assignment opv 19,21 and 24

Part 3: Antebellum America (1800-1850)

V i c w p o i n t 2 1 A Indians Should Be Removed to the West (1830)

Andrew Jackson ( 1 767- 1 845)

I N T R O D U C T I O N Between 1815 and 1860 most of the American Indians residing in the territory between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River were forced to cede their lands and move from their homes. The United States government actively pursued this end by purchasing or seizing Indian territories and using threatened or actual military force to relocate Native Americans. Some Indian tribes responded with battle; others tried different methods of resistance. Among the latter group were the Cherokee Indians in Georgia,

Alabama, and Tennessee. After signing treaties with the federal government, they sought to accommodate them­ selves to change by adopting numerous traits of white American culture, including writing, a governing con­ stitution, and agricultural plantations (complete with black slaves).

In 1827 the Cherokee proclaimed themselves an inde­ pendent nation, much to the dissatisfaction of local whites who coveted their land. The state of Georgia promptly passed laws nullifying the Cherokee declara­ tion and extending state authority over Cherokee lands, actions that violated existing treaties between the Cherokee and the federal government. Both sides looked to Washington for support in resolving the dispute.

The white settlers were to find an ally in Andrew Jackson, elected president in 1828. Jackson had gained much of his fame as an Indian fighter. He sought for and gained Congressional passage in 1 830 of the In­ dian Removal Act, which authorized funds for the re­ moval of all Indian tribes still east of the Mississippi, including the Cherokee. The following viewpoint is excerpted from Jackson '.r 1830 message to Congress, in which he praises Congress for passing the law and defends his policy of Indian removal.

What benefits of Indian removal does Jackson describe? What comparison does Jackson make between Indians and immigrants? Why does he say that it is the duty of the federal government to expedite Indian removal?

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirry years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes [the Choc­ taws and the Chickasaws] have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be impor­ tant to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recom­ mendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of col­ lision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent S tates strong eno ugh to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the

From A Co111pilatio11 of the Mmages and Papers of the PmidmtJ, vol. 3, edited by James D. Richardson (New York: Bureau of Narional Literature), 1 897.

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

whole State of M ississippi and the western part o f Alabama of Indian occupancy, a n d enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of wh ites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast o ff their savage habits and become an i n teresting, civilized, and Christian communiry. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanc­ tioned by Co ngress at their last session [the 1 830 Indian Removal Act] an object of much solicitude . . . .

TRUE PHILANTHROPY

Humanity has o ften wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and Phi lanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its p rogress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite melancholy reflec­ tions. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. In the monuments and for­ tresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general i n terests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with for­ ests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the imp rovements which art can devise o r industry execute, occupied by more than 1 2,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a con­ tinuation of the same progressive change by a milder pro­ cess. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern S tates were annihilated o r have mel ted away to make room fo r the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United S rates, to send them to a land where their existence may be prolonged and per­ haps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave

Expanding Nation, Expanding Government

the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefa­ thers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humaniry weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inan imate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. I t is rather a source of joy that our coun try affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body o r in mind, developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made dis­ contented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportun i ty of removing to the West o n such conditions! I f the offers made t o t h e Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more affl icting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our bro thers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Govern­ ment toward the red man is not only liberal, but gener­ ous. He is unwilling to subm it to the laws of the States and m ingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

THE DUTIES OF THIS

GOVERNMENT

In the consummation of a policy originating at an early period, and steadily p u rsued by every Administrati o n within the present century-so j u s t t o the States a n d so generous to the Indi ans-the Executive feels it has a right to expect the cooperation of Co ngress and of all good and disinterested men. The States, moreover, have a right to demand it. It was substantially a part of the compact which made them members of our Confederacy. With Georgia there is an express contract; with the new S tates an implied one of equal obl igation. Why, i n authorizing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama to form constitutions and become separate States, did Congress include within their limits extensive tracts of Indian lands, and, in some instances, powerful Indian tribes? Was it not understood by both parties

V O L . 1 : F R O M C O L O N I A L T I M E S T O R E C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 04 1 0 5

Part 3: Antebellum America (1800-1850)

that the power of the States was to be coextensive with thei r l i m i ts , and that with all conve n i e n t dispatch the General Government should extinguish the Indian title and remove every obstruction to the complete j urisdiction o f the S tate governments over the soil? Probably not one o f those S tates would have accepted a separate existence­ certainly it would never have been granted by Congress­ had it been understood that they were to be confined for­ ever to those small portions of their nominal territory the Indian title to which had at the time been extinguished.

I t is, therefore, a duty which this Government owes to the new States to extinguish as soon as possible the In­ dian title to all lands which Congress themselves have included within their limits. When this is done the duties of the General Government i n relation to the S tates and the Indians within their limits are at an end. The Indians may leave the S tate or not, as they choose. The purchase of their lands does not alter in the least their personal rela­ tions with the State government. No act of the General Government has ever been deemed necessary to give the States j u risdiction over the persons of the Indians. That they possess by virtue o f their sovereign power within their own l i m i ts i n as full a manner before as after the p u rchase of the Indian lands; nor can this Government add to or diminish it.

May we not hope, therefore, that all good citizens, and none more zealously than those who think the Indi­ ans oppressed by subjection to the laws of the S tates, will unite in attempting to open the eyes o f those children of the forest to their true condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or i maginary, pres­ ent or prospective, with which they may be supposed to be threatened.

V i e w p o i n t 2 1 B Indians Should Be Allowed to Remain

in Their Homeland (1830) The Cherokee Nation

I N T R O D U CT I O N The Cherokee Indians in the early 1800s had successfolly adopted and combined traits of Indian and white culture to create a prosperous agricultural society with plantations, gristmills, a newspaper, and a governing constitution. In 1 828, however, the state government of Georgia passed laws ordering the seizure of Indian lands and declaring all Cherokee laws void. Faced with the growing threat of forced removal ftom their homes, the Cherokees sent a delegation to Wash­ ington in 1830 to plead their case before Congress and President Andrew Jackson. Finding both the president and Congress unreceptive, they published an appeal to the American people, excerpted below, pleading for the right to stay in their homeland.

Despite some success, including an 1 832 Supreme Court ruling (Worcester v. Georgia) in their favor,

the Cherokee Nation was ultimately unable to prevent relocation. In 1838 US. troops forced the remaining Cherokee in Georgia to leave for lands in Oklahoma. Many perished while on the "trail of tears. "

On what legal basis do the Cherokee lose their argu­ ments? What reasons do they give for not wishing to move? How, in their view, has the state of Georgia treated them unfairly?

Permit us to state what we conceive to be o u r rela­ tions with the U n i ted States. After the peace o f 1 783, t h e Cherokees were an independent people; absolutely so, as much as any people on earth. They had been allies to Great Britain, and as a faithful ally took a part in the colonial war on her side. They had placed themselves under her protection, and had they, without cause, declared hostility against their protector, and had the col­ onies been subdued, what might not have been their fate? B u t her power on this continent was broke n . S h e acknowledged t h e independence o f t h e U n ited S tates, and made peace. The Cherokees therefore stood alone; and, i n these circumstances, continued the war. They were then under no obligations to the United States any more than to Great B r i tain, France o r Spain. The U n i ted S tates never subj ugated the Cherokees; o n the contrary, our fathers remained i n possession of their country, and with arms i n their hands.

PEACE TREATIES

The people of the United States sought a peace; and, i n 1 78 5 , the treaty of H opewell was formed, by which the Cherokees came under the p rotection of the U nited States, and submitted to such limitations o f sovereignty as are mentioned i n that instrument. None of these lim­ itations, however, affected, i n the slightest degree, their rights of self-government and inviolate territory. The citi­ zens of the United S tates had no right o f passage through the Cherokee country till the year 1 79 1 , and then only i n o n e direction, and b y an express treaty stipulation. When the federal constitution was adopted, the treaty o f Hope­ well was confirmed, with all other treaties, as the supreme law of the land. I n 1 79 1 , the treaty o f Holston was made, by which the sovereignty o f the Cherokees was qualified as follows: The Cherokees acknowledged themselves to be under the protection of the United S tates, and of no other sovereign.-They engaged that they would n o t h o l d any treaty with a foreign power, with a n y separate state o f the u n i o n , or with individuals. They agreed that the United S tates should have the exclusive right of regulating the i r trade; that the citizens o f the U nited States should have a right of way i n one direction through the Cherokee country; and that if an Indian should do

From the "Memorial of che Cherokee Nation" Ouly 17, 1 830). as reprinted i n Nile's Wukly Register, August 2 1 , 1 830.

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y

injury to a citizen of the United States he should be deliv­ ered up to be tried and punished. A cession of lands was also made to the United States. On the other hand, the United S tates paid a sum o f money; offered protection; engaged to punish citizens o f the U n i ted S tates who should do any inj ury to the Cherokees; abandoned white settlers on Cherokee lands to the discretion of the Cherokees; stipulated that white men should not hunt on these lands, nor even enter the country without a pass­ port; and gave a solemn guaranty o f all Cherokee lands not ceded. This treaty is the basis o f all subsequent com­ pacts; and in none o f them are the relations of the parties at all changed.

The Cherokees have always fulfilled their engage­ ments. They have never reclaimed those portions of sov­ ereignty which they s u r rendered by the treaties o f Hopewell and Holston. These portions were surrendered for the purpose o f obtaining the guaranty which was rec­ o m mended to them as the great equivalent. Had they refused to comply with their engagements, there is no doubt the United States would have enforced a compli­ ance. I s the duty of fulfilling engagements on the other side less binding than i t would be, i f the Cherokees had the power of enforcing their j ust claims?

The people o f the United S tates will have the fairness to reflect, that all the treaties between them and the Cher­ okees were made, at the solicitation, and for the benefit, of the whites; that valuable considerations were given for every stipulation, on the part o f the United States; that i t is impossible t o reinstate the parties in their former situ­ ation, that there are now hundreds of thousands of citi­ zens o f the United States residing upon lands ceded by the Cherokees in these very treaties; and that our people have trusted their country to the guaranty o f the United S tates. I f this guaranty fails them, i n what can they trust, and where can they look for protection?

We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and

original right to remain without interruption or molestation.

WE WISH TO REMAIN

We are aware, that some persons suppose i t will be for our advantage to remove beyond the Mississ i p p i . We think otherwise. Our people universally think otherwise. Thinking that i t would b e fatal to their i n terests, they have almost to a man sent their memorial to congress, deprecating the necessity o f a removal. This question

Expanding Nation, Expanding Government

was distinctly before their minds when they signed their memorial. Not an adult person can be fo und, who has not an opinion on the subject, and if the people were to understand disti nctly, that they could be protected against the laws of the neighboring states, there is proba­ bly not an adult person i n the nation, who would think it best to remove; though possibly a few might emigrate in­ dividually. There are doubtless many, who would flee to an unknown country, however beset with dangers, priva­ tions and sufferings, rather than be sentenced to spend six years in a Georgia prison for advising one of their neigh­ bors not to betray his country. And there are others who could not think o f living as outlaws in their native land, exposed to n u m berless vexations, and excluded from being parties or witnesses in a court of j ustice. I t is incred­ ible that Georgia should ever have enacted the oppressive laws to which reference is here made, unless she had sup­ posed that something extremely terrific in its character was necessary in order to make the Cherokees willing to remove. We are not willing to remove; and if we could be brought to this extremi ty, it would be not by argu­ ment, not because our j udgment was satisfied, not because our condition will be improved; but only because we can not endure to b e deprived of o u r national and individual rights and subjected to a process of intolerable oppressio n .

W e w i s h t o remain on t h e l a n d o f our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to remain without i n ter­ ruption or molestation. The treaties with us, and laws of the United S tates made in pursuance of treaties, guaranty o u r residence and o u r privileges, and secure us against i n truders. Our only request is, that these treaties may be fulfilled, and these laws executed.

But if we are compelled to leave our country, we see nothing but ru i n before us. The co un try west o f the Arkansas territory is unknown to us. From what we can learn o f it, we have no prepossessions i n its favo r . All the i nviting parts o f it, as we believe, are preoccupied by various Indian nations, to which i t has been assigned. They would regard us as intruders, and look upon us with an evil eye. The far greater part of that region is, beyond all controversy, badly supplied with wood and water; and no I n d ian tribe can live as agriculturists witho u t these articles. All our neighbors, i n case o f our removal, though crowded into our near vicinity, would speak a language totally different from ours, and practice different customs. The original possessors o f that region are now wandering savages lurking fo r prey i n the neighborhood. They have always been at war, and would be easily tempted to turn their arms against peaceful emigrants. Were the country to which we are urged much better than it is represented to be, and were it free from the objections which we have made to it, still it is not the land of our bi rth, nor of our affections. I t contains neither the scenes o f our childhood, nor the graves of our fathers.

V O L . 1 : F R O M C O L O N I A L T I M E S T O R E C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 06 1 07

..

Part 3: Antebellum America (1800-1850)

THE HARMS OF FORCED REMOVAL

The removal of families to a new coun try, even under the most favo rable auspices, and when the s p i rits are sus­ tained by pleasing visions of the future, is attended with much depression o f mind and sinking o f heart. This is the case, when the removal is a matter of decided prefer­ ence, and when the persons concerned are in early youth or vigorous manhood. Judge, then, what must be the cir­ cumstances of a removal, when a whole community, emb racing persons o f all classes and every description, from the infant to the man o f extreme old age, the sick, the blind, the lame, the improvident, the reckless, the des­ perate, as well as the prudent, the considerate, the indus­ trious, are compelled to remove by odious and intolerable vexations and persecutions, brought upon them i n the forms of law, when all will agree only i n this, that they have been cruelly robbed of their country, in violation o f the most solemn compacts, which i t i s possible for communities to form with each other; and that, if they should make themselves comfortable in their new resi­ dence, they have nothing to expect hereafter but to be the victims o f a future legalized robbery!

Such we deem, and are absolutely certain, will be the feelings o f the whole Cherokee people, if they are forcibly compelled, by the laws o f Georgia, to remove; and with these feelings, how is i t possible that we should pursue our p resent course o f i m p rovement, o r avoid sinking i n to utter despondency? We have been called a p o o r, ignorant, and degraded people. We certainly are not rich; n o r have we ever boasted o f o u r knowledge, o r o u r m o ral o r i ntellectual elevation. B u t there i s n o t a man within o u r l i mits so ignorant as not to know that he has a right to live on the land of his fathers, in the pos­ session of his i m memorial privileges, and that this right has been acknowledged and guaranteed by the U n i ted States; nor is there a man so degraded as not to feel a keen sense of injury, on being deprived of this right and driven into exile.

AN APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE

I t is under a sense o f the most pungent feel ings that we make this, perhaps o u r last appeal to the good people o f the United S tates. I t cannot be that the com m u n i ty we are addressing, remarkable for its intelligence and re­ ligious sensibilities, and pre-eminent for its devotion to the rights of man, will lay aside this appeal, without con­ sidering that we stand i n need of its sympathy and com­ miseration. We know that to the Christian and to the philanthropist the voice o f our multiplied sorrows and fiery trials will not appear as an idle tale. In our own land, on our own soil, and i n our own dwellings, which we reared for o u r wives and for o u r l i ttle ones, when there was peace on o u r m o u n tains and in o u r valleys,

we are encountering troubles which cannot but try o u r very souls. But shall w e , on account of these troubles, for­ sake o u r beloved co u ntry? Shall we be compelled by a civilized and Christian people, with whom we have l ived in perfect peace for the last forty years, and fo r whom w e have wi l l ingly bled i n war, t o b i d a final adieu to our homes, our farms, our streams and our beau­ tiful forests? N o . We are still fi rm . We i n tend still to cling, with our wonted affectio n , to the land which gave us birth, and which, every day o f our lives, brings to us new and stronger ties of attachment. We appeal to the j udge of all the earth, who will finally award us j us­ tice, and to the good sense o f the American people, whether we are i ntruders upon the land o f others. Our consciences bear us witness that we are the invaders o f no man's rights-we have robbed no man o f his terri­ to ry-we have usurped no man's authority, nor have we deprived any one o f his unalienable privileges. How then shall we indirectly confess the right o f another peo­ ple to o u r land by leaving i t forever? O n the soil which contains the ashes o f o u r beloved men we wish to live-on this soil we wish to die.

LET THEM REMEMBER

We intreat those to whom the foregoing paragraphs are addressed, to remember the great law of love. " D o to others as ye would that others should do to you"-Let them remember that of all nations on the earth, they are under the greatest obligation to obey this law. We pray them to remember that, for the sake of principle, their forefathers were compelled to leave, therefore driven from the old world, and that the winds of persecution wafted them over the great waters and landed them on the shores o f the new world, when the Indian was the sole l o rd and proprietor o f these extensive domains­ Let them remember i n what way they were received by the savage o f America, when power was in his hand, and his ferocity could not b e restrained by any human arm. We urge them to bear i n m i n d , that those who would now ask o f them a cup of cold water, and a spot of earth, a portion o f their own patrimonial possessions, on which to live and die in peace, are the descendants of those, whose origin, as inhabitants of North America, history and tradition are alike insufficient to reveal. Let them bring to remembrance all these facts, and they can­ not, and we are sure, they will not fail to remember, and sympathize with us in these our trials and sufferings.

FOR FURTHER READ I N G

Michael D. Green, The Policies of Indian Removal. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1 98 2 .

Theda Persue and Michael P. Green, eds., The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1 99 5 .

O P P O S I N G V I E W P O I N T S I N A M E R I C A N H I S T O R Y 1 08