This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Indigenous peoples of North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Florida High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Oklahoma Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

• I've heard 3rd person reports that some Seminoles (especially those in Florida and amoung Black Seminoles) are unhappy with the use of Seminoles as a team mascot not because of its general degradation of Native Americans, but because many of the Seminole depictions are of Plains Indians, and not those of the Black Seminoles or Everglades. Anybody have anything on this? - 65.122.209.136 01:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

It appears they have no problem with Florida State University over this, see [1]. Can you point to any other school calling themselves 'Seminoles' where there might be a problem? -- Donald Albury 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

dont highlight so many words it takes away from the letters and its hard to read 71.161.109.110 ( talk) 14:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I've heard just the opposite as well. The Florida tribe(s) are okay with the team using it, and the depictions are pretty accurate (the mascot, Osceola, is not portrayed as a Plains Indian). I have heard the Oklahoma tribe was not consulted for the discussions about the name, and are unhappy about that, not because of the portrayal.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If this is an article about the tribe and there's a separate page for the sport's team, why is there an entire paragraph about the team anyway? It's irrelevant to the tribe. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

Native Americans are in general not happy about using Indian characters as mascots for obvious reasons and justifiably so..it is a demeaning stereotype as is calling the Washington football team the redskins..there are countless other examples. Lonepilgrim007 ( talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Could someone correct the number of Seminoles stated in the first paragraph as having been forced to move west of the Mississippi? The number currently stated is "3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Seminoles," and that's patently impossible. Misterdoe 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I took out the following sentence: "Many people did not want the indians." from the end of the section on the Seminole Wars as it did not fit the passage and didn't make a lot of sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Droddfinger ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC). reply

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

According to Buffalo Tiger who was the first Chief of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, it was Miccosukee treaty relations with Fidel Castro that prompted their Federal Recognition. Would you like a reference to the Miami Herald story? I wonder if the Miccosukee have officially broken their treaty relations with Fidel Castro. I also wonder why the Miccosukee went to Venezuela to seek treaty relations with Hugo Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.44.173 ( talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) reply

According to this this article by Harry A. Kersey Jr., an expert on the Seminole and Miccosukee, that is the case: the recognition by Castro's government cause the US to take negotiations with the Miccosukee more seriously and led to their recognition as a separate tribe from the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Castro's recognition was just a propaganda play; it didn't amount to anything except for getting the US government to extend recognition to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. I haven't heard about any negotiations with Hugo Chavez; that almost certainly would have made news, as federally recognized tribes can't engage in foreign relations.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 14:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

wat did they eat? seminoles ate a lot of things including alligator and turtle they had a lot of bread and corn.

where abouts did they live? i cant seem to find that, and i need the info 4 school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladicta ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you read the first sentence? Pfly 08:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

i meant on a map, but thanks. i really shoudnt skimread. Maladicta V J E G R W T U O H G V H S Q D R T N M B F G H K L X C Z V G B J N J M H E T of Uberwold 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have removed the following line from the intro:

'The Florida Seminoles are the only American Indian tribe never to have signed a formal peace treaty with the United States" (ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/sports/24mascot.html "Florida State Can Keep Its Seminoles"] from The New York Times)'

and the following line from the FSU section:

'The article states, "The Seminoles are the only American Indian tribe never to sign a formal peace treaty with the United States. To celebrate this status, Florida State erected Unconquered, a statue of Chief Osceola outside its football stadium."'

Although properly attributed, the prior statement is simply false. The NY Times is wrong, as any cursory reading of the history of Californian native peoples will attest. It's possible the NY Times is using some very specific definition of "American Indian tribe;" if so, this definition should be included if this information is added back in. Yawar.fiesta ( talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Excellent point. The Timucua never signed a peace treaty with the US government, as they were gone by the time it was created.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

According to "Lies My Teacher Told Me Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W Loewen, "The Seminoles did not exist as a tribe or nation before the arrival of Europeans and Africans. They were a triracial isolate composed of Creek Indians, remnants of smaller tribes, runaway slaves, and whites who preferred to live in Indian society." page 151 2007 edition 69.23.106.111 ( talk) 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The Seminoles as a tribal nation are truly a combination of races living together out of harmony or by involuntary inclusion, such as the case involving black African slaves. Many members of the Seminole tribe in official racial classification or tribal identity are classified as "white", "black" and "Hispanic" due to contact with the Spanish settlers in West Florida in the 17th and 18th centuries. But not all Seminole tribes approved of interracial marriage or offspring, the Big Cypress Seminole of Florida restrict tribal membership and miscegenation, thus made it difficult for mixed-blood descendants to join the tribe.

In Oklahoma, thousands of Western Seminoles have Spanish surnames instead of English or in some cases, French surnames...and there are plenty of Seminole members of the Roman Catholic church other than attending Baptist, Methodist or mainline Protestant churches typical of neighboring American Indian tribes in the Southeast US. After reading the article, it did mention some Seminoles (i.e. Black Seminoles emancipated or escaped from slavery) found refuge in Mexico (the states of Coahuila and Nuevo Leon) across the Rio Grande in southern Texas, where probably thousands more of their descendants may merged with the Mexican population. I expect thousands more of unspecified Seminole live among the Mexican-American community in Texas, therefore you may have a subgroup of Mexican Seminoles. + 71.102.53.48 ( talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The Seminole strongly discouraged intermarriage with whites, and were mostly full-blood at the turn of the 20th century. Betty Mae Tiger Jumper, a Florida Seminole born in 1923, said that she and her brother were nearly killed as young children because they were half-breeds. Mixed-race children were left to die in the Everglades. Today there is more intermarriage, but the Florida Seminole require one-quarter Seminole blood for tribal membership, and the Miccosukee require one-half blood quantum and a mother who is Miccosukee. Both tribes historically had matrilineal kinship systems. Parkwells ( talk) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

According to Minnie Moore Wilson, in her book, The Seminoles of Florida, the Seminoles originally came from Mexico and were said to be Aztec. Today that is politically incorrect since Im sure the Seminoles wouldn't want to have to divide all that money equally among Aztlan.

Whereas the early Florida explorers, De Soto and De Navaerez (sp) stated in their journals that the Miccosukees were evidently Mayas from the Yucatan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.1.32 ( talk) 08:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

According to archeologists, linguists, historians and anthropologists, those theories above are wrong. The Seminole were Native Americans, mostly formed from Creek and Chiaha (the Miccosukee) who migrated from the north under settlement pressure. Parkwells ( talk) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Chickasaw, and Choctaw are ethnic groups who are related to the Seminole by migration after the War of 1812, linguistically (Muskogean), and by plans of civilization. After the War of 1812, many of the Creek Red Stick fled to Florida to escape the armed forces of the United States. The Creeks took their language, culture and customs and merged it with existing Florida tribes. Seminoles were also (just as with the Cherokee, Muscogee, Chickasaw, & Choctaw) targeted for George Washington and Henry Knox's plan for Indian civilization.

The term, "Five Civilized Tribes," is not an ethnic group. Its a collective. The term is too broad. No easter egg link so as to avoid confusion-- keep links as intuitive as possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EGG#Intuitiveness

Rob ( talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

There were almost no Indians left in Florida at the time the Seminole branched off from the Creek and moved in to the area. I don't think we need to list the five individual Civilized Tribes, but giving a link to the term will direct the reader to further information.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would add that while Creeks were the majority element of the Seminoles, Alabamas, Choctaws, Yamasees and Yuchis were also in Florida and lumped in with the Seminoles by whites. In particular, I am not aware of any source that places Chickasaws or Cherokees in Florida. In addition, the Cherokee do not speak a Muskogean language, and so are not related to the Seminoles any more closely than many other tribes. -- Donald Albury 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

well does anyone know why the got kicked out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.48.230 ( talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I am doing a report on Seminole housing and it does not having stated that I can see. Parker1297 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm nearly positive Seminoles were not originally from Florida, but came to Florida from a different state a long time ago. Does anyone else have something to say about this?HoworHow 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they originated in Florida. They are an amalgamation of other ethnic groups forming a new group in a process called ethnogenesis. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

The article asserts that the use of the strong caffeine drink known as Black Drink and the use of tobacco among the Seminole indians was a Creek indian introduction. Tabacco use was wide spread in the Caribbean. The word Tobacco, like barbecue, is in fact a Caribbean indian word. There is strong evidence to support the use of both tobacco and black drink among the original Florida indians hundreds of years before the Creeks ( Seminoles) moved into the area.

According to the articles involved, 16,000 Seminole are currently enrolled with the Seminole of Oklahoma, while only 2,000 are enrolled with the Seminole of Florida. Saying they reside primarily in Oklahoma seems quite accurate. -- Fyrefly ( talk) 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The long-standing version was changed without comment here. Today most Seminole live in one of two places: Oklahoma and Florida. There are over 2000 enrolled members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, plus several hundred Miccosukee, and several hundred more who aren't enrolled in either tribe. Removing Florida as one of the places where modern Seminole live doesn't make any sense.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Um, thank you for repeating the numbers back to me? The other wording doesn't at all remove Florida from the places they reside; it just acknowledges that more than 85% of them live in Oklahoma. I've introduced a new wording which I think clears it up. -- Fyrefly ( talk) 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, it did remove Florida from the places they reside. The point of the numbers is that there's a substantial population of Seminoles and Miccosukees living in Florida. Failing to indicate that many Seminole live there makes no sense; it's not like the list of places where Seminoles live is so vast that we can't list them all. At any rate your new wording isn't much different from the established wording, but I've changed it slightly so we don't say "Florida" twice in the same sentence.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 19:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You put the problem right back where it was. The sentence as it stands could easily be read as most of the Seminoles living in Florida, with a few in Oklahoma, which is completely the opposite of what is true. There's nothing really wrong with having the word Florida twice. I would say we either go back to the version I just had or simply remove "primarily" from the sentence. -- Fyrefly ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The point of the sentence is to say that there are two places where Seminole primarily live: Florida and Oklahoma. And yes, there is something wrong with having the word "Florida" twice, it's clunky, and it doesn't really make it any clearer that more Seminole live in Oklahoma than Florida, which isn't really necessary in the introductory sentence anyway.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Agree with Fyrefly, and propose an alternative - substitute "most now live in Oklahoma, with a minority in the East." The other is misleading as it sounds as if most live in Florida. Why not have the Lead be more accurate?

I'm okay with changing it so long as Florida is mentioned. Again, it's not as if the list of places Seminoles live is so long that we can't include them all. Your wording is still pretty clunky; what is "The East"? I'll take a stab at it.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Stumbling over FLA - your version is best so far. Thanks. Parkwells ( talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I know that the proposed etymology of "Seminole" has a citation, but, being a student of Linguistics with a passion for phonetics (who funnily enough is attending a school whose mascot is the Seminoles), I find it fairly difficult to believe that "Seminole" came from "cimarrón" and not "siminoli". For [simar'on] to become ['sɛmənᴐɫ], the [r] and the [n] would have to undergo metathesis, the [r] would have to become a [ɫ] (R and L are not allophones in English and alveolar trills are typically approximated by native English speakers with R, so this would not likely have occurred), and the stress would have to shift to the first syllable while that same syllable was reduced. From [siminoli], the only thing that would need to happen is vowel opening ([i] to [ɛ]) creating [sɛmɛnolɛ], which native English speakers would reduce to ['sɛmənoɫ] in speech. Note that there have been a few changes to English pronunciation since the time "Seminole" entered the language (the 18th century), but none that could have accounted for the bizarre phonetic changes necessary to go from "cimarrón" to "Seminole".
Here's the section to which I am referring:

The word Seminole is a corruption of cimarrón, a Spanish term for "runaway" or "wild one", historically used for certain Native American groups in Florida. ^[1] The Indians who constituted the nucleus of this Florida group thought of themselves as yat'siminoli or "free people,"

I've gone ahead and added the Disputed-inline template to it.

References

~ MaiyaH78 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Do you have any citations supporting a connection to siminoli? It seems to me that "siminoli" is more likely a later development from Seminola/Seminole. Cúchullain ^t/ c 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Seminole self-naming (which seems to me to be more legitimate than names imposed by the Creeks and the United States for political purposes) traces the name to the phrase isti semoli. Here is an excerpt from Andrew Frank, “ Creating a Seminole Enemy: Ethnic and Racial Diversity in the Conquest of Florida,” FIU Law Review 9, no. 2 (March 20, 2014): 277–79:

Nineteenth-century Americans created the idea of a “Seminole” nation, even if Americans did not create the term itself. Spaniards, Englishmen, and perhaps some Native Americans used the term sparingly to describe a small community of Indians in the middle and end of eighteenth-century Florida. 4 White Americans popularized the term “Seminole” in the nineteenth century, and then extended it to define all of the Native American (and sometimes African American) inhabitants in Florida. 5 As they included more peoples in the imagined group, white Americans attached specific disparaging traits to it. Whereas many Seminoles in the early twentieth century poetically translated the Muskogee phrase (isti semoli) as “those who camp at a distance,” “one who has camped out from the regular towns,” or “free people at distant fires,” representatives of the United States offered a different explanation in early America. 6 With assistance from their Creek Indian allies and interpreters, who offered translations of their own, Americans insisted that the Muskogee phrase meant “runaways,” “fugitives,” and “wild people.” 7 Modern scholars and even some modern Seminoles have followed suit, although many now accept the idea that the term originally derives from cimmarron, the Spanish term for runaway, rather than originating as isti semoli. 8 Either way, the early American definition remains largely uncontested today. In addition, this definition of the term continues to be used to describe the Indians themselves. This occurs even though most indigenous peoples use names that reflect more about outside perceptions and misperceptions than about their origins as a people or their central characteristic. 9 Indeed, part of the colonial process involved sorting, defining, and giving so-called “Indians” new names in order to understand and control them. 10 In this way, the colonial process endures.

-- Rcrath ( talk) 03:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Rcrath reply

• From James Covington's The Seminoles of Florida:

Although the name Seminole has been applied by whites to virtually all of Florida's American Indians since 1763, the translation runaway has not been accepted by the Native Americans. As early as 1771 Englishman John Stuart, the American Indian Agent, called the Florida natives Seminoles because he had learned that it meant wild people. Although William Bartram used the same term during his travels in Florida, only Cowkeeper's [i.e. Ahaya's] band, which had settled near Alachua Prairie (also called Paynes Prairie), showed that they were determined to cast off the influence of the Creek Confederation. The word Seminole as used by Muskogee speakers is taken from the Spanish term cimarron or runaway, but this designation was dislaiked by the American Indians. Perhaps the designation pioneer or adventurer would be more suitable. ^[1]

References

- Donald Albury 15:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The "franchise" is suffrage or the right to vote; "enfranchisement" is extension of suffrage to a class; "disfranchisement" is exclusion from voting or rights. The latter is the term that seems most often used in academic articles, and is the title for Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era in WP. Parkwells ( talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Have added content and cites on this. Parkwells ( talk) 02:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Have added more at the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Tribe of Florida (now one of the wealthiest tribes in the Southeast) and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, about the 20th-century developments, including notable people. Have kept red links for people to show need for new articles about the contemporary tribal leaders. The articles also need more about their governments, membership rules, social and economic development. Parkwells ( talk) 14:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seminole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030215124156/http://alamo-de-parras.welkin.org:80/archives/documents/adams_oniz_treaty.html to http://alamo-de-parras.welkin.org/archives/documents/adams_oniz_treaty.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. — ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Seminole/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A good article. Well written, referenced, and contains a table. It could use a little more illustration. -- Aaron Walden (16 February 06) Does a good job discussing the contemporary status and situation of the Seminole, not just their history. Should have more citations, and could doubtlessly be expanded, but ultimately has a fair amount of discussion and detail -- Miskwito 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Last edited at 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I find mixed results on whether Choctaws were part of the founding population of Seminoles. Mahon's History of the Second Seminole War, which is the most comprehensive work on that war that I am aware of, fails to mention Choctaws at all. He does mention (pp. 7-8) that the main Indian groups at the beginning of the war were the Alachua band (the original Seminoles), the Tallahassees, the Mikasukees and the Yuchis. He also cites Colonel Worth's report in 1843 (p. 318) that the Indian "warriors" remaining in Florida were 42 Seminoles, 33 Mikasukis, 10 Creeks and 10 Tallahassees.

James Covington, The Seminoles of Florida, reports Choctaws in a hunting party with Yuchis and Tallapoosas at Tampa Bay in 1783,(p. 27) isolated Choctaw and Yamassee bands in Florida in 1821,(p. 48) and, in a report by a Captain Sprague in 1847, that the 120 Indians in Florida capable of fighting were 70 Seminoles, 30 Mikasukees, 12 Creeks, 4 Uchis and 4 Choctaws.(p. 113) Covington states in a footnote, "It is difficult to believe that Choctaws were living in southern Florida at this time, but other persons have so indicated; ...".(p. 315, note 12)

William Sturtevant states that an "old" Seminole interviewed by John Swanton in Oklahoma early in the 20th century stated that some Choctaws went to Oklahoma with the Seminoles. Sturtevant interviewed some Mikasukees in Florida in the early 1940s who insisted that there had never been any Choctaws in Florida. ^[1]

So, there are reports of Choctaws among the Seminoles, but not every contemporary observer reported them. Covington expresses some doubt. Sturtevant reports that Florida Mikasukee tradition denies that Choctaws were present. I think we need to reflect that uncertainty in the article. - Donald Albury 15:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, there was the Ridaught band of the Choctaws in north Florida. A claim was filed with the Indian Claims Commission in 1950 by Thomas (?) LeFevre, a law partner of former Sen. Claude Pepper, on behalf of family member Horace Ridaught.

An article published in the Miami Herald on October 14, 1951, says: "The claim was filed by Attorney LeFevre, a law partner of former Sen. Claude Pepper, for the remnants of the Ridaught band, who claim they are descendants of Chief Chifubie, known by the French people of the early days as Matihi Riddaugh, who, with his cousin, Pushmataha, left Mississippi and wandered off to Florida with the scrapping old Gen. Jackson. Their claim is to 1,223,000 acres of land in Bradford, Clay, Putnam, Alachua and Marlon counties for which they are asking $1.25 an acre, plus 5 per cent interest since 1823 when the Treaty of Moultrie Creek was signed...

"... The Ridaughts say that their forefathers left St. Marks on a friendly agricultural adventure to eastern Florida into the area known as Johnson, Fla., a short ways from Palatka, and then Pushmataha returned to Mississippi. They claim their forefathers settled around an area which also embodies well-known Orange Springs, Fla."

The full text of the article can be be read in the linked digital collections of the State Archives of North Carolina. The petition makes the remarkable assertion that when the Seminoles detected that the Choctaws (Ridaught band) were not of their tribe, they decided not to kill them, but conceived a plan to emasculate all of the males of the tribe, reasoning that this would soon make the Ridaught tribe extinct. The claim also asserts that the Seminoles, however, mistook Matthew Ridaught II (a son of one of the original Choctaws who came from Mississippi with Pushmataha) for a girl because of his long hair and "femalish features," and failed to emasculate him. This is how the Ridaught band managed to survive, according to the Ridaught claim. Matthew Ridaught II later married, and his wife bore Daniel Isiah Ridaught, the father of the present Ridaught band.

A book on the subject, Hell's Branch Office: Florida's Choctaw Indians, written by Horace Ridaught and published by him in 1957, wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. Carlstak ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

We do have the story of the Yuchi band under Uchee Billy that left the area around Lake Miccosukee after Jackson's invasion and moved to the St. Johns River and was allied to the Seminoles, but I haven't run across anything like that involving Choctaws. No Choctaws were invited to the negotiations for the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, but neither were the Yuchis. - Donald Albury 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Oh, in regard to Matthew Ridaught II's long hair, there is this claim that "pensacola" is Choctaw for "hair people" or "long hair", which apparently was applied to the Choctaw. Has nothing to do with whether Choctaw were in peninsular Florida, or became part of the Seminole. - Donald Albury 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Hmm. Just as an aside, Swanton apparently contradicted himself when on p. 143, referring to the Pensacola people, he says that their Choctaw name, "Panshi okla", means "Bread People"." Carlstak ( talk) 23:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply