I said point blank that I was talking about people in what is now the territory of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. I also said that those that I knew of were not high BQ. The highest I would put any of them is at 1/4, if even that. One of them is actually a very well known writer. Now I don't know if he is enrolled himself or not, but he will actually point to some of his own relatives that were in Oklahoma in the days of the dawes and say he knows they were never enrolled.
of course even those people are few and far between.
People living in Oklahoma, claiming to be Cherokee, and not enrolled with any of the three recognized Cherokee Nations. I got that, Rattle.
As I said before, if someone did not register himself and his family, someone else did it for him. Everyone living in Indian Territory was counted. The only way someone wouldn't have been counted would be if he left the Nation, blended in, assimilated. In other words, was no longer part of the Cherokee Nation.
". . . not high BQ. The highest I would put any of them is at 1/4, if even that." How'd you come up with 1/4 after that many generations marrying outside the Nation? There have been seven to eight generations since the Trail of Tears. Even if someone was 4/4 Cherokee in 1838, their descendants would be approximately 1/256 bq now. It's been over 100 years since the Dawes Roll. Even if someone was 4/4 the day the census was taken, if their descendants all married out since, they'd be 1/32 bq at most. Where'd you come up with 1/4?
Edit to add: Rattle, you really consider 1/4 a low bq?
As I said before, if someone did not register himself and his family, someone else did it for him.
Yes I am aware of that happening too, but still that doesn't matter as there were some people who did not end up doing it for whatever reason.
In fact mixed blood Choctaw/Cherokee writer Louis Owens himself pointed out that he had family in Oklahoma in the time of the Dawes who did not enroll. He speaks of one such relative that no matter much they have researched, that individual did not show up.
Now anyone whom has seen his family pictures can clearly tell the man came from a mixed blood NDN family. I do not know if he himself was enrolled or not, but again you can clearly tell by his family pictures that his claims to be NDN were genuine, and it was not from some far back ancestry.
Now once again, I am not saying such people were many, because they were not; still the fact remains that such people did exist.
Now maybe using records and proof that their relatives such as brothers and sisters etc were enrolled might prove they were NDN themselves, that would not change the fact that their direct descendants could not be enrolled unless they had been married with enrolled people.
The Dawes rolls was and still is a very troubled and imperfect document, and the system used to do it was flawed as well.
No matter how much one cites the writing of John Cornsilk, or acknowledges that fact that yes the Cherokee were a very well documented people, still though very very rare there were indeed some that did not get enrolled.
The only way someone wouldn't have been counted would be if he left the Nation, blended in, assimilated. In other words, was no longer part of the Cherokee Nation.
This might be true if you are talking about those people who descend from those whom come from stories "running and hiding," but to apply this train of thought to Indian territory is a bit problematic.
Way before the land rush into what is now Indian territory, there were intruders both white and black pouring into the nations. In fact that situation added to the lawlessness of the region after it was devastated by the US civil war.
Now then take into effect that at the time of the Dawes, there were people being enrolled that were 1/16th or less. With such a low BQ, I can agree with your point of "blending in," but that would not negate the fact that they would have been Cherokee citizens. Let's consider at the time of the US civil war, Chief John Ross of the Cherokee himself was only 1/8.
Now if people back the of such low BQ chose not to enroll, I seriously doubt that somebody would have done it for them, or forced them into it. They could have easily went ahead and passed off as just white if they wanted to, and it's doubtful anyone would have said a word about it.
Now in the whole NAPFS way of thinking, which seems expressed by so many people today, I am guessing the descendants of those people would be considered PODIA's today. However, as numerously pointed out by Blackwolf, and others; BQ prior to the Dawes roll was not even a concept in the mind of the Cherokee people anymore then skin color was in determination who was one of the people or not. That seems to be the train of thought now days as well considering the Cherokee nation has enrolled members who are something equivalent of 1/4032, or some outrageously low number like that.
So if one of the lower Cherokee very low BQ people did not wish to enroll, it would have been very possible even if they had not left the lands of the nation, and at the same time it would have meant they still would have been seen as NDN. The US government would not have been looking for "white" looking people.
Still as I have pointed out, I have heard of higher BQ people doing just the same, but that was very rare.
You must also take into consideration that as I pointed out before, both during and after the civil war, Indian territory was a lawless mess. during the war many, and especially those who sympathized with the north ran into places like Texas and Kansas etc. Many of those did not return home because it was indeed safer where they moved to, but it did not mean they didn't so at a later date, or after that of the Dawes. The Dawes was closed in 1906, and that was not a very long time really from the 1860's. Especially true in my point of view considering I had family that fought on a Union all NDN battalion, who lived all the way until the 1920's.
So in short I will agree with Blackwolf and others that such people are very rare, but they did in fact exist. The argument I see you presenting here to me seems to come from more reading and learning from others, instead of knowing of such things from a personal perspective that comes passed down from a family that seen it first hand, like mine did.
How'd you come up with 1/4 after that many generations marrying outside the Nation?
I only used that being speculative, but if thinking of an elderly person today, such a number was not impossible. You seem to be still thinking in terms of people who claim to have "hid out" during the time of the trail of tears, or families similar to yours or a part of mine who would have now been part of the EBC had they enrolled.
What you do not seem to be aware of is the possibility of families of the refugees caused by the civil war in what was then Indian territory still going back and forth to visit family on both sides of let's say north Texas and what is now Oklahoma to visit with NDN relations on both sides of the border, sorta like those from south of the Mexican/US border do now.
Then adding in the fact that the Dawes rolls were not closed until 1906, and that very much leaves the possibility of a full blood who for whatever reason who did not enroll having children after that time. That child or even their kids or grand kids could still be alive today, but would be elderly.
There have been seven to eight generations since the Trail of Tears. Even if someone was 4/4 Cherokee in 1838, their descendants would be approximately 1/256 bq now
Again, we are not talking about the trail of tears, and the Dawes rolls were not even complete and closed until 1906. So this constant mention of the trail of tears in this regards is meaningless, and would only work if you wished to discuss people claiming to be Cherokee from some fake tribe trying to gain recognition.
It's been over 100 years since the Dawes Roll.
Once again, the Dawes Rolls were complete in the early 1900's. Every once in a while you still hear about an "original enroll dying." That is getting very uncommon now days, but it was not in the 1990's.
Even if someone was 4/4 the day the census was taken, if their descendants all married out since, they'd be 1/32 bq at most. Where'd you come up with 1/4?
I think my above statements now prove my point on that, even if I was using 1/4 as hypothetical number. Perhaps I should have said 1/8, or 1/16th and saved us both some typing.
Rattle, you really consider 1/4 a low bq?
Personally no, but I have been given arguments even from you over the last couple years that have shown me how soo many people do. This and the fact I see people on forums who are 1/4 or 1/8 whom are enrolled get treated badly and called "thin bloods" or "white, or black" for being of those BQ's.
Aside of arguing of somebody becoming something else due to cultural erosion, to me it's odd to think of a some BQ's considered low to mean a group of people has vanished etc. To think that a people who have existed since time immemorial, or in the white man's eyes about 30,000 years can be deemed not existent by a few out marriages, but that is just me.
To say myself some further typing. I am going to stress here that I fully believe the people I just mention are extremely rare. Probably 1 in 300,000 or something like that, but they do exist. They however are NOT the same as people claiming their families hid out on some trail of tears story
