View Message

The gravestone is modern and was placed in recent history (within the last thirty years) by a descendant. Neither the story or name "Scatchwah" are supported by historical documentation. She can be found in an 1850 census, living within Sumter County. She is noted as being a white woman, born about 1795. She lived adjacent to other Driggers and Rogers, all noted as being white. During this era, plenty of indigenous people lived around Sumter and Clarendon (none of which were Cherokee) and all were classed as free people of color. Her husband, Moses Driggers, appears to have died prior to this time, as she is living alone. It is worth noting that Moses was originally from Marion, a place where many people of indigenous heritage lived in that time and still do to this day. The name Driggers is known to be associated with indigenous communities in North and South Carolina. It is very likely that if there is any indigenous heritage within this particular family, that it came through Moses. The story as recounted here is most likely the result of recent family mythology. It probably came about when it was in vogue to have at least one indigenous ancestor in the seventies and perhaps was in part actual remembrance of legitimate Native heritage, via the Driggers family.

---

This is in addition to the fact that the story about the church refusing her burial in the church cemetery simply due to her being indigenous is rather ridiculous, especially the variant where she was dug from the grave and buried on church grounds. Elizabeth died around the middle of the 19th century. Churches had specifically sought out indigenous people to convert to Christianity for well over one hundred years by this time. Actual Natives in this region (and South Carolina in general) within this era were usually noted for being active churchgoers and being quite religious. Further, a woman having a Cherokee name and presumably being able to speak Cherokee during this time would have been of note to local historians. The local Natives in this area were extensively studied, interviewed, and when any of them were able to speak indigenous languages, it was of particular interest to white researchers and the local newspapers. So, if this story were true, it would have been noted in a local history book, newspaper, or perhaps within a personal journal written in that time. This would be especially true if her relatives did unearth her body and rebury it on church grounds. That sort of thing does not easily go unnoticed.

---

Finally, further support for the name "Scatchwah" being fabricated in recent history comes in the form of various descendants still fabricating information for Elizabeth, for example, parents with equally as exaggerated names. None of which are supported by credible documentation or reflective of any actual indigenous culture. If you are still unconvinced, ask yourself why no family history written prior to thirty years ago notes any of this information, despite it allegedly being passed on for well over a hundred and fifty years. Unfortunately, people are more interested in "obtaining" an indigenous ancestor to claim rather than looking into records or learning about actual indigenous history within the region. No known Native people in this area had indigenous names by the mid nineteenth century and even if they did, they would have been much older than Elizabeth.