Michael Wren presents the online 1838 Claims Database in a special webinar hosted by the National Trail of Tears Association.  These are claims that Cherokee citizens made against the United States Government in 1838 prior to the migration to Indian Territory.

Click Here to Visit the Database

https://youtu.be/sn_tyKu8RWM

Today’s talk has three basic parts:

1. The 1838 claims themselves.
2. The online database: how to use it effectively in research.
3. A case study of a full-blood Cherokee and what can be learned from the database.

I will turn off my video so you can focus on the screen and not on me.

Establishing Context

It’s always important to establish context. The Trail of Tears is about the removal of a people, but it is also about the removal of real individuals: someone’s mother, father, brother, sister, grandparent, or child. This is not about nameless, faceless figures lost to the mists of time but about real human beings who wanted to live their lives in peace, grow their crops, tend their livestock, feed and care for their families, laugh, cry, rejoice, and mourn.

How do we engage more people in telling the narrative and legacy of the removal? It’s critical to involve people in local communities in the East and along the routes, whose cooperation is needed to preserve and access historic sites. It’s equally important to involve younger people. People do not connect to dry recitation of facts; they connect to real people and their stories.

When we look at this map, we see a typical map from the first third of the 19th century showing the Cherokee Nation in the middle of the southeastern U.S. The perspective of this map is from that of the U.S., presenting the Cherokee Nation as a big empty space, a frontier, the edge of civilization, the middle of nowhere. However, this map, and many more like it, hide the truth.

When we look at this map from the Cherokee perspective, we see that this was another country, another nation. It had laws, functional courts, judges, elected representatives, police, election precincts, cities, towns, roads, and communities. Almost all the records we use in research are rooted in the same perspective as the first map. Today, with the claims we’ll be talking about, it’s critical to approach them from the Cherokee perspective.

The 1835 Treaty

The 1835 treaty, as described by Edward Hill, established the first board of Cherokee commissioners in 1836 to adjudicate claims arising under or authorized by the treaty. The board consisted of commissioners appointed by the president with Senate approval. The process, which lasted until 1847, involved four different commissions and raises questions about competency and possible unseen agendas.

The Cherokee committee, referred to in the treaty, was supposed to provide initial review for approval by the commission. However, it was dominated by the treaty party, raising suspicions and concerns among most Cherokee.

Patterns in Claim Reductions

There appears to be a pattern of reduction in the amounts approved for claims, with no explanations provided. For instance, a formation claim was reduced by 25%, and another for stolen horses was reduced by 33%. The burden of proof always falls on the person making a claim, but if the standards of proof are not understood or inconsistently applied, issues arise. We do not know if the claimants were fully aware of the decisions or actions by the first board or the Cherokee committee.

The 1838 Claims

These claims add to and complement other records created by U.S. government agents. On August 15, 1838, John Ross wrote to General Winfield Scott about claims for improvements omitted or erroneously valued by U.S. valuing agents, as well as claims for spoilations. These claims, numbering about 3,600, are spread across multiple repositories, and their arrangement is random, making them harder to utilize.

Approaching the Database

When using the online database, it’s crucial to approach research problems from multiple perspectives. This database is large, and response times may vary. To search effectively, consider using multiple spellings and variations of names. Names and spellings can vary widely, even within the same claim.

Case Study: Tuqua

The case study for a full-blood Cherokee named Tuqua reveals the complexity of tracing individuals through these records. Tuqua, also known as The Whale, was a true military hero who fought in the Creek War. Despite his bravery, he and his family faced harassment, theft, displacement, and forced removal. The detailed claims provide insight into the lives and losses of real people.

Conclusion

The removal happened to real people, each of whose lives and stories deserve to be remembered. The records, though challenging to navigate, provide a wealth of information about the material culture and personal experiences of the Cherokee. By engaging with these claims and telling these stories, we honor their legacy and ensure their history is not forgotten.