Bill Silver Eagle wrote:That's a good question ... from various sources I've researched the cost is anywhere from about #364.00 to well over $1,000.00.
The problem I've come across with geneology research, is the record keeping and spelling of the early census takers. I've been able to only take my father's side of the family back to my grandfather and great-grandmother, because they immigrated around the turn of the 1900's. My mother's side I've been able to go back to the 1830's before records disappear, as well as that it was my 3rd great-grandmother on my maternal grandmother's father's side of the family that were Indian. In the 1830's in the Indiana, Ohio and Michigan areas many of the indigenous peoples intermarried with the westward encroaching whites. So they became "white" or "mulatto" during those censuses. Not to mention in many states it was illegal up until the 1950's for an Indian to own land.
So is it worth it for me ... maybe if there can be quanitifiable proof of blood lines, but were taking almost five generations of intermixing of genes and DNA.
I have been lucky to trace portions of my wife's tree back 15 generations to her 11th great grandmother in England in the mid 1500's.
I empathize with your frustration in hunting ancestors with native blood. The most difficult period through which to research and document in the U.S. is the period from the Revolution to the Civil War, especially if your ancestors were moving west on the cusp of civilization. (If a blood line stayed snuggled up to the Atlantic Coast it's a lot easier, except in southern states where most of the courthouses and the records they contained were burned to the ground during the Civil War.)
As you know, the U.S. census did not list everyone by name until 1850. Before that, except for the head of household, there were just tick marks. There are few records of marriage between individuals of different races. Indeed, some folks kept moving west to stay ahead of the dumb moral codes of the more "civilized" areas. Oftimes a tip is that there is no record of the marriage. One of my five-great grandfathers had two "wives." The first marriage was recorded and resulted in nine children. Then Keziah, the wife, died. But in Micajah's will he lists 16 children, all of which he treats equally. Then, by chance, I found a document filed in a North Carolina county, which Micajah and Susannah York, a "free mulatto," pledge to treat one another as wife to husband and husband to wife. Micajah also pledges to buy the freedom of a child of Susannah's from another relationship.
One of my great grandfathers, born in McMinn County, TN, in 1860, always told his grandchildren that he was the "blood brother of a Cherokee chief." I haven't proven it yet, but I suspect that his grandfather and possibly his father married women of mixed blood. His brothers and first cousins did leave Tennessee, some for Texas, some for Missouri.
And then there's my two great grandfather born in Texas in 1845 in the part of the soon-to-be-state in which part of the Western Cherokee had settled. I also suspect that he or his big brother (probaby the latter) served under Stand Watie, at least as far into the War as the Battle of Pea Ridge. I have the date but there is no record of the marriage of my great great grandfather in 1863 in Texas, LA, Arkansas, OK or MO. Very odd.
As you know, after the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, a significant number of Cherokee read the writing on the wall and headed out to MIssouri, which was just opening up for Americans at the invitation of the Spanish. (A specific invitee was Daniel Boone who was not known for his love of native Americans.) Anyway, after the New Madrid quakes of 1811-1812 the Western Cherokee figured that mother earth didn't want them in Missouri and most moved down to Arkansas or east Texas. Tracing and documenting connections of intermarriage with these people is really tough.
Sometimes French or Spanish colonial records or Mexican records can be of help. The Spanish and Mexicans insisted that immigrants pledge fealty to the Pope as well as civilian government, but had no reservations about allowing people of different races to marry. (In fact, part of the reason the Texans rebeled was that Mexico did not permit slavery.)
When land records don't help, tax records might. Court records can be gems, especially if the books are indexed. Some states have school census records, which usually list the children studying and who their parent or guardiwn is. Sometimes church records of early congregations can help. For example, many of the families in our lines in Kentucky and Tennessee were Baptists. The Baptists have a couple of history libraries (I've been to Knoxville and Lexington) and also have a great website. Google "Baptist history."
There is also a site called "Books We Own," BWO. Researchers who own copies of all kinds of research materials volunteer to look up relatives for others. Might be worth skimming through the states in which you are interested.
I haven't given up trying to document our First People roots. You can't either.
A genealogist friend once told me, "They want to be found."
They want to be found.
Hugs,
KM