Re: Kathy or Juanita
-
In reply to:
Re: Kathy or Juanita
rob van dam 1/18/11
I understand that he is listed as Indian but still does not mean he was Cherokee if he is collecting for his family as a whole or could have been classified/accepted Cherokee because his mother was Cherokee ( which you dont have record of).
And I already stated to you that the Europeans in general would have listed male as head of household regardless that to the Cherokee they were mother clan only.
and again if the kids were Cherokee it could have been because their mother was and not father. Daniel was not a live in 1910. His grandchildren may have had a Cherokee mother but does not mean Daniel was Cherokee. The bottom line is that no one with the Helton surname got enrolled Cherokee. The further you research back the harder it is to find the truth. I not only have this with my Indian ancestors but also my European ones. Lack of records or they were poor and left nothing so the lines become dead. Poor record taking where info is left off. This is where DNA comes in handy for proving and disproving paper and possibly lead you to further paper. Just with Indian's surnames and paper only go back so far. This goes with slavery too.
More Replies:
-
Re: Kathy or Juanita
rob van dam 1/18/11
-
Re: Kathy or Juanita
J Friedman 1/22/11
-
Re:Thomas Helton/Hilton Halifax VA 1748
J Friedman 1/22/11
-
Re Saponi
J Friedman 1/22/11
-
Re: Kathy or Juanita