Fluent Essays

need help with writing 5 pages to summarize 4 out of 9 sources to answer this question above. A Christian Missionary Defends the Cherokees (1829) Jeremiah Evarts, chief administrative officer of the large interdenominational missionary consortium known as the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), had definite ideas about the proper relation between the Indian tribes and the United States. Born in Vermont and trained as an attorney, he had become convinced early in his life that God had a special mission for the United States to lead the way in the conversion of the world to Christianity. American leadership required that the United States be a “beacon of goodness” that radiated the light of justice and morality in all its affairs. Christian citizens were obligated, he believed, to critique their leaders if they strayed from the path and demand they return. Otherwise, Evarts feared, God would punish the United States with disasters and destruction. Since 1817, the ABCFM had maintained a significant presence in the Cherokee Nation. Several missionaries lived there, operated schools, conducted religious services, studied the language, worked on a translation of the Bible, and sent back to headquarters in Boston a steady stream of correspondence and reports on their progress. Evarts read all the reports, studied what additional sources he could find, and developed a deep and abiding respect for the Cherokees. Furthermore, with a lawyer’s eye, he analyzed the history of Indian policy in all of its legislative and administrative aspects. To him, the Constitution clearly authorized Congress and the president to conduct relations with the Indians outside the involvement of the states. Treaties were the acts of sovereigns, and the policy of the United States had always been to respect the sovereign rights of the tribes. By definition, therefore, tribal sovereignty was superior to the claims of the individual states. Neither Evarts nor his associates in New England were Jacksonian Democrats. They believed that the Constitution intended the national government to take an active, leading role in public affairs, to override and inhibit the narrow and selfish provincialism of the states, and to set the moral tone for the country. Evarts was both outraged and terrified by the events of the winter of 1828-1829. Georgia’s extension of jurisdiction over the Cherokees and the Cherokee protest to the president had elicited the response of the Jackson administration, which claimed support among Episcopalian and Dutch Reformed church officials in New York. Evarts regarded the new Indian policy of the Jackson administration as unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and fraught with danger. Thus motivated, between August 5 and December 19, 1829, Evarts wrote and published in the Washington National Intelligencer twenty-four articles entitled “Essays on the Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians.” Published under the pseudonym William Penn, Evarts’s essays constitute a propagandistic masterpiece of historical, legal, and moral analysis of America’s relations with the Indians. The essays, reprinted in dozens of papers and published as a separate pamphlet, responded to Jackson’s position and shaped the arguments on removal that resounded in Congress and the press during the early months of 1830. The selection printed here is a summary of the “William Penn” essays written by Evarts late in 1829 as the body of a petition that opponents of removal could sign and send to their congressmen. Entitled “A Brief View,” this selection represented one of many efforts by Evarts and those of like mind to bombard Congress with expressions of popular outrage. In the various discussions, which have attracted public attention within a few months past, several important positions, on the subject of the rights and claims of the Indians, have been clearly and firmly established. At least, this is considered to be the case, by a large portion of the intelligent and reflecting men in the community. Among the positions thus established are the following: which, for the sake of precision and easy reference, are set down in regular numerical order. 1. The American Indians, now living upon lands derived from their ancestors, and never alienated nor surrendered, have a perfect right to the continued and undisturbed possession of these lands. 2. Those Indian tribes and nations, which have remained under their own form of government, upon their own soil, and have never submitted themselves to the government of the whites, have a perfect right to retain their original form of government, or to alter it, according to their own views of convenience and propriety. 3. These rights of soil and of sovereignty are inherent in the Indians, till voluntarily surrendered by them; and cannot be taken away by compacts between communities of whites, to which compacts the Indians were not a party 4. From the settlement of the English colonies in North America to the present day, the right of Indians to lands in their actual and peaceable possession, and to such form of government as they choose, has been admitted by the whites; though such admission is in no sense necessary to the perfect validity of the Indian title 5. For one hundred and fifty years, innumerable treaties were made between the English colonists and the Indians, upon the basis of the Indians being independent nations, and having a perfect right to their country and their form of government. 6. During the revolutionary war, the United States, in their confederate character, made similar treaties, accompanied by the most solemn guaranty of territorial rights. 7. At the close of the revolutionary war, and before the adoption of the federal constitution, the United States, in their confederate character, made similar treaties with the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws. 8. The State of Georgia, after the close of the revolutionary war, and before the adoption of the federal constitution, made similar treaties, on the same basis, with the Cherokees and Creeks. 9. By the constitution of the United States, the exclusive power of making treaties with the Indians was conferred on the general government; and, in the execution of this power, the faith of the nation has been many times pledged to the Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and other Indian nations. In nearly all these treaties, the national and territorial rights of the Indians are guaranteed to them, either expressly or by implication. 10. The State of Georgia has, by numerous public acts, implicitly acquiesced in this exercise of the treaty-making power of the United States. 11. The laws of the United States, as well as treaties with the Indians, prohibit all persons, whether acting as individuals, or as agents of any State, from encroaching upon territory secured to the Indians. By these laws severe penalties are inflicted upon offenders; and the execution of the laws on this subject, is specially confided to the President of the United States, who has the whole force of the country at his disposal for this purpose. The positions here recited are deemed to be incontrovertible. It follows, therefore, That the removal of any nation of Indians from their country by force would be an instance of gross and cruel oppression: That all attempts to accomplish this removal of the Indians by bribery or fraud, by intimidation and threats, by withholding from them a knowledge of the strength of their cause, by practicing upon their ignorance, and their fears, or by vexatious opportunities, interpreted by them to mean nearly the same thing as a command;—all such attempts are acts of oppression, and therefore entirely unjustifiable: That the United States are firmly bound by treaty to protect the Indians from force and encroachments on the part of a State; and a refusal thus to protect them would be equally an act of bad faith as a refusal to protect them against individuals: and That the Cherokees have therefore the guaranty of the United States, solemnly and repeatedly given, as a security against encroachments from Georgia and the neighboring States. By virtue of this guaranty the Cherokees might rightfully demand, that the United States shall keep all intruders at a distance, from whatever quarter, or in whatever character, they may come. Thus secured and defended in the possession of their country, the Cherokees have a perfect right to retain that possession as long as they please. Such a retention of their country is no just cause of complaint or offence to any State, or to any individual. It is merely an exercise of natural rights, which rights have been not only acknowledged but repeatedly and solemnly confirmed by the United States. Although these principles are clear and incontrovertible, yet many persons feel an embarrassment from considering the Cherokees as living in the State of Georgia. All this embarrassment may be removed at once by bearing in mind that the Cherokee country is not in Georgia, in any sense affecting sovereignty, right of soil, or jurisdiction; nor will it rightfully become a part of Georgia, till the Cherokees shall first have ceded it to the United States. Whenever that event shall take place, it will immediately fall into the States of Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama; not by virtue of any compact to which the Cherokees have been a party, but in consequence of compacts not existing between these States and the United States…. Again, it is supposed that the existence of a little separate community of Indians, living under their own laws, and surrounded by communities of whites, will be fraught with some great and undefined mischief. This supposed evil is set forth under learned and hard names. It is called an anomaly, an imperium in imperio [empire within an empire], and by various other pedantic epithets. When the case is accurately examined, however, all the fog clears away, and nothing appears in the prospect but a little tract of country full of civilized Indians, engaged in their lawful pursuits, neither molesting their neighbours, nor interrupting the general peace and prosperity. If the separate existence of the Indian tribes were an inconvenience to their neighbours, this would be but a slender reason for breaking down all the barriers of justice and good faith. Many a rich man has thought it very inconvenient, that he could not add the farm of a poor neighbour to his possessions. Many a powerful nation has felt it to be inconvenient to have a weak and dependent state in its neighbourhood, and has therefore forcibly joined the territory of such state to its own extensive domains. But this is done at the expense of honour and character, and is visited by the historian with his severest reprobation…. And as to the learned chimera of imperium in imperio, it is, and always has been, one of the most common things in the world. The whole of modern Germany is nothing else but one specimen after another of imperium in imperio. Italy has an abundance of specimens also. As to our own country, we have governments within governments of all sizes, and for all purposes, from a school district to our great federal union. And where can be the harm of letting a few of our red neighbours, on a small remnant of their own territory, exercise the rights which God has given them? They have not the power to injure us; and, if we treat them kindly and justly, they will not have the disposition. They have not intruded upon our territory, nor encroached upon our rights. They only ask the privilege of living unmolested in the places where they were born, and in possession of those rights, which we have acknowledged and guaranteed…. May a gracious Providence avert from this country the awful calamity of exposing ourselves to the wrath of heaven, as a consequence of disregarding the cries of the poor and defenceless, and perverting to purposes of cruelty and oppression, that power which was given us to promote the happiness of our fellow-men. 1 Catharine Beecher, A Circular Addressed to the Benevolent Ladies of the United States (1829) In the 1820s, the public role of women was limited to social, religious, and charitable activities; they could not vote or stand for office. The removal issue, however, provided women with an opportunity to focus their benevolent concerns on a political issue. Women’s missionary societies had long supported Indian missions through donations of money and goods, and individual women made contributions as well: about half the donors listed in the periodical the Missionary Herald were women. Many women regarded the treatment of the Cherokees and other Indians as immoral, and since morality was well within their purview, they felt compelled to oppose removal. The call to action came from Catharine Beecher, a prominent educator and writer (and sister of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin). In 1829, she anonymously published a widely distributed circular in which she called on women to petition Congress to defeat the impending Indian Removal Act. In response, women collected signatures on scores of petitions demanding respect for Indian rights, which they sent to Congress. This kind of concerted political action on a national level was new to American women, who soon began to urge the abolition of slavery and to address other injustices in American society. Opposition to Indian Removal, therefore, empowered women with a public voice despite their disfranchisement. Below is an excerpt from Catherine Beecher’s circular that was printed in the Christian Advocate and Journal on December 25, 1829. The present crisis in the affairs of the Indian nations in the United States demands the immediate and interested attention of all who make any claims to benevolence or humanity. The calamities now hanging over them threaten not only these relics of an interesting race, but, if there is a Being who avenges the wrongs of the oppressed, are causes of alarm to our whole country. The following are the facts of the case:—This continent was once possessed only by the Indians, and earliest accounts represent them as a race numerous, warlike, and powerful. When our forefathers sought refuge from oppression on these shores, this people supplied their necessities, and ministered to their comfort; and though some of them, when they saw the white man continually encroaching upon their land, fought bravely for their existence and their country, yet often, too, the Indian has shed his blood to protect and sustain our infant nation. As we have risen in greatness and glory, the Indian nations have faded away. Their proud and powerful tribes have gone; their noble sachems and mighty warriors are heard of no more; and it is said the Indian often comes…to gaze on the beautiful country no longer his own, and to cry with bitterness at the remembrance of past greatness and power. Ever since the existence of this nation, our general government, pursuing the course alike of policy and benevolence, have acknowledged these people as free and independent nations, and has protected them in the quiet possession of their lands. In repeated treaties with the Indians, the United States, by the hands of the most distinguished statesmen, after purchasing the greater part of their best lands, have promised them “to continue the guarantee of the remainder of their country FOR EVER.” And so strictly has government guarded the Indian’s right to his lands, that even to go on to their boundaries to survey the land, subjects to heavy fines and imprisonment. Our government also, with parental care, has persuaded the Indians to forsake their savage life, and to adopt the habits and pursuits of civilized nations, while the charities of Christians…have sent to them the blessings of the gospel to purify and enlighten. The laws and regular forms of a civilized government are instituted; their simple and beautiful language, by the remarkable ingenuity of one of their race, has become a written language with its own peculiar alphabet, and, by the printing press, is sending forth among these people the principles of knowledge, and liberty, and religion. Their fields are beginning to smile with the labours of the husbandman; their villages are busy with the toils of the mechanic and the artisan; schools are rising in their hamlets, and the temple of the living God is seen among their forests. Nor are we to think of these people only as naked and wandering savages. The various grades of intellect and refinement exist among them as among us; and those who visit their chieftains and families of the higher class, speak with wonder and admiration of their dignified propriety, nobleness of appearance, and refined characteristics as often exhibited in both sexes. Among them are men fitted by native talents to shine among the statesmen of any land, and who have received no inferior degree of cultivation. Among them, also, are those who, by honest industry, have assembled around them most of the comforts and many of the elegancies of life. But the lands of this people are claimed to be embraced within the limits of some of our southern states, and as they are fertile and valuable, they are demanded by the whites as their own possessions, and efforts are making to dispossess the Indians of their native soil. And such is the singular state of concurring circumstances, that it has become almost a certainty that these people are to have their lands torn from them, and to be driven into western wilds and to final annihilation, unless the feelings of a humane and Christian nation shall be aroused to prevent the unhallowed sacrifice. Unless our general government…protect these nations, as by solemn and oft-repeated treaties they are bound to do, nothing can save them. The states which surround them are taking such measures as will speedily drive them from their country, and cause their final extinction…. Have not then the females of this country some duties devolving upon them in relation to this helpless race?—They are protected from the blinding influence of party spirit, and the asperities of political violence. They have nothing to do with any struggle for power, nor any right to dictate the decisions of those that rule over them.—But they may feel for the distressed; they may stretch out the supplicating hand for them, and by their prayers strive to avert the calamities that are impending over them. It may be, that female petitioners can lawfully be heard, even by the highest rulers of our land. Why may we not approach and supplicate that we and our dearest friends may be saved from the awful curses denounced on all who oppress the poor and needy, by Him whose anger is to be dreaded more than the wrath of man; who can “blast us with the breath of his nostrils,” and scatter our hopes like chaff before the storm…. To woman it is given to administer the sweet charities of life, and to sway the empire of affection; and to her it may also be said, “Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a cause as this?”… You who gather the youthful group…and rejoice in their future hopes and joys, will you forget that the poor Indian loves his children too, and would as bitterly mourn over all their blasted hopes? And, while surrounded by such treasured blessings, ponder with dread and awe these fearful words of Him, who thus forbids the violence, and records the malediction of those, who either as individuals, or as nations, shall oppress the needy and helpless…. This communication was written and sent abroad solely by the female hand. Let every woman who peruses it, exert that influence in society which falls within her lawful province, and endeavour by every suitable expedient to interest the feelings of her friends, relatives, and acquaintances, in behalf of this people, that are ready to perish. A few weeks must decide this interesting and important question, and after that time sympathy and regret will all be in vain. 1 Choctaw Leaders Argue For Self-Determination (1830) One of the early laws of the Jackson administration, the Indian Removal Act of 1830, provided for the uprooting of the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles, who combined for a population of around 60,000 in the American Southeast. The law repudiated the idea that “civilized” Indians could be assimilated into the American population. The Choctaw Nation was organized in three districts, each headed by an elected “medal chief.” Mushulatubbe, the lead Choctaw negotiator of the 1825 Treaty of Washington, had been chief of the northeastern district before being replaced by David Folsom (a man with a white father and Choctaw mother) in 1826. John Pitchlynn was a white man who married a Choctaw woman and had long served as an interpreter for the Choctaw Nation. Middleton Mackey was also an interpreter. On May 6, 1830, Jackson submitted this protest (below) to the Senate along with the March 17 removal treaty to which the Choctaws were objecting. Choctaw Nation March 25. 1830 Friend and Brother, The subject on which we would wish to address you, is one of the utmost importance to the welfare, and happiness of the Choctaw Nation. At no period with the Choctaws has there been so much distress and disatisfaction existing among the people as there are evidently felt at this time with at least more than two thirds of the community and we know not to whom we could better pour forth our grievances than to our Great Father the president, the fountain head of power, where all his red children can if they speak be heard and listened to. Friend and Brother, we would wish you to open to us your ears, and attentively listen to what we shall say in behalf of our afflicted and distressed Country. We are sorry, we are distressed. And this is owing to the late proceedings of some of our head men in the nation at a Council held in the uper Towns. The result of this Council was made known to us but three sleeps ago, and which is, that a proposition has been made to the Government for the soil of all our Country East of the Mississippi river. We have no objection to sell our Country, and go west of the Mississippi river, for there we know we can live unmolested as long as we are a nation, and where we shall be out of the jurisdiction of all the States in the Union, and where we know our Great Father the President can, and will protect us. This you have told us, and we believe it to be true, but we have a serious objection to any Treaty being made where it does not meet the full approbation of at least one half of the nation, and most particularly when it is done entirely unknown to the people, and understood only by a few individuals and when it will be made to give to those same individuals ten Sections of each land to each, who have done more injury to the Nation than good. The persons to whom we allude is Folsom and Leflore and other designing half breeds who have got themselves into office by management and intrigue. Why should Folsom and Leflore receive ten Sections of land each, and our beloved Mingo Musholatubby who served his nation more than Sixteen years, and who at all times was the true friend of the Americans, in time of peace as well as in war, should not receive no more than a Common warrior of the land which he alone can say as his Father the Beloved Mingo said, this land is mine, all this country is mine, and why is it that the halfbreeds alone are to be benifitted more by a Treaty than the real pure Choctaws. It is because we are ignorant, and because we are poor that we should be neglected. If any people in the world that can call any portion of the land of this world their own we the real Choctaws can truely say that this our own land, This is our own Country. Therefore, if this Country is to be treated away, who but the real Choctaws should have the honour of selling it. Our right to the soil we live on is paramount to all others. Let then the Government treat with us your Children, who are the true inheritors of all this Country, and who alone have the right of selling or disposing with it as they may think propper. We say we are your Children. You have acknowledged us as such. It was a full blooded Choctaw that first gave his hand to the Great and Good Washington and called him Father. It was no proud and conceited half breed. As Children we have been dutifull towards you, we have not been unruly & fractious at no time as many of our other red Children have been and done you injury, no; we have at no time ever done you any injury, but we have done you good whenever we had it in our power to do so. We ask of our great Father the War Chief Jackson who was it that fought by his side in the late war. was not it our Pushmataha and Musholatubby and their brave warriors? Let him remember the good deeds we have rendered for the United States and for our great Father. Let him remember our unchangable friendship and above all remember us as a poor helpless and distressed people. If there is a treaty made between the Government and the Choctaws let all, the full blooded, as well as the half breeds, be equals in the proffits arising from the Treaty. This will be the only way to give satisfaction to all We say we are willing to sell our Country, but never under any conditions where in it will make a few very rich…[letter goes on to describe how Folsom and Leflore gain advantages but are not supported in elections by most Choctaws]…The people in this District and also in the other Districts has ever had the privellege of selecting and making who they please as their Chief, and removing them from office whenever it suited them, but never have there been as yet a single instance where the Chief had the power of transferring his warriors into the hands of any other Chief or mingo at their own option, but however Folsom and Garland have assumed a privellege and a power that never was placed in the hands of any Chief in the Choctaw Nation. And we therefore warn you in time not to agree to the propposition which was made at the late Council by Leflore and his party, for we assure you it is not a general understanding among us. and we are fully determined to never agree to it let the Consequence be as it may. Some of us were at the Council when the propposition for the sail of our Country was made It was formed by Folsom and Leflore in a secret apartment without the consideration of any other individual, except two or three missionaries, and when they had finished it, the people were called togather at a late hour of the night, when it was read to them. We were displeased with it, and we found others to be also even those who signed their names to the talk to be sent to our Great Father, but what was more displeasing to us, and truely disgusting, was when we saw those Individuals (Folsom and Leflore) so uncommonly anxious for the people to sign this talk. Every thing was urged and done in a hurry, and not even a minutes time was allowed for deliberation. If you have a mind to do justice by us I know you will not agree to any treaty made with our nation unless it is with the whole nation and where it will give satisfaction at least to all the full blooded Choctaws, Therefore in order that this may be the case we would be glad if it is the wish of your Government to treat for our lands that you would send Commissioners to the nation and we will show them that we have the power and will sell our Country, but we will make a fair and an honest treaty with them, and not under such considerations as that which is proposed by Leflore and Folsom. When we make a treaty we do not want the missionaries to be present. Let them attend to their propper vocations, and meddle not with the concerns of the Nation. The missionaries we are sorry to inform you that they are a meddlesome set and have not done much good among us, no, but they have been the cause of a great deal of injury to the nation and also the Government. For they are the very set that has ever opperated against the policy of your Government towards the Choctaws and thereby deprived us of those advantages and those blessings which it has been the wish of your Government to bestow to us. We have always been confident that your Government would not wrong our people, nor recommend us to nothing but what would tend to our happiness and prosperity, but nevertheless your views as respects for the removal of our nation to the west, have heretofore disapointed by Missionary Counsel and intrigue. I wish our father the President but knew these people as well as we do. We would not wish you to think because we do not the missionaries that we do not wish to encourage among our people the habits of civilized life—that we do not wish our youths to be educated and brought up as white people. As a people, that we are disposed to the reverse of this, we will present to you as an instance of it our Cherished institution in Kentucky The Choctaw Academy. Musholatubby was the founder of that Academy, and sent his sons there to be educated. Friend and Brother In consequence of the iniquitous proceedings of the Halfbreed Chiefs and their party a great many of the people from most every Section of the Country have met together and joined in making you this communication. They have at the same time appointed a General Council, to take place on the 16th of April, where every man is to attend with Guns and deadly weapons, we are determined to die, or have justice done us and never to consent or agree to any treaty that is made in the dark by designing and avaricious men. Such as Leflore and Folsom. We have the honour of subscribing ourselves your friends and brothers. Mingo Mushulatubby his X mark Mingo Nittukaichee X Mingo Eyarhokatubby X General Talking Warrior X Captain J. Kincaid his X mark [Thirty additional signatures follow.] We Do Certify that the above is a true Interpretation John Pitchlynn M. Mackey, US [Interpreters] 1 A Creek Indian Chief Petitions President Andrew Jackson for Redress of Grievances (1830) As defined by treaty in 1821, the domain of the Creek Nation comprised some ten million acres in Georgia and Alabama. In 1825 chief William McIntosh (1775-1825), who had commanded Creek allies in Jackson’s Creek and Seminole campaigns of 1814 and 1818, signed the Treaty of Indian Springs, which exchanged most of the Creek country for new land in the West. The Creek National Council repudiated the treaty as a fraud and put McIntosh to death for violating its ban on unauthorized cessions. The Treaty of Washington, signed in 1826, voided and superseded that of Indian Springs. Under it and a follow-up agreement in 1827, the Creeks agreed to cede all their Georgia lands in return for various payments. The treaty also provided for the McIntosh faction’s removal westward within twenty-four months at federal expense. In 1828 more than a thousand McIntosh Creeks emigrated to the Verdigris River near Fort Gibson in present-day Oklahoma. In 1829 the emigrant Creeks complained to Jackson of the government’s neglect and mistreatment. Later, Roley McIntosh (c.1790-1863), half-brother of William, and Benjamin Hawkins (d. 1836), a Princeton-educated lawyer and son of a U.S. senator and a Creek woman, came east to present their grievances in person. Part of their letter and petition to Jackson, written on February 25, 1830 from Gadsby’s National Hotel, is included below. Our Great Father Andrew Jackson President of the United States, We have seen you and delivered to you the talk which your Red children the chiefs of the Arkansas Nation of Creek Indians in Council directed us to deliver. It is to our Great Father alone, that we can look for protection, and for the justice which is due to his Red Children beyond the Great River. Father listen to us, and we will speak the words which our Brothers the chiefs of our Nation commanded us to speak— Father when we assembled around the Council fire of our Fathers, we were a Great Nation. We had houses, and, land, stock, and Game and we were happy—But when our white Brothers were grown Great and spread like the yellow leaf when scattered by the whirlwilds blast, our Father the President advised us to seek a home beyond the great River. He told us we could not live in the land of our Fathers, and be prosperous, and happy, and that if we would leave the land of our Fathers and seek a new home we should land enough for our people and their children while the grass grows and the water runs—We listened to the talk of our Father the President, and left the lands where the bones of our Fathers lie, and have moved to a distant and strange land— Father listen to our talk—The land which our Father the President gave us is too little for our people—Many of our Brothers in the old nation wish to move to our Country—Our Father the President and our white Brothers want all to move: but if our Father the President does not give us more land, we cannot invite them to move. Part of the land on which our Brothers walked who first went into the woods over the great River to find our new home, has been since given by our Father the President to the Cherokee Indians If our Brothers of the old Nation move to our Country all will perish unless our Father gives us more land…. Father by various Treaties made between the United States and the Creek Indian Nation, the United States promised to pay the said Nation various annuities…. Father, we have received no part of the annuities thus promised by the United States since the murder of our Great Chief Genl. William McIntosh, nor of the two Sums one of [$247,600] and the other of [$42,491] promised…to the Said Nation for the cession of their lands. Father, we are entitled to a full share of all the annuities to which the Creek Nation are entitled or have been entitled from the death of Genl. William McIntosh as well as a full share of the two last mentioned sums of money; in the proportion which our numbers bear to the whole number of the Creek Indians, including our people with the people of the old nation, because by the Fifth article of the Treaty Made at Washington City in Eighteen hundred and twenty six it is provided that we “shall be admitted to all our privalages as members of the Creek Nation.” Father, listen to us. By the ninth article of the Treaty of Washington City made in [1826], the United States promised to present to us as the friends and followers of Genl William McIntosh the sum of one hundred thousand dollars in consideration of our exertions to procure a cession in 1825 at the Indian Springs & c, and of our past difficulties and our then contemplated removal, if our party should amount to three thousand persons, and in that proportion for a smaller number—We have received but Fifteen thousand of the last mentioned sum…. Father by the provisions of the last mentioned act our people were entitled to one Rifle Gun and ammunition, a Butcher Knife one Blanket one Brass Kettle and one Beaver Trap to each warrior, our people have not yet received all these things—The same act provides that the United States will pay to all such emigrants the actual value of all the improvements left by them and which were of a nature to add real value to the Land…. Father, it is not the fault of our people that this act has not been complied with and we hope our Father the President will cause justice to be done to us—By the Eighth article of the Treaty of Washington made in 1826 the United States promised to furnish our people with an Agent or Sub Agent and Interpreter to reside with them and also a Blacksmith and a Wheelwright—Father Give to us an agent to live with us who will speak to us and for us, with a straight Tongue; and to protect us against the evils of having the Brothers, Friends or Favorites of our Agent settled among us as traders contrary to our wishes. Make it necessary for the Agent to obtain the consent of a Council of our Chiefs before he can license any person to trade among us…. Father, listen to us. We are anxious to reconcile all our differences with all our Red Brothers of the old Nation and for them to settle with us in our New Country, and if our Father will let us choose an agent to live with us who has never had any thing to do with either party in the old Nation we will do every thing in our power to reconcile the two parties and to induce our Red Brothers of the old Nation to live with us, and we believe it can be done But if our Father leaves it to a majority of all the Creek people to choose an agent then we will be gain involved in all the evils which surrounded us in the old Nation Father, our Red Brothers of the other party are stronger than we are, and if our Father will not give us our agent, let us live a lone and in peace…. Father we want to go home, and we beg our Father to enable us to shew to our People on our return to them, that they have not looked in vain to their Great Father the President of the United States for justice We beg our Father to give us an Agent, to live with us, and who will protect our rights, and Interests, and act for us in all things—We do not wish to leave our home, or ever come here again— Roley McIntosh his X mark Benjamin Hawkins 1 Lewis Cass Justifies Removal (1830) By the mid-1820s, Lewis Cass, governor of the Michigan Territory between 1813 and 1831 and future presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, had become widely regarded as one of the best informed, most experienced, and highly thoughtful experts in the country on U.S.-Indian policy and the histories and cultures of the tribes. As superintendent of Indian affairs, an office all territorial governors held, he was certainly familiar with the details of U.S. relations with the Indians of the Great Lakes. He had toured the region, visited many tribes in their home countries, and arranged several treaties with them. He also was reputed to be a hardheaded, tough, but fair negotiator who supported the attempts of the government and the missionaries to “civilize” the Indians. The policy of changing the cultures of the Indians—turning them into plow farmers who produced surplus crops for sale in the marketplace, was the only way, Cass and many others believed, that the Indians could survive. If they remained “uncivilized,” they would perish. Cass made his reputation outside of government circles through a series of essays published in national magazines. The North American Review, one of the nation’s leading literary journals, published several of his essays. Written as extended reviews of books and articles about Indians, Cass used these essays to put forth his opinions about Indian policy and U.S. relations with the tribes. His most significant essay appeared in the January 1830 issue of the North American Review in the guise of a commentary on the publication of several letters, addresses, and resolutions in support of removal. Cass’s essay, fifty-nine pages in length, was the first extended pro-removal document to appear in the popular press, written by an expert, since the election of Andrew Jackson and the passage of Georgia’s legislation to extend its civil and criminal jurisdiction into the Cherokee Nation. A barbarous people, depending for subsistence upon the scanty and precarious supplies furnished by the chase, cannot live in contact with a civilized community. As the cultivated border approaches the haunts of the animals, which are valuable for food or furs, they recede and seek shelter in less accessible situations…. ….From an early period, their rapid declension and ultimate extinction were foreseen and lamented, and various plans for their preservation and improvement were projected and pursued. Many of them were carefully taught at our seminaries of education, in the hope that principles of morality and habits of industry would be acquired, and that they might stimulate their countrymen by precept and example to a better course of life. Missionary stations were established among various tribes, where zealous and pious men devoted themselves with generous ardor to the task of instruction, as well in agriculture and the mechanic arts, as in the principles of morality and religion….Unfortunately, they are monuments also of unsuccessful and unproductive efforts. What tribe has been civilized by all this expenditure of treasure, and labor, and care? . . . The cause of this total failure cannot be attributed to the nature of the experiment, nor to the character, qualifications, or conduct, of those who have directed it. The process and the persons have varied, as experience suggested alterations in the one, and a spirit of generous self-devotion supplied the changes in the other. But there seems to be some insurmountable obstacle in the habits or temperament of the Indians, which has heretofore prevented, and yet prevents, the success of these labors…. We have made the inquiring respecting the permanent advantage, which any of the tribes have derived from the attempts to civilize them, with a full knowledge of the favorable reports that have been circulated concerning the Cherokees. Limited as our intercourse with those Indians has been, we must necessarily draw our conclusions respecting them from facts which have been stated to us, and from the general resemblance they bear to the other cognate branches of the great aboriginal stock…. That individuals among the Cherokees have acquired property, and with it more englarged views and juster notions of the value of our institutions, and the unprofitableness of their own, we have little doubt. And we have as little doubt, that this change of opinion and condition is confined, in great measure, to some of the half-breeds and their immediate connexions. These are not sufficiently numerous to affect our general proposition…. ….But, we believe, the great body of the people are in a state of helpless and hopeless poverty. With the same improvidence and habitual indolence, which mark the northern Indians, they have less game for subsistence, and less peltry for sale. We doubt whether there is, upon the face of the globe, a more wretched race than the Cherokees, as well as the other southern tribes, present. Many of them exhibit spectacles as disgusting as they are degrading. Only three years since, an appropriation was made by Congress, upon the representations of the authorities of Florida, to relieve the Indians there from actual starvation. We are as unwilling to underrate, as we should be to overrate, the progress made by these Indians in civilization and improvement. We are well aware, that the constitution of the Cherokees, their press, and newspapers, and alphabet, their schools and police, have sent through all our borders the glad tidings, that the long night of aboriginal ignorance was ended, and that the day of knowledge had dawned. Would that it were so. None would rejoice more sincerely than we should. But this great cause can derive no aid from exaggerated representation; from promises never to be kept, and from expectations never to be realized. The truth must finally come, and it will come with a powerful reaction. We hope that our opinion on this subject may be erroneous. But we have melancholy forebodings. That a few principled men, who can secure favorable cotton lands, and cultivate them with slaves, will be comfortable and satisfied, we may well believe. And so long as the large annuities received from the United States, are applied to the support of a newspaper and to other objects, more important to the rich than the poor, erroneous impressions upon these subjects may prevail. But to form just conceptions of the spirit and objects of these efforts, we must look at their practical operation upon the community. It is here, if the facts which have been stated to us are correct, and of which we have no doubt, that they will be found wanting…. …Existing for two centuries in contact with a civilized people, they have resisted, and successfully too, every effort to meliorate their situation, or to introduce among them the most common arts of life. Their moral and their intellectual condition have been equally stationary. And in the whole circle of their existence, it would be difficult to point to a single advantage which they have derived from their acquaintance with the Europeans. All this is without a parallel in the history of the world. That it is not to be attributed to the indifference or neglect of the whites, we have already shown. There must then be an inherent difficulty, arising from the institutions, character, and condition of the Indians themselves…. ….It is difficult to conceive that any branch of the human family can be less provident in arrangement, less frugal in enjoyment, less industrious in acquiring, more implacable in their resentments, more ungovernable in their passions, with fewer principles to guide them, with fewer obligations to restrain them, and with less knowledge to improve and instruct them…. ….And equally fruitless and hopeless are the attempts to impart to them, in their present situation, the blessings of religion, the benefits of science and the arts, and the advantages of an efficient and stable government. The time seems to have arrived, when a change in our principles and practice is necessary; when some new effort must be made to meliorate the condition of the Indians, if we would not be left without a living monument of their misfortunes, or a living evidence of our desire to repair them. ….If the Christian and civilized governments of Europe asserted jurisdiction over the aboriginal tribes of America, and, under certain limitations, a right to the country occupied by them, some peculiar circumstances must have existed to vindicate a claim, at first sight revolting to the common justice of mankind….The Indians are entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights which do not interfere with the obvious designs of Providence, and with the just claims of others. There can be no doubt, and such are the views of the elementary writers upon the subject, that the Creator intended the earth should be reclaimed from a state of nature and cultivated; that the human race should spread over it, procuring from it the means of comfortable subsistence, and of increase and improvement. A tribe of wandering hunters, depending upon the chase for support, and deriving it from the forests, and rivers, and lakes, of an immense continent, have a very imperfect possession of the country over which they roam. That they are entitled to such supplies as may be necessary for their subsistence, and as they can procure, no one can justly question. But this right cannot be exclusive, unless the forests which shelter them are doomed to perpetual unproductiveness. Our forefathers, when they landed upon the shores of this continent, found it in a state of nature, traversed, but not occupied, by wandering hordes of barbarians, seeking a precarious subsistence, principally from the animals around them. They appropriated, as they well might do, a portion of this fair land to their own use, still leaving to their predecessors in occupation all that was needed, and more than was used by them. In the progress of society in the old world, no similar circumstances had existed to render necessary any inquiry into the relative rights and duties of a civilized and barbarous people…or to settle the principles of intercommunication between them. The nations of Christendom agreed in the general assumption of sovereignty, and of the ultimate dominion of the soil, as the consequence of discovery; but their farther pretensions seem to have been a matter of internal policy, depending on the peculiar views of each power. ‘The relations,’ says Chief Justice John Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in the case of Johnson versus McIntosh, ‘which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated by themselves. The right thus acquired, no other power could interpose between.’…. ….In accordance with this view, the ultimate dominion of the soil was asserted, by the European powers, to attach to the sovereign making the discovery. ‘Thus has our whole country been granted by the Crown, while in the occupation of the Indians. These grants purport to convey the soil, as well as the right of dominion, to the grantees.’… What has a Cherokee to fear from the operation of the laws of Georgia? If he has advanced in knowledge and improvement, as many sanguine persons believe and respect, he will find these laws more just, better administered, and far more equal in their operation, than the regulations which the chiefs have established and are enforcing. What Indian has ever been injured by the laws of any state? We ask the question without any fear of the answer. If these Indians are too ignorant and barbarous to submit to the state laws, or duly estimate their value, they are too ignorant and barbarous to establish and maintain a government which shall protect its own citizens, and preserve the necessary relations and intercourse with its neighbors…. . . . . Let the whole subject be fully explained to the Indians. Let them know that the establishment of an independent government is a hopeless project; which cannot be permitted, and which, if it could be permitted, would lead to their inevitable ruin. Let the offer of a new country be made to them, with ample means to reach it and to subsist in it, with ample security for its peaceful and perpetual possession, and with a pledge, in the words of the Secretary of War, ‘that the most enlarged and generous efforts, by the government, will be made to improve their minds, better their condition, and aid them in their efforts of self-government.’….If a paternal authority is exercised over the aboriginal colonies, and just principles of communication with them, and of intercommunication among them, are established and enforced, we may hope to see that improvement in their condition, for which we have so long and so vainly looked. 1 Governor Gilmer Uses States’ Rights Against the Cherokees (1830-1831) George Rockingham Gilmer (1790-1859) was the governor of Georgia during the Indian Removal Crisis. In the first letter to President Andrew Jackson, Gilmer enclosed a proclamation declaring in effect Georgia’s law of December 19, 1829, which annexed the Cherokee domain to give Georgia counties, extended state jurisdiction over it as of June 1, disbanded the Cherokee government and voided its laws, and prescribed criminal penalties for resisting state authority or attempting to deter Indians from emigrating. A Georgia law of December 22, 1830, prohibited and criminalized the operations of the Cherokee government, barred whites from entering the Cherokee nation without a license from the state, and authorized a Guard of sixty men to enforce state law and protect the gold mines. Under this law, the Guard had arrested several missionaries to the Cherokees. Gilmer, Jackson, and many other white southerners advocated states’ rights during the Indian Removal controversy, which contrasted with the more nationalist vision of Chief Justice John Marshall. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Marshall denied the Cherokees’ motion for an injunction against Georgia on jurisdictional grounds but recognized “the character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself,” and with “an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government.” Executive Department Milledgeville 17th June 1830 I transmit to the President for his information two proclamations, one of which is designed to notify the Indians within the State of the extension of its jurisdiction over them, the other white persons as well as Indians to desist from trespassing upon the property of the State by taking gold or other valuable minerals from its ungranted land. Before these proclamations had reached the part of the State occupied by the Cherokees, the U States troops had driven from it all persons except Indian occupants. The President is aware that such an exercise of power is believed not to be authorized by the Constitution of the U States, and more especially since the passage of the law by Georgia extending the jurisdiction of the State over all its Indian territory…. From information just received there is much reason to apprehend considerable disturbances and perhaps bloodshed from the manner in which the orders of the President to remove intruders has been executed by the officers commanding the regular troops. The persons who have been removed by them were those engaged in mining for gold. Their number amounted to several thousand most of whom had found their employment exceedingly profitable. The Indians in their immediate vicinity so far from objecting to the occupation of their country by the gold miners it is said favored their presence, They were not interrupted in the accustomed enjoyment of their country by the taking of gold from its soil. The gold region is situated very near the thickly inhabited part of the frontier of the State. When the gold diggers were removed by the troops altho much discontent was felt they retired to their homes without any actual resistance It however soon became known that the mines from which they had been driven were immediately taken possession of by the Indians, and the whites connected with them, and that they were permitted to take the gold therefrom without any resistance from the troops who had dispossessed the citizens the citizens of the State. Very great excitement is said to be the result of this state of things. There is much reason to apprehend that the Indians will be forcibly driven from the whole of the gold region unless they are immediately prohibited from appropriating its mineral wealth to themselves. Since the discovery of gold in the Cherokee Country, the opinion has very generally prevailed, that those who were engaged in digging for it violated no right except that of the State, & that after the passage of the law extending the jurisdiction of the State over that Country, the Government of the U States would have no authority to enforce the non-intercourse laws. What effect the proclamation prohibiting all persons both Indian & whites from digging for gold may have in allaying the excitement among the persons who have been removed as intruders is very uncertain. It is probable that it may prevent an immediate attack upon the Indians who are so employed from the expectation that they will be restrained by the authority of the State. I shall be compelled to resort to the tedious process of the courts for this purpose, the laws of the State not having invested the Governor with the power to protect the public property by military force. In the mean time it is very desirable that the President would direct the officers commanding the U States troops to prevent intrusion upon the property of the State by the Indians, at the same time that they are defending the occupant rights of the Indians from intrusion by the whites. The President will perceive that in the proclamation forbidding all persons both whites & Indians from taking gold from the territory of the State in the occupation of the Indians that they right of the state to all the gold and silver in its ungranted land is directly asserted. It is believed that the President requires no argument in support of that right thus claimed for Georgia. All the European nations who make discoveries, conquests, or took possession of any portion of this continent claimed the exclusive right to all the gold and silver found within their possessions. This was in fact the first and strongest inducement to the enterprize of the early adventurers to this country. In addition to this right assumed by all European nations the King of Great Britain claimed by virtue of the common law of England to be the sovereign owner of all the lands within his kingdom and especially in the American Colonies Upon the Independence of the States their Governments became entitled to all the rights of sovereignty over the territory within their limits which had before belonged to the crown of G Britain. The State of Georgia is therefore entitled to the gold & silver in its territory occupied by the Indians as well by the customary law established by the nations by whom this country was settled, as the fee simple or paramount title which it derives from the crown of G Britain. The courts of this State have uniformly determined that the Government of the State is the universal proprietor of all the ungranted lands within it including those in the occupancy of the Indians. Such is believed to be the legal doctrine of all the other States it is certainly that of the supreme court of the U States as to the lands of Georgia. It is believed that if the Indians are permitted to take possession of the gold mines thro the assistance of the U States Government that instead of being removed they will become fixed upon the soil of Georgia. It is said that preparations are making a large number of the wealthy Cherokees to remove into the gold region, for the purpose of participating in its mineral riches. If they can be protected in so doing by the U States We shall thus not only retain the Cherokees who have hitherto occupied the lands of the State but many of those who reside in Tennessee, Alabama and North Carolina. The U States are bound by contract to prevent this state of things and no doubt is entertained of the disposition of the President to perform the obligations of the Government in good faith. The State of Georgia cannot permit her rights to be violated by persons subject to her jurisdiction as the Indians are acknowledged to be without applying a remedy adequate to the removal of the evil. In exercising this power however if it should unfortunately become necessary it will be the object of the State to do it in such a manner as to aid rather than thwart the policy of the present administration, & carefully to guard from violation the rights intended to be secured to the Indians Very Respectfully Yours &c George R Gilmer Executive Department Georgia Milledgeville 20th. June 1831 Sir, Circumstances have enabled me to collect much information as to the present temper and designs and probable course of the Cherokees. The great interest felt by the people of this State, in having them removed from its limits, & the contract of 1802 finally executed, has induced me to communicate directly to the President so much of that information as may possibly be useful to him in his endeavors to effect that object. Strong hopes were at one time entertained that if the decision of the Supreme Court should be against the application of the Cherokees for a writ of injunction to stay the jurisdiction of Georgia, that they would immediately treat with the United States for an extinguishment of their present occupant rights. It is known that, previous to that decision and during the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, all classes had expressed their belief that such would be the course pursued by them. Those hopes have however proved illusory. Since that decision the wealthy and influential half breed chiefs have been exceedingly active in persuading the people to continue their present residence, in opposition to the desire of the General Government to extinguish their title, & in defiance of the rights & power of Georgia. These efforts have unfortunately been very successful. This has resulted from the extra judicial opinions of the Supreme Court in determining that the Cherokees formed a distinct political society separate from others & capable of managing its own affairs, and that they were the rightful owners of the soil which they occupied. Meetings of the Indian people have been called in most of their Towns, at which the Chiefs have used these opinions to convince them that their right of self Government and soil were independent of the United States and Georgia and would be secured to them thro the Supreme Court and the change (which they represented to be certain) in the administration of the General Government.… It is most respectfully suggested to the President, that no measure can at present be successfully adopted for the execution of the Contract of 1802, except that of inducing individuals, families and Towns to emigrate from this State by paying them the value for their improvements, or giving them such other advantages as may be found acceptable. And the President is earnestly requested to try the effect of this measure & as early as possible. The great body of the common Indians are without wealth or power. Nothing prevents their acquiescence with the offers of the Government to unite them with that part of their tribe on the west of the Mississippi, but their habitual submission to the Control of their Chiefs, & their inert & listless character. What is said of their strong desire not to be separated from the bones of their fathers is but the expressions of those whose ancestors’ remains are deposited in Europe or the States. The confidence of the common Indians in the rule of their Chiefs has been of late impaired by their appropriation of the wealth of the tribe to themselves, their descent from the whites & the adoption of their manners: & their listlessness of temper in some degree overcome by the fear of unknown evils from the operation of the laws of Georgia. The Guard which was been stationed among them has been successful in preventing any trespasses upon the Gold mines, in putting a stop to their Legislative Councils, their Courts, the execution of their laws, and in removing all white men from among them disposed to excite their opposition to the Government of the State. The Chiefs can no longer prevent the people from enrolling for emigration by the fear of punishment. It is thought probable that the very attempt to remove the people by enrolling individuals for emigration will tend to produce a willingness on the part of the Chiefs to treat for the exchange of their lands. They know that by the removal of the common Indians they will lose their power, the exclusive possession of their Country and become subjected to the prejudices of a white population with whom they will be mingled…. This subject is of great importance not only to the peace, prosperity and quiet of the State, but to the character of its Government. The obstructions which been thrown in the way…the constant torrent of abuse which party violence has poured upon the Authorities of the State and its people on account of the measures which have been adopted for the support of its rights of soil & jurisdiction—the influence which that partizan violence is now exercising over the Cherokee Chiefs in inducing them to continue their opposition to the laws of Georgia & in exciting their expectation that by a change in the present Administration of the General Government they will be secured in the rights of Self Government—the conduct of the Chief Justice of the United States in interfering with the administration of the criminal laws of the State—and the intimation given the Cherokees in the late decision of the Supreme Court that the laws of Georgia were exceedingly oppressive, that the State had neither the right of jurisdiction nor of soil, have all conspired so to irritate the public mind here, that it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible to prevent the Legislature from disposing of all the lands of the State assigned to the Indians for their occupancy, except so much as may be in their immediate possession or required for their support, unless the President shall be enabled during the present year to adopt such measures as will give assurance that the Cherokees will be certainly and shortly removed from the State…. Hitherto the Indians have neither been compelled to pay taxes nor perform any civil duties. The only operation of the laws since the extension of the jurisdiction of the State over them has been to protect them from injury by the punishment of crimes, & the removal of the whites who had been tempted into their Country by the attraction of the Gold Mines. The State is at this time maintaining a Guard at great expense for the purpose of preventing the exercise on the part of the Chiefs, from the expectation that the President would be enabled during the present year to succeed in removing the Indians beyond its limits, and the strong disposition felt by its authorities to avoid the adoption of any measures which might have even the appearance of violating the laws of humanity or the natural rights of the Indians. If the Cherokees are to continue inhabitants of the State, they must be rendered subject to the ordinary operation of the laws with less expense and trouble and more effectually than heretofore. The State must put an end to even the semblance of a distinct political society among them. It has hitherto permitted from the belief that their happiness required it and that such a state was not inconvenient nor injurious to the rights of Georgia. The agitation which the Indian question has excited throughout our Country, and the manner in which it has endangered the most important political rights of the State renders it necessary that this should be done. The millions of acres of land which are now of no value except to add to the gratification of the idle ambition of the Chiefs must be placed in the possession of actual cultivators of the soil who may be made the instruments for the proper administration of the laws. It is hoped the President will concur with me in the necessity of making such efforts for removing the Cherokees as will ascertain whether it be practicable at all by treaty, enrollment for emigration or any other means…. With sentiments of the highest consideration, I remain most respectfully Yours &c George R. Gilmer 1 Elias Boudinot Editorializes in the Cherokee Phoenix (1831) The Cherokees’ national newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix, was a source of national pride and an important tool in their resistance to removal. The inaugural issue appeared in February 1828. Subscribers included not only Cherokees but also citizens of the United States and even Europeans. Printed in both English and the recently constructed Cherokee written language, the newspaper kept its readers informed about national and international events, and it published biblical passages and human interest stories. Laws passed by the Cherokee National Council, advertisements, and notices also appeared in its columns. Most important, the Cherokee Phoenix conveyed information to the Nation’s citizens about the crisis confronting the Cherokees. As an official organ of the Cherokee Nation, the Cherokee Phoenix presented the Nation’s case against removal. Elias Boudinot, a man of mixed Cherokee and European ancestry who had been educated at Christian missionary schools in Connecticut, was the paper’s editor. Boudinot printed correspondence from the president and secretary of war, messages from Principal Chief John Ross, and anti-removal editorials. President Jackson and Secretary of War John Eaton made it very clear that the individual states had ultimate title to the land and that if Indians wanted to live on land claimed by the states, they had to obey state, rather than Cherokee, law. In the two editorials below, Boudinot passionately defended the Cherokee cause. February 19, 1831 This week we present to our readers but half a sheet—the reason is, one of our printers has left us; and we expect another (who is a white man) to quit us very soon, either to be dragged to the Georgia penitentiary for a term not less than four years, or for his personal safety, to leave the [Cherokee] nation, and us to shift for ourselves as well as we can. And, our friends will please to remember, we cannot invite another white printer to our assistance without subjecting him to the same punishment; and to have in our employ one who has taken the oath to support the laws of Georgia which now oppress the Cherokees, is utterly out of the question…. But we will not give up the ship while it is afloat. We have intelligent youths in the nation, and we hope…to make up our loss. In the mean time our patrons will bear with us & have patience—let them bear in mind that we are in the woods, and, as it is said by some, in a savage country, where printers are not plenty, and a substitute not easily obtained when one of our hands leave us or become indisposed…. Our readers will please not expect to receive the Phoenix very regularly for a while. We shall do the best we can. We have already noticed the late law of Georgia, making a high misdemeanor, punishable with four years imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary, for any white man to reside, after the 1st of March, within the limits of the Cherokee nation … unless he takes the oath of allegiance, and obtains from the Governor’s agent a permit to continue his residence until further orders. We cannot help alluding again to that law as being extremely unjust, without saying any thing of its oppressive tendency, both to the whites and Cherokees. It is certainly oppressive on the whites, even admitting that the state of Georgia has an undoubted jurisdiction over the Cherokee territory. Why is it that it is required of them to take the oath, when by the extension of that jurisdiction, they were admitted as citizens of the state? Is such requirement made of other citizens? Do the constitution and the laws recognize such a distinction? But what becomes of the liberty of conscience in this case? –Here a white man cannot enjoy that liberty without going to the penitentiary. What are the effects of this law on the Cherokees? Disastrous. Just such effects as were intended the law should produce. The design appears to be to bring them back to their old station—carry them back twenty years hence. Deprive them of their means of improvement, and remove all the whites, and it is thought by some, the great obstacle is taken out of the way, and there will be no difficulty to bring the Cherokee to terms. If this is not the design it may possibly be the tendency of the law. Now let the reader consider. If we introduce a minister of the Gospel to preach to us the way of life and salvation, here is a law of Georgia, a Christian law too it is said, ready to seize him and send him to the Penitentiary, in violation of the constitution of the state itself….If we bring in a white man to teach our children, he is also arrested and suffers a similar punishment. If we wish a decent house built, and invite a carpenter into the nation to do the work, here is a law which forces him from our employ and soon numbers him with culprits. If we introduce a Blacksmith, or any other mechanic, it is the same. Is it not natural to suppose that the tendency of such a law on the Cherokees would be disastrous? It forces from them the very means of their improvement in religion and morals, and in the arts of civilized life. November 12, 1831 It has been customary to charge the failure of attempts heretofore made to civilize and christianize the aborigines to the Indians themselves. Whence originated the common saying, “An Indian will still be an Indian.” –Do what you will, he cannot be civilized—you cannot reclaim him from his wild habits—you may as well expect to change the spots of the Leopard as to effect any substantial renovation in his character…. Such assertions, although inconsistent with the general course of providence and the history of nations, have nevertheless been believed and acted upon by many well meaning persons. Such persons do not sufficiently consider that causes, altogether different from those they have been in the habit of assigning, may have operated to frustrate the benevolent efforts to reclaim the Indian. They do not, perhaps, think that as God has, of one blood, created all the nations of the earth, their circumstances, in a state of nature, must be somewhat the same, and therefore, in the history of mankind, we have no example upon which we can build the assertion, that it is impossible to civilize and christianize the Indian. On the contrary we have instances of nations, originally as ignorant and barbarous as the American natives, having risen from their degraded state to a high pitch of refinement—from the worst kind of paganism to the knowledge of the true God. We have on more than one occasion remarked upon the difficulties which lie in the way of civilizing the Indians. Those difficulties….are not to be found in the “nature” of the Indians….It is not because they are, of all others, the most degraded and ignorant that they have not been brought to enjoy the blessings of a civilized life. –But it is because they have to contend with obstacles as numerous as they are peculiar. With a commendable zeal the first Chief magistrate of the United States undertook to bring the Cherokees into the pale of civilization, by establishing friendly relations with them by treaties, and introducing the mechanic arts among them. He was indeed a “father” to them—They regarded him as such—They placed confidence in what he said, and well they might, for he was true to his promises. Of course the foundation for the improvement which the Cherokees have since made was laid under the patronage of that illustrious man. His successors followed his example and treated their “red children” as human beings, capable of improvement, and possessing rights derived from the source of all good, and guarantied by compacts as solemn as a great Republic could make. The attempts of those good men were attended with success, because they believed those attempts were feasible and acted accordingly. Upon the same principle have acted those benevolent associations who have taken such a deep interest in the welfare of the Indians, and who may have expended so much time and money in extending the benign influence of religion. Those associations went hand in hand with the Government—it was a work of co-operation. God blessed their efforts. The Cherokees have been reclaimed from their wild habits—Instead of hunters they have become the cultivators of the soil—Instead of wild and ferocious savages, thirsting for blood, they have become the mild “citizens,” the friends and brothers of the white man—Instead of the superstitious heathens, many of them have become the worshippers of the true God. Well would it have been if the cheering fruits of those labors had been fostered and encouraged by an enlightened community! But alas! no sooner was it made manifest that the Cherokees were becoming strongly attached to the ways and usages of civilized life, than was aroused the opposition of those from whom better things ought to have been expected. No sooner was it known that they had learned the proper use of the earth, and that they were now less likely to dispose of their lands for a mess of pottage, than they came in conflict with the cupidity and self-interest of those who ought to have been their benefactors—Then commenced a series of obstacles hard to overcome, and difficulties intended as a stumbling block, and unthought of before. The “Great Father” of the “red man” has lent his influence to encourage those difficulties. The guardian has deprived his wards of their rights—The sacred obligations of treaties and laws have been disregarded—The promises of Washington and Jefferson have not been fulfilled. The policy of the United States on Indian affairs has taken a different direction, for no other reason than that the Cherokees have so far become civilized as to appreciate a regular form of Government. They are now deprived of rights they once enjoyed—A neighboring power is now permitted to extend its withering hand over them—Their own laws, intended to regulate their society, to encourage virtue and to suppress vice, must now be abolished, and civilized acts, passed for the purpose of expelling them, must be substituted.—Their intelligent citizens who have been instructed through the means employed by former administrations, and through the efforts of these benevolent societies, must be abused and insulted, represented as avaricious, feeding upon the poverty of the common Indians—the hostility of all those who want the Indian lands must be directed against them. That the Cherokees may be kept in ignorance, teachers who had settled among them by the approbation of the Government, for the best of all purposes, have been compelled to leave them by reason of laws unbecoming any civilized nation—Ministers of the Gospel, who might have, at this day of trial, administered to them the consolations of Religion, have been arrested, chained, dragged away before their eyes, tried as felons, and finally immured in prison with thieves and robbers. Is not here an array of difficulties? –The truth is, while a portion of the community have been, in the most laudable manner, engaged in using efforts to civilize and christianize the Indian, another portion of the same community have been busy in counteracting these efforts. Cupidity and self-interest are at the bottom of all these difficulties—A desire to possess the Indian land is paramount to a desire to see him established on the soil as a civilized man. 1 An Elderly Creek Indian Chief Laments White Encroachment (1831) By the Treaty of Washington in 1826, the Creek Indians had relinquished their remaining lands in Georgia while the U.S. guaranteed to them “all the country, not herein ceded, to which they have a just claim.” The Creeks were now confined to a five-million acre domain lying entirely within Alabama. Emulating Georgia, Alabama in 1829 adopted a law to extend state jurisdiction over their territory. The Creeks protested and appealed to Jackson for protection. Jackson and Secretary of War John Eaton responded that the Creeks would be protected in their property, but that they would have to submit to Alabama’s laws. The Creek population was divided between Upper and Lower Towns. At the time that this letter was written, the Yuchis were living among the Creeks, but they had once been a separate people. On March 24, 1832, a Creek delegation in Washington signed a treaty ceding all Creek lands east of the Mississippi. Tuskeneah to Andrew Jackson Creek Nation Cusiatah Town 21st May 1831 Brother I am very old and feebhle and am not able, to make along talk. I have thought for Some years I should never make an other. But the Situation of my country makes it necessary for me again to Open my mouth. I have been a Cheif for fifty five years I have witnessed all the Treaties of my Nation with your Government Since the old British war. I have ever been the friend of the white man. I have never taken up a gun against your white children. I have always taken the Presidents of the U.S. by the hand with that friendship which is due from a child to his Father. They have always treated me and my people as if though we had been there white children. I have never Seen the necessity of complaining untill now All my white Fathers and brothers untill now or a few months back have prevented there white sons and daughters from making fields and settling in my Country they have always protected us in the lands that we did not cede away to there government. At this time your white children are fast settling up my country—they are building houses Mills making fields and destroying all my timber & game. This I have always been taught by my Former Fathers and Brothers was not a right which these white children were entitled to. We have always required your Government to protect us on the lands that we did not sell. Your Government promised to do so. I was informed by the deputation that visitted you winter before last that you stated to them that you would not allow of such conduct, that you had placed Soldiers among us that would remove all persons that would settle in our Country without our consent and the Agents or had an Indian family. This was strictly attended to untill a few months back, when to my surprise on application for the removal of some white Settlers we were answered by your Soldiers that they could not relieve our wants without your Consent. This talk was like a clap of thunder upon me. All this we have more than once Communicated to you We have never received any answer. our deputation told us on there return to the Nation this winter that the Secretary of War had promised to answer us when more at leisure than He was when they were at Washington City. I should not make this talk only the situation of my Country greatly demands it. I can only repeat in my talk what we have said to you before your white Sons and daughters are moving into my Country in abundance they are spoiling my lands and taking possession of the Red peoples improvements that they have made with their own labour. Contrary to the consent of the Nation And your Soldier have refused to prevent it. This makes me Sorry and have caused me to give you this talk. Believing at the same time that you will not give a deaf year to it. For I am contending for nothing but what my People are entitled to and that which your Government has promised repeatedly by Treaty stipulations. There are dreadful consequences to be anticipated by the emigration of your white children amongst us. they are bringing whiskey and opening drinking Houses nothing but what is bad can result. There are bad white people as well as Red. That neither me nor you can control. These are the kind of characters that settle among us. They steal our property they swear to lies. they make false accounts against us they sue us in your State Courts for that we know nothing of The Laws that we are immeaneable to are in words that we have no possible means of understanding. Only a few days since an affray took place at an intruders Camp who was selling whiskey to the Red people when a white man was severely beaten. Such conduct makes me unhappy—but I can not help it. I would to the great Spirit above prevent such conduct was it in my power. Affrays alone are not only to be expected, but the Sheding of a quantity of blood I am affraid will be the end. this fills my old head with trouble. I talk to you altho I am not in person before you I tell you the truth. my tongue is not forked. That such of your white citizens that intrude upon us are of your bad children. they have run away from your laws they cant live with honest white people. There are a number of my Red children in dreadful Condition without any means of subsistance. they have been Compell’d to resort to there guns The uchees a small part of our Tribe have in small parties cross’d in the Settlements of Georgia where Game they believed more plenty. it is likely such of them as did cross the line may have kill’d white people stock. The whites have collected themselves in bodies and hunted up such as did cross into Georgia and shot them as if though they were deer. From the best information I can Learn in the course of the three last months there has been seventeen Red people kill’d by the whites and nothing thought of more than if they had been so many wild Hogs. I can only feel sorry for it they done wrong in crossing the Line. It was contrary to my wish & orders. But yet such conduct is in your white sons. they drive there stock into our Country they spoil our Range. they kill or hogs & Cattle. they kill your white childrens stock running in my Country and lay it to my red children they have to bear the blame. They hunt and kill our game. We treat them kindly. I don’t wish them [harm.] But still I believe it wrong. When my people cross to the white settlements I dont want them kill’d. but should they commit a wrong they should suffer in the way your law points out. I shall endeavour to prevent the Red people from doing any thing that will offend you or my white Neighbours. All I want is peace and be protected in what belongs to the Red people, and have been Solemly garanteed to them by your Government. With everey Respect I have the Honor to be your unfortunate old Brother Tuskenehah-haw his X mark Daniel Asburry Inter[preter]. 1 Andrew Jackson Pushes for the Removal of the Choctaws (1830-1831) The ascent of Andrew Jackson as president signaled a new and more confrontational approach with the nation’s Native American population. Whereas previous presidents had focused on diplomacy and assimilation, Jackson and his allies favored forced relocation. The first and second of the three letters below were written by Jackson to John Pitchlynn, a translator and intermediary between whites and Choctaws. Alabamian John Coffee, a close advisor who had served with the president in the War of 1812, was the recipient of the third letter. Washington Apl 6th. 1830 Friend & Brother— Such are the various and important dutes which engross my time and attention, that it is not in my power to reply to your letter fully as I otherwise would desire to do. Already I have told you my sentiments as regards your removal beyond the Mississippi. In that, I have spoken to you candidly as a friend, one—who if he could, would not deceve you. When was it, that I attempted to take advantage of my Indian friends. Brother—In all the intercourse had with them, in peace and amidst the ravages of war, my constant object has been, to speak to them as friends and brothers. I never have deceived them, and never shall. Let me say to you then—with that candour which always has been practiced, that it is vain and idle for you to expect to live happily where you are. Have you not tried it long enough and do you not perceive that your nation is daily sinking, growing fewer in numbers and becoming less powerful, Look to all the tribes which have dwelt in our country surrounded by their white brethren, and you will perceive that their character and consequence as a people, have wholly disappeared. From this fate I desire to save you—and believe it is only to be effect by a consent on your own part, to remove west of the Mississippi There you can be happy—there you will have a home, and you and your children for ever, free from the interposition, or interruption which now assails you—and which must continue to assail you, whilst you reside among your white brothers. Go then to the west, where happiness and peace await you. There the state laws cannot molest or disturb you. The lands granted will be yours and will belong to your children, when you are no more, fertile & rich, they will yield an ample sustenance. To those who shall chose to indulge in agriculture, while such of your people as shall insist on the case, will find a region opening to and stretching back on the mountains, where game is abundant and fine If under all circumstances the choctaws sensible of their true interest, shall be disposed to remove and leave their trouble behind them. Terms the most liberal will be granted. The people of the united states want no advantage of their red brothers. they will meet in council & act with them on the most liberal and enlarged terms. Their great purpose is to make them a happy people, and indulge a hope that they may be perpetuated as a great & lasting people. If then your people shall consent to go, I shall not hesitate, to send a confidential messenger to make conditions with you, or if prefered to receive a delegation here, to arrange and settle all differences. If they be agreed to by the nation, and a delegation be sent, clothed with full powers to make a treaty on these points, all their expences in coming & returning will be paid. Make all this known to your nation[.] Your friend— Andrew Jackson Hermitage August 5th. 1830— Dr Sir your letter of the 24th. of july has just been received. I would have been happy to have seen you at Nashville and received your views as it regards the permanent settlement of the choctaws west of the Mississippi. I am aware of your friendship for them & the great anxiety you have for their future welfare; but great as I know it, it cannot be more so than mine. At the request of their confidential agent, Major Haley, who communicated to me the great desire the choctaw chiefs had to see me, & enter into arrangements to surrender their possessions, & remove across the Missippi to the country provided for them, that they had great confidence that I would do them liberal Justice, I am now here to meet their chiefs, agreably to the promise made to Major Haley. The Secretary of War & myself meet them in the neighbourhood of Franklin. [As yet we have] heard nothing from them of a positive character. Whether they chiefs are comming to meet us or not our official business urges a return to the city of Washington & we cannot stay much longer here to meet them. We therefore request that you will make known to them that we are now awaiting there arrival agreably to my promise to their confidential agent Major Haley I beg of you to say to them, that their interest happiness peace & prosperity depends upon their removal beyond the jurisdiction of the laws of the State of Mississippi. These things have been explained to them fully and I forebear to repeat ; but request that you make known to them that Congress to enable them to remove & comfortably to arrange themselves as their new homes has made liberal appropriations. It was a measure I had much at heart & sought to effect because I was satisfied that the Indians could not possibly live under the laws of the States. If now they shall refuse to accept the liberal terms offered, they only must be liable for whatever evils & difficulties may arise. I feel conscious of having done my duty to my red children and if any failure of my good intention arises, it will be attributable to their want of duty to themselves, not to me. I have directed the Secretary of war to write [you fully and] make it known to my red children—and tell them to listen well to it—it comes from a friend and the last time I shall address them on the subject should the chiefs fail to meet us now. I am your friend. A.J. Washington October 23rd. 1831— My Dr. Genl, By the administrator of Lt Dumas was your letter forwarded to me from Baltimore….Two days since, I had sent on a joint commission to Genl J. H. Eaton and yourself, to negotiate with the choctaws & chikisaws, for a country within the choctaw boundery west of the Mississippi river, sufficient for the chickisaws to settle in. It is important, as the choctaws are now, in part, removing that this should be attended to speedily, that the chikisaws may go with them you will find you are left unrestricted as to the terms on which this is to be obtained, your discretion and the object to be obtained, you are to be governed by, resting confidently that you will get it on as low terms as you can, and stipulating, that the amount to be paid, shall be, by annuities, and that at a distant period, so that the amount can be raised out of the sales of the chikisaw lands; bearing in mind, that I keep in view steadily, the full discharge of the public debt on the 3rd of March 1833, and I wish no debt created that will interfere with the revenue that is to meet that object, therefore it is, that I wish you & Genl Eaton to stipulate the consideration to be paid the choctaws, to be paid by annuities commences after that date, or to be secured to be paid out of the sales of the chikisaw lands. These lands if added to your land District, can be survayed & brought into markett in all the next year, but if annexed to the Missippi District, may not be brought into markett for several years, unless we can get a survayor Genl with more energy & capacity than the present. We have furnished him with funds to survay the Choctaw lands some time ago, and we have not heard as yet of his having stretched a chain upon it—he is one of [Senator John] Poindex[ter’s] men, & has refused to employ any deputies, as it is said, that does not live in the State, therefore it appears, that the public business must be converted into a political, for private views. I will in due time attend to this. With my sincere prays for the health & prosperity of you and your family, your friend Andrew Jackson P.S. I have sent to Genl Eaton a fair copy of instructions, substantially the same as above A. J. 1 Introduction  This assignment asks you to analyze primary sources, a practice that is fundamental to the craft of history. To locate the sources youll need for this assignment, find the Week 8 Module, and then click on the Content Page called Primary Sources for Week 8. Most likely this page can be reached easily by clicking the Previous button at the bottom of the page. Once you have located this page, you should see about 9 primary sources written from the years 1829-1831. Read through ALL of these sources and CHOOSE FOUR. At least one of the sources you choose must come from an individual who favored removal; at least one must come from an individual who opposed removal; and at least one must come from a Native American. Use the four sources youve picked to answer the prompt below.    Prompt How would you characterize the position of each historical actor? How specifically did each actor support his or her position? Ultimately, why was there an Indian Removal crisis?    Guidelines ◦ Paper must be FIVE FULL pages of double-spaced text. The title page is not included in this amount. Do not exceed SIX pages. If you go over this amount you may lose points.  ◦ No Works Cited or Bibliography is required. The in-text citations will be sufficient (see citation style below) ◦ Submit your essay at the Turnitin.com link below as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx). Microsoft Office, including Microsoft Word, is installed automatically on most PCs. If you dont have the Microsoft Office package on your computer, you can download it through your CPP email address  Download download it through your CPP email address
 . This download works for Macs and PCs.  ◦ It is the responsibility of the student to make sure that the essay is submitted successfully. Are you having trouble submitting through Turnitin.com? Check out this handout  Download this handout
 on common issues, and how to solve them.  ◦ Do not justify your margins. They should be set to Align Left. ◦ Be sure to use standard margins, fonts, and spacing. This means 12 pt, Times New Roman font style, double-spaced text, and 1 margins on the left, right, top, and bottom. Many versions of Microsoft Word set the default margins to 1.25 inches. It is your responsibility to change them.  ◦ Include a title page with the title of your paper, your name, and word count. You do not need to repeat this information on the second page of your essay.  ◦ Include page numbers at the bottom, right-hand corner of each page.  ◦ Do not skip lines between paragraphs ◦ Do not insert subheadings. It is best to create smooth transitions between paragraphs.  ◦ Except in unusual cases, I do not accept submissions of assignments over email.  ◦ There are no make-ups for this assignment.    Citations Many students have a difficult time with proper citation technique, so I have provided examples below. You will not need to bother with using a writing manual or looking up citation styles online. The easiest thing to do is follow these examples below. https://canvas.cpp.edu/courses/11309/files/1124471?wrap=1 https://canvas.cpp.edu/courses/11309/files/1124471?wrap=1 https://canvas.cpp.edu/courses/11309/files/1124478?wrap=1 https://canvas.cpp.edu/courses/11309/files/1124478?wrap=1 Note that these are in-text, parenthetical citations. If youre citing a primary source, put the last name of the historical actor youre citing along with the page number. There is no comma inside the parentheses. The period goes at the very end of the sentence.  Primary Source: In Twenty Years at Hull House, Jane Addams wrote, Our young people feel nervously the need of putting theory into action, and respond quickly to the Settlement form of activity (Addams 5).  Textbook: According to U.S. History, Senator Daniel Websters efforts at compromise led many abolitionist sympathizers to denounce him as a traitor. (Corbett et al. 14.1).  Lecture: Popular culture has often reinforced the stereotype that the South South was pre-modern, but academic historians have uncovered many aspects of modernity in this region (Campbell).    Words of Advice  An effective introduction will directly and specifically answer all of the questions in the prompt and establish a blueprint or roadmap for the rest of the paper. See the helpful handouts below. Strong papers were interpret the texts, and not merely summarize them.  If you would like me to read a rough draft, I would be happy to do so, but you must give me plenty of time to read it and for you to make improvements. This means you should not submit to me a rough draft on a Tuesday if the essay is due on a Thursday. Your rough draft should be in the form of an introduction and outline (I will not comment on entire essays).  There is a difference between the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the larger Indian Removal crisis. The act was one piece of legislation whereas the crisis was a long-term phenomenon that spanned several decades.  Since you are practicing what historians do, most of your evidence should come from primary sources. You are technically allowed to bring in material from the textbook and lecture, but I would not advise including more than a few sentences.