Historical Record of the Patawomeck Tribe

The Patawomeck tribe was based in areas we now know as Stafford and King George Counties, along the Potomac River, documented by John Smith in 1608. The English pronounced the name of the tribe as “Potomac,” from which the Potomac River derived its name. In the 17th century, at the time of early English colonization, the tribe was a component of the Powhatan Confederacy. At times it was allied with others in the confederacy, and at others, the Patawomeck allied with the English.

The Patawomeck Tribe is documented in the historical records until July 10, 1666 when the minutes of the Council and General Court of Virginia record the following,

“It is therefore ordered for revenge of the former and for the prevention of future mischiefs that the towns of Monzation, Nanzimond, and Port Tobacco with the whole nation of the Doegs and Potomacks be forthwith prosecuted with war to their utter destruction if possible and that their women and children and their goods or as much of it as shall be taken to be disposed of according to such instructions as shall be issued from the Right Honourable the Governor.  And it is further ordered that the said war be managed by such officers with such numbers of men and by such ways and means as the governor shall think fit” (McIlwaine, p. 488).

That was quite a grim order, BUT there is no follow-up record of the order having been carried out.  For whatever reason, that is the last time the Patawomecks appear in the historical record.  Dr. Helen Rountree speculates that they may have moved down to Portobago where several other tribal remnants had gathered, but she acknowledges that this is purely speculation because no documents are known to exist proving otherwise.

Patawomeck Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. (PITV)

The organization which is known as the Patawomeck Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc. (PITV) is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit corporation made up of individuals who identify as descendants of the Patawomeck people. Organized in the 1990’s, the PITV is not federally recognized as a Native American tribe.

The PITV twice submitted applications for recognition and was twice turned down by the Virginia Council on Indians (VCI).  The VCI required documentation consistent with the principles and requirements for federal tribal recognition. The PITV were unable to present legitimate source documentation proving their descent from the 17th-century Patawomeck Indians; nor were they able to prove they had existed as a known tribal unit from the colonial period to the date of their application. Unable to satisfy the VCI’s criteria, the group appealed directly to the Virginia General Assembly in 2010.  The PITV received Virginia state recognition with House Joint Resolution No. 150.

Below is a timeline of correspondence between the PITV and the VCI:

• 1996 minutes of a VCI meeting discussing the Patawomeck Indian Band seeking State Recognition
• Jan. 7, 1997 letter from Thomasina Jordan, then head of the VCI, to Dr. Helen Roundtree.  Note the 1st paragraph on page 2 in which Ms. Jordan acknowledges that one or more of the PITV had let her know that they intended upon going through Speaker of the House, William James Howell, if the VCI didn’t approve them.
• Robert Green’s Jan. 9, 1997 letter to Thomasina Jordan in response to one of his associates telling Ms. Jordan that the group planned on going through Speaker of the House, William James Howell,  if they weren’t satisfied with the VCI’s actions.
• Dr. Helen Roundtree’s Jan. 24, 1998 letter to the members of the VCI committee regarding her thoughts on the Patawomeck Indian Band.
• Feb. 12, 1998 memorandum to Robert Green detailing why the VCI could not approve their petition.  
• Sept 18, 1989 criteria for recognition published by the VCI.
• Dec. 18, 1998 letter from Ms. Jordan to Robert Green explaining the types of documents the VCI required but that had not been submitted by the PITV.  The PITV did not re-submit the petition.
• Information chart on recognized non-reservation Indian tribes in Virginia compiled and distributed by Dr. Helen Roundtree to the General Assembly members regarding the tribes recognized by House Joint Resolution No. 150.  Dr. Roundtree and two of the chiefs who had sat on the committee that reviewed the PITV’s paperwork all had a face-to-face meeting with Speaker of the House, William James Howell, prior to the resolution being passed.
• April 21, 2009 Quick-Reference Chart: How the Recognized Tribes Met Criteria.  This document compiled by Dr. Helen Roundtree lists public repository records that the VCI used to recognize citizen tribes in Virginia. It also delineates the distinct differences between the documentation of the PITV and that of the other six citizen tribes, explaining why the PITV’s records were inadequate for Dr. Roundtree to endorse their recognition as a tribe.
• A copy of House Joint Resolution No. 150 as passed by the General Assembly Feb. 18, 2010.  It’s important to note that the Bill was passed based on “family, church, land, and other records, maintain that several families native to the Patawomeck ancestral area trace lineage to the tribe”.
• A copy of a letter sent by Stafford County historian, Jerrilynn Eby MacGregor and her husband Rick MacGregor asking for copies of the records claimed by the PITV to possess in Resolution No. 150.

The PITV is currently seeking federal recognition via a bill in the House of Representatives (H. R. 5553) introduced by Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jen A. Kiggans (R-Va.), Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.), Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) and Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) relying on their State-recognition as proof of their eligibility.

Stafford County Historical Society Research on the Patawomeck Tribe

To understand the statements made in the bill H. R. 5553, the SCHS has completed extensive research on the history of Native Peoples in Stafford County, utilizing primary and secondary resources.

The following definitions from the Library of Congress are provided for clarification:

• Primary sources: These are documents or recollections from the time being studied, such as government documents, personal letters, diaries, oral histories, and visual sources like artwork or videos. Historians are aware that primary sources can reflect the interests of their creators, so they must be critically examined and evaluated.
• Secondary sources: This is second-hand information written or created after an event. Secondary sources may summarize, interpret, review, or criticize existing events or works.  Secondary sources were written or created after an event by people who were not at the original event. Secondary sources can be many formats including books, articles, encyclopedias, textbooks, or a scholar’s interpretation of past events or conditions.

Below are links to our research:

• Freedom of Information Act request for the records/documents referred to in House Joint Resolution 150.  No records were retained or are available.
• An annotated version of Bill H.R. 5553.

Note:  Full annotations may not display when viewing Bill H.R. 5553 through our website.  View our notes by FINDING number.

• Emails sent to the Stafford County Board of Supervisors, providing details of the completed research.
• Walter A. Plecker and the Patawomecks.  The PITV claims it was necessary to hide their Indian ancestry from Walter A. Plecker, Virginia’s Registrar of Vital Statistics.  According to former “chief” Robert Green, this period of hiding spanned from 1924 (Plecker’s Racial Integrity Act) to 1967 after the decision in the case of “Loving v. Virginia” that made interracial marriage legal in Virginia.  According to him, had the group not done this, they would have been required to send their children to schools for Black students.The topic of Walter Plecker is complex, but with respect to the PITV and the White Oak community, Plecker had no impact whatsoever.  Proof of that is contained on the scanned copy of his original county-by-county list linked above.  The 20 years of research by Plecker, his staff, and his professional genealogist that resulted in that list failed to reveal any mixed-race individuals in Stafford that might have been mis-identified as white.Walter Plecker’s goal was if he found proof in the public records that an individual had a colored ancestor, then he (or someone else) would change the race designation on that individual’s public record.  Today, we are accustomed to using the terms “white” and “black,” but Plecker was using “white” and “colored,” the latter being a catch-all for anyone who was not white.
  In compiling the lineages listed below, all individuals from White Oak were consistently recorded as white — before, during, and after Plecker’s time. However, records for non-reservation Indians sometimes showed alterations to racial designations, particularly if “white” had been the initial entry. It is important to note that Plecker himself did not make these changes in the linked example. The document in question is from 1960, thirteen years after Plecker’s death, yet the Racial Integrity Act remained in effect. On the death certificate of the individual concerned, the race was originally recorded as “white,” but was later altered to “Indian.” Such changes were observed in some of the records. Our research indicates that Plecker was indifferent to the specific racial entry, as long as it was not white.The records that influenced Plecker’s discriminatory actions were public documents, such as tax records and censuses, vital statistics like marriage, birth, and death certificates, draft cards, and divorce decrees. Contrary to claims that Plecker was aware of Indians in White Oak and that he attacked their community to destroy their records, all vital statistics and public records of White Oak remain intact.  It is intriguing; if Walter Plecker truly succeeded in destroying the PITV’s records, how then could the PITV possess them in 2010?
• Lineages of three Patawomeck chiefs, a tribal council member, and two other important White Oak residents contrasted to lineages for the Chickahominy and Rappahannock chiefs. A crucial aspect of the family lineages documented by William Deyo is the inclusion of several Indian maids, whom WikiTree states may not have existed.
• “Seeking Truth in History:  The 1666 Massacre of the Patawomeck Indians”, article written by Stafford Historian, Jerrilynn Eby MacGregor.
• “The 1623 Poisoning of the Indians”, article written by Stafford Historian, Jerrilynn Eby MacGregor, explores primary source documentation versus oral history and modern misinterpretation of primary source information. The article highlights how historical narratives, once retold several times, often gain acceptance as fact, with few individuals pausing to challenge their veracity.
• In a Freelance Star article written by Cathy Dyson, Charlie Payne, the lawyer for PITV, stated that the Stafford County Historical Society “is not an expert on the commonwealth’s native Indian heritage and history.” While this may be the case, we are the leading authority on Stafford County’s history and our research on the Patawomeck tribe is compiled from experts such as the Virginia Council on Indians and Dr. Helen Roundtree. Dr. Roundtree is considered a foremost authority and writer on Virginia’s Native American people. Additionally, she has authored and edited numerous books on Eastern American Indian tribes, with a particular focus on the Powhatans.
• A comprehensive bibliography of the utilized resources.

Stafford County Historical Society Actions

On June 25, 2024, the Stafford County Historical Society Board of Directors convened a special executive meeting to draft a position statement concerning the lack of documentation to support the legitimacy of the PITV. The draft received the Board’s approval on August 1, 2024. Subsequently, on August 12, 2024, the finalized position statement and accompanying letter were dispatched via certified mail to The Honorable Abigail Davis Spanberger, with copies sent to her co-sponsors of bill H.R. 5553: The Honorable Jennifer Wexton, The Honorable Jennifer Kiggans, The Honorable Rob Wittman, and The Honorable Morgan Griffith.

• Stafford County Historical Society Position Statement Regarding the Patawomeck Indian Tribe of Virginia
• August 1, 2024 letter to The Honorable Abigail Davis Spanberger

Emails were sent to the following informing them of our action:

• King George Historical Society
• Northern Neck of VA Historical Society
• Caroline County Historical Society
• Virginia U.S. Senators
• Virginia State Senators
• Virginia House of Delegates
• Virginia House of Representatives
• Virginia Govenor, Glenn Youngkin
• Virginia Lt. Govenor, Winsome Sears
• Virginia Secretary of the Commonwealth, Ms. Kelly Gee
• Stafford County Board of Supervisors
• Virginia Museum of History & Culture
• Fredericksburg Area Museum
• Virginia Indian Tribes (Mattaponi, Upper Mattaponia, Pamunkey, Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, Rappahannock, Nansemond)
• Virginia Humanities Organization
• Virginia Department of Historic Resources
• Freelance Star
• Times Dispatch
• Potomac Local
• Fredericksburg Free Press

To date, responses have been received from the Chief of Staff of Tara Durant, Cathy Dyson of the Freelance Star, the King George Historical Society, the Fredericksburg Free Press, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and Paul Milde, a Member of the Virginia House of Delegates.

• August 14, 2024 – the Freelance Star ran an article regarding the Society questioning the Tribe’s legitimacy.
• August 14, 2024 – Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph. D. and Buck Woodard, Ph. D. of the William & Mary Department of Anthropology wrote a letter to Abigail Spanberger condemning our Position Statement.
• August 26, 2024 – Paul Milde, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, authored a response letter addressed to Dr. Danielle Moretti-Langholtz and Dr. Buck Woodard from the Department of Anthropology at William & Mary.
• August 26, 2024 – The King George Historical Society contacted us stating they would be sending a letter to Abigail Spanberger stating their support of our research and concerns.
• September 10, 2024 – Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph. D. replied to Delegate’s Paul Milde’s letter.  As Director of the American Indian Resource Center at William & Mary, we were surprised to find no copies of the records from 2010 had been retained, if for no other reason than to provide later generations of anthropology students an opportunity to study them.  Delegate Milde was referred back to the tribe for the records.

Does Documentation Exist?  The PITV’s own conflicting claims

The General Assembly’s Resolution 150 in 2010 indicated that the PITV possessed records confirming their lineage from the original Patawomecks. However, the PITV’s own narrative on the existence of such documentation has been inconsistent. If such documentation were available, it would presumably be straightforward to resolve the matter by presenting it.

• 1997 and 1998 — The PITV had no primary source documentation to submit to the Virginia Council on Indians and the group was twice turned down because of it.
• 2010 — The General Assembly’s Resolution 150  states the PITV had “amassed” “family, church, land, and other records” proving their descent from the ancient Patawomecks.
• Jan. 19, 2022 — Free Lance-Star, “Stafford’s Patawomeck tribe seeks federal recognition” — Chief Bootsie Bullock is quoted as saying, “…we’ve got documentation showing that yes, we existed back in the 1600s or even further.”  The next paragraph down, the reporter wrote, “…vital tribal records were seized by the government and destroyed.”
• Apr. 22, 2022 — letter from PITV legal counsel, Charlie Payne, to the Board of the SCHS:  “I believe the attached, which is just a few materials I have in my file, strongly supports the legitimacy of the Patawomeck Tribe and may address any questions previously raised.”  He sent to the SHCS Board a few letters of recommendation and the text of the General Assembly’s Resolution 150.
• June 9, 2023 — Federal recognition bill H. R. 5553, Finding #13 — “During the United States Civil War, vandalism, courthouse fires, and other disasters destroy many of the records within the Stafford and King George County courthouses, serving to reduce the archival footprint of the Patawomecks within their historic areas of habitation.”  Finding #15 states, “…[The Racial Integrity Act] in addition to other aspects of the racialized society that existed in Virginia starting in the late 1600s, effectively erased Virginia Indians from the official records of the Commonwealth until the middle of the 1900s, amounting to a paper genocide.”
• Sept. 20, 2023 — Washington Post article, “Va. lawmakers seek recognition of tribe erased by ‘paper genocide” — “In 1666, the bill said, Virginia declared war on the Patawomecks, killing most of the men and enslaving most of the women and children not already living in English families.  By the early 19th century, many community members settled in Stafford and King George’s [sic] counties — but were written out of history by a 1924 state law that required all people to be identified as White or “colored,” according to the bill.  ‘This law, in addition to other aspects of the racialized society that existed in Virginia starting in the late 1600s, effectively erased Virginia Indians from the official records of the Commonwealth until the middle of the 1900s, amounting to a paper genocide,” the bill said.’”
• Jan. 20, 2024 — CNN article, “A Virginia tribe says racism wiped their Native identity from historical records.  Nearly a century later, they’re still fighting for recognition” — Reporter wrote, “Further complicating matters, many records about indigenous tribes, including the Patawomeck, were also damaged or destroyed during the Civil War.  In Stafford County nearly two-thirds of court records were lost, according to the Stafford County Historical Society.”
• Aug. 14, 2024 — Free Lance-Star, “Patawomeck Indians’ roots under dispute” — Charlie Payne was quoted as saying they had a “plethora of historical information supporting the tribe’s historical significance to Stafford County.”  Article also noted that Ms. Spanberger’s office “shared the same letters of support as did Payne.”  It’s important to note that ‘historical significance’ and ‘historical continuity’ are not the same.

SUMMARY & KEY POINTS

Was the Patawomeck tribe originally in Stafford County?

Yes, historical records confirm the presence of the Patawomeck tribe upon the arrival of the English. Various early English explorers documented their existence, yet no connection has been established between the 17th-century natives and the present-day PITV group.

What happened to the original tribe?

We do not know. There are no documents that tell us what happened to them, but the records show there was no tribe here from around 1666 to circa 1995 – a span of 329 years.

Why did Dr. Frank Speck come to White Oak?

Frank Gouldsmith Speck (November 8, 1881 – February 6, 1950) was an American anthropologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in the Algonquian and Iroquoian peoples among the Eastern Woodland Native Americans of the United States and First Nations peoples of eastern boreal Canada.  Dr. Speck scoured the Virginia countryside in search of remnants of the ancient Powhatan tribes. Having already worked with those living in small settlements along various waterways, he explored both Potomac Creek and the White Oak area.

But what about Dr. Speck’s monograph?

Dr. Speck observed that the residents of White Oak might “represent the remnants of the Indians known to have lived along Potomac Creek,” yet there was no “definitive evidence” of this. He captured several photographs, gathered a few handcrafted items (which he later sold to the Smithsonian), and then departed. He deferred the resolution of this issue to a “diligent future investigator.” Crucially, there is no documented evidence that the White Oak residents considered themselves Indians prior to Dr. Speck’s visit, nor any indication of such belief thereafter.

Dr. Speck’s book, Chapters on the Ethnology of the Powhatan Tribes of Virginia (1928) includes a comprehensive list of massacres, battles, raids, and other encounters between the English and the Native Americans (pp. 297-301), but he did not include an encounter in 1666 or even in the years preceding or after that time.  This is the same monograph in which Dr. Speck wrote that there was no “clear proof” that the Newtons and Greens of White Oak actually descended from the ancient Patawomecks (p. 282).  Dr. Speck’s Chapters on the Ethnology is the only mention of the Patawomeck tribe to be found between 1666 and the mid-1990s when the current group appears.

What if someone says that Granny always told them they came from the Indians?

The reason for that was granny’s father conveyed to her what Dr. Speck had informed him. The residents of White Oak did not consider or behave as a tribe either before or after Dr. Speck’s time, as the records indicate. The tribe was not present in this area. Significantly, the Virginia Council on Indians did not accept oral tradition as evidence of uninterrupted tribal existence.

When did the present tribe first appear?

The formation of the tribe was necessitated by the need to reclaim bones from the Smithsonian. Prior to 1995, there was no recognition of a tribe’s existence in Stafford.

Why do they say that they had to hide for generations?

They believed this would clarify their sudden emergence after three centuries. However, as our research indicates, it simply does not make sense. The evidence shows that they engaged in the same activities as white people and were regarded as white by their neighbors for 282 years.

What was the process for attaining state recognition supposed to look like?

Groups wishing to be recognized as tribes by the Commonwealth of Virginia were first required to petition/apply to the Virginia Council on Indians. This entity had been created by the General Assembly for the purpose of establishing uniform recognition criteria and evaluating petitions submitted. Each group was required to provide documentation for all of the criteria. Once the VCI approved a group’s petition, that entity informed the General Assembly and recognition was voted upon by that body.

In 2006, Dr. Helen Roundtree wrote a guide for new members petitioning the VCI for tribal recognition.  While this document was created after the PITV’s submission, it includes interspersed, italicized “case studies”, key points about the availability of Indian records, early anthropologist who studied Virginia Indians, a succinct statement about Walter Plecker, and addresses the reasons why the PITV were not approved.

Why didn’t the Virginia Council on Indians accept the PITV’s petitions in 1997 and 1998?

One of the most crucial criteria of the VCI related to tribal continuity, which the PITV failed to meet. Lacking historical evidence of tribal continuity, they relied on “genealogies” to connect the years 1666 to 1997. However, these genealogies, founded on assumptions and speculation, lacked substantive documentation. In the absence of primary source evidence of tribal continuity, the VCI could not endorse their recognition.

How did the PITV get their state recognition?

The PITV, unable to persuade the VCI of their authenticity, circumvented the organization and took their appeal straight to the General Assembly. Even though the VCI had forewarned that the group’s documentation was not credible, the Assembly still awarded recognition. The decision was largely influenced by the alleged family genealogies and the tribal historian’s research, which purportedly connected the White Oak families to the indigenous Indians.

What about the PITV genealogies?

Yes, genealogies exist; however, a brief examination reveals why they were dismissed by the VCI in 1997 and 1998. Significantly, there is no evidence of English colonists marrying any of Chief Wahanganoche’s daughters, nor records of a 1666 massacre that supposedly left several Indian orphans who later married English settlers. These genealogies hinge on these events. Without concrete connections to the 17th-century Patawomeck Indians, these genealogical claims lack support. For those doubting the accuracy of these genealogies, it is advisable to consult with a genealogist certified by the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG), a step we have already taken for our verification.

Why is everyone so supportive of this group?

While support should be unjustified, we understand the reasons why it occurs. First, the PITV is recognized as a tribe by the Virginia General Assembly. If we had not performed our own research, we would support them, too. Secondly, the group asserts they possess documentation supporting their claims, but they do not. Our findings indicate that their only significant documentation originates from the 1990s onwards. Thirdly, their prominent presence at public events and within regional organizations has led many to believe they have always been part of the community.

Why won’t the PITV share their records?

House Joint Resolution No. 150 (2010) states that the tribe has “family, church, land, and other records [that] maintain that several families native to the Patawomeck ancestral area trace their lineage to the tribe…”

To date, the PITV’s attorney has offered copies of some letters of recommendation, the text of Resolution No. 150, and a bibliography of books and scholarly journals pertaining to Virginia’s Native Peoples. Letters of recommendation are not equivalent to nor a substitute for original primary source documents that Resolution 150 states that the group possess. Attempts to obtain copies through the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful. The PITV claims to possess these documents; the reason for their reluctance to share them remains unclear.

Why does this need to be addressed?

After a review of all available scholarship, we cannot find any evidence that supports the PITV’s claims related to their current petition. We believe that appropriating an identity that cannot be proven undermines and devalues the work that had to be done by prior groups to receive this same recognition. We also believe that there would be negative consequences to the historic record on both the county and state level should the petition be successful.

Nevertheless, we do understand that historical interpretations are, by necessity, subject to challenge and over time an interpretation may be questioned, found inadequate, refined, or even completely overthrown by a new, more convincing explanation. SCHS remains open to any new scholarship on this, and all Stafford County related topics, that may come to light in the future and will review our position as warranted.