We will now offer a few remarks on a subject which has already been touched, the rights of the Indians, and the treatment which they received from the colonists. It is a topic of deep interest, which affects the character of our fathers, and to which recent events and the present condition of the surviving Indians have attracted earnest attention.
The right of the natives to hold the possession and control of all the territory on this continent has been a subject of dispute. The general principles applicable to this case, as expounded by Vattel, are these:[[117]] God has given the earth to the human race, and every man is entitled to a portion of its surface, sufficient for the comfortable support of himself and family. The actual occupancy of such a portion gives to the occupant a title which no man can rightfully disturb. But no one has an original right to appropriate to himself more than he needs, because he may thus deprive others, who possess equal rights with himself, of their appropriate share. Nor can he justly adopt a mode of subsistence, which will necessarily require so large an extent of territory, as to deprive his fellow men of their proportion, and either prevent the increase of the human race, or produce in other places an accumulation of masses of men, too great to be comfortably sustained. That the cultivation of the earth was designed by the Creator to be the chief means of subsistence to the human family, cannot be doubted; because the increase of the race was certainly his purpose,[[118]] and agriculture is the only mode by which a dense population could every where be supported. It follows, that a man has no right to claim for himself a vast tract of forest, because he chooses to subsist by hunting. If all other men cannot have a similar tract, he must, himself, become a cultivator, and thus subsist on a small portion of land. If a man had appropriated to himself a large territory, which, by proper cultivation, would furnish subsistence for many others, those others, if their necessities required, would have a right to claim their share, and to enforce their claim.
These principles, in their application to a primitive society, just taking possession of a new territory, seem to be indisputable. They are the principles on which the land of Canaan was divided among the Jews, by the authority of God himself, and on which the colonists in this country generally proceeded, in dividing the territory which they acquired from the Indians.
In the progress of society, however, the balance soon becomes disturbed. Other modes of subsistence than agriculture are adopted, and various causes produce an accumulation of wealth in the hands of some men, while others are reduced to indigence. The peace of society requires, that the rich should be protected in their lawful possessions; though every civilized nation still acts on the principle, that every member of the community is entitled to a subsistence. He ought to earn it by his labor, but if sickness, or want of employment, or other reasonable causes, prevent, he is entitled to assistance from the community, and the rich are taxed for his support. The most strenuous opposer of poor laws will not deny, that a man, who cannot maintain himself, has a right to aid from his fellow citizens. Thus the original law of nature comes into operation, and the inequalities which arise are, in some measure, compensated. But a fundamental principle of civilized society is, that every man is to be protected in the enjoyment of the property which he lawfully acquires. He may use it as he pleases, if he does not injure others; and he cannot be deprived of it, or of any part of it, without his own consent.
It is not easy to see, why the same principle should not be applied to the Indians. They had regular, though simple, governments, and the territories of each tribe were defined by boundaries sufficiently precise for their purposes. They had the best of all titles to their lands, actual possession. Why, then, might not the Indian claim to be protected in the enjoyment of his property? Why might he not make use of that property as he pleased, while he did not trespass on the rights of others? If the law of nations did not reach him, was he out of the pale of the great law of justice and reason? If it were said, that he had no right to appropriate to himself miles of forest, for a hunting ground, he might reply, that he had as good a right as an English nobleman has to appropriate to himself a vast space, for parks and fish ponds; and, indeed, a better right, by the law of nature, for every other Indian could enjoy as much land as himself, while the nobleman must see hundreds around him in abject poverty.
But it has been said, that the Creator could not have designed this vast and beautiful region to be exclusively inhabited by a few thousands of savage hunters; and, therefore, if the old world should become crowded with inhabitants, a portion of them would have a right to remove to America, and occupy a portion of it, as a part of the great inheritance of the human race. The Indians would consequently be bound to allow them a sufficient space; and if the numbers of both parties should so increase as to make hunting impracticable, the Indians ought to become cultivators.
If this theory were admitted as sound, the practical application of it would not be easy. The absolute necessity of emigration from the old world has not, perhaps, occurred, and yet this case must be made out, to justify an occupancy of a part of the Indian territory, without the consent of the natives. Immense tracts of uncultivated land exist in Europe, and even in England. Why would it not be as just for a company of settlers to fix their dwellings in a nobleman’s park, cut down his trees, and plant their corn, as to do the same on the lands of an Indian? If it were alleged, that the Indian had more land than he needed, the same might be said, perhaps, of the nobleman. At any rate, it might be asked, who was the proper judge, how much land an Indian needed?
But, looking at the actual state of things, at the settlement of this country, the necessities of the Pilgrims were sufficiently great, to make it the duty of the Indians to receive them hospitably, and allow them a portion of their lands. Where the country was deserted by the natives, the colonists might, undoubtedly, take possession. But wherever the Indians actually occupied the territory, even for the purposes of hunting, they were, clearly, the proprietors; and though it was doubtless their duty to cede to the Europeans a sufficient portion for their maintenance, yet they could not justly be forced to perform this duty. The settlers were bound to be satisfied with a sufficient amount of land for their comfortable support by agriculture and by the arts of civilized life. But the Indians retained an inviolable right to so much territory as they deemed necessary for their own use. Their title was beyond dispute. No power on earth could lawfully dispossess them.
We may conclude, then, that the Indians were the lawful proprietors of all the lands which they occupied. They were independent nations, and had a right to regulate their governments, and use their territory, as they pleased, while they respected the rights of others. They consequently could not be lawfully subjected to the sway of any other nation, without their own consent. No charters from popes or kings could give a right to take possession of the Indian territory. The Indians were nevertheless under an obligation to receive distressed Europeans, who sought their coasts, and to sell them land. They were, too, bound by the great law of God, which requires men to aspire after moral and physical perfection. This law obliged them to become civilized, and to adopt those modes of life which would enable their territory to support the greatest possible number of inhabitants. Hence arose another obligation to admit Europeans among them, who were capable of instructing and elevating them to the rank of civilized, educated, Christian nations. The duties of the settlers were, to make a reasonable compensation for the land ceded; to respect the rights of the natives; to treat them with uniform kindness; to teach them the arts of civilization; and, above all, to inculcate the principles and the practice of the Christian religion.
It is pleasing to observe, in the history of the New-England colonists, that the duties of both parties were, to so great an extent, fulfilled. The Indians, in most cases, received the white men with generous hospitality; they sold them land, on easy terms; many tribes remained their firm friends; and some of the natives became converts to the Christian faith. The colonists, on the other hand, purchased their lands from the Indians, for such a compensation as satisfied the natives, and was a fair equivalent at that time.[[119]] They treated the Indians, generally, with justice, and they made many zealous efforts for their conversion. That some of the proceedings of the colonists towards the Indians were not strictly equitable nor kind, must be admitted. Our fathers were too prone to view them rather as heathens than as men. They recurred too often to the Jewish history, for imaginary analogies; and drew unauthorized inferences from the conduct of the Jews towards idolatrous nations, whom God, the sovereign ruler, commanded them to destroy. In their wars with the natives, the colonists were sometimes unjustifiably severe; but it is due to their memory to say, that those wars were commenced by the savages themselves, from jealousy of the advancing power of the whites, rather than from the experience of actual injury. We must consider, too, that when the struggle came, it was, on the part of the whites, a contest for life and death, with an enemy vastly more numerous, and whose modes of warfare were treacherous, cruel, and terrific in the highest degree to the scattered and feeble settlements.[[120]]