A Ramble of Six Thousand Miles through the United States of America

by S. A. Ferrall

After the lapse of twenty-seven years, Georgia, finding herself precisely in the same condition in which she then stood, has determined on forcibly taking possession of the Cherokee lands, and extending her sovereignty over the Cherokee people. But as this cannot be effected without doing manifest violence to the Indian rights, she brings forward arguments to show, that she never acknowledged the independence of the Cherokee nation; that that nation, from the time of the first settlement made by Europeans in America, stood in the position of a conquered people; that the sovereignty consequently dwelt in the hands of Great Britain; and that, on the Declaration of independence, Georgia, by becoming a free state, became invested with all the powers of sovereignty claimed or exercised by Great Britain over the Georgian territory: and further, that in November, 1785, when the first and only treaty was concluded with the Cherokees by the United States, during the articles of confederation, both she and North Carolina entered their solemn protests against this alleged violation of their legislative rights. The executive government pretends not to argue the case with Georgia, and is left no alternative but either to annul its conditional treaty with that state, or to cancel thirteen distinct treaties entered into with the Indians, despoil them of their lands, and rob them of their independence. Jackson's message says, "It is too late to inquire whether it was just in the United States to include them and their territory within bounds of new states, whose limits they could control. That step cannot be retracted. A state cannot be dismembered by Congress, or restrained in the exercise of her constitutional powers." Here the executive government acknowledges that it made promises to Georgia, which it has been unable to perform—that it guaranteed to that state the possession of lands over which it had no legitimate control, on the mere assumption of being able to make their purchase.

The Cherokees in their petition and memorials to Congress show, that Great Britain never exercised any sovereignty over them;—that in peace and in war she always treated them as a free people, and never assumed to herself the right of interfering with their internal government:—that in every treaty made with them by the United States, their sovereignty and total independence are clearly acknowledged, and that they have ever been considered as a distinct nation, exercising all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by any independent people. They say, "In addition to that first of all rights, the right of inheritance and peaceable possession, we have the faith and pledge of the United States, over and over again, in treaties made at various times. By these treaties our rights as a separate people are distinctly acknowledged, and guarantees given that they shall be secured and protected. So we have also understood the treaties. The conduct of the government towards us, from its organization until very lately—the talks given to our beloved men by the Presidents of the United States—and the speeches of the agents and commissioners—all concur to show that we are not mistaken in our interpretation. Some of our beloved men who signed the treaties are still living, and their testimony tends to the same conclusion." * * * * "In what light shall we view the conduct of the United States and Georgia in their intercourse with us, in urging us to enter into treaties and cede lands? If we were but tenants at will, why was it necessary that our consent must first be obtained before these governments could take lawful possession of our lands? The answer is obvious. These governments perfectly understand our rights—our right to the country, and our right to self-government. Our understanding of the treaties is further supported by the intercourse law of the United States, which prohibits all encroachment on our territory."

The arguments used by the Cherokees are unanswerable; but in what will that avail them, when injustice is intended by a superior power, which, regardless of national faith, has determined on taking possession of their lands? The case stands thus: the executive government enters into an agreement with Georgia, and engages to deliver over to the state the Indian possessions within her claimed limits—without the Indians having any knowledge of, or participation in the transaction. Now what, may I ask, have the Indians to do with this? Ought they to be made answerable for the gross misconduct of the two governments, and to be despoiled, contrary to every principle of justice, and in defiance of the most plain and fundamental law of property? It puts one in mind of the judgment of the renowned "Walter the Doubter," who decided between two citizens, that, as their account books appeared to be of equal weight, therefore their accounts were balanced, and that the constable should pay the costs. The United States government has made several offers to the Cherokees for their lands; which they have as constantly refused, and said, "that they were very well contented where they were—that they did not wish to leave the bones of their ancestors, and go beyond the Mississippi; but that, if the country be so beautiful as their white brother represents it, they would recommend their white brother to go there himself."

Georgia presses upon the executive; which, in this dilemma, comes forward with affected sympathy—deplores the unfortunate situation in which it is placed, but of course concludes that faith must be kept with Georgia, and that the Cherokee must either go, or submit to laws that make it far better for him to go than stay. It is true Jackson says in his message, "This emigration should be voluntary; for it would be cruel as unjust to compel the Aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land." But General Jackson well knows that the laws of Georgia leave the Indian no choice—as no community of men, civilized or savage, could possibly exist under such laws. The benefit and protection of the laws, to which the Indian is made subject, are entirely withheld from him—he can be no party to a suit—he may be robbed and murdered with impunity—his property may be taken, and he may be driven from his dwelling—in fine, he is left liable to every species of insult, outrage, cruelty, and dishonesty, without the most distant hope of obtaining redress; for in Georgia an Indian cannot be a witness to prove facts against a white man. Yet General Jackson says, "this emigration should be voluntary;" and in the very same paragraph, with a single sweep of the pen, he annihilates all the treaties that have been made with that people—tramples under foot the laws of nations, and deprives the Indian of his hunting-grounds, one of his sources of subsistence. He says,—"But it seems to me visionary to suppose that, in this state of things, claims can be allowed on tracts of country on which they have neither dwelt nor made improvements, merely because they have seen them from the mountain, or passed them in the chase." It certainly may be unphilosophical to permit any man to possess more ground than he can till with his own hands; yet surely arguments that we do not admit as regards ourselves, we can with no sense of propriety use towards others, particularly when our own acts are directly in the very teeth of this principle. There is more land at present within the limits and in the possession of the United States than would be sufficient to support thirty times the present population—yet to this must be added the hunting-grounds of the Indians, merely because "it is visionary to suppose they have any claim on what they do not actually occupy!"

I have now before me the particulars of thirteen treaties[^[15]] made by the United States with the Cherokee nation, from the year 1785 down to 1819 inclusive; in all of which the rights of the Indians are clearly acknowledged, either directly, or by implication; and by the seventh article of the treaty of Holston, executed in 1791, being the first concluded with that people by the United States, under their present constitution, all the lands not thereby ceded are solemnly guaranteed to the Cherokee nation. The subsequent treaties are made with reference to, and in confirmation of this, and continually reiterate the guarantees therein tendered.

To talk of justice, and honour, would be idle and visionary, for these seem to have been thrown overboard at the very commencement of the contest; but I would ask the American people, is their conduct towards the Indians politic?—is it politic in America, in the face of civilized nations, to violate treaties? is it politic in her, to hold herself up to the world as faithless and unjust—as a nation, which, in defiance of all moral obligation, will break her most sacred contracts, whenever it becomes no longer her interest to keep them, and she finds herself in a condition to do so with impunity? is she not furnishing foreign statesmen with a ready and powerful argument in defence of their violating treaties with her? can they not with justice say—America has manifested in her proceedings towards the Cherokee nation, that she is faithless—that she keeps no treaties longer than it may be her interest to do so—and are we to make ourselves the dupes of such a power, and wait until she finds herself in a condition to deceive us? I could produce many arguments to illustrate the impolicy of this conduct; but as I intend confining myself to a mere sketch, I shall dwell but as short a time as may be consistent on the several facts connected with the case.

That the Aborigines have been cruelly treated, cannot be doubted. The very words of the Message admit this; and the tone of feeling and conciliation which follows that admission, coupled as it is with the intended injustice expressed in other paragraphs, can be viewed in no other light than as a piece of political mockery. The Message says, "their present condition, contrasted with what they once were, makes a most powerful appeal to our sympathies. Our ancestors found them the uncontrolled possessors of these vast regions. By persuasion and force, they have been made to retire from river to river, and from mountain to mountain, until some of the tribes have become extinct, and others have left but remnants, to preserve for a while their once terrible names." Now the plan laid down by the president, in order to prevent, if possible, the total decay of the Indian people, is, to send them beyond the Mississippi, and guarantee to them the possession of ample territory west of that river. How far this is likely to answer the purpose expressed, let us now examine.

The Cherokees, by their intercourse with and proximity to the white people, have become half civilized; and how is it likely that their condition will be improved by driving them into the forests and barren prairies? That territory is at present the haunt of the Pawnees, the Osages, and other warlike nations, who live almost entirely by the chase, and are constantly waging war even with each other. As soon as the Cherokees, and other half-civilized Indians, appear, they will be regarded as common intruders, and be subject to the united attacks of these people. There are even old feuds existing among themselves, which, it is but too probable, may be renewed. Trappers and hunters, in large parties, yearly make incursions into the country beyond the boundaries of the United States, and in defiance of the Indians kill the beaver and the buffalo—the latter merely for the tongue and skin, leaving the carcase to rot upon the ground.[^[16]] Thus is this unfortunate race robbed of their means of subsistence. Moreover, what guarantee can the Indians have, that the United States will keep faith for the future, when it is admitted that they have not done so in times past? How can they be sure that they may not further be driven from river to river, and from mountain to mountain, until they reach the shores of the Pacific; and who can tell but that then it may be found expedient to drive them into the ocean?

The policy of the United States government is evidently to get the Indians to exterminate each other. Its whole proceedings from the time this question was first agitated to the present, but too clearly indicate this intention; and if we wanted proof, that the executive government of the United States would act on so barbarous and inhuman a policy, we need only refer to the allocation of the Cherokees, who exchanged lands in Tennessee for lands west of the Mississippi, pursuant to the treaty of 1819. It was well known that a deadly enmity existed between the Osages and Cherokees, and that any proximity of the two people, would inevitably lead to fatal results; yet, with this knowledge, the executive government placed those Cherokees in the country lying between the Arkansaw and Red rivers, immediately joining the territory of the Osages. It is unnecessary to state that the result was as anticipated—they daily committed outrages upon the persons and properties of each other, and the death of many warriors, on both sides, ensued.