Warning that priceless artefacts are under threat amid ownership dispute
It was the modest dwelling of a trailblazing indigenous leader of Scottish descent, who fought tirelessly against the forced sales and seizures of ancestral land.
Now, the future of the historic home of John Ross, the revered Cherokee chief whose family were originally from the Highlands, has been thrown into doubt.
Some 160 years after his death, Ross, also known by his Cherokee name, Cooweescoowee, remains a celebrated figure among his tribe.
He railed against the European settlers who eyed the Cherokee’s homeland as prime cotton growing terrain, and led the struggle against their forced relocation.
As the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation for almost four decades, Ross, whose father, Daniel, emigrated to America in the 1760s, exposed attempts by federal commissioners to bribe him into approving the sale of Cherokee land.
He also led the campaign against the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced indigenous people from their land. Ross gathered 16,000 Cherokee signatories who opposed the move, but the controversial US president, Andrew Jackson, pushed the treaty through Congress.
Thwarted by the authorities in Washington DC, Ross led his people on a gruelling 800 mile trek to Oklahoma, where he would help found a new city. But the journey, known as the Trail of Tears, exerted a heavy toll, with thousands of Cherokees dying along the way, including Ross’s wife, Quatie.
Ever since, the humble two-storey log house Ross was forced to leave in the Georgia town of Rossville has stood as both a painful reminder of that forced displacement, and a place for modern-day Cherokee people to celebrate his place in history.
The property, which was built by Ross’s maternal grandfather, John McDonald, who himself emigrated from Scotland in the 18th century, has been cared for and preserved by a non-profit organisation known as the John Ross House Association (JHRA) since the 1960s.
But now, the association claims that authorities are threatening its long-term future, and preventing its members and the public from accessing the historically important venue.
A lawsuit brought by the association claims the city of Rossville government has asserted ownership of the house, removed locks from its doors and gates, before installing new locks, alongside signs warding off trespassers.
It alleges that the city council has had a “longstanding desire” to own the property, recognised as a national historic landmark by the US National Park Service. It has objected to its “initial and continuing physical taking and seizure” of the house, which it describes as “culturally significant”.
The JHRA, which says it has possessed, maintained and stewarded the structure for more than 60 years, has gone to court to restore its lawful access to, and control over, the property and its contents, and have its ownership of the house recognised.
As well as its historic exterior, the building contains numerous artefacts the association says are priceless and irreplaceable, including a full feather down bed, rocking chairs, spinning wheels, and a wooden trunk.
Since the locks were changed, the JHRA says, the house has been “neglected.” The complaint warned its inability to inspect and maintain the property posed a continuing risk that “deterioration or damage to the historic structure of contents will go undetected or unaddressed”.
The issue of the house’s ownership has been the subject of sporadic discussion in recent decades, but a 2004 meeting between the association and Rossville city council saw the then mayor, Johnny Baker, assert that the city “did and had not ever owned the house”.
Minutes of the meeting, submitted by the association as part of its legal action, state that it was the city’s intention “to work with the association and not run it”.
The association’s submissions to US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, argues the situation has not changed. “The city has not identified to JRHA any judicial writ, warrant, judgment, condemnation order, administrative adjudication, nuisance determination, emergency order, or other legal process authorizing the city to take exclusive control of the house,” the complaint states.
Colin Gordon Calloway, professor of history and Native American studies at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, told Scotland on Sunday that the ties between Scotland and Ross and other Cherokee figures were longstanding.
“In the course of the 18th century, many Scottish traders married into the tribes of the southeastern US. Since these societies were matrilineal, their children inherited their mother’s clan, which made them fully Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw or Choctaw,” he explained. “Many of the children received a European education, which made them well positioned to exercise a role as intermediaries and as leaders.
“John McDonald traded, married, and lived with the Cherokees for 40 years. He married a Cherokee woman of the Bird Clan. Their daughter Mary married Daniel Ross - their son John, inherited his Bird Clan membership through his mother, which made him 100 per cent Cherokee despite the preponderance of ‘Scottish blood’.”
Among those who keep Ross’s story alive on this side of the Atlantic, there is hope that the dispute can be resolved.
“I sincerely hope that everything possible will be done to preserve and protect the John Ross House where it stands today,” Jason Ubych, the manager of Tain and District Museum and Clan Ross Centre told Scotland on Sunday.
“As you can imagine, we are proud of John's story and his connection to the Highlands. We were gifted a pair of Cherokee moccasins to help us tell his story in the museum, and they now take pride of place in our Clan Ross display.
“In January, I had the pleasure of taking two of John Ross's relatives on a tour of Balnagown Castle, the ancestral home of the Ross chiefs, and during the summer, we welcomed the wife of the present principal chief of the Cherokee Nation to the museum.”
The Rossville city council did not respond to Scotland on Sunday’s enquiries.
A hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case has been scheduled for 17 November.