INDIAN REMOVAL: POLICY ISSUES
I. BACKGROUND
A. Relations W/ Cherokee critical in development of Ind. policy: Highlights the jurisdictional problem that so complicated relations w/ Native and Euro-Americans
1. the federal govt. wanted the states' western lands for white settlement
2. in1802 GA agreed w/ fed govt. that they'd give western lands to govt. in return for feds extinguishing Ind. title w/in Ga.
3. in 1820, GA began to press the feds to do this
4. Pres. James Monroe agreed that the only solution was to exchange lands in Ga. for lands in west
5. his successor John Adams had no better plan so endorsed removal as well
6. but it took the election of Jackson to get removal implemented
B. Jackson's annual address to Congress declared U.S. would not support Cherokee sovereignty & called for Inds to move
1. asked Congress for legislation permitting forcible removal
2. Believed Inds would never be able to assimilate--but were just blocking the advance of citizen farmers and republican virtue
3. he denied their status as sovereign nations: Jackson said, in a letter to Pres. Monroe in 1817:
" I have long viewed treaties with the Indians as an absurdity not to be reconciled to the principles of our government."
4. Also argued that the Indians were weak and would be victimized by whites if
they remained in east
5. Further, he argued for the rights of states to conduct their own internal affairs w/o interference from the fed govt.
if GA wanted Inds out, the feds should back, not fight, their wishes
C. Removal bitterly debated in Congress & press
1. PRO-INDIAN REMOVAL ADVOCATES: said it would protect Inds,
for close contact w/ whites destroyed the weaker race thru unscrupulous traders & whiskey dealers
a. Also Inds needed time to move towards civilization at their own pace--ignoring,
of course, the "progress" that they had made
b. Civilization & savagery could not co-exist--one was destined to give way to the other, tho' this was unjust
c. Thomas McKenney, head of OIA; William Clark, the Indian Superintendent of St Louis; Lewis Cass, former Gov. of Mich.; and Issac McCoy, Baptist missionary--all men w/ solid record of sympathy & support for Inds
were, nonetheless, all on this side
2. ANTI-INDIAN REMOVAL ADVOCATES: just wanted the land
a. Indians in the way of progress--were hopelessly barbaric & would not "civilize"
they pointed out that the "civilized" SE Indians
were in the minority
b. cotton boom meant great demand for lands--should be used as God intended, i.e.,
market-based, monocrop agriculture
(Here Euro-Americans denied Ind. achievements in such types of agriculture--saw them as primarily savage hunters)
3. OPPONENTS OF REMOVAL: justice demanded protection of Ind. treaty rights
a. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions urged church groups to deluge Congress w/ cries for justice for the Inds. --they did
(b. however, it should be noted these letters often came from places politically hostile to Jackson, so perhaps they just hated him and his policies)
II. ENACTMENT OF REMOVAL
A. removal forces won: May 28, 1830 Removal Bill passed
1. authorized pres. to set up Ind. districts west of the Miss.
2. provided $ to pay Inds for the improvements on lands left behind, costs of removal & one year's subsistence in west
3. Jackson sent agents to negotiate w/ Inds. Instructed them to tell the Indians:
"As friends and as brothers listen to their father. In the west, their white brothers will not trouble them will have no claim to their land and the Indians can live upon it, they and all their children, as long as the grass grows and the waters run."
B. Opponents appealed to Supreme Court for justice & Cherokee sued Ga. for violating their sovereignty by extending GA law over Ind. lands
the Supreme Court cases concerning Indian
land were known as the Marshall trilogy: they set the tenor of Indian law
until this day
1. Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823
a. chiefs of Illinois & Piankeshaw tribes--deeded away parcels of land to Johnson
b. later these chiefs treated w/ U.S. & retained a res. but gave other lands away
c. U.S. then sold some of these traded lands to McIntosh --but Johnson claimed that some of this land was his by prior agreement
MARSHALL RULED: tribes held ownership interest in lands--rights to occupy, hunt, fish on their lands superior to all EXCEPT U.S. govt.
govt. shared title w/ tribes & could obtain sole right to that title thru purchase or military conquest
Tribes could only transfer title to U.S. govt. not to individuals
THUS: only McIntosh had a valid claim b/c he went thru only valid agency for obtaining Ind. lands
2. Cherokee v. Georgia, 1830
a. Cherokee sued GA for disallowing their tribal courts and dividing up their lands--they had violated Cherokee sovereignty
b. brought suit under constitutional provision to hear cases between foreign nations and states
MARSHALL RULED: Cherokees were not a foreign nation in the meaning of the constitution and could not bring suit in the fed courts
RATHER Cherokees were "Domestic Dependent nations" with a wardship relationship to the U.S.
3. Worcester v Georgia, 1832
a. GA had a state law requiring anyone who went into Cherokee territory get a permit from the govt.
b. Worcester was a missionary to the Cherokee w/ his friend Butler, sentenced by St. a GA to 4 years in jail for going onto res. w/o permit--he appealed
MARSHALL RULED: Tribal sovereignty pre-dated state or federal sovereignty
tribes are distinct political communities w/ territorial boundaries in which their authority is exclusive and this sovereignty protected by federal govt.
this ruling did Cherokees no good, however.
JACKSON reputedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
because of the popularity of Indian removal, no action was taken to enforce ruling against Ga.
THESE THREE CASES: legally defined Ind. status in U.S.
Indian tribes are sovereign governments w/ aboriginal title to lands & political authority over these lands
BUT: U.S. has broad almost unlimited power over Ind. affairs because of the dependency & trust relationship
C. On the basis of these precedents, U.S. proceeded w/ removal, signing
treaties w/ the SE Indians
1. 1830, w/ Choctaws; made the journey the winter of 1831 & 1832
Alexis De Tocqueville was visiting Memphis when the Choctaw arrived on their way west. He wrote:
" The wounded, the sick, newborn babies, and the old men on the point of
death...I saw them embark to cross the great river and the sight will never fade
from my memory. Neither sob nor complaint rose from that silent assembly. Their
afflictions were of long standing, and they felt them to be irremediable."
2. 1832. w/ Chickasaws & Creeks-
the Chickasaws, in Arkansas, delayed leaving until 1837;
and Creeks, in Alabama, resisted implementation of the treaty & a skirmish known as the Creek War broke out (put down By General Scott)
3. Likewise Seminoles signed treaties 1832 & 33 but refused to let them be carried out
fled to the swamps of Fla. where, aided by run-away slaves, they carried out a guerilla warfare against the U.S. govt. until the 1840's
after the death of resistance leader Osceola, who was captured under a flag of truce and died in jail in 1838,
most of his followers then surrendered & moved west
BUT a remnant remained in Fla. & U.S. gave up on them
4. By deadline of 1838, only 2, 000 of the 17,000 Cherokee had left
by then, Martin Van Buren was president
he sent Winfield Scott to round up remaining Cherokees
their story deserves a closer look