SPEAKING OF BLOOD QUANTUM % WE KNOW OR EXPECT (VAGUE INDIAN VS.
CHEROKEE SPECIFICALLY):

KY James m/ Nancy Mulkey is believed to be 1/4 Cherokee who married a full Cherokee.

That means their children, children of BOTH these parents together, not just a child of one of them, WOULD be 5/8 Cherokee as they would inherit 1/2 of his 1/4 (= 1/8) and 1/2 of her full (8/8) (= 4/8) and 1/8 + 4/8 = 5/8 Cherokee.

But as mentioned in another post, for obvious stated reasons, I think the children, at least the known / suspected older children cannot possibly be Nancy's as, if she is the wife in 1830, regardless of who is who in that 1830 census, she CANNOT be old enough to be mother to ANY of the known / suspected children due to her given age.

She definitely cannot be mother to any of the girls, except perhaps Sarah b/ 1805 who married a Griffith) and not mother to Brooks nor my Patrick, and probably not both Jesse and / or Ellison, both b/ ca 1805 - she MIGHT could be mother to one or two of the 3 born in 1805, but based on her census age in 1830, she'd likely be only about 14 at the time they were born.

But Brooks Smith b/ 1766 is alleged to be son of John (b/ 1742 Yorktown, York Co, VA) and John is believed to have MARRIED a 1/4 Indian, not specifically Cherokee.

As legend or research is that he married a 1/4 Indian (not specifically Cherokee) and as there is no known or suspected Indian blood in himself (or surely it would have been stated as well and passed down as legend or research), we can probably assume he has no known Indian himself.

That would mean HIS children, to include his son Brooks b/ 1766 and Brooks' brother, James, who I think is the one that married Esther McDonalds, or if others insist, this would be James m/ Mulkey, would be from a white man of no known Indian blood and a 1/4 Indian, not specifically Cherokee.

That means Brooks, and his brother James would be only 1/8 Indian (1/2 of 1/4), and not specifically Cherokee, and that simply does NOT even jive with what we know about James m/ Mulkey as HE (James m. Mulkey) is alleged HIMSELF (not his parent) to be 1/4 Cherokee, not 1/8 of some unnamed Indian tribe.

1/4 Cherokee is NOT equal to 1/8 some unnamed Indian tribe.

If it was KNOWN that Brooks' mother was 1/4 Indian (not necessarily Cherokee), thus he was only 1/8 Indian, then wouldn't his presumed own brother, James, ALSO know he was 1/8 Indian vs. 1/4 Cherokee and that likely would have been passed down (verbally) through his line as well?

You could maybe argue the point that, since legends and histories are passed down word of mouth, that perhaps it was passed down via Brooks' line that his MOTHER was 1/4 Indian and it was passed differently down James (m/ Mulkey's), assuming they were brothers, that HE was 1/4 CHEROKEE (vs. the equivalent of 1/8 Cherokee or 1/8 Indian), but that in itself is very problematic and shows a huge discrepancy in the "facts." Even if we could think it is just a discrepancy between two related lines, how do we know which is correct, if either? And if THIS could be wrong or show a discrepancy, what else do we THINK we know can be wrong or show a discrepancy?

Of course, I don't know the original source(s) for this James being alleged to be
1/4 Cherokee nor that his wife Nancy Mulkey was full Cherokee, nor that Brooks' mother was 1/4 Indian, but it has been repeated endlessly. Not knowing the original sources for those "facts," is also problematic because we cannot necessarily trust their accuracy even if we believed that they were 2 different lines, thus James m/ Mulkey was 1/4 Cherokee and the unrelated Brooks b/ 1766 was son of a 1/4 Indian mother (making him 1/8 Indian).

What are the sources for Brooks Indian heritage and what are the sources for
James' Cherokee heritage?

I can only assume that the James / Mulkey Cherokee % stems from David T. Bunton's 1994 thesis / book on his Shepherds, which admittedly I have not yet read, but I also cannot confirm nor deny that as the source (for James' Cherokee) as I don't really know.

Until proven otherwise, I have generally accepted it (James' & Nancy's % Cherokee, Brooks' mother's % Indian) at face value as being correct, but I would prefer to know the sources.

But even at face value, assuming they are correct, it doesn't add up to make it possible that Brooks b/ 1766 is the brother of James, husband of Nancy Mulkey just simply on the respectively claimed Indian blood %.

It just further adds to my suspicions that they CANNOT be brothers.

Even if we could prove that one is right and one is wrong, though, there is still
the question of who is the other James that married Esther McDonalds and that the James A. Smith, undeniably the father of Brooks (due to the same name in 1830 and 1850) does not seem to be the James who married Nancy Mulkey.

And that's not even touching on ALL the other circumstantial evidence linking my Patrick to James m/ Mulkey and that y-DNA seems to rule out a connection of my Patrick to Brooks b/ 1766 (and by inference to Brooks b/ 1796).

If anyone knows the original source(s) or has other sources which prove James m/ Mulkey's Cherokee %, or even the Indian % for Brooks' b/ 1766 mother, I'd love to know what those sources are.

Briana S. Felch

brianafelch @ me.com