  Leitch: Yes sir.

                  Senate: You do not mean the word to be understood in that sense when applied to these people?

                  Leitch: I really do not know how to describe those people.

 

(Even person not considered to bear Negro ancestry could be called Mulattoes as late as the 1870’s….the term ‘Portuguese’ used here to infer Spanish and Indian ancestry….’Portuguese’ also used by persons of North Carolina origin residing in South Carolina, Tennessee, etc. to describe mixed Indian-white persons from the NC?VA border area during this same time period.)                             

 

Virginia Gazette

17 APR 1752…Run away from the subscriber, living in Hanover County, about the middle of March last, a young Indian fellow, named Ned, about 20 years of age, pretends to pass as a freeman.

(Ned’s identity as Indian influenced by his servitude)

14 APR 1768….Isaac an Indian Slave aged about 40 years, run away from my plantation on George’s Creek in Buckingham. He was born and lived many years on the Brook of Chickahominy, and has some connexions in Goochland, where he may probably be at present. He wore long curled hair before his elopement, but his countenance and disposition are altogether Indian.

2 AUG 1770…..Committed to the prison of York, a Negro Boy, who says he is free and was born in the Indian Town on Pamunkee River.

(York’s identity as Indian influenced by his servitude)

23 NOV 1770….Prince George County…Runaway from the subscriber on Monday the 19th, a negro fellow named Frankof a yellow complexion..He has a wife among the Indians, at Indian Town on Pamunkey River.

24 SEP 1772….committed to the public jail, from James City prison, a runaway woman named Molly, she belongs to Charles Budd of Charles City County…about 40 years old, has a prominent nose and by her complexion would pass for one of the Indian Race.

26 NOV 1772…Runaway from the subscriber in Cumberland a Mulatto Man named Jim who is a slave but pretends to have a right to his freedom. His father was an Indian of the name of Cheshire, and very likely will call himself James Cheshire, or Chink. He is a short well set fellow, about twenty seven years of age, with long black hair resembling an Indians.

(Use of Mulatto to describe Indian half-blood….use of term influenced by his servitude)

3 DEC 1772…Committed to the jail of Surry County, a Negro Man who says his name is Tom, and that he belongs to Benjamin Clements of Sussex…appears to be of the Indian Breed.

(person of obvious Indian ancestry described as a Negro)

13 JUL 1773….Runaway from the subscriber a Mulatto Slave named David…says he is of the Indian Breed, and went down to the General Court, as I imagine to sue for his freedom, but has never returned.

(David’s identity as Indian influenced by his servitude)

11 NOV 1773…Run away from the subscriber, last month, a Negro Man of the name Tom…of a yellowish complexion, much the appearance of an Indian…His hair is a different kind from that of a Negro’s, rather more of an Indian’s, but partaking of both.

(person of obvious Indian ancestry described as a Negro)

11 MAR 1775….Run away from the subscriber…a very bright Mulatto Man named Stephen…his wife Phebe went away with him, a remarkable white Indian woman.

6 JAN 1776…Run way from the subcriber..Harry, Virginia Born, 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, 30 years of age, a dark Mulatto, with long bushy hair, he is of the Indian Breed.

(person of obvious Indian ancestry described as Mulatto)

2 DEC 1775…Bute County, NC…Run away from William Tabb, a slave named Charles, of the Indian Breed, about 23 years of age, with straight black hair, light complexion, raised in George County, VA.

 

South Carolina

1715…a South Carolina English missionary baptized “a mulatto girl” whose mother he reported as an Indian and whose father he said was a white trader.

1719…clarification of terminology regarding taxation legislation, House South Carolina…”and for preventing all doubts and scruples that may arise what ought to be rated on mustees, mulattoes, etc, all such slaves as are not entirely Indian shall be accounted as negroe.”

1731…Special meeting of  the South Carolina House of Commons after a member had announced that “Free colored men with their white wives have immigrated from Virginia with the intention of settling on the Santee River.”, report of Governor Robert Johnson: “I have had them before me in council and upon examination find that they are not Negroes nor slaves but free people, that the father of them here is named Gideon Gibson and his father was also free…”

1753….. Will of Alexander Wood, of St. James Goose Creek Parish, Planter, to his half-breed Indian Slaves named Dukey Cox and George Cox, born of his Indian slave named Jenny, and Minerva Watkins, born of his Indian Slave named Moll, manumission upon his death

1794….Issac Linagear, Isaac Mitchell, Joanthan Price, Spencer Bolton, William N. Swett, and 29 other “free persons of color seek to repeal the Act for imposing a poll tax on all Free negroes, Mustees, and Mulattoes. They wish to support the government, but the poll tax caused great hardship among free women of color, especially widows with large families. Tax collectors hunted them down and extorted payments.”

(desire of legal system to lump all non-whites into one category)

25 JUL 1795…A South Carolinian advertised in the North Carolina Central and Fayetteville Gazette….”$10 Reward to deliver to the subscriber in Georgetown, a Mustie servant woman named Nancy Oxendine, she is a stout wench, of a light complexion about 30 years old. It is supposed she has been travels away by her brother and sister, the latter lives in Fayetteville.”

1852…jurists in the case State of SC V. Roger Scott noted “It is not according to the use of language in this region to speak of one altogether black as a person of color. The phrase is almost exclusively applied to one of mixed blood and color.”

 

 

 

Tennessee

1832….Madison County….”free man of color, Richard Matthews, seeks permission to marry a white woman. Matthews says he is of the Portuguese blood.”

(see Goochland County, VA for the Matthews family.)

1843…..McMinn County…George Sherman arrived in the state in 1839 and now asks permission to remain. “A certificate signed by a notary public in New York states that he is of Mulatto complexion with wooly hair and is an Indian, one of the Narragansett tribe.

(an Indian described as having a Mulatto complexion)

1853 to 58 Claiborne County….suit pressed by school teacher Elijoh Goins, who alleged that his daughter’s husband “spoke false, malicious, scandalous and defamatory words saying the plaintiff was a mulatto, meaning a person of mixed blood one degree removed from a full blood Negro as reason of which several grievances the plaintiff hath been greatly damaged and subjected to the suspicion disgrace and insult to a  family of a person of mixed blood.”

 

Legal Systems:

26 NOV 1722…residents of Northampton County, VA, petitioned the Court complaining “That a great number of Free Negroes Inhabiting within this County are great Grievances most particularly because the Negro Women pay no Taxes.” Virginia passed a law in May 1723 “That all free negros, mulattos, or Indians except tributary Indians to this government male and female, above the age of sixteen, and all wives of such Negroes, mulattos, or Indians shall be accounted tithables.”

1738…North Carolina “AN ACT to Prevent the concealment of the Tithables in the Several Countys within this Province” defines tithables as “every white Person Male of the age sixteen Years and upwards all Negroes Mulattoes Mustees Male or female and all Persons of Mixt Blood to the fourth Generation Male and Female of the Age of Twelve years and upwards.”

1749….North Carolina tithable law is amended to include “all White Persons intermarrying with any Negro, mulatto, or mustee, or other Person of Mixt Blood.”

(desire of legal system to lump all non-whites into one category)

1802….In the North Carolina case Gobu v. Gobu, the judge stated “I acquiesce in the rule laid down by the defendant’s counsel, with respect to the presumption of every black person being a slave. It is so, because Negroes originally brought to this country were slaves, and their descendants must continue slaves until manumitted by proper authority. If therefore a person of that description claims his freedom, he must establish his right to it by such evidence as will destroy the force of the presumption arising from his color.”

(all dark skinned persons are presumed to be descended from Negroes)

 

 

 

 

8 Comment(s).

 

Posted by David Brown:

My GGGrandfather was shown as living in
scotts town. calhoun co. fl in 1860 with
wife Brickhouse. I find that Capt John
“Jack” David Ayers 10/7/1791 in SC, d
1858 in Co.Calhoun Fl, Capt in Indian
Wars, also General Jacob Ayers, Chief
of the Catawbas and successor of Gen.
Jacob Scott. this relation through
m. to Marilda Stephens b 1816 d 1880,
m. 5/25/1836. Also believe that my
GAunt lea (Goins) Davis was Indian,
Probably mixed. She was from Tenn.
also that my Great Uncle Joseph
Davis & Family lived among the
people of Scotts Town. Stephens
in on my Grandmother Stephens side
and that I have Indian Blood from
several different sources.

10-06-08 @ 4:59 PM

Posted by sample literature review:

well your work is pretty good and i really like your post . .every thing in the post is awesome . . . .gr8 job . . .keep sharing 🙂
dissertation literature review

12-24-10 @ 8:38 AM

Posted by HR Dissertation:

I liked this post very much as it has helped me a lot in my research and is quite interesting as well. Thank you for sharing this information with us
HR Dissertation Proposal

3-25-11 @ 4:16 AM

Posted by Dissertation Writing Services:

wooooww..let me tell u one thing that Blogs have become latest and important source of quality free information onnet people enjoying for hours together. . .nice job keep sharing 🙂
oooO…………….
(….)….. Oooo….
…(…..(….)…
.._)….. )../….
………. (_/……

oooO…………….
(….)….. Oooo….
…(…..(….)…
.._)….. )../….
………. (_/……
dissertation writing
gcse coursework
buy research paper
thesis writing
term paper writing
literature review
writing a dissertation

3-25-11 @ 9:53 AM

Posted by bili:

I liked this post very much as it has helped me a lot in my research and is quite interesting as well. Thank you for sharing this information with us.
CURT.
Grey Nike Air Max Shoe

5-04-11 @ 3:40 AM

Posted by Aaron:

Reminds me of a history about the family tree, and how parts from different cultures combine in one. Thanks for the preview.
house inventory London
check in report London

3-28-12 @ 1:24 AM

Posted by NANCY GOODMAN:

A child educated only at school is an uneducated child.
MA Dissertations
MA Dissertation Topics

4-19-12 @ 7:11 AM

Posted by Doctoral dissertation:

good post! thanks a lot for your sharing!

9-19-12 @ 6:39 AM

The Drifters: A Christian Historical Novel The Melungeon Shantyboat People

The Drifters: A Christian Historical Novel The Melungeon Shantyboat People

This is a story that took me 18 years to research and write. It is a derivitive of a l986 documentary release, Displaced Cherokee: Come Home, Come Home, which took 1st in the l986 OK State Fair and was endorsed by the OK Dept. of Libraries.  This is an account of my great great grandmother who was the object of my lifelong researching efforts (58 years worth) Cathrine Ann Jones has contracted to write Script for a Movie of this but no studio has been accessed yet. She wrote Touched by an Angel series. I am trying to get the information out about this hidden American culture (boat people who happened to be a mixture of Melungeon and Cherokee)- Tonya Holmes Shook

 

The Drifters: A Christian Historical Novel About The Melungeon Shantyboat People

  Aulena Scearce Gibson, columnist for the Lawton Constitution’s “Tree Tracers”,  “a wonderful novel- comparable to Alex Haley’s, Roots.”

 

http://www.marquettebooks.org/

 

From the Historical Novel Review,  .
Bethany Skaggs
North American Editor, Adult Titles
Historical Novels Review Online

www.historicalnovelsociety.org
 THE DRIFTERS: A CHRISTIAN HISTORICAL NOVEL OF THE MELUNGEON SHANTY BOAT PEOPLE
Tonya Holmes Shook, Marquette Books, 2005, $19.95, pb, 311pp, 092299319X
This novel takes place in America, beginning around the 1830s and ending after the Civil War.  The characters, Melungeon shanty boat people, are a biracial mix of Cherokee and Caucasian bloodlines.  Their story is told through the viewpoint of the main character, Harriet Holmes.  Created by the author around known portions of the author’s family history, the novel is a fictionalized biography of Harriet’s life.  Photographs of Holmes family members, including Harriet, appear throughout. The book opens with Harriet pregnant, fifteen-years-old, and newly married to shanty boat dweller Canady Holmes.  Through Harriet’s experiences, the reader learns of societal wrongs suffered by the clannish Melungeon people, who must hide from Indian removal.  The Holmes family barely scratches out a living as they travel along the rivers of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee.  The tension created by this family’s struggle for survival and the hardships they endure during and after the Civil War carries the story.
The author does not spare her characters from brutalities in this riveting tale.  Indeed, if a flaw in this tale could be found, it may be that the reader must suspend belief to accept that so much tragedy could happen to one family and that the mother of that family could come through it all with self and sensibilities intact.  Readers will be curious to learn how brushes with Christians along the way help Harriet to have hope for the future of her family.
This novel will elicit every emotion from a reader, as it is a love story as well as an account of suffering.  The author’s fine storytelling, coupled with believable and endearing characters, presents an unforgettable tale.  This fast-paced, dramatic narrative will draw those interested in Native American history, and will also most certainly provide enjoyable reading for a wider audience.
Judith Carroll

 

  Preface

            Before the settlement of Jamestown there lived a people in America who built houses and had a complex social order, but history books have little record of them. They trace their ancestry to Portugal, Spain, North Africa, Turkey and Greece and to Native Americans, with whom they intermingled.  According to old Mediterranean Library records, their countrymen were taken as slaves of the Vikings seeking to colonize the new world. But they eventually were abandoned, left to survive as best they could in a foreign land. As the generations passed, these people acquired certain physical and cultural characteristics that distinguished them from European ancestors. They were called Melungeons.

                Dr. N. Brent Kennedy, author of The Melungeons, The Resurrection of a Proud People: An Untold Story of Ethnic Cleansing in America, has researched the genetic and cultural peculiarities known to this people. Like African American slaves and Native American peoples, the Melungeons were treated unfairly by the European settlers, who forced them off their land. They were tagged as “free people of color” and at one time were prohibited from owning land, attending school, and marrying outside of their “own kind” except in Kentucky.

                The ill treatment of the Melungeon people helped create a distinctive and clannish folk that had low self-esteem and peculiar ways. A mixture of Mediterranean and Indian blood, they were a developing race who clung to their own tried and proven traditions, who trusted no one outside of family and married among themselves.

                This novel tells the story of one Melungeon family. It is based on word of mouth stories from descendants of Harriett Riddle Holmes, my great-great grandmother who began her married life on a houseboat during the same year as the Trail of Tears. She survived through dire times of the Civil War, experienced heartaches relating to her sons William and Jasper, and relocated to Texas after the war where some of her sons participated in cattle drives.

                This story begins in the southeastern Cumberland area of Kentucky in l837. Harriett Holmes was a real person, but one with no history, or none that is readily traced, a phenomenon common to the lineage of the Melungeon people. Many tried to assimilate into the dominant society, but the rejection caused them to be more clannish than ever. Harriett had few friends outside of the kinship clan. This social isolation contributed to a development of a unique culture, one that the reader will vicariously explore in this book.

                 This book is basically a fictionalized biography. Her name, children’s names, and story line are factual, but the glue cementing accounts together comes from my imagination. I hope the reader finds this book enjoyable and educational.

Place orders through Savant Distributors; Wholesalers; Amazon; or go directly to Marquette Books Publishing- 509-443-7057

 

 Savant Book Distribution Company
3107 E. 62nd Avenue
Spokane, WA  99223-6934
509-443-7057 (voice)
509-448-2191 (fax)
service@savant-books.com

 At Savant, all U.S. and Canadian booksellers and retailers receive a 40% discount and free shipping (USPS Media Mail) on all books that we exclusively carry.

To order, simply e-mail order@savant-books.com or call us (509-443-7057) and provide the following information:

1. ISBN and title of book(s) and number of copies
2. Purchase order number
3. Your name and title
4. The name of your library
5. Address
6. City/State/ZIP
7. Phone number (in case of problems)

If you e-mail, we will send a confirmation notice and ship the book immediately, usually within one day.

We offer a 100% satisfaction guarantee.  If you want to return a book for any reason, simply ship it back.  There are no charges.

Note:Savant respects the privacy of its customers and does not sell its mailing lists or other information collected from them.

Tonya is available for media interviews and program/book signings.  She can be reached at shookum@pldi.net

 

For Immediate Release:

 

Local Author Published In Heavenly Patchwork

 

February 6, 2006 Tonya Holmes Shook of Hastings, Oklahoma, wrote an original short
story that has been published in the Heavenly Patchwork—Quilt Stories Stitched with Love, a recent award-winning hard-back gift book retailing for $12.95 containing seventy-one true stories. Heavenly Patchwork is available on Amazon.com,
HeavenlyPatchwork.com, and Hobby Lobby stores nationwide.
Tonya Holmes Shook’s story titled Grandmother’s Quilts Fought Goblins was selected from hundreds of others to be included in Heavenly Patchwork because of its special ability to touch the hearts of people everywhere. Heavenly Patchwork quickly gained popularity, selling 6000 copies in the first seven months and garnered numerous prestigious awards for the contributors and author Judy Howard.

 

Heavenly Patchwork will inspire and entertain as it transports you into the lives and hearts of pioneer and contemporary women. Rejoice or cry with those who homesteaded a hostile and barren landscape, struggled to survive and nurture their families through the Great Depression and Dust Bowl Days or currently cope with our fast-paced society.

 

These vignettes will renew your hope, inspire your faith as these everyday heroines stitch true tales of courage against insurmountable obstacles into heart-warming patchwork.  Heavenly Patchwork tells the larger story of God’s faithfulness to sustain, heal, comfort and strengthen women through hardships. All book profits go to charity quilting.

Barbados: Brief History by Alvie Walts

Barbados: Brief History by Alvie Walts

Barbados: Brief Theory on Origin of Mestee Populations in the United States

By Alvie Walts

The Celtic Influence on Mestee Communities in the United States

Social status in North America in the past was very much based on both a economic and racial caste system.

Little known to most Anglo Americans today is that during the early 16th to 17th centuries that the Irish, Scottish and British of Celtic ancestry were regarded as inferior to the more prominent Saxon British. All three of these separate groups were regarded with scorn and scrutiny by there English masters.

Ireland, Scotland, Wales and even Cornwall and Devonshire of Southwest England have longed to be free from the English of Eastern England. William Wallace and Robert the Bruce of Scotland led several Scottish revolts against the English. Later, Oliver Cromwell defeated both the Irish and the Scottish making several of them prisoners.

In 1650-1651 Cromwell invaded Scotland and defeated the Scottish. Cromwell treated very badly the thousands of prisoners of war he took in this campaign; allowing thousands of them to die of disease, and deporting others to penal colonies in Barbados.

In all, we can see that the Celtic peoples of the United Kingdom and Ireland were treated throughout the centuries with scorn from the more Germanic British and subsequently the new Americas looked like very enticing to these groups of peoples. Many of these Celtic people came to America in hopes of having a new life and owning there own land after working for years as indentured servants to there wealthy masters.

The Central Asian and Iberian Influence on Mestee Communities in the United States

In the 8th Century, Spain came under the rule of invading Islamic Moor armies from North Africa. Christians and Jews were allowed to live under Islamic rule but had to pay a poll tax so they were not treated as equals in this society but religion from all of the faiths of Abraham were tolerated to a degree. A small section of Northern Spain continued to be ruled by Christians which by the 11th century had gradually re conquered the Iberian peninsula.

It was not however until King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella endorsed the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 that both the Jewish and Muslim faiths were brought to near extinction in Spain. Thousands of Muslims and Crypto Sephardic Jews who did not convert were put to death and tortured. Over 150,000 of the Crypto “Marrano” Jews went to Portugal to escape the Inquisition. Many of these people went to the Americas as either prisoners or settlers or indentured servants.

In the north various religious Inquisitions were also bringing under control the Jewish population of Northwestern Europe but not only the Jews of France and Northwestern Europe felt the pressure of the Christian Inquisition but also the Romany or Gypsy who also felt the pressure of the new religious orders to convert.

Originally of South Asian Indian origin, the Romany had been discriminated against for centuries in Europe and are still to this day in modern Europe looked at as a lower class of people. It is no wonder then that the Americas would have looked very enticing to this group of people. Possibly the term “Black Dutch” or “Black Deutch” was used for them in America. Later this term was adopted by Mestee people in the United States along with the term “Black Irish” to pass as white in the more dominant Anglo society. It has been speculated that the English Romany were also transported along with Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Celtic English and Scotch Irish to Barbados and other islands to work as forced labor on the Sugar Plantations. This was done during the 1600’s by Oliver Cromwell and his forced assimilation of all religions and people in the British Isles.

Redlegs of Barbados: Possible Origin of the Redbone and Melungeon people

Thousands of Cromwell’s prisoners were sent to work in the Americas as prisoners or indentured servants after the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685 to Barbados and other Caribbean Islands. These people were composed of Southwestern Brythonic Celts from England, Scotch Celts and Irish Celts. There were also small groups of Portuguese and German indentured servants.

One community of Portuguese is thought to have gone to Barbados and other islands from South America. The small community on Barbados might have been Portuguese prisoners of the English navy sent away to work on the Sugar Plantations of Barbados and other Caribbean Islands. It is not known how many of there descendents intermarried with the English and Scotch Irish prisoners who were also sent to work as indentured servants in the Caribbean.

Together, these people become known as “Redlegs” because of the sunburn on there fair skin. Over the next couple of centuries the white common class was used as a buffer from the African American slaves who were brought in to work on the Sugar plantations. The African population became the majority on the island to work on the sugar plantations and the Redlegs were used as Militia. There appears to have been some inter-marriage between the Celtic and African people as well as some of the original American Indian natives that lived on Barbados though not to a great degree. Later, these Celtic/Portuguese/Mulatto people were deported to South Carolina where they became farmers in the British colonies.

A modern example of a Redbone class of people are the Irish travelers as seen in the movies. Yes, these people do exist and they live in the United Kingdom and have existed in Ireland since the Middle ages.

Virginia and North/South Carolina: The Melting Pot

Thousands of indentured servants and settlers swarmed into the Virginias and Carolinas of various groups including English and Scotch Irish. Those of Mulatto ancestry both Indian, white and Celtic (Scotch Irish-Brythonic English) were pushed to the outskirts of the more dominant white English and Scotch Irish.

They later became known by several names including Melungeons, Redbones, Brass Ankles and Turks just to name a few. One colony, the Crotoan “Lost Colony” of North Carolina probably became the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. This group is a complete tri-racial society of Anglo, African and Native American.

Because of there social status these groups of Mestee people were more in contact with Native American tribes of the Virginias and the Carolinas and therefore not only traded and inter married with the Native population but also adopted portions of the Native culture. Native tribes that contributed to the Mestee groups of the United States include but are not limited to The Cherokee, The Siouan Saponi (also called Blackfoot or Cherokee Blackfoot), The Algonquin Confederacy of Virginia (many different tribes), The South Carolina Cheraw, The Catawba, The Choctaw, The Creek Confederacy (which consisted of many of different tribes), Alabama, Coushatta, Chickasaw, Tuscarora and hundreds of other decimated Southeastern Native American groups. Many of these Mestee and Indian groups moved to the Appalachian Mountains but there are communities all over the Southern United States from Kentucky and Virginia down to Florida and Westward all the way to Louisiana and Texas.

Mestee Groups Today

The Melungeons are the most widely recognized group today but others also continue to exist. The Redbone people of South Carolina and Louisiana. The Brass Ankles and Turks of South Carolina. The Brown People of Kentucky. The Carmel Indians of Ohio.

Then there are tri racial groups of Native Americans including the Lumbee, Haliwa and the Native American tribes of Louisiana.

In all there has been documented over 200 groups of Mestee peoples in the Southern United States. They continue to exist as a clannish people fiercely proud of there mixed heritage and ancestral background. The descendents of many nations of Celtic, African, Jewish, Romany, Spanish, Portuguese, Caribbean Mulatto and Native American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Legs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Irish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redbone_%28ethnicity%29

http://www.melungeons.com/articles/may2004.htm

http://www.geocities.com/~patrin/pariah-ch12.htm

http://barbadosphotogallery.com/jpgees/people/dianatan.jpg

Picture of a modern “White?” child on Barbados.

Redbones Thomas Nash/Ash

The Intriguing saga of Thomas Nash Mutany & Murder At High Seas!

First Let me give you some background.

Thomas Nash aka Jonathan or Nathan Robbins

See Congressional papers concerning Thomas Nash.

 

View Document FramesView Original DocumentView Bibliography
“The Captured Slaves,” The Richmond Enquirer, 10 Sept. 1839.THE CAPTURED SLAVESTo the Editors of the Compiler.Gentlemen- The articles which you sent me from the Northern papers, in relation to the persons in custody for offenses alleged to have been committed on board a Spanish vessel, suggest several questions of a good deal of interest.If these persons are charged with having committed on the high seas the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, there is no doubt that they may be tried before a Circuit Court in the Unites States. If they had been found in this country, the trial would have been in the Circuit Court for that district in which they were found. Being brought into the U. States, the trial takes place before the Circuit Court for the district into which they were first brought.

 

Article 6 clause 2, The Untied States Vs Robins

 No production of papers, no entreaties availed them: they were compelled to submit. Had these men been enterprising, or an opportunity offered, and they had possessed themselves of their oppressors, and brought them into port: or had they, in the attempt to regain their freedom, been obliged to destroy them, while the world would have applauded the act, the judge must, from the decision, have delivered them to a similar demand; neither influence, fortune, or friends could have saved them. However superior in these, in political privileges they were only equal to the unknown and friendless Robbins. A consistent and inflexible magistrate must view them with the same impartial eye: he must give to them the same construction of the law or constitution; he could not vary them without the immediate loss of character. An enlightened people, therefore, will as attentively, nay, they ought more carefully to guard them in the person of a poor and unprotected than a rich or considerable man. The latter will always find powerful friends to support and protect his privileges; while the rights of the former may in silence and with impunity be unattended to merely because he is unknown, and has not an advocate to assert them. This would probably have been the case in the present instance, had not some gentlemen voluntarily offered themselves to examine and discuss its consequences. The public are obliged to them: it is an excellent example, I hope it will be followed upon every occasion, and that it will make us infinitely more vigilant of our rights than ever. We must never forget that in this country the poor and the rich, the humble and the influential, are entitled to equal privileges; that we ought to consider a violation of the rights of the most indigent and unprotected man, as an injury to the whole; while we have a pen to guide, or a voice to lift, they should constantly be exerted against the exercise of tyranny or oppression, by whatever nation committed or to whomsoever the violence may be done.

 

 

ARGUMENT
OF
ROGER S. BALDWIN,
OF NEW HAVEN,
BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
IN THE CASE OF THE
UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS,
vs.
CINQUE, AND OTHERS, AFRICANS OF THE AMISTAD.

NEW YORK:
S. W. BENEDICT, 128 FULTON STREET.

1841.

ARGUMENT OF R. S. BALDWIN, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

May it please your Honors,–

In preparing to address this honorable Court on the questions arising upon this record, in behalf of the humble Africans whom I represent,–contending, as they are, for freedom and for life, with two powerful governments arrayed against them,–it has been to me a source of high gratification, in this unequal contest, that those questions will be heard and decided by a tribunal, not only elevated far above the influence of Executive power and popular prejudice, but from its very constitution exempt from liability to those imputations to which a Court, less happily constituted, or composed only of members from one section of the Union, might, however unjustly, be exposed.

In a case like this, involving the destiny of thirty-six human beings, cast by Providence on our shores, under circumstances peculiarly fitted to excite the sympathies of all to whom their history has become accurately known, it is much to be regretted that attempts should have been made in the official paper of the Government, on the eve of the trial before this Court of dernier resort, to disturb the course of justice, not only by passionate appeals to local prejudices, and supposed sectional interests, but by fierce and groundless denunciation of the honorable Judge before whom the cause was originally tried, in the Court below: and, as if this were not enough, that two miserable articles from a Spanish newspaper, denouncing these helpless victims of piracy and fraud, as murderers, and monsters in human form, should have been transmitted by the minister of Spain to the Department of State, and published in

The Amistad Revolt

 

Read About Thomas Nash and the Amistad

 

Richmond Enguirer, 1839/09/13

 

John Marshal on Thomas Nash

 

Notes; extradited 1800 and hung by the British for mutiny and murder on the frigate Hermione. The slaves onboard the frigate where Spanish/Portuguese captured slaves.

Why he might be the forefather to our Old Thomas Nash!

Haplo Group

E3a verified through 4 direct male contributions of y-DNA, West African, Bantu Tribe. Stacy, I checked the Nash DNA today with all the other types of E3A.  All three Nash DNA are West African from the Bantu, possibly Angolan.

Ethnic & Cultural Associations

Redbone-Cherokee-Creek-Coushatta-Alabamas

REDBONES COME TO LOUISIANA

The earliest known progenitor of Louisiana Redbones to have come to the area was Thomas Nash, who was in the Mississippi Territory by at least 1781 when his son William was born on June 6 of that year.26 He was in a area of the Mississippi Territory, known today as the West Florida Parishes of Louisiana.

Jane Parker McManus, a descendent, states that “When Thomas Nash left North Carolina, he probably traveled down the famous Natchez Trace into the Mississippi Territory. It has been said that he came down the Trace with Tapley Dial, another early Louisiana progenitor.”27 Nash was mentioned in the Natchez court records in 1788, but by 1815 he was in Natchitoches Parish.28

Cherokee-Son, Benjamin Ash/Nash signs & is compensated for Old Cherokee Settlers Treaty.

Grandchildren made application,1896 Cherokee Rolls.

Creek-Family Oral Tradition

Coushatta’s-Son, Benjamin Ashes gives approval for settler on Red River, Coushatta Village. See Also Burgess-Sweat-Nash Entry.

Alabama-Coushatta settlement (see transcriptions below)

Documented classification designation

Mulatto-Free Person of Color

1810  Thomas Ash, Opelousas Parish Census, Free Person of Color.

1820  Thomas Ash, Natchitoches Parish Census, Free Person of Color.

1826 Atascositia District of Texas, no race classification, 62 b. NC

1830  Natchitoches Parish Census, Free White

1840  Rapides Parish Census, Free Colored, conflicting birth year of 1762

1850  Natchitoches Parish Census schedule, Mulatto

Migrational Pattern

North Carolina Birth abt 1753 (census record 1850 at 97yrs of age)

Natchez District arrival by 1788 Spanish Held

Some children of said Thomas Nash claim a Georgia birth however most later documented birth places suggest Mississippi.

Possible Land Grant, Orangeburg South Carolina on the Savanah River, 1792.

Mississippi Territory- possible death of father Thomas Nash (1) abt 1800 see Thomas Nash-Slave Boat-Mutiany-Murder-Congressional Papers-Further Review-Amistade Act.

Mississippi Territory 1808 Jefferson County

Nuetral Zone or No Mans Land 1807, Rio Hondo Lands

Joseph Grubb of Thomas Nash on Bayou Kisatchi

1826 Atascosita District of Austins Colony, Mexico 1826 militia against insurgents at Nacagdoches.

Transcription: Natchez District court records

Subjects: Thomas Nash/Ash

Book “B” page 54

page 112

Will Richard Carpenter, of Natchez, merchant, weak and body: the 800 acres lately granted to me by this government, about eight miles from the fort, to my son, James, and my will is that a house, 30ft. long by that 16ft wide, be built thereon for the reception of my wife and family as soon as it can be conveniently done.  To beloved wife Mary Carpenter, Negro man Boston”, Negro woman “ Anny”, and all the furniture of my house. To son James, girl  “kitty”; to my daughter Mary Flowers, Negro girl “ Rose”; two daughter Elizabeth Boardman, Negro named “Jack”. To wife, Mary carpenter, twelve cows and calves and my white horse. My wearing apparel to be sold and proceeds to fight it equally between my wife, son, my daughters and my son in law. My house and a lot at natchez lending to be sold, also tracked of 300 acres which I bought from John Lusk. And whereas there is remaining in my hands some articles of merchandise, the property of Mr. Brown, of a Rhode Island, and myself, my executors to get an exact knowledge there of the Mr. William Ferguson, who is acquainted there a and they be disposed of two best advantage to get my other estate for payment of all dates and funeral charges, (2) $500.00 to build house above described; and the residue to be divided equally between my wife, son James and three daughters, Elizabeth, Mary and Sarah.  Exrs; wife, Mary, daughter Mary flowers, sun and law Samuel flowers and son in law, Charles Boardman, with my friends, Mr. David Williams and Bernard Lintot. The above request that twelve cows and calves go to my wife, to be charged; for cows and calves two Y. and the remaining eight cows and calves to my youngest children, James and Sarah. Signed July 14, 1788 with witnessed: George Fitzgerald, Alexander Henderson, George Profit, William Voustan, Peter Walker, PierreBessandon, J. Henderson. July 24, 1788, notice of death of Richard carpenter at plantation of Samuel flowers to which he had been removedon night of July 22; Commandant, with Antonio Soler and Don Estevon Minor, repaired to the dwilling house  of the deceased in the town of Natchez and caused the the most important keys to be delivered to Commandant, five in number, (1) key to writing desk, (2) key to trunk (3) key to the stor, (4) key to another trunk (5) key to cellar; seal of commandant’s arms of fixed two said places and things for security, leaving said property in charge of Bernard Lintot,Antonio Soler, Alexander MOORE, Mary carpenter, David Williams, Carlos De Grande-Pre.// page 114. 28 July 1788 Samuel Flower appointed, ad in a room, and~wheel is read, your raider and Guardian of the miners of Richard carpenter, deceased, namely James and Sarah, just aged eight and the last eleven months lawfully issue of his marriage with Mary Fairchild is surviving wife, having also issued by his first marriage two daughters namely, Elizabeth, wife of Charles Boardman, dwelling in the Parish of Iberville, and Mary, wife of Samuel Flower, of this District, here present. August 07, 1788 estate of Richard Carpenter debts outstanding:

Samuel Gibson

Jacob Cobin (Coburn)

Ephraim Bates

Thomas Nash

Charles Cason

John Holland

Thomas Griffin

Stephen Mayes

Joseph Mills

Richard Gooding

David Tanner

Richard Lord

James White

William Owens

William Wicks

Jesse Hamilton

Clement Dyson

John Jones

James Simmons

David Mulkey

John Alexander

John Lum

Robert Kidd

Gabriel Swayze

William Thomas

Joseph Foster

Isaac Fife

Henry Richardson

John Allen

James Richardson

James Baker

Henry Lovick

Gabriel Griffin

Thomas Joyce

Robert Campbell

Elijah Phipps

James Truly

Philander Smith

Philetus Smith

William Gilbert

Thomas Dyson

Windsor Pipes

Robert Walker

Joseph Dunker

David Weitzman

John Patterson

L.. Chacheret

David Smith ( for note)

John Adams

Complete list of names can be found in the referenced record or online at www.rands.parrottfarms.com

 

Book “C” Natchez Court Records page 112

page 257. note: the following record does not mention Thomas.

Inventories of Asahel Lewis. Natchez, seventeen March, 1795. And presence of Don Estevan Minor and Ebenezer Rees, Don Manuel Gayoso de Lemos opened a cypress box which had a good lock and key, and found the following: Reciept from James Willwy for a negro belonging to Hugh McGary; note drawn by William Collins for an ox and a hog; receipt from Garret Rapalye senior to his son Garret Rapalye for $12; a sale of a negro from Jacob Nash; a receipt from Mary Carpenter; sale of a horse by William Collins; a draft by Archibald Robertson on Edward McCabe; account against James Rose, deceased, for $18; a bond drawn by Charles Profitt; a draft of Mrs Sybil Nash on the deceased; a memo of payment to “Emma” and her son Henry, not witnessed. Inventory also included some wearing apparel and the whole was delivered to Joseph Bernard, agent for the estate. //

 

Book “D” Natchez Court Records Page 143

page 66. 14 May 1789 Thomas Nash indebted to Don Juan Girault for $10.00, Robert Miller Security. Thom. (X) Nash, Robert Miller

 

Book “E” Natchez District Court Records Page 196

page 315. His creditors versus William Henderson. Peter Walker, an agent for the creditors of this district, and John O’Conner, as the greatest creditor of the late William Henderson, planter, represent that, having had certain infromation of the deceased of the above-mentioned William Henderson, we think it our duty to have an inventory of the estate made immediately, In order it may not be embezzled, of which we are very apprehensive. We ask to be authorized to take the above mentioned inventoried as agent and the greatest creditor. April 18, 1793. Signed: Peter Walker, John O.-Conner.// granted. Same date. The documents to be returned and attested by two witnesses to be present at the proceedings. Signed: Manuel Gayoso De Lemos.//in for two of the foregoing decree, the E., Peter walker and John oh-Conner at the applet welling house of the late in Henderson, a company to buy Mr. Joseph Bernardinand Mr. George Fitzgerald, as witnesses, and having applied to Dorothy, the widow, for a statement of the property left in her hands by her late husband when he left the country, she gave it in the following account: one tract of land situated on the bluff, about two leagues north of fort Panmure, containing 800 acres, with house and improvements, on which she and her family now dwell, the above tract mortgaged to Mr. James Carrick, merchant in N.O.; one tract of land on the Homochitto, 500 acres, on which there is a ferry; three tracks situated at the Big Black, one, on which there is a ferry, 250 acres; another 258 errors, and another 200 acres; for Negroes, horses, cattle, and hearts, and the following notes number as in the margin: Mordecai a Richards, William Robinson, Solomon Wheatley, William Acheson, Abraham Mayes, William Kelsey, Edmund Quirk, Samuel Head, William Owens, Samuel Murphy, Steven Minor, Steven Minors order: Nathaniel Tomlinson, a pair papers, etc., tools, household furniture, kitchen furniture and milk house utensils. Further, Mr. Burrel Stroud said that when William  Henderson died in Kentucky, he had in his possession several obligations and other effects, and that they remained in the hands of captain James Morrison, who is expected down very shortly. Above inventories certified by Peter walker, John O.-Conner, Joseph Bernard and George Fitzgerald. April 22, 1793// obligations in the hands of John O.-Conner where they were lodget by the late William Henderson before his departure from this country where they still remain. These were by Moses Armstrong, William Bassett, Christy Bolling, Samuel Heady, William Barnett, Daniel Bernet, Gibson Clark, George Cochran, Jacob Cobun, Lewis Charboneau, William Cheney, Thomas Evans, John Farquhar, John Ferguson, Benjamin Grubb, John Burnett, John Booth, George Beattie, Thomas Beans, Charles Carter, Waterman Crane, Silas Chambers, William Curtis, John Chambers, Isaac Fife, John Ford and Robert Miller, Samuel Gibson, James glasscock capitalize, Ezekiel Hoskinson, Margaret Harmon, Thomas Hubbard, Ralph Humphries, Nathaniel Ivey, Joseph Dove, Thomas Jordan, Joseph King, Justus King, William Kelsey, Thomas Kelly, James Lobtal, James Leyton, Richard Miller, John Montgomery, Roswell Mygatt, Thomas Nash, Frances Nailor, John Nailor, John Newton, John Ormsby, William Oglesby, William O. NS, Ebenezer Potter, Ruben Proctor, Jon Peters,

Full list of detailed names avaialble from Parrotsgrl@aol.com

 

Book “F” Page 276 Natchez Court Records

Page 300. William Lee versus Daniel Harrigal.  Sandy Creek District, William Cooper, justice of the peace before whom appeared Ms. Susana Lee who made oath that Daniel Harrigill told her that he helped Thomas Nash to kill two hogs the property of Alexander Farrar and one Moore, and that he helped Silas McBee catch a horse the property of David Williams, deceased, and the said horse ran about the pond where David butOdam now lives and that he piloted the said McBee out of the settlement to the other side of William Calvit’s with the said horse and negro man that stayed at said Hargill’s and that the said negro had hired himself from his master to trade for himself and the said negro had come from below and the said Williams had wrote a free pass for the negro.Susanna S. Lee July 21, 1794//personally appeared before William Cooper, Daniel Herrigill that Gave about four years ago William Lee came to his house and asked him to go bear hunting with him and they went to the plantation where Thomas Belleu ran away from. As they were going to the place, William Lee proposed to said Harrigill to steal a bar for a plow from said plantation but said Hargrill did not and they been returned back by the house where stood a spinning wheel, etc.. August 27, 1794.// Beesley Pruitt made of that William Lee offered to sell him a spinning wheel which he thought to be the property of Thomas Belleu: August 27, 1794 periods//August 29, appeared Mary Radcliffe and made oath that on Friday last Daniel Harrigill came to the house of John Radcliffe and carried off a rifle of the said Radcliffe.//John Radcliffe and Joseph Slater, who do, being sworn, said that Daniel Harrigill hollowed to the deponents  as they were working in said Radcliffe as field where they were working and Harrigill had the rifle which he had just taken out of Ratcliff’s house and was his property. 

 

 

Book “B” natchez court district and claims page 384

Page 209. Claims number 370. February 06, 1804.William Curtis to Thomas Nash for $100.00 , my claim in Jefferson county now in the actual possession of Thomas Nash, adjacent lands of John Hamberland, Robert Dunbar, and the donation right of Hugh Slater, all my right of donation and said tract. Signed William Curtis. Witnessed: John HamberlinWilliam McDuggle. Acknowledged before David Phelps, justice of the peace Jefferson county.//page 210. February 07, 1804 Thomas Nash for $600.00 paid to Joseph Bowlen, land as above, settled the last of the semper 1797 by William Curtis. Thomas (X) gnash. Witnessed Armstrong Alice, William Ferguson, acknowledged before Thomas Rodney, justice of the supreme court thirteenth at the weary 1804//file.  Claimant, Joseph Bullen, February 28, 1804. Witnessed: Abraham Mayes and John Griffin, March 10, 1806. Certificate be-88 issued February 03, 1807. Bullen claims a donation of 640 acres as above.

 Polk & Trinity Counties, Texas

Burgess-Sweat-Nash

Burgess-Sweat-Nash

Cross Post I made to the RandS yahoo email group 2/21/06
Yes there are some connectins to the Coushatta’s and the Creek in Texas. Reportedly Elizabeth Burgess who is my Great Grandmother was the daughter of a full blooded French man and a Coushatta wife. Elizabeth Burgess was the wife of Leonard Covington Sweat and the parents of Matilda “Tilly” Sweat who married Emanuel Command Nash. Here is my favorite pic of out of all the pics of my ancestors I am fortunate to have
Elizabeth Sweat Mason Nash, my great-great Grandmother holding her son, my great grandfather Guide Emanuel Nash.
 

PAKANA MUSKOGEE INDIANS. In 1834 the Pakana Muskogee Indians, a branch of the Muskogee or Creek <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/indians/CREEK%20INDIANS.cfm> Indian group, entered Texas and established a village near the site of present Onalaska in western Polk County. The Pakana Muskogees had lived near the Alabama <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/indians/ALABAMA-COUSHATTA.cfm> and Coushatta <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/indians/COUSHATTA%20INDIANS.cfm> Indians in the vicinity of Fort Toulouse, a few miles north of Montgomery, Alabama, and moved to Louisiana shortly after 1763. Dr. John Sibley <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/Rivers/red/SIBLEY.cfm>, Indian agent for the United States, reported in 1805 that approximately 150 Pakana Muskogees were living on Calcasieu Bayou, forty miles southwest of Natchitoches, Louisiana. An early chief of the Pakana Muskogees, John Blount, received a silver medal for his services as a guide for Gen. Andrew Jackson during the Seminole War in Florida. After the death of John Blount while enroute to Texas in 1834, this medal was passed to subsequent chiefs of the tribe: David Ellett, Bill Blount, John Blount (grandson of the earlier chief with the same name), and Alex Davis. In 1834 the Pakana Muskogees moved to a site on Penwau Slough two miles east of its junction with the Trinity River <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/Rivers/TRINITY%20RIVER.cfm> in the area of present Polk County. This location was on a high hill, generally believed to be the peninsula that extends into Lake Livingston and is known as Indian Hill. John Burgess, a Frenchman who purchased 640 acres of land along Kickapoo Creek, married a member of the Pakana Muskogees and later invited the other tribal members to move to the Burgess Survey. This property was inherited by Burgess’s wife and subsequently by other members of the tribe and became the permanent home of the Pakana Muskogees in Polk County. In 1859 Texas Governor Hardin R. Runnels <http://www.rra.dst.tx.us/c_t/people/hrRUNNELS.cfm> appointed James Barclay to serve as agent for the Muskogees, as well as for the Alabamas and Coushattas who lived in Polk County. Responsibility for the Muskogees was included also in the duties of agents appointed for the Polk County Indians in 1861-65, 1867, 1868, and 1872. On November 12, 1866, the Texas legislature passed an act granting the Polk County Muskogees 320 acres of land. Unfortunately for the Muskogees, this land was never purchased, and they continued to live on the John Burgess Survey. The population of this Pakana Muskogee community declined slowly almost from the date of the tribe’s first appearance in Polk County: fifty were counted in 1859; forty-two were reported in 1882. Illness and absorption by the nearby Alabamas and Coushattas probably were the main reasons for the Muskogee’s decreasing population. In 1899, persuaded by Creek Indians from Oklahoma, John Blount and many of the Polk County Muskogees went to the Creek Nation in Oklahoma to live. Only a few-less than ten-Pakana Muskogees remained in their settlement on the John Burgess Survey.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ralph Henry Marsh, The History of Polk County, Texas, Indians (M.A. thesis, Sul Ross State Teachers College, 1941). John R. Swanton, Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73 (Washington: GPO, 1922). John R. Swanton, The Indians of the Southeastern United States (Washington: GPO, 1946). John R. Swanton, The Indian Tribes of North America (Gross Pointe, Michigan: Scholarly Press, 196 . Dorman H. Winfrey and James M. Day, eds., Texas Indian Papers (4 vols., Austin: Texas State Library, 1959-61; rpt., 5 vols., Austin: Pemberton Press, 1966).
Howard N. Martin
Recommended citation:
“PAKANA MUSKOGEE INDIANS.” The Handbook of Texas Online. <<http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/PP/bmp97.html>>
Send mail to info@rra.dst.tx.us <mailto:info@rra.dst.tx.us> with questions or comments about this website
Copyright © 1999-2004 Red River Authority of Texas
This page dynamically generated: Thu, February 24, 2005 at 19:23:39 CST
Notes
  BATTISE TRACE. The Battise Trace was one of the trails radiating from the village of Long King,qv the principal chief of the Coushatta Indians in Texas during the first three decades of the nineteenth century. This trace connected Long King’s Village in southern Polk County with Battise Village, near the mouth of Kickapoo Creek on the Trinity River in San Jacinto County. From Long King’s Village the Battise Trace extended northwestward on the east side of the Trinity River in Polk County, went across Garner’s Prairie south of Blanchard, led through the headwaters of Penwa Slough, and then crossed Caney Creek, Sandy Creek, and Kickapoo Creek. Next, the trail turned southeast near Onalaska, crossed the Trinity River near the mouth of Kickapoo Creek at a point where Duncan’s Ferry (later Patrick’s Ferry) was established, and proceeded to Battise Village in San Jacinto County. The Coushatta Traceqv crossed the Trinity at the same place, and Patrick’s Ferry continued to be used until the development of automobiles and a state system of roads and bridges.
The trail between Long King’s Village and Battise Village is mentioned six times in surveyors’ field notes for land surveys in western Polk County. A typical entry related to the Battise Trace may be found in the field notes for the Thomas Burrus Survey, which refer to “a road leading from the Long King’s Village to the Baptiest (Battise) Village.”
KICKAPOO TRACE. The Kickapoo Trace was a trail leading from the village of the Kickapoo Indians in the area of present Frankston in northeastern Anderson County to the John Burgess survey in the area of western Polk County. The trail followed a route southward near the site of present Neches and Slocum in Anderson County, across present Houston County fifteen miles east of Crockett, through the area of Trinity County eight miles west of Groveton, and then across the present western boundary of Polk County to merge with the Coushatta Traceqv in the John Burgess survey on Kickapoo Creek. The length of the Kickapoo Trace was ninety miles. The trail was apparently used by the Kickapoo Indians to contact Coushatta Indians along the Trinity River and to get to the Coushatta Trace for travel to the interior of Texas. Although a creek in western Polk County was named Kickapoo Creek, there is no evidence that members of the Kickapoo tribe ever established a village in this area.

Nash-Perkins/Pickens-Reese-Anderson SC Extracted Probate Records

Nash-Perkins/Pickens-Reese-Anderson SC Extracted Probate Records

James Nash. Wife: Ann Nash. Sons: Larkin Nash, James Nash, George Nash, Valentine Nash. Daughter: Nancy Nash. Exors: Wife, Ann Nash, sons, Larkin Nash and George Nash. Wit: none named. Date: 31 July 1805. Probate: 19 Jan. 1807. Bk. A p. 81, roll 511. Anderson Co, SC.

Isaac Perkins. Wife: “dear and loving wife” not named. Son: Richard Perkins. Daughters: none named. Exor: Wife, not named. Witnesses: John C. Patrick, Alexander Patrick, Barthoolmew Wollam. Date: 10 Feb. 1794. Probate: 20 April 1795. Source: Bk. C p. 53, Roll 557. Rec. April 1795, roll 557. Anderson Co, SC.

Ezekiel Pickens of St. Thomas Parish: Wife: Elizabeth Pickens. Sons: Ezekiel Pickens (oldest), Samuel Bonneau Pickens. Daughters: Elizabeth Bonneau Pickens. (Sons & daughter above from first marriage). Children of the second marriage were: Thomas Jones Pickens, Andrew Calhoun Pickens, and Mary Barksdale Pickens. “Wife shall have a right to reside on any or either of my plantations in the lower or upper country.” (All children were under age 21).Exors: Wife Elizabeth Pickens, my brother, Col. Andrew Pickens., my friend John Caldwell Calhoun of Abbeville. Wits: Pant Weston, George P.B. Hasell, Roger Pinckney. Date: 19 May 1813. Probate: 13 September 1813. Bk. A p. 16

Israel Pickens 0, Roll 530. (Not in the probate file)(This date does seem to be correct). Anderson Co, SC.. Wife: mentioned by not named. Sons: Ezekiel Pickens, Andrew Pickens, John Pickens. Daughters: Elizabeth Pickens Stewart, Matilda Pickens, Sally Pickens Williams, Ellender Pickens, Mary Pickens. Land: “I formerly lived on Rocky River.” Exors: James Casper, David Boid. Wits: John Davis, Samuel Norris, John Berill. Date: 5 Jan. 1829. Probate: 2 March 1829. Bk. A p. 384, Roll 563. Anderson Co, SC.

John Pickens. Wife: not named. Sons: Joseph Pickens, John Pickens. Daughters: Hannah Caldwell, Elinor Pickens, Sarah Pickens. Comments: Land 340 Acres with the mill … To my son John if he returns. Exors: Wife, not named, son, Joseph Pickens. Witnesses: John McAlister, James Gordon, Alexander McAlister. Date: 22 Sept. 1795. Probate: 27 June 1796. Source: Bk. C p. 84, Roll 562, Rec. 27 June 1796. Anderson Co, SC. (Not in Probate Court Files).

Robert Pickens. Wife: not mentioned. Sons: Robert Pickens and Andrew Pickens. Daughter: Jain Norwood. Other Heirs: gs John Pickens, gd, Martha Pickens, gd Margaret Pickens, gd, Elizabeth Pickens. Elinor Prater. Exors: son, Robert Pickens, Miriam Pickens. Witnesses: James Seawright, Samuel Reed, Margaret Sharp. Date: 20 Jan. 1783. Probate: 1 June 1793. Source: Bk. C p. 15, Roll 533, Recorded 14 Sept. 1793. Anderson Co, SC.

Robert Pickens. Wife: Dorcas (dec’d 1829-30). Sons: Robert Pickens, Andrew Pickens, John Pickens. Daughters: Margaret Pickens, Elizabeth Pickens, Mary Bowman, Dorcas Paris, Ann Bolding. Exors: sons Andrew Pickens and Robert Pickens. Wits: J. Douthit, James Smith, James Oliver. Date: 3 Jan. 1823. Probate: 6 Sept. 1830. Bk. A p. 405, Roll 534. Anderson Co, SC.

William Pickens. Wife: not named. Sons: Josiah Pickens, Joshua Pickens, Moses Pickens. Daughters: Ruth Pickens w/o Aaron Phillips, Sarah Pickens w/o Shadrach Harrison. Land: “Lying on both sides of Colonels Fork of Conoross Creek.” Exors: John C. Kilpatrick, Josiah Foster. Wits: R.H. Grant, Aaron Terrell, Aaron Shannon. Codicil Exors: John C. Kilpatrick, Peter Kilpatrick, William Simpson, Asa Smithson. Date: 29 March 1816. Probate 3 March 1827. Bk. A. p. 353, Roll 541. Anderson Co, SC.

Thomas Reese (Clergyman). Wife: Jane Reese. Sons: Edwin Reese, Thomas Sidney Reese, Elihu Harris Reese, Henry Dodson Reese. Daughters: Leah Reese, Lydia Reese, Susannah Reese. Land Location: “lies on the north side of 23 Mile Creek” Exors: Wife, Jane Reese, Ezekiel Pickens, George Reese, John Harris, Robert M. Cann. Witnesses: William Steel, William Hunter, Elizabeth Miller. Date: 28 April 1796. Probate 19 Sept. 1796. Source: Bk. C p. 92, Roll 593. Anderson Co, SC. (Not in Probate Court Files).

Thomas Sidney Reese. Wife: not mentioned. Sons: not mentioned. Daughters: not mentioned. Other Heirs: Edwin Reese (Bro), Henry D. Reese (Bro). Land Location: 20 Mile Creek. Exors: not named. Witnesses: Lewis D. Martin, John Taylor. Date: not given. Probate: 16 April 1798. Source: Bk. C p. 129, Rec. 16 April 1798. Anderson Co, SC.

St Marys of Natchez A History of Catholic Congregation, 1716-1788

St Marys of Natchez A History of Catholic Congregation, 1716-1788

Excerpt contributed by Ms. Della Ford Nash

Excerpts g 65, A few Protestants ministers ventured to the Natchez frontier. These men came as individuals rather than a official representatives of British or Eastern American presbyteries or congregations. Around 1777, Presbyterian Dr Samuel Swaze and a Reverend Gwillis (Willis?) were in Natchez, although the latter did not exercise his ministry because of drunkeness.  (the dates fit)

page 66, During the first decade of Spanish rule in the Natchez District, ….No priest was stationed at the post and visiting priests left no records of a sacramental ministry. 

pg 67, General Esteban Miro (1782-1791) faced a dilemma at Natchez. He could tolerate the presence of a majority Protestant population or he could expel all Protestants from the area. Neither solution was politically acceptable, …feared the exiled Anglo-Americans might relocate just outside the colony and become a threat to its stability. …devised an ingenious third way to deal with the ticklish situation. Miro proposed a cadre of Irish priests be specially trained and sent to the most populous Protestant Florida settlements where they would quickly convert Anglo-Americans to the true faith. …adults would not be forced to accept Catholicism, they would be required to have their children baptized as Catholics and attend Catholic schools……modified by Spanish officials. Protestants could remain in the Floridas if they took an oath of political allegiance and fidelity……

…new parishes in Natchez District. One parish..near St Catherine and Second Creek; …nearby Cole’s Creek,…third parish…Tensas River forty-five mile above Mobile.

pg 68, another parish for the Natchez District at the military post that was built at Nogales (Vicksburg) in 1791.

pg 75, In 1779, French born Captain Juan de la Villebeuvre occupied Natchez….He accepted the loyalty oaths of 31 settlers on Octber 20 and gave those who refused the oath an opportunity to leave the district. (wonder where that oath might be)

pg 76, Rev Samuel Swayze, a congregationalist preacher, had settled on the Homochitto River in 1773 and organized the Kingston Church, the first Protestant Church of the district. His activity was restricted after the Spanish arrival in 1779, John Bolls, an elder in Swayze’s congregation, was imprisioned, released and threatened with banishment to the silver mines of Mexico for conducting public services.

pg 77, In 1791,…Reverend Richard Curtis, Jr organized a Baptist Church at Cole’s Creek. He was called before Gayoso for public preaching and threatened with confiscation of his goods and exile. ….fled to South Carolina to avoid arrest. Returned in 1798..organized Salem Baptist Church…died in Amite County in 1811.

pg 77, …vexing Catholic-Protestant problems dealt with marriage. All marriages in the Catholic floridas were to take place before a priest and two witnesses. ….however, Catholic priests could not preside at Protestant marriages until the couple had renounced their heresy. Protestants were also forbidden to contract marriage outside the floridas and then return to Spanish territory.

By November 30, 1792,…. clarified the problem by requiring Catholic priests to be present at, record, but not bless all Protestant marriages. Exile and confiscation of property were imposed for those who broke the law.

pg 79, When he departed, Father Lennan took with him the sacramental records of San Salvador Parish. These eventually became part of the sacramental collection of St Joseph Church in Baton Rouge.

pg 88-89, In 1801, Presbyterian Minister John Black noted the lack of literary instruction in the Natchez area and the region had only four clergymen. One Episcopalian, one Methodist, two Baptists, a few exhorters, and all were illiterate except the Episcopalian.

pg 88, Although no Protestants churches could be organized under the Spanish, many Protestants, like Catholics before and after them, retained their traditional faith and religious affiliation without the presence of clergy.

pg 90, The first area Baptists came from South Carolina and settled at Cole’s Creek in 1780.

Where the Kaskaskia River Falls Timeline

Founders of America- Time Line

 

The Founders of
America
FROM THE EARLIEST MIGRATIONS
TO THE PRESENT
Francis Jennings
Such intrusion was beyond toleration by Louis XIV, “the Sun King,” who had taken personal charge of his government in 1661, intending to conquer a great empire and to rule it absolutely. He was as aggressive in North America as in Europe (though a mite thriftier) and his government took steps to stop the advance of those rude Carolinians. Thus, missions were founded at Cahokia (1699) and farther south where the Kaskaskia River falls into the Mississippi (1703).
Most important in terms of long-range strategy, the ministry chose Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville to campaign on the Gulf coast and in the Mississippi Valley to assure France’s control. Iberville was a veteran of such frontier struggles in New France. He promptly built Fort Maurepas (1699) at Biloxi (Mississippi), and laid the groundwork for a new colony of Louisiana which flourished in the eighteenth century and did indeed thrust the Carolinians back east of the Appalachians.

 Ca. 1  Teotihuacán rose to prominence
500  Identifiable remains of Hohokam, Anasazi, and Mogollon peoples (in U.S. Southwest)
600  Beginnings of Cahokia (Ill.)
Ca. 750  Teotihuacán abandoned
Ca. 800  Mesoamericans in the Mississippi Valley; introduction to Mississippi Valley of improved variety of maize
900-1110  Toltecs flourished at Tula
1132  City of Texcoco founded according to Sahagún’s informants
1200  Probable maximum population of North American Indians
1000-1300  Anasazi communities flourished
1300  Most recent migration of Delawares from west to east; Mississippians withdrew southward; Onondaga culture showed marked change; Apacheans began to separate into tribes
1358  Tlatelolco founded
1390  Traditional origin date of the League of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)
1400  Athapascans migrated to U.S. Southwest
1428  Alliance of Tenochtitlán, Tlatelolco, and Texcoco defeated Azcapotzalco
1430  Ruler Itzcoatl ordered destruction and substitution of Tenochtitlán’s records
1473  Tenochtitlán triumphed over Tlatelolco
1486  Huitzilopochtli’s new temple dedicated in Tenochtitlán
1490  Spain began to colonize the Canary Islands
1492  Columbus made landfall in the Caribbean Sea
1493  Pope Alexander VI granted Amerindian lands to the Spanish crown
1494  Columbus sent 500 enslaved Indians to the market in Seville; Rome was invaded by French King Charles VIII
1498  Census by Bartholomew Columbus listed 1,100,000 natives in half of Hispaniola
1500  Royal decree arrived in Hispaniola making Indians vassals of the crown, otherwise personally free; it was generally ignored
1502  Las Casas arrived in Hispaniola
1511  Montesinos preached against slavery on Hispaniola
1513  Balboa claimed for Spain the lands bordering the Pacific Ocean
1515  Las Casas converted to anti-slavery for Indians
1517  Martin Luther’s attack on Papal Indulgences
1518  Population of Central Mexico estimated at 25,200,000 by Borah and Cook
1519  Cortés landed on coast of Mexico
1520  Smallpox carried from Cuba to Mexico
1521  Ponce de León failed to conquer Florida
1525  Probable time of Apacheans’ arrival in U.S. Southwest; three of Cortés letters describing conquest published
1527  City of Rome plundered by army of Emperor Charles V
1534, 1535  Jacques Cartier voyaged and wintered among St. Lawrence Iroquoians
1536  Royal College of Santa Cruz founded in Mexico
1539  De Soto invaded Florida and the Gulf region
1540  Coronado invaded Acoma and other Pueblos
1551  Emperor Charles V founded the National University of Mexico
1559  Establishment of the Spanish Inquisition’s Index of forbidden books
1564  Beginning of the annual fleet of trading galleons from Mexico to the Philippines
1565  Menéndez massacred the French colony at Fort Caroline; San Agustin founded in Florida
1570  Jesuit mission founded and destroyed by local Indians on Chesapeake Bay
1571  The Inquisition came to New Spain; it had little interest in Indians
1579  Francis Drake’s Golden Hind harbored near San Francisco on its trip around the world
1580  By this year, 500 vessels per year took part in North American fisheries, making them one of Europe’s biggest industries
1585  Ralegh’s Roanoke colony founded
1588  The Netherlands and England defeated the Spanish “Invincible Armada”
1597  Guale Indians (of Georgia) rebelled against Spanish missions and were suppressed
1598  Juan de Oñate conquered the Rio Grande Pueblos; Philip II of Spain died
1607  Jamestown (Va.) founded
1608  Quebec founded
1609  Champlain aided Algonquins and Montagnais in war against Mohawks
1610  Santa Fé founded
1614  Dutch traders founded a year-round trading post on the upper Hudson River
1620  New Plymouth founded
1622  Powhatan rising against Virginia colony
1624  Dutch West India Company founded Manhattan and built Fort Orange (Albany, N.Y.)
1630  Massachusetts Bay founded
1632  Publication of Chronicles of Bernal Diaz del Castillo
1634  Maryland founded
1636  Massachusetts and Connecticut warred against Pequots; Harvard College founded
1638  New Sweden founded
1640  New Netherland’s Willem Kieft warred against surrounding tribes, and had to hire English mercenaries to win.
1642  Montreal founded; Maryland defeated Susquehannocks
1643  Susquehannocks, with Swedish help, defeated Maryland; Mayhew mission began on Martha’s Vineyard
1644  The second rising and suppression of the Powhatans
1646  Massachusetts founded John Eliot’s mission with Col. Daniel Gookin as administrator
1648  Semen Dezhnev’s voyage through the Bering Strait
1649-1655  Mohawks and Senecas broke up the Huron confederation and drove the people out of Ontario, after which they scattered the other Iroquoian tribes between lakes Erie and Ontario
1656  Jesuit mission founded near Ontario; Timucuans of Florida rebelled against missions and were suppressed
1658  Mohawks ruined the mission near Onondaga; Esopus Indians rose against New Netherland
1659  10,000 Florida Indians died of measles
1659-1660  Des Groseilliers and Radisson traded near Hudson Bay for the first time
1661  Louis XIV began personal rule
1664  Second Esopus rising; New Netherland conquered by Duke of York’s fleet
1666  De Tracy burned Mohawk villages
1668  Des Groseilliers sailed from England to Hudson Bay wintered there at “Charles Fort”; Fathers Claude Dablon and Jacques Marquette founded Mission Saulte Ste. Marie
1669  Praying Indians of Massachusetts attacked Mohawks and were defeated
1670  Charles Town (S.C.) founded; English crown chartered Hudson’s Bay Company
1671  Hudson’s Bay Company set up its first “factory”; Father Mar
quette founded Mission Saint-Ignace at Michilimackinac; Dau
mont de Saint-Lusson officially claimed the entire Northwest for France; a French trading post was set up to compete with the Hudson’s Bay Company
1673  Jolliet and Marquette found the Mississippi for the French, and canoed down it to Arkansas; Iroquois pleaded with Frontenac to save them from his rampaging allies
1674  Edmund Andros arrived as New York’s governor
1675  Intersocietal wars in New England and the Chesapeake Bay region
1677  The Covenant Chain founded
1680  South Carolina, with Shawnee allies, destroyed the Westos; Pueblos, outraged by efforts to ruin their religion, revolted, captured Santa Fe, and drove out Spaniards
1681  French crown chartered Compagnie de la Baie d’Hudson; English crown chartered colony of Pennsylvania; proprietors of Carolina ordered trade in guns as means of creating tribal dependence
1682  La Salle cruised down the Mississippi River to its mouth; French took prisoner the crews of English ships in Hudson Bay; the Hudson’s Bay Company expanded from one post to three
1684  Onondaga chief Garangula humiliated New France’s Governor La Barre
1685  New York’s Governor Dongan sent a successful trading party from Albany to Michilimackinac
1686  French intercepted a large trading party from Albany (intending to go to Michilimackinac) and confiscated its goods; French seized all but one Hudson Bay English posts
1691  Jacques Le Tort’s expedition from Burlington (N.J.) via Susquehanna, Allegheny, Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers made contact with “over forty” native peoples
1692  Shawnee band, with Martin Chartier, arrived in Pennsylvania after leaving Tonty’s Fort St. Louis; Spaniards reconquered Pueblo Indians and restored Santa Fé
1698  Dr. Daniel Coxe planned a giant English colony to be called Carolana which would conflict with territories pre-empted by the French; it never came to anything
1699  Le Moyne de Iberville built Fort Maurepas at Biloxi (Miss.); French mission founded at Cahokia
1700  Hopis massacred male villagers of Awatovi who had decided to receive Spanish priests
1701  Iroquois made peace with New France and its allies; French founded Detroit; Iroquois refused to attack Detroit, but gave New York a
“deed” to it; William Penn treated with the Susquehannocks for trade and cession of their valley
1701-1713  Queen Anne’s War
1703  French mission founded at junction of Kaskaskia River with Mississippi
1708  By this date, Carolina traders had seized 10,000 to 12,000 Spanish mission Indians and had sold them into West Indian slavery
1710  Treaty at Conestoga between Pennsylvania and the Iroquois League was kept secret from New York
1711  Mobile (Ala.) made capital of Louisiana
1712  Dubuisson and allies massacred Foxes fleeing from Detroit; Tuscaroras warred against Virginia; large-scale immigration began to Pennsylvania from Rhineland and Ulster; Louis XIV gave Louisiana to Antoine Crozat
1715  Yamasees warred against South Carolina
1716  Louvigny led a trading expedition in the guise of war against the Foxes
1717  Antoine Crozat surrendered his profitless charter for Louisiana
1718  New Orleans founded as new capital of Louisiana; John Law given Louisiana as the Company of the Indies which soon went bankrupt ; Michel Bisaillon gave information to James Logan that stimulated the English Board of Trade to aggressive new policies; William Penn died in England
1724  Local French commander exterminated the Natchez nation to gain their lands; some survivors were given refuge and protection by the Chickasaws
1728  Vitus Bering’s voyage through Bering Strait
1730  French and allies massacred Foxes trekking eastward in hope of sanctuary among Iroquois
1731  Company of the Indies surrendered its Louisiana charter
1733  English colony of Georgia founded
1734  French defeated by Foxes and allies in battle of Butte des Morts
1737  Beauharnois made peace with Foxes under pressure from his Indian allies; the “Walking Purchase” took place in Pennsylvania
1738  Gaultier de La Vérendyre made the first official visit to the Mandans ; coureurs de bois had preceded him
1741  Bering’s voyage to mainland Alaska
1742  Acceding to Pennsylvania’s wishes, Onondaga Chief Canasatego ordered the Delawares off their land; he fabricated an Iroquois conquest supposedly making the Delawares into “women”; this
became a support for the myth of a giant Iroquois “empire” over other Indians
1744  The Russian fur trade was extended to the Aleutian Islands
1744-1748  King George’s War
1749  Céloron de Blainville toured Ohio tribes to demand expulsion of Pennsylvania traders and was rebuffed
1750  The Ohio Company of Virginia formed
1752  Virginia’s treaty at Logstown (Ambridge, Pa.) with tribes resident in Ohio Country
1753  French expelled Pennsylvania’s traders from Ohio Country; George Washington took Virginia’s demand that French abandon their forts in the Ohio Country
1754  Washington capitulated to French at Fort Necessity; Albany Congress of English colonies with Iroquois
1754-1763  The Seven Years War (or “French and Indian War”)
1755  Braddock routed at Fort Duquesne; Vaudreuil instigated Indian raids on English outpost colonials
1758  At a treaty at Easton (Pa.), Delawares agreed to leave the French in return for a promise of a boundary line between Indians and colonials; Forbes captured Fort Duquesne
1763  Treaty of Paris took France out of North America by cession of claimed lands to Britain and Spain; “Pontiac’s Conspiracy” besieged British forts in the Old Northwest; Fort Pitt’s garrison created a smallpox epidemic among the Delawares; British crown proclaimed a boundary line between colonials and Indians
1769  Captain Will’s Shawnees captured Daniel Boone and freed him after confiscating his goods and gear; Spaniards founded Mission San Diego as the first in a series extending northward along the California coast
1773  Creeks ceded territory
1774  Lord Dunmore warred against the Shawnees; Iroquois refused to help them; Mingo James Logan’s family massacred; the Quebec Act legislated a boundary between English colonies and crown lands reserved to the Indians
1776  United States declared Independence; Cherokee rising suppressed by South Carolina and Virginia
1776-1783  The War for American Independence
1777 1778  The Battle of Oriskany set Iroquois against Iroquois; Iroquois grand council “covered the council fire”; Americans won the Battle of Saratoga Delawares proposed creation of an Indian state with themselves at
its head; Congress ignored the proposal; Captain James Cook landed on Vancouver Island
1779  Sullivan’s army destroyed Iroquois towns
1783  Treaty of Paris recognized U.S. independence and ceded British territorial claims; it made no mention of Indian rights
1784  Treaty of Fort Stanwix between Iroquois and U.S.
1786  New Mexico’s Governor Bernardo de Galvez inaugurated policy of treaties and trade with Apacheans; Grigori Shelikhov began Russian conquest of Alaska
1787  Northwest Ordinance provided for organization of Old Northwest into States
1788  Kentucky lands claimed by Shawnees, ceded by Iroquois
1790  General Harmar’s army defeated by western Indian confederation ; the Trade and Intercourse Act enacted
1791  Vermont admitted as a State; General St. Clair’s army routed by western Indian confederation
1792  Kentucky admitted as a State
1794  Russian missionaries arrived on Kodiak Island; General Wayne defeated the western confederation at Fallen Timbers
1795  The Treaty of Greenville re-established a boundary between Indian territories and the U.S.
1796  Tennessee admitted as a State
1799  Russian American Company granted monopoly of fur trade; most Russian missionaries died in a shipwreck; Onondaga Handsome Lake had a vision that began the Longhouse religion
1802  Tlingit Indians destroyed New Archangel (Sitka)
1803  William Henry Harrison’s Treaty of Fort Wayne obtained cession of 1,152,000 acres under dubious circumstances; Napoleon Buonaparte sold the Louisiana Territory to the U.S.
1804-1806  Meriwether Lewis and William Clark explored the U.S. Northwest all the way to the Pacific Coast
1805  Tlingit Indians destroyed Yakutat
1807-1808  Black Hoof’s Shawnee farm and mission ruined by official decision after hopeful start
1811  William Henry Harrison defeated Tenskwatawa’s Shawnees and allies at Tippecanoe
1812-1815  “The War of 1812”
1813  William Henry Harrison defeated the British and Indian allies at the Battle of the Thames in which Tecumseh was killed
1814  Andrew Jackson defeated the Creeks at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, after which he forced cession of 20,000,000 acres
1815  Jackson and Lafitte won the Battle of New Orleans
1818  Jackson seized Pensacola (Florida)
1820-1823  Mexico became independent and abolished the legal status of “Indian” by absorbing it into “citizen”
1821  Stephen Austin brought “Anglos” to Texas; Hudson’s Bay Company acquired North West Company
1823  Oneidas settled at Green Bay
1825  Erie Canal opened
1830  President Jackson’s administration enacted the Indian Removal Law to force Indians west of the Mississippi; ultimatum given to Choctaws at Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek
1831  De Tocqueville observed Choctaws on their “trail of tears”
1833  Japanese junk wrecked near Queen Charlotte’s Island after drifting across the Pacific
1834-1836  California missions secularized by Mexico
1835  Cherokees, at Treaty of New Echota, accepted removal west of the Mississippi
1836  Cherokee “trail of tears”; Texas seceded from Mexico
1837  Seminole Chief Osceola was seized at treaty negotiations and imprisoned; he died in prison
1837-1838  Smallpox destroyed the Mandan Indians
1838  The “blatantly corrupt” purchase of Seneca land by the Ogden Land Company
1841  Migration began on the Oregon Trail
1842  Allegany and Cattaraugus reservations were confirmed to the Seneca Indians
1845  Texas admitted as a State
1846-1848  War between the United States and Mexico
1848  Mexico’s provinces north of the Rio Grande were ceded to the U.S. by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; most Senecas replaced their traditional hereditary government with elected officers; Tonawanda kept the traditional system
1849  The gold rush to California began
1854  Japan was opened to western trade by Admiral Matthew Perry
1857  Seminoles accepted a cash payment to move west; massacre at Mountain Meadows (Utah)
1861  Texas seceded from the United States to join the Confederate States
1861-1865  The Civil War in the United States
1867  Russia sold its North American colony to the U.S.
1869  Texas re-admitted to the United States
1870  Congress substituted “agreements” for “treaties”
1875  Comanches surrendered after war with the U.S.
1876  Massacre of Custer’s cavalry troop at Little Big Horn
1880  Full publication of Fr. Diego Durán’s manuscript about Mexican Indians
1887  The General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) passed
1890  U.S. Indian population at nadir; massacre of Chief Big Foot’s Sioux at Wounded Knee; U.S. census proclaimed “the end of the frontier”
1893  Oklahoma Territory opened to homesteaders; Spanish-American War and cession to U.S. of Philippines and Puerto Rico
1900  Hawaii annexed as a U.S. territory
1900-1910  18,000,000 acres of tribal lands taken by U.S.
1924  American Indians made U.S. citizens
1934  John Collier’s Indian Reorganization Act enacted
1946  The Philippines given independence by U.S. Congress; the Indian Claims Commission enacted
1950  BIA initiated a relocation program to move Indians from reservations to urban areas; by this date 13.4 percent of American Indians had become urban, mostly by personal action
1953  “Termination” begun with 13 tribes released from federal supervision ; American Society for Ethnohistory founded
1959  Hawaii admitted as the 50th State
1971  Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act enacted
1973  “Wounded Knee II” on the Pine Ridge reservation; Menominee termination rescinded
1977  Final report of U.S. Congress American Indian Policy Review Commission
1978  American Indian Religious Freedom Act enacted; U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish leaned toward tribal termination
1982  English translation of Sahagún’s manuscript about the Aztecs completed and published
1990  At least half of U.S. Indians have become urban
Questia Media America, Inc.
http://www.questia.com/
Publication Information: Book Title: The Founders of America: How Indians Discovered the Land, Pioneered in It, and Created Great Classical Civilizations, How They Were Plunged into a Dark Age by Invasion and Conquest, and How They Are Reviving. Contributors: Francis Jennings – author. Publisher: W. W. Norton. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1993. Page Number: 421

The Invisible Line Between Black and White

The Invisible Line Between Black and White.

The Invisible Line Between Black and White

Vanderbilt professor Daniel Sharfstein discusses the history of the imprecise definition of race in America

  • By T.A. Frail
  • Smithsonian.com, February 18, 2011, Subscribe

Oberlin Rescuers at Cuyahoga County Jail The Oberlin Rescuers at Cuyahoga County Jail in 1859.
T.J. Rice. Courtesy of the Library of Congress

For much of their history, Americans dealt with racial differences by drawing a strict line between white people and black people. But Daniel J. Sharfstein, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt University, notes that even while racial categories were rigidly defined, they were also flexibly understood—and the color line was more porous than it might seem. His new book, The Invisible Line: Three American Families and the Secret Journey from Black to White, traces the experience of three families—the Gibsons, the Spencers and the Walls—beginning in the 17th century. Smithsonian magazine’s T.A. Frail spoke with Sharfstein about his new book:

People might assume that those who crossed the line from black to white had to cover their tracks pretty thoroughly, which would certainly complicate any research into their backgrounds. But does that assumption hold?

That’s the typical account of passing for white—that it involved wholesale masquerade. But what I found was, plenty of people became recognized as white in areas where their families were well known and had lived for generations, and many could cross the line even when they looked different. Many Southern communities accepted individuals even when they knew those individuals were racially ambiguous—and that happened even while those communities supported slavery, segregation and very hard-line definitions of race.

So how did you find the three families you wrote about?

It was a long process. I began by trying to find as many of these families as I could in the historical record. That involved reading a lot of histories and memoirs, and then moving from there to dozens and dozens of court cases where courts had to determine whether people were black or white, and from there to property records and census records and draft records and newspaper accounts. And I developed a list of dozens, even hundreds of families that I could be writing about, and then narrowed it down. The three families that I chose represent the diversity of this process of crossing the color line and assimilating into white communities. I chose families that lived in different parts of the South that became white at different points in American history and from different social positions.

And how did those families come to know about their ancestry?

For many generations, members of these three families tried to forget that they had ever been African-American—and yet when I traced the families to the present and began contacting the descendants almost everyone I contacted knew about their history. It seems that the secrets of many generations are no match for the Internet. In many families, people would talk about going to the library and seeing that it had, say, a searchable 1850 census. One woman described the experience of typing in her great-grandfather’s name, finding him, and then having to call over the librarian to go through the handwritten enumeration form with her—she had to ask the librarian what “MUL” meant, not knowing it meant he was mulatto, or of mixed race. Every family seemed to have a story like this.

You note that an early 18th-century governor of South Carolina granted the Gibsons, who clearly had African-American ancestry, permission to stay in his colony because “they are not Negroes nor Slaves.” How did the governor reach such a nebulous conclusion?

It shows how fluid understandings of race can be. The Gibsons were descended from some of the first free people of color in Virginia, and like many people of color in the early 18th century they left Virginia and moved to North Carolina and then to South Carolina, where there was more available land and the conditions of the frontier made it friendlier to people of color. But when they arrived in South Carolina there was a lot of anxiety about the presence of this large mixed-race family. And it seems that the governor determined that they were skilled tradesmen, that they had owned land in North Carolina and in Virginia and—I think most important—that they owned slaves. So wealth and privilege trumped race. What really mattered is that the Gibsons were planters.

And why was such flexibility necessary, both then and later?

Before the Civil War, the most important dividing line in the South was not between black and white, but between slave and free. Those categories track each other, but not perfectly, and what really mattered above all to most people when they had to make a choice was that slavery as an institution had to be preserved. But by the 19th century, there were enough people with some African ancestry who were living as respectable white people—people who owned slaves or supported slavery–that to insist on racial purity would actually disrupt the slaveholding South.

And this continued after the Civil War. With the rise of segregation in the Jim Crow era, separating the world by white and black required a renewed commitment to these absolute and hard-line understandings of race. But so many of the whites who were fighting for segregation had descended from people of color that even as laws became increasingly hard-line, there still was a tremendous reluctance to enforce them broadly.

One of your subjects, Stephen Wall, crossed from black to white to black to white again, in the early 20th century. How common was that crossing back and forth?

My sense is that this happened fairly often. There were many stories of people who, for example, were white at work and black at home. There were plenty of examples of people who moved away from their families to become white and for one reason or another decided to come home. Stephen Wall is interesting in part because at work he was always known as African-American, but eventually, at home everyone thought he was Irish.

How did that happen?

The family moved around a lot. For a while they were in Georgetown [the Washington, D.C. neighborhood], surrounded by other Irish families. Stephen Wall’s granddaughter remembered her mother telling stories that every time an African-American family moved anywhere nearby, Stephen Wall would pack the family up and find another place to live.

As you look at the United States now, would you say the color line is disappearing, or even has disappeared?

I think the idea that race is blood-borne and grounded in science still has a tremendous amount of power about how we think about ourselves. Even as we understand how much racial categories were really just a function of social pressures and political pressures and economic pressures, we still can easily think about race as a function of swabbing our cheek, looking at our DNA and seeing if we have some percentage of African DNA. I think that race has remained a potent dividing line and political tool, even in what we think of as a post-racial era. What my book really works to do is help us realize just how literally we are all related.

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian’s coverage on history, science and nature.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Invisible-Line-Between-Black-and-White.html#ixzz29XsT0Ts8

Joseph Newman-Misc postings of interest

In a message dated 12/8/2008 4:21:15 A.M. Central Standard Time, manahoac_saponi@yahoo.com writes:
I came across something in the Saponi records about one of the chief’s dying…..well what he died of is what struck me as very interesting.Ok well we all know about Brent Kennedy.Well this document talked about “Pleursy”….which is something I have also along with Tachycardia (doctors do not know what causes my Pleursy)….but any way…..I’ll copy and past what the document says….and then I’ll show you something about Pleursy.”The daughter of the Tetero (that is Tutelo) king went away with the Sapponies, but being the last of her nation, and fearing she should not be treated according to her rank, poisoned herself, like an old Roman, with the root of the trumpet plant. Her father died two years before, who was the most intrepid Indian we have been acquainted with. He had made himself terrible to all other Indians by his exploits, and had escaped so many dangers that he was esteemed invulnerable. But at last he died of a pleurisy, the last man of his race and nation, leaving only that unhappy daughter behind him, who would not long survive him.”Here is most of the page that came from and the source info:Page 89The Westover Manuscripts: Containing the History of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina; A Journey to the Land of Eden, A. D. 1733; and A Progress to the Mines. Written from 1728 to 1736, and Now First Published: Byrd, William, 1674-1744And in earnest they would have served well enough for that purpose, if the white people in the neighbourhood had not debauched their morals, and ruined their health with rum, which was the cause of many disorders, and ended at last in a barbarous murder committed by one of these Indians when he was drunk, for which the poor wretch was executed when he was sober. It was matter of great concern to them, however, that one of their grandees should be put to so ignominious a death. All Indians have as great an aversion to hanging as the Muscovites, though perhaps not for the same cleanly reason: these last believing that the soul of one that dies in this manner, being forced to sally out of the body at the postern, must needs be defiled. The Sapponies took this execution so much to heart, that they soon after quitted their settlement and removed in a body to the Catawbas. The daughter of the Tetero king went away with the Sapponies, but being the last of her nation, and fearing she should not be treated according to her rank, poisoned herself, like an old Roman, with the root of the trumpet plant. Her father died two years before, who was the most intrepid Indian we have been acquainted with. He had made himself terrible to all other Indians by his exploits, and had escaped so many dangers that he was esteemed invulnerable. But at last he died of a pleurisy, the last man of his race and nation, leaving only that unhappy daughter behind him, who would not long survive him.The most uncommon circumstance in this Indian visit was, that they all came on horse-back, which was certainly intended for a piece of state, because the distance was but three miles, and it is likely they had walked on foot twice as far to catch their horses. The men rode more awkwardly than any Dutch sailor, and the ladies bestrode their palfreys a la mode de France, but were so bashful about it, that there was no persuading them to mount till they were quite out of our sight. The French women used to ride a-straddle, not so much to make them sit firmer in the saddle, as from the hopes the same thing might peradventure befall them that once happened to the nun of Orleans, who, escaping out of a nunnery, took post en cavalier, and in ten miles’ hard riding had the good fortune to have all the tokens of a man break out upon her. This piece of history ought to be the more credible, because it leans upon much the same degree of proof as the tale of bishop Burnet’s two Italian nuns, who, according to his lordship’s account, underwent the same happy metamorphosis, probablyby some other violent exercise.Ok now let’s get into the Brent kennedy thing. Below is from Medicalnet.comWhat is sarcoidosis?Sarcoidosis is a disease that results from a specific type of inflammation of tissues of the body. It can appear in almost any body organ, but it starts most often in the lungs or lymph nodes.(Note:….most often in the Lungs…keep that in mind).Ok on the the next thing:Familial Mediterranean fever aka FMT:From Wikipedia (not a fully reliabale sources..but anyway).Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF) is a hereditary inflammatory disorder that affects groups of people originating from around the Mediterranean Sea (hence its name). It is prominently present in the Armenian people, Sephardi Jews (and, to a much lesser extent, Ashkenazi Jews), people from Turkey, and the Arab countries.Signs and symptoms: (Take note of number 3)There are seven types of attacks. 90% of all patients have their first attacks before they are 20 years old. All develop over 2-4 hours and last anytime between 6 hours and 4 days. Most attacks involve fever:[1]1.Abdominal attacks, featuring abdominal pain affecting the whole abdomen with all signs of acute abdomen (e.g. appendicitis). They occur in 95% of all patients and may lead to unnecessary laparotomy. Incomplete attacks, with local tenderness and normal blood tests, have been reported. 2.Joint attacks, occurring in large joints, mainly of the legs. Usually, only one joint is affected. 75% of all FMF patientsexperience Joint attacks. 3.Chest attacks with pleuritis (inflammation of the pleural lining) and pericarditis (inflammation of the pericardium). Pleuritis occurs in 40%, but pericarditis is rare. 4.Scrotal attacks due to inflammation of the tunica vaginalis. This occurs in up to 5% and may be mistaken for acute scrotum (i.e. testicular torsion) 5.Myalgia (rare in isolation) 6.Erysipeloid (a skin reaction on the legs, rare in isolation) 7.Fever without any symptoms (25%) So now I’ll quote from WebMD (Now my doctor told me I can’t die from Pleursy…my doctor always just gives me some kind of inflamatory medicine….but apprently the Tutelo Chief died from it) but anyway on with WebMD.Understanding Pleurisy – the BasicsWhat Is Pleurisy?Pleurisy, also called pleuritis, is an inflammation of the pleura, which is the moist, double-layered membrane that surrounds the lungs and lines the rib cage. The condition can make breathing extremely painful. Sometimes it is associated with another condition called pleural effusion, where excess fluid fills the area between the membrane’s layers.The double-layered pleura protects and lubricates the surface of the lungs as they inflate and deflate within the rib cage. Normally, a thin, fluid-filled gap — the pleural space — allows the two layers of the pleural membrane to slide gently past each other. But when these layers become inflamed, with every breath, sneeze, or cough their roughened surfaces rub painfully together like two pieces of sandpaper.In some cases of pleurisy, excess fluid seeps into the pleural space, resulting in pleural effusion. This fluid buildup usually has a lubricating effect, relieving the pain associated with pleurisy as it reduces friction between the membrane’s layers. But at the same time, the added fluid puts pressure on the lungs, reducing their ability to move freely. A large amount of fluid may cause shortness of breath. In some cases of pleural effusion, this excess liquid can become infected.What Causes It?Viral infection is probably the most common cause of pleurisy. Other causes include the following:Lung infections, such as pneumonia and tuberculosis Other diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, liver and pulmonary embolism Chest injuries Drug reactions Pleurisy and pleural effusion are generally only as serious as the underlying disease causing it. If you have either of these conditions, you may already be undergoing treatment for the underlying disease; if not, seek medical attention immediately.A pleural effusion can occur without pleurisy Kidney disease, heart failure, and liver disease can cause pleural effusion without inflammation or pain.So….it’s a interesting thing….I wish there was more about what caused the Tutelo Chief’s Pleursy……If it was TB then why did William Bird not say TB….if it was Pneumonia why did he not say that? Why did he just say “A Plesury”? If it was TB then I’m sure it would have spread to the rest of the tribe which the Saponi/tutelo did not suffer a TB Epidemic….what deaths they had usually came from wars…they was almost always fighting. He did not say the Chief died of Disease……he did not say if the Chief died in winter, spring, Summer, etc either which makes it hard to tell if the Chief may have goten Pneumonia. but anyway I figured I woudl share this information.The location this Chief was at was Brunswick, Virginia at the Saponi Reservation.

Tennessee Melungeons

In a message dated 12/8/2008 6:16:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, manahoac_saponi@yahoo.com writes:
Thing with that is…..the louisa county records…look at the date….them are not the oldest records.

John Collins, (c1690 – 1752)
The birth year of John Collins is again an estimate based on a 1716 deed in Bertie County, NC.
John Collins wrote his will on 27 December 1749 in Bertie County, NC.

thats older than any of the other Virginia records…the hyde county records are

—————————-

But none of these can be connected to Thomas Collins Sr., Thomas Collins Jr., Samuel Collins, Thomas Gibson and his sons Charles, Reuben, Major etc., — they can be easily traced from Virginia to North Carolina to Tennessee. The Bertie County Collins, IIRC are R1b — Vardy’s is R1a and Valentine’s is E3a….. Joanne

Joanne Wrote:
In a message dated 12/8/2008 8:37:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, manahoac_saponi@yahoo.com writes:
So….do we have Newman’s ridge links to Bertie county, nc? yes we have that……Bunch and collins….We even know that Valentine Collins’ dna matches perfect with the Bertie county, nc’s DNA….His dna matches Henry Bunch….who it just so happens….henry’s daughter married into the Collins family of Bertie…..Bertie being close to the Machapunga tribe where the Vandermullen, collins, Gibbs, and Austin are in the late 1600-early 1700’s….oldest records.

I think I can say, with a fair degree of certainty, that these Gibsons who were called ‘Tennessee Melungeons’ can be traced back to Louisa Co., Virginia along with the Bunch, Collins, Goins, Goodmans, and others. The DNA match of Valentine Collins to the Bunch line could be from a union in 1747 in Virginia– assuming Henry Bunch probably comes from the Louisa County line ;

1745 May 28 Louisa Co. VA “Ordered that William Hall, Samuel Collins, Thomas Collins, William Collins, Samuel Bunch, George Gibson, Benjamin Branham, Thomas Gibson, and William Donathan be summoned to appear at the next Court to answer the presentment of the Grand jury this day made against them for concealing tithables within twelve months past.”
1747 Louisa Co VA: Thomas Collins sold 186 acres on Turkey Creek on the south side of the Southanna River to John Powell..the land lies near Gilbert Gibson, Thomas Gibson and Sam Bunch land.

The above Gilbert Gibson is no doubt the son of ‘Gibby Gibson’ who died in 1726 and left a Charles City County will. He is buried in the Lightfoot cemetery at Sandy Point with Francis, likely his wife, named in the will, and his father, Thomas Gibson. These Gibson lines were in Virginia in the early 1600s and I have found no connection to the Gibbs/Gibbes families you mention.

I have been in contact with researchers from the Bertie County Collins who assure me the DNA of those Collins do not match any of the ‘Melungeon’ Collins lines — to my knowledge there is no proven link from the Bertie County families to the Hancock County,Tennessee Melungeons.

The Collins left Louisa County with the Bunch, Gibsons etc., and are found 1750 in Granville;

The 1750 tax list of Granville County, NC list the following:
Gideon Bunch 2 tithes (Micajer and William)
Thomas Collins Sr. 1 tithe, Samuel Collins 1 tithe, John Collins 1 tithe
Thomas Gibson with tithes Charles and George Gibson.

These are the families of the Newman’s Ridge Melungeons. The ‘other Melungeons’ the ones in Hamilton County, Wilson Co, etc., by 1850 were from Bertie Co., North Carolina and Marion County, South Carolina. Why their kinfolks were called Lumbee, Smiling, Redbones, Carmel Indians etc., I don’t know. Maybe as Dragging Canoe said in 1775;

“Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man’s advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers.” Joanne
Joseoph Newman wrote:

Well..the collins started out as Machapungs in Hyde county, NC. There was also VanderMullen with them and alot of Native people named Gibbs. This was a time when the Saponi was in the Bertie county, NC area.

Also….when the English first came to america….not the spainsih but the english…..their first stop was Hatteras island….they found a ship wrecked to pieced and it was partially burned…..the Hatteras tribe (the real name of the Croatoan) had the ship’s flag in their village and there was mixed kids in the tribe already from the people of the Wreckage. The French and spainish was both on Hatteras before the English. The english got their in 1585.

The first english even had Portuguese men on their crew…one named Fernando.

Now if you google the meaning of gibson…you’ll find several websites that says thats a proven variation of gibbs and gibbes.

Another surname found with the Saponi which originated from the Machapunga and Hatteras was Austin.

It was also proven that some (not all) Hatteras had moved in with the Mattamuskeet.

Handbook of American Indians, 1906
Hatteras. An Algonquian tribe living in 1701 on the sand banks of Cape Hatteras, N. C. east of Pamlico sound, and frequenting Roanoke Island. Their single village, Sandbanks, had them only about 80 inhabitants. They showed traces of white blood and claimed that some of their ancestors were white. They may have been identical with the Croatan Indians with whom Raleigh’s colonists at Roanoke Island are supposed to have taken refuge.

Now we also know some of the Saponi at the brunswick reservation did in fact speak Algonkian.

The Hatteras when visited in the 1600’s had blue and grey eyes…could read from books…..said their ancestors came from a book called Raleigh…..they showed signs of mixed ancestry…etc etc.

In fact there was several portugesse the english brought to Hatteras island on each trip. a few examples are,
Enrique Lopez, Portuguese merchantDiego Menendez de Valdes (He may be spainish)
Alonzo Cornieles, Captain of the Santa Maria of San Vicente (spainish or Portugesse)
Edward GorgesMaster BremigeMaster VincentCaptain John Copeltope(I’m sure at least one of them 4 was portugesse)
Simon Fernandez, chief pilot (Portugesse man)
Iohn Gostigo (Probally spainish or portugesse)

But anyway….that who the English brought to Hatteras island in the 1580’s…..this does not even count the spainish and French who came to Hatteras before 1585.

But on to the colony of 1587…here is some names.

John Cheven
John GibbesThomas HarrisRichard Darige
William NicholesThomas ScotThomas ColmanGeorge Martyn

Now Simon Fernando the portugesse….he came on pretty much every trip from 1585-1587…..he was a proven portugesse..and I’m sure he had some mixed children by the women in his off and on 2 years with the Hatteras.

Now Sir Francis Drake was the person who picked up the first “Colony”….the first colony was not the first English trip….there was actually 6 trips….the first colony was more like the 3rd trip. lost colony was the 5th trip. Sir Francis drake was the 4th trip. Anyway…..Traveling with Drake was John Hawkins and william collins…..those two got left behind at Veracruz….they knew drake was going to Hattera to drop off supplies. This is proven..not a theory. ok so there was problems with the spianish in Verazcruz blah blah….so Hawkins and Collins knew there was a french colony in florida….so they went there…found the colony fisnihed off by the spainish…..so this crew started following the Native American paths up the East coast….Logic would say they would have went for Hatteras since they knew there was a Enlgish colony there and Drake was there…..little by little people from their crew started just staying with various tribes….Hawkins and Collins and their crew was staying a few days with each tribe that would take them in….probally spent a few weeks with some tribes…..anyway they probally got to Hateras and found out the First colony was not there…because the first colony had gotten the other tribes angry and the colony rode off to england with drake (Hatteras was still friendly to the english)….ok so they continue north and enter canada….end of a 11 month jounry and they finnally make it back….only some of the crew made it back though…..Only person I know who made it back was john Hawkins….I have not seen William collins listed as making it back to England. This is all proven.

Ok on to the next stuff…..

Newman’s ridge stories….shipwrecked….burned portuguese ships….took native women as wifes….nc coast….all that stuff can be proven as stuff that really did happen on Hatteras island even before the First english came…….We also have proof of the Newman’s ridge surnames found among the Hatteras and Machapunga before any other records and all the surnames related to native americans…..we even have the names “Captain John Goring 1586″(goring, Going, Goin) and” John Gostigo 1585-1586 “

We know the Saponi did often go live with the Catawba and cheraw…..we know the Lumbee are cheraw, Tuscarora, and Croatoan/Hatteras….their original name was Croatoan of roberson county.

Ok so let’s see what the Saponi reocrds have.

1701:John Lawson finds Sapona indians along the banks of the Yadkin river (at that time was named Sapona river).Also in 1701 NC Davidson County. Trading Fort established on Sapona River (now called Ydkin River) at the Indian town of Sapona Town.

1701-1709:After John Lawson’s visit to Sapona Village around Febuary 1701, the Saponi and Tutelo left their villages behind.The Siouan tribes had been getting attacked from the North and South Iroqious tribes.These 2 tribes moved Eastward and the Saponi creek near Nashville NC probally shows the path they took. Occaneechi and the other allied tribes followed. They was all moving toward the settler’s settlements so Saponi village was no longer safe..They crossed the Roanoak river before the Tuskarora war of 1711.Their new Village was called Sapona townn. The Location was slightly East of roanoak river and about 15 miles westward from Windsor in Bertie county NC.So….do we have Newman’s ridge links to Bertie county, nc? yes we have that……Bunch and collins….We even know that Valentine Collins’ dna matches perfect with the Bertie county, nc’s DNA….His dna matches Henry Bunch….who it just so happens….henry’s daughter married into the Collins family of Bertie…..Bertie being close to the Machapunga tribe where the Vandermullen, collins, Gibbs, and Austin are in the late 1600-early 1700’s….oldest records.

Hatteras island by the way is riddled with Shipwrecks.

So anyway….these Saponi move back to Virginia..

1733:Saponi not happy with their living with the Catawbas and returned to Virginia. These Saponi bring with them some Cheraws (Catawba). They were forced to petition Lt. Governor Gooch for permission to resettle in Virginia, which was granted (Merrell 1989:116). Note: This Cheraw/Saura town very near the settlement of the ‘Rockingham County Indians’ known as the Gibson and Goins.
Ok so we have the gibson and Goins name there…but anyway lets move along.

1723:The Stegaraki were located by Governor Spotswood of Virginia at Fort Christanna about 10 years earlier, and the Mepontsky, also placed there, may have been the Ontponea. We hear of the former as late as 1723, and there is good reason to believe that they united with the Tutelo and Saponi and followed their fortunes, and that under these two names were included all remnants of the Manahoac.Now let’s see who these tribes was…

The Stegaraki, who were in Orange County along the Rapidan River
The Ontponea, who were located in Orange County

And of course we know Louisa county, VA was the first known location of the Saponi under the name Monasukapanough…….ok so the Saponi leave the reservation….etc etc.

In 1730, “William Bohannon came into court and made oath that about twenty-six of the Sapony Indians that inhabit Colonel Spotswood’s land in Fox’s neck go about and do a great deal of mischief by firing the woods; more especially on the 17th day of April last whereby several farrows of pigs were burnt in their beds, and that he verily believes that one of the Indians shot at him the same day, the bullet entering a tree within four feet of him; that he saw the Indian about one hundred yards from him, and no game of any sort between them; that the Indian after firing his gun stood in a stooping manner very studdy [steady] so that he could hardly discern him from a stump, that he has lost more of his pigs than usual since the coming of the said Indians; which is ordered to be certified to the General Assembly. ” Orange county VA1742 “”Alexander Machartoon, John Bowling, Manicassa, Capt. Tom, Isaac, Harry, Blind Tom, Foolish Jack, Charles Griffin, John Collins, Little Jack. Indians being brought before the court by precept under the hands and seals of Wm Russell & Edward Spencer, Gent. for terrifying one Lawrence Strother and on suspicion of stealing hoggs………”” The above put up security individually. It was ordered that their guns be taken from them till they are ready to depart out of this county, “they having declared their intentions to the Court to depart this colony within a week” (Orange Co..VA Order Book 3 1741-1743. 309) Orange Co Va Microfilm Reel 31, Va “25 Jan 1745 Louisa County, Virginia Court: William Hall, Samuel Collins, William Collins, Samuel Bunch, George Gibson, Benjamin Brannum, Thomas Gibson, & William Donothan appear to answer an indictment for concealing tithables. Plead not guilty, Case continued.”

1743-1747:Governor Clarence Gooch of Virginia reported to the Colonial Office that the “Saponies and other petty nations associated with them . . . are retired out of Virginia to the Cattawbas” (British Colonial Office 1743).

1749:3598 pg 384 WILLIAM MACKINTOSH 13 October 1749 200 acres in Johnston County on the S. side of the Neuse River on a place called Powells run near Sapony Camps, joining near the sd. run.

13 Oct 1749 Johnson Co. William Mackintosh 200 A on S side of Neuse on place called Powells run near Sapony Camps (975.6 R 2hm Colony of NC 1735-1764 V 1)

Now let’s look real quick at another Person…..The Mattamuskeet’s chief/King wasSquires..under him was the Mackey/Macay, etc family…..now we would want to see if for a fact there was anyone really important from the Mattamuskeet was traveling with these Saponi into virginia from Hyde county, nc area.

Which we do find that….Tonk Mack aka Tony Mackey.

27 Sept 1728 Sir: The 27th of September John Carter brought Negro Cofey to my house, as he says, by your orders, for me to examine concerning what the Saponys have told him about the white people, which I have done, and he tells me: that Great George told him that John Sauano and a fellow called Ben Harrison was gone to the Cotobers to fetch one hundred of them to come and see why their Indians was put in prison, and if Capt. Tom was hanged they would carry their wives and children over the Roanoke River and then they would drive the white people and negros as far as James River, and he says that Tony Mack told him that if Pyah was hanged he and the Cotobers would come and take revenge of the English, and he says that Sapony Tom told him if his son Harry Erwin was hanged they would kill you and three or four more Gentlemen and then go off, and he says that Dick told him that we had no business to come to the fort armed to concern ourselves about their killing one another, but we were like a sow that had lost her pigs would rally for a little time and then have done *, but when they began a war with the English they never would have done *. This from your humble servant to command, Thomas Avent The original document is held by the Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, VA and will give you a copy of the original. http://aventfamily.org/taveltr.htm
Now we already know about the Saponi recorded in Granville, nc and how the Collins, bunch, riddle etc was there at the same time….we know about the Newman’s ridge records etc etc….we know about the Broad river records, etc etc…..so let’s go back to Hyde county, NC where the oldest records are.

Children with surnames attributable to the Mattamuskeet were well represented among the apprentice bonds of this period. Twelve persons with the surname of Longtom, and twelve with the Mackey surname were apprenticed (see appendices 40 and 41). Other families of probable Indian descent are also represented in the records. The Collins family was represented by apprentice bonds on ten different individuals. One member of the Elks family was apprenticed. The Barber family, which had at least partial Indian descent, was represented by eleven individuals, and the Chance family was represented by a single bond. It is probable that other “free persons of color” families were descended from Indians, but no level of proof exists to prove that supposition.

The Mattamuskeets were, as indicated previously, joined by Indians from Roanoke and Hatteras Island by 1761. The names of these individuals were not identified on any of the extant deeds. This could mean the Indians from those areas moved to the Mattamuskeet area at a period later than that covered by the available records. Individuals with Mattamuskeet surnames do not occur in the Hyde County Records from 1761 to 1792. In fact, there is reference to only a single Indian during that time. This reference appeared in the Hyde County Court Minutes of 1765. It called for William Gibbs to show cause why an Indian woman named Cati Collins should not be set free. It is not clear from the reference whether William Gibbs was holding Cati Collins as an apprentice or a slave. The outcome of the show cause order could not be determined due to a break in the County Court Minutes from 1765 to 1767 (see appendix 35).

March 1765: Cate COLLINGS (COLLINS) , an “Indian Woman” servant of William GIBBS,Constable of Arrowmuskeet. March 1765 Hyde County Court Minutes andOrphans Book 2, on motion of Patrick Gordon ordered that Wm. GIBBS”shew” cause if he has any, why Cate COLLINGS (COLLINS) an Indianwoman, now in his service should not be set free.June Court 1765 – ordered that Wm. GIBBS have timely notice that heshow cause why Cate COLLINGS (COLLINS), an Indian woman be not set atliberty. 1820 Hyde county, NC Census shows the collins, Mackey, and Gibbs family living right next door to each other.

From Hyde County bastardry Bonds:AbijahAmanda (of colorE.S. HalaJamesJohnJohn (of color)Mahala/MahaliaRichardSaml. (of color)WellingtonFrom Hyde County Wills 1709-1775:BailyElizabethHannahHenryUriahFrom Hyde County Court Records 1736-1762:AnnBaileyHannahUriahFrom Hyde County Court Records 1762-1783:HenryAnd there’s a mention of a Collins Creek in the following deed abstract:James Cleaves, blacksmith to Henry Tuley, ship carpenter, both of Hyde Co £70 in silver dollars @ 8s each 50 acres E side Matchapungo River, N side Slades Creek; beg Cleves corner pine in savannah, W170p with his line to black oak at head of Collins Creek, S110p along creek to Silvesters line, along his line N60° E200p to 1st.. 25 Aug 1780. James Cleaves. Wit: Ben Russel, Sam Davis. Proved at Aug Ct 1780. Test: Thos Smith, Dep Clk. Test: Joseph Hancock, Reg. Regd 26 Oct 1781.A few things about the above deed worth mentioning:

The Cleaves and Collins had been neighbors going back to at least 1737 time frame. In 1737, a Darby MackCartee deeded to his grandson Benjamin Cleaves several items and Uriah Collens was one of the witnesses. So that means there were already Collins in the Hyde County/Matchapungo/Mattamuskeet area prior to the 1740-1750 window you mention for Granville County.2) The Russell family name is one that is found amongst the Mattamuskeet Indians and shows up as such in the original records. Furthermore, the Collins were already in the region of Bath County (which at one time included Hyde Precinct) as far back as 1701 based on entries such as the Will and Testament of Richard Collins on 23 Sept 1701 with legatees listed as Edmon Parse/Pearce, Ann Nelson, John Bunting, Roger Montague (who was involved in land transactions for King Charles Town which was a Machapunga town in that area as well as land transactions with John Squires who may be the same John Squires who was later appointed “King” of the Mattamuskeet.”Here are the individuals listed in Richard Collins estate inventory which was sworn on 22 Nov 1701 by the appraisers of his estate:Rodger MontagueCapt BlountMr LongNicholas DawAlex McFarlaneEdmund PearceArchibald MackarelJon WatsonEsther BrooksJoseph HolbrookMr DuckinfieldTho CooperMr DearhamEd Gantling (Gatlin)Indian Will (<– not a slave, this was someone he owed money to)James WelshJohn Nelson(Note:…..We know the Blount name associated with the Tuscarora….Tuscarora had a reservation in Bertie county, nc…..we know the Collins and Bunch show up in Bertie county, nc….free peopl of color and mulattos…pell mell…etc etc…Let's see if we can fnd Saponi and Tuscarora connection.)

June 1733:The Sapony and Nottoway Indians met with the Governor and Council. The Sapo-nies were given permission to join the Tuscaroras if they wished, provided that neither Nation would hunt on any lands patented in Virginia, nor go among the inhabitants in groups of more than three. The Sapo-nies were permitted to stay at their town until their corn was gathered. If they decided not to join the Tuscaroras, they were to move to some place beyond the inhabitants between the Roanoke and Appomattox rivers.”Soon after this they all left the Fort. Some joined the Catawbas, and some eventually joined the Five Nations of the Iroquois in New York.”After the Indians left the region, all their former lands were taken up in grants. The site of the Fort became known as Fort Hill Plantation.

Anyway back to the Hyde county records.

According to a 1701 Lords Proprietors grant to Mr. William Barrow, a William Collins arrived into Bath County sometime prior to May of 1701, as William Collins was one of William Barrow’s headrights.In 1707, a Lawrence Collins was witness to a court transaction in Bath County.In case there is any question as to whether or not the Collins of Hyde County and other known Mattamuskeet Indians were in the same place at the same time, it may be of interest that on the 3rd day of September of 1746 the following transactions took place in the courthouse:Land transactions between Samuel Selby to his son Samuel Selby, Jr.; George Squires (Mattamuskeet chief’s son) to Saml. Selby, Jr. proved by James McIntosh (one of my ancestors); a deed from “Long Tom and Other Indians” to Cason Brinson for land “in Arrowmuskeet” proved by Saml. Selby; a deed of gift from Edwd and Ann Tison to Danll Tison on east side of Matchapungo River proved by Uriah Collins.On the 7th of June in 1748, Uriah Collens was in court on the same day as Henry Gibbs (either the father or brother of William Gibbs who was involved in Cate Collins servitude case) and “Charles Squires King of the Arromoskeet Indians”

Pretty hardcore evidence if you ask me. All the stuff above is fully proven…nothing above is theories….I’m just putting all the historical records (well I have lots more records besides this) on the table for everyone to see. Oh yea one more bit of info…..The collins of Bertie county, NC had a son named john collins who left Bertie county, nc and would of maybe been about the age of the john collins of orange county, Va’s indian court records. check out Valentine collins’ DNA result next to the bertie county, nc’s Bunch family also 🙂

From: steven hill To: randsgroup@yahoogroups.comSent: Sunday, December 7, 2008 1:41:02 PMSubject: RE: [RandSgroup] Tennessee Melungeons
Your theory has one serious flaw…The Gibson, Mullins, Collins, Goins of Newman’s ridge never resided in the PeeDee-Drowning Creek area. They migrated in from Virginia. A small group of Portuguese sailors were captured by the Dutch warship White Lion and sold to Virginia planters circa mid-1600’s. These men soon bought their own freedom thoguh they had already taken wives from off the gingaskin Indian reserve and owned their own houses (‘slavery’ was quite different in early coloial Virginia). Some surnames of these mixed Indian-Portugeuse marriages were Francisco (anglicized to Francis, and Cisco), Rodriguss (anglicized to Driguss and Driggers), Harmon, and a few other surnames I can’t remember just now. One other surname that sprung from this union is most likely Chavez (anglicized to Chavis) but it hasn’t been conclusively proven – – the Chavis line originated the Gibson mixed-Indian line. Not only did Driggers, Francis, and Chavis appear in the founding families of the “mixt crew” on Drowning Creek (present day Robeson County – the Lumbee Indian tribe) but also did other Gingaksin reservation residents’ surnames such as Jacobs, Clark, and others, and this may account for the “portugeuse” origin talked about by early historians. It is possible that the gibson and Goins lines among the early newman Ridge “melungeons” were conencted back to the Portugeuse-Indian mixed families around the gingaskin reserve as they came from an area of VA that was very close to Chesepeake Bay. yet the Portugeuse blodd would account for very little of their total blood quantum, and the majority was definatively Native.
To: RandSgroup@yahoogro ups.comFrom: KyRoots@aol. comDate: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:43:53 -0500Subject: Re: [RandSgroup] Tennessee Melungeons
This is just my opinion but for what it is worth:

In 1848 the ‘Melungeons’ told a journalist the ‘legend’ of the Melungeons. They said they were ‘Portuguese Adventurers’ who had mixed with the Indians. From my research I’d have to say these Portuguese were from the Pee Dee – Drowning Creek — and mixed with the Indians in that area.

In 1754 it was reported to the governor there were 50 mixed families living there — and *no Indians* — these families who can be traced back to that geographical area, went to court for years in all parts of this country claiming to be Portuguese — there were simply too many to be some sort of a ‘cover up’ — in my opinion. Judges, juries, Senators, anthropologist, ethnologist, historians, sheriffs, tax collectors etc., all testified they believed these people were ‘Portuguese. ‘

After residing in SC/NC border and mixing with the Indians they moved into the area of Newman’s Ridge where they mixed with the Indians of that area, [being with the Bunch, Goins, Gibsons, Collins, etc, who had lived ‘as Indians’ in Virginia and North Carolina] — the blacks and the whites as they told it in their ‘legend’ — which formed the ‘present race’ — in 1848.

They told this story in 1848 and included the Indian, black, white and Portuguese — which was retold Dromgoole in 1890 —

Here are a few “Portuguese stories”
http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/portuguese.html

In a message dated 12/7/2008 11:55:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ponyhill71@hotmail. com writes:
isn’t it funny that the earliest historical references to the “Melungeons” of Newman’s Ridge, Tenn. specifically stated they were Indians from Virginia and that the first Gibson, Mullins, Collins who came into Tenn. “were nearly full-blooded” Indian, and here we have “Melungeons” from that same place almost 100 years later (who had recently moved to Texas and Oklahoma and were trying to get land through the Dawes Commission) all claiming that their grand-parents were “Indian.”??? ? http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/cherokee1.html Where was all this “mysterious race” and “exotic origin” back then? It appears the people themselves were very well aware of their Native ancestry, that their grand-parents were Indians who had taken White spouses, yet the White “historians” consistently tried to create some fantastic migration story for them…Portugeuse pirates, lost Spanish explorers, lost colony of Roanoke, etc. Just like in scientific experiments. ..the simplest answer is usually the right one.

A River Worth Fighting For by Dennis Montgomery

Roiled by the spume of conflict, threatened by the stain of pollutants, the storied York yet flows free, guarding its great bounty
In the grand panorama of the historic York River, the diminutive marsh periwinkle is as nothing–and as everything. Time out of mind, the puny, ubiquitous snail has glided among the cordgrass and arrow alum of the river’s tidal wetlands and never erected to its passing a monument more substantial than the fragile form of its white spiral shell. Yet in the sweep of the river’s saga the periwinkle’s place is as enduring as the granite Yorktown Victory column, its slippery, shiny trail as integral a part of York’s storied landscape as the networks of battlefield trenches.
For more than 400 years historybook heroes have come to the York to perform their parts in the dramas of human dominion and political supremacy. The periwinkle has haunted this stage the better part of 40 centuries.
If most men took their bows and went marching into the wings, some paused long enough to notice that the York River valley is an amphitheater for the productions of life itself, a coliseum for performances in which the stars have been fiddler crabs and catfish, great blue herons and snapping turtles, and, yes, marsh periwinkles. Every croaker, mullet, and spade fish; every cattail, hibiscus, and marshmallow acts its pivotal part in the exquisitely scripted interplay of species that ecologists bill as the balance of a river’s natural environment.
A walkon, man arrived about 4,000 years into the opening act, and, as they say, stole the show. Red, white, and black, man became with his impudence and his exploits the stuff of the York’s facts and fables; his story became the river’s history. Nevertheless, man’s doings are but subplots, superfluities in a broader, essential epic.
Told out of the context of the York, isolated from the river environment, the chronicles of the river’s massacres, battles, and wars are but facts without nuance. It was, after all, the river that was worth fighting for.
The York collects itself off the tip of modern West Point at the confluence of the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi to run 33 miles southeast. Between Guinea Neck and Tue Point it spills into the vast shallow protein soup of the Chesapeake Bay. An average of two miles wide and 20 feet deep, the river drains 2,661 square miles of a Virginia watershed that stretches west to the Blue Ridge. Rising and falling with the sea, the York is the silvery backbone of an intricately reticulated and extraordinarily delicate network of life.
Perhaps 6,000 years ago, the modern York began to water salt marshes and timber stands. Rich with oysters, sturgeons, and blue crabs, the river was a fat natural sideboard supporting a perpetual feast, a food chain.
Long before Europeans came, protoAlgonquians had taken their place in the estuary system. Mounds of oyster shell still betray their village sites. Oysters remained a primary resource, to become the foundation of York watermen’s livelihoods, until disease wiped out most in the 1980s. Sturgeon, once abundant, vanished in the 19th century. Now threatened is the blue crab, pressured by overharvesting. Eel, prized in the Orient, has become a profitable alternative. The food chain is losing links.
By the time the first white settlers, a Spanish Jesuit missionary party of 10, reached the York in 1570, the valley was the preserve of mature kinship groups like the Pamunkey, the most powerful of the 28 tribes in what would become Tidewater’s Powhatan empire. Living in proud, powerful bands, the Pamunkey had a culture as sophisticated as their circumstances required. Denominated savages by the meddlesome Jesuits, the Indians regarded the intruders as they did mayflies and, when priestcraft became too troublesome, swatted them with about as much compunction as they would any noisome pest.
Of the Spanish party, two youths survived the slaughter. One was a Spanish lad rescued the next year; the other an Indian Christian apostate baptized Don Luis, who grew up to be, some historians suppose, the implacable enemy of the English, the werowance–approximately “chief”–Opechancanough.
When in 1607 the English fetched ashore on the south side of the peninsula formed by the York and James, the chief of chiefs was Powhatan. Another Pamunkey, he was the sire of Pocahontas.
Captain John Smith said it was at the York River village of Werowocomoco on modern Purtan Bay that Pocahontas saved his brains from a Pamunkey headsman. Smith had two or three more adventures on the York, all as hair raising, including a challenge of Opechancanough to single combat on a York River island. As usual, Smith was scrapping over food.
The English had arrived with gold fever and suffered recurring fits of pointless prospecting. They never quite cured themselves, but their hunger demonstrated to them the greater value of Virginia’s ready natural resources–most of which they were equally inept at gathering. Most of Smith’s York trips were to buy, extort, or steal Indian maize, beans, meal, and meat–native commodities the tiny Jamestown band could or would not otherwise acquire in quantities sufficient to their bellies.
To this period dates the first map of Tidewater, and thus the York, the simple sketch Tindall’s Draught. A prominent feature is Tindall’s Point, now Gloucester Point opposite Yorktown, where the river narrows to a milewide natural anchorage. Inexplicably, a close copy of this sensitive document found its way to Spain, England’s bitter enemy. There is a smell of espionage about the matter.
Some believe “Tindall” a misrendition of settler George Kendall’s surname and credit him as the draftsman. Indeed, there is no better explanation for the map’s title. As it happens, Kendall, soon shot for mutiny, had in England been an “intelligencer,” a spy. Coincidentally, Tindall’s Draught includes the 10,000acre tract of modern Camp Peary, a tightly guarded Central Intelligence Agency training base.
Until mid17th century, the north shore of the York was the Powhatan stronghold. By Smith’s count, Opechancanough’s village at Pamunkey Neck–modern West Point–numbered 300 bowmen. Through a bloody miscalculation, the Pamunkey began to lose their grip on their York domain in 1622. That year Opechancanough masterminded the massacre of more than 350 Virginia settlers, illustrating to the English their vulnerability.
Partly to protect its northern flank from further assaults, in 1630 the colony offered 50 free acres to every person who would settle at Chiskiack in the following year. A few miles above modern Yorktown, it was once an Indian village and very near the Jesuits’ camp. Captains John West and John Utie got 600 acres each at the mouth of King’s Creek for accepting care of the farmers who began to clear fields between King’s and Felgate Creeks. Governor John Harvey opened York plantation, on which stands today’s Moore House, and a few miles upstream, George Read patented the site of today’s Yorktown. Captain Nicholas Martiau, an ancestor of George Washington’s, also moved into the neighborhood.
Three years later the English built a palisade–a log fence–across the Peninsula between the head of Queen’s Creek on the York and Archer’s Hope Creek on the James. The idea was to protect lives and livestock from the depredations of marauding wolves and Indians. It was a remarkable, if simple, bit of early environmental engineering.
In 26 years of struggle, the colony had never got on its feet. The problem seems to have been the lack of a reliable source of palatable protein. The palisade contained cattle turned out to pasture and helped make Virginia a more attractive and survivable habitat for humans. To its construction is credited the establishment of the village of York, the peninsula’s second town, and Middle Plantation–later Williamsburg–its second capital. Jamestown was its first.
The first English child born on the York, John West, Jr., arrived that year. He was 11 when Opechancanough rose again, killing perhaps 500 colonists, most on the York. This massacre backfired, too. In 1653, after the inevitable rounds of retaliation, the Pamunkey submitted to a treaty that forced them to a reservation on the tributary that bears their name. Today 50 or so mixedblood descendants remain, living on 1,200 somnambulant acres of farms and homes that were once the most sacred piece of Pamunkey property, the site of the religious center Uttamussackpamaunkee.
North, on the Mattaponi, is Virginia’s other reservation, home to the remnant of the tribe that gave its name to the York’s other source.
With the peace of 1653 came prosperity–of a sort. In the colony’s first decade, a native plant, tobacco, had become Virginia’s economic mainstay. A pricey sweetscented variety grew particularly well along the York, and the commerce its cultivation created long underwrote many a prominent Virginia family.
As its markets expanded, so did settlement. The Wests moved to Opechancanough’s old lands in 1650–hence the name West Point. A fort was dug at Gloucester Point in 1667. A road inland opened. Plantations rose.
Tokens of gentry wealth–18thcentury Rosewell’s ruins, wellpreserved Elsing Green, and a score more mansions of merit–dot the river valley.
If the farms enriched the planters, they impoverished the land’s sandy soils. Tobacco exhausted the nutrients, and run off from plowing began to silt in creeks and streams–a colonial version of what environmentalists call nonpointsource pollution. In the course of 400 years, some shipdeep streams turned to brooks; others just disappeared. Habitat loss had begun.
Though slaves began to reach Virginia in 1619, most of the farm laborers in the 17th century were English indentured servants. They enjoyed some privileges of race, but their lot could be miserable, and to many the future looked worse. At the end of their indenture most males were turned out with few possessions and fewer prospects.
York County records preserve a coroner’s jury’s hardhearted memorial to one man’s escape from voluntary servitude:
The 10th of June, 1661. The jury setting upon the body of Walter Catford, who, for want of Grace, tooke a Grindstone and a Roape, and tyed it about his middle and crosse his thighes, and most barbarously went and drowned himselfe contrary to ye law of the king and this country, whoe is found guilty of his own death . . . The said Walter Catford was servant to Mair Thomas Beale at ye time of his death.
Other members of Catford’s class chose selfhelp over selfdestruction. The year of his suicide a handful of York County servants, angered by poor rations, plotted an uprising. In 1663, other insurrectionists tried to combine with servants from Middlesex and Gloucester Counties. Sporadically, the York’s late 17thcentury farmers, most exservants, indulged in plantcutting riots intended to maintain tobacco prices by reducing supply.
The most spectacular revolt to sweep the servant’s class was gentryled Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. Conceived as an Indianfighting force, gentleman Nathaniel Bacon’s extralegal army threatened Governor William Berkeley’s rule. Nowvanished Gloucester Town on the York’s north shore became the fulcrum of the struggle for authority, and was in Bacon’s hands when he died of flux, as dysentery was called.
Berkeley, thus sure of victory, recorded Bacon’s death:
His usual oath which he swore at least a Thousand times a day was God damme my Blood and God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty dayes he never washt his shirts but burned them. To this God added the Bloody flux and an honest Minister wrote this Epitaph on him:
Bacon is dead, I am sorry at my heart
that Lice and flux should take the hangman’s part.
The hangman was not cheated of a crop of other necks, among them that of Thomas Hanford, reputed to be the first Virginiaborn victim of a Virginia gallows.
Rivers served for highroads of commerce in colonial Virginia, and settlement patterns followed them, a straggling manner of habitation that fostered riverbased trade and goaded government to a series of attempts to legislate towns into existence. Yorktown was the product of such an effort in 1691. Laid out as a 50acre seaport on Read’s land, the town had 85 lots and a 5acre public waterfront.
Beside a protected harbor within sight of the bay, Yorktown’s situation made it among the few colonial tidewater towns to thrive. It developed in two tiers–wharves and seamen’s bars and brothels on the beach, merchants’ homes on the bluff. In 1715 the Yorktown Customs House rose, and in 1722 came the fabled Swan Tavern, which met travelers’ needs 20 years before Williamsburg’s Raleigh. By the account of a visitor in 1742, the town was an oasis:
You perceive a great Air of Opulence amongst the Inhabitants, who have some of them Houses, equal in Magnificence to many of our superb ones at St. James’s . . . .
The Taverns are many here, and much frequented, and an unbounded Licentiousness seems to taint the Morals of the young Gentlemen of this Place . . . There are some very pretty Garden Spots in the Town; and the Avenues leading to Williamsburgh, Norfolk, &c., are prodigiously agreeable.
The transportation advantages attracted General Charles, Earl Cornwallis to Yorktown in August 1781. The place seemed to him safer than Portsmouth, the port the British seized when they opened their Virginia campaign. General Washington and his French ally the Comte de Rochambeau saw in the decision a chance to trap Cornwallis, and they took it. They marched from New York–following a now wellmarked route that traverses some of Virginia’s most picturesque byways–shipped the army down Chesapeake Bay, and linked up with a French fleet that had sailed from the West Indies.
When French menofwar appeared off the Virginia Capes on August 26, the British Navy faced a predicament. Unless a relief fleet dispatched by the English could spring it, Cornwallis’s army was trapped in the York. The rescue flotilla arrived September 5, but could not drive off the French force. Cornwallis was doomed.
Bottled up in the river with him was a mixed assembly of 71 other English vessels. They were now almost useless, and he ordered about 40 of them scuttled to forestall any allied amphibious attempt. At least 29 are still on the bottom. Twentiethcentury reclamations of artifacts and information from them began in 1909 and have continued, periodically, under the guidance of archaeologists.
Washington marched on Yorktown September 28 and on October 9 began a bombardment described by American Surgeon James Thacher:
The bomb shells from the besiegers and the besieged are incessantly crossing each others’ path in the air. They are clearly visible in the form of a black ball in the day, but in the night, they appear like fiery meteors with blazing tails, most beautifully brilliant, ascending majestically from the mortar . . . . I have more than once witnessed fragments of the mangled bodies and limbs of British soldiers thrown into the air by the bursting of our shells.
Cornwallis was insulted from within as well, for in his camp lurked a spy. The Marquis de Lafayette had accepted the offer of slave James Armistead to infiltrate Cornwallis’s headquarters camp posing as a runaway. For weeks he smuggled out intelligence–for which he won freedom, a pension, and the indulgence of the general’s last name.
On October 17 Cornwallis proposed to surrender his command–a quarter of the British army in America. Subordinates drafted the capitulation agreement, executed two days later, at the Moore House. The table tradition says they used has since been removed to Elsing Green, but there is a more poignant reminder of the battle in a small enclosure in the yard, a headstone inscribed:
In Memory John Turnerwho departed this lifeOctober the 13thin the year of our Lord 1781Aged 30 YearsAh cruel ball so sudden to disarmAnd tare my tender husbandfrom my ArmsHow can I grieve too muchWhat time shall endBy Mourning forSo good So kind a friend.
It wasn’t apparent that Yorktown was the last major battle of the Revolution. Washington said the victory was “an interesting event that may be productive of much good if properly improved, but if it should be the means of relaxation and sink us into supineness and [false] security, it had better not have happened.”
Some in Yorktown almost wished it hadn’t. Nearly half its houses destroyed in the bombardment, occupied in turn by British, French, and Americans, the community was a shambles. Merchant David Jameson said:
As soon as it was known that preliminaries of Peace were agreed on the Soldiers then stationed at York became very licentious, and no vigilance or exertions of the officers could keep them within bounds, very few nights passed without Robbery or gross insult being committed by them.
As he left, Washington ordered the American earthworks destroyed to safeguard his garrison, and farmers obliterated most of the British defenses. The river wrecks decayed, and damaged homes were razed or repaired. The troops left; normalcy returned.
Fire destroyed much of the lower town, the seaport, in 1814, but handier anchorages were already capturing Yorktown’s trade, and it was slipping into the dusty life of an ordinary Virginia village.
Lafayette returned in 1824 for the anniversary of the battle, and that was about the biggest affair along the York until 1862, when General George McClellan led the Union Army up the Peninsula in an illmanaged march on Richmond. The Rebels remodeled the last of Yorktown’s British fortifications–erasing most of the remaining originals–and stalled the Yankee advance. The invaders dug in. Captain Henry Blake of Massachusetts wrote:
The redoubts and file pits of the Revolution, which had diminished until they were only 20 inches in height intersected those of the Union army at several points. A few metallic relics, corroded by the rust of eighty years, were brought forth from their hiding places in the earth.
After about a month, Confederate General Joe Johnston, perhaps remembering Cornwallis’s dilemma, ordered a withdrawal. McClellan passed upriver, took West Point and established a supply port at White House on the Pamunkey, as he had at Yorktown. George and Martha Washington had honeymooned there, and a fine brick manor built on the foundations of the original house had descended in Martha’s family. Living in it at the time were Mrs. Robert E. Lee and her daughter Mary. Before they left they tacked a note on the door:
Northern soldiers who profess to reverence the name of Washington, forbear to desecrate the home of his early married life, the property of his wife, and now the home of his descendants–A granddaughter of Mrs. Washington.
The soldiers reduced it to a pit of brick rubble. Another landmark, Yorktown’s Swan Tavern, disappeared in the explosion of a Union ammunition dump, but something constructive seems to have come of the campaign, nevertheless.
In McClellan’s ranks marched a Connecticut soldier, Elisha Benjamin Andrews, later president of Brown University. In 1893 John D. Rockefeller, Jr., entered the Rhode Island school, and Andrews became his mentor. It is not hard to imagine the veteran sharing with the young student stories of the Peninsula Campaign. Perhaps from Andrews he first heard about Yorktown and Williamsburg.
In 1881 Yorktown celebrated the centennial of Washington’s victory. President Chester A. Arthur came for the dedication of the Victory Monument, and the sponsors christened a landscaped victory park, but most travelers recorded how shabby the town had become.
Railroads had steamed into Tidewater after Reconstruction, making going concerns of burgs like Walkerton, West Point, and Aylett, but bypassing Yorktown. Whatever prospects it had left as a entrepot seemed to be lost.
The Southern Railway made West Point its terminus, and a fullfledged town emerged. The Terminal Hotel–with 14 saloons roaring around it–became the most popular destination in the region. In 1913 the community also became the site of a Chesapeake Corporation pulp plant, still among the largest industries on the York, and a small shipyard.
West Point’s bloom faded eventually, first with the removal of the railroad terminus to Newport News, then under the ravages of devastating fires in 1903 and 1926. By the time of the second blaze, World War I had changed everything, anyway.
The DuPont chemical company opened a naval explosives factory near Yorktown at Penniman, now the U. S. Naval Supply Center, Cheatham Annex. Workers reported in droves, military bases opened, and warships returned to the river. From Williamsburg, Mary Coleman wrote:
the old era vanished entirely. Rumors of rising land values as a result of the advent of munitions works, training camps, etc., battleships in the York River, soldiers’ wives seeking board and lodging, all created a chaos that one can hardly believe now. Roads improved. There was frantic construction of every kind. Eating houses and bootlegging establishments sprang up everywhere.
Between the world wars came a revival of interest in the colonial era. Colonial Williamsburg, the Colonial National Historical Park, the Colonial Parkway, and scores of other historical preservation efforts began. In the 1930s, the National Park Service reconstructed American lines at Yorktown, and the city began to transform itself into a national museum.
The approach of World War II redoubled the pressures of slapdash development–a Navy Mine Warfare School opened at what is now the Coast Guard’s Reserve Training Center, as did the Seabee training base that became Camp Peary, and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, now a nuclear weapons depot, got its start. But much of the area’s native beauty and many of its natural resources survived.
The York is among Virginia’s cleaner rivers, thanks to the stewardship of industries, installations, and individuals on its shores. That is not to say that there are no threats. Nutrient runoff from farms and developments, wetland loss, petroleum washed from mall parking lots and suburban streets, dirt from construction sites are among the worries to be resolved. And they are being addressed.
Farmers using environmentally friendly “best management” practices are reducing fertilizer pollution that is to lifechoking algae as gasoline is to fire. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is stopping wetland destruction and regulating development in sensitive areas. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, among others, is trying to see that as much mind is paid the river’s natural history as its social and political history. “Save the Bay” is the slogan.
On the river a forest of masts shines whitely in the summer sun. The wind is washing off the bay, tossing lines of seaweed against children splashing in the waves at a Yorktown beach. A tall steel bridge arches above them to the left; to their right dashes a sailboat on a closehauled reach, turning up a filmy jellyfish in its roiled wake.
In the sweltering heat, an old man relaxes on a bench in the shade of a tree, watching his grandkids. Yards away, on the muddy bottom, sprawl the ribs of the wreck of H.M.S. Fowey, the ship that carried Dunmore and his stolen powder from Virginia, that led the British evacuation fleet out of Boston Harbor, that escorted Benedict Arnold into the Chesapeake.
Upstream, on the western horizon, a white plume rises from a paper factory stack. It towers above a mountain of pine logs that marks Opechancanough’s old stronghold. Downstream, a bobbing line of crabpot floats leads the eye to the broad, broad bay. Captain Smith must have rounded the headland just there for his first glimpse of the York.
Colonial Williamsburg Journal Vol. 17 , No. 1 (Autumn 1994).

Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (Sept 1997)

 

The Statistical Policy Division, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines federal standards for the reporting of “racial” and “ethnic” statistics. In this capacity, OMB promulgated Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting in May, 1977, to standardize the collection of racial and ethnic information among federal agencies and to include data on persons of Hispanic origins, as required by Congress. Directive 15 is used in the collection of information on “racial” and “ethnic” populations not only by federal agencies, but also, to be consistent with national information, by researchers, business, and industry as well.
Directive 15 described four races (i.e., American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White) and two ethnic backgrounds (of Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin). The Directive’s categories allowed collection of more detailed information as long as it could be aggregated to the specified categories.
Directive 15 was not clear regarding whether the race or origins of persons was to be determined by self-identification or by others, e.g., interviewers. Research has shown substantial differences of racial/ethnic identification by these two methods.
Directive 15 noted the absence of “scientific or anthropological” foundations in its formulation. Directive 15 did not explain what was meant by “race” or “origin,” or what distinguished these concepts. However, the race and ethnicity categories of the Directive are used in scientific research and the interpretation of the research findings is based often on the “variables” of race and ethnicity.
Since Directive 15 was issued 20 years ago, the United States population has become increasingly diverse. Criticism that the federal race and ethnic categories do not reflect the Nation’s diversity led to a review of Directive 15. Formal review began in 1993 with Congressional hearings, followed by a conference organized at the request of OMB by the National Academy of Sciences. OMB then instituted an Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, and appointed a Research Subcommittee to assess available research and conduct new research as a basis for possible revision of the Directive.
Among the guidelines for the review, OMB stated that .” . . the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences.” The guidelines noted, too, that “the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.” However, the distinction between the concepts of race and ethnicity was, again, not clarified.
The recommendations from the Interagency Committee were published by OMB in the Federal Register July 9, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 131: 36847-36946), with a request for public comment by September 8, 1997. The recommendations included (1) maintaining the basic racial and ethnic categories from the 1977 Directive; and (2) collecting race and ethnicity data through two separate questions (p. 36943), with ethnicity collected first. The minimum designations for “race” were: “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Asian or Pacific Islander,””Black or African-American,” and “White.” The minimum designations for “ethnicity” were: “Hispanic origin,” or “not of Hispanic origin.” To account for multiple races, OMB recommended that respondents be allowed to report “More than one race.”
History and Problems with the Concept of “Race”: A Biological Perspective
Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term “race” was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of “race” in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences–biological, behavioral and cultural–were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races.
Early natural history approaches to racial classification supported these rankings and the implications for behavior. For example, in the 18th century, Carolus Linneaus, the father of taxonomy and a European, described American Indians as not only possessing reddish skin, but also as choleric, painting themselves with fine red lines and regulated by custom. Africans were described as having black skin, flat noses and being phlegmatic, relaxed, indolent, negligent, anointing themselves with grease and governed by caprice. In contrast, Europeans were described as white, sanguine, muscular, gentle, acute, inventive, having long flowing hair, blue eyes, covered by close vestments and governed by law.
In the 1800s, the first “scientific” studies of race attempted to extract the behavioral features from the definition of race. However, racist interpretation remained. For example the origin of racial variation was interpreted as degeneration of the original “Caucasian” race (the idea of a Caucasian race is based on the belief that the most “perfect” skulls came from the Caucasus Mountains). Degeneration explained the development of racial differences and racial differences explained cultural development. Biology and behavior were used to gauge the degree of deterioration from the original race. Measures of intellect were an important part of these early studies. In some cases, the degree of facial prognathism, bumps on the skull as interpreted by phrenology, cranial index, and cranial capacity were used as measures of intelligence. IQ is just the latest in the list of these so-called “definitive” features used to rank races.
The clearest data about human variation come from studies of genetic variation, which are clearly quantifiable and replicable. Genetic data show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups.
One of the basic principles about genetic transmission in families is that different variants are transmitted to different offspring independently. The more generations of mixing, the more likely such heterogeneity in geographic origin of genes within the same person will be. Fixed sets of traits are not transmitted across generations as many people assume. Rules like the “one drop of blood” rule show clearly how vague and social, rather than biological, are categorical terms for people.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear to be a fairly recent and homogenous species. Regardless of ancestral geographic origins, humans maintain a high degree of similarities from a biological perspective. Admixture, even among and between highly isolated populations, has resulted in widespread, worldwide distribution of genes and thus human variation.
It is because people often share cultural identity and geographic ancestry that “race” or a system of terms for grouping people carries some information that can be useful for biomedical purposes (as in assigning resources for disease screening). For example, sickle cell hemoglobin is a health risk associated with black or African-descended populations and PKU or phenylketonuria is a health risk associated with white or European-descended populations. Despite being loaded with the historical or colloquial connotations, such terminology may in practice be about as effective as any other questionnaire-based way to define categories of people that capture at least limited biological outcomes.
“Race” as a concept is controversial because of the numerous instances in human history in which a categorical treatment of people, rationalized on the grounds of biology-like terms, have been used. Common examples of this include arguments about which “race” is more intelligent, better at mathematics or athletics, and so on. The ultimate use of categorical notions of race have occurred to achieve political ends, as in the Holocaust, slavery, and the extirpation of American Indian populations, that, while basically economic in motivation, has received emotional support and rationale from biological language used to characterize groups. The danger in attempting to tie race and biology is not only that individuals are never identical within any group, but that the physical traits used for such purposes may not even be biological in origin.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not the objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term “race,” to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as “ethnic origins,” would be less prone to misunderstanding.
Social and Cultural Aspects of “Race” and “Ethnicity”
Race and ethnicity both represent social or cultural constructs for categorizing people based on perceived differences in biology (physical appearance) and behavior. Although popular connotations of race tend to be associated with biology and those of ethnicity with culture, the two concepts are not clearly distinct from one another.
While diverse definitions exist, ethnicity may be defined as the identification with population groups characterized by common ancestry, language and custom. Because of common origins and intermarriage, ethnic groups often share physical characteristics which also then become a part of their identification–by themselves and/or by others. However, populations with similar physical appearance may have different ethnic identities, and populations with different physical appearances may have a common ethnic identity.
OMB Directive 15 views race and ethnicity as distinct phenomena and appropriate ways to categorize people because both are thought to identify distinct populations. Although this viewpoint may capture some aspects of the way most people think about race and ethnicity, it overlooks or distorts other critical aspects of the same process.
First, by treating race and ethnicity as fundamentally different kinds of identity, the historical evolution of these category types is largely ignored. For example, today’s ethnicities are yesterday’s races. In the early 20th century in the US, Italians, the Irish, and Jews were all thought to be racial (not ethnic) groups whose members were inherently and irredeemably distinct from the majority white population. Today, of course, the situation has changed considerably. Italians, Irish, and Jews are now seen as ethnic groups that are included in the majority white population. The notion that they are racially distinct from whites seems far-fetched, possibly “racist.” Earlier in the 20th century, the categories of Hindu and Mexican were included as racial categories in the Census. Today, however, neither would be considered racial categories.
Knowing the history of how these groups “became white” is an integral part of how race and ethnicity are conceptualized in contemporary America. The aggregated category of “white” begs scrutiny. It is important to keep in mind that the American system of categorizing groups of people on the basis of race and ethnicity, developed initially by a then-dominant white, European-descended population, served as a means to distinguish and control other “non-white” populations in various ways.
Second, by treating race and ethnicity as an enduring and unchanging part of an individual’s identity, OMB and the Census ignore a fundamental tension and ambiguity in racial and ethnic thinking. While both race and ethnicity are conceptualized as fixed categories, research demonstrates that individuals perceive of their identities as fluid, changing according to specific contexts in which they find themselves.
Third, OMB Directive 15, Census and common sense treat race and ethnicity as properties of an individual, ignoring the extent to which both are defined by the individual’s relation to the society at large. Consider, for example, the way that racial and ethnic identity supposedly “predict” a range of social outcomes. The typical correlation is that by virtue of being a member of a particular racial or ethnic group, imprisonment, poor health, poverty, and academic failure are more likely. Such an interpretation, while perhaps statistically robust, is structurally and substantively incomplete because it is not the individual’s association with a particular racial or ethnic group that predicts these various outcomes but the attribution of that relationship by others that underlies these outcomes. For instance, a person is not more likely to be denied a mortgage because he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese), but because another person believes that he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese) and ascribes particular behaviors with that racial or ethnic category.
Current OMB Directive 15 policy and federal agency application of the Directive that does not take into account the complexities of racial and ethnic thinking is likely to create more problems than it resolves. Racial and ethnic categories are marked by both expectations of fixity and variation, both in historical and individual terms. Attempts to “hone” racial categories by expanding or contracting the groups listed in Directive 15 and on the Census form or by reorganizing the order in which questions are posed, will continue to miss important aspects of how people actually think about race and ethnicity. Similarly, treating race as an individual rather than relational property almost certainly compromises the value of the data collected. Finally, by ignoring the differences between self- and other- strategies for identification, Directive 15 and the Census application creates a situation where expectations about the nature of the data collected are violated by the way most people use common sense to interpret those same questions.
Overlap of the Concepts of Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry
A basic assumption of OMB Directive 15 is that persons who self-identify or identify others by race and ethnicity understand what these concepts mean and see them as distinct. Recent research by the US Bureau of Census and other federal agencies, supported by qualitative pretesting of new race and ethnicity questions and field tests of these new question formats, has demonstrated that for many respondents, the concepts of race, ethnicity and ancestry are not clearly distinguished. Rather, respondents view race, ethnicity and ancestry as one and the same.
It should be pointed out that the race and ethnicity categories used by the Census over time have been based on a mixture of principles and criteria, including national origin, language, minority status and physical characteristics (Bates, et al, 1994.) The lack of conceptual distinction discussed below is not exclusive to respondents, but may represent misunderstandings about race and ethnicity among the American people. Hahn (1992) has called for additional research to clarify the popular uses of these concepts.
The following outlines some of the evidence for the lack of clear distinctions between the concepts:
First, respondent definitions of the concepts. Cognitive pretesting for the Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test and the Current Population Survey Race Supplement suggest that, except for some college-educated respondents who saw the terms as distinct, respondents define all of the concepts in similar terms. Gerber and de la Puente (1996) found that respondents tended to define race in terms of family origins. Thus, common definitional strategies included: “your people,” “what you are,” and “where your family comes from.” These concepts were invoked also to define the term “ethnic group” when it appeared in the same context. Many respondents said that “ethnic group” meant “the same thing” as “race.” In subsequent discussions, the term “ethnic race” was frequently created by respondents as a label for the global domain. McKay and de la Puente (1995) found, too, that respondents did not distinguish between race and ethnicity, and concluded that many respondents are unfamiliar with the term “ethnicity.” for example, several respondents assumed that a question containing the term “ethnicity” must be asking about the “ethical” nature of various groups. They concluded that the terms “race,” “ethnicity,” “ancestry” and “national origin . . . draw on the same semantic domain.”
Second, perceived redundancy of race and ethnicity questions. In most Federal data collections, Hispanic origin is defined as an “ethnicity” and is collected separately from “race.” In most recent tests, the Hispanic origin question precedes the race question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents tend to treat the two questions as asking for essentially the same information.
For example, when Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents are asked what the Hispanic ethnicity question means, they often say that it is asking about “race.” Respondents often comment on this perceived redundancy, and wonder aloud why the two questions are separate. Non-Hispanic respondents attempt to answer the ethnicity question by offering a race-based term, such as “Black” or “White.” (McKay and de la Puente, 1995.)
In addition, many Hispanic respondents regard the term “Hispanic” as a “race” category, defined in terms of ancestry, behavior as well as physical appearance (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996; Rodriguez and Corder-Guzman, 1992; Kissim and Nakamoto, 1993). They therefore tend to look for this category in the race question, and when they do not find it there, they often write it in to a line provided for the “some other race” category. More than 40% of self-identified Hispanics have not specified a race or ethnic category in the 1980 or 1990 Census. Census Bureau research has shown that over 97% of the 10 million persons who reported as “Other race” in 1990 were Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 1992.)
Third, multiethnic and multiracial identifications are frequently not distinguished. Some respondents who identify as “multiracial” offer only ethnic groups to explain their backgrounds. For example, McKay et al. (1996) found that some individuals who defined themselves as “multiracial” offered two ethnicities, such as “German and Irish” as an explanation. The authors concluded that such reporting “presents the overlapping of the semantic categories of race and ethnicity. . . .” (p. 5). Other respondents in the same research who identify with only a single race category subsequently mention an additional “race” category when answering the ancestry question.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The American Anthropological Association supports the OMB Directive 15 proposal to allow respondents to identify “more than one” category of “race/ethnicity” as a means of reporting diverse ancestry. The Association agrees with the Interagency Committee’s finding that a multiple reporting method is preferable to adoption of a “multiracial” category. This allows for the reflection of heterogeneity and growing interrelatedness of the American population.
2. The American Anthropological Association recommends that OMB Directive 15 combine the “race” and “ethnicity” categories into one question to appear as “race/ethnicity” until the planning for the 2010 Census begins. The Association suggests additional research on how a question about race/ethnicity would best be posed.
As recommended by the Interagency Committee, the proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 would separate “race” and “ethnicity.” However, the inability of OMB or the Interagency Committee to define these terms as distinct categories and the research findings that many respondents conceptualize “race” and “ethnicity” as one in the same underscores the need to consolidate these terms into one category, using a term that is more meaningful to the American people.
3. The American Anthropological Association recommends that further research be conducted to determine the term that best delimits human variability, reflected in the standard “race/ethnicity,” as conceptualized by the American people. Research indicates that the term “ethnic group” is better understood by individuals as a concept related to ancestry or origin sought by OMB Directive 15 than either “race” or “ethnicity.” While people seldom know their complete ancestry with any certainty, they more often know what ethnic group or groups with which to identify. It is part of their socialization and daily identity. Additionally, there are fewer negative connotations associated with the term “ethnic group.”
4. The proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 advocates using the following categories to designate “race” or “ethnicity”: “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” “Asian or Pacific Islander,” “Black or African-American,” “White,” “Hispanic origin,” “Not of Hispanic origin.” Part of the rationale for maintaining these terms is to preserve the continuity of federal data collection.
However, the “race” and “ethnicity” categories have changed significantly over time to reflect changes in the American population. Since 1900, 26 different racial terms have been used to identify populations in the US Census. Preserving outdated terms for the sake of questionable continuity is a disservice to the nation and the American people.
The American Anthropological Association recommends further research, building on the ongoing research activities of the US Bureau of the Census, on the terms identified as the population delimiters, or categories, associated with “race/ethnicity” in OMB Directive 15 in order to determine terms that better reflect the changing nature and perceptions of the American people. For example, the term “Latino” is preferred by some populations who view “Hispanic” as European in origin and offensive because it does not acknowledge the unique history of populations in the Americas. OMB may want to consider using the term “Hispanic or Latino” to allay these concerns.
5. The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term “race” from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, “race” has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as “ethnicity” or “ethnic group” are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed.
Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly–and perniciously–woven into the cultural and political fabric of the United States. It has become an essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because so much harm has been based on “racial” distinctions over the years, correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of “racial” consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that “race” has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population.
This is the dilemma and opportunity of the moment. It is important to recognize the categories to which individuals have been assigned historically in order to be vigilant about the elimination of discrimination. Yet ultimately, the effective elimination of discrimination will require an end to such categorization, and a transition toward social and cultural categories that will prove more scientifically useful and personally resonant for the public than are categories of “race.” Redress of the past and transition for the future can be simultaneously effected.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that elimination of the term “race” in government parlance will take time to accomplish. However, the combination of the terms “race/ethnicity” in OMB Directive 15 and the Census 2000 will assist in this effort, serving as a “bridge” to the elimination of the term “race” by the Census 2010.
REFERENCES

Race & Ethnicity, The Key Concepts,  Routledge Key Guides by  Amy Ansell
Bates, Nancy, M. de la Puente, T. J. DeMaio, and E. A. Martin
1994 “Research on Race and Ethnicity: Results From Questionnaire Design Tests.” Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census’ Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 107-136.
Gerber, Eleanor, and Manuel de la Puente
1996 “The Development and Cognitive Testing of Race and Ethnic Origin Questions for the Year 2000 Decennial Census.” Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census’ 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia.
Hahn, Robert
1992 “The State of Federal Health Statistics on Racial and Ethnic Groups.” Journal of the American Medical Association 267(2):268-271. March.
Kissim, E., E. Herrera and J. M. Nakamoto
1993 “Hispanic Responses to Census Enumeration Forms and Procedures.” Report prepared for the Bureau of the Census. Suitland, MD.
McKay, Ruth B., and Manuel de la Puente
1995 “Cognitive Research on Designing the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity.” Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census’ 1995 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 435-445.
McKay, Ruth B., L. L. Stinson, M. de la Puente, and B. A. Kojetin
1996 “Interpreting the Findings of the Statistical Analysis of the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity.” Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census’ 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 326-337.
Robey, Bryant
1989 “Two Hundred Years and Counting: The 1990 Census.” Population Bulletin 44(1). April.
Rodriguez, C. E., and J. M. Cordero-Guzman
1992 “Place Race in Context.” Ethnic Racial Studies Vol. 15, Pp 523-543.
U.S. Bureau of Census
1973 Population in U.S. Decennial Censuses: 1790-1970.1979 Twenty Censuses: Population and Housing Questions: 1790-1980.1992 Census Questionnaire Content, 1990. CQC-4 Race.
Go to Executive Summary
See also AAA Statement on “Race”See also AAA Statement on “Race” and Intelligence

What Is Tribal About Redbones and other Portuguese Ethnic “Assimilato” Groups?

Tribal:

Race and ethnic relations may follow many different patterns, ranging from harmonious co-existence to outright conflict. George Simpson and Milton Yinger (1972) have provided a useful typology of six basic patterns of intergroup hostility or co-operation. This typology covers virtually all the possible patterns of race and ethnic relations, and each pattern exists or has existed in some part of the world.

1. Assimilation. In some cases a minority group is simply eliminated by being assimilated into t