Russell FRANKLIN
Petition to Transfer #F-126
Chickasaw Freedman #255
Dawes Enrollment #1013
Pickens County, Homer, Indian Territory
As genealogist and especially those who research “African-American”
ancestors begin our research based on an oral tradition. It is this oral tradition
that we must navigate to locate and document sources to confirm or dismiss the
stories we are told concerning our ancestors.
The oral tradition is also a part of what the researcher of
Indian Territory Freedmen must deal with as we determine the truth of our
ancestor’s history and it is the oral tradition that never ceases to amaze me
when I read the stories of the men and women who claim to have Choctaw or
Chickasaw ancestry.
In the twenty-first century we are aided by a great deal of
technology that aids us in our research and it is very helpful when trying to
piece together the stories of the people who claimed their ancestors were
Chickasaw or Choctaw Indians.
These truths again or self-evident as I read the narrative of
Russell FRANKLIN who was a Chickasaw Freedman that was enrolled on Chickasaw
Freedman card #255. Russell was enumerated with his wife Resa and a son named
Mark. The first thing I noticed when I viewed Russell’s card was his age and
the possibility he may have come to Indian Territory during the Chickasaw
removal.
There is nothing in his Dawes interview that indicates he
came to Indian Territory during the removal but his age is a good indication it
was probable. What is part of the record given by his wife was a list of their
twelve children; and in some cases their spouses.
I remember when I first came across the name of Russell
FRANKLIN and how difficult it was to determine which of the three Russell
FRANKLIN’S on the Chickasaw Freedman roll was the person listed in Equity Case
7071. Since that time I was able to come across some new information that
helped determine the person who was a claimant and a very surprising amount of
additional information that demonstrated how oral history can be instructive in
directing research to the answers that confirm and corroborate those stories
the elders left.
Just reading the oral interview in the Dawes packet there is
nothing that would lead anyone to sense Russell FRANKLIN Dawes enrollment #1013
had Chickasaw ancestry. The Dawes Commission did their level best to avoid
bringing attention to the issue of freemen with Choctaw or Chickasaw
fathers. In some cases on the rear of the card they would write the name of the
father and indicate if he was a Chickasaw or Choctaw Indian in the column with
the heading of father’s owner.
In situations like Russell’s, it was not his father that the
genealogy and DNA originated for him, you had to go back further and that’s
where the oral story became important to the story of Russell FRANKLIN and his
descendants.
On the rear of his card I recognized the name of his father
but again, it was not obvious how this warranted Russell petitioning to
transfer from the freedmen roll to the Chickasaw by blood roll.
The most revealing thing about Russell FRANKLIN was the statement
by his wife Resa giving birth to twelve
children.
Thankfully Resa provided an oral history of the children she
and Russell reared but the story about Russell’s claim to Chickasaw ancestry
was not to be found in their interview packet, it would be years later when
Russell with the help of his attorney Albert J. LEE wrote the Dawes Commission
and Secretary of the Interior seeking to be transferred from the freedman roll
to the Chickasaw by blood roll.
In that letter to the Commissioner Russell stated he was the
“son of Buck BURNEY who was of one-half Chickasaw blood and who was a son of
Edmond PERRY, a full blood, recognized Chickasaw Indian citizens, who was a son
of Joe PERRY.” Russell went on to declare his “mother was Polly, a slave woman
owned by Moses PERRY.”
This is the kind of
testimony genealogist love when the oral history provides such details that we
can attempt to following for corroboration. It also demonstrates just how
strong the knowledge our ancestors had about their family and genealogy. For a
man that came to Indian Territory during the Chickasaw Removal, endured slavery was
alive to experience emancipation in 1866,
Russell provided information about his father and mother forty years later in 1906 when
he sought to be transferred from the freedman roll to the Chickasaw by blood
roll as a citizen.
I’m reminded of how the oral tradition is important in the
lives of “indigenous” societies like the Chickasaw and Choctaw nation so it is
no surprise that when Russell appeared before the Dawes Commission in 1898 he
wanted to provide the story of his family and make his claim of being a
descendant of a Chickasaw Indian going back it appears to be three generations.
The response to Russell’s claim of Chickasaw ancestry was
interesting; they gave the standard response; “it is not alleged in the petition,
neither does it appear from the tribal records of the Chickasaw Nation in the
possession of this office that the petitioner, or his alleged father Buck
BURNEY was ever recognized by the Chickasaw tribal authorities as a c citizen
by blood of said tribe…”
The commission stated further; “neither does it appear from
the tribal records in the possession of this office that Edmond PERRY, the
alleged grandfather of the petitioner was ever recognized or enrolled as a
citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation by any duly constituted authority. His
name does not appear on any of the tribal rolls of the Chickasaw Nation in the
possession of this office.”
The commission sums their decision up with another usual
response, “the allegation in the petition that Edmond PERRY, the alleged
grandfather of the petitioner Was a recognized Chickasaw is considered
immaterial inasmuch as it appears from the records of this office that
petitioner was born about the year 1828 and he has never been recognized or
enrolled as a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation…”
I could be wrong but I don’t believe the phrase or concept
of Chickasaw by Blood was in use circa 1828? I am under the impression it was a
term that emerged from the work of the Dawes Commission when they and the Five
Slave Holding Tribes constructed the Freedmen Roll and the By Blood Roll.
However, the idea that Russell’s grandfather Edmond PERRY
was not “recognized” as a Chickasaw is easily disputed when you take a look at
the records associated with their removal. Additionally this is where the oral
history comes into play. In his testimony Russell stated his grandfather Edmund
was the son of Joe PERRY. Well thankfully in his book “Who’s Who Among the
Southeastern Indians, Don MARTINI has a couple of entries that seem to help corroborate
Russell’s oral history.
There was a Choctaw by the name of Joseph PERRY who owned 21
slaves, Joseph was also the father of “Adam, Berriman, Edmund, Stephen, James,
Johnson, Betsy and Isaac PERRY.” It may not be conclusive and technically Joseph
was considered to be a Choctaw not a Chickasaw, it seems it was convenient for
the Dawes Commission to dismiss Russell’s claim, the claim of a former slave
with only his oral history to assert his rights to citizenship?
It is unfortunate the Dawes Commission and the Five Slave
Holding Tribes did not address the issue of all the people who were descendants
of Chickasaw Indians that were entitled to citizenship. That history will continue to
hurt the prestige of the nation as they turn their backs on people who have so
much history and "blood" in common with the nation. However the legacy of Russell and Resa FRANKLIN
will live on.
Russell and Resa had a large family back in 1898 when they were
enumerated on a Dawes card to receive their land allotment. Their descendants intermarried with other freedmen families in the territory and I hope their descendants are aware of their connections to the Chickasaw nation and more importantly to each other.
What will insure
their legacy is the large number of descendants that share a connection to
Russell and Resa as well as Edmund and Joseph PERRY; recognized or not?
