Chiefs of Nation’s: First edition
The Cherokee Nation 1730 to 1839
 109 years of Dialogue and Treaties
 

By Paul T. Vickers ©2005
 

Home  Sources  Immigration  Treaty 1817-19  Eastern Cherokee  Chief Of Nations  Contact Us
 

A critical Analysis for John P. Browns Old Frontiers: Ayer Co. June 1971 ISBN: 040502830x 

Located herewith are several files regarding the documented history of the Cherokee Nation. Some documents are derived directly from the first class sources and others are excerpts from Samuel Cole William’s “Tennessee during the Revolution (1944) and the Book,  J.P. Brown’s “Old Frontiers” (1971). In this analysis it will be demonstrated how authors, effectually alter the actual recorded history of the Cherokee Nation, by misrepresenting the actual first class sources. I chose to correlate Samuel Cole William’s book with Browns Old Frontiers; to show when and how the alteration of this story came to be, and how subsequent generations subscribed to the same story, only to add additional corruption. Though it is doubtful whether the Cherokee Nation of OK. Utilized Samuel Cole William’s Book, for historical research, the Cherokee Nation of OK, who were recognized under executive order in 1975; it is rational to assume that the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation as well as the North Carolina Cherokee, accepted this ruse rendition, as an accurate source for their tribal history. These books have an uncanny ability to assert a non- chronological, amorphous story-line, that excludes just as many legitimate and substantial accounts with time discrepancies of 20 years, including the exclusion of the entire Arkansas immigration and story¾to ultimately, in its effect, historically, point only towards the present OK Cherokee.                                   

Not so coincidentally, 4 years following the release of the highly acclaimed Browns “ Old Frontiers “ the Cherokee people of Oklahoma, presumably, upon reading this book along with Thurman Wilkins “ Cherokee Tragedy” whom according to their archivist Tom Mooney, in 1975;this newly recognized Oklahoma Cherokee, created their museum, fathomed and exercised the espousing of this story¾ to the their newly enrolled members as well as the general public; of which they still maintain this rendition. This story does little to restore and grant post mortum accolades to the early leaders of the Cherokee Nation. To the contrary, this story by the authors mentioned herein this critical analysis¾ with a plethora of evidence to show otherwise, serves as an attack on the traditional and ethnical leaders of the Cherokee Nation. This gives evidence that the Book Chiefs of Nations First Edition: The Cherokee Nation 1730 to 1839 109 years of Political Dialogue and Treaties, is in fact the only factual and truthful treatment of this subject matter.                                

This story tells of a dissident band that rejected tribal authority at the onset of the Revolution; whereas as John P. Brown must have discovered, when researching the Papers of the Indian Affairs (OIA), this claim is merely self- imagined conjecture and has no merit. As clearly demonstrated within these records spoken of herein this dissertation. Dragging Canoe, Bloody-Fellow (General Askyuka or Clear Sky), John Watts, Dick Justice, Glass, and many others, were in fact the leaders of the Cherokee Nation. One may ask what is the reason for such a corruption of this story. To this question, there is only one answer. The process of elimination’s of these chiefs is a necessity, as the Change in the Cherokee Nation’s government beginning in 1819, was undemocratic and an unnatural transition in both culture and ideologies of government, within the Cherokee Nation. Moreover, much like the Jolly, Rogers, Webber party of the Arkansas Cherokee, who acted on the non-sanctioned and unauthorized treaty of May 6th and 31st 1828¾ the Constitutional party under Charles Hicks, John Ross, Richard Taylor and many other white and mixed blooded Cherokee, was an non-consensual declaration of powers from subordinates, who assumed control of the Cherokee Nation and ultimately released claim to the entire land base in the East. I choose to begin this critical analysis with one of the most poignant examples of misrepresentation within a book about the Cherokee Nation. This along with Ramsey’s “Annals of Tennessee”, is used extensively as a source by J. P. Brown.    

The causes for such a blunder; to have escaped through the unsuspecting minds of Scholars and Laymen alike; as discussed previously in this introduction… lie in the first generations of publications, covering this subject matter. For example, in Samuel C. William’s book¾: “Tennessee during the Revolutionary War,”the author blatantly misrepresents the facts¾ as taken from the Colonial Records. In one example, the author accomplished this by using a letter from General Rutherford, Commander- in- Chief of the North Carolina forces ¾to Colonel William Christian Commander- in- Chief of the Virginia forces¾ out of its context ¼ by stating:          

Document 1-A                                                                                                           

“As soon as General Rutherford learned of the appointment of Colonel William Christian to lead the forces of Virginia against the Overhill Cherokees, wrote to Christian promptly, and perhaps before he had heard of the raids of the Cherokees on the white inhabitants of the Watauga and Holsten. In his letter, Rutherford asked to be informed by an express as to Colonel Christians plans for marching adding that the information would be forwarded to South Carolina in order that “we may unite our strength, and as near as possible pursue the same measures at once”. 3   

In reality this letter from Rutherford Commander- in -Chief of the North Carolina forces to Christian, page numbers 650 and 651, within the North Carolina Colonial records, is quite different. This letter dated July 5th 1776 states:    

                                     Document 1-AA                                                    

Sir, by the council of safety of this province I am directed to march with a brigade of the district of Salisbury under my command against the Cherokee Middle and Valley Towns at the same time that you at the head of your forces march against the overhills, and South Carolinians against the lower towns. By a letter from Hammon, dated – July, I learned that he left Maj. Williams camp the Day before within forty eight miles of Cheowee, that the Major had 1200 men under his command waiting to be reinforced by Col. Thomas with 300,and Col. Neal with 500.  Continued: “We may unite our strength and as near as possible pursue the measures in marching forth at once.”    

The author’s reasons for misrepresenting the facts are obvious: William’s, in this case has chosen not to be a neutral observer. Much to the contrary; given the period in which this was published, Samuel C. William’s¾ making the decision to venture from an ethical journalist to a voluntary propagandists¾ asserted the prejudices and view points of his time; and more than likely, reflected his personal views. This type of inventive slander¼a tradition amongst scholars and authors: was created to cover the rather malicious actions, of the Founding Fathers of Tennessee and North Carolina¾ and designed to be an alibi. This is why, as the author, I utilize my cited sources, by quoting them in their entirety.

Like other author’s mentioned herein this critical analysis, this author took the term misrepresentation, to another level. Despite the fact that there are numerous letters to the contrary concerning Chiefs of the Lower towns at Look-out-Mountain town and Running-Water town, on page 328 of his book, Brown utilizes page 264 (Indian affairs papers/but states page 330) http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsplink.html) [Document 1]. In what was a letter by a Major David Craig to William Blount of which Mr. Craig admitted that he did not witness this affair, the author conveys this, as though there was no doubt, of the accusations. This doubt is compounded by letters, very contrary to these accusations from Glass and Richard (Dick) Justice¾on the same and preceding page. On page 329 of his book, in using the page 330, Indian affairs papers, as a source [Document 2] of this analysis, he states that Dragging Canoe Joined in on the kill and death- fest on FEB.28th and died on March 1st, of which as you will discover by examining [Document 2] ¾this is non-existent. Not withstanding this, chiefs Glass and Richard (Dick) Justice wrote to Gov. Blount on March 5th and explained to them that northern Indians, encountered their hunting party, incited his young warriors, who engaged in the killings of the Collingsworths. Gov. Blount advised the Sec. Of War on March 20th these killings were committed prior to their knowledge of the treaty of peace and friendship on Feb. 7th. In completing the process of painting Dragging Canoe, Dick Justice, Glass and Turtle-at-home as American hating savages, Brown on page 330 of his book [Document 3], puts the final touches on his Dragging Canoe eulogy by calling him a savage, that refused to listen to the older chiefs, including his father. In this sentence he contradicts himself by using another quote on page 331 of his book, by using a statement from William Blount in which Blount correctly stated; he [Dragging Canoe] stood second to none in the nation. This was a quote that is part of Blounts letter to the Secretary of war in which Brown corrupted, to attempt to further destroy the legacy of one of the greatest Cherokee Chiefs in the recorded history of the Cherokee Nation, and begin the process of discrediting the others. In the previous paragraph prior to taking William Blounts personal description of Dragging Canoe out of context J.P. Brown implied that Dragging Canoe hated only the White Americans, but as you will discover in [Document 4] of this analysis , Blount stated  “ under the Little Turkey, was their head; and as a warrior, stood second to none in the Nation, except John Watts, and well attached to the United States”. So now without offering any treaties taken from the Public Statutes, that would Illustrate in the treaties of 1794,1798,1805 that there were at least 35 of these top ranked chiefs, he has achieved his goal, only to continue in the next chapter to do the same, to the few chiefs he chooses. Later in his book; now that he completely assassinated the character of Dick Justice, Glass and Dragging Canoe, Brown then takes aim at Double-head. Located within page 398 of his book, first paragraph, Brown, being sure to stay away from the legitimate Indian affairs papers, he used no source to state, as if there was an eyewitness account, on or close to April 1, 1794  “ A few day’s later Double-head and his forces were lying in wait for travelers who were passing to and from the Cumberland settlements” and again he implied, although his hands were scarcely dry from the blood from Killing the Spencer’s, He [Double-head] with alacrity, agreed to meet with Governor Blount on a renewed invitation . So in other words now Double-head made the decision, as a result of Blount’s invitation, as Brown implies, because it was a prestigious endeavor, when in fact Double-Head was one of the select committee for international affairs. This absolutely impalpable method of journalism, is a calculated effort to both persuade the reader into believing Double-head was a tyrant, making his own decisions in regards to international affairs. On the following page Pp. 399, using cite 25 allegedly located on Page 443 of the Indian affairs papers, Brown claims that Watts chose Doublehead, Richard (Dick) Justice, Fool Charley (who was killed in the Beard attack in June 1793), Breath, Bold Hunter, Chuleoh, Middlestriker, and spider; but because Doublehead felt as though some of these Chiefs were too friendly towards the whites; Tekakiskee, Water Hunter, Nontucka or the Northward, Kenesaw or John Maclemore, Walaue or The Humming-bird, The Boot, Ustanaqua, Kulsa-tahee, Kena-guna,The lying Fawn,chata-ka-lesa or ,Nettle carrier,and Siteaha were selected ¾completely ignoring skyuka or Bloody-fellow .In other words these first class Chiefs, whom were selected from the Cherokee National council, were White haters who chose to follow in the paths of the notorious Double-head. This statement completely assassinates more of the well-regarded chiefs. Finally as Brown try’s to imply that he used cite 25 page 443 Indian affairs papers, this is again false, as there are no accounts of this on this page as you will discover in review of [Document5a].  Watts met with Mckee but no names were mentioned; only the fact that Blount and the president wanted the highest Chiefs of the Nation to appear at the treaty. [Document 6]; the treaty of 1794 and [Document 7], the treaty of 1798, illustrates that the authentic Cherokee National Council, assembled with all chiefs mentioned herein this analysis, were still functioning in a national and international capacity.