Genealogical Research and Common Sense

Not too long ago, while doing a bit of research, I ran across an interesting "person" on Find A Grave. A  Cherokee man was listed as "Devereaux Jarrett Chicken Trotter Bell." Hmmm...what a name, huh?

It caught my attention because, though I've been neglecting my blog, I've been giving a lot of attention to my research...for a book...about a Cherokee man named Devereaux Jarrett Bell.

I don't have time to share all my research here and there is not nearly enough room to do so, but because that name above is such a glaring mistake and so simple to debunk, I thought I'd use it as an example of the fact that all the documents and records in the world won't help our genealogical research if we don't use common sense.

The Cherokee man named Devereaux Jarrett Bell was called Jarrett/Jarratt by his family and close friends. Legally and professionally, he was known as D.J. Bell. He was from the affluent Cherokee Bell family and a brother to the Treaty of New Echota signer, John A. Bell. He was fairly well educated and a student at the Choctaw Academy in 1834 when he was 18 years old. On the transcription below, his name was recorded as "Jarratt Bee?" He was described as having a "Good mind."

Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. 9, No.4

After leaving school, Jarrett worked as an interpreter for US agents in the Cherokee Nation. In 1838, he  removed from the east in the detachment led by his brother, John A. Bell, also known as the Treaty Party detachment.

1842 was a big year for him. Not only did he sign as the witness for the claims filed by his father and brother David against the United States for losses of property in the east,

1842 Flint District Book 2 #128 David Bell

he was a secretary/clerk for the Cherokee National Committee.

Letter from Joseph Vann to John Ross - Gilcrease Museum

He was also a claims agent in Flint District, writing the claims for Cherokees to file against the United States for their lost property.

1842 Flint District Book 2 #27 Ellis Hogner

Here's where it gets interesting. According to the Find A Grave biography on the "Devereaux Jarrett Chicken Trotter Bell" page, Devereaux Jarrett Bell was also known as Chicken Trotter and a signer of the Treaty of Bird's Fort with the Republic of Texas in 1843. Common sense tells us that's not true. While Jarrett could read and write English very well, the man named Chicken Trotter who signed the Treaty of Bird's Fort could not.

The man named Chicken Trotter who signed the Treaty of Bird's Fort in 1843 signed the treaty with a mark. That means he could not write his name.

Texas State Library and Archives Commission

Common sense tells us that the man who, in 1842, repeatedly wrote important letters and documents in English is not the same man who, a year later in 1843, could only sign a treaty with a mark.

That Find A Grave entry has combined two real Cherokee men, Devereaux Jarrett Bell and Chicken Trotter, into one mythological Cherokee folk hero. It's an unfortunate mistake that could have been avoided if someone would have done a bit of research and used common sense. One man could read and write in English. The other could not. They are not the same man. It's that simple.

Those are my thoughts for today.

Thanks for reading,

Polly's Granddaughter

 

Tweet

Elizabeth Warren "Truthers" and their Genealogical Fallacies

While reading about fallacies in genealogy, I remembered the arguments used in order to give Elizabeth Warren a pass on her unsubstantiated claim of Cherokee ancestry. These arguments were made by people I call "truthers". They used common genealogical fallacies in their effort to make excuses why Warren should not be held accountable for having no documentation to support her claim. Most used no facts, sources or documents to come to a conclusion, but instead, wanted people to simply believe what they said was "the truth", thus the term "truthers".

In the article, "Genealogical Fallacies Project: Pitfalls in Research Methods," by Kory L. Meyerink of ProGenealogists, "The word fallacy has different meanings to different people." Meanings include:

• A false or erroneous idea, (generally misleading or illusory) (Webster’s International)
• Plausible but invalid reasoning (WordPerfect Thesaurus).

At the end of the article is a list of "Selected Genealogical Fallacies Arranged by Class." It is in this list that we find the reasons so many arguments supporting Warren's Cherokee claim fell apart under scrutiny, whether the general American public (and Massachusetts voters) realized it or not. Though many fallacies are listed below the article, I will only focus on a few of the erroneous and misleading ideas that were used to protect Warren from having to admit the truth.

Fallacies of Misconception - Misunderstandings about Genealogical Research

Ancestors as islands - An ancestor is not affected by the events surrounding them. 

Indians did not exist in a vacuum. If Warren had an Indian ancestor, then at some point in time, she would have had an ancestor living as Indian among Indians. Truthers were willing to accept Warren's family lore of Cherokee ancestry even though, in records and documentation, Warren's ancestors are never found living among the Cherokee UNTIL the influx of white intruders overran Indian Territory, eventually outnumbering the Indians nearly 9 to 1. The events surrounding the time Warren's ancestors moved into Indian Territory strongly suggest her ancestors were non-Indian. After all, Indians already lived there. They were not moving into Indian Territory at this time, but non-Indians were.

Fallacies of Tradition - Unquestioned acceptance of family traditions

Native American - An ancestor was a Native American; possible benefits are due

For this to be included in a list of genealogical fallacies, it has to be fairly common. But remember, this is a list of fallacies, not truths. Also, notice the additional statement, "possible benefits are due." Remember Warren seems to feel she did nothing wrong by allowing herself to be used for diversity purposes by Harvard, nor does she feel she did anything wrong by listing herself as a minority in the law directory. She felt entitled to do this because of her unquestioned acceptance of family traditions. Her supporters also felt she did nothing wrong because if her family lore said she was Indian, then she had the right to benefit from affirmative action - basically, both Warren and her supporters felt she was due that "benefit."

Fallacies of Sources - Misunderstanding sources, including their origin, content, and availability

Missing records - Can't solve a problem due to lost or destroyed sources

Repeatedly Warren's truthers have said the issue of her ancestry could not be solved because Cherokee or Indian ancestry was hard or impossible to prove due to lack of records. Time and time again, I have explained why that is a fallacy. Cherokees have records. We have lots and lots of records. This might not be true for every American Indian tribe in the United States, but it is true for the Cherokees. Warren didn't just claim to be a generic American Indian. She claimed to be Cherokee. It is important to know what sources and records are available for the Cherokee, not just Indians in general, before saying there are no records.

Fallacies of Credibility - Improper or unwarranted acceptance of information
(This was the most common area of fallacies used by the truthers and Warren.)

Honest informants - Grandma would not lie, therefore her statements are true

Warren's supporters blindly accepted the family story of Cherokee ancestry because they believed neither Warren nor her mother would lie about it. When Scott Brown questioned the accuracy of the story Warren said she was told, she became angry and said he should not question her parents' honesty. This gets right to the heart of the "honest informant" fallacy.

Ready acceptance - Accepting a conclusion because of the proponent; Aunt Mabel knew the situation

The truthers accepted the story because they believed "Aunt Bea" would know the truth. I don't think anyone will ever forget the "high cheekbones" story.

Family tradition - Giving it too much weight

Despite the documentation on Warren's ancestry posted in my blog and elsewhere, truthers valued her purported family tradition and lore more. They gave entirely too much weight to the tradition, while ignoring the documentation.

Fallacies of Hypothesis - Erroneous theories that researchers assume and/or try to prove in their research

Best/only hypothesis - Rigid determinism to prove a first hypothesis 

For those truthers who attempted to do Warren's genealogy, they had one goal in mind - to prove she had a Cherokee or Indian ancestor. They would not accept anything less. This led them to ignore the standards for sound genealogical research and instead, make outlandish claims that Warren was Indian because her white great great grandmother's second cousin married an Indian woman. 

Fallacies of Proof - False understandings of the nature of evidence and proof

Insufficient proof - Not compiling sufficient evidence to substantiate the theory. 

This was a biggie, for both truthers and the media. When the New England Historic Genealogical Society said there was a document that might suggest Warren was 1/32 "Cherokee", the media ran with it, often repeating the story even after the statement was retracted. The genealogical society never saw the document, but instead, read about it in a family newsletter. They accepted the information as true. The media never saw the document, but instead, heard about it. They accepted the information as true, too. The problem was the document did not say what the newsletter claimed it said. This caused embarrassment and confusion  and it all could have been avoided if the genealogical society would have compiled additional evidence before forming a conclusion.

Truthers had an even bigger problem understanding the nature of evidence and proof. Some believed (and still believe) one could "prove" Cherokee ancestry by using family pictures. Pictures are not a good source to use in genealogy, no matter the situation, but in no way, shape or form can a picture prove one is Cherokee.

Quantity of proof - Greater number of similar statements equals stronger proof

The Boston Globe article, Warren's family has mixed memories about heritage, is a good example of this fallacy.  The Globe seemed to believe that because Warren's cousins and brothers repeated the story of Cherokee/Indian ancestry, that made the family lore more credible or offered stronger proof to support it. This goes back to giving family tradition too much weight. A family story is not true just because a lot of people repeat it. It is only true if it is based in fact and supported by evidence and documentation. Though a lot of people tell the story that Warren's family was Cherokee, no one has yet produced a single document to support that story.

While there are many other examples of the genealogical fallacies that floated around during the Massachusetts Senate race, I think I have made my point. During the campaign, a lot was said about genealogy and family history, but very little truth actually made it to the headlines, news stories, and social media because the truth was buried under fallacies. 

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2013, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet

The Problem with William J. Crawford

**September 15, 2012, a story came out in the Boston Globe that had a picture of Harry Reed and a caption that said, "Harry Reed was part Indian, say descendants." The article that followed was very long, full of misconceptions about Cherokee history and based on nothing but family lore. The article is so long, I will write a series of posts dealing with one topic at a time so my readers don't get lost in the information.**
 

I hate it when I have to publicly point out a person's mistakes in genealogy, but in this case, because of the extreme damage it has done to genealogy and by encouraging the myth of Cherokee genealogy without documentation in a very public forum, the media, I feel this is too important to allow to go unmentioned.

Do you want to see how family myths are born and grow to something that is difficult to beat down? Then pay attention. This is one such example.

This entire fiasco concerning Elizabeth Warren's false genealogy has grown to mythological proportions in the media. Over and over and over, various media outlets have stated that Warren's great great great grandma, "OC Sarah Smith" was supposed to be full blood Cherokee. This information was supposed to have come from a marriage license of "OC Sarah Smith's" son, William J. Crawford. 

click to enlarge

Even though it has been shown the marriage license did not say "OC Sarah Smith" was Cherokee, and that the information from the Lynda Smith family tree on Rootsweb.com was incorrect, no one has bothered to stop and consider, if one thing was wrong, then maybe a lot is wrong with that tree.

There was no OC Sarah Smith. Please see The Warren/Boraker Families - Are They Really Related? for more on this. There is no documentation to show this woman, OC Smith, was actually Warren's ancestor either. Everyone seems to assume she is because one person said she was. But, the conclusions that person came to are flawed.

From Lynda Smith's family tree posted on Rootweb.com (my comments in blue),

• This William Crawford is a mystery. (He isn't to me.)
  
• It appears that the William who married Oma C. Nipper in Roane Co., TN was not the same William Crawford who was the son of Jonathan H. Crawford and Neoma or Oma Smith. (According to his Civil War pension application, he WAS the the same man. He married Naomi C. Nipper in Roane County, Tennesse on 18 October 1857.)
  
• John or Jonathan H. Crawford was a common name. (There were several men in Tennessee at living at the same time who used variations of the names, John H. Crawford, Jonathon Crawford, John Crawford, etc...)
  
• Several Crawford researchers have stated that the William who married Oma C. Nipper in 1857 in Roane Co. TN is the same man who married Mary E. Long in Oklahoma in 1894. (And those researchers would be correct.)
  
• The William who married Oma Nipper lived with his father John H. Crawford in Roane Co. (This might be his father.)
• John is listed on the 1850 Roane Co census: John H. Crofford, 47, b. Va; Rebecca, 52, b. N.C.; Lucinda, 18; WILLIAM, 17; Rebecca J., 15; John W., 14 and Edmund H., 12 (John H. Crawford married Rebecca Woody 15 September, 1829 in Roane Co.) (This might be the family William came from. But he listed his mother as OC Smith on his marriage license. Is the Rebecca listed on the census his mother, stepmother, or is this an entirely different family? I don't know.)
  
• This Roane Co. John Crawford is not the same man who married Neoma Smith (No, he isn't.One is always found in Roane County, married to Rebecca, using the name John H. Crawford. The other is found in Bledsoe and Jackson Counties, married to Neoma, and using the name Jonathon Crawford. No middle initial ever listed/found.)
• The statement was made on the marriage application that his mother was O.C. Sarah Smith and his father Jonathan H. Crawford. (Incorrect. William J. Crawford, of the marriage license controversy, listed his parents as JH Crawford and OC Smith. No John H. No Jonathon. Just JH. No OC Sarah. No Sarah. No Neoma. Just OC.)
  
• It is not known whether William was married before he married Mary Long. He would have been over 50 at the time of this marriage. (As stated above, it is known. He was first married to Namoi C. Nipper according to his Civil War pension application.)
• William J Crawford stated on his marriage license application when he married Mary E. Long that his father was Jonathon H. Crawford and his mother was O.C. Sarah Smith. (No, he did not state that! No matter how many times this is repeated, it won't make it true. He did not state what is being claimed here, repeatedly.)
  
• He also said that his mother was Cherokee Indian. (See for yourself. Look at the marriage license and see if there is anything that says "OC Smith" was Cherokee Indian. If you are blind and can't see, I will tell you -- no, it doesn't say that anywhere on the license.) 
• 1860 census of Roane Co., TN: Wm Crawford, 25; Oma C., 25; James J.,7/12; Sarah Nipper, 40; Richard Nipper, 17. (All b. TN) (This is the family which has been confused with that of William probable son of Jonathan and Neoma.) (Yet this is the man who had the marriage license that everyone is trying to use for proof that Elizabeth Warren's ancestors might have been Cherokee! Not only can this man not be linked to Lynda Smith's family, he can't be linked to Warren's either.)

Ah......the birth of a genealogical myth. See how it happens? One person makes a mistake and people come along behind them and copy the mistake and because it gets repeated over and over and over, people assume it is true, never bothering to check the documents for themselves. 

  

In the last bullet point, Lynda Smith says this William who was married to Oma C. Nipper has been confused with a probable son of Jonathon and Naoma Crawford. She came to the conclusion that the William who married Mary Long was the son of Jonathon and Naoma Crawford and the William who married Oma Nipper was the son of John H. and Rebecca Crawford. The problem is, the William J. Crawford who married Naomi C. Nipper is the same one who married Mary Long in Logan County, Oklahoma. Lynda Smith has assumed there were two men when there was only one man. And that one man, William J. Crawford, cannot conclusively be linked to the family of Lynda Smith/Robert C. Boraker or to that of Elizabeth Warren through documentation. But a legend has now been born.

Now everyone believes that Preston Crawford, Elizabeth Warren's ancestor, had a brother named William J. Crawford and that their parents were named Jonathon H. Crawford and OS Sarah Naoma Smith. Nowhere are documents found at this point in time to show this is true.

What does Lynda Smith have to say about publishing these errors and causing such a fiasco? What does she say after she knows the Cherokee reference is not there and after she has been notified of other errors in her tree as well?

"I'm sorry that I posted something that wasn't correct (the Cherokee reference on the marriage record) but I'm not sorry about the rest of it being posted because it can be a starting point for others to do research."

No, Lynda, it was not just a starting point for others. Instead, it started a firestorm of controversy and helped perpetuate myths. As a genealogist, I would think one would want to be more careful about making a lot of assumptions and posting them on the internet, not making it clear that they are only assumptions and not set in stone fact. Now, unfortunately, not only do some people still believe Warren has Cherokee ancestry, others believe Preston Crawford was, without a doubt, the son of Jonathon and Neoma Crawford.

So what can we learn from this? If you are a genealogist, do your own work and don't copy from anyone. Insist on viewing the primary or secondary documents yourself. If you are a journalist, be careful who you use a a source. Don't assume they are correct, especially when Cherokee ancestry is an issue. If you want to get to the bottom of an issue in Cherokee genealogy, ask someone experienced in Cherokee genealogy. Don't assume anyone with a subscription to ancestry.com knows what they are doing.

Those are my thoughts for today.
Thanks for reading.

copyright 2012, Polly's Granddaughter - TCB

Tweet