By Rose Buchanan, Archivist and Subject Matter Expert for Native American Related Records
The Guion Miller Roll and related applications are useful sources for tracing Eastern Cherokee ancestry. But what does it mean when your ancestor’s Guion Miller Roll records refer to a “special report” or “case”?
This post provides an overview of the Guion Miller Roll and related applications, examples of applications that refer to special reports or cases, and tips for researching these records further.
What is the Guion Miller Roll?
The Guion Miller Roll documents individuals who were eligible to receive funds awarded to the Eastern Cherokee under the U.S.–Cherokee treaties of 1835–1836 and 1845. To be approved for a share in the funds, an applicant had to:
- be alive as of May 28, 1906;
- establish that they were a member or descendant of a person who had been included in the forced removal to Indian Territory, known as the “Ross Party”;
- not be affiliated with a tribe other than the Cherokee; and
- submit an application that was received by August 31, 1907.
Special Commissioner Guion Miller compiled an initial roll of eligible applicants in 1909 and a supplemental roll of exceptions (additions or removals from the initial roll) in 1910. He also produced reports on each application. The reports indicate if an applicant was admitted or rejected and the basis of the decision in their case.
How can I access the Guion Miller Roll and related records?
The Guion Miller Roll and related applications, testimony, and reports are digitized in the National Archives Catalog at the following links:
- Guion Miller Report and Exhibits, 1908–1910. This series includes the initial roll of 1909, the supplemental roll of 1910, Miller’s reports on applications, miscellaneous testimony, and indexes to applications.
- Eastern Cherokee Applications, August 29, 1906–May 26, 1909. This series includes the Guion Miller Roll application files.
Miller’s report on my ancestor says “See special report in [number].” What does this mean?
As noted above, Guion Miller Roll applicants had to demonstrate that they were either a member of the Cherokee who were subject to the government's forced removal to Indian Territory or descended from such a member. If multiple applicants claimed descent from the same person, Miller typically addressed those claims in detail only once in his reports, often in his report on the first application to make the claims. For subsequent applications that claimed descent from the same person, Miller usually included a reference to see his earlier explanation, along with the relevant application number.
For example, in his report on Mary Bread’s application (Application 6064), Miller indicates that Mary was the “sister of #1988 and claims through same source.” Application 1988 is for Cherokee Bread, and Miller’s report on his application states that Cherokee’s father, Lewis Bread, and his grandparents, Bread and Aincy, were “all enrolled by Drennen in 1851.” Interior Department official John Drennan prepared a census of Cherokee who had moved west after the 1835 treaty and settled in present-day Oklahoma; the Drennan Roll is one source that Miller consulted to determine if applicants were descended from enrolled Cherokee members. Because their ancestors appeared on the Drennan Roll, Miller determined that Cherokee Bread and Mary Bread both met the eligibility requirements for the roll he was compiling and admitted both applicants.
Miller’s report on Mary Bread’s application (No. 6064)
Miller’s report on Cherokee Bread’s application (No. 1988)
In several instances, dozens or even hundreds of applicants claimed descent from someone whom Miller determined was not a member of the Cherokee who were party to the 1835–1836 and 1845 treaties with the United States. Miller typically grouped these applicants together into “cases,” which he often named after applicants’ common ancestor, and explained in detail why he rejected their claims—again, usually in his report on the first application to make the claim. Miller referred to these explanations, which could be a page or more (in comparison to a line or two for other applications), as “special reports” or “full reports.”
For example, in his report on William J. Poindexter’s application (Application 18815), Miller refers to the “Poindexter Case” and says to “see full report in #664.” Application 664 is for Sarah A. Mashburn, who claimed descent from Elizabeth (or Betty) Pledge Poindexter; Elizabeth was purported to be the daughter of a Cherokee chief named Donohoo. In his eight-page report on Mashburn’s application, Miller indicates that 800–1,000 applications representing nearly 1,500 individuals claimed descent through the Poindexter family, but that he could not find evidence that Donohoo or his descendants were formally enrolled with the Cherokee at the time of the 1835–1836 and 1845 treaties. Consequently, he rejected applications that claimed descent through the Poindexter family.
Miller’s report on William J. Poindexter’s application (No. 18815), which says to “see full report in #664”
First page of Miller’s report on Sarah A. Mashburn’s application (No. 664), in which Miller lays out his reasoning for rejecting claims based on descent from the Poindexter family
Likewise, in his report on Jisia Rogers’s application (Application 23795), Miller refers to the “Kirkland Case” and says to “see special report in #586.” Application 586 was for Hattie D. Lane and her seven children, which was one of about 223 applications that claimed descent from Nathan Kirkland; Kirkland was purported to be a Cherokee chief. As with the Poindexter case, however, Miller could not find evidence that Kirkland or his descendants were formally enrolled with the Cherokee at the time of the 1835–1836 and 1845 treaties, so he rejected the Kirkland cases.
Miller’s report on Jisia Rogers’s application (No. 23795), which says to “see special report in #586”
Miller’s report on Hattie D. Lane’s application (No. 586), in which he explains his reasoning for rejecting claims based on descent from the Kirkland family
I found my ancestor’s Guion Miller Roll application, and the first page only says “Sizemore Case” (or “Kirkland Case,” “Poindexter Case,” etc.). How do I find Miller’s full report on this case?
Occasionally, Miller’s full report on a group case will be included in an individual’s application file. For example, William Franklin Neal (Application 5145) claimed descent from Gardner Green and Green’s son, Benjamin, who were purportedly Cherokee. Miller’s report on Neal’s application provides his reasoning for rejecting claims made through the Greens, but a copy of the report is also in Neal’s application file.
First page of Miller’s report on William Franklin Neal’s application (No. 5145), in which Miller lays out his reasoning for rejecting claims based on descent from the Green family
First page of the copy of Miller’s report about the Green family, included in William Franklin Neal’s application file (No. 5145)
More often, however, a copy of Miller’s report on the group case is not included in the application file. In these instances, the best way to determine the report number for the group case is to look for a cross-reference to the report number (e.g., “see special report in #”) in Miller’s individual report on your ancestor.
Daniel H. Sizemore’s application file (No. 9508) is an example. The first page of his application file includes a reference to the “Sizemore case” but no report number for that case. However, in Miller’s report on Sizemore’s application, he says to “see spec. [special] report #417.” Application 417 is for George Washington Plummer, who claimed descent from one of the Sizemore brothers (Ned or Edward, John or Doctor Johnny Gourd, Joseph, and William). In his six-page report on Plummer’s application, Miller indicates that about 2,000 applications representing about 5,000 individuals claimed descent through the Sizemore family, who were purportedly Cherokee. But Miller could not find evidence that the Sizemores were formally enrolled with the Cherokee at the time of the 1835–1836 and 1845 treaties, so he rejected the Sizemore cases.
First page of Daniel H. Sizemore’s application file (No. 9508), which mentions the “Sizemore case” but does not provide a cross-reference number to Miller’s report on this case
Miller’s report on Daniel H. Sizemore’s application (No. 9508), which says to “see spec. [special] report #417”
First page of Miller’s report on George Washington Plummer’s application (No. 417), in which Miller lays out his reasoning for rejecting claims based on descent from the Sizemore family
Miller’s special report on my ancestor’s group case says to see “miscellaneous testimony” or “[family name’s] testimony” (e.g., “Sizemore testimony”). What does this mean?
This is referring to additional testimonies that Miller took as he attempted to verify applicants’ claims of Cherokee descent. Miller compiled 10 volumes of these testimonies, which sometimes came from people (e.g., neighbors) who knew an applicant and sometimes from the applicants themselves. The testimonies are arranged roughly chronologically from February 1908 to March 1909. However, Volume 10 of the testimonies compiles dozens of testimonies about the Sizemore case and the Poindexter case across this time period.
Where can I find more information about the Guion Miller Roll and related records?
Our Guion Miller Roll, 1906–1911 page provides background information about the roll, links to digitized records, and additional resources for researching Eastern Cherokee ancestry.
Who should I contact if I have other questions about the Guion Miller Roll and related records?
Please email the Archives 1 Reference Branch in Washington, DC, at archives1reference@nara.gov.