Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe of Virginia; General Assembly of Virginia to extend state recognition. (SJ292)

Introduced By

Sen. Don McEachin (D-Richmond)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe of Virginia. Extends state recognition to the Wolf Creek Cherokee Tribe. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/19/2015Presented and ordered printed 15103037D
01/19/2015Referred to Committee on Rules
02/06/2015Reported from Rules
02/06/2015Read first time
02/09/2015Read second time and engrossed
02/10/2015Read third time and agreed to by Senate by voice vote
02/12/2015Placed on Calendar
02/12/2015Referred to Committee on Rules
02/20/2015Tabled in Rules

Comments

Russ Drysdale writes:

SJ292 bill is distorted ... you Representatives may want to ask for information /proof in the statements made in your resolution . SJ292 wolf creek Cherokee
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed , but I do know Robert K Thomas never made mention of this group when Identifying Cherokees , his works have been compiled by Berkley Law .edu you can access them at http://works.bepress.com/robert_thomas/ ...... also https://archive.org/stream/siouantribeseas00moongoog#page/n0/mode/2up

Manahoac Confederacy pages 18- 19 These academic works are by James Moody....................................
For information on the below , read Richard Rankin ''Who are the Tomahitans''

1. Hassinnungaes & Tomahitans were not Cherokee,
A. Hassinnungaes were part of the Manahoac who was Ohio Valley Siouan(OVS)
B. and the Tomahitans have never been positively identified
C. but if you follow the clues in the Woods letter, every other tribe mentioned by name except one were Ohio Valley Siouans
D. the other one was Algonquian and the tribe they were most associated with were the Occaneechi who were OVS. [ OVS were most certainly NOT Cherokee ]

2. "Tsalagi" doesn't mean "we are still here" it's root is speculated to be from "Atsilagi" a term roughly meaning "he/she took the fire"

3. There are two Gabriel Arthurs, the elder Gabriel is the one that traveled with Needham and stayed among the Tomahitans (who again weren't Cherokee)..
4. No one really knows for sure who he married, ...the younger Gabriel Arthur is the one who married a Cherokee...

Scott Collins writes:

The wording of this bill needs to be changed because of the inaccuracy in claiming that the Tomahitan were Cherokee and that the Hassinnunga were Cherokee. You will find in history that the Tomahitan were in fact Ohio Valley Siouan (OVS) and not Iroquoian (Cherokee). The Hassinnunga were a part of the Manahoac-Mahock (OVS), sometime dubbed "The Virginia Cherokee". The Tutelo also resided at the town of Hassinnunga as the Manahoac-Mahock were a part of the the people called Yesa together as one and incorporated together at Fort Christanna as Saponi. There was a Cherokee group that requested to come live at the headwaters of the Roanoke River in 1734. Whether the Cherokee in fact did move into the area of the headwaters of the Roanoke River remains to be proven, however you will note a mention has been made in James Mooney's book History, Myths, and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokee pg.21 citing Schoolcraft in his work "Notes on the Iroquois" that some Cherokee lived at Peaks of Otter in Bedford County, VA for a short time. The Ricahocan are not Cherokee, but rather a collective term for the Erie Confederacy of tribes which includes the Erige-Erie/a.k.a. Kah-Kwahs, Tellige/a.k.a. Cherokee, Tutelo/a.k.a.Honniasont, Shawnee/a.k.a. Rique.

Graham Wiatt writes:

Please oppose this bill (SJ 292)! The three federally recognized Cherokee tribes in the United States including the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), the Cherokee Nation (OK) and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (OK), as well the Cherokee Identity Protection Committee DO NOT recognize or endorse Wolf Creek. In contrast, they strongly oppose this group (referring to them as fraud and listed as such) who by their own account have not proven affiliation to the Cherokee Nation or it would safe to assume they could assimilate there.

Jane Newman writes:

they have not proved their heritage. So my vote is No.

Kim Hardy writes:

Please do not let this pass. Monacans have been fighting to become recognized and we can prove our heritage. Vote No

Karen Orlosky writes:

I vote NO!They haven't proved their heritage.

kevin knuckles writes:

I vote NO !!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a Monacan Indian an can prove my heritage

Matthew Moschel writes:

Vote NO! I as well as my two children will be seeking enrollment papers February 16th 2015, providing heritage of Monacan descent.

Paula Jones writes:

I vote NO. As a Monacan Indian I have proof of who,what,and where of my ancestors and heritage. Yet we still keep fighting to get the FEDERAL recognition we deserve. Emphatic NO on this bill.

Vance Hawkins writes:

I have done a great deal of research on this topic. Although some have called the Tomahitans "Cherokee", there is no proof of this. They don't fit he description of any known tribe and are a mystery. The Ricohokans have also been said by some to have been Cherokee. But again, there is no proof of this -- just guesswork. As yall said, they were most likely Erie. There is no evidence the Cherokee EVER lived in Virginia. Parts of Western Virginia were used as their hunting grounds, but it was as far as I know, never a Cherokee settlement there, except for as I said, hunting parties, or war or diplomatic parties, in historic times. Of course they go where ever they want, today.

Melissa Barger writes:

No

Peter C Johns, Sr writes:

I am registered Monacan, Native American, with lineage haven been proven and waiting for federal recognition for many years. To allow this Bill to pass, clearly devalues the status of our battle for this recognition, since it allows State recognition as if it has no meaning. Our battle has been long and hard, and I adamantly vote "NO" to the passage of this Bill, in defense of the Monacan strugles as having continued meaning toward full recognition which we so rightfully deserve.

Tammy hicks writes:

Vote No!

Barbara whitt writes:

I vote no on this bill I am a monacan Indian
This bill will not benefit me

Barbara whitt writes:

No

Pamela Lawhorn writes:

Absolutely NO!

Amy Vance writes:

I ask for a "no" vote at this time. Until the Monacans are recognized Federally, as all other well-documented tribes are, this issue with Wolf Creek needs to be tabled.

susan Rasnick writes:

Susan Rasnick I vote no

jeremy Branham writes:

I vote No

Russ Drysdale writes:

Folks this is about the truth [or rather lack there of] in the bill itself , not your tribal affiliation .

Robin Heintz writes:

I vote NO. I am a proud Monocan Indian and I can proof my heritage.
We .. the Monocan's deserve to be federally recognized.

Catherine Stringer writes:

I am part Cherokee and Proud of it I vote NO

James Floyd writes:

I vote No....

Daniel Nehring writes:

My vote is NO! I understand the desire to be recognized. But to use false facts is reprehensible. They need to do their research better and find out who they truely are. It's hard enough to prove my ancestry as a Monacan and now they come along and muddy the water for all who do the work. It's no wonder the federally recognized tribes look at us all and turn their nose up and say "You're (incert tribe name here)........ RIGHT..... Hmmmmm? Looks another white guy pretending to be a Native." Please vote NO.

Russ Drysdale writes:

02/20/15 House: Tabled in Rules by voice vote , that means it failed