Gosh, what's more logically sound? Assuming something for which there is no evidence, or assuming something is NOT if there is no evidence?
And how many Cherokees born circa 1770 would have been named "Margaret Brackin Smith," nicknamed "Peggy"? Possible? Remotely, sure. Likely? No. Where's the evidence she was?
Do you have any evidence that he was?
You're implying someone disputes that.
Could have been; no actual evidence she was.
:lamo
You took no evidence classes in law school?
And why would HE be more reliable than OC Sarah Smith herself, who reported herself as "white" on three Census forms, or her husband did?
Would SHE not know her own race? Would her husband not?
Right, 'coz everything in everyone's family history which gets passed down orally within the family always pans out. And no one ever makes claims about their heritage which aren't true.
And gosh, do you think he might have been prompted to make such a thing up, considering he was marrying in OKLAHOMA in 1894, and there were land allotment benefits to having Indian blood at the time?
Correct; I take that back.
Oh, nice. Right, he's hiding evidence. :lamo
That's a darn sight more in keeping with logic than "I have no idea, so I'll substitute what I prefer."
Hardly. If actual documentation comes along proving Cherokee blood, then so be it.
He didn't say "1/32 Cherokee blood."
This is not in dispute. Whether or not she was a Cherokee is.
Besides, apparently Child and his organization can't produce this document:
Warren: I used minority listing to share heritage - BostonHerald.com
So, all of this may be moot, because apparently the claimed documentation of Indian blood might not even exist at all. More here, along with an image of the marriage license and certificate:
Warren's Cherokee Claim Based on Family Newsletter; No Marriage License Application to Be Found