# 11 REDBONE! WHAT DO YO KNOW ABOUT THE WORD?

What do you know about the word -- Redbone/ Red Bone? Usually I try to keep it short, but this might turn into a big chunk!

Often, in Genealogy, snippets of information are posted that are never coupled together. For one, little is known about what the next guy (or gal) has or does not have -- in the way of information. If we have posted it once, we assume that everyone got it the first time, and therefore, it does not need to be repeated.

One thing that is not done, as much as it should be, is the addition of date of birth and date of death (b. - d.) -- especially for separating generations and different family lines. The Goings, Nash, Perkins, Ashworth and related families are good examples where the same given name can be found over and over, even in the same or close generations. Kinship reports are important to graphically view where your lines went and how you were actually related.

One recent surprise for me is that after all my activity in closing streets in front of the Alamo in 1993 (Daughters of the Republic of Texas & The Inter Tribal Council Of American Indians), I discover that I had a first cousin (yeah, first cousin -- not 2 nd, 3rd, 4 th etc.), Isaac Ryan (1805-1836)http://www.wtblock.com/wtblockjr/IsaacRyan.htm , who died in the Battle. A further surprise was that Isaac Ryan's brother-in-law was Thomas Rigmaiden (1788-1866) http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/la/calcasieu/caldiatc.htm , and his nephew, if he had survived the battle, would have been Albert Rigmaiden (1842-1910) of Calasieu Parish, La.

http://jgoins.com/rigmaiden_calcasieu_parish.htmBy the way, any of you who are related to Benjamin Hargrave, Jr. (b. abt 1741 d. 26 Mar 1827) and Rebecca Elizabeth Gwaltney Hargrave (b.abt. 1745 - d. abt 1830) would be related to Isaac Ryan and the wife of Thomas Rigmaiden, Eliza Ryan Rigmaiden (b. abt. 1806 -- d. 31 Aug 1871).

Kinship reports can often reveal confusing relationships when different family lines merge. I have many of these, such as; Charles Rueben Goins (1904-1955) who is a 2 nd cousin once removed, a 2 nd cousin twice removed and still yet, a 3 rd cousin once removed.

But getting back to what we know (or think we know) about the word Redbone. It would appear that the first time it was used in print was 1881 in various newspaper reports about a civil disorder at Westport, La. or the Sugar town area.

Now the word obviously was not coined in 1881 or there would have been an explanation about what Redbone meant added to the articles. But, the commentary was written as if "everyone knew" what the word meant. How old might the word Redbone be before 1881, as it was not a new or newspaper invented word by a long shot?

We do know, beyond a doubt, that the forefathers of the 1881 mentioned Redbones had for the most part, originated in the Carolina's in the late 1700's and drifted down through Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida before arriving in South Western Louisiana. But that in itself does not answer the question about the word Redbone.

But, had the word Redbone never have been used in mass print before for fear of a backlash? A word so sensitive that repercussions could have been expected for it's public use?

I think that even if the term Redbone had been an old word or description, maybe 100 plus years old, it may have, as recently as 1881, become a derogatory term after the Westport fight. The difference being, to denote "them or us", so to speak. Remember, it only takes "one O'Crap" to wipe out a thousand "Atta boys,"and tolerance can turn to hatred in an instance when boys in the "hoods" line up against each other.

But, at the moment, the word does not seem to be used in print before 1881, in Southwest Louisiana, yet in 1881 it is used as if it had been around for sometime.

Can it be found in print before 1881 "in Louisiana?" Do you know the answer?

Gary J. Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
mailto:mailto:%20Mishiho@aol.com

# 10 REDBONES AND INDIANS!

The majority of Redbones and Melungeon's were Indians -- perhaps, but what else were they?

You see, leaving it at "just Indians" is not enough. There were other ethnicity's involved in the equation. Indians were the easy part to trace, it is the "mix" of other ethnicity's that are still in question -- not which one, but rather "which ones."

Yeah, that's right the "mix of ethnicity's." It is my opinion that you cannot compare the same mix of ethnicity's within each Redbone family or group. I expect there is a number of basic ethnicity's common to the families like maybe Turkish, Portuguese, etc., but again, it's just my opinion. It doesn't have to be Turkish or Portuguese either.

The DNA reports that are showing up on Redbone families run the full range of ethnicity's including American Indian. In some Redbone families, the American Indian is more and in others -- far less.

At the moment, in some Redbone families, Sub-Saharan percentages, if above the static line, still seem small in comparison to other and various European and Middle Eastern percentages. You are not going to find, if I may, "one brand" of Redbone through DNA testing across the board. That brand of Redbone just does not exist.

To say that Redbones were Tri-Racial is a Joke if your thinking is White, Red and Black like in African -- it is far more complex and complicated than that often simplistic view of our world.

As an example, according to TIME Magazine, July 2005, "Brent Kennedy always believed that he was of English and Scotch-Irish descent, just like everyone he knew in his hometown of Wise, Va." And that is the way in which most of us have thought in the past when it comes to our ethnicity -- why complicate things with a long-winded description when you were not really sure, right?

Then, according to TIME, in December of 2004 Brent finally received some answers to a suspicion he had always had. "After taking a DNA test Kennedy was told he was 45% Northern and Western European, 25% Middle Eastern, 25% Turkish-Greek and 5% South Asian."

Now this is what I'm speaking of when I refer to the "mix of ethnicity's." The Redbone mix would follow a similar mix of ethnicity's, and there doesn't have to be an addition of Sub-Saharan or American Indian either.
So the next time you decide to leap off down one hallway or another, because of complexion or high cheekbones, you might want to do a DNA test to better define your mix of Redbone ethnicity.

Leaving it as Indian, or assuming Gypsy, African, is just not enough.

Gary J. Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
mailto:Mishiho@aol.,com

# 9 REDBONES WERE INDIANS!

At least many of them likely were!

Now that you have picked yourself up off the floor (hope no one had one of those medic alert buttons you see on TV), we can discuss the issue. It will likely be a short issue, but who knows?

Although some of the family, through DNA research, appear to have married into Sub-Saharan families, you won't find it in genealogy research. At least not in your face -- straight out that cousin what's his name married a Black lady by the name of ......!

But it seems that this DNA research always turns up Indians in the blood line, and the family talks about that without any reservations. Of course, the old timers will tell you that being Indian in those days and even now in some places, was as bad as being labelled a Negro.

Nothing stopped Philip Goings from marrying an Indian woman and having mixed blood children and perhaps his father Stephen before him was married to an Indian woman and beyond that, at the moment, would be just pure speculation. But, they were mixed blood Indians all.

The Goings who left Mississippi/ Louisiana earlier on, Gipson Goings and James had no problem marrying into Indian families -- check the Oklahoma Indian Rolls. There are Goins/ Goings all over them.

To say or think that an Indian would never raise a hand against another Indian is Hollywood stuff that has been pumped into our heads for decades. There is no such tribe (or family if you will) called the Indian Tribe. Real Indians were not the dumb, benevolent, Hollywood speaking halting English types by a long shot. They didn't grow up in Denny's practicing their lines.

For &#*&$@, Ransom, Rueben and Seaborn were off chasing Comanches as Texas Rangers and Seaborn was killed by the Comanche in 1861. They were Choctaw Indians duking it out with Comanches, maybe even Quanah Parker for all I know.

Sorry, sometimes I get off on a rant. But to continue, my near Goins family, my 2 nd Great Uncles and Aunts, Ransom Goins, Sr, 1825-1916, and his brother Rueben Goins, 1837-1930 and Adaline Goins, 1838-1927, all had Indian spouses. Ransom Goins daughter's Nancy Alzenia Goins, 1857-1941, married a Chickasaw man, and Josephine Goins, 1861-1919, married an Indian man (Nephew of Cherokee John Ross). And there were others.

Now this story is not just common to my part of the family but to other parts as well -- you all know your Indian connections, and you all know your Redbone connections. It does not have to be all that complicated to see the picture.

So, Redbones were Indians and Indians were Redbones -- a good many of them I think. You can have all kinds of Gypsy theories, but Indians hung out with Indians.

Gary J. Gabehart (Mishiho, Mish-eh-ho)
Mishiho@aol.com

# 8 SO YA WANNA BE A REDBONE?

Redbones were outlaws in Louisiana by some folks standards, but did they just not want to fit in with the dominant society? Is that why they seemed clannish or standoffish to other folks?

Of course, it may have been the fault of other folks, the dominant society that was standoffish. Certainly any group of people whether by race, religion or family ties who set them selves apart from other groups could be considered snobbish, clannish, standoffish or stuck up -- there are terms to fit every case, and those terms fit every side.

Mostly these isolation's from the majority begin with a lack of understanding about other peoples standards or lifestyles and compounded, in this instance, by a color line.

Look at the attention paid to the Melungeons of Newman's ridge. The comments about the "Ridgers" likely ranged in the 1800's from "who are they" to "what are they doing up there?" And, skin tones had a great deal to do with it."They just don't look or dress like us, and they don't associate with us!" Maybe some of this was about being too nosy about your neighbors business. Maybe it started with back fence gossip. You know the type, statements prefaced with "you know, they say that."

The elusive "they" still lives on even today when some folks wish to support their personal view. If you read the literature on the Redbones, you will find that most all of them, who are traceable, originated from within the original thirteen colonies -- seemingly North-South Carolina for the most part before arriving in Mississippi. Louisiana and Texas may have been an after thought or just part of the Westwaqrd migration. They did not just spring out of the ground in Southwest Louisiana.

There is no mystery about where they came from. The mystery is the coined term "Redbone," there is no proof it was coined in Louisiana. Other than Louisiana, you can still find Redbones from the Carolina's through Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi and Texas.

Louisiana references include Black Lake near Baton Rouge, Natchitoches and Lake Charles (near Westport). This should not be a surprise as these place names have been, in the past, known trade areas that attracted a working class "work" force.

Redbones lived all over Louisiana and still do, but of course, you will always find Redbones who will wail that they are more Redbone than the next Redbone or this area over that area is the "true" Redbone seat of power.

But the truth again is that Redbones are scattered all over the land. There are no more or less numbers of Redbones in Starks or Bearhead Creek than there are in Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, Natchitoches or Alexandria -- perhaps even Texas -- I even know of one in Oakland, California.

In the 1890's, Redbones were described as being dark in coloration but not Negroes. In fact, this Southwest Louisiana official (Lake Charles, Albert Rigmaiden, 1842-1910) stated he knew a great many of them and noted that these people had migrated from the Carolina's and they hated the Negroes as much as the Negroes hated them. Of course, in many quarters, if you were dark in coloration, you were a suspected Negro. But never a mention of Mediterranean groups or Middle Eastern peoples.

By 1941, the description had changed to a mixture of White, Indian and Negro. But in one travel brochure, it was mentioned that the Redbones lived around Black Lake (Baton Rouge area) and were a combination of "maybe" Portuguese Maroons from the Gulf Coast and Indians (a Melungeon theory -- "maybe").

The writer of this brochure seems to be unsure of the facts concerning the so called color line and is likely writing his personal persuasions rather than a research paper based on fact. But what is of significance is the place name -- Black Lake -- a known place in near Central Louisiana where Redbones were "said" to live.

Gary J. Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
Mishiho@aol.com

# 7 REDBONES! WHAT THEY WERE NOT!

REDBONE!

One thing for sure, everyone has a supposition about those folks known as Redbone’s. Indians, Creek Red Sticks, Turk’s, FPC, Mulatto’s, High Yellow’s, Escaped slaves, Gypsies and it goes on into the ridiculous and absurd. Had flying saucers been in vogue during the turn of the century, surely the word alien’s would have been added.

It is for sure that we can answer the question of what Redbone’s were not, and in this simple exercise, we can readily eliminate two – White and Black. Actually, we can probably eliminate pure blood English, French, Spaniard’s and African’s but the remaining mixed blood folks are probably too diverse to even follow, so let’s just say, Indian’s and mixed blood people.

Now I do not want to argue what tribes, or “I’m more Indian than you are” even. Nor do I want to entertain the Cowboy and Indian view from the comic books of Larry Keels who does not now and will never carry tribal issued credentials or a government CDIB card, which seems to be an issue with him. Nevertheless, the Redbone issue does appear to be partly a battle between the haves and have not. One group or entity jealous over what the other person wanted. Dominant society against all others.

Those people known as Redbone likely wanted what the dominant class had, and the dominant class did not want them to have it. Was it money? Was it land? On the other hand, was it social economic status only? If you were an Indian, should you look like an Indian and not dress like a White person? So were there two types of Indians? Those who were perceived as Indians and those who were not but did not look White, Black or Indian – but what does an Indian look like?

Now we’re not talking the classic look – those proclaiming tanned skin and high cheekbones might be describing someone from Mongolia – the classic look that is. The term “Redbone” is not like the terms Creole, Arcadian or Cajun but more like the insulting term “Coonass.”

However, the term Redbone appears to have been less offensive than the term Coonass, yet Coonass has withstood the test of time and is still a referral to Cajun’s and Arcadians. So we know Creoles, Cajun’s and Arcadians are out.

However, what happened to Redbones? What does that term refer to? There does not appear to be a specific group of people other than the mixed blood of Indians and others. The “others” being a mix of perhaps Turks, Portuguese, Middle Eastern people and more – a melting pot for sure. But, the designation narrows.Therefore, the discussion here ends with the exclusion of what Redbones were not.

Gary J. Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
Mishiho@aol.com

# 6 ARE THERE WANNABE REDBONES?

Like the Wannabe Indians of today, one can find Wannabes in every culture. Wannabe African-Americans, Wannabe Redbones, Wannabe Melungeons, Wannabe Mowa Choctaw and yes, even Wannabe Renegade Redbones.

The Wannabe African-American will tell you how they have Black friends and eat fried chicken or some such nonsense to somehow prove their ancestry and good intentions. They may even tell you that they think their ancestors were slaves, and -- their ancestors may well have been. The answer, rather than the question, is their ancestor did not have to be African to be a slave. But, their slavery example will be all they will present to hang their hat on.

The question of color is complex from then to now, but with a broad brush begins with the present day thinking of all slaves being African and all Free People of Color (including mulatto's) being Black. Fact is that at one time, there were more Indian Slaves in Louisiana than there were African Slaves.

Indians were cheaper, as low as $30.00 a pop at Natchitoches, but they were harder to work and did not hold up as well as the Africans. Whether this thinking was couched in fact would only be known to the slave owners of the day, but this seems to be the thinking of that time.

The term Mulatto had always legally meant a mix of Indian, Black or White in any combination. On the other hand, "Free People of Color" seems to reside in a catch all coffee can where nothing was constance or the same. But, the big question is, if they were Negroes, why didn't they call them that? Just what is a colored person? Was it someone who was not White? How were Portuguese classed? What would you call a Middle Eastern or Oriental person? Colored?

You see, it makes no sense to expouse that Mulatto's, Redbones and Melungeons were really Negroes or Black Africans. If they were Negroes, why not call them that? Back to the Redbones.

The latter Redbone type, the "renegade or new deal Redbone," bring their own modern, ready made, invented new age culture, repleat with a Grand Dragon or a Redbone Elder, or -- an East Texas transplant playing "Cowboy and Indian." They love to throw around the word "Elder" and seem to glow when they use it. Bunk!

These brands of semi organized lunacy, without an original thought, but with at least one Elvis era adoring member (usually known as Ethel, Mary, Mona, Marilyn or --whatever), always supports the "Elder" or "Head Cowboy" who leads her around by the nose, like a cow, when it comes to the official line. The latter of course are my opinions and observations.

The only thing missing in these cults, is a Grand Dragon and of course, even the slightest hint of research or original thoughts. That's right, original thoughts that lead to research with substance -- without the "what if" or "they say" in a poorly researched issue.

The Wanabe Redbone or Melungeon might mean well when it comes to the declaration of I'm a "Redbone" or I'm a "Melungeon," but fail the test everytime when it all hinges on having the same last name in their family history that is common in known Melungeon or Redbone families. Just like "not all Smith's and Jones' are not related," neither are "all Goins', Gibson's, Collin's or McCoy's related."

To have the connections for real, you need to prove that "family" connection, they really have to be related or at least connected by marriage.

My final thought is that if you didn't call a Redbone Negro, did you call them Redbone because they were White on the outside but "Red on the Inside?" Makes more sense.

Gary J. Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
Mishiho@aol.com

# 5 MISHIHO SPEAKS!

I agree with the thought that the dominant society at the time did not know what to call these so called mysterious people and labeled them Redbone. The reason being that they were not considered White on one end of the scale, and they were not Black or African at the other end of the color line.

They were obviously mixed blooded people, but let's table that thought for the moment.

It is certain that these folks were of Indian descent but with an admixture, of what, I do not think we can determine as it was too diverse, but we can make some assumptions and speculate as to what the major mixtures could be.

If I was a mixed blooded person who was not accepted on either end of the color line, I would seek association with other mixed blooded people. Indians obviously hung out with Indians and perhaps a mix of Indian and White would hang out with Indian and White, then -- add another mixture and compound it by adding yet another. Now picture Redbone people being closer to one end of the color line or the other -- some were more White than others and some were more Black than others, and I'm not speaking of color from a racial standpoint -- only skin tones.

Compare three possible Redbone families. One with White, Indian and Turkish blood compared with a family that was mixed blood Indian with Portuguese blood and then a family with White, Turkish, Portuguese, Indian and African blood.

None would be considered White on one end of the scale and none would be considered Black at the other end of the color line. All could be called Redbone, yet none would be exactly alike.

I also believe that these groups were often forced by non-acceptance to seek other groups of the same and formed sub cultures much like the Amish do today as a society within a society.

The 1810 LA. census' counted Free White Males, Free White Females, Slaves, Free Negroes and -- Free People of Color. FPC were the folks stuck in between. Were not considered White and not thought Black. No where were Indians, Portuguese, Turks, East Indians, Chinese or any other group including mixes shown -- just FPC.

Mulatto of course was the mix. and it only included African as one of the possible mixes. If you were mixed blood, you could be called Mulatto. Thinking today is if you were Mulatto, you were automatically from a Black heritage. Unfortunately, the professional genealogist cannot assume this modern, incorrect moniker.

Now I'm not saying there was no African Blood in Redbones, FPC, or mixed blood people. There certainly was African Blood in Redbones, but not all of them. Some Redbones were obviously of North American Indian mix and others maybe Turk or Portuguese, and -- some Redbones were not mixed blood at all, but of dark complexion and associated or married into what was known as Redbone families.

The major Indian mixes in this area were Apache, Choctaw, Chickasaw and many older and more Eastern affiliated tribes. Some of these Indian folks had mixed with Turks, Portuguese and African peoples. It's easy to appoint every African as a runaway slave, but the reality is that it was more complicated than that. A slave did not need to be African -- they could be any race, Indian, White -- you name it. The complications and exceptions were many.

The reason I speak of mixed races in the Louisiana Redbone area is that it was a melting pot from way back -- before the 1810 Louisiana Census' that we have spoken of previously. The genealogy researcher must open their mind to the fact that Indians were considered just as socially unacceptable as Africans and other mixed races as well. And, if free people of color or Redbones and Indians could not socialize with the dominate society then they socialized with other Indians, Redbones or FPC.

I believe that pockets of what we could call sub cultures were created as a result of these "race hatred names." Sort of societies within societies created for survival, trade, socializing and self esteem." Some of these Redbone sub-cultures developed at various rural communities around major cities like Lake Charles, and then it became a matter of "our" hood being more Redbone than your hood.

"We might be different and you might call us Redbones, but we'll fight you if you do to our face." Likely, Redbone was not okay coming from the outside. I think that Redbones could have been a part of a cast system albeit short lived as it seems to be. Once you quit Louisiana and moved further West, you would either blend in or be called another racial slur.

Gary J Gabehart, Mishiho (Mish-eh-ho)
Mishiho@aol.com