Search for content in message boards

Nancy Hays

Nancy Hays

Posted: 6 Jan 2006 8:13PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 20 Mar 2009 7:06AM GMT
Surnames: Nash, Hays
Jerri,
I found another familiar name I have so many names in so many directions I am getting lost. This person is Nancy Hays I found her on the Dawes rolls. I am curious if she is the daughter of Lewis Clinton Nash b. April 20, 1807. from Kentucky. It sound to me like these are two separate people but I was wanting to double check. If you have any information on this lady I would greatly appreciate it if you would share it with me.

Thanks,
Darla M

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 6 Jan 2006 9:25PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 11 Sep 2006 3:18PM GMT
Darla-
There is NO "Nancy Hays" in the "By Blood" section of the Dawes Roll.

Where did you find that name listed? I hope that it wasn't on one of these on-line government sites (NARA or NAIL), because more than 60% of information from those sites is useless for reasearch purposes. They throw in a listing of the "parents" ("P"), even if they have been dead for 50 years! They also list the white parents of an "IW" ("Intermarried white") spouse, which only causes confusion! These entries are not shown on the official Dawes Roll that everyone else uses, so how are we to find them?

Let me know what the source for your information is and the exact wording.

jc

Re: Hays, Nancy

Darla Manns (View posts)
Posted: 7 Jan 2006 9:47PM GMT
Classification: Query
Jerri,
How are you today. It feels good in Northwest Oklahoma I bet it is at least 75 degrees outside. I hope it feels good in Northeast Oklahoma too lol.

Nancy Hays I found researching in ancestry.com I put in surname Hays. She is listed on there on the Dawes Commission index, 1896. However, My smart self gave you the wrong name I want Millie Hays and Nancy but Nancy Hayes I spelled her name wrong on my first post sorry my mistake. I told you I have so many names I can't hardly sort through them.
Thanks
Darla M

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 8 Jan 2006 3:02AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 11 Sep 2006 3:18PM GMT
Darla
That's why I couldn't find anything-- the "1896 Roll" was NOT the legal "Final Roll" of 1898/1906 that was used to allot the land of Indian Territory. It was ruled "illegal" by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is an article that I wrote about it some years ago:

-------------------------------------------------
"The 1896 "Dawes Roll";
Some of the illegal intruders who had bullied their way into Indian Territory in an attempt to steal the land from the Indians by claiming "Squatters Rights", and who could not use coercion or bribery to obtain tribal citizenship from these Indian Nations, then tried another tactic. They petitioned the U.S. Congress (on the basis of their OWN U.S. citizenship!) to FORCE these sovereign Indian nations to give them tribal membership and a share of the land. In 1895 the Congress of the United States-- never consulting the Nations as to why they were rejecting these non-Indians, enacted a U.S. law that they (the United States Government) would appoint a committee to reopen the citizenship process of the FCT's ("FCT's"= "Five Civilized Tribes") -- and that this commission would be empowered to decide who was or was not legal citizens of these sovereign foreign nations.

The FCT's immediately filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, and WON. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in essence) that the United States Congress or government had no more right to decide this issue than they would to tell Canada or Mexico that they had passed a U.S. law saying that the U.S. would now determine who THEIR citizens would be!

But in the mere 45 DAYS between these two rulings, more than 140,000 applicants filed from every state in the U.S. and at least three foreign countries- including CHINA! These applications have survived to some degree, are available on 54 rolls of microfilm (series M-1650), but many are very dim and hard to read.

Shamefully, these applications wrote a new chapter as to the depth the white man would sink to in order to obtain ANYTHING that the Indians owned which was "forbidden" to him!!! Please bear in mind that during this same time, there were hundreds of THOUSANDS of acres of U.S. Public Land in other states available to these people, through the U. S. Homestead Act.

--- but it wasn't "the forbidden fruit"-- THE INDIAN LANDS!

----------------------------
There are two "Nancy Hayes" (Cherokee 314 & Cherokee 827) and one "Millie Hays" (Choctaw 1006) shown in the Index.

My best advice, Darla, would be to order copies of these applications from the Oklahoma Historical Society (http://www.ok-history.mus.ok.us/ ). They have these 54 rolls of microfilm, volunteers to do lookups and a way to copy them.Some of these applications may contain up to 15 pages of affidavits. I have the film-- but no way to copy and very little of the time that it would take to find, extract and type out all three applications. One-- I don't mind looking up--- but three is a little "much" to ask!

Good luck

jc.

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 11 Jan 2006 2:39AM GMT
Classification: Query
Thanks for your advice. You are right I have tons of names and I have put off ordering microfilms. I will get busy on this and maybe find some more info out.
Darla M

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 20 Mar 2009 2:43AM GMT
Classification: Query
I need info on my grandparents, both Cherokee. Ida (Hays) and Arthur Alexander Barnes.

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 20 Mar 2009 10:38PM GMT
Classification: Query
Between 1860 and 1930, there were 171 "Ida Hays" listed on the U.S. census.

Between 1810 and 1930, there were 593 "Arthur Barnes" listed on the U.S.census.

Your pick- ____

jc

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 20 Mar 2009 11:01PM GMT
Classification: Query
-- "C- Lady"
Aren't you the same person who remarked that I was "insulting" a person that I was trying to help explain the difference between "a Reservation" and a sovereign "Indian Nation" on another board? It was posted about the same time that you posted this one.

---and you want me to help you do what?

jc

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 21 Mar 2009 6:57AM GMT
Classification: Query
No, it was not meant as an insult to you. I appreciate anyone trying to help others. It was merely a failed attempt at humor regarding someone's ignorance of the use of those two terms. If you took offence it was not intended. It seems we are always having to overlook someone's ignorance such as calling us "chief" or "sqaw" or asking what "God" we pray to. However, if you were offended then never mind the help. I will seek elsewhere.

Re: Hays, Nancy

Posted: 21 Mar 2009 8:05PM GMT
Classification: Query
-- "Lady"

Last night you posted at least SEVEN queries to various message boards, under various headings, but all saying (basically) the same thing:

"I have Barnes in my family line from Arkansas and they were Cherokee."

Good grief!!! WHAT are we suppose to do with THAT??? If we are going in THAT direction, I have a Miller family in Texas that I would like for YOU to find for me!!!!

That was one of the points that I was trying to get across to you-- if you knew they were in Arkansas- then you knew OTHER things about them that you were not telling us. What do you expect us to do with no more information than that? Did they live there in 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850 or WHEN???

For Example:

Search of U.S. census between only 1860 and 1920.
Total Number of Barnes families listed: 3,295

1860 Census Results: 132
1870 Census Results: 213
1880 Census Results: 1052
1900 Census Results: 526
1910 Census Results: 652
1920 Census Results: 720
Now this does not include the families who were mistakenly listed as "Barns" or "Barn".

None of us have crystal balls or can go through 3,295 families to see if they say "we are Cherokee and related to someone who calls HERSELF "Cherokee Lady" on the Internet in 2009! See how ridicules this becomes?

The Cherokees are blessed with having 37 Cherokee Rolls, and in addition, I, personally, have about 400 rolls of microfilm of other Cherokee records! BUT--if they were living in Arkansas after 1830, they they were no longer citizens of the Cherokee Tribe (the tribe had been removed to Indian Territory) and they would NOT be shown on the rolls!!

Jerri Chasteen
Claremore OK
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

© 2002-2014 AncestryPrivacyCookiesNew Terms and ConditionsOperated by Ancestry.com Europe S.à r.l.