Bowen Family of Columbus County, NC

Lisa Y. Henderson on her Fourth Generation Inclusive blog lists the following Indian information:

Catherine Jackson. Died 7 July 1932, Waccamaw, Columbus County. Indian. Widow of David Jackson. Born 12 April 1858 in Columbus County to J.A. Bowen of Columbus County and Susan Lacewell of Bladen County. Buried Holly Ridge NC. Informant, Geo. M. Mitchell.

In the 1860 census of Columbus County: John Bowen, 45, farmer, wife Susan 46, and children John, 23, Frances, 21, Lucy, 20, Anna, 17, Jane, 15, Betsey, 13, James, 10, G., 8, Henry, 5, Lydia, 3, and Caty Bowen, 2. John and Susan were born in Bladen County. They and their oldest three children were described as mulatto; the remainder as black.

John William Mitchell. Died 5 January 1934, Waccamaw, Columbus County. Indian. Married to Colista Mitchell. Farmer. Born 1 November 1858, Waccamaw, to B.F. Mitchell and Mary Frances Bowen. Buried Mitchell cemetery. Informant, Cary Mitchell, Hallsboro NC.

In the 1860 census of Bladen County: B.F. Mitchel, 24, wife Mary F., 21, and children A.E., 3, and John W., 2.

It would appear that the Bowen family is the common link between these two individuals who are both listed as Indian.

To see additional information about family members, please visit Lisa’s blog posting:

http://ncfpc.net/2013/05/15/free-issue-death-certificates-miscellaneous-no-14-2/

Additional North Carolina Bowen family information can be found here.

Find-A-Grave shows that John A. Bowen, buried in the Mitchellfield Cemetery, was born in 1834 and died April 12, 1900.  Also buried in the same cemetery is Lucy Ann Bowen born in 1841, died Sept. 7, 1898.

There is a Bowen Cemetery in Columbus County, but the burials do not appear to be any members of this family.

Columbus County was formed in 1808.  The Bowen family seems to have been from Bladen County.  John was born there in 1815, so in the 1820 county census, his family should be listed and he would have been age 5.

In the 1820 census in Bladen County, the James Bowen family is shown as “free colored people” and they have 2 males to the age of 14, 1 male 26 to 45, 1 male 45 and over, 1 female to age 14 and  female 14 to the age of 26.  They also have 2 slaves.

William Bowen also heads a “free colored” household.  He has 1 male to age 14, 1 male 26 to 45, 1 female to 14 and one female over 14-26.  This family also has a slave.

Judy Bowen, two houses from William has 1 white male 26-45.  The rest of the family is “free colored” and consists of 1 male to age 14, two males 14-26, 1 female to 14 and one female over 45, probably Judy.

The 1790, 1800 and 1810 census shows no Bowen families in Bladen County nor any William, James or Judy who are listed as non-white in any other NC county.  There is a James Bowen in Orange County in 1790 but Ancestry’s system is not currently displaying that particular census page, so I could not discern if James was white or of color.

Posted in Census, North Carolina | Leave a comment

1000 Subscribers, A Milestone

Hat tip - Calvin Coolidge

Over this past weekend, the Native Heritage Project blog hit a milestone, 1000 subscribers.  Thank you one and all.  Not bad for just under 15 months since the blog was created!

You’ve probably noticed thank yous and hat tips to people.  That’s President Calvin Coolidge who signed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 into law tipping his hat above.

Many of the records buried in dusty archives and other places come to my attention thanks to all of you.  Breathing life into our hidden and forgotten ancestors is about sharing information – and that’s what we do here.  As you know, this blog is about preserving and publishing records about people of Native heritage, especially those displaced, primarily east of the Mississippi.  However, I don’t restrict the records to those locations.  I publish quality records that come my way.  Recently we had a story about Alaska, for example.

In addition to the 1000 subscribers, we have lots of hits on the website too.  Most of the subscribers read the posts via e-mail or RSS feed.  Hits on the website generally aren’t from subscribers, or they are subscribers looking for something in particular.  To date, we’ve had over 114,000 hits on the website as well.

We have a lot of content.  I’ve published 416 articles, as of today.  Remember, the site is searchable, both by key word in the box at the top right that says “search” and by category, such as a specific tribe.  Categories are listed on the right hand side below “recent posts” and “archives,” so scroll down and then click on the category to see posts that relate to that topic.

Enjoy, and if you see something interesting in terms of documentation of Native people, please send it my way.  Hat tip to everyone!!!!

Posted in Laws | 4 Comments

Using Tax Lists to Identify People of Color

Recently, Ancestry.com put indexed Tennessee tax lists from 1783 to 1895 online.  Tax lists weren’t required to be saved, so these records are sporadic at best, but extremely valuable when they are still available.

http://search.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=List&dbid=2883

I’ve been using tax lists for a long time, but since they are now becoming more widely available, I thought this might be a good time to talk about innovative ways to use tax lists to find “hidden” people of color.  As we know, if you weren’t white, you were considered to be “of color,” generally to the 4th generation or in some timeframes in Virginia, if you had “one drop” of non-white blood.  So Indian ancestors and mixed race people would have been found in the “people of color” category.

The purpose of tax lists was to determine the appropriate tax for people to pay – all people.

There were primarily two different categories of taxes, and lists.  Sometimes these two types of tax lists were combined into one, but often not.  Landowners could own multiple parcels in different sections of the county, meaning they would be listed more than once on a land tax list.  But only one record of a poll tax would exist for any one person per county, per year.
The first type of tax was on land based either on acres or valuation.

But not everyone owned land, and heaven forbid, someone not pay taxes, so there were other types of taxes too.  These lists were generally called poll tax lists but in some places were called personal property lists.  There were columns of items and people to be taxed.

On the example below from 1799 in Grainger Co., Tn., you can see that John Estes, Esquire, took the tax list from within Daniel Taylor’s militia company.  Categories were land, situation, which was used for exceptions, white polls, black polls, stud horses, town lotte, a blank column and then dollars and cents owed by the taxpayer.
tax list 1799 grainger county

White polls – were generally white males living in the household 16 years or older.  The taxpayer, if white (unless exempt), would count as 1 and then any sons, other men, indentured servants, etc., would count too.

Black polls – depending on when and where, could be black males 12 and older or all blacks 12 and older.  Obviously, this generally meant slaves but could also be free people of color who were counted on the land owners list if they did not pay individually.

Horses, cows, mules, etc.  You’ll see various categories depending on the list location and year.  Sometimes the horses are broken down to stud horses, which were money earners, and other horses.  These often were indicators of relative wealth.  I saw one list in Virginia where carriages and clocks were taxed.

Schools – in some regions during some time periods, there were special taxes collected for the school.  The landowner whose land the school sat on was generally exempt from the tax.

Some people didn’t have to pay tax – if you were over a certain age – which varied from place to place and time to time but was generally 45-55 years of age, or if you were infirm and you petitioned the court to be excused from paying taxes, or if you were an ordained minister.  On the list example, this would have been recorded in the situation column.

On later tax lists, there was more than one kind of tax, meaning both a state and a county tax.

Sometimes tax rates varied depending on your ethnicity. If you were a white person, your rates were, let’s say, 10 cents per acre but if you were “of color” they were a different rate, and generally not lower.  Sometimes by comparing your ancestor’s taxes with those of known white neighbors, you can discern that they were considered “of color”.  It goes without saying that the man who took the polls, or the tax list, in this case, John Estes, was white, so compare your ancestors rates with his.  For example the amount of tax paid for a white poll or a black poll should be the same if both taxpayers were white, but if they are paying different amounts for the exact same thing, look for the reason why.

Families “of color” generally had to pay for all family members over the age of 12 (or 16) , including wives and children.  In some locations, petitions were submitted to the legislatures to relieve free people of color of this extra tax burden.  In some cases, men refused to pay poll tax on their mixed race wives and children and were taken to court for “concealing tithables.”  In fact, concealing tithables is one hint that your ancestor may indeed have had a mixed race family.

Lastly, tax lists can be extremely useful sorting out various men of the same name.  If someone owned land in 2 places within a county, especially if they were not adjacent and particularly if they were in 2 different districts, the same person can be on the tax list more than once if it’s a land based tax list.  If it is not a land based list, meaning a personal property or poll tax list, then they would only be listed once.  In some places, there were two lists, one for land and one for personal property.  On those lists, by comparing them, you can tell if there were really 2 John Does or just one who owned land in 2 places.  If there are actually 2 different John Does, their location will be somewhat identified by their tax list district, and their property of course would be located in that district, were you to find their deeds.  By following the tax lists, so to speak, you should, hopefully, be able to tell men by the same name apart.

No one enjoys paying taxes, but for genealogists, these lists can be a goldmine if you know how to utilize the information.

Posted in Tax Lists | Leave a comment

Indians and the Census 1790-2010

Census enumerators had a big influence on our genealogy records.  These people we don’t know decided who was of what race and recorded the family as such.  Most of the time, those records were sacrosanct.  I only know of one example where they were “corrected,” and that appears to be because the enumerator wrote in something that was not a valid choice for the 1880 census.  “Portugee,”  written sideways below, was corrected to “W” for white in Hawkins County, Tennessee.

portugee census

But this raises the question of whose idea of race was recorded.  The answer is, that of the census taker.  The census takers were provided instructions and they recorded the ethnic category of various family members based on their perception of the family when they visited.  In most cases, this wasn’t a problem.  But if you are racially mixed and trying to find and interpret data about your family, these results can be confusing, especially if in one census they are white, in another mulatto and maybe in another black.  In some census years, there was no category at all for Indian.  In others, all free people of color were recorded in one group.  Where your family fell was up to the census taker, not your family members.

Let’s take a look at what the various census instructions to enumerators and census forms said about Indians.

1790 – “Omitting Indians not taxed, distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service, from all others.”  Indians living “wild,” generally meaning plains Indians in the west, or on reservations were not taxed, but those who were enumerated were recorded in the “all other free” column on the census form.

1800 – Indians living off of reservations and not “wild” would have been recorded in the “all other free persons” column on the census form.  Options were free white, slave and “all other free persons.”

1810 – Indians living off of reservations would have been recorded in the “all others” column on the census form.  Options were free white, slave and “all other.”

1820 – Indians living off of reservations would have been recorded in the “free colored persons” categories.  Other options were free whites, slaves and “all others except Indians not taxed.”

1830 – Indians living off of reservations and not “wild” would have been recorded in the “free colored persons” category.  Other options were free whites and slaves.

1840 – Essentially the same as 1830 with the exception that an additional column labeled “pensioners for revolutionary or military services”  with a blank for the pensioner’s name to be included and applies to all individuals.

1850 – 1850 is the first census in which every individual in the household was enumerated.   In prior years, only the name of the head of household was recorded and other household members were recorded by age grouping by category.   In 1850, the instructions say that Indians not taxed (meaning on reservations) were not to be enumerated and the categories for race were white, black, mulatto.  So if your ancestor looked “dark” and was an Indian, chances are they were recorded as M for mulatto.  There was no “Indian” category until 1860.

1860 – Indians not taxed were not enumerated.  However, the categories differed a bit this year.  “The families of Indians who have renounced tribal rule, and who under State or Territorial laws exercise the rights of citizens, are to be enumerated. In all such cases write “Ind.” opposite their names, in column 6, under heading ‘Color.’”

There is a census in Indian Territory, but Indians are not included.

1870 – Instructions said, “”Indians not taxed’ are not to be enumerated on schedule 1. Indians out of their tribal relations, and exercising the rights of citizens under State or Territorial laws, will be included. In all cases write “Ind.” in the column for “Color.” Although no provision is made for the enumeration of “Indians not taxed,” it is highly desirable, for statistical purposes, that the number of such persons not living upon reservations should be known. Assistant marshals are therefore requested, where such persons are found within their subdivisions, to make a separate memorandum of names, with sex and age, and embody the same in a special report to the census office.”

The form gave these race options:  Color – White (W), black (B), mulatto (M), Chinese (C), Indian (I).

There was no census of Indian people in Indian Territory.  However, this National Archives article discusses Indians in the census between 1860 and 1880 and states that in 1870 half-breed people who had assimilated and adopted white ways were to be recorded as white.

1880 – Instructions said, “It is the prime object of the enumeration to obtain the name, and the requisite particulars as to personal description, of every person in the United States, of whatever age, sex, color, race, or condition, with this single exception, viz.: that “Indians not taxed” shall be omitted from the enumeration.

By the phrase “Indians not taxed” is meant Indians living on reservations under the care of Government agents, or roaming individually, or in bands, over settled tracts of country.

Indians, not in tribal relations, whether full-bloods or half-breeds, who are found mingled with the white population, residing in white families, engaged as servants or laborers, or living in huts or wigwams on the outskirts of towns or settlements are to be regarded as a part of the ordinary population of the country for the constitutional purpose of the apportionment of Representatives among the States, and are to be embraced in the enumeration.”

However, the 1880 instructions for “color” are not specific as to how to record Indians or those of mixed heritage.  “Color.-It must not be assumed that, where nothing is written in this column, “white” is to be understood. The column is always to be filled. Be particularly careful in reporting the class mulatto. The word is here generic, and includes quadroons, octoroons, and all persons having any perceptible trace of African blood. Important scientific results depend upon the correct determination of this class in schedules 1 and 5.”

The form gave these options:  Color – White, W; black, B; Mulatto, Mu; Chinese, C; Indian, I.

Beginning in 1885, special Indian Census were taken on reservations.  This continued until 1940.

1890 – The 1890 census was destroyed, but here are the instructions:  “Whether white, black, mulatto. quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, or Indian.-Write white, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, or Indian, according to the color or race of the person enumerated. Be particularly careful to distinguish between blacks, mulattos, quadroons, and octoroons. The word “black” should be used to describe those persons who have three-fourths or more black blood; “mulatto,” those persons who have from three-eighths to five-eighths black blood; “quadroon,” those persons who have one-fourth black blood; and “octoroon,” those persons who have one-eighth or any trace of black blood.”

1900 – In 1900, the instructions become less specific:  Although they don’t say so here, we know that Indians on reservations are still not consistently enumerated.

“Column 5. Color or race.-Write “W” for white; “B” for black (negro or of negro descent); “Ch” for Chinese; “JP” for Japanese, and “In” for Indian, as the case may be.”

The census bureau says that beginning in 1900, Indians on reservations were also enumerated in the general census, but I have not found this to always be the case.  I do find them consistently by 1930.

A special Indian census form with separate instructions was included, although these are often only recorded at the end of the county census roll and sometimes not indexed when indexing occurred.  These were supposed to be for people both on reservations and off who considered themselves to be Indian.  These are particularly valuable records.

1910 instructions:  “Color or race.-Write “W” for white; “B” for black; “Mu” for mulatto; “Ch” for Chinese; “Jp” for Japanese; “In” for Indian. For all persons not falling within one of these classes, write “Ot” (for other), and write on the left-hand margin of the schedule the race of the person so indicated.”

Again a special Indian census form and instructions were included.

1920 instructions:  “Color or race.-Write “W” for white, “B” for black; “Mu” for mulatto; “In” for Indian; “Ch” for Chinese; “Jp” for Japanese; “Fil” for Filipino; “Hin” for Hindu; “Kor” for Korean. for all persons not falling within one of these classes, write “Ot” (for other), and write on the left-hand margin of the schedule the race of the person so indicated.”

Things changed dramatically between 1920 and 1930 for Indians.  In 1924, Indians were made American citizens.  Before 1924, Indians who lived on reservations were considered to be citizens of their tribe and not American citizens.  This harkens back to the 1830s lawsuits about sovereign tribal rights.

Before the 1930 census, Indians living on reservations were not always enumerated on the general census.  There were special Indian census schedules taken, but not on the decade marks like the regular census, and not as detailed, generally lists of families with ages.  But in 1930, all Indians were included in the census, and the instructions became much more robust as well.  Some Indians were included in the 1900-1920 census schedules, but not all, although according to the instructions, they were all supposed to be included.  Mixed race people and Indians living off of the reservation were included.  Indians living on reservations are the people missing from the census prior to 1930.  Fortunately for genealogists, if your ancestor was living on a reservation in the 1900s, you likely know about it.

1930 instructions:

“150. Column 12. Color or race.-Write “W” for white, “B” for black; “Mus” for mulatto; “In” for Indian; “Ch” for Chinese; “Jp” for Japanese; “Fil” for Filipino; “Hin” for Hindu; “Kor” for Korean. For a person of any other race, write the race in full.

“151. Negroes.-A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro, no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood. Both black and mulatto persons are to be returned as Negroes, without distinction. A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned a Negro, unless the Indian blood predominates and the status as an Indian is generally accepted in the community.

152. Indians.-A person of mixed white and Indian blood should be returned as Indian, except where the percentage of Indian blood is very small, or where he is regarded as a white person by those in the community where he lives. (See par. 151 for mixed Indian and Negro.)

153. For a person reported as Indian in column 12, report is to be made in column 19 as to whether “full blood” or “mixed blood,” and in column 20 the name of the tribe is to be reported. For Indians, columns 19 and 20 are thus to be used to indicate the degree of Indian blood and the tribe, instead of the birthplace of father and mother.

154. Mexicans.-Practically all Mexican laborers are of a racial mixture difficult to classify, though usually well recognized in the localities where they are found. In order to obtain separate figures for this racial group, it has been decided that all person born in Mexico, or having parents born in Mexico, who are not definitely white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese, should be returned as Mexican (“Mex”).

155. Other mixed races.-Any mixture of white and nonwhite should be reported according to the nonwhite parent. Mixtures of colored races should be reported according to the race of the father, except Negro-Indian (see par. 151).”

In the “place of birth” section, we find these instructions for Indians:

“174a. For the Indian population, which is practically all of native parentage, these columns are to be used for a different purpose. In column 19 is to be entered, in place of the country of birth of the father, the degree of Indian blood, as, “full blood” or “mixed blood.” In column 20 is to be entered, in place of the country of birth of the mother, the tribe to which the Indian belongs.’

1940 – The 1940 census is the last census that has been released, and the instructions that year were:

“453. Column 10. Color or Race.-Write “W” for white; “Neg” for Negro; “In” for Indian; “Chi” for Chinese; “Jp” for Japanese; “Fil” for Filipino; “Hi” for Hindu; and “Kor” for Korean. For a person of any other race, write the race in full.

454. Mexicans.-Mexicans are to be regarded as white unless definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.

455. Negroes.-A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be returned as Negro, no matter how small a percentage of Negro blood. Both black and mulatto persons are to be returned as Negroes, without distinction. A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro, unless the Indian blood very definitely predominates and he is universally accepted in the community as an Indian.

456. Indians.-A person of mixed white and Indian blood should be returned as an Indian, if enrolled on an Indian agency or reservation roll, or if not so enrolled, if the proportion of Indian blood is one-fourth or more, or if the person is regarded as an Indian in the community where he lives.

457. Mixed Races.-Any mixture of white and nonwhite should be reported according to the nonwhite parent. Mixtures of nonwhite races should be reported according to the race of the father, except that Negro-Indian should be reported as Negro.”

In addition, the “mother tongue” recorded was to be the tribal language.

1950 – Although the 1950 census has not been released, the categories are quite interesting and the 1950 census should help genealogists who are attempting to sort through their family history.  This census took into consideration special mixed communities.  The instructions for “Race” are as follows.

“114. Item 9. Determining and entering race.-Write “W” for white; “Neg” for Negro; “Ind” for American Indian; “Chi” for Chinese; “Jap” for Japanese; “Fil” for Filipino. For a person of any other race, write the race in full. Assume that the race of related persons living in the household is the same as the race of your respondent, unless you learn otherwise. For unrelated persons (employees, hired hands, lodgers, etc.) you must ask the race, because knowledge of the housewife’s race (for example) tells nothing f the maid’s race.

115. Mexicans.-Report “white” (W) for Mexicans unless they are definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.

116. Negroes.-Report “Negro” (Neg) for Negroes and for persons of mixed white and Negro parentage. A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro, unless the Indian blood very definitely predominates and he is accepted in the community as an Indian. (Note, however, the exceptions described in par. l18 below.)

117. American Indians.-Report “American Indian” (Ind) for persons of mixed white and Indian blood if enrolled on an Indian Agency or Reservation roll; if not so enrolled, they should still be reported as Indian if the proportion of Indian blood is one-fourth or more, or if they are regarded as Indians in the community where they live. (See par. 116 for persons of mixed Indian and Negro blood and also exceptions noted in par. 118.) In those counties where there are many Indians living outside of reservations, special care should be taken to obtain accurate answers to item 9.

118. Special communities.-Report persons of mixed white, Negro, and Indian ancestry living in certain communities in the Eastern United States in terms of the name by which they are locally known.

The communities in question are of long standing and are locally recognized by special names, such as ‘”Croatian,” “Jackson White,” “We-sort,” etc. Persons of mixed Indian and Negro ancestry and mulattoes not living in such communities should be returned as “Negro” (see par. 116). When in doubt, describe the situation in a footnote.

119. Mixed parentage.-Report race of nonwhite parent for persons of mixed white and nonwhite races. Mixtures of nonwhite races should be reported according to the race of the father. (Note, however, exceptions detailed in pars. 116 and 118 above.)

120. India.-Persons originating in India should be reported as ‘Asiatic Indians.’”

The 1960 census is unremarkable and includes Indian as a category with no specific instructions.

Then came 1970 and the census changed dramatically.  People were asked about their race and race was no longer recorded based on the interpretation of the census taker.  For Indian, there was a blank beside the category with the word “tribe” that was to be filled in.  As of the 2010 census, this tribal question remains on the forms.

Between 1980 and 2000, the Native American population inthe US increased 110%.  Now clearly, this was not a matter of actual population growth, but the difference between what the previous census takers saw and the self-identification of individuals.  There seems to be quite a chasm between perception and identity.

How to identify an Indian or an Indian mixed race person, especially one not living on a reservation, seems to have been a problem that has plagued census takers and therefore the government, and now genealogists, since the beginning of the census records more than 200 years ago.

You can read more about how the statistics about and individual perception of race in American has changed due to census changes here.

Posted in Census, History | 3 Comments

Cherokee Song of the Smokies

Smokies

This YouTube video just makes my heart feel good.  My people are from the Smokies,  so far up the hollers that you can see someone coming for 2 miles or so and they cross 3 county and 2 state lines in that last 2 miles of 2 track.  This video takes me home.

Reggie Duke recorded and posted this video of his visit to the Smokies.  I usually visit every spring, a ritual that has been part of my life for the past 30+ years, but this spring, I didn’t get to visit.

Thanks to Reggie and YouTube, this is my virtual visit, and I’m sharing it with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZo_KfS1_zE

Reggie set his beautiful photos to the music of one of my favorite Native artist groups, Walela, a group of three exceptionally talented, spiritual Cherokee women.

Walela

You can see more of Walela here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03luO1WMUik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDfVY_-yTv0

A medley here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMjPlZBqB5Q&list=PL0B3849EAF70207FD

Watch, listen and wash your spirit clean…..

Posted in Cherokee | 3 Comments

Are the First Depictions of Native Americans in the Vatican?

lucrezia borgiaChristopher Columbus made landfall in 1492 – we all know that – and “discovered” the North American continent.  His voyage was financed by Ferninand and Isabella, the Spanish King and Queen.  He returned in March of 1493 and turned over his journal to his benefactors who attempted to maintain secrecy about what he had discovered.  However, that secrecy did not last and before long, everyone knew.

Also in 1492, Rodrigo Borgia became Pope Alexander VI, an extremely controversial man who fathered several children and became a symbol of corruption in the Catholic church.  His daughter, Lucrezia Borgia, at right, was reportedly married in the Sistine Chapel.

Her third marriage was to Alfonso d’Este, the Duke of Ferrara.  My Estes family has been rumored for decades to have descended from this family, although it remains unproven as the d’Este paternal line has, ironically, become extinct, so no Y chromosomal DNA testing can be performed.

Borgia’s corruption wasn’t limited to women and sex, but included assassinations, murders in his Papal quarters of his daughter’s husband(s) and marital annulments to suit his fancy.  There were even allegations of incest.

Suffice it to say, no future Popes wanted to be associated or affiliated with him or his memory.

His apartment at the Vatican was furnished in Papal style, including many contemporary paintings.  He commissioned a fresco, The Resurrection, by Renaissance master Pinturicchio in 1494, on the walls of his residence in the Vatican.

After Pope Alexander’s death in 1503, the Borgia Apartments were sealed.  His successor Pope, Julius II, would have nothing to do with Borgia’s apartment and what had allegedly taken place there, and ordered that all paintings made for Pope Alexander be covered in black crepe.  In 1889, 386 years later, the Borgia apartments were reopened and dedicated to the display of religious art.

Recently The Resurrection fresco was cleaned.  After the dirt and grime were removed, you can now see what appears to be naked people with feathers in their hair dancing.  These are directly behind the head of the risen Christ.  Columbus described being greeted by nude Native people.  In addition, he kidnapped between 10 and 25 Indians and returned to Spain with them, although only 7 survived to arrival.

vatican-5-3-13

If these indeed are Native Americans, then they are the first depictions.  Until now, the first paintings were believe to be those of John White, painter and eventually governor of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Roanoke.  White produced these paintings from 1584-1587.  Note that some of his are nude as well.  This painting, if it is of Native Americans, would be almost  100 years earlier.

To see the entire fresco and read more, click here.

Hat tip to Shawn for info about the painting.

Posted in Art, Christopher Columbus, History | Leave a comment

Georgia Land Lotteries – Gold Grabbing

Georgia Cherokee lands 1830

Georgia Cherokee lands in 1830

The Georgia Land Lotteries which spanned from 1805 to 1833 were one of the largest land grabs in eastern US, certainly the largest having to do with the 5 Civilized Tribes.

In Georgia, this land belonged to the Creek and Cherokee Nations, and the Europeans wanted it.  It included gold mines.

The Cherokees did not give up their land without a fight.  In fact, they took it to the US Supreme Court, a case they won their cases, but both the state of Georgia and US President Andrew Jackson chose to ignore the court’s finding and instead forced the removal of the Cherokee, taking their lands to be divided among non-Cherokee citizens.

In an effort to keep their lands, certain Cherokees (and other interested parties)—including John Ross, Samuel Worcester and Major Ridge—took their fight against the State of Georgia to the United States Supreme Court. There were two major cases heard by the Court during the years of 1831 through 1832: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia. Though the Cherokee Nation actually won the court battles, both U.S. President Andrew Jackson and the State of Georgia chose instead to ignore the Supreme Court ruling.   In a popular quotation, President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said: “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”.  Georgia continued its surveying and division of the Cherokee lands through the final “1832 Land and Gold Lotteries.”  President Jackson utilized the U.S. Army, forcing the “removal of the Cherokees in what we now know as the shameful “Trail of Tears,” freeing up desirable land in Georgia.

Land speculation in the lotteries was common, many lots were sold sight-unseen by the winners for other lots or for gold. Real estate agents, individual citizens and even unscrupulous lottery officials attempted to secure promising gold belt lots or valuable Cherokee plantation lots. During the 1832 Lottery alone, some 85,000 people competed for 18,309 land lots to be given away, and at least 133,000 people competed for 35,000 gold belt lots to be given away.

1832 georgia grant 1832 Georgia land grant

To read more about this land lottery system, click here.

Posted in Cherokee, Creek | 2 Comments