I previously wrote about how Elizabeth Warren elopement story falls apart.  That “story” is Warren’s claim that she always believed she was Native American because her parents said they had to elope because her father’s white family would not accept her mother because her mother was part Cherokee and part Delaware.

The is no evidence of Warren telling that elopement story in public, even when she discussed her childhood in great detail, prior to being caught reporting herself as Native American for various law professor employment-related purposes.

The elopement story has become the central story told by Warren to justify checking the box.

The elopement story even is part of Warren’s campaign advertising:

And came up at the debates:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is no evidence, of course, that Warren’s mother had any Cherokee or Delaware ancestry, and plenty of evidence her family and ancestors always identified as white.

As detailed in the prior post, the few contemporaneous records which exist as to her parent’s marriage strongly suggest no elopement due to Native American ancestry.

Yesterday another piece of evidence was revealed, a 1906 newspaper clipping in which Warren’s maternal great grandfather was identified in the local newspaper as white, Elizabeth Warren’s white great grandfather shot an Indian.

Now Twila Barnes, the real Cherokee genealogist, has found additional evidence set forth in her post, Dissecting a Family Myth – Elizabeth Warren.  Barnes takes an interview with Warren in which Warren elaborated on the elopement story, and then shows why each of the statements by Warren is contradicted by all known evidence.

It turns out that in the “white” Crawford family ancestors on Warren’s mother’s side lived just a few doors away from the white Herring family ancestors on Warren’s father’s side just a few years after the newspaper report identifying Warren’s maternal great grandfather John H. Crawford as white.  (They may have lived there at the time of the article in 1906, but the census record is from 1910.)

Why is this important? As Barnes explains, since the Crawfords always and consistently identified as white, and were identified as white in the local newspaper, it is implausible that the white Herring family would have thought the white Crawford family was Native American.

Warren  says her father’s family (Herrings) knew enough about her mother’s family  (Crawfords/Reeds) to know they were Indians, so they opposed the marriage. This  is the entire basis for her claim of Cherokee and Delaware  ancestry.

The  problem with this is, the  only family the Herrings had a generational history with was the Crawford  family. Harry Gunn Reed’s parents never lived in  Wetumka and were long dead  before he moved there. The Herrings would have known nothing about his family.

Because John H. Crawford  is found on the 1910 US Census living only four households away from the  Herrings, they would have known him. John H. Crawford was a white man and was considered white by  the community. The Herrings, part of the community, would have considered him  white.

Warren’s  story has fallen apart. If it wasn’t apparent before, it should be now. The  woman is not an Indian and has no Indian ancestry. For her to continue to claim  she has Native American ancestry is not only an insult to real Natives, it is  also an insult to the intelligence of the people of Massachusetts and of the  American public. Elizabeth Warren said,  “Character is how you live your  life.” If she really believes that, then it is time for her to stop the lies and  apologize.

The events took place long ago, and the stories told by Warren about the elopement are very recent.  All the contemporaneous recoverable evidence points to Warren’s story being false.  But it’s her story, and she’s sticking to it.

Why keep focusing on evidence rather than just accepting Warren’s word for it?

Warren says no kid asks for evidence.  But Warren was 38 before she starting reporting herself as Native American.  She wasn’t a child, and neither are the voters.

The voters are entitled to know not only if they have a candidate who has exaggerated her family lore, but also whether that candidate is incapable of admitting she is wrong.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.