SELF-L Archives

Archiver > SELF > 2009-08 > 1251129160

From: "Dan Hunter" <>
Subject: Re: [SELF] Asa Skelton Family Bible Posted for Catherine RisingFawnMoyToy, William Presley Self
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:52:40 -0500
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Superb and very educational response ! ! Thanks !

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [SELF] Asa Skelton Family Bible Posted for Catherine
RisingFawn MoyToy, William Presley Self

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.

Author: SReynolds3925
Classification: queries

Message Board URL:

Message Board Post:

Whoa, whoa, whoa! No one here is slinging mud or being disrespectful.
I think you have misunderstood and taken offense where none was
offered. I said ONE of the Selfs - not William Presley specifically -
MIGHT have been a TRADER among the Cherokee - an occupation, a person
who traded goods among them - and had both a Cherokee and a white
family. I did not name him a TRAITOR - one who betrays his own.
There was not at any time any shame implied, nor am I shameless for
stating a known fact of the time - that most of the TRADERS took wives
among the Nations in which they traded and had children with them.
This is how a good number of the mixed-blood families came to be.
Many of the wives, both NA and white, knew about the others, knew of
or knew their children. Sequoyah is a great example. His father had
both a white and a Cherokee family. Sequoyah visited in their home
and was acknowledged as his father's son. This is simply a
genealogical fact, no judgment drawn or!

I do, however, have a problem with "genealogies" that are posted
without any PROOF. While, Don Greene might well be right (that's not
for me to judge right now), I would like to see the proof please and
know the source documents for his conclusions. No American Indian
Nation had a written language prior to Sequoyah's Cherokee Syllabary
in the mid 1800s. Any documentation that exists prior to around 1800
is mostly in government accounts or records, personal letters between
leaders and in articles that may have been written in periodicals and
newspapers, except where there were intermarriages with whites and in
families that could read and write and kept records (very few and far
between). Most things stated categorically as truth before 1800 will
be viewed with a degree of skepticism. Anything stated categorically
as truth prior to the Revolution is going to be viewed with extreme
skepticism because there simply is no proof to be had, except in very
rare cases. Even Poc!
ahontas' lineage cannot be taken back before her father with any
degree of certainty because there are no written records to depend on.
Millions of people claim descent from her and she had only one son.
This doesn't just happen in the Native American lines - millions claim
descent from George Washington, too, and he had NO children, so the
best anyone can claim is to be his distant cousin or his many times
great nephew or niece. There are even fake patents of nobility from
the middle ages that elevated people well above their rank, giving
them a completely false lineage. Just because it is written down
doesn't necessarily make it so.

The simple truth is this - just because someone has written it in a
book doesn't make it so. What are the sources and where is the proof?
This is an especially apt question when someone takes well known and
well-documented (as far as they can be)families and twists and turns
them into something not resembling what is known and proven about
them. I want to see the proof. And you should want to see the proof.
Any genealogist worth his salt and worthy of the title will be more
than happy to SHOW it to you - not just give you a list of sources.
There's nothing derogatory in asking for it any more than there is
asking your doctor to show you proof you have cancer or that your
child is a boy or girl. If they are insulted or angry or refuse - you
should run the other way.

But beyond that look at some of the things you have given us. Let's
look at Presley Self and Amelia Gunter and their list of children.
You have Dicie down as born 1822. I'm assuming you meant about 1822?
How logical is it she is Amelia's daughter? Amelia would have been
about 62 years of age (according to the 1850 census which I've
attached. Note BTW that her husband is listed as WESLEY, possibly a
mistake, but possibly not, maybe a combination of William and
Presley!)which makes her a very unlikely candidate. In this listing
of children, every child after Presley born about 1806 must be taken
with a huge grain of salt and even Presley is pressing the boundaries
with Amelia being around 46 when he was born. Not outside the realm
of possibility, but certainly outside the realm of PROBABILITY for the
times. Some other problems with it? The John Gunter who was supposed
to be Amelia's father was not even born until 6 years or so after
Amelia. That's a really good tric!
k that one - smile! John Gunter's Cherokee children were also not
born in SC, but in GA and AL. I know census records are not the most
accurate, but the 1850 does show both Amelia and her husband as born
in SC. It is far more likely Amelia is this John Gunter's SISTER,
both children of John Gunter and Amy Tillotson. That makes perfect
sense and corresponds perfectly in timing and locale. In this regard,
yes Amelia would have Cherokee connections, but not blood

This genealogy has William Presley Self married to Catherine Rising
Fawn, yet the descendants of John Gunter plainly show Catherine Rising
Fawn to be John Gunter's wife and 50 years younger than indicated
here. Even Presley Self's descendants that made application for the
Guion Miller settlement (Eastern Cherokee), don't make this claim, but
that Amelia Gunter Self was a sister to John Gunter.

This genealogy also has Isaac Self married to Nancy Henderson as a
descendant of William Presley and Catherine Rising Fawn Self. Larry
Brown has done extensive research on this line (my mother-in-law's)and
the lineage he has provided is not from this source. The Self family
is VERY well documented and proved out in the major lines and at no
point does the documentation bear this out.

All of us make mistakes and there could have been a wrong turn made,
but it would be an awfully big one to get to the points listed here.
I am certainly open to looking at other points of view and altering
lineages if the documentation proves it wrong. But I want to SEE the
documentation, not unsupported claims. So rather than take offense and
make unfounded accusations SHOW us the documentation that proves your
theory, not an unsupported excerpt from a book. Keeping it academic
helps keep down the bad feelings.

Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you
would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL
link above and respond on the board.

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: