I would like to understand the reason for saying that there were no
full-blooded indians in 1800.  I have heard this before but have never
heard proof.  Can it actually be proven that there were no full-blooded
indians in the 1800's and back that statement up with proof.  Had all the
native americans been given a dose of european blood?

This is just a curiousity to me actually.  Everyone must realize that
there is no such thing as a full-bloodeds Italian, or full-blooded
Spanish, or full-blooded anything else.  Somewhere back in time all
nationalities were given a dose of some other blood line.  But I would
like to hear what proof there is about the native americans as far as the
blood being mixed after the europeans came over.

One point to this is that when the trail of tears occurred the people
removed to those reservations would have been descendants of european
immigrants.  So, just out of curiousity how do you prove that there were
no full-blooded Native Americnas in the 1800's.

Randall Fields
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:31:08 -0500 (CDT) " Michael.W.Lowe "
 writes:
>In reference to the counties with Native Americans, my gg grandmother
>Rebeckey A. Gilley was born in Georgia in 1847. Her mother was from 
>South
>Carolina according to the 1900 census of Morgan County, Alabama. 
>Gilley is
>Rebeckey's married name. She married Andrew J. Gilley in 1880. He was 
>from
>Alabama but his father was from South Carolina and his mother was from
>Alabama. Rebeckey was supposedly a full blooded indian but we all know
>that there were no full blooded indians during the 1800's.
>I guess I am jumping the gun without the names of Rebeckey's parents 
>but
>it never hurts to search. There's no telling what you might find!
>
>Thanks,
>Janice Lowe
>
>P.S. I do have a Esther Rebecca Edwards & Martha Smith from South 
>Carolina
>around the early to mid 1800's.
>          
>

==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====