NB:  The following speech is taken from the Debates and
Proceedings of Congress.  

Indian Removal Debate 1830; Theodore Frelinghuysen, Part 1

INDIAN REMOVAL DEBATE
Debates and Proceedings
21 Congress 1 Session
Volume 6, Part 1, Columns 309-20

[Senate, April 8, 1830]

The Senate resumed the bill to provide for an exchange of lands with the
Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their
removal west of the Mississippi.  

Mr.  Frelinghuysen moved to add to the bill the following: 

"Sec.  9.  That, until the said tribes or nations shall choose to remove,
as by this act is contemplated, they shall be protected in their present
possessions, and in the enjoyment of all their rights of territory and
government, as heretofore exercised and enjoyed, from all interruptions
and encroachments.  

"Sec.  10.  That, before any removal shall take place of any of the said
tribes or nations, and before any exchange or exchanges of land be made
as aforesaid, that the rights of any such tribes or nations, in the
premises, shall be stipulated for, secured, and guarantied, by treaty or
treaties, as heretofore made." 

Mr.  McKinley then renewed the amendment which he heretofore offered to
the 4th section, in the following words: 

"And upon the payment of such valuation, the improvements so valued and
paid for shall pass to the United States; and possession shall not
afterwards be permitted to any of the same tribe." 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen addressed the Senate about two hours, in continuation
of his speech heretofore commenced, when he gave way for adjournment.  

[Senate, April 9, 1830] 

The bill to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in
any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the river
Mississippi, was resumed, in Committee of the Whole, with the amendment
offered by Mr.  Frelinghuysen.  

Mr.  F.  addressed the Senate nearly two hours in continuation and 
conclusion of his speech on the subject.

=== (page 2) ======================

[His speech, as delivered on the three several days, was as follows:] 

I propose an amendment, Mr.  President, to this bill by the addition of
two sections in the forms of provisos.  The first of which brings up to
our consideration the nature of our public duties, in relation to the
Indian nations; and the second provides for the continuance of our future
negotiations, by the mode of treaties, as in our past intercourse with
them.  The following is the amendment: 

[See previous day's proceedings.] 

The first of these sections discloses the real object sought by this
bill, seemingly composed of harmless clauses.  It supposes that the
design of the system of which the present bill forms but a part, is
really to remove all the Indian tribes beyond the Mississippi, or, in
case of their refusal, to subject them to State sovereignty and
legislation.  The honorable Senator [Mr.  White] who yesterday addressed
the Senate, found it necessary so to consider it; and to anticipate and
endeavor to meet all such objections to this course of policy, as he
deemed worthy of a refutation.  

Sir, I prefer that this latent object should be put fully before us, that
we and the nation may look at it, and freely scrutinize it.  At an early
stage of the present administration, its views and opinions on the
interesting subject of our Indian relations were developed in language
not to be mistaken.  It is greatly to be regretted, sir, that our present
Chief Magistrate did not pursue the wise and prudent policy of his
exalted predecessor, President Washington, who, at a time of collision
and difficulty with these tribes, came before the Senate, and laid open
to them, in propositions for their approbation, the various important
subjects involved in our relations.  The annexed extract from the
Journals of the Senate illustrates the principles of Washington's
administration.  It follows: 

"Saturday, August 22, 1789.  

"The President of the United States came into the Senate, attended by
General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts,
with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent." 

=== (page 3) ======================

This was a most important document.  It developed all the collisions that
existed between the Indian tribes and the States; and referred to the
consideration of the Senate certain leading principles of policy which he
thought was wise to pursue.  These principles are embodied in seven
distinct interrogatories; the fourth of which submits to the Senate
"whether the United States shall solemnly guaranty to the Creeks their
remaining territory, and maintain the same, if necessary, by a line of
military posts." This question "was wholly answered in the affirmative"
by that body, and the blank (for an appropriation of necessary funds) was
ordered to be filled at the discretion of the President of the United
States.  Again, on the 11th of August, 1790, President Washington sent a
special message to the Senate by his Secretary, the subject matter of
which he introduces by the following suggestion: 

"Gentlemen of the Senate: 

"Although the treaty with the Creeks may be regarded as the main
foundation of the future peace and prosperity of the Southwestern
frontier of the United States, yet, in order fully to effect so desirable
an object, the treaties which have been entered into with the other
tribes in that quarter, must be faithfully performed on our part." 

He then proceeds to remind the Senate, that, by the treaty with the
Cherokees, in November, 1785 (the treaty of Hopewell) "the said Cherokees
placed themselves under the protection of the United States, and had a
boundary assigned them; "that the white people settled on the frontiers
had openly violated the said boundary by intruding on the Indian lands;
that the United States in Congress assembled, on the first day of
September, 1788, had, by their proclamation, forbidden all such
unwarrantable intrusions, enjoined the intruders to depart without loss
of time; but that there were still some refractory intruders remaining.
The President then distinctly announces his determination to exert the
powers entrusted to him by the constitution, in order to carry into
faithful execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless a new boundary should
be arranged with the Cherokees, embracing the intrusive settlement, and
compensating the Cherokees in the cessions they shall make on the
occasion.  

=== (page 4) ======================

And in view of the whole case, he requests the advice of the Senate,
whether overtures shall be made to the Cherokees to arrange such new
boundary, and concludes his communication with the following emphatical
question: "3d.  Shall the United States stipulate solemnly to guaranty
the new boundary which may be arranged?  

It produced as pointed a response: for the Senate 

"Resolved, In case a new or other boundary than that stipulated by the
treaty of Hopewell shall be concluded with the Cherokee Indians, that
the Senate do advise and consent solemnly to guaranty the same." A new
boundary was arranged by a second treaty; the solemn guarantee as given
to the Cherokees; and cogent, indeed, should be the causes that now lead
us to think or speak lightly of such sacred obligations.  

I lament, sir, that so bright and illustrious a precedent was not
regarded, and that the President had not yielded to the safe guidance of
such high example; and I deplore it the more because it was concerning
these very tribes, in the State of Georgia, that General Washington chose
to confer with his constitutional advisers.  

Instead of this just proceeding, the present administration have thought
proper, without the slightest consultation with either House of Congress;
without any opportunity for counsel or concert, discussion or
deliberation, on the part of these co-ordinate branches of the
Government, to despatch the whole subject in a tone and style of decisive
construction of our obligations and of Indian rights.  It would really
seem, sir, as if opinion was to be forestalled, and the door of inquiry
shut forever upon these grave questions so deeply implicating our
national faith and honor.  We must firmly protest against this Executive
disposition of these high interests.  No one branch of the Government can
rescind, modify, or explain away, our public treaties.  They are the
supreme law of the land, so declared to be by the constitution.  They
bind the President and all other departments, rulers and people.  And
when their provisions shall be controverted; when their breach of
fulfilment become subjects of investigation; here, sir, and in the other
Hall of our Legislation, are such momentous concerns to be debated and
considered.  

=== (page 5) ======================

That we may freely exercise these essential powers, and review the
proclaimed opinions of the Executive, I have submitted the first branch
of the amendment.  We possess the constitutional right to inquire
wherefore it was that, when some of these tribes appealed to the
Executive for protection, according to the terms of our treaties with
them, they received the answer that the Government of the United States
could not interpose to arrest or prevent the legislation of the States
over them.  Sir, it was a harsh measure, indeed, to faithful allies, that
had so long reposed in confidence on a nation's faith.  They had, in the
darkest hour of trial, turned to the aegis which the most solemn pledges
had provided for them, and were comforted by the conviction that it would
continue to shed upon them a pure and untarnished beam of light and hope.
Deep, indeed, must have been their despondency, when their political
father assured them that their confidence would be presumptuous, and
dissuaded them from all expectation of relief.  

The instructions that have proceeded from the War Department to the
agents of Indian affairs have excited just and strong jealousies of the
measures that are now recommended.  They have prompted this amendment, in
the hope that, by some public and decided expression of our
disapprobation, a train of political management with these tribes may be
arrested, and our country saved from the dishonor of buying over the
consent of corrupted chiefs to a traitorous surrender of their country.
I will read a part of these instruct ions; they are from the War
Department, to Generals Carroll and Coffee, of the date of 30th May,
1829: "The past (remarks the Secretary, in respect to Indian councils)
has demonstrated their utter aversion to this mode, whilst it has been
made equally clear, that another mode promises greater success.  In
regard to the first, (that by councils) the Indians have seen in the
past, that it has been by the result of councils that the extent of their
country has been from time to time diminished.  They all comprehend this.
Hence it is that those who are interested in keeping them where they are
alarm their fears, and, by previous cautioning, induce them to reject all
offers looking to this object.  

=== (page 6) ====================== 

There is no doubt, however, but the mass of the people would be glad to
emigrate; and there is as little doubt that they are kept from this
exercise of their choice by their chiefs and other interested and
influential men," &c.  Again: "Nothing is more certain than that, if the
chiefs and influential men could be brought into the measure, the rest
would implicitly follow.  It becomes, therefore, a matter of necessity,
if the General Government would benefit these people, that it move upon
them in the line of the own prejudices, and, by the adoption of any
proper means, break the power that is warring with their best interests.
The question is, how can this be best done?  Not, it is believed, for the
reasons suggested, by means of a general council.  There, they would be
awakened to all the intimations which those who are opposed to their
exchange of country might throw out; and the consequence would be -- what
it has been -- a firm refusal to acquiesce.  The best resort is believed
to be that which is embraced in an appeal to the chiefs and influential
men, not together, but apart, at their own houses, and, by a proper
exposition of their real condition, rouse them to think of that; whilst
offers to them of extensive reservations in fee simple, and other
rewards, would, it is hoped, result in obtaining their acquiescence." 

Let us analyze this singular state paper.  It does not relish the
congregation of Indian councils.  In these assemblies, they deliberate
and weigh the policy of measures; they calculate the results of proposed
improvements.  These councils embody the collected wisdom of the tribes.
Their influence is of the authority of law; the people look to them for
protection.  They know that in the multitude of counsellors there is
safety.  Hence nations, far in advance of the Indians, always meet in
council, when their great interests are to be promoted or defended.  But
these special agents are discouraged from hoping that the objects can be
obtained in this good old fashioned way.  The Indians are too wise to be
caught when the net is spread so fully in sight.  They are directed to
avoid all associations; and, with the public purse in hand, to take the
chiefs alone; to approach individually, and at home; "to meet them in the
way of their prejudices." I admire the ingenious clothing of a most
odious proposal.  

=== (page 7) ====================== 

A strong hint it suggested to try the effect of terror, and, by a proper
exposition of their real condition, rouse them to think upon that, and to
follow this up with "large offers to them of extensive reservations in
fee simple, and other rewards." The report made by one of these agents to
the War Department, dated September 2d, 1829, still further discloses the
nature of the exigencies to which the Indians are to be subjected, to
constrain their removal.  The agent observes, "The truth they (Cherokees)
rely with great confidence on a favorable report on the petition they
have before Congress.  If that is rejected, and the laws of the States
are enforced, you will have no difficulty in obtaining an exchange of
lands with them." It may be true, that if we withdraw our protection,
give them over to the high-handed, heart-breaking legislation of the
States, and drive them to despair, that when improper means fail to win
them, force and terror may compel them.  We shall have no difficulty, the
agent assures the War Department.  Sir, there will be one difficulty,
that should be deemed insurmountable.  Such a process will disgrace us in
the estimation of the whole civilized world!  It will degrade us in our
own eyes, and blot the page of our history with indelible dishonor!  

Now, sir, I have brought this measure before the Senate, and with intense
anxiety to hear the final disposition of it.  Where is the man that can,
in view of such policy, open the door, or afford the slightest facility
to the operation of influences that we should blush with honest shame,
could we, in an unguarded moment, consent to have employed with our equal
in the scale of civilization?  It is not intended, sir, to ascribe this
policy exclusively to the present administration.  Far from it.  The
truth is, we have long been gradually, and almost unconsciously,
declining into these devious ways, and we shall inflict lasting injury
upon our good name, unless we speedily abandon them.  

I now proceed to the discussion of those principles which, in my humble
judgment, fully and clearly sustain the claims of the Indians to all
their political and civil rights, as by them asserted.  And here, I
insist that, by immemorial possession, as the original tenants of the
soil, they hold a title beyond and superior to the British Crown and her
colonies, and to all adverse pretensions of our confederation and
subsequent Union.  

=== (page 8) ======================

God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent,
so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political
existence.  I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the
Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with
ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly
entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence.
And, with this conceded, I ask in what code of the law of nations, or by
what process of abstract deduction, their rights have been extinguished?  

Where is the decree or ordinance that has stripped these early and first
lords of the soil?  Sir, no record of such measure can be found.  And I
might triumphantly rest the hopes of these feeble fragments of once great
nations upon this impregnable foundation.  However mere human policy, or
the law of power, or the tyrantÕs plea of expediency, may have found it
convenient at any or in all times to recede from the unchangeable
principles of eternal justice, no argument can shake the political maxim,
that, where the Indian always has been, he enjoys an absolute right still
to be, in the free exercise of his own modes of thought, government, and
conduct.  

In the light of natural law, can a reason for a distinction exist in the
mode of enjoying that which is my own?  If I use it for hunting, may
another take it because he needs it for agriculture?  I am aware that
some writers have, by a system of artificial reasoning, endeavored to
justify, or rather excuse the encroachments made upon Indian territory;
and they denominate these abstractions the law of nations, and, in this
ready way, the question is despatched.  Sir, as we trace the sources of
this law, we find its authority to depend either upon the conventions or
common consent of nations.  And when, permit me to inquire, were the
Indian tribes ever consulted on the establishment of such a law?  Whoever
represented them or their interests in any Congress of nations, to confer
upon the public rules of intercourse, and the proper foundations of
dominion and property?  The plain matter of fact is, that all these
partial doctrines have resulted from the selfish plans and pursuits of
more enlightened nations; and it is not matter for any great wonder, that
they should so largely partake of a mercenary and exclusive spirit toward
the claims of the Indians.  

=== (page 9) ======================

It is, however, admitted, sir, that, when the increase of population and
the wants of mankind demand the cultivation of the earth, a duty is
thereby devolved upon the proprietors of large and uncultivated regions,
of devoting them to such useful purposes.  But such appropriations are to
be obtained by fair contract, and for reasonable compensation.  It is, in
such a case, the duty of the proprietor to sell: we may properly address
his reason to induce him; but we cannot rightfully compel the cession his
lands, or take them by violence, if his consent be withheld.  It is with
great satisfaction that I am enabled, upon the best authority, to affirm,
that this duty has been largely and generously met and fulfilled on the
part of the aboriginal proprietors of this continent.  Several years ago,
official reports to Congress stated the amount of Indian grants to the
United States to exceed two hundred and fourteen millions of acres.  Yes,
sir, we have acquired, and now own, more land as the fruits of their
bounty than we shall dispose of at the present rate to actual settlers in
two hundred years.  For, very recently, it has been ascertained, on this
floor, that our public sales average not more than about one million of
acres annually.  It greatly aggravates the wrong that is not meditated
against these tribes, to survey the rich and ample districts of their
territories, that either force or persuasion have incorporated into our
public domains.  As the tide of our population has rolled on, we have
added purchase to purchase.  The confiding Indian listened to our
professions of friendship: we called him brother, and he believed us.
Millions after millions he has yielded to our importunity, until we have
acquired more than can be cultivated in centuries--and yet we crave more.
We have crowded the tribes upon a few miserable acres on our Southern
frontier: it is all that is left to them of their once boundless forests:
and still, like the horse-leech, our insatiated cupidity cries, give!
give!  

=== (page 10) ======================

Before I proceed to deduce collateral confirmations of this original
title, from all our political intercourse and conventions with the Indian
tribes, I beg leave to pause a moment, and view the case as it lies
beyond the treaties made with them; and aside also from all conflicting
claims between the confederation, and the colonies, and the Congress of
the States.  Our ancestors found these people, far removed from the
commotions of Europe, exercising all the rights and enjoying the
privileges, of free and independent sovereigns of this new world.  They
were not a wild and lawless horde of banditti, but lived under the
restraints of government, patriarchal in its character, and energetic in
its influence.  They had chiefs, head men, and councils.  The white men,
the authors of all their wrongs approached them as friends -- they
extended the olive branch; and, being then a feeble colony and at the
mercy of the native tenants of the soil, by presents and professions,
propitiated their good will.  The Indian yielded a slow, but substantial
confidence; granted to the colonists an abiding place; and suffered them
to grow up to man's estate beside him.  He never raised the claim of
elder title: as the white man's wants increased, he opened the hand of
his bounty wider and wider.  By and by, conditions are changed.  His
people melt away, his lands are constantly coveted; millions after
millions are ceded.  The Indian bears it all meekly; he complains,
indeed, as well he may; but suffers on: and now he finds that this
neighbor, whom his kindness had nourished, has spread an adverse title
over the last remains of his patrimony, barely adequate to his wants, and
turns upon him, and says, "Away!  We cannot endure you so near us!  These
forests and rivers, these groves of your fathers, these firesides and
hunting grounds, are ours by the right of power, and the force of
numbers." Sir, let every treaty be blotted from our records, and in the
judgment of natural and unchangeable truth and justice, I ask, who is the
injured, and who is the aggressor?  Let conscience answer, and I fear not
the result.  Sir, let those who please, denounce the public feeling on
this subject as the morbid excitement of a false humanity, but I return
with the inquiry, whether I have not presented the case truly, with no
feature of it overcharged or distorted?  And, in view of it, who can help
feeling, sir?

=== (page 11) ======================

Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin?  Is it
one of the prerogatives of the white man, that he may disregard the
dictates of moral principles, when an Indian shall be concerned?  No,
sir.  In that severe and impartial scrutiny which futurity will cast over
this subject, the righteous award will be, that those very causes which
are now pleaded for the relaxed enforcement of the rules of equity, urged
upon us not only a rigid execution of the highest justice, to the very
letter, but claimed at our hands a generous and magnanimous policy.  

Standing here, then, on this unshaken basis, how is it possible that even
a shadow of claim to soil, or jurisdiction, can be derived, by forming a
collateral issue between the State of Georgia and the General Government?
Her complaint is made against the United States, for encroachments on her
sovereignty.  Sir, the Cherokees are no parties to this issue; they have
no part in this controversy.  They hold by better title than either
Georgia or the Union.  They have nothing to do with State sovereignty, or
United States, sovereignty.  They are above and beyond both.  True, sir,
they have made treaties with both, but not to acquire title or
jurisdiction; these they had before -- ages before the evil hour to them,
when their white brothers fled to them for an asylum.  They treated to
secure protection and guarantee for subsisting powers and privileges; and
so far as those conventions raise obligations, they are willing to meet,
and always have met, and faithfully performed them; and now expect from a
great people, the like fidelity to plighted covenants.  

I have thus endeavored to bring this question up to the control of first
principles.  I forget all that we have promised, and all that Georgia has
repeatedly conceded, and, by her conduct, confirmed.  Sir, in this
abstract presentation of the case, stripped of every collateral
circumstance -- and these only the more firmly established the Indian
claims -- thus regarded, if the contending parties were to exchange
positions; place the white man where the Indian stands; load him with all
these wrongs, and what path would his outraged feelings strike out for
his career?  Twenty shillings tax, I think it was, imposed upon the
immortal Hampden, roused into activity the slumbering fires of liberty
in the Old World, from which she dates a glorious epoch, whose healthful
influence, still cherishes the spirit of freedom.

=== (page 12) ======================

A few pence of duty on tea, that invaded no fireside, excited no fears,
disturbed no substantial interest whatever, awakened in the American
colonies a sprit of firm resistance; and how was the tea tax met, sir?
Just as it should be.  There was lurking beneath this trifling imposition
of duty, a covert assumption of authority, that led directly to
oppressive exactions.  "No taxation without representation, became our
motto.  We would neither pay the tax nor drink the tea.  Our fathers
buckled on their armor, and, from the water's edge, repelled the
encroachments of a misguided cabinet.  We successfully and triumphantly
contended for the very rights and privileges that our Indian neighbors
now implore us to protect and preserve to them.  Sir, this thought
invests the subject under debate with most singular and momentous
interest.  We, whom God has exalted to the very summit of prosperity --
whose brief career forms the brightest page in history; the wonder and
praise of the world; freedom's hope, and her consolation; about to turn
traitors to our principles and our fame -- about to become the oppressors
of the feeble, and to cast away our birthright!  Sir, I hope for better
things.  

It is a subject full of grateful satisfaction, that, in our public
intercourse with the Indians, ever since the first colonies of white men
found an abode on these Western shores, we have distinctly recognized
their title; treated with them as owners, and in all our acquisitions of
territory, applied ourselves to these ancient proprietors, by purchase
and cession alone, to obtain the right of soil.  Sir, [said Mr.  F.] I
challenge the record of any other or different pretension.  When, or
where, did any assembly or convention meet which proclaimed, or even
suggested to these tribes, that the right of discovery contained a
superior efficacy over all prior titles?  

And our recognition was not confined to the soil merely.  We regarded
them as nations -- far behind us indeed in civilization, but still we
respected their forms of government -- we conformed our conduct to their
notions of civil policy.

=== (page 13) ======================

We, were aware of the potency of any edict that sprang from the
deliberations of the council fire; and when we desired lands, or peace,
or alliances, to this source of power and energy, to this great lever of
Indian government we addressed our proposals -- to this alone did we
look; and from this alone did we expect aid or relief.  

I now proceed, very briefly, to trace our public history in these
important connexions.  As early as 1763, a proclamation was issued by the
King of 'Great Britain to his American colonies and dependencies, which,
in clear and decided terms, and in the spirit of honorable regard for
Indian privileges, declared the opinions of the Crown and the duties of
its subjects.  The preamble to that part of this document which concerns
Indian affairs, is couched in terms that cannot be misunderstood.  I give
a little extract: "And whereas it is just and reasonable and essential to
our interest and the security of our colonies, that the several nations
or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected, and who live under our
protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such
parts of our dominions and territories, as, not having been ceded to or
purchased by us, are reserved to them or any of them as their hunting
grounds,Ó therefore, the Governors of colonies are prohibited, upon any
pretence whatever, from granting any warrants of survey, or passing any
patents for lands, Òupon any lands whatever, which, not having been ceded
or purchased, were reserved to the said Indians;" and, by another
injunction in the same proclamation, "all persons whatever, who have
either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands, which,
not having been cede to, or purchased by the crown, were reserved to the
Indians as aforesaid, are strictly enjoined and required to remove
themselves from such settlements." 

This royal ordinance is an unqualified admission of every principle that
is now urged in favor of the liberties and rights of these tribes.  It
refers to them as nations that had put themselves under the protection of
the crown;" and adverting to the fact that their lands had not been ceded
or purchased, it freely and justly runs out the inevitable conclusion
that they are reserved to these nations as their property; and forbids
all surveys and patents, and warns off all intruders and trespassers.

=== (page 14) ======================

Sir, this contains the epitome of Indian history and title.  No king,
colony, State, or territory, ever made, or attempted to make, a grant or
title to the Indians, but universally and perpetually derived their
titles from them.  This one fact, that stands forth broadly on the page
of Indian history, which neither kings nor colonies--neither lords,
proprietors, nor diplomatic agents, have, on any single occasion,
disputed, is alone sufficient to demolish the whole system of political
pretensions, conjured up in modern times, to drive the poor Indian from
the last refuge of his hopes.  

The next important era in the order of time relates to the dispute of the
colonies with Great Britain.  The attention of the Congress on the eve of
that conflict was called to the situation of these tribes, and their
dispositions on that interesting subject.  Then, sir, we approached them
as independent nations, with the acknowledged power to form alliances
with or against us.  For, in June, 1775, our Congress resolved, ÒThat the
Committee for Indian Affairs do prepare proper talks to the several
tribes of Indians, for engaging the continuance of their friendship to
us, and neutrality in our present unhappy dispute with Great Britain.
Again, on the 12th July, 1775, a report of the committee was agreed with
the following clause at its head: "That the securing and preserving the
friendship of the Indian nations, appears to be a subject of the utmost
moment to these colonies.  And, sir, the journals of that eventful period
of our history are full of resolutions, all of which indicate the same
opinions of those illustrious statesmen, respecting the unquestioned
sovereignty of the Indians.  I forbear further details.  After the
Revolution, and in the eighth year of our independence, in the month of
September, A.D.  1783, the Congress again took up the subject of Indian
affairs, and resolved to hold a convention with the Indians residing in
the Middle and Northern States, who had taken up arms against us, for the
purposes of receiving them into the favor and protection of the United
States, and of establishing boundary lines of property, for separating
and dividing the settlements of the citizens, from the Indian villages
and hunting grounds, and thereby extinguishing, as far as possible, all 
occasion for future animosities, disquiet, and contention.

=== (page 15) ======================

If, at any point of our existence as a people, a disposition to encroach
upon the Indians, and to break down their separate and sovereign
character, could have been looked for, or at all excused, this was the
time; when we had just come out of a long, severe, and bloody conflict,
often prosecuted by our foes with unnatural barbarity, and to aggravate
which, these very tribes had devoted their savage and ferocious customs.
And yet, sir, what do we find?  Instead of the claims of conquest, the
rights of war, now so convenient to set up, the American Congress,
greatly, just, accord to these very Indian the character of foreign
nations, and invite them to take shelter under our favor and protection;
not only this, but adopt measures to ascertain and establish boundary
lines of property between our citizens and their villages and hunting
grounds.  

Under the confederation of the old Thirteen States, and shortly before
the adoption of the Constitution, on the 20th of November, 1785, a treaty
was made with the Cherokee nation, at Hopewell.  This treaty, according
to its title, was concluded between "Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America, of the one part, and the Headmen and Warriors
of all the Cherokees, of the other.Ó It gives "peace to all the
Cherokees," and receives them into the favor and protection of the United
States.  And, by the first article, the Cherokees agree to restore all
the prisoners, citizens of the United States, or subjects of their
allies, to their entire liberty.  Here, again, we discover the same
magnanimous policy of renouncing any pretended rights of a conqueror in
our negotiations with the allies of our enemy.  We invite them to peace;
we engage to become their protectors, and in the stipulation for the
liberation of prisoners, we trace again the broad line of distinction
between citizens of the United States and the Cherokee people.  

Who, after this, sir, can retain a single doubt as to the unquestioned
political sovereignty of these tribes?  It is very true, that they were
not absolutely independent.  As they had become comparatively feeble, and
as they were, in the mass, an uncivilized race, they chose to depend upon
us for protection; but this did not destroy or affect their sovereignty.  

=== (page 16) ====================== 

The rule of public law is clearly stated by Vattel -- "one community may
be bound to another by a very unequal alliance, and still be a sovereign
State.  Though a weak State, in order to provide for its safety, should
place itself under the protection of a more powerful one, yet, if it
reserves to itself the right of governing its own body, it ought to be
considered as an independent State.  If the right of self-government is
retained, the State preserves its political existence; and permit me to
ask, when did the Southern Indians relinquish this right?  Sir, they have
always exercised it, and were never disturbed in the enjoyment of until
the late legislation of Georgia and the States of Alabama and
Mississippi.  

The treaty next proceeds to establish territorial domains, and to forbid
all intrusions upon the Cherokee country, by any of our citizens, on the
pains of outlawry.  It provides, that, if any citizen of the United
States shall remain on the lands of the Indians for six months "after the
ratification of the treaty, such person shall forfeit the protection of
the United States, and the Indians may punish him, or not, as they
please.  What stronger attribute of sovereignty could have been conceded
to this tribe, than to have accorded to them the power of punishing our
citizens according to their own laws and modes; and, sir, what more
satisfactory proof can be furnished to the Senate, of the sincere and
inflexible purpose of our Government to maintain the rights of the Indian
nations, than the annexation of such sanctions as the forfeiture of
national protection, and the infliction of any punishment within the
range of savage discretion?  It is to be recollected, that this treaty
was made at a time when all admit the Cherokees to have been, with very
rare exception, in the rudest state of Pagan darkness.  

It is really a subject of wonder, [said Mr.  F.] that after these
repeated and solemn recognitions of right of soil, territory, and
jurisdiction, in these aboriginal nations, it should be gravely asserted
that they are mere occupants at our will; and, what is absolutely
marvellous that they are a part of the Georgia population -- a district
of her territory, and amenable to her laws, whenever she chooses to
extend them.  

=== (page 17) ====================== 

After the treaty of Hopewell was concluded and ratified, and in the year
1787, the States of North Carolina and Georgia transmitted their protests
to Congress, in which they complained of the course of transactions
adopted with respect to the Indians, and asserted a right in the States
to treat with these tribes, and to obtain grants of their lands.  The
Congress referred the whole matter to a committee of five, who made an
elaborate report that disclosed the principles upon which the intercourse
of the confederacy with these people was founded.  It is material to a
correct understanding of this branch of the subject, that we should
advert to a limitation, subsisting at that time, upon the powers of the
old Congress.  The limitation is contained in the following clause of the
articles of confederation: "Congress shall have the sole and exclusive
right of regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians
not members of any other States; provided that the legislative right of
any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated." 

Upon this clause and its proviso, the committee proceed to report: "In
framing this clause, the parties to the federal compact must have had
some definite objects in view; the objects that come into view
principally in forming treaties, or managing affairs with the Indians,
had been long understood, and pretty well ascertained in this country.
The committee conceive that it has been long the opinion of the country,
supported by justice and humanity, that the Indians have just claims to
all lands occupied by, and not fairly purchased from them.Ó "The laws of
the States can have no effect upon a tribe of Indians or their lands
within a State, so long as the tribe is independent and not a member of
the State.  It cannot be supposed that the State has the powers
mentioned," (those of making war and peace, purchasing lands from them
and fixing boundaries) "without absurdity in theory and practice.  For
the Indian tribes are justly considered the common friends or enemies of
the United States, and no particular State can have an exclusive interest
in the management of affairs with any of the tribes, except in uncommon
cases.  The Senate perceive estimate that was formed of these State
pretentions.  

=== (page 18) ======================

The Committee argue, with conclusive energy, that, to yield such powers
to particular States, would not only be absurd in theory, but would in
fact destroy the whole system of Indian relations -- that this divided,
alternate, cognizance of the matter, by the States and by the Congress,
could never be enforced, and would result in discordant and fruitless
regulations.  The grounds assumed in this able report are unanswerable.
The Committee regarded the subject as national, concerning the whole
United States, of whom the Indians were the common friends or foes.  

That such a concern was too general and public in all its bearings, to be
subjected to the legislation and management of any particular State.  The
Congress therefore, assume the entire jurisdiction and control of it.
And after this report, we hear no more of State protests.  They yielded
their claims to a much safer depository of this interesting trust.  Sir,
I take leave to say, that the sound, sensible principles of this report
have lost nothing of their authority by time, and that every year of our
history has confirmed their wisdom, and illustrated the justice and
humanity of the Congress of '87.  


Indian Removal Debate 1830; Theodore Frelinghuysen, Part 2

The Convention that formed and adopted the Constitution, in their
deliberations upon the security of Indian rights, wisely determined to
place our relations with the tribes under the absolute superintendence of
the General Government, which they were about to establish.  The proviso
under the old compact, that had, in ambiguous terms, reserved to
particular States an undefined management of Indian affairs, was
altogether discarded, and the simple, unqualified control of this
important branch of public policy, was delegated to Congress in the
following clause of the Constitution: "Congress shall have power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and
with the Indian tribes.Ó An incidental argument, in favor of my views,
cannot fail to strike the mind on the face of this clause.  The plea that
is now, for the first time, urged against the Indians, rests upon the
allegation, that the tribes are not distinct nations -- that they compose
a portion of the people of the States; and yet, in the great national
charter, this work of as much collected wisdom, virtue, and patriotism,
as ever adorned the annals, or shed light upon the government of any age
or country, the Indian tribes are associated with foreign nations and the
several States, as one of the three distinct departments of the human
family, with which the General Government was to regulate commerce.  

=== (page 19) ====================== 

Strange company, truly, in which to find those it now seems convenient to
denominate a few poor miserable savages, that were always the peculiar
subjects of State sovereignty, mere tenants at, ill of the soil, and with
whom it is "idle" to speak of negotiating treaties.  

There was another subject, closely connected with this that engaged the
anxious deliberations of the great statesmen who composed the memorable
convention -- and this was the treaty power.  To found this well, was a
concern worthy of their first and best thoughts.  The good faith of a
nation was not to be pledged but on grave and great occasions; for, when
plighted, it brought the nation itself into obligations, too sacred to be
argued away by the suggestions of policy or convenience, profit or loss.
They, therefore, subjected the exercise of this high function to two
great departments of the Government -- the President and the Senate of
the United States.  They required formalities to attend the exercise of
the power that were intended and calculated to guard the trust from rash
and inconsiderate administration.  But these requisites complied with,
and a treaty made and concluded, no retreat from its claims was provided
or desired by the convention.  No, sir.  To shut up every avenue of
escape -- to compel us to be faithful -- "treaties" are declared, by the
charter of our Government, "to be the supreme law of the land, any thing
in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
not-with-standing.  How could the inviolate character of a treaty be more
effectually preserved?  Let convulsions agitate the commonwealth -- let
the strifes of party shake the pillars of the political edifice -- around
the nation's faith barriers are raised, that may smile at the storm.
And, sir, if these guards fail, if these defences can be assailed and
broken down, then may we indeed despair.  Truth and honor have no citadel
on earth -- their sanctions are despised and forgotten; and the law of
the strongest prevails.  

=== (page 20) ====================== 

I fear that I shall oppress the patience of the Senate by these tedious
details; but the subject is deeply interesting, and each successive 
year of our political history brings me fresh and strong proofs of the
sacred estimation always accorded to Indian rights.  Sir, in the very
next year that followed the formation of the constitution, on the 1st day
of September, 1788, the encroachment of the whites upon the Indian
territory, as guarantied to them by the treaty of Hopewell, made with the
Cherokees, as we have already stated, in 1785, caused a proclamation to
be issued by Congress, of the date first mentioned, affirming in all
things the treaty of Hopewell, and distinctly announcing (I give the
literal clause) "the firm determination of Congress to protect the said
Cherokees in their rights, according to the true intent and meaning of
the said treaty.  And they further resolve, "that the Secretary of War be
directed to have a sufficient number of the troops in the service of the
United States in readiness, to march from the Ohio to the protection of
the Cherokees, whenever Congress shall direct the same." 

The next important event, in connexion with the Cherokees, is the treaty
of Holston, made with them on the 2 July, 1791.  This was the first
treaty negotiated with the Cherokees after the constitution.  And it is
only necessary to consider the import of its preamble, to become
satisfied of the constancy of our policy, in adhering to the first
principles of our Indian negotiations.  Sir, let is be remembered that
this was a crisis when the true spirit of the constitution would be best
understood; most of those who framed it came into the councils of the
country in 1788.  Let it be well pondered, that this treaty of Holston
was the public compact in which General Washington, as a preparative
solemnity, asked the advice of the Senate, and concerning which, he
inquired of that venerable body whether, in the treaty to be made, the
United States should solemnly guaranty the new boundary, to be
ascertained and fixed between them and the Cherokees.  

The preamble to this treaty I will now recite: 

"The parties being desirous of establishing permanent peace and
friendship between the United States and the said Cherokee nation, and
the citizens and members thereof, and to remove the causes of war, by
ascertaining their limits, and making other necessary, just, and friendly 
arrangements; the President of the United States, by William Blount,
Governor of the territory of the United States of America, South of the
river Ohio, and a superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern
District, who is vested with full powers for these purposes, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States; and the
Cherokee nation, by the undersigned chiefs and warriors, representing
the said nation, have agreed to the following articles," &c.  

=== (page 21) ====================== 

The first article stipulates that there shall be "perpetual peace and
friendship" between the parties; a subsequent article provides, that the
boundary between the United States and Cherokees "shall be ascertained
and marked plainly, by three persons appointed by the United States, and
three Cherokees on the part of their nation." 

In pursuance of the advice of the Senate, by the seventh article of this
treaty, "The United States solemnly guaranty to the Cherokee nation all
their lands not hereby ceded." 

And after several material clauses, the concluding article suspends the
effect and obligation of the treaty upon its ratification "by the
President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate
of the United States." 

Now, sir, it is a most striking part of this history, that every possible
incident, of form, deliberation, advisement, and power, tended this
compact.  The Senate was consulted when our plenipotentiary was
commissioned; full powers were then given to our commissioner; the
articles were agreed upon; the treaty referred to the Executive and
Senate for their ratification, and, with all its provisions, by them
solemnly confirmed.  

It requires a fullness of self-respect and self-confidence, the lot of a
rare few, after time has added its sanctions to this high pledge of
national honor, to attempt to convict the illustrious men of that Senate
of gross ignorance of constitutional power; to charge against them that
they strangely mistook the charter under which they acted; and violated
almost the properties of language, as some gentlemen contend, by
dignifying with the name and formalities of a treaty "mere bargains to
get Indian lands."

=== (page 22) ====================== 

Sir, who so well understood the nature and extent of the powers granted
in the constitution, as the statesmen who aided by their personal
counsels to establish it?  

Every administration of this Government, from President Washington's,
have, with like solemnities and stipulations, held treaties with the
Cherokees; treaties, too, by almost all of which we obtained further
acquisitions of their territory.  Yes, sir, whenever we approached them
in the language of friendship and kindness, we touched the chord that won
their confidence; and now, when they have nothing left with which to
satisfy our cravings, we propose to annul every treaty -- to gainsay our
word -- and, by violence and perfidy, drive the Indian from his home.  In
a subsequent treaty between the United States and the Cherokee nation,
concluded on the 8th July, 1817, express reference is made to past
negotiations between the parties, on the subject of removal to the west
of the Mississippi; the same question that now agitates the country, and
engages our deliberations.  And this convention is deserving of
particular notice, inasmuch as we shall learn from it, not only what
sentiments were then entertained by our Government towards the Cherokees,
but, also, in what light the different dispositions of the Indians to
emigrate to the West, and to remain on their adjacent patrimony, were
considered.  This treaty recites that application had been made to the
United States, at a previous period, by a deputation of the Cherokees,
(on the 9th of January, 1809) by which they apprized the Government of
the wish of a part of their nation to remove west of the Mississippi, and
of the residue to abide in their old habitations.  That the President of
the United States, after maturely considering the subject, answered the
petitions as follows: "The United States, my children, are the friend of
both parties, and, as far as can be reasonably asked, they are willing to
satisfy the wishes of both.  Those who remain may be assured of our
patronage, our aid, and our good neighborhood." "To those who remove,
every aid shall be administered, and when established at their new
settlements, we shall consider them as our children, and always hold them
firmly by the hand." The convention then establishes new boundaries and
pledges our faith to respect and defend the Indian territories.

=== (page 23) ====================== 

Some matters, by universal consent, are taken as granted, without any
explicit recognition.  Under the influence of this rule of common
fairness, how can we ever dispute the sovereign right of the Cherokees to
remain east of the Mississippi, when it was in relation to that very
location that we promised our patronage, aid, and good neighborhood?
Sir, is this high-handed encroachment of Georgia to be the commentary
upon the national pledge here given, and the obvious import of these
terms?  How were these people to remain, if not as they then existed, and
as we then acknowledged them to be, a distinct and separate community,
governed by their own peculiar laws and customs?  We can never deny these
principles, while fair dealing retains any hold of our conduct.  Further,
sir, it appears from this treaty, that the Indians who preferred to
remain east of the river, expressed "to the President an anxious desire
to engage in the pursuits of agriculture and civilized life in the
country they then occupied," and we engaged to encourage those laudable
purposes.  Indeed, such pursuits had been recommended to the tribes, and
patronized by the United States, for many years before this convention.
Mr.  Jefferson, in his message to the Congress as early as 1805, and when
on the subject of our Indian relations, with his usual enlarged views of
public policy, observes: "The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries,
I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires.  Endowed
with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of
liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left them no
desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from
other regions directed itself on these shores.  Without power to divert
or habits to contend against it, they have been overwhelmed by the
current, or driven before it.  Now, reduced within limits too narrow for
the hunter state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the
domestic arts; to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable
them to maintain their place in existence; and to prepare them in time
for that society which, to bodily comforts, adds the improvement of the
mind and morals.  We have, therefore, liberally furnished them with the
implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them
instructors in the arts of first necessity; and they are covered with 
the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves." 

=== (page 24) ====================== 

These, sir, are sentiments worthy of an illustrious stateman.  None can
fail to perceive the spirit of justice and humanity which Mr.  Jefferson
cherished towards our Indian allies.  He was, through his whole life, the
firm unshrinking advocate of their rights, a patron of all their plans
for moral improvement and elevation.  

It will not be necessary [said Mr.  F.] to pursue the details of our
treaty negotiations further.  I beg leave to state, before I leave them,
however, that with all the southwestern tribes of Indians we have similar
treaties, not only the Cherokees, but the Creeks, Choctaws, and
Chickasaws, in the neighborhood of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and
Mississippi, hold our faith, repeatedly pledged to them, that we would
respect their boundaries, repel aggressions, and protect and nourish them
as our neighbors and friends; and to all these public and sacred compacts
Georgia was a constant party.  They were required, by an article never
omitted, to be submitted to the Senate of the United States for their
advice and consent.  They were so submitted; and Georgia, by her able
Representatives in the Senate, united in the ratification of these same
treaties, without, in any single instance, raising an exception, or
interposing a constitutional difficulty or scruple.  

Other branches of our political history shed abundant light upon this
momentous question.  When the Congress of the United States directed
their cares to the future settlement and government of the vast and noble
domains to the northwest of the river Ohio, ceded by the State of
Virginia, among other matters which they deemed to be vitally connected
with the welfare of that region, was the condition and preservation of
the Indian nations.  The third article of their celebrated ordinance, for
the government of the Northwestern Territory, is in the following words:
"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government
and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.

=== (page 25) ====================== 

The utmost good faith shall always be observed wards the Indians; their
lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent;
and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded
or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars, authorized by Congress; but
laws rounded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made,
for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and
friendship with them." Sir, the more minutely we look into the
proceedings of the Congress of 1787, the more deeply shall we venerate
the wisdom and virtue, the largeness of views, and the political
forecast, that blessed and illustrated the councils of our country.
This solitary article would forever stand out, and alone sustain their
reputations.  We shall presently learn what concern was manifested by
the State of Georgia, to spread the whole influence and control of this
article over the cession which she made to the Union, of the territory
now composing the states of Alabama and Mississippi.  

How can Georgia, after all this, desire or attempt, and how can we
quietly permit her, "to invade and disturb the property, rights, and
liberty of the Indians?  And this, not only not "in just and lawful wars
authorized by Congress," but in the time of profound peace, while the
Cherokee lives in tranquil prosperity by her side.  I press on the
inquiry- -How can we tamely suffer these States to make laws, not only
not "rounded in justice and humanity," "for preventing wrongs being done
to the Indians," but for the avowed purpose of inflicting the gross and
wanton injustice of breaking up their Government--of abrogating their
long cherished customs, and of annihilating their existence as a distinct
people?  

The Congress of the United States, in 1799, in an act to regulate trade
and intercourse with the Indian tribes; and again, by a similar act in
1802, still in force, distinctly recognized every material stipulation
contained in the numerous treaties with the Indians.  In fact, sir, these
acts of legislation were passed expressly to effectuate our treaty
stipulations.  

These statutes refer to "the boundaries, as established by treaties,
between the United States and the various Indian tribes;" they next
direct such "lines to be clearly ascertained, and distinctly marked,"
prohibit any citizen of the United States from crossing these lines, to
hunt or settle, and authorize the employment of the public and military
force of the Government, to prevent intrusion, and to expel trespassers
upon Indian lands.  

=== (page 26) ====================== 

The twelfth section of this important law most wisely guards the great
object of Indian title from all public and private imposition, by
enacting "that no purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands,
or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian or nation, or tribe of
Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be of any validity
in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention,
entered into pursuant to the constitution.  

I trust, sir, that this brief exposition of our policy, in relation to
Indian affairs, establishes, beyond all controversy, the obligation of
the United States to protect these tribes in the exercise and enjoyment
of their civil and political rights.  Sir, the question has ceased to be
-- What are our duties?  An inquiry much more embarrassing is forced upon
us: How shall we most plausibly, and with the least possible violence,
break our faith?  Sir, we repel the inquiry -- we reject such an issue --
and point the guardians of public honor to the broad, plain faith of
faithful performance, and to which they are equally urged by duty and by
interest.  

Here I might properly rest, as the United States are the only party that
the Indians are bound to regard.  But, if farther proofs be wanting to
convince us of the unwarrantable pretentions of Georgia, in her late
violent legislation, they are at hand, cogent, clear, and overwhelming.
This State, sir, was not only a party to all these conventions with the
General Government; she made as solemn treaties with the Creeks and
Cherokees for herself, when a colony, and after she became a State.
These form a part of her title, and are bound up with her public laws.
On the 1st of June, 1773, she negotiated a treaty with these Indian
nations, by the joint agency of the Governor of the colony and the
superintendent of Indian affairs; in which boundaries are established and
cessions of land agreed upon.  Again, on the 31st May, 1783, after her
independence as a State, another treaty was concluded between the
Governor of Georgia and five of her most distinguished citizens duly
appointed by the Legislature of the State of the one part, and the
Chiefs, Headmen, and Warriors of the hordes or tribes of the 
Cherokee Indians, "in behalf of the said nation, on the other part."

=== (page 27) ====================== 

And in the first article of this convention, the distinct, independent
existence of the Cherokees is acknowledged: for it provides, "that all
differences between the said parties, heretofore subsisting, shall cease
and be forgotten." Is it not utterly fallacious to contend, in the fact
of this treaty that the Cherokees are under the jurisdiction of a State,
that finds it necessary to negotiate for peace with them by all the forms
of a regular treaty?  But more than this; by the last article of this
treaty, the Cherokees agree to cede, grant, release, and quit claim to
Georgia, all the lands up to a certain boundary line defined in the said
document: and until since the extraordinary usurpation of this State, in
extending her laws over this nation, these treaty lines were respected,
and never disputed.  

In the year 1777, the States of Georgia and South Carolina met the Creek
and Cherokee nations at Dewitt's corner, for the avowed purpose of making
a treaty of peace with them.  Sir, if the greatest potentate of Europe
had been a party, the preliminaries could not have been more formal or
solemn.  First, are produced what are denominated "The Georgia full
powers" delegated to her commissioners, to meet "the Indian Congress" to
be held at Dewitt's corner -- next appear "the South Carolina full powers,"
for the like purpose -- and lastly, the Creek and Cherokee "full powers."
These powers are opened and exchanged at this Congress, and a treaty is
agreed upon by the plenipotentiaries, establishing peace, and the future
boundaries between their respective territories.  

In many of the treaties made by the United States with the Cherokees and
Creeks, large sections of land were relinquished to us, which, by our
compact with the State of Georgia we received for her use.  She never
questioned, at those times, our right to treat for those lands, nor the
Indian's right of granting them; but gladly availed herself of such rich
accessions to her domains, and proceeded very promptly to distribute them
amongst her citizens.  Now, it is a fundamental maxim in all codes of law
which acknowledge the obligations of equity and good conscience, that if
a party is silent when these old fashioned rules of upright dealing 
require him to speak, he shall forever thereafter hold his peace.  The
application of this sound and wholesome rule will instantly strike the
moral apprehensions of every member of the Senate.  

=== (page 28) ====================== 

I am indebted to the State of Georgia for a clear and very satisfactory
exposition of the nature of Indian treaties, and the obligations that
arise from them.  It is an authority for positions, which I have had the
honor to maintain, of the greater weight, as it proceeds from the highest
functionary of her Government.  In February, 1825, the Creeks, by a
treaty made with the United States, ceded all their lands to us within
the geographical limits of Georgia, for the use of that State.  By an
article in the treaty, it was provided that the United States should
protect the Indians against the encroachments, hostilities, and
impositions of the whites, &c.  until the removal of the Indians should
have been accomplished according to the terms of the Treaty.  The
Governor of Georgia, on the 22d day of March, of the same year, issued
his proclamations as "Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the army and
navy of the said State, and of the militia thereof," in which, after
stating the conclusion of the treaty already mentioned, and the article
in it for the protection of the Creeks, the Governor proceeds: "I have,
therefore, thought proper to issue this, my proclamation, warning all
persons, citizens of Georgia, or others, against trespassing or intruding
upon lands occupied by the Indians within the limits of this State,
either for the purpose of settlement or otherwise, as every such act will
be in direct violation of the provisions of the treaty aforesaid, and
will expose the aggressors to the most certain and summary punishment by
the authorities of the State, and of the United States.  All good
citizens, therefore, pursuing the dictates of good faith, will unite in
enforcing the obligations of the treaty as the supreme law," &c.  

The Senate will perceive that this Executive injunction founds it
requirements, explicitly, upon the faith and authority of the treaty, as
the supreme law; and this a treaty made with Indians.  Yes, sir, a treaty
with a part of the very Indians now asserted by Georgia to be below the
reach of treaties -- poor objects!  with whom it is declared to be
ridiculous and idle to speak of treating!  

=== (page 29) ====================== 

Sir, she cannot recall her proclamation.  Give these sacred doctrines
their full operation here; let their influence prevail in the eventful
issue now opened for our decision; and the Indians, who are involved in
it, will be satisfied.  They have approached us with no other plea; they
urge no other or higher considerations.  They point us to the faith of
treaties, and implore us by the constitutional obligation of these
national compacts, to raise around our ancient allies the effective
defences which we have so often promised to maintain.  Carry out these
rules of public duty, and the Cherokee delegation, who have been waiting
at your doors with anxious interest, will return to their home relieved
from the burthen that now sinks their spirits, and with the grateful
conviction that the successors of Washington are still true to his
memory.  

What could have wrought [said Mr.  F.] this entire revolution in
opinions, and in three short years?  Our relations with the Indians have
not changed.  Condition and circumstance, claim and obligation, remain
precisely the same.  And yet, now we hear that these Indians have been
for all the time, since Georgia had existence, a component part of her
population; within the full scope of her jurisdiction and sovereignty,
and subject to the control of her law!  

The people of this country will never acquiesce in such violent
constructions.  They will read for themselves; and when they shall learn
the history of all our intercourse with these nations.; when they shall
perceive the guaranties so often renewed to them, and under what solemn
sanctions, the American community will not seek the aid of artificial
speculations on the requisite formalities to a technical treaty.  No,
sir.  I repeat it: They will judge for themselves, and proclaim, in
language that the remotest limit of this republic will understand --
"call these sacred pledges of a nation's faith by what name you please,
our word has been given, and we should live and die by our word." 

If the State of Georgia is concluded, and morally bound to stay her hand
from invading the lands or the government of the Indians, the States of
Mississippi and Alabama are equally and more strongly obliged.

=== (page 30) ====================== 

They came into the Union after most of the treaties had been made.  The
former in 1816, and the latter in 1819.  These obligations were liens
upon the confederacy, and they must take the benefits with the burthens
of the Union.  They cannot complain of concealment or surprise.  These
conventions were all public and notorious; and the Indians under their
daily view, in actual separate possession, exercising the rights of
sovereignty and property.  

Moreover, we have heard much of constitutional powers and disabilities in
this debate.  Sir, I proceed to demonstrate that both Mississippi and
Alabama are, by a fundamental inhibition in the constitution of their
Government, prevented from extending their laws over the Indians.  When
Georgia, in 1802, granted to the United States the territory that
composes the greater part of these two States, she made it an express
condition of the cession, that the States to be formed of it should
conform to all the articles of "the ordinance for the government of the
territory northwest of the Ohio," excepting one single article
prohibiting involuntary servitude.  When these States applied to the
General Government to be formed into territories, this eventful condition
of the Georgia cession was remembered by all parties.  Mississippi and
Alabama, in the most deliberate manner, agreed to the condition, and
assumed the articles of the ordinance as an integral part of their
political condition.  When they afterwards proposed to us to be received
into the Federal Union, acts of Congress were duly passed, authorizing
them respectively to form a constitution and State Government for the
people within their territories, with this proviso-- "That the same, when
formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the principles of the
13th July, A.D.  1787," for the territory northwest of the Ohio, and they
were afterwards, upon duly certifying to Congress that they had conformed
to those principles and engrafted them into their constitution, admitted
into the republic.  The third article of this ordinance I have already
read and considered, and will only add, that human wisdom and skill could
not have devised a more effectual safeguard to the Indian tribes, than
are now incorporated into the laws and constitutions of the States of
Mississippi and Alabama.

=== (page 31) ====================== 

It would have been well in these States to have reviewed their own
origin, to have examined the sources of their power, before they, rashly,
and in disregard of principles that are essential to their political
existence, usurped dominion over a community of men as perfectly
independent of them as they are of Mexico.  And shall we, sir, quietly
submit to the breach of conditions that we tendered as the indispensable
terms of their admission, that were fairly propounded, and freely and
fully accepted?  Why, sir, it appears to me that the fulfilment of solemn
contracts, the faith of the public treaties, the fundamental provisions
of State constitutions, are to be regarded as matters of very trifling
obligation, when they are all to be broken through to reach a feeble and
unoffending ally.  With a man of truth and honesty, such high
considerations as address us would supersede the occasion for argument;
and how can we evade them without deep dishonor!  

I have complained of the legislation of Georgia.  I will now refer the
Senate to the law of that State, passed on the 19th of December, 1829,
that the complaint may be justified.  The title of the law would suffice
for such purpose without looking further into its sections.  After
stating its object of adding the territory in the occupance of the
Cherokee nation of Indians to the adjacent counties of Georgia, another
distinct office of this oppresive edict of arbitrary power is avowed to
be, "to annul all laws and ordinances made by the Cherokee nation of
Indians." And, sir, the act does annul them effectually.  For the seventh
section enacts, "that after the first day of June next, all laws,
ordinances, orders, and regulations of any kind whatever, made, passed,
or enacted by the Cherokee Indians, either in general council, or in any
other way whatever, or by any authority whatever, of said tribe, be, and
the same are hereby declared to be, null and void and of no effect, as if
the same had never existed." Sir, here we find a whole people
outlawed -- laws, customs, rules, government, all, by one short clause,
abrogated and declared to be void as if they never had been.  History
furnishes no example of such high handed usurpation -- the dismemberment
and partition of Poland was a deed of humane legislation compared with
this. 

=== (page 32) ====================== 

The succeeding clauses are no less offensive; they provide that "if any
person shall prevent by threats, menaces, or other means, or endeavor to
prevent any Indian of said nation from emigrating, or enrolling as an
emigrant, he shall be liable to indictment and confinement in the common
goal, or at hard labor in the penitentiary, not exceeding four years, at
the discretion of the Court; and if any person shall deter or offer to
deter, any Indian, head man, chief, or warrior of said nation, from
selling, or ceding to the United States, for the use of Georgia, the
whole or any part of said territory, or prevent, or offer to prevent, any
such persons from meeting in council or treaty any commissioner or
commissioners on the part of the United States, for any purpose whatever,
he shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and liable, on conviction, to
confinement at hard labor in the penitentiary, for not less than four,
nor longer than six years, at the discretion of the Court." It is a crime
in Georgia for a man to prevent the sale of his country, a crime to warn
a chief or head man that the agents of the United States are instructed
"to move upon him in the line of his prejudices," that they are coming to
bribe him to meet in treaty with the commissioner.  By the way, sir, it
seems these treaties are very lawful, when made for the use of Georgia.  

It is not surprising that our agents advertised the War Department, that
if the General Government refused to interfere, and the Indians were left
to the law of the States, they would soon exchange their lands and
remove.  To compel, by harsh and cruel penalties, such exchange, is the
broad purpose of this act of Georgia, and nothing is wanting to fill up
the picture of this disgraceful system, but to permit the bill before us
to pass without amendment or proviso.  Then it will all seem fair on our
statute books.  It legislates for none but those who may choose to
remove, while we know that grinding, heart-breaking exactions are set in
operation elsewhere, to drive them to such a choice.  By the modification
I have submitted, I beg for the Indian the poor privilege of the exercise
of his own will.  But the law of Georgia is not yet satisfied.  The last
section declares, "that no Indian, or descendant of any Indian, residing
within the Creek or Cherokee nations of Indians, shall be deemed a
competent witness in any Court of this State, to which a white person may
be; a party, except such white person resides within the said nation."

=== (page 33) ====================== 

It did not suffice to rob these people of the last vestige of their own
political rights and liberties; the work was not complete until they were
shut out of the protection of Georgia laws.  For, sir, after the first
day of June next, a gang of lawless white men may break into the Cherokee
country, plunder their habitation, murder the mother with the children,
and all in the sight of the wretched husband and father, and no law of
Georgia will reach the atrocity.  It is vain to tell us, sir, that murder
may be traced by circumstantial probabilities.  The charge against this
State is, you have, by force and violence, stripped these people of the
protection of their government, and now refuse to cast over them the
shield of your own.  The outrage of the deed is, that you leave the poor
Indian helpless and defenceless, and in this cruel way hope to banish him
from his home.  Sir, if this law be enforced, I do religiously believe
that it will awaken tones of feeling that will go up to God, and call
down the thunders of his wrath.  

The end, however, is to justify the means.  "The removal of the Indian
tribes to the west of the Mississippi is demanded by the dictates of
humanity." This is a word of conciliating import.  But it often makes its
way to the heart under very doubtful titles, and its present claims
deserve to be rigidly questioned.  Who urges this pleat They who covet
the Indian lands -- who wish to rid themselves of a neighbor that they
despise, and whose State pride is enlisted in rounding off their
territories.  But another matter is worthy of a serious thought.  Is
there such a clause in our covenants with the Indian, that when we shall
deem it best for him, on the whole, we may break our engagements and
leave him to his persecutors?  Notwithstanding our adversaries are not
entitled to the use of such humane suggestions, yet we do not shrink from
an investigation of this pretence.  It will be found as void of support
in fact as the other assumptions are of principle.  

It is alleged that the Indians cannot flourish in the neighborhood of a
white population, that whole tribes have disappeared under the influence
of this propinquity.  As an abstract proposition, it implies reproach
somewhere.

=== (page 34) ====================== 

Our virtues certainly have not such deadly and depopulating power.  It
must, then, be our vices that possess these destructive energies -- and
shall we commit injustice, and put in, as our plea for it, that our
intercourse with the Indians has been so demoralizing that we must drive
them from it to save them?  True, sir, many tribes have melted away; they
have sunk lower and lower, and what people could rise from a condition to
which policy, selfishness, and cupidity conspired to depress them.  

Sir, had we devoted the same care to elevate their moral condition that
we have to degrade them, the removal of the Indian would not now seek for
an apology in the suggestions of humanity.  But I waive this, and, as to
the matter of fact, how stands the account?  Wherever a fair experiment
has been made, the Indians have readily yielded to the influence of moral
cultivation.  Yes, sir, they flourish under this culture, and rise in the
scale of being.  They have shown themselves to be highly susceptible of
improvement, and the ferocious feelings and habits of the savage are
soothed and reformed by the mild charities of religion.  They can very
soon be taught to understand and appreciate the blessings of civilization
and regular government.  And I have the opinions of some of our most
enlightened statesmen to sustain me.  Mr.  Jefferson, nearly thirty years
ago, congratulates his fellow citizens upon the hopeful indications
furnished by the laudable efforts of the Government to meliorate the
condition of those he was pleased to denominate "our Indian neighbors."
In his message to Congress, on the 8th of December, 1801, he states,
"among our Indian neighbors, also, a spirit of peace and friendship
generally prevails; and I am happy to inform you that the continued
efforts to introduce among them the implements and practice of husbandry,
and of the household arts, have not been without success.  That they are
becoming more and more sensible of the superiority of this dependence for
clothing and subsistence over the precarious resources of hunting and
fishing.  And already are we able to announce that, instead of that
constant diminution of numbers produced by their wars and their wants,
some of them begin to experience an increase of population." 

=== (page 35) ====================== 

Upon the authority of this great statesman, I can direct our Government
to a much more effective, as well as more just and honorable remedy for
the evils that afflict these tribes, than their proposed removal into the
wild uncultivated regions of the Western forests.  In a message to
Congress, on the 17th October, 1803, Mr.  Jefferson remarks, "with many
of the other Indian tribes, improvements in agriculture and household
manufactures are advancing, and with all our peace and friendship are
established on grounds much firmer than heretofore." In his message of
the 2d December, 1806, there is a paragraph devoted to this subject
deserving of our most respectful consideration.  The friends of Indian
rights could not desire the aid of better sentiments than Mr.  Jefferson
inculcated in that part of the message where he says, "We continue to
receive proofs of the growing attachment of our Indian neighbors, and of
their disposition to place all their interests under the patronage of the
United States.  These dispositions are inspired by their confidence in
our justice; and in the sincere concern we feel for their welfare.  And
as long as we discharge these high and honorable functions with the
integrity and good faith which alone can entitle us to their continuance,
we may expect to reap the just reward in their peace and friendship."
Again, in November, in 1808, he informs the Congress that "with our
Indian neighbors the public peace has been steadily maintained; and
generally from a conviction that we consider them as a part of ourselves,
and cherish with sincerity their rights and interests, the attachment of
the Indian tribes is gaining strength daily, is extending from the nearer
to the more remote, and will amply requite us for the justice and
friendship practiced towards them.  Husbandry and household manufactures
are advancing among them, more rapidly with the Southern than Northern
tribes, from circumstances of soil and climate." 

Mr. Madison, in his message of November, 1809, likewise bears his public
testimony to the gradual improvement of the Indians.  "With our Indian
neighbors," he remarks, "the just and benevolent system continued towards
them, has also preserved peace, and is more and more advancing habits
favorable to their civilization and happiness." I will detain the Senate
with but one more testimonial, from another venerable Chief Magistrate.

=== (page 36) ====================== 

Mr. Monroe, as lately as 1824, in his message, with great satisfaction,
informs the Congress that the Indians were "making steady advances in
civilization and the improvement of their condition." "Many of the
tribes," he continues, "have already made great progress in the arts of
civilized life.  This desirable result has been brought about by the
humane and persevering policy of the Government, and particularly by
means of the appropriation for the civilization of the Indians.  There
have been established, under the provisions of this act, thirty-two
schools, containing nine hundred and sixteen scholars, who are well
instructed in several branches of literature, and likewise in agriculture
and the ordinary arts of life." Now, sir, when we consider the large
space which these illustrious men have filled in our councils, and the
perfect confidence that is due to their official statements, is it not
astonishing to hear it gravely maintained, that the Indians are
retrograding in their condition and character; that all our public
anxieties and cares bestowed upon them have been utterly fruitless, and
that for very pity's sake we must get rid of them, or they will perish on
our hands?  Sir, I believe that the confidence of the Senate has been
abused by some of the letter writers, who give us such sad accounts of
Indian wretchedness.  I rejoice that we may safely repose upon the
statements contained in the letter of Messrs.  L.  Allen, R.M.
Livingston, Rev.  Cyrus Kingsbury, and the Rev.  Samuel A.  Worcester.
The character of these witnesses is without reproach, and their
satisfactory certificates of the improvement of the tribes, continue and
confirm the history furnished to us in the several messages from which I
have just read extracts.  

It is further maintained, "that one of the greatest evils to which the
Indians are exposed is, that incessant pressure of population, that
forces them from seat to seat, without allowing time for moral and
intellectual improvement." Sir, this is the very reason -- the deep,
cogent, reason, which I present to the Senate, now to raise the barrier
against the pressure of population, and with all the authority of this
nation, command the urging tide "thus far and no farther." Let us save
them now, or we never shall.  For, is it not clear as the sunbeam, sir,
that a removal will aggravate their woes?

=== (page 37) ====================== 

If the title is nearly irresistible at this time, when a few more years
shall fill the regions beyond the Arkansas with many more millions of
enterprising white men, will not an increased impulse be given, that
shall sweep the red men away into the barren prairies, of the Pacific
of the West?  Such, I fear, will be their doom.  

If these constant removals are so afflictive, and allow no time for moral
improvement; if this be the cause why the attempts at Indian reformation
are alleged to have been so unavailing; do not the dictates of
experience, then, plead most powerfully with us, to drive them no
further; to grant them an abiding place, where these moral causes may
have a fair and uninterrupted operation in moulding and refining the
Indian character?  And, sir, weigh a moment the considerations that
address us on behalf of the Cherokees especially.  Prompted and
encouraged by our counsels, they have in good earnest resolved to become
men, rational, educated, Christian men; and they have succeeded beyond
our most sanguine hopes.  They have established a regular constitution of
civil government, republican in its principles.  Wise and benificent laws
are enacted; the people acknowledge their authority, and feel their
obligation.  A printing press, conducted by one of the nation, circulates
a weekly newspaper, printed partly in English and partly in the Cherokee
language -- schools flourish in many of their settlements -- Christian
temples, to the God of the Bible, are frequented by respectful, devout,
and many sincere worshippers.  God, as we believe, has many people among
them, whom he regards as the "apple of his eye." They have become better
neighbors to Georgia.  She made no complaints during the lapse of fifty
years, when the tribes were a horde of ruthless, licentious, and drunken
savages; when no law controlled them, when the only judge was their will,
and their avenger the tomahawk.  

Then, Georgia could make treaties with them, and acknowledge them as
nations; and in conventions trace boundary lines, and respect the
land-marks of her neighbor: and now, when they begin to reap the fruits
of all the paternal instructions, so repeatedly and earnestly delivered
to them by the Presidents -- when the Cherokee has learned to respect the
rights of the white man, and sacredly to regard the obligations of truth
and conscience -- is this the time, sir, to break up this peaceful
community, to put out their council fires, to annul their laws and
customs, to crush the rising hopes of their youth, and to drive the
desponding and discouraged Indian to despair?  

=== (page 38) ====================== 

Let it be called a sickly humanity -- every freeman in the land, that has
one spark of the spirit of his fathers, will feel and denounce it to be
an unparalleled stretch of cruel injustice.  And, if the deed be done,
sir, how it is regarded in Heaven will, sooner or later, be known on
earth; for this is the judgment place of public sins.  And all these ties
are to broken asunder, for a State that was silent and acquiesced in the
relations of the Indians to our present Government that pretended to no
right of direct interference whilst these tribes were really dangerous;
when their ferocious incursions justly disturbed the tranquility of the
fire-side, and waked the "sleep of the cradle," for a State that seeks it
now against an unoffending neighbor, which implores her by all that is
dear in the graves of her fathers; in the traditions of by-gone ages;
that beseeches her by the ties of nature, of home, and country, to let
her live unmolested, and die near the dust of her kindred!  

Sir, our fears have been addressed in behalf of those States whose
legislation we resist; and it is inquired with solicitude, would you urge
us to arms with Georgia?  No, sir.  This tremendous alternative will not
be necessary.  Let the General Government come out, as it should, with
decided and temperate firmness, and officially announce to Georgia, and
the other States, that if the Indian tribes choose to remain, they will
be protected against all interference and encroachment; and such is my
confidence in the sense of justice in the respect for law, prevailing in
the great body of this portion of our fellow citizens, that I believe
they would submit to the authority of the nation.  I can expect no other
issue.  But if the General Government be urged to the crisis, never to be
anticipated, of appealing to the last resort of her powers; and when
reason, argument, and persuasion fail, to raise her strong arm to repress
the violations of the supreme law of the land, I ask, is it not in her
bond, sir?  Is her guaranty a rope of sand?  This effective weapon has
often been employed to chastise the poor Indians, sometimes with dreadful
vengeance, I fear; and shall not their protection avail to draw it from
the scabbard?  

=== (page 39) ====================== 

Permit me to refer the Senate to the views of Mr.  Jefferson, directly
connected with this delicate, yet sacred duty of protection.  In 1791,
when he was Secretary of State, there were some symptoms of collision on
the Indian subject.  This induced the letter from him to Gen.  Knox, then
our Secretary of War, a part of which I will read: "I am of opinion, that
Government should firmly maintain this ground: that the Indians have a
right to the occupation of their lands, independent of the States within
whose chartered limits they happen to be; that, until they cede them by
treaty, or other transaction equivalent to a treaty, no act of a State
can give a right to such lands; that neither under the present
constitution, nor the ancient confederation, had any State or person a
right to treat with the Indians, without the consent of the General
Government; that consent has never been given by any treaty for the
cession of the lands in question; that the Government is determined to
exert all its energy for the patronage and protection of the rights of
the Indians, and the preservation of peace between the United States and
them; and that, if any settlements are made on land not ceded by them,
without the previous consent of the United States, the Government will
think itself bound, no only to declare to the Indians that such
settlements are without the authority or protection of the United States,
but to remove them also by public force." 

Mr. Jefferson seems to have been disturbed by no morbid sensibilities.
He speaks out as became a determined statesman.  We can trace in this
document the same spirit which shed its influence on a more eventful
paper -- the declaration of our rights, and of our purpose to maintain
and defend them.  He looked right onward, into the broad path of public
duty; and if, in his way, he met the terrors of State collision and
conflict, he was in no degree intimidated.  The faith of treaties was his
guide; and he would not flinch in his purposes, nor surrender the Indians
to State encroachments.  Let such decided policy go forth in the majesty
of our laws now, and, sir, Georgia will yield.  She will never encounter
the responsibilities or the horrors of a civil war.  But if she should,
no stains of blood will be on our skirts; on herself the guilt will abide
forever.  

=== (page 40) ====================== 

Sir, [said Mr.  F.] if we abandon these aboriginal proprietors of our
soil, these early allies and adopted children of our forefathers, how
shall we justify it to our country?  to all the glory of the past, and
the promise of the future?  Her good name is worth all else besides that
contributes to her greatness.  And, as I regard this crisis in her
history; the time has come when this unbought treasure shall be plucked
from dishonor, or abandoned to reproach.  

How shall we justify this trespass to ourselves?  Sir, we may deride it,
and laugh it to scorn now; but the occasion will meet every man, when he
must look inward, and make honest inquisition there.  Let us beware how,
by oppressive encroachments upon the sacred privileges of our Indian
neighbors, we minister to the agonies of future remorse.  

I have, in my humble measure, attempted to discharge a public and most
solemn duty towards an interesting portion of my fellow men.  Should it
prove to have been as fruitless as I know it to be below the weight of
their claims, yet even then, sir, it will have its consolations.  Defeat
in such a cause is far above the triumphs of unrighteous power; and in
the language of an eloquent writer -- "I had rather receive the blessing
of one poor Cherokee, as he casts his last look back upon his country,
for having, though in vain, attempted to prevent his banishment, than to
sleep beneath the marble of all the Caesars."

 
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     /             This file was brought to you by:               /
     /      The People's Paths BBS (c)1996 - (517) 792-4906       /
     /       Prepared by Nancy Thomas - BBS, Co-SysOp And         /
     /            Keeper of the People's Home Page:               /
     /          URL: http://www.YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net/             /
     /           Email: nlthomas@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net             /
     /  Member of * The Moccasin Telegraph Network * 88:239/260   /
     /  When reproduced this file should be left totally intact   /
     /       and any reproduction used for non-profit only.       /
     /   For further information or permissions contact author.   /
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++