Talk:Lumbee/Archive 2

An outsider's view
I am not a Lumbee. I never heard of the Lumbee people prior to noticing the conflict pertaining to this article. I'm the one who locked the article in its semi-protected state, in hopes of calming things down somewhat.

I really don't know enough to judge the validity of the statements regarding the origins of the Lumbee; however, what is clear is that there is a controversy.

Therefore, we should present both sides of the controversy: the facts that both sides can agree on.

Try to write so as to provide a minimum of statements that someone on the other side of the debate could consider a flaw. DS 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The main controversy here seems to be that Arvis has objections to the inclusion of several of the cited sources and their findings. Apparently he wants them taken out. I don't see a reasonable resolution to that request. Gallay liked the older version from earlier this year better than the current version. Then he disappeared, and cannot be troubled to tell us specifically what his beef is. An anonymous editor keeps removing a sentence that mentions the existence of African and European ancestry among Lumbees, even though this is well documented, and acknowledged by all published sources. These are not complaints that can easily be addressed.Verklempt 04:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

to delete the false information too. Think about it. The Vandals (French) help bring down a corrupt Roman empire. On certain occasions a little vandalism is needed. :>) Arvis
 * What you fail to mention is that there are sources which state the contrary to your assertions in this article. For example, the documentation of the eight times the Bureau has visited the Lumbee and confirmed they are a tribe.  What about the Pierce findings that the majority of Lumbee were 3/4 Native blood quantum. Most sources cited in this article are biased against the Lumbee.  I have yet to see the documentation,other than the shoddy Heinegg research that proves the existence of African American and European heritage among the Lumbee.  I am not denying there could be some, but why does that fact need to be emphasized. Why? That fact applies to all eastern Native peoples. As a previous editor stated, some African American/European American ancestory should not preclude or diminish a people's status as a Native American tribe.  I agree with what Dragonfly stated, perhaps it be fair to present both sides of the arguement, pro and con.  I agree with Gallay, it sounds like the earlier version was less biased.  By the way, if I besmirched (sp.) your family background, you would want


 * I don't think there is any dispute that the Lumbees are a recognized tribe today. The controversy is over how the Lumbee ancestors were identified before 1885. I don't understand how acknowledging African and European ancestry is "besmirching" anyone. It is a simple statement of historical fact that Lumbee ancestors were so identified, and were not identified as Indians, prior to 1885. To remove that truth from the article is to distort the historical record in order to coddle the preferred origins myth of contemporary people. Is this to be an encyclopedia, or a reiteration of myths so that we can make some people feel better about their ancestry?Verklempt 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

unsubstantiated allegations. Wikipedia is not a place for individuals to criticize a group, tribe, religious group, or other entity because they FEEL they are the beginnning to end expert. You say Tomayto, I say Tumahato. I don't need you to make me feel better about my ancestry. I know who I am. Do you? We Lumbee have a saying, "Truth (true words) will stand the test of time." Over 121 years is a long time to "reiterate" some myths isn't it? Arvis 31 August 2006.
 * It is a besmirch if the only documentation you offer is one piece of research and other


 * There is no criticism in this article, unless one is so racist that he can't deal with having African ancestors. There are hundreds of historical documents supporting the simple fact of African and European ancestry. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, the article still needs to air this aspect of historical knowledge about this group.Verklempt 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Lumbees. I admitted there may be some African American heritage among my people. The same holds true among ALL eastern tribes. I don't see why we have to suffer your brand of the truth when there is proof to the contrary. 31 August 2006 Arvis
 * You're the racist Verklempt. You have some unknown grudge against


 * I don't understand the nature of your complaint. You don't want some of the most prominent researchers included in this article, apparently because they are the ones who document the African ancestry. If you're acknowledging the truth of African ancestry, then what's your problem with including mention of it in the article?Verklempt 21:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The True Origins of the Lumbee-- Tuscarora
The Lumbee article is largely biased and misleading. There is no mention in the Lumbee article of the fact that the majority (95%) of the surnames/ families comprising the "Lumbee" tribe can be traced to the Tuscarora Reservation of the 1700's in Bertie Co. NC. There is a multitude of documentation avaialable indicating that these people are in fact Tuscarora. A number of experts, including acclaimed author Dr. Peter Wood, among others agree that the so-called "Lumbee" are actually Tuscarora Descendants. The "Lumbee" name was recently created and has no historic basis. There is rarely mention or discussion of the "Lumbee" tribe's Tuscarora roots.

The familiar story is that after the war most Tuscarora fled to New York to join the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy/ 5 Nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca) but this was not the case. In fact about half of the Tuscarora (1,500) moved to New York. The other half (1,000- 1,500) fled to Virginia, some assuming tributary status under the Colony, but most returned to North Carolina. A small remnant of Tuscarora and other tribes, including the Chowanoc and Nansemond remained in Eastern Virginia/ North Carolina under the leadership of King Tom Blount. While others scattered into the countryside, in small communities, or joined with ally tribes such as the Chowanoc.

On June 5, 1717 these Tuscarora were “given” (from land that was once theirs) 41,000 acres as a reservation. Due to the numerous hardships they faced, these families began to scatter from the reservation into the North Carolina Countryside, which at that time was frontier, with very few Whites residing there. In 1730 only 300 individuals remained on the Reservation. Many ended up to the West in Edgecombe County. Their Tuscarora surnames include Lowry, Locklear, Kearsey, Chavis, Cumbo, and Brayboy among numerous others. These families resided in Bertie in the Early 1700’s, Northampton in 1728, and Edgecombe in 1736. This, along with other common surnames proves that these Tuscarora families lived near or among the Webbs before departing and shared the same migration to Edgecombe County in the 1760’s and later.

Among the Tuscarora who first appear in the area of what is now Robeson County was Chief Billy Mitchell, and James Lowry. Before moving south, these families were on the Tuscarora Indian Woods Reservation in 1713. Chief Mitchell (William Mitchell) signed a legal document there along with Chief James Lowry before their move south to Cape Fear/ Bladen County in 1757.

After leaving Indian Woods, in the 1720’s these Tuscarora were deeding land along the Roanoke. In the same location were the Indian families: Cumbo, Freeman, Day, Demeory, and Weeks. They are listed as witnesses on many of one-another’s deeds. In the 1720’s the Chavis, Locklear, Bass, Gibson, and Sweat Families also lived on the Roanoke in the area of Edgecombe and Bertie.

This is just the "tip of the Ice-berg." -- David Webb ==
 * Why did these folks claim to be Cherokees in the early 20th century? Why did they start claiming to be Cheraws later on? Why did the NY Tuscaroras say in the early 19th century that all their people had migrated, except for a handful who had intermarried with free blacks? It is plausible and likley that some mid-Atlantic FPC families have a modicum of Tuscarora ancestry, but the proof is entirely speculative.Verklempt 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold text == The Cherokee name was basically forced upon the people, with A.W. Mclean (future governor and assistant secretary of the U.S.treasury) as the sponsor of the legislation. His "inside man" so to speak, was D.F. Lowry, a nephew of H.B. Lowry (tuscarora). Mr. Mclean, when rationalizing the renaming to Cherokee, he twisted people's oral traditions, attempting to make a connection to the Cherokee in the mountains. Mr. Mclean came up with the so-called connection to the John Lowry who signed a Cherokee treaty circa 1800, but that was never substantiated.

The Cherokee fought the designation of the people from Robeson County, as Cherokee from the beginning, but the State ignored their protests, designating our people cherokee in 1913. The State appeased the Cherokee in the mountains somewhat by giving our people the name, and nothing more.

My own feelings as to why Cherokee was given, was due to the fact that in 1916, the Bertie County Reservation Land leases were to expire, and if there were no recognized Tuscarora in the state, the land would revert to N.C. The original name given in 1885 was Croatan, but McMillan admited that they were actually Tuscarora, which is why the names began to change just before the 1916 date. In 1911, the name was changed from Croatan, to "Indians of Robeson County", which must have been too vague for the state of N.C.'s concern, which why the name was changed again in 1913.

As far as the Cheraw, that name was just another part of the State's attempt of keeping our ancestor's identity confusing. There may be a minute infusion of Souian, but again, the major portion of Indian blood is Tuscarora. In 1933, Swanton gave "his version", which is why the many of the people began to identify as Souian when the IRA testing occured a few years later. Never the less, the governnment has acknowledged the fact that there were 22 half or more full blood Tuscarora recognized here in the 1930's, which was only a fraction of the actual number that "should" have been recognized. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html

The Lumbee themselves can't prove but one surname that "possibly" comes from Cheraw, and Michelle Lawing stated that the Cheraw didnt come into Robeson County until the early 1800's. Our people's "core group" was already in this area well before 1800.

This is why the northern Tuscarora said that in 1802. They were seeing only the Bertie County area, and did not come to the Robeson area looking for their Kin. By 1802, most of the people had already left the reservation, going in all directions. The Chiefs never knew about the numerous other Tuscarora communities that had popped up in other parts of the state. --Roskerah 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The proof is not even remotely "speculative" LOL. Basically every major Lumbee surname originated among the Tuscarora: Lowry, Locklear, Kearsey, Chavis, Cumbo, Goins, Gibson, etc, etc. Their migration pattern from residing on the Bertie reservation, to Edgecombe County, to Bladen, in what is now Robeson is well document through land deeds and other legal documents.

What about this is speculative? Its the only SOLID evidence on their/our origins!
 * It's all speculative, in that none of these people have been linked to the Tuscarora tribe in historical documents. Just because they lived in the same county the Tuscaroras had vacated doesn't mean they were Tuscaroras. The Tuscaroras themselves said in the early 1800s that they had already collected all of their people and moved north, save for a few that had intermarried with negroes. The other issue is that none of the robeson people ever claimed to be Tuscaroras until the mid-20th century, after they had already cycled through a bunch of other identities.Verklempt 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong,-- I can think of several documented examples off the top of my head, including individuals who migrated to Robeson from the Bertie Reservation such as "Chief Billy Mitchell" and "Chief James Lowry" signing agreements as Tuscarora representatives. Also a Kearsey is noted as being "Tuscarora." There are many more examples including lists similar to a roll or census which lists Lowries (Lowry), Locklear, Chavis, Cumbo, etc as Tuscarora. All of these individuals made the migration. Also, there is no doubt among Tuscarora in New York and academics/experts as to Robeson Indians being Tuscarora descendants. The Tuscarora in NY have acknowledged that there are Tuscarora remaining in NC, they don't accept NC Tuscarora because they track their lines through the mother's side. There are however, many NC Tuscarora with unbroken matrilineal lines. It is well known that the Tuscarora moved to NY in waves, even into the 1800's. There were some that remained, in fact there are Tuscarora descendets living in Bertie and Edgecombe as well as Robeson. Dr. Peter Wood from Duke outlines all of this in his report: "An Historical Report Regarding the Relation of the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe of Robeson County, North Carolina, to the Original Tuscarora Indian Tribe."


 * I can't find this report by Wood in any catalog. Can you please give us a more detailed citation, so that your assertions can be verified?Verklempt 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've met Peter Wood and have spoken with him about the Lumbee before. Strange he never mentioned this article or report. Yes, please provide a citation and/or location so that interested researchers may take a look. Thanks Factiness 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I too have this report. He did it for the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe's petition, that has been filed at the BIA for almost 27 years, but the government refuses to look at it, using the Lumbee Act as their only excuse. You may want to contact him again. Maybe he will send you a copy. Email me, and I might be able to send you part of it. --Roskerah 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the final conclusion of Dr. Woods report, beginning on page 116:

"...It is the impression of this historian that the claim is a strong one, if presented properly. There is sound evidence that some of the Tuscarora Indians who remained in North Carolina after the Tuscarora War eventually migrated to Robeson County before 1800. They had every reason to play down their Tuscarora identity, given the hostile atmosphere, yet evidence of these connections still managed to survive. After the Civil War in the era of Henry Berry Lowrie, Robeson’s most famous Native American, it was well known in the area that his ancestors had been Tuscaroras. Some of his descendants were among those who were designated as Indians during a survey of the county in the l930s. Over the past century, generations of Tuscarora descendants have been active in the county’s complex local political life, usually representing the more rural and poorer portion of the Indian community, who have sought to maintained some distance from white and black culture in the area and some control over their own affairs. The re—emergence of this Tuscarora identity in the early l970s was seen by many as manufactured pose, when in fact the roots were extremely deep. But they had been hidden by generations of speculation about how all the Indians of Robeson County might best be lumped together under one title. The Congressional recognition of Lumbees in 1956 should not limit or constrain the Tuscarora claim. Nor should the absence of a continuous tribal structure of governance, for, as explained in the introduction, these persons are not seeking recognition as an independent and enduring historical tribe, but rather as a remnant of an existing and recognized tribe that was forced to move out of the southeastern region. In this sense, the Hatteras Tuscaroras are best seen as comparable to the Eastern Cherokees or the Mississippi Choctaws, that is, descendants of people who managed to remain near their ancestral homelands when major upheavals forced most of their kin to migrate elsewhere."--Roskerah 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now got wind of this report; the full title is "Tuscarora Roots: An Historical Report Regarding the Relation of the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe of Robeson County, North Carolina, to the Original Tuscarora Indian Tribe." It is 160 pages in length, including references and bibliography. However, it was written only in 1992, though, and so has not been on file at the BIA for 27 years--something less than 14 actually. The information submitted for the Hatteras Tuscarora petition was merged with that submitted in 1999 by the Tuscarora Nation East of the Mountains, who the BIA determined required legislative action for eligibility to petition. This decison was based--in part, at least--on genealogical associations with the Lumbee, also determined ineligible to apply. So, to say the government refuses to even look at it, I don't know how accurate that assessment is.

http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1989opinion.html --Roskerah 16:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the reason I said that the government refuses to look at Tuscarora petitions:
 * I think I should clarify that fact that the government initially put the Hatteras petition on the "active status" list, sending a LOD(Letter of Obvious Deficiencies)to Vermon Locklear in 1985. The Hatteras were the 15th petition of all petitions submitted to date, and probably the longest on file without a final decision.

I say all of this to show that the "ONLY" reason that the petition was never approved by now, is this 1989 solicitor's opinion. Another piece of the puzzle is the fact that the Tuscarora Tribe of N.C.(not listed on the Nov 3rd letter), who had at that time Lawrence Maynor and his family as members. In 1987, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1987petition.html, the TTNC filed this petition with Mr. Maynor, but were subsequently told that even he now had to file another petition, even though the lawsuit he won stated that he still retained his rights notwithstanding the Lumbee Act. TTNC spent almost two years preparing the petition, and let it be known when they would file it. So, just prior to their filing the petition, which was filed on December 5, 1989, the BIA issued this new "opinion", which enables them to once again deny Mr. Maynor's attempt at "tribal recognition". --Roskerah 03:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, there were several other instances when the surviving "22" petitioned the BIA. Here is one from 1977: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1977petition.html . When it really comes down to it, the BIA has denied the Tuscarora recognition, because they know that it would be a back door for the Lumbee to become recognized with full benefits. They know that the majority of the Lumbee people descend primarily from Tuscarora. Here is a letter which explains the BIA's concerns. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1980keepletter.html --Roskerah 07:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems the East of the Mountains group submitted a letter of intent to apply only in September of 1999, about a decade after the Hatteras Tuscarora (under Vermon Locklear) were determined ineligible. However, the Hattadare Nation, under leadrship of Mr. James Lowery, submitted a letter of intention to the BIA in 1979, about two years prior to submission of the same by the Drowning Creek Tuscarora Indian Tribe. This group, too, like the Lumbee, were determined to be ineligible in 1989. In 1997, the Drowning Creek Tuscarora were formally disolved as a group or entity. The same thing happened to Leon Locklear's Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina, who submitted a letter of intention to petition at the end of 1985. Meanwhile, the "Lumbee Regional Development Association, Incorporated," submitted a letter, and later morphed into the Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw Indians. I do not know how the Cherokee-Tuscarora of Hoke County, Inc. (at Lumber Bridge, North Carolina), are connected, but like the others, they were determined ineligible due to being the same people, in essence, as the Lumbee.

I shall refrain from getting into an analysis of the "Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe of Robeson County" report here. It was a little tentative, I think, and somewhat inconclusive. The depth and breadth of genealogical explication does not begin to approach what I have seen elsewhere. But, like a lot of the material at the BIA--boxes and boxes and files and files of reports, copies of records and so forth--it makes for interesting reading. What I find more intriguing, by far, are the competing claims to various tribal origins and identities. I wouild like to see an in-depth examination of that phenomenon.Factiness 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad you brought this up, because it goes to show how complicated things have become the last 30 years especially. First of all, I too think that the report was "tentative" as you put it, but it does nevertheless do something that no other PhD has done pertaining to Tuscarora here, and he didn't "tow the line" like the others before him. I never intended to say that this report was submitted when the petition was filed, and yes, it was sent in as a supplement years later.

Anyway, the Hatteras had no reason to "have" to submit a petition in the first place, due to the fact that this was the name of the group that began the final process of recognition in 1975, after the Maynor V. Morton case. This lawsuit was filed by several of the surviving "22" who were recognized in the 1930's. This lawsuit came about because of the fact that the BIA initially denied that the "22" retained any rights under the IRA, because of the Lumbee Act. The Feds said that the Lumbee Act was termination legislation, and that "all" Indians of Robeson County, including those who claimed Tuscarora. Lawrence Maynor ultimatedly won, and the BIA began working with the Hatteras to finalize the recognition of a "tribe", and not just several individuals. Under the IRA, individual Indians of half or more blood had the right to form a tribe by incorporating, creating constitution, and having land put into trust, and ultimately, create tribal roles. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1975BIAmemo.html http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html

As you will see in the above link, the government has already acknowledged that there are "recognized" individual Tuscaroras here(18 BIA houses were built because of the Maynor decision), though they have been able to circumvent a "tribe" of Tuscarora from being "recognized". The government has been in contempt of the 1975 decision since 1989, when they barred the Tuscarora petitions from being looked at again. The language of the 1989 solicitor's opinion goes back to the same "pre Maynor" language they had used to deny the "22" in 1971. The difference between recognized individuals, versus a Tribe, is the fact that individuals cannot bring landclaim lawsuits because that right is vested within a sovereign entity (Tribe/Nation). Landclaims have been the reason for the name games with our people from the very beginning, with Hamilton McMillan injecting into his pamplet that;

"...I do not find that the Hatteras Indians or the so-called Croatan Indians ever had any treaty relations with the United States, or that they have any tribal rights with any tribe or band of Indians; neither do I find that they have received any lands or that there are any moneys due them..."

Mr. McMillan could safely, and honestly make this previous statement, because he had created the Croatan "Tribe", and had effectively wiped away the Tuscarora identity. He could not have made that statement that I quoted if he had pushed the Tuscarora designation, because the Tuscarora had several treaties, one of which in 1802, that was never ratified. Since it was never ratified, it is null and void, but it is a moot point since there are no "recognized" groups still in the state. Again, individuals could not bring a suit in regards to a treaty. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1803affirmancefromUS.html

I have the 1989 solicitor's opinion, and I am going to upload it after I post this for anyone who would like to see it. It just goes to show how the government has kept our people chasing our tails for many many years, with no end in sight. I could go on and on...but...--Roskerah 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read and reviewed the documents posted at the links you've provided. I had seen some oif this before, but it is something to see it all like this and to realize that, despite genealogy (which the feds did not have access to back in those days), the BIA did more or less acknowledge these "22." They did state these few people were 1/2 Indian (some more) based on physical appearance. And, in light of the information I've been going over now concerning the Tuscarora, the treaties, the leases, etc., I would suggest that even though Tuscarora ancestry is undocumented (Norment notwithstanding) I think that tribal background is at least plausible. That in the sense that perhaps the second James Lowry, or someone else in that line, say circa 1750s-1770s, could have intermarried with a woman of Tuscarora ancestry. I say it is plausiblebut not necessarily probable. Fact is, though, you cannot help but wonder how some of the "Lumbee" people acquired their "Indian" cast--I know its only a minority; apparently the federal investigators thought so as well back in the 1930s. Still, if the BIA built these houses, and so forth, it would seem to me that irregardless of actual genetic ancestry, the federal government ought to live up to whatever promises they have made. And if you are suggesting that the descendants of those 22 essentially comprise a separate gruop, a distinct ethnic enclave among the larger "Lumbee" population (this is the impression I am getting overall) then certainly legislative action is in order; but how are the Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw going to respond to this?

I am going to sign out now, and may not respond anymore, but I am curious and if anyone would care to express an opinion, I'd certainly look forward to reading that here. Thanks.


 * Actually, the feds did have genealogical records, but they didnt use them to make determinations. Each applicant back then gave their genealogy, but by that time, most oral tradition had been lost, with the "revised" history coming out in many applications. Heck, most applications stated that they were claiming to be of the "Suoian Tribe". That shows just how ignorant the people were as to their own history.

http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/kermitlowryapp.html

This application is of Kermit Lowry, son of Rev. D.F. Lowry. D.F. was a nephew of Henry Berry, and the leading Indian from here in getting the Cherokee and Lumbee names. Notice that he and his wife claimed Tuscarora, though neither were accepted as 1/2 or more.

Next, Felix Cohen once wrote that there should have been atleast several hundred accepted here, but when it was done, only 22. In many instances, full siblings were denyed, which just go to show how unfair the testing was in the first place. The main reason that the government disallowed the IRA to be fully implemented with the people here, is because once a "Core group" had been established on reservation land, even with only "22" as the core, these "22" would have the right to take in all of the others that were "not" accepted by the government. After all, most of the people were kin anyway, and the government knew that they couldn't stop the "22" from taking in everyone.

Next, there were many writings prior to Norment, that stated that we were of Tuscarora blood. "The Swamp Outlaws", Harpersweekly magazine, John Gorman's writings, letters of the Freedmen's bureau, and others, all prior to Norment's 1875 book. There were alot more than "One Tuscarora" who came here. We know of many, including chiefs who migrated here aswell. The Lumbee themselves has some of this information in their "settlement pattern study".

Lastly, the "22" are not different ethnically, which is what has worried the government all of these years. They know that we all descend from the same places. --Roskerah 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Chris, have you ever seen that letter to the Freedmen's Bureau from the two ministers that says the Lowries are Tuscaroras? Part of it is in the Evans book, but I have never been able to find the original. It would be nice to know what the entire litter says, instead of just that one little fragment that Evans prints. Do you know if anyone else besides Evans has ever found that letter, and where I might see a copy?Verklempt 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

National Archives)}   {(Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen (Lumberton N.C. office) Record Group 105,National Archives) (Sider’s “Living Indian Histories” page 170)}
 * No, I have never seen that actual letter, though I do have the info on where it can be found. {(U.S. War Department, Records of the Army Commands (Record Group 393,

Also, here is: Gorman's writings: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/gormanwritings.html Swamp Outlaws: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/files/The_Swamp_Outlaws.htm Harper's Weekly: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1872harpersweekly.html Lowry History: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/lowriehistory.html

--Roskerah 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response and the links. However, that letter and the whole Birnie investigation is not in the Freedmens Bureau records. I know because I looked. This leads me to believe that Sider never saw it either.Verklempt 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh really, well I wonder if Evans had a copy of it? This was in reference to the killing of George Lowrie's boys, is that right? It is strange that it wouldnt be in the archives, though there is alot that "should" be in the archives that is missing, that pertains to the people here. --Roskerah 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that Evans did see the actual letter. I believe that the letter and other documents in the Birnie Investigation are probably still in the National Archives in downtown DC somewhere. The problem is that Evans's citation is so vague that to find this letter you would have to wade through potentially thousands of boxes, reading hundreds of papers in each box. It's not in the Freedman's records, because Birnie sent the results of his investigation to the military authorities. So it's probably still among the military records somewhere, like a needle hidden in a haystack. The letter itself--as reported by Evans--was written by two ministers who were part of the gang that murdered Allan and William Lowry, and who were among those gang members being investigated by the Freedman Bureau agent Birnie. I think the ministers were trying to lay a paper trail to get themselves off the hook for this murder.Verklempt 19:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

are biggies (Chavis and Locklear) Arvis
 * Uh, try at least two surnames connected with the Cheraw and they

°°°° Arvis, how did you come to this conclusion? Chavis and Locklear originate from Edgecombe County in the early 1700's, though some with these names did move into South Carolina "after" moving into the Robeson Area. The Lumbee themselves can't prove a Cheraw connection with these two names, so how can you? The only name that they "think" comes from Cheraw is Grooms. (Source: "Settlement pattern study" LRDA, 1983, written by Rebecca Seib, with Wes White and Carol Oxendine. There is also a "restricted report done by Wes White and David Wilknis, which can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCTuscarora/)

Chavis of the Cheraw (Marlboro, SC). Adolph Dial and I trace our lineage to Robert Locklear (Marlboro, SC). Robert L. also married an Evan's girl as did Tom (big Tom). When I have a chance there is more evidence on my tree to support this. BTW, Vernon Cooper also traces his lineage back to SC. Remember the trading path. Its possible the Locklear's, Chavis', etc. did travel from SC up the trading path from Va., down through Edgecombe, etc. I am not disputing that some of our folks were Tuscarora (Roanoke River etc.). However, most of our people are of Siouan descent.
 * Reverend Zimmie Chavis traces his lineage to Chief Ismael

P.S. I've also heard that Locklear has connection w/ the Lossiah, a Cherokee surname, but I haven't seen alot of creditable evidence to support that. Arvis


 * These people had moved to S.C. after living in the Robeson area. Robert and "Big Tom" were sons of Major Locklear, who was a son of the 1st Robert Locklear(died in Edgecombe), who was mentioned in the will of Ben Rawlins on Dec 10th, 1738, and his own will was made May 24th 1749, with Nat and William Cooper as witnesses. (Halifax deeds Book 3, page 347, N.C. State archives) I descend from another son of Major called "Lazy Will".

During this timeframe, the remaining Cheraw had already moved to Catawba, and was living among them. You are wrong in saying that the migration went from south to north, it was in the reverse order. The earliest known date of Major Locklear being in this area was Jan 21, 1754, acting as a chain bearer for the Survey of Thomas Robeson's 100 acre tract of land. Major and his brother John were chain bearers for many surveys around the same time.(Survey book 1753, pages 31-32, N.C. State Archives)

As far as who Robert and Tom married, I have that they married daughters of Aquilla Quick. --Roskerah 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence that Ismael Chavis and Robert Locklear were Cheraws?Verklempt 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Two websites which cite as reference a Wall Street Journal article: http://www.decades.com and timelines in history. The websites and the news article state that Robert Locklear was King of the Cheraws in 1738. My information for Ishmael Chavis came from the Indian Education Resource Center in Pembroke, NC. In a short biographical sketch, Rev. Chavis is quoted as tracing his family history to Ismael Chavis, Chief of the Cheraw before they moved into the Lumbee River basin.  Also, as a little side note, Reverend Dawley Maynor was taught the words EPTA TEWA NEWASIN by his great grandmother in the early 1900's.  This phrase was studied by a noted linguist.  It was concluded, by this researcher, that these words were Siouan in origin.  They mean, "Creator, We Love You."  Arvis


 * As stated above, by 1738, the Cheraw were already living in Catawba country. Arvis, I would love to see documents and or sources that predate the information that I have posted showing North eastern N.C. as the originating area. All of the Lumbee historians and researchers in the past have not been able to show anything like this, and I have atleast ten separate pieces of their work, beginning in the 1970's. The Lumbee leadership intentionally misleads their own people, and they never complete genealogy charts to their fullest potential. They always stop at the 1800 mark, and never take the people back further, because it would begin to show the surnames "actual" origins. Again, there is a report done years ago on this subject that is located here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCTuscarora/

--Roskerah 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My brother or sister. Part of the Cheraw may have been living with the Catawba at that time. But, remember the quote by Margaret Brown. The Croatan were once part of our people but left to escape the plague?  Catawba history tells us that a part of the Cheraw merged with the Catawba for about 12 years, but left to reestablish their own identity. It is a documented fact that the Cheraw sold their lands in South Carolina and part of that group merged again

with the Catawba (the Browns, Harris, but a greater part of that group along with the Keyauwee etc. came into Robeson County. In fact, the Catawba language now being researched/reborn today is actually the Cheraw dialect of the Catawba language. With reports from the SC Gazette, maps from explorers such as John Herbert, etc., it is evident that a great number Siouan related tribes migrated a few dozen miles up the PeeDee and settled in the Lumbee River basin. BTW, the Quicks were also Marlboro, SC natives.  I won't debate this any further for you in this forum.  We people of the Lumbee basin need to discuss our disagreements in private because when we air them in public it castes our people in a bad light.  Even the bible said, "Don't cast your pearls before Swine (this article is hogwash)"  :>) Arvis

Next, the Chavis name has been connected to the Saponi, though remnants of the Saponi ended up moving onto the Tuscarora rez, which is how the two are connected today. There are Chavis graves located on the Indian Woods(Tuscarora Rez) today. Locklear has always been known as Tuscarora. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/lowriehistory.html --Roskerah 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence of a Locklear connection to Tuscaroras? I have heard that Locklear is supposedly a Tuscarora word, but this seems unsupportable. It's a French surname that shows up in early VA colonial records.Verklempt


 * I can't answer the "ultimate" origin of Locklear, but from the 1740's onward pertaining to our people in Robeson, the name is associated with Tuscarora primarily. Atleast pertaining to the Robert Locklear who wrote his will in 1749 from Edgecombe County, and his children. His descendants all moved to the Robeson area, and eventually began marrying into the Lowries, and other surnames from the same areas in northeastern N.C. All of the Locklears from here today, descend from Robert's descendants. Take alook at the Lowrie history pages, and it will explain how the people marryed and remarryed continuously. This link will also let you see the "Locklayer" meaning "holdfast" in the Tuscarora language, that you referred to previously.--Roskerah 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Some sources indicate that Chavers/ Chavis originated among "Portuguese" (Indian) slaves from Brazil and/ or the Caribbean. They were brought to NC. Other sources say that it came from French Huguenots who mixed with the Tuscarora. Either way in North America they first resided at Indian Woods Tuscarora Reservation, and married into the Tuscarora. The Locklear surname might have also been French in origin, mixed with Tuscarora. -- David


 * Which sources say what?Verklempt 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the Lumbee are not Native Indians...
Then what kind of language is this?

http://www.native-languages.org/lumbee.htm

I have already mentioned this source, but no one responded.

Here it calls the language Algonquian; excerpt:


 * English (Français) 	Lumbee
 * One (Un) 	Weembot
 * Two (Deux) 	Neshinnauh
 * Three (Trois) 	Nishwonner
 * Four (Quatre) 	Yauonner
 * Five (Cinq) 	Umperren
 * Woman (Femme) 	Crenepo
 * Water (Eau) 	Umpe
 * White (Blanc) 	Wopposhaumosh
 * Red (Rouge) 	Mishcosk
 * Black (Noir) 	Mowcottowosh

And would anyone please comment on this:

Lumbee historian Adolph Dial made the case that the Croatans and their English guests were among the ancestors of today's Lumbee Indians, who resurfaced some 50 years later speaking English, practicing Christianity, and sporting the same last names many of the colonists had brought with them.

This source doesn't look like a fly-by-night website, but seriously scholarly stuff, and it has plenty of references and links to more material.

By the way, I do happen to know that the Powhatan word for woman is the same (crenepo)... The other words are not identical, though... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The word list is entirely speculative. The author has taken some Indian words and called it part of the "Lumbee language", without offering any historical evidence that any Lumbee ancestors ever spoke those words.

Adolph Dial was reiterating the story told by Hamilton McMillan back in 1885. It doesn't get any more plausible through retelling. Suffice to say that McMillans claims about name similarity are very weak at best.Verklempt 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for a "speculative" list, someone sure did their homework. As I said, the word given for "woman", crenepo, is identical with the Powhatan word, but is not shared by any other Algonquian language (many of which have instead words that are actually cognate with English "squaw")... However, the word given for "water", umpe, is recognisably Algonquian, and is cognate with the words for water used by tribes north of the Powhatan, from Maryland to Maine, but not the Powhatan themselves, who used the word "Sekwahanna" instead.  That is just what you would expect for an independent language - some words agree with Powhatan, others agree with other relatives in the family.  So do you say this entire website about the "Lumbee language", with lots of scholarly links, is a fraud then?  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult to find a book with words in it. But nobody has shown that Lumbee ancestors actually used these words. All the surviving evidence indicates that they were English speakers.Verklempt 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is totally speculative. The Lumbee "leaders" and "scholars" have gone to great lengths, attempting to validate their Siouan claims. In the 1930's, the U.S. government sent a man named Pearmain to Robeson, for the purpose of studing our people. In his report, he mentions being told of my great grandmother Lottie Lowry, who evidently spoke some form of Indian language. Which one, nobody in the family remembers due to the fact that she died in 1934. But, given her genealogy, ( http://tribalpages.com/tribes/roskerah ) it is easiest to assume that it was Tuscarora that she was speaking.

Ella Deloria supposedly accrued a list of words still spoken in the 1940's when she was here, but that list has never been produced. And then there are other oral traditions of different people speaking a language over the years, but again no proof.--Roskerah 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lumbee language????
I understand the Lumbee name being used a label for a group of people who have lost much of their oral history, language, and culture-- but come on! There is no such thing as "the Lumbee language." There is a local dialect, and a few words (mostly expressions) that are unique to the people (Tuscarora), but don't rip others off! The so-called Lumbee love to "borrow" their new culture from others, mostly the Lakota (I guess because they have been told they are Cheraw, or Eastern Siouan, they think it is the same as Lakota/ Sioux out west). In addition to numerous other forms of "borrowing," the Lumbee even use the Lakota medicine wheel for their logo. Maybe they should learn about their true culture-- Tuscarora. Then there might be more validity....


 * Lumbee are not the only one to do that sort of thing. To borrow and blend from various tribal cultures is known as "pan-Indianisn." That's mainly because the government needs to see stereotypes in order to accept "Indianness." The Lakota are Plains, therefore they are more stereotypical than people who stayed behind in the Eastern swamplands. Lumbee are descended from stragglers from the relocations who ran into the swamps, plus varous other grouplets such as fur traders. Lumbee are not and never were pure anything. They are like the Chesapeake bay Retriever dog, a blend of many things. Their primary Indian-ness is Algonquian, which puts them in with Nantikoke, "Moors," and other mid-Atlantic mixtures. They really are tri-racial in ancestry. As for the language, it has a lot of Gaelic loans to it, and it is a relatively recent blend of various bits and pieces. Saying "Tuscarora" is too simple. JBDay 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering what evidence you are using to indicate that their (our) primary Indian-ness comes from Algonquian blood? Personally everything I have ever seen indicates a primary Tuscarora origin and perhaps a small amount of Eastern Siouan as well.

I am also curious to know what evidence there is "PROVING" that every single (certainly there are quite a few) Lumbee/Tuscarora is of tri-racial ancestry? How do you "KNOW" that this is the case?Bobby Hurt 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't answer your questions the way you wrote them. JBDay 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More on the Tuscarora connection
Chwe'n/hello, I would like to follow up on what David Webb added, in that the predominent blood of the Lumbee being Tuscarora. The story of the Lumbee, and the mystery surrounding that name is one of the most confusing stories of U.S. history, but all of these different opinions comes by no accident.

Our history has been changed so many times since 1885 by so called government sponsored "historians", it is no wonder why it is hard for peole to believe anything. There has been a concerted effort by the State of North Carolina, and subsequently the Federal Government, to keep the Tuscarora lineage hidden, only to keep land claims from popping up, when, and if, Tuscarora were recognized again in the State.

On Feb. 10, 1885, Hamilton McMillan had passed the Croatan Act, which designated our people Croatan, a previously unknown tribe of "friendly Indians" that once lived on the Roanoke River. ( The "friendly" Tuscarora were given a reservation in 1717 of the Roanoke River) Two days later, on the 12th of Feb, 1885, Mr. McMillan was quoted in the Fayetteville Observer, saying that our people thought of Croatan as a village, and that they were actually Tuscarora. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1885observer.html

Another point of confusion has been the connection between our people and the "Lost Colony", which the first name Croatan was based in part upon. The government has always known what happened to atleast some of the colonists, but they have chose to keep the Colonists "lost" because of the fact that is was the Tuscarora who took in atleast some of them, and this, along with the fact that our people descend from both Tuscarora and the Colonists, is a big motive behind the cover-up. ("Lost Colony in Fact and Legend", By F. Roy Johnson w/ Thomas Parramore as guest author of the "Tuscarora Story" Part 2, pages 48-59" published 1983, ISBN 0-930230-46-9)

Take a look at this chronology, which will answer even more questions that have always been thrown our way. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/TuscaroraChronology.html

--Roskerah 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm D.F. Lowry. I am a direct descendant of Priscilla Berry, part-Tuscaroran great granddaughter of Henry Berry, who is on the ship's register of JW's ship. I realize that oral history does not measure up academically to written records but that is all some of us have, and its good enough for me.

As far as tied mule incidents- why would anyone expect there to be official public records of extortion. Oral history has it that these incidents did not go to court as the Indian suffering the extortion knew he had no chance in court. It seems specious to me to deny the oral record based upon lack of a written record- "there are no records of tied mule incidents therefore they likely did not happen".
 * The WP article records the tied mule stories, and points out that they are not documented in the records. It doesn't say they never happened. I don't see a problem here.Verklempt 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain the problem I see. Your statement above neutrally conjoins two propositions with the conjunction "and". The statement in the WP article conjoins the same two propositions with the conjuntion "however": "However", as in "by contrast"; "by contrast", as in "setting in opposition"; "oppose" as in "to be in conflict with". This is not a neutral stance on a pair of propositions which are obviously not necessarily mutually exclusive. All Best, D.F. Lowry


 * I think you have a point re NPOV. Consequerntly, I have removed the word "however," and attempted to clarify what is oral transmission and what is documented. After thinking about your argument, I'm wondering if you know of court records in which a Lumbee ancestor is charged by a white neighbor of livestock theft? Take all such charges, and then check them against land loss records. If there were a land loss following upon a livestock theft charge, then you would have the beginning of a case for a tied mule incident. But I've never seen this myself at the archives. That's why I'm skeptical of Sider's stories.Verklempt 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: Verklempt, I noticed that the "dispute" tag has been removed from the article, but why is this? There is still a very large dispute, because the article is still one sided, and the information that myself and others have posted, contradict much of what the article currently says.

The documents stating Tuscarora as the origins, predates most of what this site uses as citations, so why has this new information been dismissed? I will admit that "some" of my writing comes from my own POV, but I have given citations for a majority of what I have posted. Even with the limited amount of information that I have given, this information still contradicts what many of the past historians and writers that you have as sources, profess. Even some of the sources that you list agree with what I have written, though these things have not been posted.

I say all of this to ask, are you trying to verify what I have posted, or do you not have any intention to use what I have posted at all? This information, in my own thinking, should be used to edit many other articles on this site. The "Henry Berry Lowrie" page, the "Croatan" page, and the "Tuscarora" page, just to name a few.--Roskerah 15:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope that this information that was removed will find its way back to the Lumbee page, as it is supported by a wealth of credible sources. Jas392 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple spelling errors
Couple spelling errors in the article as it now stands: (1) Gibralter for Gibraltar; (2) Daring-do for derring-do.

Lumbee flag / logo
There is a flag image on Commons that is supposedly a Lumbee flag but lacks source or further description. Since it has been removed from the article, I add it here for reference:

The current official logo of the Lumbee tribe can be seen here: -- Himasaram 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the source of the above flag: Look at the mid section of this page. Direct link to the image: -- Himasaram 06:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Land Grants to James Lowry II from King George II
What is the basis for the statement in the WP article that McMillan's claim of grants to James Lowry II are false? McMillan claimed the deeds were extant at the time of his writing. Is WP author trying to falsify the claim because the deed or record of issuance is no longer extant or has not been found? If so, is it typical for historians to make truth-value statements on the basis of a lack of data, or is there some positivist reason for saying McMillan's claim is false? A reference to a positive record that states explicitly that no land grants were issued in NC in either 1732 or 1738 should suffice. Sincerely, D.F. Lowry
 * Hoffman, Margaret M. Colony of North Carolina (1735-1764), Abstracts of Land Patents, Volume I. Roanoke Rapids, N.C.Verklempt 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So, the WP article statement "However, no land grants were issued during these years in North Carolina", should really say that "However, there is no record of land grants from King George II being issued during these years (excluding 1732) in North Carolina in this particular reference book, although McMillan claimed extant deeds in the hands of ...". Once again, you cannot falsify a proposition by the absence of data. Best, D.F. Lowry
 * I think you're picking nits here. The land grants are entered in a book that you can read at the archives. The pages are numbered. It is the same book that McMillan would have looked at if he had actually done the research. No grants were made during the years that McMillan said they were. The author I cited is the recognized expert,a state archivist. The burden of proof is on McMillan, and he offers no evidence that would counter the documentary sources. Where did McMillan claim that deeds were extant? I think you might be misreading him.Verklempt 09:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, its in p. 60, exhibit CC of O.M. McPherson's _Indians of North Carolina_. Exhibit CC is by Weeks, Exhibit C is McMillan, hence my mistake. http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/mcpherson/mcpherson.html#p60

An assumption is being made that the reference _Abstracts of Land Patents_ is complete. I'm too ignorant to know whether grants patents and deeds are all the same thing, if not, this too could be a problem. I know that deeds were given throughout the history of America, patents not. I'm picking nits because the logic is faulty, WP author is making alot of assumptions and arguing based on absence of data. It is OK to say that the Abstracts of Land Patents calls into doubt McMillan's claim, it is quite another to use the book to assign a truth-value of 'false' to McMillan's claim. Best, D.F. Lowry


 * I think you hve a good point about the language. It should be rewritten for NPOV. I suspect that Weeks's reference reflects his misunderstanding of McMillan. My hunch is that McMillan told Weeks that Mr. [??] (I forgot the guy's name) held the old Lowry land, and Weeks misunderstood him to mean that Mr. ??? held the patent document.

The patent book at the archive does seem to be complete, in that the pages are numbered and there is no indication that any are torn out. This would have been McMillan's reference too, if he really did ever check it. McMillan had some eccentric notions of evidence, to put it politely. I think he invented the 1732 date.

Given that James Lowrie lived until 1810, and given the birth years of his chldren, it is extremely unlikely that he was of age to obtain a patent in the year that McMillan gives. Furthermore, the NC archivist I cited says in her forward that no patents were granted that year. There is no indication of record loss among these old patents between 1885 and her publication date. The only plausible conclusion is that McMillan is wrong.Verklempt 21:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that James Lowrie lived until 1810... That would be James Lowrie III, given some of the land by his father, James II, the grantee.

There is no indication of record loss... My point is that we don't know that all grants are recorded, which precludes loss.

My hunch is that McMillan told Weeks that Mr. [??] (I forgot the guy's name) held the old Lowry land... The reference is: The deeds for these grants are still extant and are in the possession of Hon. D. P. McEachin, of Robeson County, North Carolina, the Mr. was an Hon., the deed was held by a judge, perhaps for safekeeping, perhaps fortuitously. Additionally, McPherson also seems to be under the impression that the 1732 deed was extant, as seen on p. 17 of the reference. The only plausible conclusion is that all three of these men knew of written evidence of at least the 1732 land grant, and knew where to find it. Cheers, D.F. Lowry

I know that the 1732 date of these mysterious grants has always been thrown around, but I wonder why the Lumbee themselves don't produce these documents? In the "settlement pattern study", on page 68, it says that the first grant to James Lowry Jr. was on December 11, 1770 (Bladen Deeds, Book 20, page 575 Secretary of State Land Grants) in the "Mill Prong" area.

It also goes on to say that James was found on the Edgecombe County militia list in 1750, and that Henry O Berry had his first grant in 1748. (Land Grants, Bladen County, File 274, Book 5, page 298, October 8, 1748, Secretary of State Land Grant Division) --Roskerah 14:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I take Mr Lowry's point that we can never prove a negative--the non-existence of the hypothetical grant. But the evidence against the grant is powerful. Why would a grant not be recorded in the book with all of the other grants? I've never seen any evidence of un-recorded grants. I read McMillan as talking about James II, not James III. I'm not sure what to make of Weeks's claim, but I don't give it much credence. His article is a shameless rip-off of McMillan. I'm sure that someone held a deed for the old Lowrie plot in the 1890s, but why would that person have the original grant? Those grants were recorded in a book that resides at the archives. The Lumbee tribe no longer claims this 1732 date. Of the tribe's hired researchers, I believe that Robert Thomas was the first to debunk it. Wes White also debunked it. As Chris noted, James Lowrie was still in Edgecombe in 1750. Henry Berry appears to have been a speculator, and there is no indication that he ever lived in Bladen before he sold the land.Verklempt 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

it says that the first grant to James Lowry Jr. was on December 11, 1770 If this is the same James Lowrie in Heinegg's Lowrie geneology, with mention of a 1770 grant, that would be James III, not James Jr.

James was found on the Edgecombe County militia list in 1750 This is consistent with the family history handed down to me. James Jr. stayed, James III moved. Its nice when there is consistency.

Why would a grant not be recorded in the book with all of the other grants? I don't know, good question. From p. 17 of McPherson: They held their lands in common and land titles only became known on the approach of white men.

His article is a shameless rip-off of McMillan. Argumentum ad Hominem.

The Lumbee tribe no longer claims this 1732 date. I don't really have a dog in this fight for recognition and land claims, so I am not interested in political expedience. Besides, I'm clear across the country and cannot afford to fly out there to simply update my enrollment in the tribe. I expect to be dropped imminently from the tribal rolls. So be it. However, I do wish the Lumbee good fortune in their struggle. All Best, D.F. Lowry
 * I respect your point about argument ad hominem. But I think that one does need to weigh the validity of the various sources. Weeks eventually became a respected professional historian. But when he wrote about the Croatans, he was a grad student who was essentially plagiarizing McMillan. There is no indication that Weeks did any original research, beyond reading McMillan and perhaps communicating with him directly. McMillan himself makes a number of rather dubious claims, and seems to believe every wacky diffusionist theory that he has ever heard. I personally don't consider either one of them a reliable source on this topic. While they were both cited extensively for a while, for the last three decades the Lumbee tribe itself--as well as the connected scholarly researchers who've looked at this data--have quietly dropped the early McMillan grant story. And for good reason--it cannot be substantiated, and appears to conflict with all of the extant documentary evidence.Verklempt 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, its grad students who actually do the bulk of the work. Maybe it was different back then.  There are certainly many more references than McMillan in exhibit CC.  I don't have access to the "debunkers'" works.  I wish I did.  If I take Heinegg's compilation of Lowrie records as what is extant, together with what Chris wrote, I see nothing that contradicts what my relatives have told me of my ancestral history.  Furthermore, it does not appear that the McPherson report uses 'deed' and 'patent' interchangeably, so I'm not convinced that the existence of one implies the existence of the other.  Maybe the social sciences does have a much higher number of charlatans than my field.  I tend to take things at face value, assume folks are honest, and assume that the volume of available data diminishes with time.  Best, D.F. Lowry

Note to Mr. Chris (Roskerah?) I looked on your website geneology pages and found we are not on the same page regarding James Lowrie terminology. The genealogy handed down to me starts with Judge James Lowry, so I am one James out of register with everyone else. I apologize to all for any confusion I may have caused. Sincerely D.F. Lowry


 * No need to appologize, I was at one time, in a constant state of confusion with the James Lowrie genealogy. So where do you and I connect as relatives? Please answer by Email.--Roskerah 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tuscarora Hypothesis
Though I appreciate this addition to the article, I must protest the wording that you have chose. To say that the Tuscarora connection is only a "hypothesis", is not a fair assesment, especially given the amount of information already given that takes the connection way beyond the "hypothetical" realm.

Next, in the language, you wrote that there is a " significant minority of the Robeson County people today claim descendance from the Tuscarora tribe." Question: What constitutes a "significant minority"? There are thousands of people on the Tuscarora rolls here, some of which are on the rolls of the Lumbee aswell.

Next, you wrote; "There is some evidence suggesting that there could be Tuscarora descendants among the Robeson county population." This statement is very vague, and the evidence already given shows that there "are" Tuscarora here; not just "could be". Your statement may lead people to believe that the connection has no sound basis, and that it is seen as only legends. Also, to say that it was only democratic opponents of the Lowries", that wrote about the Tuscarora connection, is very misleading, and wrong to say the least.

Next, it was the 1920's when the Mohawk began to come here to re-teach the people the culture, and they continued "through" the 1940's. Question: When you first posted this part of the article, didnt you have that the Mohawk were teaching the songs and dances? If so, why was that part removed?

Lastly, the government has not disallowed the Tuscarora from applying for recognition, they only use the Lumbee Act as a reason why they won't list Tuscarora as "active petitioners".

Please take these things into consideration, and edit the article in such a way that truely reflects the information posted in the "talk" section. --Roskerah 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the first draft. Let's make it better. 1) The fact that people disagree about Robeson Indian ancestry means that all of the various origins propositions are "hypotheses." But I agree with you that to single out the Tuscarora hypothesis and only label it as such is perhaps to devalue it relative to the competing hypotheses. Perhaps the solution is to present all of the various origins hypotheses in the same section, instead of having them presented chronologically as they are now. Or another way is to make sure that each hypothesis is labeled as such, so as not to engage in POV towards any individual one. 2) The "significant minority" term is not substantiated, but is there any question that more Robesonians self-ID as Lumbees than Tuscaroras? I thought that would be uncontroversial. Perhaps I was wrong. 3) To conclude that some Robesonians are indeed Tuscarora descendants would be to go beyond the published literature, wouldn't it? 4) The same with the date of the first Mohawk connection. Do you have evidence of a 1920s contact? 5) Re the conservative Democrats and the Lowries--my understanding is that the two ministers, Giles Leach, and Mary Norment are the earliest Tuscarora hypothesists. All were Conservative Democrats, and opponents of the Lowries. I don't understand what you think is wrong here.Verklempt 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

2) Yes, most people "self-ID" as Lumbee here, but, regardless of their current beliefs, if these same people were to dig deep enough into their past, their history would descend from Tuscarora. Regardless of this though, let's use some other descriptive terms other than "significant minority". How about "Some", or "Many", or something of the sorts. My own preference is "Many", because of the fact that, regardless of what context, thousands of people claiming Tuscarora here, are "Many". 3) I don't understand how you can say this. The government acknowledged that there were atleast 22 half or more full blood Tuscarora here, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html. Also, the other published items all say that we "descend" from Tuscarora, so wouldnt that in itself mean that we are Tuscarora "descendants"? 4) Malinda Maynor states this in her dissertation. Page 194, she states; "... Chief Taho-wadi-heuto, or Thomas W. Shaw of Rome New York, was guiding the "Original 22's" council in this move. Shaw's home location implies that he was MoHawk, a member of the same tribe that helped the Brooks Settlement establish the Longhouse in the 1920's". Oral tradition indicates that one of the Chiefs from the 1920's was named "Chief Snow" 5) Actually, Townsend was one of the earliest well known writers. He wrote the "Swamp Outlaws", and the "Harpers Weekly" article in 1872. Norment's "Lowrie History" was first published in 1875. Also, there is other evidence even earlier than 1872.
 * 1) That is a good idea. This way, it will be easier to "weed through" each theory, and eventually see how each is either plausible, or not.

During the French and Indian War, there were 50 Tuscarora who volunteered to help N.C. at Fort DuQuence. Of these 50, we know of atleast two, who our people descend from here. In 1760, Thomas Kersey, and John Rogers made public claims for their taking part in the War under the Command of Capt. Hugh Waddell. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/KerseyColonialPage.html http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/JohnRogersColonialRecord.html This can be further verified in part, within F. Roy Johnson's "The Tuscaroras" Volume II, page 187. --Roskerah 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Okay. 2) Okay. 3) It my opinion would be correct to say that many people claim descent from Tuscaroras. But it would violate NPOV for the article to take any side in the origins debate. 4) Okay. 5) Townsend's source for the Tuscarora hypothesis was Giles Leitch. The only other pre-1872 data point that I know of is the letter from the two ministers that I mentioned.Verklempt 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--Roskerah 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding number 3, how would a government document be in violation of the NPOV rule? That document was not coming from my standpoint, or yours. this is also the case with the other documents posted. How is that "taking sides"? Regarding number 5, How do you know that Leitch was the one that told him this? Townsend came in contact with numerous people while here, and he could have obtained information from all of them. My Great Grandfather, O.S. Hayes was talked about in the Swamp Outlaws, and he could have very well told him certain things. My point is that we just don't know. There are references to earlier Newspaper articles from the 1860's, but I have never seen these. That do you think of the Kersey and Rogers links? Have you seen these before?
 * (3)On the federal letter, I think you have a good point. It is a valid data point, and thus referencing it would not be POV. But the other issue in WP policy is that a citation has to be verifiable, and citing a primary archival source in the article would probably be considered original research, which is against policy. I enjoy discussing and debating original research with you here on the talk page, but we need to keep our conversations distinct from the article, which is supposed to be built on published sources instead of original research. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, so maybe we need a more informed opinion from an old Wikipedia hand. (5) If my memory is correct, Townsend cites a "Mr. Leech" as his source for the Indian origin in one of his articles, and describes him as a lawyer, about a conversation in Mr. Leech's office. I don't have any hard evidence that this was Giles Leitch. I think you're correct that there could have been other sources that Townsend did not cite. On the other hand, Townsend appears to be citing to a conservative group when he discusses the conversation in Mr. Leech's office. (I don't have my copy of Townsend at hand, and I couldn't find a transcription online, so I apologize for working from memory.)
 * On the John Rogers source, you have a guy with a very common name who served in the British colonial forces fighting the French at Fort Duquesne. How does this relate to Tuscarora ancestry for the Robeson people? I'm not sure I understand what you make of it. On the Thomas Kersey page, the graphic does not load, so I didn't get to see it. Please let me know if it gets fixed.Verklempt 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is an excerpt from "Swamp Outlaws":THE INDIAN RACE OF THE LOWERYS

The question ensues, whence came the Indian blood of the Lowerys? who are by general assertion and belief partly of Indian origin.

Why should they and their blood relatives show Indian traces while Scuffletown [p.46] at large is mainly plain, unromantic mulatto.

There were two sets of aboriginese in North Carolina--the Cherokees of the west, mountainous Carolina, who removed at a comparatively recent period to the Indian Territory and of whom several remnants remain in the extreme western corner or pocket of the State, numbering 1062 in Jackson county alone.

Judge Leech, of Lumberton, says that he saw a Cherokee once who resembled Patrick Lowery so close that he called out, "Is that Patrick?"

Besides the Cherokees there was the Atlantic coast confederacy, led by the Tuscaroras and abetted at the great massacre of 1711 by the Hatteras Indians, the Pamilicos and the Cotechneys.

These Indians, after a determined resistance to the whites, which resulted in scaring the Baron De Graff, the Swiss founder of Newbern, out of the New World, accepted a reservation of lands in Halifax and Bertie counties, near the Roanoke River.

They emigrated to New York and joined the Five Nations a few years afterward, being thought worthy in prowess to be admitted to that proud confederacy, but they held the fee simple of their lands in North Carolina until after the year 1840.

Some persons of the tribe must have remained behind to look after these lands, and among these, as will be seen hereafter, was the grandfather of the Lowerys.

The pride of character of the Tuscaroras was such that the Cherokees, Creeks, and other tribes joined the whites to subjugate them, and Parkman says that the Tuscaroras were of the same generic stock with the Iroquois and conducted the southern campaigns of those Five Nations.

Hildreth says that they were reputed to be remnants of two Virginia tribes, the Manakins and Manahoas, hereditary enemies of Captain John Smiths's Powhatan.

They burned the Survey General, who had trespassed on their lands, at the stake, and were in turn partly subjected to slavery by the militia of South Carolina. Eight hundred of them were sold by their Indian enemies to the whites of the Carolinas at the one time, and in 1713 most of those at liberty retired through the unsettled portions of Virginia and Pennsylvania to Lake Oneida, New York.

This criminal code, enforced against Allan Lowery, the father of Henry Berry Lowery, the outlaw, has had the result of making Robeson county the seat of a fierce warfare for revenge.

Persons curious about the severity of this code may see a digest of it in Hildreth, Colonial series, vol. II., pp.271-275.

The Tuscaroras, in their prime, had 1,200 warriors in North Carolina.

In 1807 they brought a tract from the Holland Land Company with the proceeds of their North Carolina lands, and it was about this period that the ancestor of the Lowerys removed from Halifax to Robeson county.

And another: """One evening at Lumberton I sat in the office of Judge Leech, half a dozen gentleman present, and they described old Allen Lowery. The disposition generally manifested by the white people of Robeson county is to put little stress upon the murder of this old man, but to ascribe the crimes of Henry Berry Lowery's band to lighter cause and to separate the motive of revenge altogether from his offenses.

"The Lowerys," said one of the persons present, "were always savage and predatory. By conducting a sort of swamp or guerilla war during the Revolution they accumulated considerable property, and at the close of that war [p.48] were landholders, slaveholders and people of the soil. Then they grew dissipated during the time of peace, and their land was levied upon to pay debts. Being Indians, with an idea that their ancestors held all this land in fee simple, they could not understand how it could be taken from them, and for years they looked upon society as having robbed them of their patrimony."

"Yes," said one present, "Allen Lowery brought me a case against a man who wished to sell a piece of property he had formerly owned, and he couldn't be made to understand that the man had a good title for it. When they were holding the examination, just before they shot him in 1865 the old man pleaded the extenuation of the plunder found in his house that he had never been given fair play but had been cheated out of his land. He said that his grandfather had been cut across the hand in the Revolution, fighting for the State, and that the State had cheated all his family. He had the Indian sentiment deep in him, of having suffered wrong, and imparted it to all his sons. Here is Sink (Sinclair) Lowery with the same kind of notions to this day. He said a little while ago, 'We used to own all the country around here, but it was taken from us somehow.'" --Roskerah 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding part of 3, do you mean "verifiable" as in having been referenced in some form of writing "after" the original work? If that is the case, every piece of Tuscarora evidence that I have provided has been written about, and referenced, by many scholars, but most have dismissed the significance of them over the years, choosing to concentrate on the Cherokee, or Cheraw theories.
 * Regarding 5, if you are refering to Swamp Outlaws, here it is: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/files/The_Swamp_Outlaws.htm
 * Regarding John Rogers, the significance is that he was one of the fifty Tuscarora volunteers that fought at Duquesne, and that he, and Thomas Kersey are ancestors of many Tuscarora and those who claim Lumbee today. In 1778, John Rogers was a Chief on the Bertie County Reservation. In the settlement Pattern Study,on page 148 it says:

Petiton of Whitmell Tufdick, and the rest of the Indians of the Tuscarora Nation living in Bertie County.


 * That whereas at a former Assembly held at Newborn in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight you were pleased to Pass an Act... for securing the Tuscarora Indians, and other claiming under the Tuscarorah, in the possession of their lands...We your unfortunate Petitioners still labour under many of the Inconviences and hardships which you in your great goodness intended to remedy by the said Act..."

Signed: Whitmell Tufdick William Roberts William Blount John Randolph Billey Pugh Lewes Tufdick West Tufdick Walter Gibson Thomas Thomas James Mitchell John Roggers Benjamin Smith John Pugh"""

As you can see, most if not all of the headmen had non-native names by this time, so that in itself does not disprove that these men were not Tuscarora. With John Rogers being given the rank of Sergeant, leads me to believe that he was already someone with a Chiefs title at the time of Duquesne. The Colonists would often give headmen of native tribes higher ranks than the regular warriors. Another example is Nick Cusick(Tuscarora of NY), who was made an officer, and was aid to Lafayette during the American Revolution. By the way, the Kersey link is fixed.--Roskerah 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Tuscarora "connection" changed to "faction"? To use faction is misleading, because it leads one to assume that the Tuscarora here are a "faction" of the Lumbee. This is not so, because to be a faction of the Lumbee, means that the Lumbee predates Tuscarora, which is not the case. I vote that the caption be reverted back to "connection".--Roskerah 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your criticism of the word "faction." However, to substitute the word "connection" is to imply a WP endorsement of this hypothesis over the compteting hypotheses. I think the NPOV solution here is to return to the original word: "hypothesis."Verklempt 01:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I restored the intro to the way it was a few days ago. It had been changed to emphasize the tribe's "Indianness", but I think the tone was all wrong. It implied that at some period the Lumbee were a "purer" Indian tribe before things like "cultural assimilation" and "miscegeny" interfered. It also played down their African American heritage, which, as noted above, may be based more on internalized racism than fact.

I agree the intro may need to be tweaked. I'm willing to grant that the Lumbee are a Native American tribe (in the very least, they are called one today). But let's compare this to another example: no one disputes the Seminole are a "real" Indian tribe, but that does not mean that before interference from whites and blacks they had a purer culture that has since been lost. Quite the opposite; the Seminole nation was only created centuries after Old Worlders had come to America, and the tribe absorbed a great deal of them (we have an excellent article on the Black Seminoles.) The Seminoles don't have a unique language; they speak Creek and English, and they only came to their ancestral homeland of Florida centuries after other Indians and Old Worlders had been there already. Does saying this imply they aren't a "real" Indian tribe? Of course not. Admitting that the Seminole tribe has cultural and genetic influence from whites, blacks, and different Indian groups is a statement of fact and a testimony to their nation's uniqueness and versatility. I think the case is similar with the Lumbee, though unfortunately much discussion of their past and modern identity is lost behind speculation about their history.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity
I've seen a couple of places in this discussion where the objectivity of Campisi is questioned. Then I go and look up on the web about Virginia Easley Demarce and I find "...Dr. Virginia Easley DeMarce, a historian and former president of the National Genealogical Society who works for the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, Department of the Interior, which decides who is an American Indian." Hahahahah! This is rich! I couldn't make this stuff up! Then, you go and look up "tri-racial isolate" and you find it over and over applied to numerous tribes in the context of someone outside trying to downplay or discredit their claim of indianness!

So rich! Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for DOI politics! Like I said, this is so surreal I couldn't make it up! Fun and Games, DF Lowry


 * Given that DeMarce's former affiliations are disclosed in the article, I don't see a problem here. WRT the term "tri-racial" isolate, it is well-established in the scholarly literature. The fact that someone used it in a manner you disagree with does not mean that it should be removed from this article.Pokey5945 22:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee Whiz Pokey, I searched all through the ARTICLE and the DISCUSSION and I'm the only one who's DISCLOSED that she's DOI. WRT to the term "tri-racial" isolate, the fact that it is used over and over and over as a tool to deconstruct many tribes' heritages makes Wikipedia complicit in cultural hegemony. The fact that you don't like that I've pointed these things out does not mean there is not a problem here. If you want to keep harassing me about this and if Verklempt keeps calling discussants here illiterate, you both might want to start using your real names. First warning. DF Lowry
 * Sorry, you're correct, DeMarce's bio had gone missing. I added it back in. I don't mind you pointing anything out. Feel free. I don't understand your complaint about the term "tri-racial." It seems perfectly straightforward and accurate to me. I also don't understand what you're warning me about. Pokey5945 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of VD working for DOI in any revision of the Lumbee article. Were you lieing or just having a flight of fancy? To attack Campisi in the discussion and at the same time not point out DeMarce's affiliation is poor scholarship at best, disingenuous at worst. DF Lowry
 * I could be having a flight of fancy. Or you could be lying about having read every revision. Does it really matter? I don't see a relevant analogy between Campisi and DeMarce. Campisi is a hired gun who has lied on behalf of the Lumbees and other tribes who've paid him. DeMarce has never shown any sign of misconduct or overt bias in her research. Her impressive resume rather bolsters the authority of her arguments, it seems to me.Pokey5945 08:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I say I read every revision? No, I searched every revision. Does it matter? Yes, it shows the lack of integrity of Pokey/ Verklempt, who has also been accused of sock puppetry elsewhere. DeMarce was a hired gun. A real piece of work too, from what I've read. DF Lowry
 * Do you have any evidence of problems with DeMarce's published research? I've never seen anyone demonstrate any serous errors or bias in her work. Or do you just dislike that she documents the Lumbee's African side of their ancestry?Verklempt 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You've produced nothing here other than hearsay against Campisi. I've already addressed the problems with DeMarce, as have others here. That she was DOI only makes her work that much more suspect and revealing of an agenda. If you can't see that, you're beyond help and probably have no place as an editor here. I see you leave a wake of ill feelings wherever you edit on Wikipedia. What's that Yiddish phrase about getting thee a saddle?
 * If you're interested in documentation of problems with Campisi's research, it's easy to come up with examples. You might start with the recent exchange in Ethnohistory regardng the Houmas. Once you've read that, ask me for more examples. You still haven't specified your disagreement with DeMarce's research. I'm sensing a vague whiff of conspiracy theory about her having worked for the feds, but nothing concrete. I would also point out that your resort to ad hominem is becoming habitual, and that's quite revealing.Verklempt 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with you does not constitute harassment.Verklempt 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lumbee Act and lack of casinos
Just wondering: By way of the article, I have learned that the Lumbee are not a federally-recognized tribe. Would that explain why there are no major casinos on Lumbee land? If there was one, it would serve a huge market--several million people along Interstate 95 alone, from Raleigh in the north to Atlanta in the south, and with Charlotte in between. - Desmond Hobson 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lumbees do have federal recognition, accorded by a Congressional act back in the 1950s. But the Act explicitly states that they are not entitled to Indian welfare benefits and services. I don't know about or understand the legal mechanism by which they could be denied a casino. For any federal tribe to have gambling, the state must already allow some form of gambling. That may be the issue in NC, but I'm just guessing here.Verklempt 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lumbees don't have federal recognition, because of their bloodline and the predominance in Negro and Caucasian blood. The tests done in the 1950's and 60's, which have been previously stated in this article, examined the skulls of the Lumbee and determined them to be predominantly "African", rather than Native American.
 * This is just outright innaccurate. Look at the Department of Interior's response to the 1888 petition, the first petition to the feds - the Lumbee are seeking money for the Indian Normal School and the Dept. rejects it based on funding. Denail of federal recognition had nothing to do with bloodline. And these test results...come on EBC, you're better than that. Jas392 (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, The State of North Carolina is not the goverment that would "allow" for a casino. Being Federally recognized would entitle a group of Native Americans sovereign land on a federally recognized tract or area of land that would be separate from North Carolina. Hence, we (North Carolina) have Cherokee, NC and the reservation that is currently there. Because Cherokee Indians are federally recognized, they have casinos on "Cherokee Land". North Carolina doesn't come into play on this issue. However, our North Carolina Senator, Elizabetth Dole, is the Lumbee's "champion" on pushing for their recognition. Suspiciously, this looks very politically motivated: she knows that it will never be passed and yet, she gets the votes from the Lumbees. This is how it's been since the idea of federal recognition has been a subject; politicians in NC seeking the Lumbee's vote with a promise of being recognized.


 * Furthermore, the current bill has a clause against gaming. The Lumbee are not seeking recognition for gaming purposes. Jas392 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)