I fail to see how you are descended, if at all, from Thomas Walling and Mary Cox.Perhaps you are descended from a Joseph Wallen, but you have in no way indicated or provided proof to show you are descended from Thomas Walling and you have failed to provide any proof regarding Native descent for either Thomas Walling and/or his wife, Mary Cox.
As is often the case with people who claim Native descent, it becomes wrapped up in emotionality and results in a total lack of objectivity.
Mary Cox is identified as the daughter of Stephen Cox in his will and is listed as such in the will of one of her brothers.Her husband is listed in Halifax Co., VA records regarding a Woodson kinsmen and her brother, William Cox.I have referenced contemporary and near contemporary records which prove the parentage of Mary Cox and you have provided no proof regarding your claim.
You write, "Mary Cox was listed with us as being Shawnee adopted."You don't provide any specifics.In referring to "us" do you mean your family oral tradition, or something else?
The records from the lifetime of Mary Cox and Thomas Walling clearly indicate they were not of Native heritage.Thomas Walling's brother, Elisha Walling/Wallen, "the Long Hunter," is mentioned in the Lyman Draper papers by contemporaries and nowhere is he described as being Native or even partially Native, whereas others who were of partial Native ancestry were identified as such, etc.
You have taken personal offense where none was intended.I express myself in a matter-of-fact style.You claimed both Thomas Walling and Mary Cox were "full blood" Shawnee Indians and that is entirely false.
The records speak for themselves.They do not lie.Many people claim to be of Native descent based on alleged oral tradition that has proven to be incorrect.
I recommend you read my postings in their entirety.They provide references to known contemporary and near contemporary records regarding the familial connections of Mary Cox and Thomas Walling.
As I have previously stated, the mother of Thomas Walling has not satisfactorily been established.Therefore, it remains within the realm of possibility that she could have had some Native ancestry, although in terms of probability that seems unlikely.
We can continue this discussion ad nauseum, but unless you have a record from the lifetime of Mary Cox or Thomas Walling which indicates the Native heritage, your claim does not stand up to scrutiny in the face of the existing records, from their lifetimes, which indicate they were not of Native ancestry, but of colonial English heritage.
I prefer not to inject emotionality into genealogy.You have taken a tone that is entirely unnecessary.You write, "Of course, that means nothing to you."What matters to me is accuracy and what is factual.