[Looking at why our area has its unique political and religious attitudes.]

How can we lose a person?

When looking through historical records, we occasionally come to the end of the line for a person. They seem to magically appear from nowhere, with no parentage or family lineage. What happened deep in the bowels of historical records?

Obviously, marriage and adoption can change names, making them more difficult to ascertain.

A common issue arose with first emigrants and early encounters of Native Americans. They simply changed their name to fit in with the dominant language and society. Major Ridge translated his Cherokee name to become his surname and adapted his military rank for his given name. His nephew Elias Boudinot simply adopted the name of his education mentor. Elias’ brother General Stand Waite transliterated his father’s name Oo-wa-tie and translated his given name meaning “Stands strong.”

These were leaders who determined the destiny of a people and our American nation, but we would have no idea about their relationships and that impact with just a casual reading.

Precisely the same thing happened when ethnic groups from other languages transliterated their names to an English moniker. To fit in, Czech, Hungarian, Italian and others Americanized their name.

Misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, and unfamiliarity creates and perpetuates fallacies and erroneous opinions. We came across this old quote last week in finding relationships.

“So, my premise has come to encompass the possibility that while Silas was born out of wedlock, or that the family did not recognize the marriage, and he, as were all ‘illegitimate’ at that time, were given the name of the mother. I have no feeling of regret about this, it was the order of the day. It has been recorded that there were several other O’Quin females who for fun, or love, or money, or were victims of rape, gave birth to children who were given our O’Quin name.”

At least, he declared it was a premise. Past that, the context of history is lost. Just four sentences before this ill-advised speculation, the author states, Silas “was of American Indian ancestry.”

In all relationships, we must be careful to understand context, history, and tradition. Logical, rational, and factual reasoning is the technique used by the scientific method to displace feelings and conjecture. The declaration “I feel this is right” is nothing more than speculation.

His “premise” and the previous statement about “Indian” are incongruous leading to an expression of “no feeling of regret.” What is the real story?

The Cherokee people, as most Native Americans, until well after the American Revolution were a matrilineal, polygamous society. The women, particularly grandmothers, choose who would father their children and the woman could divorce freely. Consequently, choice men often had multiple mates.

The clan was an extended family group. The tribes did not allow marriage within their own clan. They understood the deleterious consequence from too-close replication of bloodlines, regardless of how cute your cousin was. Interestingly this became a practical and religious prohibition around the world. How could it be that the Jewish culture of the Middle East and the Irish from Great Britain had the same prohibition?

The tribe and clan wanted the strongest, healthiest, and smartest. The practice propagated the elite genes.

In the matrilineal society, the mother’s father and oldest brother were more involved with raising her children than the father, who was a different clan. The women owned the dwellings and property, except for land which was a gift of the Creator, and no one could own it. The concept of land ownership was a cornerstone of the conflict with Europeans.

Leadership positions were usually subject to the approval of the matriarchs. Because of the inheritance issue, men seldom married Europeans, partially because the children would not be citizens to the Nation.

The converse was not true for several reasons. As the Europeans pushed the frontier, ladies of their own culture were not available. Boys will find girls. So, the frontier had a contract between willing European men and willing, dominant Native American women.

This pragmatic, de facto system set up a clash of cultures. Although totally acceptable and expected in the Native American society, their ladies were sometimes charged with impropriety, by pseudo-moral officials, and were fined for having children outside a government sanctioned marriage. Then life went on.

The counter side is these type legal interventions, even in 1730, allow us to trace lineage and migration, where there were no tribal written records and the paternal names just do not seem to match.

The children from these short-term marriages obtained tribal status, consequently they received the matrilineal name of the mother. In the earlier quote, the very Irish Mr. O’Quin could have saved much angst if he understood the nuances of his equal Indian cultural heritage.

As we look back, accepted norms and practices must be evaluated in the framework of that time and society, not some perceived other culture. Context is difficult.

Think about the traditions passed down. We cannot change who the people were or what they did. Then realize we are each personally responsible for our choices and the consequences.

——–

Excerpts from our book:

No Man’s Land Pioneers, Louisiana’s Wild, Wild West, ISBN: 9781694632128.