|
Additional pieces of the puzzle
By Brian J.
Evans From his home in Kentucky, one genealogist believes there is a lot more to the Blue Jacket puzzle than meets the eye. As he once put it, "a fact, once stumbled upon, needs to be walked around and looked at from all sides, not just front and rear. There are more than two sides to the Blue Jacket issue, and it is not just yea or nay." His name is Richard Pangburn. He has been researching Native American genealogy for over 35 years. He published his first volume in 1993, a collected genealogy called Indian Blood I. In 1996 he published Indian Blood II, which presents a critique of local author Allan Eckert's works along with other genealogical chartings. In his critique, he attacks both sides of the Blue Jacket/Marmaduke Swearingen argument, noting "that a definitive work on Blue Jacket is yet to be written." In parts of Indian Blood II, he praises Mr. Eckert noting that "Eckert says an enormous number of things, and most of what he says is right on, brilliantly said, and generally true - usually true to the frontier documentation that I have personally researched." In Volume II he wrote that it was Mr. Eckert's "fact not fiction" claim that started this "war" over the Blue Jacket tale and that "Eckert's critics seem to be attacking the Van Swearingen legend for all the wrong reasons." After his second volume was published, further examination led him to the conclusion that it was actually Mr. Van Trees who started this whole "war." In his critique, he reported that with the exception of Thomas Jefferson Larsh's letter in 1877, he has "seen nothing to suggest that Blue Jacket was Marmaduke Swearingen or Van Swearingen, that Blue Jacket was white or Eckert had a better source." He has since changed his mind. He also wrote "let's not throw out the wheat with the chaff. If we threw out every book that had mistakes in it, there would be no historical libraries left." From his research, he believes there was more than one man named Blue Jacket around that period of time. Although contemporary evidence has yet to support his claim, he writes, "there was more than one Blue Jacket, and the attempts to cram all of the various references to the same man, to stuff all of the Bluejackets into the same Blue Jacket, is bound to fail." He addresses the issue in his upcoming third edition of the Indian Blood series, which he plans to publish this autumn. "I'm confident that there were at least two Shawnees named Blue Jacket, perhaps three. And once you approach the material knowing that there were multiple Blue Jackets, the trick is to find the line of demarcation between them. It helps to explain many things - it certainly makes Eckert's old research look more respectable - but it also presents the researcher with new puzzles to fathom," Mr. Pangburn commented. He says that not only does more than one Blue Jacket come to light, but, to him, it appears likely that several of them existed and might never be identified, "still lost in the dark night of history unwept," he wrote. According to the family tradition of Mr. Larsh, Marmaduke Swearingen was taken captive by Shawnees and given the name Blue Jacket because of the blue coat he was wearing. Mr. Pangburn doubts if the famous Blue Jacket's name, Wayapiersenwah, was a literal translation of "Blue Jacket." It may, however, be a concept name deriving from a parable possibly linked to a blue jay, he suggested. The name was originally recorded phonetically by military translators who may not have been versed in the concepts associated with it, he said. "Such concept names as Blue Jacket and Tecumseh were risen up and often bestowed upon adopted captives who entered these same families in the place of fallen warriors," Mr. Pangburn said. "Successive heroes named Silverheels, Blue Jacket and Captain Johnny are reborn and rise up without newspaper accounts of it, much to the consternation of later-day historians trying to connect the dots." In Indian Blood III, Mr. Pangburn says he itemizes the evidence he has researched to show the many instances that Blue Jacket appeared in different places at about the same time. He says both Dr. John Sugden and Mr. Eckert failed to recognize these indications. "When one examines the data without an agenda or a book deadline, a pattern emerges to show that the simplest explanation is that there were at least two Shawnees going by this name," Mr. Pangburn said. Recently Dr. Sugden did admit there are some discordant references around the War of 1812 period suggesting there may have been more Blue Jackets. Dr. Sugden says there is a reference to an Indian named Blue Jacket being slain by Delaware allies of the U.S. in 1813. "The original evidence for this isn't good, and I once considered that this Blue Jacket might not have been a Shawnee at all, but a Delaware," Dr. Sugden wrote. "At any rate, he (the Blue Jacket killed in the war of 1812) doesn't have any clear relationship to Chief Blue Jacket, then dead, or his two sons and grandson." Dr. Sugden also suggested there could have even been an elder Blue Jacket before the famous Shawnee War Chief. He suggested the references to a Blue Jacket in the 1750s, among the Ohio Company traders, could have been Blue Jacket's father. Either way that has yet to be confirmed. "Indians sometimes took names from fathers. As you can see, the evidence isn't clear, and no one can truthfully say it has been cleared up," Dr. Sugden continued. "In my book I tried to follow the clearest leads, but one day more evidence might come forward that will help us take it further." While much is still uncertain, Dr. Sugden still asserts the famous Shawnee war chief was one man, and was not white. There are other elements in the controversy or "war" that Richard Pangburn doesn't agree with. He argues the DNA tests performed on descendants of the two men, conducted by Robert Van Trees, aren't conclusive because the Bluejackets' lineage has yet to be definitively sorted out. "The DNA tests are invalid because the documentation back to the old Blue Jacket is just not there on the Oklahoma Bluejacket family. You can document Bluejacket blood, but you cannot document Blue Jacket's DNA unless you somehow ascertain where the old chief was buried and dig him up," he commented. He also believes there is no evidence indicating Blue Jacket didn't speak English. He reported that interpreters were used at treaties regardless of the linguistic capabilities of some so that all present could understand. He claims the mixed evidence on whether Blue Jacket himself needed an interpreter is "itself subject to interpretation." "So, was Blue Jacket white?" Mr. Pangburn asks. "Swear me on a Bible, strap me to a lie detector, then have my wife give me her sternest look. My honest answer is, it remains to be seen." While there are still many questions left unanswered, some of which may never be, Mr. Pangburn challenges his readers to "decide for yourself who to believe, and you can always change your mind when more facts come to light." And until these facts do come to light, the mysterious Indian chief known as Blue Jacket will remain a warrior in shadows. |
