HISTORICAL DATA.
POLICY OF REMOVING INDIAN TRIBES TO THE WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
In the settlement and colonization by civilized people of a country theretofore a wilderness, and inhabited only by savage tribes, many important and controlling reasons exist why the occupation of such a country should be accomplished by regular and gradual advances and in a more or less connected and compact manner. It was expedient that a united front should be presented by the earlier settlers of this continent, in order that the hostile raids and demonstrations of the Indian warriors might be successfully resisted and repulsed. Therefore, the settlements were, as a rule, extended from the coast line toward the interior by regular steps, without the intermission of long distances of unoccupied territory. This seemed to be the policy anterior to the Revolution, and was announced in the proclamation of King George in 1763 wherein he prohibited settlements being made on Indian lands or the purchase of the same by unauthorized persons.
The first ordinances of Congress under the Articles of Confederation for disposing of the public lands were predicated upon the same theory. But after the close of the war for independence, circumstances arising out of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain and the acquisition of Louisiana from France imposed the necessity for a departure from the old system. Within the limits of the territory thus acquired sundry settlements had been made by the French people at points widely separated from one another and with many hundreds of miles of wilderness intervening between them and the English settlements on the Atlantic slope. The evils and inconveniences resulting from this irregular form of frontier were manifest.
Settlements thus widely separated, or projecting in long, narrow columns far into the Indian country, manifestly increased in large ratio the causes of savage jealousy and hostility. At the same time the means of defense were rendered less certain and the expense and difficulty of adequately protecting such a frontier were largely enhanced.
Such, however, was the condition and shape of our frontier settlements during the earlier years of the present century. Settlements on the Tennessee and Cumberland were cut off from communication with those of Georgia, Lower Alabama, and Mississippi by long stretches of territory inhabited or roamed over by the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws.
The French communities of Kaskaskia, Vincennes, and Detroit were similarly separated from the people of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and newly settled Ohio by the territory of the hostile Shawnees, Miamis, Wyandots, Pottawatomies, Ottawas, Kickapoos, et al.
A cure for all this inconvenience and expense had been sought and given much consideration by the Government authorities.
President Jefferson (as has been previously stated) had, as early as 1803,[225] suggested the propriety of an exchange of lands by those tribes east of the Mississippi for an equal or greater area of territory within the newly acquired Louisiana purchase, and in 1809 had authorized a delegation of Cherokees to proceed to that country with a view to selecting a suitable tract to which they might remove, and to which many of them did remove in the course of the years immediately succeeding.[226]
The matter of a general exchange of lands, however, became the subject of Congressional consideration, and the Committee on Public Lands of the United States Senate reported[227] a resolution for an appropriation to enable the President to negotiate treaties with the Indian tribes which should have for their object an exchange of territory owned by any tribe residing east of the Mississippi for other land west of that river.
The committee expressed the opinion that the proposition contained in the foregoing resolution would be better calculated to remedy the inconvenience and remove the evils arising out of the existing condition of the frontier settlements than any other within the power of the Government. It was admitted, however, that this object could not be attained except by the voluntary consent of the several tribes interested, made manifest through duly negotiated treaties with them.
The Senate was favorable to this proposition, but the House of Representatives interposed a negative upon the action taken by the former body.[228]
Removal of Cherokees encouraged.—The subject had long been under consideration by the Cherokees, and no opportunity had been lost on the part of the executive authorities of the United States to encourage a sentiment among them favorable to the removal scheme. Many individuals of the tribe had already emigrated, and on the 18th of October, 1816, General Andrew Jackson, in addressing the Secretary of War upon the subject of the recent Cherokee and Chickasaw treaties, suggested his belief that the Cherokees would shortly make a tender of their whole territory to the United States in exchange for lands on the Arkansas River. He further remarked that a council would soon be held by them at Willstown to select a proper delegation who should visit the country west of the Mississippi and examine and report upon its character and adaptability for their needs. In case this report should prove favorable, a Cherokee delegation would thereupon wait upon the President, with authority to agree upon satisfactory terms of exchange. To this the Secretary of War replied that whenever the Cherokee Nation should be disposed to enter into an arrangement for an exchange of the lands occupied by them for lands on the west side of the Mississippi River and should appoint delegates clothed with full authority to negotiate a treaty for such exchange they would be received by the President and treated with on the most liberal terms.
This state of feeling among the Cherokees had been considerably increased by the fact that those of their people who had already settled upon the Arkansas and White Rivers had become involved in territorial disputes of a most serious character with the Osages and Quapaws. The latter tribes claimed ownership of the lands upon which the former were settled. Upon the Arkansas Cherokees laying their complaints before the United States authorities, they were informed that nothing could be done for their relief until the main body of the nation should take some definite action, in accordance with previous understanding, toward relinquishing a portion of their territory equal in area to the tract upon which the emigrant party had located.[229]
FURTHER CESSION OF TERRITORY BY THE CHEROKEES.
With a view to reaching a full understanding on this subject, the Secretary of War notified[230] General Andrew Jackson, Governor McMinn of Tennessee, and General David Merriwether that they had been appointed commissioners for the purpose of holding a treaty with the Cherokees on or about the 20th of June, 1817.[231] In pursuance of these instructions a conference was called and held at the Cherokee Agency, which resulted in the treaty of July 8, 1817.[232] By this treaty the Cherokees ceded two large tracts of country[233] in exchange for one of equal area on the Arkansas and White Rivers adjoining the territory of the Osages. The Cherokees also ceded two small reservations made by the treaty of January 7, 1806.[234]
The large cession by the first article of the treaty of 1817, though partially in Georgia, was at the time supposed to cover all the territory claimed by the Cherokees within the limits of North Carolina,[235] and was secured in deference to the urgent importunities of the legislature and people of that State. It was subsequently ascertained that this supposition was incorrect.
Majority of Cherokees averse to removal.—During the conference, but before the negotiations had reached any definite result, a memorial was presented to the United States commissioners, signed by sixty-seven of the chiefs and headmen of the nation, setting forth that the delegation of their nation who in 1809 visited Washington and discussed with President Jefferson the proposition for an exchange of lands had acted without any delegated authority on the subject. The memorialists claimed to represent the prevailing feeling of the nation and were desirous of remaining upon and retaining the country of their nativity. They were distressed with the alternative proposals to remove to the Arkansas country or remain and become citizens of the United States. While they had not attained a sufficient degree of civilization to fit them for the duties of citizenship, they yet deprecated a return to the same savage state and surroundings which had characterized their mode of life when first brought in contact with the whites. They therefore requested that the subject should not be further pressed, but that they might be enabled to remain in peaceable possession of the land of their fathers.[236]
The commissioners, however, proceeded with their negotiations, and concluded the treaty as previously set forth, which was finally signed by twenty-two of the chiefs and headmen whose names appeared attached to the memorial, as well as six others, on behalf of the eastern portion of the nation, and by fifteen chiefs representing those on the Arkansas.[237] The treaty was submitted to the Senate, for its advice and consent, at the ensuing session of Congress, and although it encountered the hostility of those Senators who were opposed to the general policy of an exchange of lands with the Indians, and of some who argued, because of the few chiefs who had signed it, that it did not represent the full and free expression of their national assent,[238] that body approved its provisions, and the President ratified and proclaimed it on the 26th of December, 1817.
A portion of the Cherokees emigrate west.—Immediately upon the signing of the treaty, the United States authorities, presuming upon its final ratification, took measures for carrying into effect the scheme of emigration. Within a month Agent Meigs reported that over 700 Cherokees had already enrolled themselves for removal the ensuing fall.
The Secretary of War entered into a contract for 60 boats, to be delivered by 1st of November at points between the mouths of the Little Tennessee and Sequatchie Rivers, together with rifles, ammunition, blankets, and provisions;[239] and, under the control and directions of Governor McMinn, of Tennessee, the stream of emigration began to flow, increasing in volume until within the next year over 3,000 had emigrated to their new homes, which numbers had during the year 1819 increased to 6,000.[240]
Persecution of those favorable to emigration.—There can be no question that a very large portion, and probably a majority, of the Cherokee Nation residing east of the Mississippi had been and still continued bitterly opposed to the terms of the treaty of 1817. They viewed with jealous and aching hearts all attempts to drive them from the homes of their ancestors, for they could not but consider the constant and urgent importunities of the Federal authorities in the light of an imperative demand for the cession of more territory. They felt that they were, as a nation, being slowly but surely compressed within the contracting coils of the giant anaconda of civilization; yet they held to the vain hope that a spirit of justice and mercy would be born of their helpless condition which would finally prevail in their favor. Their traditions furnished them no guide by which to judge of the results certain to follow such a conflict as that in which they were engaged.
This difference of sentiment in the nation upon a subject so vital to their welfare was productive of much bitterness and violent animosities. Those who had favored the emigration scheme and had been induced, either through personal preference or by the subsidizing influences of the Government agents, to favor the conclusion of the treaty, became the object of scorn and hatred to the remainder of the nation. They were made the subjects of a persecution so relentless, while they remained in the eastern country, that it was never forgotten, and when, in the natural course of events, the remainder of the nation were forced to remove to the Arkansas country and join the earlier emigrants, the old hatreds and dissensions broke out afresh, and to this day they find lodgment in some degree in the breasts of their descendants.
Dissatisfaction with the treaty of 1817.—The dissatisfaction with the treaty of 1817 took shape in the assemblage of a council at Amoha, in the Cherokee Nation, in September of the same year, at which six of the principal men were selected as a deputation to visit the President at Washington and present to him in person a detailed statement of the grievances and indignities to which they had been subjected in greater or less degree for many years and to ask relief and redress.
They were to present, with special particularity, to the President's notice a statement of the improper methods and influences that had been used to secure the apparent consent of the nation to the treaty of 1817. They were authorized to enter into a new treaty with the United States, in lieu of the recent one, in which an alteration might be made in certain articles of it, and some additional article inserted relative to the mode of payment of their annuity as between the Eastern and Arkansas Cherokees.[241]
The delegation was received and interviews were accorded them by the President and Secretary of War, but they secured nothing but general expressions of good will and promises of protection in their rights and property.
TREATY CONCLUDED FEBRUARY 27, 1819; PROCLAIMED MARCH 10, 1819.[242]
Held at Washington City, D. C., between John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, specially authorized therefor by the President of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Cherokee Nation of Indians.