 Well, it's a very rich document on a number of levels. The primary thing that strikes me about it is the confusion over names. When you read it the first time, you're not sure who's who and who's talking about who. There's two mollies. There's sort of what I think of as the first molly, who was bought by Sam Dent, the trader, and then given to the Cherokee deer clan. Her name then becomes Chikaw. And that's how she's referred to throughout the rest of the document. The next molly is Molly Hightower, who claims that her father actually owns Chikaw and Chikaw's descendants. But the fact that Chikaw obtains her name after her adoption into the Cherokee nation also means that her personal name is a marker of affiliation with a state, with a nation and a state, the Cherokee state. So it's a great example of how names can mean many different layers of identity. Another thing that we see in the document is how racial identity is shifting. We think of slaves as being of African descent. And we don't know, of course, that Molly, who became Chikaw, was not of African descent. In fact, we presume that she was. So her identity shifts from being a black slave to an Indian free person, although obviously she herself does not change. It reminds us of how racial identity is constructed, how it has a history by itself that's worth examination. Clan membership in Cherokee society and many southeastern Native societies was matrilineal. So you are only affiliated with the group through your mother's line. It's that matrilineal line that affirms everything about Cherokee identity and also Cherokee law. This law of blood was based on the idea that clan members could avenge the deaths or other incidents happening to their kin. And women often made the decisions about how those deaths were to be avenged. And it was a way of making sure that people in Cherokee society lived in harmony with one another because it was very clear what the consequences would be if you committed such a violent act. Just because Chikaw escaped reinslavement here doesn't mean that she was forever secure because 1833 was a very critical time in the history of Indians in the southeast and indeed the whole nation. What we now know of as the old south, the sort of cotton culture of the antebellum south would not have been possible without Indian removal. And the race relations, the intensity of black-white relations that developed prior to the Civil War would have been very different had Indians remained in the southeast. This case is coming at a critical time, not just for the Cherokee nation but for questions of racial formation in the United States. You don't understand very much about Cherokee removal from this particular source but when you look at the date that Molly Hightower makes this claim in 1833, October 18th, 1833 is when the Supreme Court ruled on it that date by itself triggers for the historian a whole set of associations around the tensions of Cherokee removal and the kinds of decisions that Congress was making that President Andrew Jackson was making that the Cherokee principal chief John Ross and the Cherokee general counsel were making around these issues of removal.