THE CHICKAMAUGA NATION
REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE SERVICING
EDITED AND UPDATED APRIL 15, 2022
THE CHICKAMAUGA NATION
REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE SERVICING
TO: The citizens of the United States serving the people as members of Congress and in particular the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and House of Representatives Committee on Indigenous People
Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States declares that treaties are the supreme law of the land. The November 28, 1785 Treaty at Hopewell, 7 Statute 18 Article 12 states “That the Indians may have full confidence in the justice of the United States, respecting their interests, they shall have the right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress.” This Treaty is signed by the following Chiefs and Headsmen of the Chickamauga: Koatohee or Corn Tassel of Toque, Gritzs of Chickamaga, Tuckasee or Young Terrapin of Allajoy, Chokasatahe or Chickasaw Killer Tasonta, Sower Mush of Kooloque, Umatooetha or Water Hunter (“Duwali,” “Bold Hunter,” or “Bowls”) Choikamawga, Wyuka of Lookout Mountain, Tulco or Tom of Chatuga. Witness – Author Coody.
On July 18, 2019, at the request of then Senator David Perdue to the then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator John Hoeven, the Chiefs of the Chickamauga Nation met with the Council, and the Policy Advisor for Senator Hoeven. First, seeking equity and due process, The Chickamauga Nation Chiefs formally petitioned for placement on the Serviced Tribes Roll since the Chickamauga possess Congressional, Presidential, and Federal Recognition as established within the National Registry and confirmed by academic verification requested at this meeting. Second, seeking civil rights protection, equal protection under the law, and social justice, these Chiefs presented a petition based on U. S. 7 Statute 18 of 1785, the Treaty of Hopewell informing the Senate that the Chickamauga Nation was At-Risk of continued ethnic cleansing. The meeting resulted in the Chiefs being unceremoniously dismissed and their petitions either completely ignored or dismissed out of hand.
As signatories of more than 16 Treaties with the United States, and as a non-incorporated Native American tribe retaining sovereign nation status, The Chickamauga Nation reserves the right and authority to request protection and sanctuary from all nations with which they have signed treaties, which is inclusive of Spain, Great Britain, Mexico, France, and the United States. The Chickamauga Nation interprets the undiplomatic actions toward them by the United States as intentional acts of aggression and hostilities and a continuation of the genocide and ethnic cleansing committed against the Chickamauga. The undiplomatic, Colonialistic posturing of the Congress of the United States toward the people of The Chickamauga Nation can only be interpreted as demonstrating an intent to further escalate tensions resulting in the further ethnic cleansing of the Chickamauga in hopes of the final eradication of the Chickamauga from the face of this planet. The bullying, dismissive posture of the United States is detrimental to seeking diplomatic solutions with The Chickamauga Nation which seeks to continually demonstrate the honor and dignity of a sovereign nation engaged in government to government, diplomatic negotiations.
Therefore, the National Executive Chiefs of The Chickamauga Nation, formally invoke Article XII of 7 Statute 18. They see fit that to meet with the Senate and House of Representatives in the early Summer or early Fall of 2022. This meeting is intended to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List of Tribes recognized to receive servicing and benefits from the BIA. The Chickamauga Nation also has legislation they have prepared outlining their requests and demands based upon treaties, genocide, ethnic cleansing, the Constitution, and laws of the United States of America. Article XII authorizes the Chickamauga to meet with Congress, not their staffers, lawyers, or aids, but Congress according to the text of the Treaty.
Executive Summary
The Chickamauga Nation by use of the National Registry of the United States has established, through academic verification, that they have and continue to possess a government-to-government relationship with the United States since 1785. They have undeniable and overwhelming evidence that the Chickamauga Nation is Federally Recognized by the Legislative and Executive Branches of the United States. They demonstrate through sixteen (16) Treaties with the United States of which they were signatories that they are Federally Recognized. They demonstrate the United States held lands in Trust for them in U. S. 7 Statute 18 of 1785, 1809 Land Trade with President Thomas Jefferson, the 1817 and 1819 Treaties, the 1830 Treaty, and the 1835 Treaty of New Echota. They present documents verifying payments to the Chickamauga and spending for annuities for the Chickamauga in the budgets of the United States. They demonstrate they never ceased to exist as a people or government. They prove anthropologically, archaeologically, and historically that they are not ethnically Cherokee. Finally, the academic verifiers cannot find evidence in statute and code that the Chickamauga were ever terminated as a tribe by the Congress of the United States of America.
The initial research which was requested by the United States Senate initially took more than twelve months to compile and was presented to professionally trained academics to verify. This academic verification process began in early 2020 and continues to this day. The claims of The Chickamauga Nation are in fact anthropologically, archaeologically, and historically academically verified with over 600,000 pages of research which continues to grow daily. At the time of the preparation of this document, well over 600,000 pages of academia is available in digital format which is valued at more than $25,000,000 and which The Chickamauga Nation has attempted to provide to the United States government but the United States is unwilling to accept or view the research they requested to be provided because it is in a digital format.
The academic verification process confirmed and verified what the Chiefs of the Chickamauga told the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2019, that the Chickamauga are still an At-Risk people living under the threat of continued ethnic cleansing at the hands of the government of the United States and their historic Native American allies.
The indisputable conclusion of the “Academic Verifiers” confirms that both anthropologically, Archaeologically, and historically the Chickamauga are:
1. An Indigenous people, who lived in the Mississippi Bottoms consisting of the Mississippi River Valley, Tennessee River Valleys, Arkansas River Valleys, and Ohio River Valleys in the Southeast Woodlands between 600 – 800 years prior to contact, according to carbon dating and whose culture and religion originated as early as 2,000 BCE
2. Who have been recognized by the Legislative Branch of the United States
3. Who have been recognized by the Executive Branch of the United States
4. Who have been recognized by the countries of Great Britain, Spain, France, and Mexico by International Treaty
5. Who have a government to government relationship with the United States
6. Who have had lands held in reserve for them by treaty and trade with the United States
7. Who have had annuities paid to them by the United States
8. Who have never ceased to exist
9. Who are not historically or ethnically related to the Cherokee
10. Who have never been terminated by the United States
11. Who practice their Traditional Ancient Religion daily
12. Who have less than ten people who can speak broken portions of their ancient language
13. Who have been and are continuing to be ethnically cleansed and victims of genocide
The National Executive Chiefs of The Chickamauga Nation
National Executive Chiefs of The Chickamauga Nation are extremely well educated “Indians” who were more than capable of researching the National Registries, National Archives, Library of Congress, Doctoral and Masters Dissertations, anthropological and archeological studies, biographies and auto-biographies, State Archives, Spanish, French, and British Archives, and original survey maps commissioned by the United States, Spain, Great Britain, and France. Their academically verified research totaling over 600,000 pages led them to find and document some of the most heinous, damning, and egregious events that were ever committed in American History and is continuing to be committed against the people of The Chickamauga Nation to this day.
Chief Richard Botts, National Executive Chief of the Southeast Region, is an inventor and entrepreneur. He holds more than a dozen patents in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and solar energies engineering. He is on the board of directors of numerous technology innovation corporations. He owns and operates a cutting-edge electric vehicles and solar power development company specializing in battery pack design optimized for energy management. He has been involved in Tribal issues for over 30 years and has a vast wealth of knowledge in Native American legal issues. He was elected to council at age 24 and later served as the understudy of previous chiefs and became a tribal attorney general and vice chief for many years. He was taught South Eastern traditional teachings, crafts, and practices as a young adult as a way to pass on this knowledge to future generations. He has advised on multiple federal and state legal cases assisting attorneys in understanding how native American law applies to treaty, federal, state, and constitutional law. He is an avid outdoorsman with a reputation for providing meat to needy families and elders.
Chief Dr. Christopher Spruell, National Executive Chief of the Central Region, holds a Doctorate in Theology and a Doctorate in Divinity. He has been involved in Native American culture and life for over 60 years and lives the life of a Traditional Chickamauga leader. He has taught elementary age Native American children in Mescalero, New Mexico and At-Risk, disabled High School students in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He has been actively involved in Native American history, research, and legal issues for over 50 years. He has extensive background knowledge in and is an expert in the Southeast Ceremonial Mound culture and religion. His expansive wealth of knowledge of Native American history since prior to Contact enables him to view the totality of interaction between various Native American tribes through history. Few people today have the vast breadth of knowledge and understanding of Southeast Woodland Indians and the Ceremonial Mound Culture as Dr. Spruell.
Chief Jimmie W. Kersh, National Executive Chief of the West Region, holds his first MA in Religious Education and Church Administration from the largest seminary in the world and a second MA in Teaching while earning a 4.0 G.P.A. and finishing the degree in 16 months. While doing research on his second MA he created and developed a completely personalized, differentiated, digital, interactive K – 12 education system using the latest research in cognitive ability, cognitive functionality, and brain mapping technologies. His educational system is considered years ahead of its time in the way that it fuses, fMRI data analytics, Cognitive States of Development©, Memory Recall Styles©, Digital Teacher Technology and Analytics©, Core4+5 Digital Education Curriculum©, with hundreds of individualized data points per minute per student which provides data driven analytics required to teach individual students to their highest level of cognitive abilities.
Introduction to The Chickamauga Nation
In 2015, the Chiefs of various Chickamauga tribes across the Southeast and Midwest were invited to reconvene the National Council of the Chickamauga. The National Council was reconvened by three of the various tribes forming The Chickamauga Nation. The Governing Document of The Chickamauga Nation divides the traditional homelands into three (3) regions. The National Executive Chief of the Northeast Region, which is headquartered in McEwen, Tennessee is Dr. Christopher Spruell, who represents Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The National Executive Chief of the Southeast Region, which is headquartered in Dahlonega, Georgia is Richard Botts, who represents Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The National Executive Chief of the West Region, which is headquartered in Fort Smith, Arkansas is Jimmie W. Kersh, who represents Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Non-Traditional homelands are also represented by Regions. The Northeast Region represents Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Southeast Region represents Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont. The West Region represents Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Historically and anthropologically identified as indigenous, the Chickamauga are Mound Builders whose culture and religion are well established both historically and anthropologically in what is known as the Southeast Ceremonial Complex. From time immemorial, the traditional homelands and hunting lands of the Chickamauga have been in the Southeast Woodlands along the river systems of the Tennessee River, the Arkansas River, the Ohio River, and the Mississippi River extending from Tennessee to Northern Georgia, Western South Carolina, Western North Carolina, Kentucky, Western Virginia, the Tennessee River valley in Alabama, the Arkansas River valley in Arkansas and Oklahoma, and the Mississippi River valley in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas.
The Chickamauga Nation is traditionalistic and follow the ancient laws and religion which demand they are a non-casino Nation; they are opposed to gaming. As such, The Chickamauga Nation is an economic development Nation that seeks to work with federal, state, and local entities to bring economic development to the whole community in which the Chickamauga live. The Chickamauga seek to be placed on the Serviced Tribes Roll to allow The Chickamauga Nation and its citizens the opportunity to qualify for various grants to assist and promote economically disadvantaged communities, cities, and states within their Treaty and Traded Land Boundaries.
Since the 1730’s the Chickamauga have been At-Risk and were forced by settlers, militias, states, and other Native American tribes to be a disbursed group of people. The academically verified history of the Chickamauga demonstrably proves the genocide and ethnic cleansing they have experienced, suffered, and endured at the hands of the British Colonies, numerous Colonial, State and Territorial Militias, the United States of America, the Cherokee Nation, the Chickasaw, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Corporation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Federal Acknowledgement, and continues to be experienced today.
Relevant History of the Chickamauga Nation
The Chickamauga Nation has academically proven it is a federally recognized tribe which has been excluded through an oversight from federal servicing. They are academically verified to being an indigenous people with their religion and culture originating in the Southeast Ceremonial Complex. Academic verification of the Fourth Annual Address of George Washington which specifically identifies them and describes their possession of the Five Lower Towns thus acknowledging them and acknowledging their treaty lands. Their numerous years of receiving annuities from the United States, numerous treaties their Chiefs signed including:
Chickamauga are historically misplaced because they have been historically combined with the Cherokee. Historically, the Chickamauga were trading partners with France, Spain, England, and the Colonies. Here is where the misunderstanding takes place for the Chickamauga: They have been identified by the United States as Cherokee because they spoke a trade dialect of Cherokee. This led to their misidentification in the 1700s and 1800s as Creek, Red Stick Creek, Cherokee, Lower Town Cherokee, Immigrant Cherokees, Western Cherokee, Arkansas Cherokee, Renegade Band of Cherokee, and a handful of lesser names. The naming and renaming of the Chickamauga by Europeans was eventually taken up by their blood enemy, the Cherokee.
It is impossible to understand who the Chickamauga are without understanding they are first, Indigenous with a culture and religion most associated with their origins in the Late Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian eras. Second, anthropologically they are associated with the religion and culture of the Ceremonial Mound Complexes throughout the central and southern North American continent. The Ceremonial Mound Complexes ranging from Spiro, Oklahoma, Cahokia, Illinois, northern Georgia, and the Tennessee River Valley do have similarities in religion, culture, pottery, effigies, and architecture of which almost all of the Southeast Woodland peoples claim in part or the whole.
It is the current anthropological understanding that the Chickamauga are best classified as having an indigenous, Southeast Woodland descent who became more organized in the Late Woodland period retaining their identity through the Mississippian, Muskogean, and Mobillian periods inclusive of contact and present. The anthropological underpinnings provide one additional item that is often overlooked in traditional understandings of the Chickamauga. The Chickamauga are NOT ethnically Cherokee. The Chickamauga are ethnically of Mississippian, Muskogean, and Mobillian descent while the Cherokee are of Iroquoian, Huron, and Erie descent.1 Most of the confusion comes as the British and Colonists combined the two disparate people into a single entity in eighteenth century because the Chickamauga spoke a dialect of trade called Southern Cherokee. Ultimately combining the two as, “of all the Cherokees of the other” in the Treaty of 1785, the Hopewell Treaty in which at least 3 of the signers signed as Chickamauga.2 The Treaty gave permission for the Cherokee to punish anyone entering their treaty lands without permission. The United States promised their military would keep colonists from becoming settlers in Treaty lands.
Editorial Note: The Chickamauga never considered themselves to be Cherokee. While the United States combined them, mostly for treaty purposes, the two could never be combined because of their vast ethnic, cultural and religious differences. Return Meigs, the Cherokee agent who oversaw the U.S. interests in the Chickamauga moving west, played a pivotal role in continuing the association with the name Cherokee. Because the Cherokee played a significant role in assassinating, pillaging, and murdering the Chickamauga, the Chickamauga find it repulsive to be called Chickamauga Cherokee. One current Chief from Tennessee says it is tantamount to calling a Jewish Person a Jewish Nazi.
Tennessee and Georgia (1700s)
As descendants of the Southeast Woodlands, the Chickamauga are of mixed ethnicity having intermarriages with mostly Spanish, French, British, Colonists, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw and Cherokee. It is of great interest that the Chickamauga never imagined they would disappear as a people because of intermarriage. The Chickamauga Chief, Bloody Fellow proclaimed, “even should they themselves become white by intermarriage not a drop of Indian blood would be lost; it would be spread more widely but not lost.”3 Then and now the Chickamauga take this into account when they proclaim they are full-blood.
The 1700’s play a pivotal role in Chickamauga history. While the French and Spanish missionaries came to teach the “Indians” about the God of the Bible, the Chickamauga held onto their own ancient religion passed down from generation to generation. They were taught by the priests and missionaries in 1 Samuel 15:23 “For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and defiance is like wickedness and idolatry.” The Chickamauga understood divination (witchcraft) and knew from their religion that witchcraft is a capital offense and those practicing witchcraft must be put to death.
The missionaries also taught the that the God of the Bible hated the sin of moving ancient boundary markers. The Chickamauga identified treaties with the white men as setting boundary markers that are to remain in place. Deuteronomy 19:14 states “You must not move your neighbor’s boundary marker, established at the start in the inheritance you will receive in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess.” Proverbs 22:28, “Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.” Proverbs 23:10, “Do not remove the ancient landmark, nor enter the fields of the fatherless, for their Redeemer is mighty; He will plead their cause against you.”
It is the making of treaties and breaking of treaties in the 1700s and 1800s that leads to the perceived annihilation of their Muskogean ways of life. First, the Chickamauga were involved in the Whitehall Treaty of 1730 as the British included the Chickamauga as Cherokee. From the Whitehall Treaty of 1730,
That the Cherrokees (sic) shall not suffer their people to trade with the white men of any other Nation but ye English, nor permit white men of any other Nation to build any forts, cabins, or plant corn amongst 'em, or near to any of ye Indian towns, or upon the lands which belong to the Great King, and if any such attempt shall be made, you must acquaint the English Governor therewith, and do whatever he directs, in order to maintain and defend the Great King's right, to the country of Carolina.4
Again, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 the British reaffirmed that the lands west of the Appalachians were held in reserve for the Native Americans.5 The Transylvania Purchase or the Treaty of Sycamore Shoals in 1775 is in complete violation of the Whitehall Treaty of 1730 and the Royal Proclamation allowing colonists to take land held in reservation for the Indian.
1792 was a monumental year for the Chickamauga in the War Department Records. The Treaty of Holston had become a flash-point for the more traditional Chickamauga. John Sevier to Secretary of War William Blount notifying him that the five Lower Towns had declared war on the United States and there was a divide in the Cherokee nation.6 Blount in writing to Bloody Fellow (Chickamauga Chief), “admits President failed to meet promises he made to Cherokees by keeping settlers from encroaching on Cherokee land but denied any settlement happened after the treaty was signed. Advised that Bloody Fellow keep Cherokees from entering Cumberland and Blount will keep white settlers from moving farther west.”7 Henry Knox writing to Governor Edward Telfair of Georgia, “Intelligence from Gov. Blount states that five hundred warriors from Chickamaga (sic) towns and some banditti Upper Creeks plan hostilities against the U.S. and will strike the Cumberland settlements. Authorized Governor to make defensive preparations.”8 Knox, “provides Blount with his assessment of the situation with the southern Indians and projected additions to the military establishment in the South. . . Blount is asked to take whatever action is needed to end conflict with the Chickamaugas.”9
In late October and Early November of 1792, Congress and the President of the United States get involved in the Chickamauga Issue. Secretary of War, Henry Knox sends a letter to Henry Lee, the Governor of Virginia, stating, “Congress to discuss war and peace with Chiccamagas (sic). Only defensive action by state to be taken in dealing with Indians.”10 President George Washington, federally recognizes the Chickamauga and even stipulates their lands during his fourth Annual Address to Congress.
“A part of the Cherokees, known by the name of Chickamagas, inhabitating five Villages on the Tennesee River, have been long in the practice of committing depredations on the neighbouring settlements.
It was hoped that the treaty of Holstin, made with the Cherokee nation in July 1791, would have prevented a repetition of such depredations. But the event has not answered this hope. The Chickamagas, aided by some Banditti of another tribe in their vicinity, have recently perpetrated wanton and unprovoked hostilities upon the Citizens of the United States in that quarter. The information which has been received on this subject will be laid before you. Hitherto defensive precautions only have been strictly enjoined and observed.
It is not understood that any breach of Treaty, or aggression whatsoever, on the part of the United States, or their Citizens, is even alleged as a pretext for the spirit of hostility in this quarter. (sic)11
Moving ancient boundary markers and breaking treaties is the recurring theme for the Chickamauga. Their desire to remain a traditional Native American people was being challenged not only by the United States but by rogue land speculators enticing state militias and volunteer militias to drive the Natives from their ancestral lands. In 1794, the military and the state militias took matters into their own hands when it came to the Chickamauga. William Blount to the Chiefs, “and others of the Cherokees in which he cites a long list of depredations by the Indians on innocent whites, including women and children. He warns the chiefs that the violence must stop and the terms of the Treaty of Holston followed or the whites will retaliate with no regard for the age or sex of their victims.”12 Blount,
“Letter from William Blount, Governor of Southwest Territory, to Double-head, Chief of the Lower Cherokees. Blount warns Double-head that General Logan of Kentucky has raised a "large army of volunteers, unauthorized by Government, to invade and destroy the Lower Cherokee towns." General Logan's reasoning behind the illegal attack is that the Lower towns have provoked violence on the frontier, and stolen horses and black slaves. Double-head and the Cherokee are allies of the United States. Blount advises that Double-head immediately return all prisoners, negroes, and horses, so the people of Kentucky will not attack.”13
General James Robertson could easily be the subject of a doctoral dissertation. He was brutal in his dealings with the Chickamauga. In 1794, General Robertson informs Major Ore that he is to defend the district of Mero against a large party of Creeks and Cherokees of the Lower towns. Ordered to "destroy the Lower Cherokee towns... taking care to spare women and children, and to treat all prisoners, who may fall into your hands, with humanity, and thereby teach those savages to spare the citizens of the United States, under similar circumstances."14 James McHenry to the House of Representatives, “Cantrill requested compensation for services provided related to expedition in Cherokee nations country. Cantrill ordered by General Robertson to destroy two Indian towns (Running Water and Nickajack). Secretary of War did not sanction event.”15 Blount to Logan, “After having corresponded with Double-head, Chief of the Cherokees, Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory orders that General Benjamin Logan immediately desist from attempts to invade Lower Cherokee towns, who are in a state of peace with the United States. Rogue elements of the military had previously destroyed the friendly Cherokee towns of Nickajack and Running Water.”16
Moving to Arkansas (1800s)
Many of those moving west of the Mississippi fostered the desire to be free of the everyday annoyance of the lying, stealing, and murdering white man and Cherokee. Most wanted to retain their traditional culture and religion. Most preferred the capacity to hunt, fish, ranch, and farm as far from the white man as he could be.
In May 1792, a group of Cherokees contacted Estevan Miro, the Spanish governor of the Louisiana Territory, and received permission to settle in Spanish territory west of the Mississippi River.”17 One of the first to leave east of the Mississippi was The Bowl who was allowed to settle on the St Francis river. The Promised Land: The Cherokees, Arkansas, and Removal, 1794 – 1839 identifies these early emigrants were Chickamauga Cherokees, also known as the Lower Towns Cherokees, who resisted assimilation and sought to retain traditional religious and hunting traditions.18 Thomas Jefferson in writing to the Chickamauga leaders that he would trade land with them in the east for lands in the west was too good to pass up.
“As cessions of Cherokee land continued at frequent intervals during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the number of Cherokees emigrating to Arkansas increased. Many of the new arrivals settled further west, between the Arkansas and White river valleys. The Cherokee population in this region grew so rapidly that in 1805 John B. Treat opened a trading post at Spadra Bluff, near present-day Clarksville, to serve the emigrants. A land cession obtained by the federal government from the Osages in 1808 (negotiated in St. Louis by William Clark, the renowned explorer) opened vast tracts of land in the northwest part of the state. Between 1809 and 1812, approximately 2,000 Cherokees settled along the White River and in the Arkansas River valley upstream from Little Rock.”19
On July 20 1809, Tahlonteskee and seventeen followers came upriver to Hiwassee and presented Meigs with a list of Lower Town Cherokees who wished to move over the Mississippi under the conditions agreed upon with President Jefferson in Washington. Jefferson encouraged the Chickamauga to go West because Blount was prepared to send in the militias to quell the civil war between the Chickamauga and the various Cherokee Nations. The list was a long one of 1,023 people, including 386 men and 637 women and children. Later, an additional 107 Cherokees joined the group as it made preparations to move20 that included 1,273 black cattle, 369 horses, 868 hogs, 46 spinning wheels, 13 looms, 36 plows, and other smaller items. They also took along 68 black slaves.21
Tahlonteskee’s group settled mostly south of the Arkansas with his capital city near Dardanelle, on the Illinois Bayou. Major William Lovely, “arrived on the Arkansas the following July to establish a Cherokee subagency at the mouth of Illinois Bayou. He was delighted with the country, dubbing it the "Garden of the Worlds." But, he pointed out, “We have to pound the Corn into Meal having no Mills in all this part of the World every Article is Scarce & very high, flower which is brought by the traders on the Mississippi is from 18 to 24$ per barrel."”22 Most of the Chickamauga chiefs who arrived in Arkansas after 1809 settled south of the Arkansas because Jefferson’s letter did not deny them from settling there. The most important factor of the offering of the letter for trade of land was that it was not an official treaty between the United States and the Chickamauga.
In 1817, both the U.S. Senate and President Monroe gave advance approval of the objectives of a contemplated treaty to officially sanction a Cherokee reserve in the west. Although some of the most powerful eastern chiefs, such as Pathkiller, an adamant opponent of the treaty, were not in attendance, Andrew Jackson on July 8, 1817, secured all the Cherokee signatures he needed to accomplish the deal.23 The Treaty of 1817, provided for the Chickamauga an official treaty land in Arkansas. It references back to the Thomas Jefferson letter to Tahlonteskee and provides additional lands to the lands that they already reserved under the Thomas Jefferson letter.
“The Treaty of 1817 had sweeping ramifications for Cherokees living on both sides of the Mississippi River. Because Pathkiller and several other prominent Eastern Cherokees, such as John Ross and Major Ridge, did not participate in the negotiations of the treaty, many members of the eastern band contested its legitimacy and the Cherokee council refused to ratify it. The council also continued to oppose splitting the tribal annuity with the Arkansas group -- called for in the treaty’s fourth article -- and unrealistically demanded that the Arkansas Cherokees return to their ancestral homelands. Despite the protests, federal officials proceeded as if the treaty were a done deal. For all practical purposes, it was. Jackson, ever the proponent of American expansionism, believed the treaty offered “justice to all,” and in truth his opinion mattered the most.”24
While the treaty was agreeable to the Chickamauga, there was one thing missing, the “Clear opening to the setting of the sun” that was promised in the text of the treaty. “ln August 1819 the Western Cherokees wrote to President James Monroe requesting the "clear opening to the setting of the sun" that had been promised them. The lead signers of the letter were Takatoka, Dick Justice, Glass, and John Jolly, followed by John McLemore, Walter Webber, Thomas Maw (son of Hanging Maw), and Thomas Graves.25
As a result of the 1809 Jefferson letter offering a land trade, many of the Chiefs took their people south of the Arkansas River and settled there while others moved north. The lands in the south along with the “clear opening to the setting of the sun” were promises made by the United States to the Chickamauga. The Treaty of 1819 removed the “clear opening to the setting sun.” An 1820s US Geological survey map specifically defines the lands south of the Little Rock to the Red River as “Cherokee” but again, the Chickamauga noted that the U.S. was moving boundary markers so white people could covet and steal their lands.
In 1826 the Arkansas Cherokee passed a law making it a capital offense for selling or trading lands to the United States or to white men. In 1828 a, “delegation comprised of Black Fox, John Rogers, Tom Graves, Thomas Maw, George Marvis, John Looney, and Sequoyah . . . traveled to Washington to “arrange and finally adjust with the President of the United States or others all the unsettled matters”26 of Lovely’s Purchase relating to the 1817 and 1819 Treaties.
There was certainly no intention by the Cherokee council that this delegation should become involved in a treaty that would trade away their Arkansas lands; nor had the delegation any such thoughts. But once they reached Washington, the Cherokees were detained in their hotel for well over a month while government officials cajoled, whiskered, and bribed them into signing an agreement for exchanging their Arkansas land for that of Lovely's Purchase.27
The 1828 Treaty would be considered an illegal contract today because the signatories would have been intoxicated and incapable of giving consent. In addition, “the government bribery included twelve hundred dollars for Thomas Graves; five hundred dollars for George Guess, plus rights to a saline on Lees Creek of present Oklahoma to replace one in Arkansas; and five hundred dollars to James Rogers. It must be assumed that the others were similarly rewarded.”28
After 1828, it became necessary for the Chickamauga to hide in plain sight. Most had lived in “white homes and clothes” for decades and it was hard to tell many apart from their white neighbors. Then, in 1837, Arkansas codified their own anti-miscegenation laws forbidding Indians or blacks to marry whites. The Chickamauga in Arkansas had been marrying whites for decades and now the ownership of lands of mixed marriages became almost impossible.
In Missouri, the Thirteenth General Assembly enacted, “An Act to Restrain Intercourse with Indians,” which made it illegal for Indians to be within the state. Indians: Subsection 2. No person shall give to any Indian a permit to come or remain within this state; nor a permit, or other instrument of writing, with the intent to induce any Indian to come or remain within this state, except the proper agent, under the authority of the United States. Subsection 11, It shall be the duty of the Governor to transmit a copy of this act to the agents of all the Indian tribes on the borders of this state, with a request to such agents not to grant a permit to any Indian to come into this state for the purpose of hunting, or without necessary business, or who is not of a peaceful character.29
These laws drove the Chickamauga not only to hide in plain sight, it forced them to declare on the U.S. Census that they were white. Accounts from hundreds of Chickamauga families today tell an ominous story of their ancestors. The families told their children to never talk about their ancestry out of fear that they would lose their homes and land or even worse, be killed for their land and homes. While the secret was safe in public settings, the Chickamauga continued to the best of their abilities to retain their culture, religion, and language. Most have retained governmental allegiance to bands and tribes of Chickamauga over the centuries while keeping their affiliations secret from the outside world. Over the almost 200 years since the Treaty of 1828 and the statehood of Arkansas, there are a limited few which have been able to retain the religion and even fewer language speakers left. Many family reunions and gatherings of the Chickamauga today still instill many of the aspects of the culture. Even so, technological advances and inculcation into the American society as a whole is devastating the remaining cultural identity of being a Chickamauga.
Following Spanish Protection to Texas (1820s – 1830s)
Chief Duwali Bowles is one of the most colorful Chiefs of the Chickamauga. He was born in North Carolina sometime around 1756 and became Chief of the Lower Town, Running Water in 1792. In 1794 He is involved in what has been come to be known as the Muscle Shoals Massacre. He then immediately traveled up the St. Francis River from Arkansas and into Southeastern Missouri under the protection of the Spanish Crown. While in Missouri, he joined other Chickamauga immigrants that had crossed the Mississippi River. “Why are they Chickamauga?” some will ask. There are two specific reasons. The first, he could not have been the Chief at Running Water had he not been Chickamauga. Second, no Cherokee would move across the Mississippi because to do so would mean that they would immediately forfeit their Citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. Knowing more about the background and culture of the Chickamauga and Cherokee assists in putting together the history of both people.
After the New Madrid Earthquake, he took it as a sign from God that he was to move his people to a safer place so he moved to the White River lower down that the 1817 and 1819 treaties covered, but the 1809 Land trade with Jefferson allowed and covered as reservation land. Chief Bowles was always on the move seeking less occupied lands for his people. After traveling and stopping in the Arkansas River Valley near Petit Jean River and traveling again south of Mt. Magazine, through the Ouachita Mountains and then finally to the Red River near the Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas boarders, he finally settled for lands fifty or so miles north of Nacogdoches.
In November 8, 1822, he and Chief Big Mush gained protection with a grant of land totally 1,500,000 acres from the Spanish crown in the Treaty of San Antonio de Bexar.
The Cherokee Nation, according to their statement, numbers fifteen thousand souls; but there are within the borders of Texas only one hundred warriors and two hundred women and children. They work for their living, and dress in cotton-cloth, which they themselves manufacture. They raise cattle and horses and use firearms. Many of them understand the English language. In my opinion, they ought to be useful to the Province, for they immediately became subject to its laws, and I believe will succeed in putting a stop to carrying stolen animals to the United States, and in arresting those evil-doers that infest the roads.30
While protection was agreed to by a land grant from Spain, Mexico gained its independence and the new government agreed to continue the protection of the Chickamauga. They lived there and farmed and ranched the lands, but the illusive treaty for ownership of the land alluded them.
The tribe at present numbers about 150 families, the total number of persons being about 800. The property of the Cherokees, consisting of about 3,000 head of cattle; about the same number of hogs and 500 or 600 horses. The subscribers inform you that the said tribe lives chiefly by tilling the soil and raising cattle.31
On February 23, 1836 Chickamauga Chief Duwali Bowles signed the Treaty of Bowles Village with Sam Houston for the 1,5000,000 acres in East Texas that the Chickamauga had worked so hard to attain. The Bronze Sculpture commemorating the Signing of the Treaty still stands In Nacogdoches, Texas as documented by the Texas State Historical Association.32
In 1839 Duwali asked his friend Tahchee to convince the National Council in Tahlequah to send warriors to help him in Texas and to bring the Creek and Seminole. He informed Tahchee that the Mexicans said if they conquered Texas, General Vincente Filisola would give them the land in the region. 33 The Council debated Duwali’s request and decided not to help the Cherokees in Texas ordering none of their young men to leave. 34 This abandonment demonstrated again that the Cherokee Nation could not be trusted and led to furthered ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Cherokee and the Texans.
Chief Bowles and Chief Big Mush knew that the outcome of Lamar’s “termination war” against the Indians in Texas would ultimately end in the brutal removal of the Indians out of Texas. The Texas Cherokee: A People Between Two Fires, 1819 – 1840 documents where Duwali was disavowed by the Cherokee in Oklahoma saying that Chief Bowles and his people were not of their people. Feeling betrayed by the Cherokee of Oklahoma, betrayed by the government of his great friend Sam Houston, and out of time on this earth, Duwali went into a battle he knew he could not win. His young Chiefs drug him into a battle like he had done so many times as a younger man. To set the example for his warriors, the Chief led one final battle as a warrior Chief.
The Texan Army numbered only 500, compared to 700 to 800 Indians, but Bowles' warriors were routed, and pursuit continued until July 24. The old chief, wearing a handsome sword and sash given him by Sam Houston, remained in the field on horseback for two days. On the last day, he signaled retreat, but few of his men were left to flee. Bowles was shot in the leg and his horse was wounded. As he climbed from his mount, he was shot in the back.
As the Texas militia approached him, he sat down, crossed his arms and legs facing the soldiers, and waited for his death. The captain of the militia walked to where Bowles sat, placed a pistol to his head, and killed him. The Texans took stripes of skin from his arm as souvenirs. His body was left where it lay. No burial ever took place.35
THE CHICKAMAUGA NATION
Today, the Chickamauga Nation is painstaking and slowly attempting to reconnect with and reestablish their language and religion while at the same time attempting to revitalize their culture. According to the Chickamauga Nation, they already hold Federal Recognition, so on July 18, 2019, their National Chiefs traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with the lawyers for the US Senate Indian Affairs committee concerning their being placed on the Serviced Tribes Roll. The National Chiefs were charged by the legal team with the task of researching their anthropology and history and having their research verified by academic experts in those fields. They have just recently announced that more than 400,000 pages of research has been verified.
Notes
1 Thomas, C.; (1890): The Cherokees in Pre-Columbian Times; N.D.C Hodges Publisher; New York. Pgs 4-6.
2 http://bkoatohee.homestead.com/files/1785_Treaty_of_Hopewell.htm; Retrieved 2/4/2020
3 Garrison, T. A. and O’Brien, G.; (2017): The Native South: New Histories and Enduring Legacies; University of Nebraska Press; Lincoln. Pg 97.
4 Steele, W. O.; (1977): The Cherokee Crown of Tannassy; J. F. Blair Publisher, Pg 147
5 https://www.ushistory.org/us/9a.asp. Retrieved 2/5/2020.
6 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1792091390100. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43570. Retrieved 2/6/2020
7 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1792091390000. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43569. Retrieved 2/6/2020
8 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1792102700100. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43726. Retrieved 2/6/2020
9 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1792112600000. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43876. Retrieved 2/6/2020
10 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1792103013001. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/43737. Retrieved 2/6/2020
11 National Registry; National Archives; Founders Online, George Washington Fourth Annual Address to Congress. https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Series%3AWashington- 05&s=1511311113&r=4003. Retrieved 2/6/2020.
12 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1792052390000. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/42997. Retrieved 2/6/2020
13 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1794110190300. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/48508. Retrieved 2/6/2020
14 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1794090690000. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/47869. Retrieved 2/6/2020
15 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1798040500000. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/61814. Retrieved 2/6/2020
16 National Registry; National Archives; Papers of the War Department, Document Number: 1794110190000. https://wardepartmentpapers.org/s/home/item/48505. Retrieved 2/6/2020
17 Markham, R. P.; (1872): “The Arkansas Cherokees: 1817-1828,” diss., University of Oklahoma, Pg. 7
18 Logan, C. R.; The Promised Land: The Cherokees, Arkansas, and Removal, 1794 – 1839; Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, Arkansas. Pg 5
19 George Sabo III, Paths of Our Children: Historic Indians of Arkansas, Arkansas Archeological Survey Popular Series No. 3 (Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1992) Pgs. 96 - 98.
20 Meigs to Chisholm, November 2, 1809, Records of Cherokee Agency in Tennessee (M-208), NA
21 Passport signed by Return J. Meigs, January 10, 18101 American Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Science, 6:316-18.
22 Territorial Papers, 14:706.
23 Markham, R. P.; (1872): “The Arkansas Cherokees: 1817-1828,” diss., University of Oklahoma, Pg. 79-80, 82
24 Hoig, S. W.; (1998): The Cherokees and their Chiefs: In the Wake of Empire; University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Pg. 133
25 Markham, R. P.; (1872): “The Arkansas Cherokees: 1817-1828,” diss., University of Oklahoma, Pg. 79-80, 82
26 Hoig, S. W.; (1998): The Cherokees and their Chiefs: In the Wake of Empire; University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Pg. 139
27 Series of letters between U.S. government and delegates of Cherokees West, February through July 1828, Letters Received, OIA, Cherokee Agency West (M-234), NA.
28 McKenney to Duval, May 28, 1828, Letters Sent by Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1831 (M- 21), NA
29 The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, Thirteenth General Assembly; 1845; Page 307. https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacXL09mqAsBM6pZZ815ViCis64uzBAICn5S5TULfYek2IhS-qJuimVH7gau11tqmucMALRM4NtGN9lXE-- z31vFYh8OTBikAu_zZhGSCg1VWD4Ks2-VNfRhXP7N0KAuaUwBy-uusuldu9_OrfISQrPzugXFaYRqCrzuMm0NDFpH136ikQ62zCH_qJ1pNYp6uhRgd2IkVupZhw3WuuPyXUTjOjg1_6e3rHY1ws9jBZxqyxydF2qzsD02WWJvsXUtKGsL5ao2pZ SvKfzLbVO7ydTwqIKtyh1lYtOk_WztWbPaIBQzZcE. Retrieved 2/12/2020
30 Starr, E.; (1921): History of the Cherokee Indians and Their Legends and Folk Lore; Oklahoma City, pp. 189-190.
31 Woldert, A.; (1923): “The Last of the Cherokees in Texas, and the Life and Death of Chief Bowles,” Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. 1, No. 3; p. 192.
32 https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fbo47
33 Arbuckle to Jones, 30 May 1838; Records of the U.S. Army Continental Commands, Record Group 393, Fort Gibson Letterbooks, National Archives: Simmons to Vose, 30 May 1838, Fort Gibson Letterbooks.
34 Holland Coffee to General Felix Huston, 17 December 1838, S. Doc. 14, 38
35 Everett, D.; (1995): The Texas Cherokees: A People Between Two Fires, 1819 – 1840, University of Oklahoma Press
So You Will Be Without Excuse: Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Premeditated ignorance: Defined - The quality of deliberate unawareness. It is when people do not know because they do not want to know, for if they did know, they would have to take responsibility for that knowledge; and they would thereby be required to negotiate their identity and to relinquish the states, privilege, and authority that are derived from the false order of knowledge, at the very least, they would be compelled to leave their comfort zone.
So you will not be ignorant, you are hereby informed.
We are Chickamauga, Eshheeloarchie, People of the First Fire, from Elohi Mona. We are a separate and distinct People of no recent origin. This is our home.
The traditional law, culture, and religion of the Mound Builders’ Southeast Ceremonial Complex (Southeast Woodland Indians) with their laws have existed for over a millennium before European contact. The Chickamauga have been mis-identified as Cherokee because the Chickamauga spoke the Cherokee trade language along with English, French, Spanish and other trade languages of the time. The Whitehall Treaty of 1730 with England pronounces the Cherokee (most signatories were Pohattan) shall not suffer their people to trade with the white men of any other nation but the English, nor permit white men of any other nation to build any forts, cabins or plant corn amongst them or near any of the Indian towns. How can the Cherokee have any interest in the care and protect that land when they have only been on that land for less than sixty (60) years?
The Whitehall Treaty was made with the King of England and the Chickamauga respected loyalty as a virtue. The Chickamauga were persecuted for their loyalty in protecting the Whitehall Treaty and for doing so the United States, the Cherokee and Chickasaw have repaid the Chickamauga with genocide and ethnic cleansing beginning then and is still carried out to this day.
In 1776, some Chickamauga lived at Fieldtown, near the Seneca River. The Carolina and Virginia militias, while raiding Indian villages found Olufteloy who with her eight-year-old daughter had remained behind. The militias killed Olufteloy and took her daughter captive. William Kennedy sold Nancy Olufteloy’s daughter to John Fulton. In Return to the Nation, in 1801 Josiah Meigs called Nancy’s enslavement a “base act.” America’s view of murder and ethnic cleansing was reduced to being a base act.
Academic experts have identified the Chickamauga as victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing as described in the university textbook - Tennessee State of the Nation, 4th Edition, Larry H. Whiteaker, 2006, Cengage Learning, ISBM-10: 1-1334-4202-1, chapter 1, pg. 3, 4th line, “As the Chickamauga Chief Dragging Canoe had warned they would see “a dark and bloody ground” as one Tennessee writer phrased it. Every acre of land was paid for in blood. When all the Indians were dead or ethnically cleansed as refugees to the west.” The definition of ethnic cleansing is the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.
We are the Chickamauga, the “merciless Indian savages” identified in the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 and the Indians identified in a Charlestown letter, July 21, 1776, to full determined resolution to extirpate the whole tribe. In 1782, the North Carolina Assembly called an army out against the Chickamauga with the following instructions, “All the males therein to be killed, and all females captured for exchange.” Is this genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Another example of ethnic cleansing is a British Sgt. Patrick Clements who lived with the Chickamauga in the Lower Towns was killed by Isaac Thomas in front of his Chickamauga wife, Nancy Coody, who was taken in this raid and sold into slavery in Pensacola, FL by Capt. Samuel Hadley, 1782. Isaac Thomas was a friend of Nancy Ward. The same Nancy Ward who was an Upper Town Cherokee from Chota, TN, who warned settlers about the Chickamauga and sent messages to militia leaders and colonials who had betrayed the King’s Proclamation 5 different times resulting in massacres. The same Isaac Thomas who was the guide to William Bartram, who in 1775, found a company of Cherokee (Chickamauga) nymphs in a field and had a frolic with them. The Isaac Thomas who guided John Sevier, who was quoted in the Augusta Chronicle, May 2, 1789, about the death of 145 Indians (Chickamaugas) at Flint Creek, “It is with the utmost pleasure I inform your honors, that the arms of Franklin gained a complete victory over the combined forces of the Creeks and Cherokees, on the 10th inst. . . . We suffer most for the want of whiskey.” This is the admission to genocide and after killing 145 Chickamauga, all he and his men wanted was whiskey. Brother Schneider’s Moravian Journal notes this same John Sevier ignored the complaints by the Chickamaga about the colonial settlers violating treaties and proclamations and coming into their lands. This is the same Journal which stated this Nation has been much weakened in the last war by the separations of the Chickamakas (sic.) or Lower Cherokee with the Upper Town Cherokee documenting the Chickamauga were not Upper Town Cherokee.
Little Turkey (1758-1801), an Upper Town Cherokee Chief, “was tired of talking to them, the Chickamauga or Lower Cherokee. He had heard what they had done; he did not intend to travel the path to them anymore to hold talks; if they wanted to go to war, go and he would sit still and look at them; they must stay on their own side of the mountain and not mix with the other part of the Nation; he would inform Gov. Blount where they lived.” Little Turkey then sent a letter to Gov. Blount describing the Spanish in the most derogatory terms he could as “a lying deceitful, treacherous people… not real white people, and what few he met looked mulatto and he would never have anything to say to them”. The same Little Turkey who received a Spanish carbine for coming to Neches and with deliberation, claimed land in areas where he knew privately the Cherokee had no right to, according to James Thompson, interpreter. This was meant to mislead the Chickamauga which resulted in further genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The John Haywood papers contain the account of a Cherokee (Chickamauga) boy adopted (actually captured) by John Shannon, in 1773, who along with other militiamen attacked a camp, killing some and taking others prisoner. Why? Henry Thompson Malone wrote in Cherokees of the Old South, pg. 42, about a letter written to William Blount where Little Turkey expressed shame for the actions of the Chickamauga and their allies and asked that vengeance be meted out to them. That vengeance was finally extracted in 1794, when Maj. James Ore raided the Lower Towns, killing and taking prisoners, with Blount disavowing any responsibility. It was also noted at the time that the militia had a hard time distinguishing the Lower Towns because the Chickamauga Chiefs and Headsmen owned plantations and fine houses. The document demonstrates ethnic cleansing in that the farm goods, livestock, home goods and food were looted and the rest was destroyed.
Documents of United States Indian Policy, by Francis Prucha, shows the report of Henry Knox, July 18, 1788, on the white outrages against Indians which violates the Hopewell Treaty of 1785. The Native South, Tom Alan Garrison, pg. 88, documents John Sevier admitting to keeping Chickamaugas. In 1792, John D. Chisholm tried to redeem captured Chickamauga in Kentucky. The captors refused and threatened to kill their prisoners if Chisholm tried to take them. There were Chickamauga prisoners scattered throughout the South. They were held in Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina. These are the Chickamauga as noted by Moravian missionary Schneider, that separated from the Cherokee Nation and identified as Chickamakas (sic.) or Lower Cherokee.
In 1792, a Henry Knox letter to William Blount stated the Chickamauga were the “germs of evil.” He wrote at another time, “our modes… have been more destructive to the natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru.” He went on to cite the fact that where there was white civilization there was the utter extirpation of natives or almost none left. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are proudly displayed on the powder horn of William Whitley, in his personal museum in Kentucky. It has the following inscription, “I am your horn, the truth I love, a lie I scorn. Fill me with the best powder, I’ll make your rifle crack the lowder (sic). See how the dread terrifik (sic) ball make Indians bleed and Tories fall. You with powder, I’ll supply for to defend your liberty.” This is the same William Whitley who personally shot a warrior out of a moving canoe at the same distance after some of his men had failed to make the deadly shot.
The Chickasaw Chief Piomingo was with William Whitley. The same Chickasaw Chief who signed the Treaty with the Chickamauga and Spain in 1793. The Chickamauga research also uncovered the US Governmental receipts for the guns given to Piomingo to kill Chickamaugas.
In 1794, the Cumberland militia, without orders from the Kentucky Board of War, took matters into their own hands. James Robertson organized a strike force that invaded the Chickamauga country, burned the Lower Towns including Nickajack and Running Water, killing warriors and took the women and children to Kentucky to sell as slaves. (Tennessee Blue Book 2017-2018, pg. 551)
Transitioning from the Southeast to Texas the genocide and ethnic cleansing continued against the Chickamauga. The President of Texas, Mirabeau Lamar, in 1839, issued the order beginning the “Extermination Wars” to remove all Indians from Texas. This resulted in Capt. Robert W. Smith shooting Chief Diwali (Bowls) in the back of the head while he was on his knees after being shot in the back at the Neches Massacre in Texas. Smith, was the son-in-law of Jessie Jernigan Watkins, who was killed by a band of Cherokee (Chickamauga) in 1837, according to Luis Sanchez, an interpreter who was also at the Birds Fort Treaty in 1843. The militia then stripped off the skin of Diwali to be kept as souvenirs of which some was made into razor straps, etc. They also took his sword presented to him from Sam Houston, and a tin can on his person which contained Treaties and Land Grants which now reside with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Inc, who were Congressionally terminated in 1896, 1902, and 1906.
Chief Diwali (Bowls) had asked for assistance from the Cherokee National Council in Oklahoma before the massacre. The Council decided against helping, stating ‘that none of their young men shall leave for Texas as they may be our brothers, but belong to a different nation.” This act, again, shows the separation of the Chickamauga and Cherokee and their willingness to allow for the ethnic cleansing of the Chickamauga.
In The Texas Cherokees, on page 114, in 1840 the Cherokee Council requested General Arbuckle pursue the extradition of any Cherokees who might be held prisoner in Texas. Arbuckle and Branch T. Archer, Texas Secretary of War, subsequently arranged for the transportation of 12 men, women, and children to Fort Jesup, Louisiana, whose commanding officer is Edmond Pendleton Gaines the son-in-law of William Blount. In May, 1841, the Nacogdoches militia encountered the Cherokee (Chickamauga). Capt. David Gage’s county minutemen at the Sabine River, formerly Cherokee territory, killed those he encountered. David Gage was married to Lucy Fish, the daughter of John Fish and Sally Fish, full blood Cherokee on reserved land in Alabama, yet still carried out Lamar’s orders. He killed Chickamauga knowing that they were not Cherokee because of the way the Chickamauga dressed.
Transitioning further West, to Utah in 1857, according to the Tennessee Valley Genealogical Association’s Valley Leaves (Vol 54, Issue 3-4; Spring 2020) the Baker Train of the Meadow Mountain Massacre was led by Captain John “Jack” Twitty Baker (1805-1857) who was not a military Captain, but earned the title as the leader of the Baker wagon train. These Baker’s migrated from North Carolina to Tennessee and finally to New Market, Alabama. They were Chickamauga whose wagon train originated in Alabama, stopping in northern Arkansas numerous times to pick up additional Baker family members of Chickamauga descent, stopped again in Oklahoma to pick up additional family and then headed toward California.
The train was made up of more than 120 men, women and children traveling from Alabama to California. They were the richest train to ever cross the plain with almost 1,000 head of cattle valued at more than $100,000 in 1857 ($3.5 million in today’s money.) They were robbed and slaughtered by a Mormon militia disguised as Paiute Indians on Sept. 11, 1857 in Washington County, Utah. The Baker train had survived a five-day siege. Then a group of Mormon men approached under a white flag and guaranteed to lead them to safety. Their guns were taken and the wounded were gathered and placed in one of the wagons. The group was led out of the encampment and once clear, the order was given by John D. Lee, “Breathern, do your duty!” In less than 30 minutes, all but 17 children were dead. Ironically, it just so happened that Captain Baker’s daughter, Sarah, was married to Charles R. Mitchell whose uncle was a U.S. Senator from Arkansas and was responsible for opening a congressional investigation to find out what happened at the Mountain Meadow in Utah.
The history and legacy of the Chickamauga is extensive and continues to this day, along with the ethnic cleansing committed against them. To deny them justice, honor, and recognition of their history, accomplishments and suffering validates their claims of continued ethnic cleansing. Live up to the honor and dignity that your office is supposed to represent, do the right thing and place the Chickamauga on the Serviced Tribes Roll and negotiate in with them on the legislation they request.
Academic Verification
State of Georgia
Nealie McCormick, Chair, Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns
Heidi M. Altman, Ph.D., Secretary, Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns
GEORGIA COUNCIL ON AMERICAN INDIAN CONCERNS
c/o Department of Natural Resources
Division of Historic Preservation
254 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
January 19, 2016
To the Honorable Senator Steve Gooch, The Honorable Representative Kevin Tanner, and other
members of the Georgia Legislature:
Statement of Findings and Recommendation
The Georgia Council On American Indian Concerns has considered a petition that would resolve
a long standing conflict among members of one of the currently recognized tribes in the State of
Georgia. Upon review of historical documents, genealogies, legal documents, and other pieces of
evidence it has become apparent to the Council that one of the lineages that comprise the Georgia Tribe
of Eastern Cherokee, a lineage which now identifies itself as the Tsigamogi Tribe, should rightfully be
separated as its own community. Historically, the Tsigamogi Tribe’s genealogical lineage has been
established since the mid-19th century.
The lineages that have co-existed under the name Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee have had a
variety of longstanding conflicts, reaching back into the 19th century, that have led to their de facto
separation since the mid-20th century. In addition, unrelated outside interests have exploited these
conflicts to cause confusion and profit from it.
After a review of the relevant documents, and lengthy discussion among the Council members,
the Council finds:
1. The Council would like to find a resolution of the long-standing conflict among the native
peoples of our state;
2. The Council is convinced that this is a unique set of circumstances that requires a unique
resolution;
3. The legitimate lineages need relief from the outside parties who have sought to sow chaos
among them; and
4. The Council is convinced that the resolution of these matters will be a final chapter in the story
of conflict.
In light of these findings, the Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns makes the following
recommendations:
1. That the lineages be formally recognized as separate entities; and
2. That the following modification to O.G.C.A. 44-12-300 be made so as to read."O.G.C.A. 44-12-
300 Tribes, bands, groups, or communities recognized by state as legitimate American Indian Tribes: The State of Georgia officially recognizes as legitimate American Indian tribes of Georgia the following tribes, bands, groups, or communities:
The Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee
94 John W Moore Rd
P.O. Box 1411
Dahlonega, Georgia 30533.
The Tsigamogi Tribe
33 Chattin Reservation Road
P.O. Box 1993
Dahlonega, Georgia 30533
The Lower Muscogee Creek Tribe
Tama Tribal Town
Whigham, Georgia 39897; and
The Cherokee of Georgia Tribal Council
100 Cherokee Way
Saint George, Georgia 31646.
Respectfully submitted,
Nealie McCormick
Chair, Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns
Heidi M. Altman, Ph.D.
Secretary, Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns
Academic Verifier is a former Anthropologist for National Parks Service
I can verify the veracity of the research provided to me by the Chickamauga Nation as to a vast majority of it coming directly from the National Archives of the United States and Canada. While independently verifying their research, it became both historically and anthropologically evident that the Chickamauga are who they presented themselves to be prior to the beginning of this project.
Concerning the question as to whether the Chickamauga are indigenous the answer is as long as “indigenous” is understood to be specifically linked to “Pre-Columbian”, then the Chickamauga are without question indigenous. They are occupants of a North American geographical region that has been analyzed academically only for perhaps a century and a half. The academic fashion has been to subdivide eras and areas into discrete bits, separated on maps and timelines by tidy strokes of the pen, while the realities of spoken languages, hunting and farming methods, architecture, and mythico-symbolic cultural practices are constantly evolving and being “re-invented” by those who use them. 1 - 8 It is often very difficult for modern observers to distinguish culture change due to routine trade, travel, or other similar processes, as contrasted with more catastrophic famine or war, especially when considering these problems at the causative level.
The Chickamauga and their ancestors have clearly been present in Southeastern North America since very early times. At least some of their ancestors were deeply embedded in the region before the ancestral Cherokee began their incursions from the North and like other opportunistic migrants, adopted significant elements of the Southern Ceremonial Complex, a religious system which dominated perhaps one fourth of the continent from Atlantic shores to the Great Plains, and from the Gulf of Mexico as far north as the Great Lakes. 9 - 18 But even in reviewing something as wide spread and ubiquitous as mound building, which is almost diagnostic for ancestral Southeast Woodland cultures, it becomes obvious that we are not dealing with a unified, monolithic culture, any more than noting the presence of church steeples all across Europe and the Americas could properly be used as diagnostic of a centuries-long Roman Empire. So, attempts to pigeonhole the Chickamauga of “belonging to” for example, the Mobilian Era seem rather pointless, even while acknowledging their demonstrable link to the Natchez and self-identification as People of the Mound, and recognizing millennia of shared heritage with other Southeastern tribes.
That the Chickamauga exemplify a different culture and religion from the Cherokee is manifest in religions and ceremonial practices of the Chickamauga and not held by the Cherokee and sacred texts not in the Cherokee language. This is further supported by words and placenames not translatable from the Cherokee. Furthermore, the Cherokee acknowledge that their ancestry is from the North, and that they are deeply tied to Algonquian speaking people in that region. 19 - 100
The presence or absence of notice by foreign scholars is simply meaningless in that case, since the invading Europeans only made note of individuals or groups who threatened the Old Worlders inevitable expansionism. 101, 102 In the first century or so of the American Colonial period, the few records we have of “native” life and culture make it very clear that clapboard houses and tailored clothing were popular with anyone of means. In these and later years, we also see very clearly that use of tribal and personal names was flexible, so any given individual was often “named” differently depending on the circumstances or politics of the speaker.
In this era, we also clearly see the already marked animosity between the Cherokee and the Chickamauga. The French and the British were both working to set up captive markets and the most valuable commodity was without question firearms. 103, 104, 105 Simply carrying a weapon from your “friends” was a guarantee of continued trade and a discernable signal to observers revealing just where your loyalties were. This is just one example of far more potent cultural traits than mundane pottery.
It should now be obvious that economic and political considerations take on much greater significance than what kind of pot your ancestors cooked in. The relative paucity of historical documents which identify the Chickamauga is to my way of thinking a telling sign of people who refuse to be “lumped in” with their old enemies the Cherokee, and who were trying to honor treaties with European nations that were put in place before 1776; treaties which are still valid. All of this is stunningly clear in the comments by President George Washington in 1792 and, noting that treaties are Constitutionally the responsibility of the President, we cannot be surprised or daunted by the seeming lack of references to the Chickamauga in Congressional or other later U. S. Government documents. 106 - 116 In passing, note that even as recently as Eisenhower, the Chief Executive accepted the premise that there exists a responsibility of the United States Government toward the Chickamauga.
The lack of currently recognized land reserves reveals northing more nor less than stark evidence of repeated good faith efforts to provide such for the Chickamauga, only to have all such agreements subsequently ignored by those who issued them. This is completely consistent with policies and practices at both the federal and state levels, which have been and are calculated to reduce and ultimately end fiscal and social obligations to Native American minorities, and includes genocidal efforts specifically aimed at the Chickamauga.
It should not be at all surprising that the popular conception that the Chickamauga are simply not mentioned in Government records is erroneous. 117 - 126 First, scholars routinely focus on one question, and as routinely, bypass information not directly related to their particular field of study. After all, if the ocean of mildly interesting trivia is not kept at bay, no progress can be measured, nor grant money secured for further work. Such historical minutia might amuse the undergraduates, but the seasoned experts know better than to be thus distracted. Second, the documentation of the existence of the Chickamauga and their relationship with the Government of the United States is not found by superficial inquiry, nor by simply asking the opinion of people or organizations who may have an interest in biasing any conclusions reached. 127 - 134 Unambiguous examples abound in documents from state archives and United States military records of overt, deliberate programs which have had and still have as their only objective the eradication of the Chickamaugan people, even to the extent of having individuals named on hit lists. One extreme but not unusual example is the existence of firearms which were government issued for specific campaigns and bear commemorative engravings stating their purpose.
Throughout these somewhat recent events, it has been difficult for casual observers to keep sorted out just who was on which side of which conflict. Questions of loyalty (and even paternity) are not resolved without very careful review; such careful study and analysis leaves no doubt that the historic record has been “edited” by those whom we identify as Cherokee, who have had as their key objective the validation of their own “favored nation” status. 135 - 142 The money this brings with it is frosting on the cake.
The Chickamauga have never been “terminated” as a tribe by the United States, nor have they been disavowed by any nation with whom they hold treaties. This is in stark contrast to the Cherokee, who themselves requested termination and who today hold no more legal legitimacy than a corporation (HR 2722 (86th) April, 1906; (34 Stat 137) Final Disposition of Oklahoma) and (HR 3852 June 4, 1924; An Act Providing for Final Disposition of the Affairs of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina (Sess 1 Ch253 1924)). It is also extremely significant that the latter group has gained de facto control of Indian Affairs in general in the United States, including the manipulation of other tribes’ membership policies, most notably by the “blood quantum” game, which is plain and simple eugenics, and flies in the face of the United States Constitution.
In short, the ethnic cleansing targeting the Chickamauga has been overt, long term, and is still being actively pursued. The fully credible documents and evidence supporting this conclusion are exhaustive and unassailable.
End Notes
1 Livingood, P.: (2010); Recent Discussions In Late Prehistoric Southern Archaeology; Native South; muse.jhu.edu.
2 Boudreaux, E. A.: (2005); The Archaeology of Town Creek: Chronology, Community Patterns, and Leadership at a Mississippian Town; Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
3 Buchanan, M. E.: (2014) Warfare and the Materialization of Daily Life at the Mississippian Common Field Site, Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology, University Graduate School, Indiana University.
4 Johanson, J. L.: (2017); A Household Approach to Reconstructing the Townsend Sites in East Tennessee, USA: Foodways and Daily Practice within a Mississippian Settlement, Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Anthropology, Graduate School, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
5 Kelso, R. S.: (2013): A Comparison of Mississippian Period Subadults from the Middle Cumberland and Eastern Regions of Tennessee to Assess Health and Past Population Interactions; Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Anthropology, Graduate School, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
6 Knight, V. J.: (1981) Mississippian Ritual; Doctor of Philosophy, University of Florida
7 Lulewicz, J; (2012) Network Histories of Southern Appalachia, AD 600 – 1600; Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia, Athens.
8 Siewert-Meyers. M. E.: (2011): Political Economy of Exotic Trade on the Mississippian Frontier: A Case Study of a Fourteenth Century Chiefdom in Southwestern Virginia; Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
9 Ehrhardt, K. L.; (2009): Copper Working Technologies, Contexts of Use, and Social Complexity in the Eastern Woodlands of Native North America; Springer Science and Business Media; J World Prehist; DOI 10.1007/s10963-009-9020-8
10 Council, R. B., Principal Investigator; Nicholas Honerkamp; (1989): An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Water Reservoir on Scott, Holywater, and Sewanee Creeks, Grundy County, Tennessee, The Municipality of Tracy City, Grundy County, Tennessee and Hendron Engineering Associates, Incorporates; The Jeffery L. Brown Institute of Archaeology the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
11 Council, R. B., Principal Investigator; Nicholas Honerkamp; (1989): Ross’s Landing at Chattanooga: A cultural Resource History of the Chattanooga Waterfront; A Final Repost Prepared for The RiverCity Company, Incorporated, Chattanooga, Tennessee; The Jeffery L. Brown Institute of Archaeology the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
12 Levithol, S. A., Moore, M. C., Spears, W. S.; (2015): The Algood SR-42 Project: Report on Phase II Excavations in Putnam County, Tennessee; Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Report of Investigations No. 18.
13 Deter-Wolf, A. and Moore, M. C.; (2015): The Riverbend Prison Site (40DV83): A Late Archaic and Early Woodland Camp Along the Cumberland River in Davidson County, Tennessee; Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Report of Investigations No. 19
14 Moore, M. C.; (2005): The Brentwood Library Site: A Mississippian Town on the Little Harpeth River, Williamson County, Tennessee; Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Archaeology Research Series No 15.
15 Deter-Wolf, A.; (2013): Fernvale (40WM51) A Late Archaic Occupation Along the South Harpeth River in Williamson County, Tennessee; Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Archaeology Research Series No 19.
16 Dye, D. H. and Brister, R. C.; (1986): The Protohistoric Period in the Mid-South: 1500 – 1700; Archaeological Report No 18; Proceedings of the 1983 Mid-South Archaeological Conference; Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.
17 Orr, K. G.; (1946): The Archaeological Situation at Spiro, Oklahoma; A Preliminary Report, American Antiquity, Vol 11, No 4 (Apr., 1946) 228-232+235-256; Cambridge University Press.
18 Sievert, A. K., with Rogers, J. D. and Contribution by Urcid, J.; (2011): Artifacts from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma; Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Number 49; Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, DC.
19 Hamilton, C.; (2016): Lost Nation of the Erie Part 1; The Chattanoogan.com; https://www.chattanoogan.com/2016/1/21/316430/Lost-Nation-of-the-Erie-Part-1.aspx
20 Hamilton, C.; (2016): Lost nation of the Erie Part 2; The Chattanoogan.com https://www.chattanoogan.com/2016/1/22/316562/Lost-Nation-of-the-Erie---Part-2.aspx
21 Hamilton, C.; Origins of the Cherokee Part 1 of 5; The Chattanoogan.com; https://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/9/7/283818/Origin-of-the-Cherokee---Part-1-of-5.aspx
22 Hamilton, C.; Origins of the Cherokee Part 2 of 5; The Chattanoogan.com; https://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/9/15/284418/Origin-of-the-Cherokee---Part-2-of-5.aspx
23 Hamilton, C.; Origins of the Cherokee Part 3 of 5; The Chattanoogan.com; https://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/9/20/284720/Origin-of-the-Cherokee---Part-3-of-5.aspx
24 Hamilton, C.; Origins of the Cherokee Part 4 of 5; The Chattanoogan.com; https://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/9/25/285045/Origin-of-the-Cherokee---Part-4-of-5.aspx
25 Hamilton, C.; Origins of the Cherokee Part 5 of 5; The Chattanoogan.com; https://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/9/29/285326/Origin-of-the-Cherokee---Part-5-of-5.aspx
26 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France 1610 – 1791
27 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 1 Acadia 1610 – 1613. 340 Pages
28 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 2 Acadia 1611 – 1614. 322 Pages
29 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 3 Acadia 1611 – 1616. 306 Pages
30 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 4 Acadia and Quebec 1616 -1629. 282 Pages
31 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 5 Quebec 1632 – 1633. 308 Pages
32 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 6Qubec 1633 – 1634. 338 Pages
33 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 7 Quebec, Huron, Cape Brenton 1634 – 1635. 318 Pages
34 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 8 Quebec, Huron, Cape Brenton 1634 – 1635. 320 Pages
35 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 9 Quebec 1636. 324 Pages
36 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 10 Hurons 1636. 338 Pages
37 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 11 Hurons and Quebec 1636 – 1637. 288 Pages
38 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 12 Quebec 1637. 285 Pages
39 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 13 Hurons 1637. 280 Pages
40 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 14 Hurons and Quebec 1637 – 1638. 298 Pages
41 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 15 Hurons and Quebec 1638 – 1639. 258 Pages
42 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 16 Quebec Hurons 1639. 270 Pages
43 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 17 Huron and the Three Rivers 1639 – 1640. 252 Pages
44 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 18 Huron and Quebec 1640. 267 Pages
45 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 19 Quebec and Hurons 1640. 282 Pages
46 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 20 Hurons and Quebec 1640 – 1641. 308 Pages
47 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 21 Quebec and Hurons 1641 – 1642. 320 Pages
48 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 22 Quebec and Hurons 1642. 319 Pages
49 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 23 Hurons Quebec Iroquois 1642 – 1643. 332 Pages
50 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 24 Lower Canada and Iroquois 1642 – 1643. 314 Pages
51 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 25 Iroquois Huron Quebec 1642 – 1644. 298 Pages
52 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 26 Lower Canada Hurons 1642 – 1644. 320 Pages
53 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 27 Hurons Lower Canada 1642 – 1645. 316 Pages
54 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 28 Hurons Iroquois Lower Canada 1645 – 1646. 328 Pages
55 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 29 Iroquois Lower Canada Hurons 1646. 292 Pages
56 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 30 Hurons Lower Canada 1646 – 1647. 306 Pages
57 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 31 Iroquois Lower Canada Abenakis 1647. 292 Pages
58 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 32 Gaspe Hurons Lower Canada 1647 – 1648. 313 Pages
59 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 33 Lower Canada Algonkins Hurons 1648 – 1649. 274Pages
60 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 34 Lower Canada Hurons 1649. 266 Pages
61 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 35 Hurons Lower Canada Algonkins 1650. 296 Pages
62 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 36 Lower Canada Abenakis 1650 – 1651. 248 Pages
63 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 37 Lower Canada Abenakis 1651 – 1652. 268 Pages
64 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 38 Abenakis Lower Canada Hurons 1652 – 1653. 300 Pages
65 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 39 Hurons 1653. 268 Pages
66 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 40 Hurons Lower Canada Iroquois 1653. 260 Pages
67 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 41 Lower Canada Iroquois 1654 – 1656. 260 Pages
68 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 42 Lower Canada Iroquois 1632 – 1657. 298 Pages
69 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 43 Lower Canada Iroquois 1656 – 1657. 328 Pages
70 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 44 Iroquois Lower Canada Iroquois 1656 – 1658. 324 Pages
71 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 45 Lower Canada Acadia Iroquois Ottawas 1659 – 1660. 274 Pages
72 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 46 Lower Canada Ottawas Canadian Interior 1659 – 1661. 308 Pages
73 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 47 Iroquois Lower Canada 1661 – 1663. 332 Pages
74 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 48 Lower Canada Ottawas 1662 – 1664. 294 Pages
75 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 49 Lower Canada Iroquois 1663 - 1665 276
76 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 50 Lower Canada Iroquois Ottawas 1666 – 1667. 334 Pages
77 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 51 Ottawas Lower Canada Iroquois 1666 – 1668. 296 Pages
78 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 52 Lower Canada Iroquois Ottawas 1667 – 1669. 262 Pages
79 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 53 Lower Canada Iroquois 1669 – 1670. 302 Pages
80 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 54 Iroquois Ottawas Lower Canada 1669 – 1671. 310 Pages
81 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 55 Lower Canada Iroquois Ottawas 1670 – 1672. 328 Pages
82 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 56 Lower Canada Iroquois Ottawas Hudson Bay 1671 – 1672. 310 Pages
83 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 57 Hurons Iroquois Ottawas 1672 – 1673. 325 Pages
84 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 58 Ottawas Lower Canada Iroquois 1672 – 1674. 298 Pages
85 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 59 Lower Canada Illinois Ottawas 1673 – 1677. 340 Pages
86 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 60 Lower Canada Illinois Iroquois Ottawas 1675 – 1677. 326 Pages
87 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 61 All Missions 1677 – 1680. 278 Pages
88 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 62 Lower Canada Iroquois Ottawas 1681 – 1683. 282 Pages
89 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 63 Lower Canada Iroquois 1667 – 1687. 307 Pages
90 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 64 Ottawas Lower Canada Iroquois Illinois 1689 – 1695. 286 Pages
91 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 65 Lower Canada Mississippi Valley 1696 – 1702. 274 Pages
92 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 66 Illinois Louisiana Iroquois Lower Canada 1702 – 1712. 352 Pages
93 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 67 Lower Canada Abenakis Louisiana 1716 – 1727. 360 Pages
94 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 68 Lower Canada Crees Louisiana 1720 – 1736. 336 Pages
95 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 69 All Missions 1710 – 1756. 320 Pages
96 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 70 All Missions 1747 – 1764. 326 Pages
97 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 71 Lower Canada Illinois 1759 – 1791. 422 Pages
98 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 72 INDEX A – I. 380 Pages
99 Thwaites, R. G.; (1610-1791): The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610 – 1791: The Original French, Latin, and Italian Texts, with English Translations and Notes Illustrated by Portraits, Maps, and Facsimiles – Volume 73 INDEX J- Z. 400 Pages
100 Harle, M. S.; (2010): Biological Affinities and the Construction of Cultural Identity for the Proposed Coosa Chiefdom; Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Anthropology Graduate School, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
101 Kinnaird, L.; (1946): Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1945 in Four Volumes – Volume 4, in Spain and Mississippi Valley1765 – 1794: Part 3, Problems of the Frontier Defense 1794 – 1794; United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
102 Brooking, R. G.; (2013): My Zeal for the Real Happiness of Both Great Britain and the Colonies: The Conflicting Imperial Career of Sir James Wright.
103 Pate, J. P.; (1969): The Chickamauga: A Forgotten Segment of Indian Resistance on the Southern Frontier; Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History; Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi.
104 Tortora, D. J.; (2011): Testing the Rusted Chain: Cherokees, Carolinians, and the War of the American Southeast, 1756 – 1763; Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History, Graduate School of Duke University.
105 Wallace, J. L.; (2014): Building Forts in Their Hearts: Anglo-Cherokee Relations on the Mid-Eighteenth-Century Southern Frontier; Doctor of Philosophy Graduate School of The Ohio State University
106 Lowrie, W. and Clarke, M. S; (1832): American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Third Session of the Thirteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 3, 1789, and Ending March, 3 1915. Volume 4, Selected and Edited, Under the Authority of Congress; Gales and Seaton, Washington: 959 Pages
107 Lowrie, W. and Clarke, M. S; (1832): American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Third Session of the Thirteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 3, 1789, and Ending March, 3 1915. Volume 2, Selected and Edited, Under the Authority of Congress; Gales and Seaton, Washington: 855 Pages
108 George Washington Fourth Annual Address to Congress, November 6, 1792.
109 Powell, J. W.; (1900): Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1897 – 98 In Two Parts – Part 1; Government Printing Office; Washington.
110 Louisiana: European Exploration and the Louisiana Purchase A Special Presentation from the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress
111 The Rice Institute Pamphlet https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4465667.pdf
112 Bartram, W.; (1791) Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, The Cherokee Country, The Extensive Territories of the Muscogulgi’s or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws. James and Johnson 1791, Philadelphia, Reprinted for J. Johnson, London. 584 Pages
113 Brock, R. A.; (1884): The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, Lieutenant-Governor of the Colony of Virginia, 1751 – 1758, Now first Printed from the Manuscript in the Collections of the Virginia Historical Society. Volume 2. 802 Pages
114 Elliot, L. P.; (1911): Early History of Nashville; The Board of Education, Nashville, Ambrose Printing Company, Nashville.
115 Johnston, H. P.; (1891): The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 1782 – 1793. Volume 3; G. P. Putnam’s Sons New York, The Knickerbocker Press.
116 Johnston, H. P.; (1893): The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 1794 – 1826. Volume 4; G. P. Putnam’s Sons New York, The Knickerbocker Press.
117 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Letters 11 Pages
118 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Letters Governor of Virginia
119 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives Documents and Document Numbers 8pgs
120 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Handwritten About Chickamauga 4pgs
121 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Handwritten About Chickamauga By Martin 4pgs
122 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Handwritten About Chickamauga Governor of Virginia
123 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Handwritten Secretary of War 2pgs
124 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records John Knox 1792 9pgs
125 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Relating to Chickamauga 213pgs
126 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Papers of the War Department, National Archives War Department Records Robertson and Piamingo 2pgs
127 Research, History, 1782 – 1819, National Archives Annals of Congress, List of Public Acts of Congress Relating to the Public Lands 21pgs
128 Research, History, 1782 – 1819, National Archives Annals of Congress, List of Public Acts of Congress 56pgs
129 Research, History, 1782 – 1819, National Archives Annals of Congress, National Registry National Archives United States Congress 8pgs
130 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Achieves Presidential Papers, National Registry, National Archives Presidential Papers Various with Jefferson 12pgs
131 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Achieves Presidential Papers, National Registry, National Archives Thomas Jefferson Handwritten Letter 1909
132 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Achieves Presidential Papers, National Registry, National Archives Presidential Papers James K Polk Annual Address April 13 1846 2pgs
133 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Achieves Presidential Papers, National Registry, National Archives Presidential Papers Thomas Jefferson 8th Address 4pgs
134 Research, History, 1782 to 1819, National Achieves Presidential Papers, National Registry, National Archives Founders Online Washington Papers Extracts of Correspondence on Indian Affairs 1797 24pgs
135 Wright, J. L.; (1981): The Only Land They Knew: The Tragic Story of the American Indians in the Old South; The Free Press A Division of Macmillan Publishing Company; New York
136 Miller, M. E.; (2013): Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgement; University of Oklahoma Press, Norman
137 Hoig, S. W.; (1998): The Cherokees and Their Chiefs: In Wake of an Empire; The University of Arkansas Press; Fayetteville
138 King, T. L; Navarro, J.; and Smith, A.; (2020): Otherwise Worlds: Against Settler Colonialism and Anti-Blackness; Duke University Press, Durham.
139 Corlew, R. E.; (1989): Tennessee: A Short History; The University of Tennessee Press; Knoxville.
140 Garrison, T. A. and O’Brien, G.; (2017): The Native South: New Histories and Enduring Legacies; University of Nebraska Press; Lincoln
141 Malone, H. T.; (1956): Cherokees of the Old South: A People in Transition; The University of Georgia Press; Athens
142 Walker, R. B.; (2013): Appalachian Indian Trails of the Chickamauga: Lower Cherokee Settlements; Bluewater Publications; Killen, Alabama
Academic Verifier holds a Doctorate in History
What follows is a summary of research done to answer a series of questions, and to verify the accuracy of research done by the Chickamauga Nation in support of its request for federal services. The information compiled is extensive, and presents a convincing accumulation of supporting evidence. Evidence cited in this summary as well as material not used here has been subjected to critical analysis consistent with standard practice at colleges and universities nationwide. This summary is by no means exhaustive, nor does it attempt to present more than a few salient examples for purposes of illustration.
The sections below, supported by the sources cited, will demonstrate:
1. That the Chickamauga are and have been recognized by the Executive Branch.
2. That the Chickamauga are and have been recognized by the Legislative Branch.
3. That the Chickamauga are named in U.S. Statutes at Large as the Lower Cherokee.
4. That the Chickamauga have had a government-to-government relationship with Spain.
5. That the Chickamauga have made treaties with the United States.
6. That the Chickamauga have had land held in reserve for them by the United States.
7. That the Chickamauga have not been terminated as a tribe by the United States.
8. That the Chickamauga have been subjected to ethnic cleansing by various entities, including state militias and the United States.
Are the Chickamauga federally recognized by the Executive Branch?
The Executive Branch extended de facto recognition to the Chickamauga, at least as early as 1792. President George Washington, in his fourth annual address to Congress, November 6, 1792, referred to “a part of the Cherokees, known by the name of Chickamagas, inhabitating five Villages on the Tennesee River. . . .”1 Additional confirmation can be found in a memorandum from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to President George Washington dated November 28, 1792, in which Jefferson referred to “hostilities committed by the Chuckamogga towns. . . .”2
The War Department also extended de facto recognition to the Chickamauga. For example, Secretary of War Henry Knox referred to “some of the Chickamagas, and others of the Cherokees, who have had considerable intercourse with the Shawanese. . . .” In October, 1792, Knox wrote to the governor of South Carolina, mentioning “the five Lower Cherokee or Chickamaga towns, on the Tennessee river.” 3
Are the Chickamauga federally recognized by the Legislative Branch?
The Legislative Branch extended recognition to the Chickamauga by virtue of proclamation of the treaties enumerated below. The Senate exercised its duty to the President to advise and consent on treaties. Inclusion of the below-mentioned treaties and conventions in the United States Statutes at Large is sufficient demonstration of legislative recognition.
Are the Chickamauga named in U.S. Statutes at Large 7 Stat. 156 as the Lower Cherokee?
The statute in question, 7 Stat. 156-160, is a treaty between the Cherokee and the United States, concluded on July 8, 1817. The Lower Cherokee (Chickamauga) are mentioned and so named in the preamble. Many Chickamauga leaders signed this treaty.4 The preamble refers to an 1808 request from the Lower Cherokee (Chickamauga) to exchange land east of the Mississippi River for an equal amount of land along the Arkansas and White rivers. In January, 1809, President Thomas Jefferson gave his support to the request. 5
Have the Chickamauga ever had a government to government relationship with Spain?
The Chickamauga engaged in extensive diplomatic negotiation with Spanish colonial officials. Manuel Gayoso de Lemos, governor of the Natchez District, wrote to Baron de Carondelet, governor of Louisiana, to describe his meeting with Chickamauga chiefs, including Bloody Fellow, which took place between December 18, 1792 and January 1, 1793. Among items discussed was a request for a Spanish fort to be built on the Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals. Bloody Fellow also complained bitterly about “the usurpations that the Americans have carried out on his lands and even more of the deception which they were dealt in the Hopewell Treaty.” Both parties displayed maps delineating territorial claims and boundaries. 6
Spain also provided arms and ammunition to the Chickamauga. As an example, John Watts, a principal Chickamauga leader and chosen successor of Dragging Canoe, traveled to Pensacola at the behest of Governor Arturo O’Neill. There, he reportedly saw a large quantity of arms, powder, and lead. Upon his return to his home at Willstown in the autumn of 1792, he brought with him ten packhorses laden with Spanish arms and munitions. 7
Additional confirmation comes from a letter of April 5, 1793 written by leaders of the Chickamauga, to Baron de Carondelet. In the letter, the leaders thanked Carondelet for his assistance, and complained particularly about the Cumberland settlements, and the American claim that those settlements were legitimate under the provisions of previous treaties. 8
Spain formally extended protection and alliance to the Chickamauga under Article 3 of the Treaty of Nogales, October 28, 1793, granting Spanish protection to the Cherokee, i.e., Chickamauga. 9
Have the Chickamauga made treaties with the United States?
The Chickamauga have been party to several treaties with the United States. Among those are the Treaty of Hopewell, concluded on November 28, 1785 (7 Stat. 18-21); the Treaty of Holston, concluded on July 2, 1791 (7 Stat. 39-42); addenda and corrections to the Treaty of Holston, concluded on June 26, 1794 (7 Stat. 43-44); a treaty concluded near Tellico on October 2, 1798 (7 Stat. 62-65); a treaty concluded at Tellico on October 24, 1804 (7 Stat. 228-229); treaties made at Tellico October 25 and 27, 1805 (7 Stat. 93-96); a convention concluded at Washington on January 7, 1806 (7 Stat. 101-103); a treaty and convention concluded at Washington on March 22, 1806 (7 Stat. 138-140); a treaty concluded at the Chickasaw council house on September 14, 1816 (7 Stat. 148-149); the treaty concluded at the Cherokee Agency on July 8, 1817 (7 Stat. 156-160; see section specific to this treaty above); a treaty concluded at Washington on February 27, 1819, and addenda (7 Stat. 195-200); a treaty concluded at Washington on May 6, 1828 (7 Stat. 311-315); and a treaty concluded at Ft. Gibson on the Arkansas River, February 14, 1833 (7 Stat. 414-416).
Have the Chickamauga had land held in reserve for them by the United States?
Historically, land reserves were granted to the Chickamauga, often to specific individuals. Perhaps the most accessible example is the reserve granted to Doublehead, which lay along the north bank of the Tennessee River, between Elk River and Cypress Creek, near present-day Florence, Alabama. This reserve was specifically ceded to the United States by Article 10 of the Treaty of July 8, 1817 (see 7 Stat. 159). In 1833, Article 1 of the Treaty of Ft. Gibson guaranteed the Chickamauga seven million acres “to them forever”. 10
Have the Chickamauga ever been terminated as a tribe by the United States?
The research presented for verification did not include any material to indicate that the Chickamauga have been terminated by the United States. Additional investigation has not found any information relative to any termination of the Chickamauga. The logical conclusion is that no such termination has taken place.
Have the Chickamauga been subject to ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, various State Militias, and the United States?
In July, 1782, Governor Alexander Martin of North Carolina wrote to Brigadier General Charles McDowell, instructing him to raise a force of 500 men from Sullivan and Washington counties (in present-day Tennessee), which would proceed under the command of Colonel Isaac Shelby “to the Chickamoggy Town, which Town he is to attack and destroy, with such Indian males as he shall find therein. . . .” 11
On January 10, 1789, John Sevier, nominal governor of the short-lived state of Franklin, launched a surprise attack against a Chickamauga encampment at Flint Creek, in present Unicoi County, Tennessee. Sevier’s forces attacked with artillery, while riflemen fired from multiple positions. The fighting became hand-to-hand, and in less than an hour, at least 145 Chickamauga lay dead, while many others fled into the forest. According to Sevier, “by the blood we have traced for miles all over the woods it is supposed the greatest part of them retreated with wounds. Our loss is very inconsiderable, it consists of five dead, and 16 wounded. . . .” 12
This is again confirmed by the report of Maj. James Ore to Governor William Blount of the Southwest Territory, Sept. 24, 1794. Ore acted under orders from Gen. James Robertson, marched from Nashville at the head of 500 mounted riflemen, and on Sept. 13, destroyed the Chickamauga towns of Nickajack and Running Water. According to Ore, “the slaughter was great, but cannot be accurately reported, as many were killed in the Tennessee.” Ore estimated that his men killed “upwards of fifty” in the two towns, at a cost of three wounded. 13 Gov. Blount officially disavowed the action in a note to Secretary of War Henry Knox on Sept. 22, 1794. In it, he stated: “I assure you, that if General Robertson has given an order for the destruction of these towns, he is not warranted in so doing by any order from me.” 14
1 “Address to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, 6 November 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0189. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 11, 16 August 1792 – 15 January 1793, ed. Christine Sternberg Patrick. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2002, pp. 342–351.]
2 “Memorandum from Thomas Jefferson,28 November 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0258. [Original source: The Papers ofGeorge Washington, Presidential Series, vol. 11, 16 August 1792 – 15 January1793, ed. Christine Sternberg Patrick. Charlottesville: University of VirginiaPress, 2002, p. 448.]
3 Henry Knox to Governor of Virginia, May 16, 1792. American State Papers, Indian Affairs. Vol. 1, p. 255. Knox to Governor of South Carolina, October 27, 1792. American State Papers, Indian Affairs. Vol. 1, p. 262.
4 Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America Vol. VII (Boston: Little & Brown, 1846), pp. 156-160.
5 “To Thomas Jefferson from Cherokee Nation, 26 November 1808,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9163. For Jefferson’s reply, see “From Thomas Jefferson to Cherokee Deputation, 9 January 1809,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9498
6 Manuel Gayoso de Lemos to Baron de Carondelet, Natchez, January 8, 1793. Trans. in Charles A. Weeks, Paths to a Middle Ground. (Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press, 2005), pp. 203-206. One such map, “Confederación de las tribus indias de los Montes Apalaches, ríos Ohio y Mississipi, ataque de Cumberland por los Chiraquíes y Creek” can be found in the Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid. Estado, MPD.20.
7 For an account of Watts’s journey, and the Spanish arms, see American State Papers, Indian Affairs. Vol. 1, pp. 327-328.
8 “Enclosure: Cherokee Nation to Baron de Carondelet, 5 April 1793,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0287. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 26, 11 May–31 August 1793, ed. John Catanzariti. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 316–317.]
9 Tratado de amistad y garantías entre S.M.C. Rey de España y Emperador de las Indias por una parte y por la otra las Naciones Chicacha, Creek, Talapuche y Alibamones, Cherokee y Chakta. Original in Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla. Digitized images available at: http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/17800.
10 For the specific text anddelineation of boundaries of the seven million acre grant, see 7 Stat. 415.
11 Alexander Martin to CharlesMcDowell, July 23, 1782. Colonial and State Records of North Carolina Vol. 16, pp. 697-698.
12 For the complete account, see Augusta Chronicle, May 2, 1789.
13 James Ore to William Blount, Knoxville, Sept. 24, 1794. American State Papers, Indian Affairs. Vol. 1, p. 632.
14 William Blount to Henry Knox, Knoxville, Sept. 22, 1794. ASP, Indian Affairs. Vol. 1, p. 633.
Legislative Branch Recognition of the Chickamauga - 16 Treaties Between the Chickamauga and the United States
1. Treaty of Hopewell, 7 Stat. 18 (Nov. 28, 1785)
• Chickamauga signatories: Koatohee or Corn Tassel of Toque, Gritzs of Chickamaga, Tuckasee or Young Terrapin of Allajoy, Chokasatahe or Chickasaw Killer Tasonta, Sower Mush of Kooloque, Umatooetha or Water Hunter (“Duwali,” “Bold Hunter,” or “Bowls”) Choikamawga, Wyuka of Lookout Mountain, Tulco or Tom of Chatuga. Witness – Author Coody
2. Treaty of Holston, 7 Stat. 39 (July 2, 1791)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Holston: Chuleoah or the Boots, Enoleh, or Black Fox, Tuckaseh or Terrapin, Chickasawtete or Chickasaw Killer, Tuskegatehe or Tuskega Killer, Kanetetoka or Standing Turkey, Kunoskeskie, or John Watts, Nenetooyah, or Bloody Fellow, Chuquilatague, or Double Head, Too wayelloh, “Duwali” or Bold Hunter, Talohteske or Upsetter
3. Treaty of Tellico Blockhouse, (Nov. 8, 1794)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Tellico Block House Chuquiiatague, or Double Head
4. Treaty of Tellico, 7 Stat. 62 (Oct. 2, 1798)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Tellico: Nenetuah, or Bloody Fellow, Kanowsurhee, or Broom, Kettegiskie (Kittagiska), Tauquotihee or Glass, Tallotuskee (Talotiskee), Charly
5. Treaty of Tellico, 7 Stat. 288 (Oct. 24, 1804)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Tellico: Tolluntuskie, Broom, Sour Mush, Path Killer, James Vann
6. Treaty of Tellico, 7 Stat. 93 (Oct. 25 1805)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Tellico: Fox or Ennollee, Path Killer, Glass, or Tauquatehee, Double head, or Dhuqualutauge, Dick Justice, Turtle at Home, or Sullicooahwolu, Talotiskee, Broom, or Cunnaweesoskee, John Greenwood, or Sour Mush, Chulioah, Katigiskee, John Jolly, or Eulatakee, Dreadfulwater, or Aumaudoskee, John Watts, Jr., Tuskegittihee or Long Fellow, Tuckasee or Terrapin,
7. Treaty of Tellico, 7 Stat. 95 (Oct. 27, 1805)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Tellico: Black Fox, or Ennone, The Glass, or Tunnquetihee, Kutigeskee, Turtle at Home, or Sullicookiewalar, Dick Justice, Chulea or Gentleman Tom, Broom, or Cannarwesoske, Bald Hunter or Toowayullau, Double Head, or Chuquacuttague, Chickawawtihee or Chickasawtihee Killer
8. Treaty of Washington, 7 Stat. 101 (Jan. 7, 1806)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Washington: Double Head, James Vanu (Vann), Tallotiskee, Chulioa, Sour Mush, Turtle at home, Broom, John Jolly, John Lowery
9. Treaty of Washington, 7 Stat. 138 (Mar. 22, 1816)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Washington: Colonel John Lowry, Major Ridge
10. Treaty of Chickasaw Council House, 7 Stat. 148 (Sept. 14, 1816)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Chickasaw Council House: Spring Frog, Path Killer, The Glass, Sour Mush, Chulioa, Dick Justice, The Boot, Chickasawlua
11. Treaty of the Cherokee Agency, 7 Stat. 156 (July 8, 1817)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of the Cherokee Agency: George Lowry, Sour Mush, Chulioa, Chickasautchee, Big Half Breed, Going Snake, Leyestisky, Dreadful Water, Chyula, White Man Killer, Toochalar, The Glass, Wassosee, John Jolly, The Gourd, Spring Frog, John D. Chisholm, James Rogers, Wawhatchy, Attalona, Kulsuttchee, Tuskekeetchee, Chillawgatchee, John Smith, and Toosawallata,
12. Treaty of Washington, 7 Stat. 195 (Feb. 27, 1819)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Washington: George Lowry, Path Killer, Dick Justice, Path Killer, jr., Going Snake
13. Treaty of Washington, 7 Stat. 311 (May 6, 1828)
• Signatories: Chief Black Fox – Died in 1811, Thomas Graves, George Guess – Sequoyah Not a Western Cherokee Chief, Thomas Maw – Paid by the United States to promote the Treaty to the Eastern Cherokee, George Marvis – Claims to have been made Chief in 1830, John Looney – Voted as the last Western Cherokee Chief in 1838 after John Jolly who did not sign, John Rogers Jr. became Chief in 1839 and was deposed by John Ross in 1839. According to War Department Records, these men did not go to Washington to sign a treaty. They were kept in Washing DC for months (kidnapped and being under duress they could not legally sign a document) and refused to be allowed to return home by the military. They refused to sign the treaty and the military plied them with alcohol for weeks before having them all so drunk (legally incapacitated and unable to legally sign a document), that they signed the treaty knowing they would be killed upon return because of the 1824 law against selling or trading lands of the Chickamauga.
14. Treaty of Ft. Gibson, 7 Stat. 413 (Feb. 14, 1833)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Ft. Gibson: John Jolly, Black Coat, Walter Weller, Glass,
15. Treaty of Camp Holmes (or the Treaty with the Comanche and others), 7 Stat. 474 (Aug. 24, 1835)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of Camp Holmes: Dutch
16. Treaty of New Echota, 7 Stat. 478 (Dec. 29, 1835)
• Chickamauga signatories: Treaty of New Echota: Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot, Stand Watie, John Ridge, James Rogers, John Smith
Executive Branch Recognition of The Chickamauga Nation
George Washington’s Fourth Annual Address
November 6, 1792
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:
. . . .
A part of the Cherokees, known by the name of Chickamagas, inhabitating five Villages on the Tennesee River, have been long in the practice of committing depredations on the neighbouring settlements.
It was hoped that the treaty of Holstin, made with the Cherokee nation in July 1791, would have prevented a repetition of such depredations. But the event has not answered this hope. The Chickamagas, aided by some Banditti of another tribe in their vicinity, have recently perpetrated wanton and unprovoked hostilities upon the Citizens of the United States in that quarter. The information which has been received on this subject will be laid before you. Hitherto defensive precautions only have been strictly enjoined and observed.
It is not understood that any breach of Treaty, or aggression whatsoever, on the part of the United States, or their Citizens, is even alleged as a pretext for the spirit of hostility in this quarter.
. . . .
I cannot dismiss the subject of Indian affairs without again recommending to your consideration the expediency of more adequate provision for giving energy to the laws throughout our interior frontier, and for restraining the commission of outrages upon the Indians; without which all pacific plans must prove nugatory. To enable, by competent rewards, the employment of qualified and trusty persons to reside among them, as agents, would also contribute to the preservation of peace and good neighbourhood. If, in addition to these expedients, an eligible plan could be devised for promoting civilization among the friendly tribes, and for carrying on trade with them, upon a scale equal to their wants, and under regulations calculated to protect them from imposition and extortion, its influence in cementing their interests with our's could not but be considerable.
War Department Records
All Links and Document Records were Provided to the Congress on the United States.
Papers of the War Department, February 10, 1794. From Isaac Shelby To Henry Knox
SUMMARY: Governor Shelby fully expects that the Creek and Chickamauga Indians will attack frontier settlers as soon as winter breaks so he requests authority to take measures for the defensive protection of the frontiers of Kentucky.
Papers of the Department of War, October 30, 1792. From Henry Knox To Henry Lee
SUMMARY: Congress to discuss war and peace with Chiccamagas. Only defensive action by state to be taken in dealing with Indians.
Papers of the Department of War, February 15, 1793. From Henry Knox To Henry Lee
SUMMARY: Indians desire peace, Governor Blount to call general council to discuss terms.
Papers of the War Department, August 13, 1792. From Henry Knox To James Wood
SUMMARY: Advises against disputes with neighboring Indians for fear it will spread to all southern tribes. Result of Grand National Council was peace among Cherokees towards U.S.
Papers of the War Department, February 11, 1784. From Alexander Martin To Joseph Martin
SUMMARY: Governor Martin (of North Carolina) directs an investigation into murders committed in the Cumberland Gap. He states that if Cherokee or Chickamauga Indians are responsible a military expedition will be sent into their nation to obtain "satisfaction" unless they surrender the murderers. Directs that squatters be ordered off Indian Lands. Discusses an agreement between Spain and the Delaware Indians. Also mentions a treaty to be held with the Indians.
Notification of Divide in Cherokee Nation
Sevier invited to join council held in Cherokee nation in town of Chota. At council Sevier was notified that the five lower towns had declared war on United States, J. Watts heads party. Hostile Indians plan on attacking frontier settlements. Assurances that every other part of the Cherokee nation is happily at peace with United States. Special note on Indian town names and names of chiefs that oppose declaration of war, Sevier provided those chiefs with Indian goods so as to foster good relations.
Campaign against Creeks and Cherokees
General Robertson informs Major Ore that he is to defend the district of Mero against a large party of Creeks and Cherokees of the Lower towns. Ordered to "destroy the Lower Cherokee towns... taking care to spare women and children, and to treat all prisoners, who may fall into your hands, with humanity, and thereby teach those savages to spare the citizens of the United States, under similar circumstances."
Report No 81 On Petition By Stephen Cantrill
Report of Sec. of War on petition: Cantrill requested compensation for services provided related to expedition in Cherokee nations country. Cantrill ordered by General Robertson to destroy two indian towns (Running Water and Nickajack). Secretary of War did not sanction event.
Peace with Lower Cherokee
After having corresponded with Double-head, Chief of the Cherokees, Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory orders that General Benjamin Logan immediately desist from attempts to invade Lower Cherokee towns, who are in a state of peace with the United States. Rogue elements of the military had previously destroyed the friendly Cherokee towns of Nickajack and Running Water.
Destruction of Lower Cherokee Towns
Secretary Knox requests that Mr. Dandridge submit to President Washington the enclosed letter from Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory, regarding the destruction of two lower Cherokee towns, Running Water and Nickajack.
Indian Hostilities
Intelligence from Gov. Blount states that five hundred warriors from Chickamaga towns and some banditti Upper Creeks plan hostilities against the U.S. and will strike the Cumberland settlements. Authorized Governor to make defensive preparations.
Defensive Protection Of The Frontiers
Governor Shelby fully expects that the Creek and Chickamauga Indians will attack frontier settlers as soon as winter breaks so he requests authority to take measures for the defensive protection of the frontiers of Kentucky.
Avoiding Conflict With The Southern Tribes
Knox provides Blount with his assessment of the situation with the southern Indians and projected additions to the military establishment in the South. The Indians are not satisfied with the actions of the Cumberland settlements but it appears that the Creek chiefs are willing to council with Seagrove soon. Blount is asked to take whatever action is needed to end conflict with the Chickamaugas.
notable phrase - The Indians are dissatisfied about the Cumberland business and the President is exceedingly desirous of knowing the cause of it...In this event Sir, you could not do more acceptable service to the government, or more enhance your own reputation, than by terminating the affair with the said Chickamaugas without futher conflict.
Murders In The Cumberland Gap
Governor Martin (of North Carolina) directs an investigation into murders committed in the Cumberland Gap. He states that if Cherokee or Chickamauga Indians are responsible a military expedition will be sent into their nation to obtain "satisfaction" unless they surrender the murderers. Directs that squatters be ordered off Indian Lands. Discusses an agreement between Spain and the Delaware Indians. Also mentions a treaty to be held with the Indians.
Conference with Cherokee leadership
Conference between Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory, and several Cherokee representatives: Colonel John Watts of a Lower Cherokee town (Will's town), and Scolacutta (aka, Hanging Maw), along with other Cherokee chiefs. Also present were 400 warriors and several citizens of the United States. Briefly discuss the illegal destruction by Major Ore of the friendly Lower Cherokee towns of Nickajack and Running Water, along with illegal aggression by General James Robertson. Blount condemns these actions and stresses repeatedly that he wants permanent, sustained peace with the Cherokee, which the Cherokee desire as well. Both Blount and the Cherokee chiefs discuss hostility by the unfriendly Creek Nation, along with the American alliance with the Chickasaw and Choctaw. They also smoke a tobacco pipe during the conference as a sign of friendship.
Provisions granted to Indian chief
Informs Governor William Blount of Southwest Territory that Indian chief Tickagiskee recently arrived at Tellico Block House with about 300 Indians. They requested provisions, which were granted. Writes that Colonel Watts has arrived to negotiate for an exchange of prisoners. Watts has informed him that one or two days before the illegal destruction of the Lower Cherokee towns, Nickajack and Running Watter, two scalps were brought into the former, one by a Cherokee.
Punish Them in the Severest Manner
Governor Blount provides General Robertson with his orders regarding the military prevention of incursions into peaceful settlements by hostile Cherokees and Creeks.
Bad Doings of the Creeks and Cherokees
Piamingo warns Smith of the depredations of the Creeks and Cherokees and wonders why the Americans even bother to treat with Indians that will be at war with them until they are defeated. They have even invited the Chickasaws and Choctaws to join them in a war against the United States.
notable phrase - I have often told you of the bad doings of the Creeks and Cherokees, which I am sure they will not cease to continue till they feel the weight of the white people which I hope will not be long...But my brother, I hardly know what you mean by treating with tribes that are always at war with you, and will be until you whip them perhaps you then may have a treaty with them that will keep the peace.
Defining Genocide / Ethnic Cleansing
According to the United Nations, the legal definition of genocide: Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Again, the United Nations defines Ethnic Cleansing as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
US Legal definition of Ethnic Cleansing: Ethnic Cleansing is the deliberate and systematic removal of a racial, political, or cultural group from a specific geographical area. A 1993 United Nations Commission defined it more specifically as, "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous."
The term Ethnic Cleansing is different from genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic Cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group. The idea in Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal”. Genocide is a subset of murderous Ethnic Cleansing. The war events in former Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo is an example for Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing. Jews killed during Nazi regime is an example for genocide.
From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
Crimes Against Humanity
Crimes against humanity are defined as “any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” The acts include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape (and other gender-based or sex crimes), group-based persecution, enforced disappearance, apartheid, and “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
Source: 1998 Article 7, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing
The term Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing refers to the forced removal of an ethnic group from a territory. A United Nations Commission of Experts investigating the former Yugoslavia defined it as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.” Unlike crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes, Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing is not recognized as a standalone crime under international law. However, the practice of Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing may constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.
Source: 1993 letter from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council
Genocide
Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
• Killing members of the group.
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Source: 1948 Article 2, UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Mass Atrocities
Instances of “large-scale, systematic violence against civilian populations.” Although the term mass atrocities has no formal legal definition, it usually refers to genocide (as defined above), crimes against humanity, war crimes, and Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing.
Source: Fundamentals of Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, Scott Straus
Mass Killing
The deliberate actions of armed groups, including but not limited to state security forces, rebel armies, and other militias, that result in the deaths of at least 1,000 noncombatant civilians targeted as part of a specific group over a period of one year or less.
Source: Early Warning Project
War Crimes
War crimes are serious violations of international humanitarian law and occur in the state of armed conflict. The Rome Statute lists numerous acts that may constitute war crimes, including attacks on civilians, forcibly recruiting and using child soldiers, and destruction of educational and religious institutions.
Source: Rule 156, International Committee for the Red Cross
The Chickamauga Continue to Exist as a People
Even the slightest hint that might suggest the Chickamauga have been eradicated from this continent only furthers the truth that the Chickamauga are an At-Risk people. Every time someone suggests that the Chickamauga are extinct or have ceased to exist is further proof that ethnic cleansing of the Chickamauga continues to this day. The Chickamauga are not extinct, “We Stand.”
The Chickamauga Nation’s State Band Rolls are filled with thousands of scientifically documented and verified ancestries and genealogies many of which date back to prior to the Declaration of Independence. The Chickamauga can prove through ancestry and genealogical records that they did not become extinct as a people simply because the Cherokee wish it to be so. First and foremost was the continued effort by the United States and its allies, the Cherokee and Chickasaw, to exterminate the Chickamauga through ethnic cleansing. After reading hundreds of documents which document in detail the who and where of the ethnic cleansing, it is of little wonder why the Chickamauga learned to blend into their local communities.
The Chickamauga owned the finest of couture, large homes and plantations in the mid-1700s with orchards, farms, and ranches which is not even up for debate in educated circles. The Chickamauga were masters of blending into their local communities so as to be able to raid and protect their way of life. As they began the migration process to Missouri and Arkansas in the late 1700s and early 1800s, they duplicated their success with orchards, farms, and ranches again and suffered the same results for being intelligent. When it became legal to kill the Indians and take their land and property as long as half was given to the government, the Chickamauga began to realize that their future was again relegated to hiding in plain sight.
As early as statehood in Arkansas, the Chickamauga were telling people they were “Black Dutch” or some variation thereof. They went from land owners and with riches to being poor, dark-skinned whites with no real access to education because of the color of their skin. As late as the early 2000s, grandparents would still tell their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to hide from the police and government officials because they would be taken away.
In 2019, The Chickamauga Nation, Arkansas Band had a 92-year-old man finally apply for and receive Citizenship into the Nation. The daughter called the Arkansas Band Chief crying because her father was sitting at the fireplace staring at the urn of his wife’s remains crying and wailing in uncontrollable happiness that, “Mama does not have to be afraid that they will come and get us anymore because we have our Indian cards now.” This was the life of most Chickamauga from the 1830s until the 1990s.
The Chickamauga Nation Has Never Been Terminated
Excerpted and adopted from Page 41 of the Tejon Indian Tribe Request for Confirmation of Status (2006)
The complete absence of any legislative action by the United States to terminate the Chickamauga demonstrates absolutely that the Chickamauga have never been a terminated tribe.
It is well established that it is for Congress and Congress alone to decide if and when to terminate the United States' relationship with a particular tribe. As early as 1916, the Supreme Court observed: “Of course, when the Indians are prepared to exercise the privileges and bear the burdens of one sui juris, the tribal relation may be dissolved and the national guardianship brought to an end; but it rests with Congress to determine when and how this shall be done, and whether the emancipation shall at first be complete or only partial.”
1. United States v. Nice, supra at 598 (emphasis added)
2. Chippewa Indians v. United States, 307 U.S. 1, 5 (1939) (Court may not assume that Congress abandoned guardianship absent clear expression of that intent)
3. Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286,315 (1911) ("[C]ongress in pursuance of the long-established policy of the government, has a right to determine for itself when the guardianship which has been maintained over the Indian shall cease. It is for that body, and not the courts, to determine when the true interests of the Indian require his release from such condition of tutelage.")
4. Hence, federal common law dictates that the United States owes a continuing duty to The
Chickamauga Nation until and unless such time as Congress determines otherwise.
The federal common law rule that only Congress has authority to terminate a tribe was adopted by Congress in Pub. L. 103-454, portions of which amended the Indian Reorganization Act in 1994. In Pub. L. 103-454 Congress decreed that in the modem era tribes that have been (i) recognized by an act of Congress, (ii) recognized by Interior under its administrative acknowledgment regulations, and (iii) recognized by the decisions of U.S. courts cannot be terminated without express congressional action. Pub. L. 103-454 (§ 103(4))
Both the judge-made and statutory rules, then, require an Act of Congress to terminate the United States' acknowledged relationship with The Chickamauga Nation. Because Congress authorized the relationship with the Chickamauga through Treaty and has not repudiated the relationship, therefore, Interior is obliged now to confirm that relationship.
The Chickamauga Are Not Cherokee
Academically, archaeologically, historically and anthropologically, it is impossible to conclude that the Chickamauga and the Cherokee are the same people. The evidence is overwhelming that the existence of the Chickamauga people has always revolved around the Southeast Ceremonial Complex and Mound Building in the Mississippi Bottoms.
The Jesuit priests were meticulous in keeping details of their missionary pursuits in New France. To argue the credibility of the Jesuit priests in these volumes is to argue that the Holy Roman Catholic Church’s archives are completely void of historical accuracy. The 73 volumes of The Jesuit Relation and Allied Documents: Travels and Exploration of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France from 1610 – 1791 provides indisputable evidence as to the origins of the Cherokee, their Christianization, and when they began to leave the Huron and Erie regions of the Great Lakes. The Jesuits record that the Cherokee were not strong fighters and that led to them being kicked out of the Iroquoian Confederacy in the 1660s - 1670s after the ending of the Beaver Wars.
The Cherokee did not begin to leave the Great Lakes region until well after the Beaver Wars ended in 1664 with the last surrendering in 1682. They spoke an Iroquoian language and were mostly converted to Christianity. The earliest that the Cherokee could have entered the Southeast portion of this continent would be between 1675 and 1685. It is physically impossible for the Cherokee to have the same culture, language, and religion of the Chickamauga.
As the Cherokee made their way South from the Great Lakes, they assimilated different tribes and groups of people into their body. When the Cherokee left the Huron and Erie lakes region, they had no traditional religion because they had become Christianized. They had no traditional culture because they assimilated so many different tribes and peoples into their tribe that there was no longer a traditional culture. By the time they eventually made it to the Southeast Woodlands, they were a people without a culture or religion.
The anthropology associated with archaeological excavations in the Southeast does not demonstrate a discernable Iroquoian influence until the very late seventeenth and very early eighteen centuries. There is no discernable archaeological evidence that the Iroquoian speaking, Huron and Erie people, who were already mostly Christianized ever existed in the Southeast prior to the 1670s - 1680s. The evidence that does exist clearly demonstrates the Southeast Ceremonial Complex, Mound Builders of different tribes traded, intermarried, and fought each other throughout the entirety of their history in the Southeast.
Conclusion
The Chickamauga Nation specifically meeting and exceeding the following 9 questions:
1. Are the Chickamauga an indigenous people, who lived in the Mississippi Bottoms consisting of the Mississippi River Valley, Tennessee River Valleys, Arkansas River Valleys in the Southeast Woodlands between 600 – 800 years prior to contact? YES
2. Have the Chickamauga been recognized by the Legislative Branch of the United States? YES
3. Have the Chickamauga been recognized by the Executive Branch of the United States? YES
4. Do the Chickamauga have a government to government relationship with the United States? YES
5. Have the Chickamauga had lands held in reserve for them by treaty and trade with the United States? YES
6. Have the Chickamauga had annuities paid to them by the United States? YES
7. Have the Chickamauga become extinct or ever ceased to exist? NO
8. Are the Chickamauga historically or ethnically Cherokee? NO
9. Have the Chickamauga ever been terminated by the United States? NO
10. Have the Chickamauga ever been ethnically cleansed by the United States, Various State Militias, the Cherokee Nation, and the Chickasaw? YES
The answers to the above questions are academically verified as well as evidenced in the pages above. It is already firmly established in US Code and Statutes that the Chickamauga Nation already retains Federal Recognition and Acknowledgement of it being a Federally Recognized Tribe of Indians.
Formal Request:
Therefore, the National Executive Chiefs of The Chickamauga Nation, formally invoke Article XII of 7 Statute 18 (Article XII authorizes the Chickamauga to meet with Congress, not their staffers, lawyers, or aids, but Congress according to the text of the Treaty). They see fit that to meet with the Senate and House of Representatives in the early Summer or early Fall of 2022. This meeting is intended to place The Chickamauga Nation on the List of Tribes recognized to receive servicing and benefits from the BIA. The Chickamauga Nation also has legislation they have prepared outlining their requests and demands based upon treaties, genocide, ethnic cleansing, the Constitution, and laws of the United States of America.