Family Genealogy 
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~brooksgenealogy/Searchme.html


Native Americans of South Carolina
VERY IMPORTANT FIND: 1719 South Carolina Assembly in determining who should be "indian" for tax purposes (Indian slaves were adjudged at a lower tax rate than negro slaves..so the idea is to get as much tax as possible...remember, censuses were also intended to assess the taxable citizens in any given area, so race was determined by what the census enumerator felt that the person should be taxed as.) The Act passed that year stated "And for preventing all doubts and scruples that may arise what ought to be rated on mustees, mulattoes, etc. all such slaves not entirely Indian should be accounted as negro." Inference: persons of Indian blood less than full-blood would be legally documented as "negro". It is apparent that by the time of the founding of Fort Christana at the NC/VA border, a large segment of the Siouan/Tuscarora/Algonquin Indians which were settled there and put to work as miners, were already mixed with white and Portuguese blood. By the time of the closing of the Fort, and the migrating of these Indian mixed-bloods to the shores of the Pamunkey River at around 1720, many of the families were so mixed and acculturated, that they were no longer legally or socially regarded as "Indian"....of course, they still had a high degree of Indian blood, and a strong Indian identity, but for the most part they went about their lives much like their white neighbors, farming, raising cattle, acquiring and titles, etc. 

By the 1750's when these Christian, English-speaking, literate, industrious, mixed-blood families began to spread to southern NC and northern SC, those white colonists didn't know what to do with these people. Usually when they 'toed-the-line' socially, financially, and legally, these is little documentation to distinguish them from their white neighbors... its only when someone crosses the line that their is some legal case, tax dispute, violent confrontation, etc., etc., which of course documents these peoples' ancestry in the darkest possible light. 

The single most important point here is this.......it wasn't the "mixed-blood" factor that held these people together as separate communities (there are many families of mixed black/white ancestry or white/Indian ancestry that melted into the larger white or black population) ... it wasn't the Portuguese ancestry that held these people together as separate communities (many of the families did not claim Portuguese ancestry, and the majority did not claim it as their first choice of racial identity)...it was the Indian ancestry that was the identity and motivating factor which caused them to live separately from their white and black neighbors. 

http://sciway3.net/clark/freemoors/NativeAmericans.html

 
Family Photos
 
Related Files
 
Related Links


"I have Cherokee blood in me. I have just enough white blood for you to question my honesty!"Will Rogers


With so many families in former Creek Nation Alabama, it is quite possible we are mixed. 

 
Family Photos
 
Related Files
 
Related Links

Little Family Tree Research :
all things connected to Captain George Little of Scotland. There has been much speculation as to the birth dates of his children with a Scottish wife, Mary. My thoughts from browsing the 1790 Union District census records are: 
He was born 1733...age 21 when he came to America ( 1754 ) married and then 10 children.....was in war 1776 at age 43 for two years in the Third Regiment of the Colonial Army..was Sargent, Lieutenant, then Captain until Tarleton's men shot him in the hip causing disability......on 1790 census with 10 others in household....I would suspect that since I find no record of all of his daughters and their husbands that it is possible some married and stayed home to take care of the ailing father.

Wouldnt his wife be too old for childbirth after the war?

1790 census shows a Jonas, John, Joseph each in their own household...are they his children or brothers or no relation? They have children!! If Jonas did not marry Betsy Douglass until she was 18, perhaps he had a previous marriage...However if OUR Jonas Little was not born until 1780, as indicated on Laura Little's DAR lineage report, then the guy we see on the 1790 census is "someone else". I personally think that she estimated his date of birth as so many did back then.

Joseph and John Jr are in Colonel Brandon's regiment in 1790 so he is obviously married with family long before they all moved away from SC into TN and KY. So Joseph could have been born around 1750 and his brother's son about 1770 for them both to be in a 1790 regiment ! John shows 9 family members in his household so he's at least been married 10 years.

So the estimated birth dates on other family trees have to be incorrect - these men had to be born before the war and not after....besides at the age of their parents, it might be impossible. Perhaps locating the other sons, William and Thomas, will give us more clues.

George and Mary's daughters were born in the 1760s and I would feel certain that the sons were also........This couple had at least 20 years together before the war and the children were all likely born long before he became disabled. He apparently could not have children with Mary Douglass when they married - in fact there is no record of her having any children after being with Alexander Douglass.

The only other possible theory is that George Little might have come to America with several brothers and they all settled into South Carolina.


 
Family Photos
 
Related Files
 
Related Links