Choctaw Genealogy

 I finally looked at my blog comments this week, and I had several related to my Choctaw posts. A topic I really haven't broached in a while. I took the time to re-read some of my posts. Some of it material I wrote about 2001-2003. Man, I have learned a lot since that time. Some of that stuff, not accurate with what I know now, most of it is though.

It is probably the most accurate to state, that I have taken a deviation on the Choctaw to a more historical research perspective than a genealogical one. I try to read as much as I can, but I probably focus a lot of time on as many original records as I can find. And there are a lot, if you know where to look.  Finding the Quaker records (and an email) I confirmed that James L. McDonald was left with the Quakers with another boy, (whose obituary shows is James Madison, a son of Apuckshunnubbee), by Jeremiah Ward. It is not long after the death of James Madison, that Thompson McKinney writes in his memoirs, he was approached about taking in a Choctaw boy, the same James L. McDonald. I recall being fascinated by James' story, long before I found out he was a relative. In fact, the half-nephew of my ancestor. 

Reading newspapers, I found an article with a recount by Eliza Ann Flack, my ancestor's daughter, and her discussion of her mother's Uncle, Uncle Pushmataha. She also talks about a cousin who died and gives an account (hard to read) of the bone picking and cry that occurred afterward. She makes it sound like she recalls the Creek War, which I doubt, I suspect she was born in the midst of it, but it is interesting. I also have read accounts of Mushulatubbee's brother's trial and letter when he killed a white man. The death of General Hummingbird and Little Leader, among many other things.

I have read the American State papers, and the Mississippi territorial papers, deeds, and court records, and thousands upon thousands of Dawes files. Almost very history book ever written prior to 2000, and a few since, some thesis material when I could find it. I have gone page through page through the records on ancestry to read the court records that are hidden and not indexed. I researched annuity rolls, and census, and documented as much as I could. Oh, and I talked a lot to other researchers who have been doing this a lot longer than I have, most specifically my dear friend Sandra, who has spent hundreds of hours on the phone with me and shared hundreds of emails with me over the last 20 years. 

I love that there is a lot of love for genealogy now. That there is an interest in it, and younger people involved. Back when I started, I was 33, that was so much younger than everyone I ran across except one or two folks. So, glad to see younger people interested. And also grateful, that the search engines don't readily bring up some of the old forums which are full of inaccurate claims. Not so grateful that the claims have made it into a lot of trees. 

Accuracy in genealogy should always be the goal. Sometimes, we can't prove it on paper, but we can by circumstantial evidence, logic and reasoning. Such evidence generally includes, proximity, timeframe, and some kind of substantial evidence other than, an oral history, or a MCR file. There is a plethora of claims on the MCR that are true, and there are just as many that aren't. You can tell when you read them, they have no substance in their testimonies. What most people don't take the time to learn is that there were congressional testimonies over the enrollments in Mississippi, primarily, the scam ran by a group of lawyers, that went town to town, and literally signed up as many folks to enroll as they could. They also sold shares to the American public elsewhere for an expected profit when these folks enrolled and got their "money". The majority of the Mississippi Choctaw Society were their clients.

There are a lot of valid reasons why the Mississippi Choctaw were enrolled and became a tribe, and why it was limited to it's membership. It unfairly did exclude Choctaws in Mississippi who were descendants of mixed bloods in 1830, but by doing so they ensured that the fraudulent claims weren't allowed. The Choctaws in Oklahoma, they fought enrollment of the Mississippi Choctaws. That is why you can find court of claims testimonies in the Cornish Collection (I forgot to mention I read those too).

 Not that most of my comments have been about rumored Choctaws, but it seemed the best place for me to start. I can literally talk for hours about the period before 1830, so I am going to try and put some of that into a blog (maybe I will have to find a way to focus). I can talk for hours about the period after 1830 through enrollment, so I will try and talk about that. I want to someday write a book on the Choctaw that looks at the history from a genealogical perspective. Because I already know, there is a lot of history books that has overlooked that and missed a huge part of the story. Maybe I can work on some of that here.

 Researching your Native American tree, starts just like your non Native American tree. You start at you and you work backward. You gather records, you confirm, and you move back. If you are lucky, you will find (rare) a census, or an enrollment or a tribal roll. Sometimes you won't be lucky. It's not that there isn't records out there, but it can be hard. There are five derivations of the name Nahotima on the 1856 census for the Choctaw. There are I don't know how many Homomastubbee's on the 1785 Spanish Treaty. There are 3 (I think) Pushimataha on that treaty as well, and not one is Pushmataha. There are 3 Mingo Poos Coos also. See where I say about lucky. 

Yeah, it is extremely difficult when you get to a full blood to verify information. Largely because by the time you get back that far, you are literally to a point where few if any records exist. Choctaw records are sporadic, you have the 1896, 1893 (I can't find that one), 1885, and 1856 for full families. There are a few more just head of household in the NARA, and there is the Armstrong rolls. That's a whole lot of skipping. Some of the Choctaw nation county records, the court records are all in Choctaw.  Choctaws in Mississippi, have far fewer records, even with the Cooper roll. You literally have almost 70 years with no documentation for some families. 

I am not saying don't try, I am saying be realistic. You can search for years (well for any genealogy this is true) with nothing. No clue, no records, and then one day, you may stumble on the records. Never look to prove yourself right, just look for something that proves something, even if you were wrong in your assumption. Accuracy is your goal. A family tree full of errors and inaccuracies isn't rewarding, and if you do your DNA, it is a headache because you won't figure out a match because of it. Use good judgement, use logic, and if you have a theory, state a theory. Don't trust any tree on ancestry, even mine, you should verify everything you can, and you should strive for sourced documentation. 

Autosomal DNA: What do I do now?

I belong to a few groups on Facebook around DNA and genealogy. I have also dropped a few. Well call me opinionated, but I don't believe that every moderator is the only expert. 

 When I started out with my DNA tests in 2014, I read a lot of blogs. The same experts are out there, and back then the big push was triangulation. I have been told that is the "old" way and the new "way" is the Leeds method. I had to google it. Basically it takes clustering your matches into buckets and then building trees (they use the term quick and dirty tree) and identifying matches to your grandparents.

 I don't do this method strictly in the way they describe, probably because well, I was identifying matches for years without it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It does though I think bring some challenges in some situations. This blog talks about southern trees. Well, half my tree is a southern tree. And what I can tell you is that just because I have shared matches doesn't mean squat. I have to verify they aren't related through a way completely unconnected to me. Even when they would fit in the same "bucket". Because I don't have a collapsed tree, and I have minimal endogamy, but I have a family that has lived in the same area for over 200 years. And guess what, this group of families has had a lot of intermarriages over the last 200 years. I normally am related to someone more than one way, I often "share" relatives. I am not related to A whose related to B and I am related to B. 

I guess my point is, advice and videos and blogs are great, but if it isn't working for you, there may be a reason. Maybe you just don't have enough testers for that line. Maybe you aren't related to that line. Maybe you have a "southern" type tree. (I do recommend you read the blog I mentioned, she has some great tips).

 So how do I do personally determine matches and group them on Ancestry? Well, you need to understand, First, when I started this, I had a robust tree. Meaning, I had most of my family to 6th generation and beyond, and had their children done too. This makes me not your typical user. I was not trying to find a grandfather or great grandfather. I am not adopted. And so far, DNA has shown not one non-parental event (whew). Second, I didn't just test myself. I tested my parents, my grandmother's sister, my grandfather's cousin, my mother's half cousin that shares only a grandfather, my cousin, my aunt, and then I tested three distant Hardy cousins, two because they were also Pyburn's. I have 5 tests on 23andme, seven on ancestry, and have put some of them on myheritage, all of them on gedmatch and familytreedna. 

 So I started with identifying folks before I did the ancestry tests, using gedmatch and 23andme and ftdna, and genomemate pro. Which is a program that lets you database your matches. It's free, and easier than building my own spreadsheets. So I identified a lot of segments (I haven't done that in forever), and I ended up with a good size group of folks when I see them I know, I am related to them by x surname. 

 Then when I did ancestry dna, I looked at trees on the largest matches first, and identified as many of them as I could. Even when that took a bit of internet sleuthing. So the bulk of the second and third cousin matches, I identified. And if I couldn't I noted what family or side (maternal or paternal) they matched. (yeah, it's clustering, just not in a spreadsheet, and not on paper). I still do that. Then I look at all the shared matches, and flip between them seeing who they are related to (again clustering). I focus in on trees, and look for matches who share the same surname. When I find more than one with a surname (Not my own) and have a group of known matches, I build a tree, and start really looking for where it can connect. (Again, probably same as clustering). For me, inevitably it's the last line I look at that is the clue. 

Sometimes, that's as far as I get, I build the tree, and that's it, I can't figure it out. But, I have figured out a few of those that have sat for the last few years. I just needed more matches in common. Then lastly, I don't bother looking at matches down to 30 cM. Not as a starting point anyhow. I rarely go beyond 50 cM when I look at new matches, or work on old ones. Why? Because I already have a great tree, what I am looking for is "surprise" large matches, and clues to just a handful of individuals where I have had a genealogy roadblock. 

I probably spend 75% of my time just on genealogy and only 25% on DNA. That works for me. That said, I recommend anyone who is new to DNA read the Autosomal DNA Wiki from ISOGG, and when you do you will find links to blogs, and these guys, are the true experts in the field. Then I would learn about DNA painter (which helps with probabilities for matches). I can tell you, the guy who came up with the probabilities, Blaine, is a blogger, and I participated so it is a great help. And last, take advice with a grain of salt. If one method doesn't work for you, you can vary it. What I cannot express enough, is building a tree out as far as you can, and not forgetting, especially within the first four generations, building the siblings of your ancestor down too. This helps. And if you are having trouble finding someone who won't answer your email. I have some tips on that here. Don't understand what a second cousin twice removed is? I have an explanation for that (my easy way of figuring it anyhow) here.

Clues on Mary Douglas

Mary Douglas, my grandmother's great grandmother has been a mystery forever. She has birthplace given as Canada and Clinton County, NY. We have a lot of cousin's from the Paxton's who have tested now on ancestry, so I thought I would give it a look again. There has been three different "clusters" of matches within the Paxton cousins that match each other. I spent the weekend working on them. The Douglas matches all link back to either a Reuben Douglas, John Douglas or Elizabeth Douglas. All of these have lower Canada in common, Missisquoi specifically. There is a Robert Douglass there in 1825. Now most people have this Robert the same as a later Robert who is there in 1842. The second Robert is 12 years younger than the first. So I took the older children, which included a John and a Reuben (from notorial records and the 1825 census) and built a tree with that seperate, merging the John who goes to Jefferson County, and adding Elizabeth (based on the 1825 census this is probable). I also did a spreadsheet on the 1825 Douglass's. There are three different groupings. De Lery is the widow of Nathaniel Douglas Sr who died in 1821 and his two sons. Sherington is the other children of Nathaniel Douglas Sr from his first wife. Lacole is the family group of Robert Douglas.

 

The other two surnames are from the children of George Cameron and his wife, Hannah Blanchard. Because his wife is born of immigrants later than the birth of Mary Douglass, I focused on George. All we know is George is a son of an Alexander Cameron who was likely born in lower Canada. This match includes others from this line, but it is important to note, my great aunt, my mother, myself, my cousin and my daughter all share a segment intact with the mother, cousin, daughter, son of this family. Alexander Cameron, born in 1804, would be the son of a mother roughly same age as Robert Douglass' wife. The remaining matches come from the children of an Alexander Charter whose wife was Mary. Alexander Charter was in St. Martine about 30 miles away. Alexander Charter' wife would be roughly the same age as the wife of Robert Douglass. So for now, Father Theory in my tree has two unknown daughter's with the last name theory, and Mary Unknown. We will see if this leads us anywhere or not. Will keep you posted. Oh by the way, I picked George Douglass as the father of Mary. Not because I have any proof, but because she named a son George Benjamin.

The Paxton Family a Breakthrough

For what seems like forever, we did not know much on Benjamin Paxton. We knew who he said his parents were and he was born in either Birminghamshire or Oxfordshire. My great aunt's DNA has helped solve all of that. Well that and a plethora of Paxton cousins who have also tested. First I was able to figure out that Benjamin's father William had a second family and resided in King County, Ontario. His second wife's maiden name was Bryan's and that must be how Benjamin got the last name of Brown. A burial for Mary Paxton, daughter of William Paxton and Mary Adams in Quebec, and then the death of Mary Paxton wife of William in Quebec led me to that discovery. Recently I started looking into a match of 107 cM. Turns out he is my great Aunt's 3rd cousin once removed from the Paxton family. I was able to trace Benjamin Paxton to Finmere, in Oxfordshire. He was a grandson of Richard Paxton and Rachel Butler. I found a marriage for William Paxton in Hertsfordshire to a Mary Adams. The distance bothered me a lot, but there is 1. No William's in the area prior to the marriage 2. William is listed as a widowerer. I then found a marriage of William Paxton to Sarah Adams and her death in 1820 in Tingewick, Buckinghamshire. A post on a genealogy group let me know that at this time (1820) it was voidable to marry a spouses's sister. Thus the marriage at great distance (50 miles) makes more sense. So, I built a tree for Mary Adams, daughter of Thomas Adams and Elizabeth Winmell. We have thrulines now, so I believe this is the final answer on the family. The Paxton's were yeomen in Finmere for several centuries.