THE REMOVAL OF THE SOUTHERN INDIANS
It was not by chance that the Jacksonian period made large contribution
to the working out of the ultimate relations of the red man with his
white rival and conqueror. Jackson was himself an old frontier soldier,
who never doubted that it was part of the natural order of things that
conflict between the two peoples should go on until the weaker was
dispossessed or exterminated. The era was one in which the West guided
public policy; and it was the West that was chiefly interested in
further circumscribing Indian lands, trade, and influence. In Jackson's
day, too, the people ruled; and it was the adventurous, pushing,
land-hungry common folk who decreed that the red man had lingered long
enough in the Middle West and must now move on.
The pressure of the white population upon the Indian lands was felt
both in the Northwest and in the Southwest; but the pressure was
unevenly applied in the two sections. North of the Ohio there was
simply one great glacier-like advance of the white settlers, driving
westward before it practically all of the natives who did not perish in
the successive attempts to roll back the wave of conquest upon the
Alleghanies. The redskins were pushed from Ohio into Indiana, from
Indiana into Illinois, from Illinois and Wisconsin into Iowa and
Minnesota; the few tribal fragments which by treaty arrangement
remained behind formed only insignificant "islands" in the midst of the
fast-growing flood of white population.
In the South the great streams of migration were those that flowed down
the Ohio, filling the back lands on each side, and thence down the
Mississippi to its mouth. Hence, instead of pressing the natives
steadily backward from a single direction, as in the North, the whites
hemmed them in on east, west, and north; while to the southward the
Gulf presented a relentless barrier. Powerful and populous tribes were
left high and dry in Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama--peoples who in
their day of necessity could hope to find new homes only by long
migrations past the settled river districts that lay upon their western
frontiers.
Of these encircled tribes, four were of chief importance: the Creeks,
the Cherokees, the Choctaws, and the Chickasaws. In 1825 the Creeks
numbered twenty thousand, and held between five and six million acres
of land in western Georgia and eastern Alabama. The Cherokees numbered
about nine thousand and had even greater areas, mainly in northwestern
Georgia, but to some extent also in northeastern Alabama and
southeastern Tennessee. The Choctaws, numbering twenty-one thousand,
and the Chickasaws, numbering thirty-six hundred, together held upwards
of sixteen million acres in Mississippi--approximately the northern
half of the State--and a million and a quarter acres in western
Alabama. The four peoples thus numbered fifty-three thousand souls, and
held ancestral lands aggregating over thirty-three million acres, or
nearly the combined area of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Furthermore, they were no longer savages. The Creeks were the lowest in
civilization; but even they had become more settled and less warlike
since their chastisement by Jackson in 1814. The Choctaws and
Chickasaws lived in frame houses, cultivated large stretches of land,
operated workshops and mills, maintained crude but orderly governments,
and were gradually accepting Christianity. Most advanced of all were
the Cherokees. As one writer has described them, they "had horses and
cattle, goats, sheep, and swine. They raised maize, cotton, tobacco,
wheat, oats, and potatoes, and traded with their products to New
Orleans. They had gardens, and apple and peach orchards. They had built
roads, and they kept inns for travelers. They manufactured cotton and
wool. . . . One of their number had invented an alphabet for their
language. They had a civil government, imitated from that of the United
States." Under these improved conditions all of the tribes were growing
in numbers and acquiring vested rights which it would be increasingly
difficult to deny or to disregard.
A good while before Jackson entered the White House the future of these
large, settled, and prosperous groups of red men began to trouble the
people of Georgia, Alabama, and other Southern States. The Indians made
but little use of the major part of their land; vast tracts lay
untrodden save by hunters. Naturally, as the white population grew and
the lands open for settlement became scarcer and poorer, the rich
tribal holdings were looked upon with covetous eyes. In the decade
following the War of 1812, when cotton cultivation was spreading
rapidly over the southern interior, the demand that they be thrown open
for occupation to white settlers became almost irresistible.
Three things, obviously, could happen. The tribes could be allowed to
retain permanently their great domains, while the white population
flowed in around them; or the lands could be opened to the whites under
terms looking to a peaceful intermingling of the two peoples; or the
tribes could be induced or compelled to move en masse to new homes
beyond the Mississippi. The third plan was the only one ever considered
by most people to be feasible, although it offered great difficulties
and was carried out only after many delays.
The State which felt the situation most keenly was Georgia, partly
because there an older and denser population pressed more eagerly for
new lands, partly--it must be admitted--because lands obtained by
cession were, under the practice of that State, distributed among the
people by lottery. The first move in this direction was to dispossess
the Creeks. As far back as 1802, when Georgia made her final cession of
western lands to United States, the latter agreed to extinguish the
Indian title to lands within the State whenever it could be done
"peaceably and on reasonable terms." This pledge the Georgians never
allowed the federal authorities to forget. After 1815 several large
tracts were liberated. But by that date the State wanted unbroken
jurisdiction over all of the territory within her limits, and her
complaints of laxness on the part of the Federal Government in bringing
this about became no less frequent than vigorous.
Near the close of his Administration President Monroe sent two
commissioners to procure a general cession; and at Indian Spring a
treaty was concluded in which the Creeks ceded practically all of their
lands between the Flint and the Chattahoochee rivers. The Senate
ratified the treaty, and the Georgians were elated. But investigation
showed that the Creeks who stood behind the agreement represented only
an insignificant fraction of the nation, and President Adams refused to
allow Troup, the irate Georgian Governor, to proceed with the intended
occupation until further negotiations should have taken place. Stormy
exchanges of views followed, in the course of which the Governor more
than once reminded Adams that Georgia was "sovereign on her own soil."
But in 1826 and 1827 treaties were obtained finally extinguishing Creek
titles in the State. Land west of the Mississippi was promised to all
Creeks who would go there.
The problem of the Cherokees was more difficult. By a series of
treaties beginning in 1785 the United States had recognized this people
as a nation, capable of making peace and war, of owning the lands
within its boundaries, and of governing and punishing its own citizens
by its own laws. At the close of Jefferson's second Administration the
tribe seriously considered moving west of the Mississippi, and shortly
after the War of 1812 most of the northern members resident in
Tennessee took the long-deferred step. The refusal of the Georgia
members to go with the Tenneseeans disappointed the land-hungry whites,
and from that time the authorities of the State labored incessantly
both to break down the notion that the Cherokees were a "nation" to be
dealt with through diplomatic channels, and to extend over them, in
effect, the full sovereignty of the State. In December, 1828, the
Legislature took the bold step of enacting that all white persons in
the Cherokee territory should be subject to the laws of Georgia; that
after June 1, 1830, all Indians resident in this territory should be
subject to such laws as might be prescribed for them by the State; and
that after this date all laws made by the Cherokee Government should be
null and void.
When Jackson became President he found on his desk a vigorous protest
against this drastic piece of legislation. But appeal to him was
useless. He was on record as believing, in common with most
southwesterners, that Georgia had a rightful jurisdiction over her
Indian lands; and his Secretary of War, Eaton, was instructed to say to
the Cherokee representatives that their people would be expected either
to yield to Georgia's authority or to remove beyond the Mississippi. In
his first annual message, on December 8, 1829, the President set forth
the principles that guided him from first to last in dealing with the
Indian problem. It would be greatly to the interest of the Indians
themselves, he said, to remove to the ample lands that would be set
apart for them permanently in the West, where each tribe could have its
own home and its own government, subject to no control by the United
States except for the maintenance of peace on the frontier and among
the tribes. Forcible removal was not to be contemplated; that would be
cruel and unjust. But every effort was to be made to bring about a
voluntary migration. One thing was to be clearly understood: any tribe
or group that chose to remain in Georgia must submit to the laws of the
State and yield its claim to all land which had not been improved. The
President was not indifferent to the well-being of the red men; but he
refused to recognize the Cherokees as a "nation" having "rights" as
against either Georgia or the United States. A few weeks after the
message was received Congress passed a bill creating an Indian
reservation beyond the Mississippi and appropriating five hundred
thousand dollars to aid in the removal of such Indians as should choose
to accept the offer of the Government.
The outlook for the Cherokees was now dark. Both the executive and
legislative branches of the Federal Government were committed to a
policy which offered only the alternatives of removal or subjection;
and, thus encouraged, the Georgia Legislature voted to proceed with the
extension of the full authority of the State over both the Cherokees
and the Creeks after June 1, 1830. To make matters worse, the discovery
of gold in the northeastern corner of the State in 1829 brought down
upon the Cherokee lands a horde of scrambling, lawless fortune seekers,
numbered already in 1830 by the thousand. None the less, the Cherokee
opposition stiffened. The Indian legislative council voted that all who
accepted lands beyond the Mississippi and settled on them should
forfeit their tribal membership, that those who sold their individual
property to emigrate should be flogged, and that those who voted to
sell a part or all of the tribal possessions should be put to death.
One resource remained to be exhausted in defense of the Indian claims;
this was the courts. But here again things went unfavorably. After many
delays a test case, Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia, was placed
upon the docket of the Supreme Court. The bill set forth the plaintiff
to be "the Cherokee Nation of Indians, a foreign State, not owning
allegiance to the United States, nor to any State of this union, nor to
any prince, potentate, or State other than their own," and it asked
that the Court declare null the Georgia Acts of 1828 and 1829 and
enjoin the Georgia officials from interfering with Cherokee lands,
mines, and other property, or with the persons of Cherokees on account
of anything done by them within the Cherokee territory. The Indians
were represented before the Court by two attorneys, one of them being
William Wirt; Georgia employed no counsel. The opinion of the Court as
announced at the January term, 1831, by Chief Justice Marshall was that
while the Cherokee nation was a State and had uniformly been dealt with
as such by the Federal Government since 1789, it was not a "foreign
State" within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore was not
entitled to sue in that character in the courts of the United States.
"If it be true," the decision concluded, "that wrongs have been
inflicted and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the
tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future. The motion
for an injunction is denied."
The case was thus thrown out of court. Yet the Cherokees were
recognized as a "domestic, dependent" nation, and there was nothing in
the decision to indicate that the extension of the laws of Georgia over
them was valid and constitutional. Indeed, in a second case that came
up shortly, Worcester vs. State of Georgia, the Court strongly backed
up the Indians' contention. Worcester was a Presbyterian missionary who
was imprisoned for violation of a Georgia statute forbidding white
persons to reside in the Cherokee territory without a license. The case
was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in the decision of March 10,
1832, Marshall affirmed the status of the Cherokees as a "nation"
within whose territory "the laws of Georgia can have no force, and
which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the
assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and
with the acts of Congress." The statute was accordingly declared to be
unconstitutional and Worcester was ordered to be discharged.
This ought to have been enough to protect the Cherokees in their
rights. But it was not, and for two reasons: the contempt of Georgia
for the Court's opinions, and the refusal of Jackson to restrain the
State in its headstrong course. Already the state authorities had
refused to take notice of a writ of error to the Supreme Court sued out
in December, 1830, in behalf of a condemned Cherokee, Corn Tassel, and
had permitted the execution of the unfortunate redskin. The state court
now refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of Worcester,
and the prisoner was held--precisely as if the law under which he was
convicted had been pronounced constitutional--until he was pardoned by
the Governor a year later.
This action on the part of the State was, of course, nothing less than
nullification. Yet Jackson did not lift a finger. "John Marshall has
made his decision," he is reported to have said; "now let him enforce
it." The South Carolinians were quick to seize upon the inconsistencies
of the situation. Nullification in their State was apparently one
thing; in Georgia, quite another. The very fact, however, that the
Georgians had successfully defied the federal Supreme Court did much to
encourage their neighbors in a course of similar boldness. Jackson's
leniency toward Georgia has never been wholly explained. He was
undoubtedly influenced by his sympathy with the purpose of the State to
establish its jurisdiction over all lands within its borders.
Furthermore he cherished an antipathy for Marshall which even led him
to refuse in 1835 to attend a memorial meeting in the great jurist's
honor. But these considerations do not wholly cover the case. All that
the historian can say is that the President chose to take notice of the
threats and acts of South Carolina and to ignore the threats and acts
of Georgia, without ever being troubled by the inconsistency of his
course. His political career affords many such illustrations of the
arbitrary and even erratic character of his mind.
Meanwhile the great Indian migration was setting in. Emulating the
example of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi extended their laws over
all of the Indian lands within their boundaries; and in all parts of
the South the red folk--some of them joyously, but most of them
sorrowfully--prepared to take up their long journey. In 1832 the Creeks
yielded to the United States all of their remaining lands east of the
Mississippi. By the spring of 1833 the Choctaws and Chickasaws had done
the same thing and were on their way westward. Only the Cherokees
remained, and in his message of December 3, 1833, Jackson reiterated
his earlier arguments for their removal. Realizing that further
resistance was useless, a portion of the tribe signified its readiness
to go. The remainder, however, held out, and it was only at the close
of 1835 that the long-desired treaty of cession could be secured. All
Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi were now relinquished to the
United States, which agreed to pay five million dollars for them, to
provide an adequate home in the new Indian Territory created by
Congress during the preceding year, and to bear all the costs of
removing the tribe thither.
It was not alone the South, however, that witnessed widespread
displacements of Indian populations in the Jacksonian period. How the
Black Hawk War of 1832 grew out of, and in turn led to, removals in the
remoter Northwest has been related in another volume in this series. π
And, in almost every western State, surviving Indian titles were
rapidly extinguished. Between 1829 and 1837 ninety-four Indian
treaties, most of them providing for transfers of territory, were
concluded; and before Jackson went out of office he was able to report
to Congress that, "with the exception of two small bands living in Ohio
and Indiana, not exceeding fifteen hundred persons, and of the
Cherokees, all of the tribes on the east side of the Mississippi, and
extending from Lake Michigan to Florida, have entered into engagements
which will lead to their transplantation." With little delay the
Cherokees, too, were added to this list, although a group of
irreconcilables resisted until 1838, when they were forcibly ejected by
a contingent of United States troops under General Winfield Scott.
π See The Old Northwest, by Frederic Austin Ogg (in The Chronicles of
America).
All of this was done not without strong protest from other people
besides the Indians. Some who objected did so for political effect.
When Clay and Calhoun, for example, thundered in the Senate against the
removal treaties, they were merely seeking to discredit the
Administration; both held views on Indian policy which were
substantially the same as Jackson's. But there was also objection on
humanitarian grounds; and the Society of Friends and other religious
bodies engaged in converting and educating the southern tribes used all
possible influence to defeat the plan of removal. On the whole,
however, the country approved what was being done. People felt that the
further presence of large, organized bodies of natives in the midst of
a rapidly growing white population, and of tribes setting themselves up
as quasi-independent nations within the bounds of the States, was an
anomaly that could not last; and they considered that, distressing as
were many features of the removals, both white man and red man would
ultimately be better off.