Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia

 they saw”.^[1]

                 William Byrd was no exception. Byrd’s view of the Nottoway was neither particularly admiring nor sympathetic, but his comments in 1728 referring to the Nottoway as being already “the only Indians of any consequence now remaining within the limits of Virginia”, remain useful and instructive.  As fellow Virginia Indians, we appreciate that the Mattaponi, the Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Rappahannock, the Pamunkey, the Nansemond, and other tribes of Virginia would view Byrd’s 1728 assertion that Nottoway were the “only Indians of consequence”^[2] (and his further description of all Indians as living “in Stupid Idleness”) as absurdly inaccurate and offensive.  Yet, as descendants of one of the most documented historical tribes of Virginia, we Nottoway descendants trust the Virginia Council on Indians and its representatives of the modern era recognized Tribes will appreciate that it is equally offensive in 2006 that Nottoway descendants have not yet been accepted  within this  “recognized” community of Native Americans/Indians of Virginia.  We would like to work jointly to correct this historical anomaly.

                The Commonwealth of Virginia’s “State Recognition Resolution”, January 21, 1983, (which encompassed six of the above now recognized tribes), explicitly stated “RESOLVED FURTHER, that the General Assembly of Virginia by virtue of the United States census and other evidence (emphasis added) acknowledges the fact that members of other Indian tribes reside within Virginia”.^[3]

                Members of the Virginia Council on Indians adopted a procedure for reviewing other Virginia tribes’ applications for “Recognition” at their January 20, 2004 meeting.  A thoughtful perusal of the public minutes of the meetings prior to adoption of the new criteria suggests that much of the discussion leading up to the  formal adoption of these new criteria took place out of the public arena, and that no readily apparent opportunity was provided for formal ( or even informal) input into these criteria by the public, particularly from those tribe’s not already represented on the Council.  While hopefully inadvertent, this lack of input from potential applicants has created an additional set of obstacles to “recognition”, not faced by the existing recognized tribes in their own earlier pursuit of formal acknowledgement by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These new criteria, while facially well- intentioned, constitute a virtual barrier against equitable inclusion.

                 We entreat the current members of the Virginia Council on Indians to recognize that disparate treatment of new applicants does not further the broad and long term interests of the citizens of Virginia generally or of the Indian communities specifically.

                As stated in our January 2006 Letter of Intent to petition, the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. seeks a continuing positive relationship with all the Indian communities of Virginia. 

contextual grammar of facial, gestural, and body language . Because we are seldom bequeathed evidence of the extra verbal envelope of historical speech, ethno historians should pay close attention to the signifying properties of their written evidence in order to maximize the usefulness of its ethnographic contents.”^[1]

                We are submitting our petition for recognition using the criteria established by the currently recognized tribes’ representatives on the Virginia Council on Indians.  We believe, upon reflection, any fair minded person would acknowledge that these new criteria are not historically equitable. Yet, we would rather attempt to work with the VCI… than around the VCI.  It would demean the whole process for Indian descendants to become adversarial.

                Since we appear to be the first Indian tribe to petition under these new criteria, we hope we can work within the VCI structure to refine them to reflect historic, cultural, racial, ethnic, economic, political, and, yes, tribal realities.

                  The most obvious, and sensitive, issue is disparate consideration of racial intermarriage and tribal identification.  The Nottoway were described by William Byrd as people of “Mehogony  Skins “ or the “ Copper Colour’d Ones of Nottoway Towne” ^[2] long before any extensive intermarriage with either Europeans or Africans.  Upon first contact with colonial settlers, traders and land speculators Nottoway were a dark-skinned  tribe.  Over time the Nottoway, like other Virginia tribes, have intermarried with Europeans and African Americans.  In the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion in Southampton County in 1831, all dark-skinned inhabitants of Virginia, particularly “free” people of color, were terrorized.  Thus, free Indians and free Negroes were treated the same-badly.  It is not coincidental that the sell off of 40,000 plus acres of Nottoway land began in the late 1700’s, soon after the threat to Anglo settlers from Western and Northern Indians subsided , and accelerated  after 1800, when the slave population became more restive.

                The Nottoway were  cajoled and coerced by the Colonial government of Virginia to act as a buffer and early warning signal against other Indian tribes located west of what is now Southampton, Surry, Brunswick and Sussex Counties.  The 40,000 plus acre Circle and Square tract reservation established   April 28, 1705^[3] in Southampton and Sussex Counties was not for the benefit of the Nottoway. They previously laid communal claim to the entire region.  The reservation’s sole function was containment of Indians, and protection for Anglo settlers against the more western and northern Indian tribes.

                In 1808 the Anglo “Trustees” had taken it upon themselves to “apprentice” four Nottoway children to other Anglos without tribal (or parental) consent.  The Nottoway complained to the Governor, who had the children returned. ^[4]  The Governor then suggested the trustees get the approval of the Tribe in future such efforts, and the Trustees  wrote back to the Governor that the Tribe had vetoed the idea, saying  “that an Indian was never known as apprentice”.^[5] The Nottoway early recognized such apprenticeships as a first step towards involuntary servitude.  Unable to totally control the Nottoway as they would like, the trustees set about another course.

documents themselves, suggests another equally supported view…that the sell-off was not the Nottoway Tribe’s idea, but that of surrounding non-Indian landholders.

                  It is significant that the main petitioner for allotment system, and virtually simultaneous  sell off, a William G. Bozeman/Boseman ( aka Billy Woodson ) , did not at the time of the submission of the petition live on the reservation.  As the reported son a of an Indian female and European father ( Micajah Bozeman), he “returned” to Virginia just long enough to successfully petition, sell his allotment and disappear. His main petition ,filed December 13, 1823^[1], did not contain the signature or marks of other Nottoway tribal members, but did include “endorsement” signatures of some eighty (82) two non-Indians , who subsequently acquired virtually all of the reservation land. Of even greater interest is that just three years earlier, using the name “William Woodson” he had signed several deeds for land made by the tribe with an “x” for a signature(1820) and others with a complete signature(1819), yet beginning in 1823 he appears in the records as “William G. Bozeman (or Boseman)” and always signs his name fully.^[2]  In a Deed of Trust in 1828^[3] (Southampton County, D.20;91-92) , this same Bozeman acted as security for another man, James Turner, for a debt Turner owed to a third party. As Virginia historian,Dr. Helen Roundtree has observed, “ This deed is one of the rare ones in Southampton County ( during that era) where the color  (race) of any of the parties is noted. James Turner is described as a “free Negro”, but no description at all is attached to either Bozeman or the third party, indicating they were considered “white” ( since only “whites” could act as sureties during this period).^[4]

                An objective review of the context and the documents  gives substantial support to the view that Bozeman acted more as the primary emissary for Euro-Virginians seeking valuable reservation land, than as a well-intentioned spokesman for the Nottoway people.

                This land sell-off could also be seen, through the eyes of Indians, Blacks and objective Anglo-Virginians, as a concerted effort to deprive slaves and “free coloreds” of a safe haven within Southampton , Sussex and surrounding Counties  during tumultuous times. The Nottoway had earlier provided a safe haven for those some historians have labeled (or mis-labeled) a non-Christianized segment of the Nansemond in 1744 through at least 1786^[5] . Segments of the Weyanockes and Meherrins also sought refuge within the Nottoway community. The existence of a significant reservation under the ownership and control of non-whites was viewed as a continuing threat by a dominant segment of the Anglo-Virginian communities of Southampton and Sussex counties, indeed much of European Virginia.

Virginians can be found throughout Virginia. 

                In spite of the destruction of our communal reservation land, many citizen members of the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. (NITOV)  still live on and own property within, or in close proximity to, the geographical confines of the original “Circle & Square” of the Nottoway Reservation.

                Much is made by some historians of the 1808 enumeration as a definitive list of all Nottoway, when in reality it was merely a precursor to the dominant community’s plans to break up the reservation.  We are providing in our supporting documents numerous examples of Nottoway not listed in the 1808 document, who later received allotments, or who concurrently shared households with listed Nottoway Indians.  The 1808 “enumeration” was not an accurate or complete list of who the Nottoway regarded as fellow Nottoway. It was a self-serving list of who the predominant Anglo community considered to be Nottoway. In brief, it is an important and critical document in the evolution and history of the Nottoway Tribe, but is not the genealogical holy grail many suggest.  For example, if a listed Indian shares a house with any Anglos, they are given a name, and later those Anglos are treated as members of the household.  However, when persons of color, whom the enumerator did not feel were Indians, shared the household, they were considered mere servants or co-habitators, without names or subsequent property rights.

                In 2006, it is tragically ironic that some Virginia Indians and Anglo-Virginians still have little reticence in accepting light-skinned  descendents of Indian tribes, who readily admit and celebrate their European duality, as recognized Indians; yet anguish over the darker-skinned duality of Indian-African ancestry as somehow being of less legitimate descendancy. 

                Additionally, the notion that census records during the 1900-1960 period reflected some accurate representation of racial or ethnic identity is farcical. Enumerators ( census takers) made these subjective calls on their own… most often not asking the persons being enumerated the genesis of their cultural attachment (s) .

                As an example, the enumerators’ marching orders for 1930 included the following:

                They “ were instructed to return as Indians ,not only those of full Indian blood, but also those of mixed White and Indian blood ‘except where the percentage of  Indian blood is very small’ or where the individual was ‘regarded as a white person in the community where he lives’…” A person of mixed Indian and Negro blood should be returned as a Negro unless the Indian blood predominates and the status as an Indian is generally accepted in the community’  . What does this mean exactly? We must keep in mind , first, that the term blood had little to do with the red fluid universally recognized as blood. It had to do with facial features and skin tone ; dress, perhaps; language, maybe; family name ( surely someone called Whitekiller is an Indian?); and the general tenor of a community. We should also bear in mind that the enumerators were overwhelmingly white. The enumerator’s perception of community acceptance is especially interesting to ponder. Given that the enumerators could hardly be expected to know when a person’s “ percentage of Indian blood is very small”- how could you tell? -the weight of judgment must have fallen on whether that person was “regarded as white”.  But regarded by whom?  Similarly, the status of a black Indian must have been determined largely by whether that person was “generally accepted in the community as Indian”. The fascinating thing is that the enumerators were not ordered to find out whether a black ( darker-skinned) Indian was “accepted” as black or a white ( lighter-skinned) Indian “regarded” as Indian.  The Census Bureau evidently accepted an implicit racial hierarchy of community choice. It wanted to look at the faces of light-skinned Indians and ask around as to who was passing for white; lower on this  implicit racial scale, it would look at dark-skinned Indians and ask around as to who was passing for Indian.  Presumably it was whites who did the “regarding” in the first instance and Indians who did the “accepting” in the second.  A dark person’s being accepted as black was of no interest or consequence, nor was a light person’s being accepted as Indian”^[1]  ( emphasis added)

                The entire Afro-Native American cultural exchange and contact experience is a significant subject that has largely been obscured by a focus upon European activity and European colonial relations with euphemistically labeled ‘peripheral’ subject peoples. 

                It is further obscured by a prevailing sentiment that it is acceptable to trumpet Indian-European ancestry, but taboo to celebrate Indian-Afro ancestry.  Leaving out the Indian-Afro ,or non-Anglo, side of the story destroys context, balance, and interaction, and invalidates conclusions.  The resulting hazy, partial portrayal of Indians, particularly, the Nottoway, is an unjust one of a people…making them appear passive, victimized, and lacking in will…making them disappear.

                Much has been written in recent years about Walter Plecker’s decades long “ Racial Integrity” activities, and how that blatant racism impacted Indian identity.  The predominantly mahogany skinned Nottoway descendants, who remained in Virginia, faced not only Plecker, but virtually everyone else’s terror simply for being darker skinned.  Tragically again, there was no Pocahontas exception inserted into the Racial Integrity Act of 1923 for mahogany-skinned descendants of Indians.  While some of our lighter-skinned descendants could adroitly tip toe between Indianness and whiteness, those of mahogany complexion descendants had only  the choice given to them by the predominant society…stay under the radar and stay within the relative protection of the only community where your dark skin did not stand out, and did not matter.

                 Dr. Helen Roundtree has added immensely to Virginians understanding of their interrelated history. While we do not always agree with her conclusions or opinions, we respect them as carefully considered.  Unfortunately, ( as we believe Dr. Roundtree herself has acknowledged ) her thesis “ The Termination and Dispersal of the Nottoway Indians of Virginia “ has been repeatedly quoted, and misquoted, entirely out of context. Dr. Roundtree’s own research has affirmed that “ No Virginia governmental agency has ever used the term ( “termination”) about the Nottoway reservation, much less about Nottoway-descended individuals. “^[1]

                It should also be remembered that, as early as 1646, the Virginia Colonial Government basically “appointed” tributary Indian Chieftains, choosing those who were most likely to carry out the wishes of the Colonials. The government “…sought to tighten disciplinary control over the tribes and notably by a statute of 1665 which deprived the tributary Indians ( including the Nottoway) of even so much as a semblance of a right to choose their own leaders. Their choice since 1646 had been subject to the government’s confirmation but now the Colonial Governor was authorized to select as commander

(Chief) of the respective towns such persons as he came to have confidence in. The penalty for disobedience to, or murder of, a Chieftain chosen by the Colonial government was loss of status as friendly Indians.” ^[2]

                Thus,when most historical records post-1646 refer to “King”, “Queen”,  “Chief” or “Great Men” of the Nottoway , they are referring to leaders essentially chosen by the Colonial government to accomplish Colonial, not Indian, goals.  Acknowledging this reality does not  rob these historical figures of their place in Virginia’s history, but it does provide a crucial context and balance to actions taken, or not taken…and recorded, or not recorded over time.  He or she who writes history, makes history.

                The Nottoway signed at least two treaties with England, The Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677  ( jointly with several other tribes)and The Spotswood Treaty of 1713-14 ( singularly ).

                The Commonwealth of Virginia continued to recognize the Nottoway’s treaty status well into the 1800’s.   In 1837 Parsons Turner, a Nottoway who had received and previously sold part of his share of Nottoway Tribal land in Southampton County ,was tried for assault in a court of oyer and terminer. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. The next year Turner wrote to the Governor of Virginia , asking for a pardon on the grounds that his tribal rights had been violated in the way he had been tried^[3]. As an Indian under Treaty status ,Turner argued he should have received justice as though he were white and given a jury trial. The Governor granted his pardon, thus upholding Turner’s assertion of treaty status in 1838^[4]. It is significant to point out that the Tribe authorized the sale of additional tribal land to pay for Parson Turner’s appeal to the Governor of Virginia.  The Tribe appreciated the importance of asserting their Treaty rights. Parsons Turner was merely a symbolic instrument of those tribal tights.

                Whether the Treaties of 1677 and 1713  remain in force, or not, is not the focus of our  petition for recognition. These Treaties are, however,  important Anglo-generated documents reflecting the significant role of  Nottoway Indians in Virginia’s evolution.

Once we lost our communal land, we were subject to the “free colored” taxes and registration statutes…and if unable, or unwilling, to pay these assessments, we were “contracted out” by the Sheriff and tax collector as indentured slaves. ^[1]  Historical obscurity has colored the Nottoway, yet we have quietly and proudly survived despite these challenges.

                2006-2007 is an appropriate moment in history for the Virginia Council on Indians to further advance an accurate and truly balanced cultural exploration of these relationships.   It is our wish to be a friend and an ally in this effort.  There is no bitterness, no anger, no self-righteousness or antagonism reflected in our hearts.  We all have much to gain from reaching out to share our cultures, and much to lose  in shallow contentions about whose  history is richer.  All of us, and all of our cultures, have made Virginia a better  home today ,than it was in centuries past.

                Tribal Council Member,Archie Elliott, will be our designated legal liaison during your review process.  Tribal Council Member, Lynette Lewis Allston, be our contact person in responding to historical and genealogical questions raised during your review. 

                We request that formal correspondence be directed to :

                The Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc.

                Attn: Tribal Council

                Post Office Box  246

                Capron, Virginia  23829

                E-Mails directed to the full tribal entity should go to NottowayofVa@aol.com .

Cordially on behalf of our entire Council and Members,

Lynette Paige Lewis Allston,  Tribal Chairperson

                “ It frequently happens that the historian, though he professes more humanity than the trapper, mountain man, or gold digger, who shoots (an Indian) as a wild beast, really exhibits and practices a similar inhumanity to him, wielding a pen instead of a rifle.”  Henry David Thoreau, 1843