Among many men of note who denounced in most vigorous terms the policy
of the Administration toward the Cherokees were Daniel Webster and
Edward Everett, of Massachusetts; Theodore Frelinghuysen, of New
Jersey; Peleg Sprague, of Maine; Henry R. Storrs, of New York; Henry
A. Wise, of Virginia; and David Crockett, of Tennessee. The latter, in
a speech in the House of Representatives, denounced the treatment to
which the Indians had been subjected at the hands of the Government as
unjust, dishonest, cruel, and short-sighted in the extreme. He alluded
to the fact that he represented a district which bordered on the domain
of the southern tribes, and that his constituents were perhaps as
immediately interested in the removal of the Indians as those of any
other member of the House. His voice would perhaps not be seconded by
that of a single fellow member living within 500 miles of his home. He
had been threatened that if he did not support the policy of forcible
removal his public career would be summarily cut off. But while he was
perhaps as desirous of pleasing his constituents and of coinciding
with the wishes of his colleagues as any man in Congress, he could not
permit himself to do so at the expense of his honor and conscience in
the support of such a measure. He believed the American people could be
relied on to approve their Representatives for daring, in the face of
all opposition, to perform their conscientious duty, but if not, the
approval of his own conscience was dearer to him than all else.
Governor Lumpkin, immediately upon his appointment as commissioner, had
repaired to the Cherokee country, but Governor Carroll, owing to some
pending negotiations with the Choctaws and subsequently to ill health,
was unable to assume the duties assigned him. He was succeeded[433]
by John Kennedy. To this commission a third member was added in the
summer of 1837[434] in the person of Colonel Guild, who was found to
be ineligible, however, by reason of being a member of the Tennessee
legislature. His place was supplied by the appointment[435] of James W.
Gwin, of North Carolina.
On the 22d of December James Liddell was also appointed, _vice_
Governor Lumpkin resigned.[436]
Superintendent Currey having died, General Nathan Smith was
appointed[437] to succeed him as superintendent of emigration.
_Census of Cherokee Nation._--It appears from a statement about this
time,[438] made by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that from a
census of the Cherokees, taken in the year 1835, the number residing
in the States of Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee
was 16,542, exclusive of slaves and of whites intermarried with
Cherokees.[439]
In May, 1837,[440] General Wool was relieved from command at his own
request, and his successor, Col. William Lindsay, was instructed to
arrest John Ross and turn him over to the civil authorities in case he
did anything further calculated to excite a spirit of hostility among
the Cherokees on the subject of removal. This threat, however, seemed
to have little effect, for we find Mr. Ross presiding over a general
council, convened at his instigation, on the 31st of July, to attend
which the Government hastily dispatched Mr. John Mason, Jr., with
instructions to traverse and correct any misstatements of the position
of the United States authorities that might be set forth by Ross and
his followers. An extract from Mr. Mason's report has already been
given.
_Cherokee memorial in Congress._--Again, in the spring of 1838 Ross
laid before Congress a protest and memorial for the redress of
grievances, which, in the Senate, was laid upon the table[441] by a
vote of 36 to 10, and a memorial from citizens of New York involving an
inquiry into the validity of the treaty of 1835 shared a similar fate
in the House of Representatives two days later by a vote of 102 to 75.
_Speech of Henry A. Wise._--The discussion of these memorials in
Congress took a wide range and excited the warmest interest, not
only in that body, but throughout the country. The speeches were
characterized by a depth and bitterness of feeling such as had never
been exceeded even on the slavery question. Hon. Henry A. Wise, of
Virginia, who was then a member of the House of Representatives from
that State, was especially earnest in his denunciation of the treaty
of 1835 and of the administration that had concluded it. He looked
upon it as null and void. In order to make treaties binding the assent
of both parties must be obtained, and he would assert without fear of
contradiction that there was not one man in that House or out of it
who had read the proceedings in the case who would say that there had
ever been any assent given to that treaty by the Cherokee Nation. If
this were the proper time he could go further and show that Georgia
had done her part, too, in this oppression. He could show this by
proving the policy of that State in relation to the Indians and the
institutions of the General Government. That was the only State in the
Union that had ever actually nullified, and she now tells you that if
the United States should undertake to naturalize any portion of the
Indian tribes within her limits as citizens of the United States she
would do so again. He had not disparaged the surrounding people of
Georgia, far from it--"but" (said he) "there are proofs around us in
this city of the high advancement in civilization which characterizes
the Cherokees." He would tell the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Halsey)
that a statesman of his own State, who occupied a high and honorable
post in this Government, would not gain greatly by a comparison, either
in civilization or morals, with a Cherokee chief whom he could name. He
would fearlessly institute such a comparison between John Ross and John
Forsyth.[442]
_Speech of Daniel Webster._--Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, also took
occasion[443] to remark in the Senate that "there is a strong and
growing feeling in the country that great wrong has been done to the
Cherokees by the treaty of New Echota."
_President Van Buren proffers a compromise._--Public feeling became so
deeply stirred on the subject that, in the interests of a compromise,
President Van Buren, in May, 1838, formulated a proposition to allow
the Cherokees two years further time in which to remove, subject to the
approval of Congress and the executives of the States interested.
_Georgia hostile to the compromise._--To the communication addressed to
Governor Gilmer, of Georgia, on the subject, he responded:
* * * I can give it no sanction whatever. The proposal could
not be carried into effect but in violation of the rights of
this State. * * * It is necessary that I should know whether the
President intends by the instructions to General Scott to require
that the Indians shall be maintained in their occupancy by an armed
force in opposition to the rights of the owners of the soil. If
such be the intention, a direct collision between the authorities
of the State and the General Government must ensue. My duty will
require that I shall prevent any interference whatever by the
troops with the rights of the State and its citizens. I shall not
fail to perform it.
This called forth a hurried explanation from the Secretary of War
that the instructions to General Scott were not intended to bear the
construction placed upon them by the executive of Georgia, but, on the
contrary, it was the desire and the determination of the President to
secure the removal of the Cherokees at the earliest day practicable,
and he made no doubt it could be effected the present season.[444]