|
Post by tamara on Jun 11, 2006 18:00:00 GMT -5
I am wanting some input on what census documents might be considered as having been done as a possible census of either Mdewakanton and/or Loyalist.
The 1862 December Ft Snelling census because this is spoken about as having included at least the "loyal half-breed" families. What other documents and where mention this list and the purpose for it?
The 1863 appropriation acts mention the loyal families and asked that there be provision for them to stay. This was not done due to "white hostility".
The Alexander Fairbault letter that included the names of the families that remained as he was required to publish it in June of 1863 so that the locals would know what families were there and he was "vouching" for their innocence, so to speak. Has anyone see this letter or list?
(The above things are the reason I feel that the 1886 lands were finally given and thought to be given to the families mentioned in the 1863 appropriations, not considering some were no longer there)
1869 Santee Census. Can anyone tell me what the purpose of this census was? Who issued it, censused the people and signed, etc? I would really appreciate it. I know Sara is the lovely lady who took the time to transcribe it, does anyone else have a copy?
1886 Undated Census. I have a crude scan of this list.
1886 McLeod Census. This one is interesting as on the front page he asks for his commision to be extended as he is familiar with the indians needs and knows "who among them are not elidgeable to benefit" -doesnt this indicate that this list is only a presumptive starting point in determining who beneficiaries are?
1889 Henton Roll
Birch Cooley Census
1899 McLaughlin Roll -how does this differ from the 1917 Roll
The Elrod Roll or List of Scouts These should certainly be considered loyal huh?
1917 McLaughlin Roll clearly the cover letters at least imply a loyal list as they ask to not include anyone who was hostile in 1862. -or am I reading this wrong?
Any input on any of the census listed would be appreciated.
I am particularly wanting information on the 1869 Santee
Tamara
1899 McLaughlin Roll
|
|
|
Post by vmarier on Jun 11, 2006 20:48:54 GMT -5
Alexander Faribault's letter was printed in the local newspaper. I'll look in my notes but it would be available as a historical newspaper. I think it was the Central Republican but don't quote me until I find it again. If the ancestor was one that was living on Alexander Fairbault's land then the 1880 U.S. Census should pick them up. They are in the census without separation from the white people. Remember that Faribault, MN is in Rice County not Faribault Co. vmarier
|
|
|
Post by vmarier on Jun 11, 2006 21:12:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ironday on Jun 11, 2006 22:48:20 GMT -5
The 1899 Mclaughlin Roll was started by Henton and finished by McLaughlin when Henton died. It is a census of the Mdewakanton living in Minnesota at that time and it listed the acres of land assigned to each family with the appraised value. The 1917 McLaughlin Roll turned into the 1923 Annuity payments to expelled Indians from Minnesota who were then living in various reservations. The annuities paid to these people were a reinstatement of the annuities which were stopped in 1863 as a result of the 1862 uprising. The 1923 Annuity Rolls were for members of the Mdewakanton and Wahpakoota Bands of Sioux Indians residing in the US on March 4, 1917, "who did not personally take part in the outbreak of 1862".
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Jun 12, 2006 11:09:42 GMT -5
Thanks all, anyone know about the 1869 census origins?
Here is the Fairbault Letter dont know if its complete.
Faribault Central Republican - June 10, 1863 Indians "Having been informed that a report is current that I am harboring guilty Indians, and that there are now at my place a large number, some of whom are known to have participated in the outbreak, and that threats of violence to any Indians found there, have been made, I deem it my duty to quiet the fears of persons who might believe such report to be true, though I hope my fellow citizens will examine for themselves. The only Indians at my place are: First, Wacou, or LaClare, and his family, who were here during the outbreak, and are known to be entirely innocent. He came with me when I moved here, and has been here ever since that time, never living with the tribe and his children are being educated here, and now talk English well. Second, Pepe and brother and family – are known to all our citizens, and whose character is vouched for by Col. Crooks, General Sibley and others – have always lived with me, going among the Indians only at the time of payment. Third, A widow with two children. She has one son in our army, whose good character and soldierly conduct is vouched for by his officers. Fourth, Taopi and family. This is the person whom General Sibley, Col. Crooks, and other officers, as well as the white captives, unite in saying was the means of saving the captives taken by Little Crow. Fifth, The wife and mother of Good Thunder, a man whom all admit also, assisted in saving the captives, and is now employed as a scout for General Sibley. His family were sent here for safety. Above you have the names of all the Indians in Faribault, and I trust no person will contend that these Indians, after rendering to the country such service should be sent off to be killed by hostile tribes. I know these Indians well, and I know them to be harmless, innocent and good persons; but if the citizens of Faribault are not disposed to protect these “friends of the whites,” all I ask is that they may not be molested, but that I may have time to notify General Sibley and have them removed, if the people do not wish them to remain. I await notice of your determination. Alex. Faribault"
|
|
|
Post by derockbraine1 on Jun 12, 2006 20:16:05 GMT -5
Hi, what about the 1909 Annuity Rolls, would that be included also? As I remember one of the senior members I think Tamara or Jackie stated that the 1909 Annuity rolls were for the 1863 Loyal Mdewakanton's. Does anyone have any other information? derockbraine1
|
|
|
Post by peacekeeper on Jun 12, 2006 22:41:55 GMT -5
yes that was the other mclaughlin roll for the sisseton/wahpeton. the first one mentioned was for the mdewakanton/wahpakoota. jackie
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Jun 14, 2006 14:40:01 GMT -5
so the 1899 McLaughlin Roll was to be a census of the "loyal" mdewakanton?
|
|
|
Post by peacekeeper on Jun 14, 2006 19:07:56 GMT -5
tamara, i would like to say it is but i have never seen the cover page. at a guess i would say the sisseton/wahpeton is not and i will state why i believe this. the sisseton/wahpeton made an agreement with the united states at a separate time. many items i read state the mdewakanton/ wahpakoota, or santees as they are now known, etc... and references are made to sisseton/wahpeton not being included, due to a prior agreement with the us. i am really sorry that i can't qualify that with more accurate references. i cannot say that the 1909 is for loyal mdewakantons until i see the cover letters.
jackie
|
|
|
Post by derockbraine1 on Jun 14, 2006 22:23:46 GMT -5
I will be be researching the 1909 S/W Annuity roll this week, so I can get the cover letters for you Jackie. derockbraine1
|
|
|
Post by denney on Jun 14, 2006 23:30:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by denney on Jun 14, 2006 23:31:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by denney on Jun 14, 2006 23:33:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Jun 16, 2006 2:40:02 GMT -5
It is interesting that now, today, the ruling dictatorship regime in the white house is now talking about granting amnesty to Iraqis that may or may not have killed american troops in the debacle which is the Iraq invasion and occupation.......can you all relate this back to those horrible times in 1862 when the atmosphere of fear and death was present day by day? Is that time in this country's history so very different? Was, and is, there so much difference to what many of our anscestors felt if they were mixed bloods or full bloods or half breeds, and were placed in an impossible choice position of becoming a hostile, a friendly, a loyalist.....or an insurgent (voluntarily or involuntarily)? It is absolutely true that not all that were loyal to the united states or the whites during the events of 1862 were safe in either camp because of the present and immediately thereafter future events. It is however historically documented that many of the loyalist people and their families lost as much as anyone in land and livlihood and property, just for being there, despite their allegiance. And yet those individuals that actually joined and fought for and on behalf of the US in the uprising against the hostiles and the attacks upon the white and half breed/mixed blood populations in Minnesota during those times, are now being shunned by the powers that be because for whatever reason, are not now able to show official birth and marriage records to link to an extemely limited exclusive (rather than inclusive) list of names on a single list of people present to be able to be counted? Is that fair? Is that in line with what the anscestors stood for? No. That is why all people who are justifiable lineal descendants of the peoples who occupied these lands before the horrible events of 1862 deserve every recognition today, as those that presently enjoy the status of descendants of our great people still surviving from those times. It is as much a birthright as those that have almost no Indian blood in their in veins today yet enjoy and benefit from the blood of all our relatives from those terrible times past. This process is not meant to be a protective mechanism for an aristocracy which has arisen in present times with little or no regard for rightful lineal descendants, but is supposed to be a mechanism of fairness and equality based upon true lineal descendancy, rather than strict aristocracy. In the end it is not about money or the whiteman's elitist status......it is about doing what is right for those that have for so long been denied what is right. Our efforts collectively, I hope will bring about the true reunification of a great people so that all will share in the truth of who we are. Those that fear the truth may fight hard against its exposure......those in favor of the truth need to keep clean hearts and minds of the process. We need to try to avoid the divisive allure of always thinking in terms of material gain to get to the point of true anscestral realization. Be humble in your beliefs and your perogatives, in that this likely will differ from those that seek to exclude. Be true to your beliefs and your intentions, but try to maintain a civil manner in dealing with the issues which will inevitably come. The truth is the goal. The truth will set us free. The truth is what our anscestors truly want us to acheive. Keep the faith. Take care all.
Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by peacekeeper on Jun 16, 2006 19:21:33 GMT -5
hello derockbraine 1. i would love to get a copy of the cover letters. thank you. i just got home an hour ago. i was out of town all day.
jackie
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Jun 17, 2006 1:03:21 GMT -5
jackie, I think you are correct in that regarding the Sisseton Bands... seems I saw mention of Dr Jared Daniels as having been delegated to make a disbursement in place of Agent Adams in the fall of 1866. Again, this brings into issue who is Sisseton and who was mdewakanton regardless of where they lived. I would love to see the Sisseton 1909 for genealogical purposes but dont know that is compares in the scope of the lawsuit as the mdewakanton one. I am still interested in the 1869 census. Santee that is. What was the basis for it, who signed that sort of thing. I might have to make it my mission in life.... that and good quality, fast, mobile internet access!
|
|
|
Post by vmarier on Jun 20, 2006 8:10:31 GMT -5
Re: 1869 Census and Others It's really confusing to me. Elrod's list of Indian soldiers and scouts includes Sisseton, Wapekoote and Mdewakanton of the Loyal Mdewakanton of 1863. I'll look for the place where I read this description. If a Sisseton member is already paid per the agreement of 1866 then would the Elrod's scout list make them reeligible. And someone said there were some Sisseton on the 1886 census and Big Eagle accommodation make the case more complications and it seems to me these exceptions will make the probability of this case lasting for years. And when people were relocated to SD or fled to MT did they go together in separate, defined bands? Didn't bands get mixed up? I didn't know about Dr. Jared Daniels. I'll have to look him up. vmarier
|
|
|
Post by vmarier on Jun 20, 2006 9:32:37 GMT -5
Whoa I was in a hurry when I typed the last post. Disregard the poor grammar. Here is a web site that mentions Dr. Jared Daniels and Bishop Whipple and forty five thousand for some Sisseton Indians. It sounds like more of a relief effort. vmarier anglicanhistory.org/usa/whipple/auto/24.html
|
|
|
Post by vmarier on Jun 20, 2006 10:14:03 GMT -5
Treaty With The Sioux - Sisseton And Wahpeton Bands February 19, 1867 Re: Agreement with Sisseton/Wahpeton Signed in the presence of- Charles E. Mix. Gabriel Renville, head chief Siss(i)ton and Wa(r)peton bands. Wamdiupiduta, his x mark, head Siss(i)ton chief. Tacandupahotanka, his x mark, head Wa(r)peton chief. Oyehduze, his x mark, chief Sissiton. Umpehtutokca, his x mark, chief Wahpeton. John Otherday. Akicitananjin, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Waxicunmaza, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Wasukiye, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Wamdiduta, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Hokxidanwaxte, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Wakanto, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Ecanajinke, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Canteiyapa, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Tihdonica, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Tawapahamaza, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Wandiiyeza, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Tacunrpipeta, his x mark, Sissiton soldier. Wicumrpinumpa, his x mark, Wa(r)peton soldier. Xupehiyu, his x mark, Wa(r)peton soldier. Ecetukiye, his x mark, Wa(r)peton soldier. Kangiduta, his x mark, Wa(r)peton soldier. www.firstpeople.us/fp-html-treaties/TreatyWithTheSiouxSissetonAndWahpetonBands1867.html#startvmarier
|
|
|
Post by denney on Jun 20, 2006 15:32:49 GMT -5
|
|