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]