No Thank You Mr. President!
Not all White Americans bought into this idea. The Indians didn't either. The Cherokees were already a success story of assimilation prior to their removal: they had a written constitution modeled after the United State's Constitution, they dressed like Whites, many held slaves and adopted White concepts of property (primarily the mixed-bloods). They also wrote and read their own newspaper. Their constitution "proclaimed the Cherokees an independent nation with complete sovereignty over tribal land in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama".(56) And, the United States federal government had recognized Indian sovereignty ! In fact, the early treaties required that if you were an American citizen and you wanted to go into Creek or Cherokee Lands, you had to have a passport! Criminals had to be extradited and there were treaties for that express purpose. "Prominently figuring in Indian treaties was the cession of Indian lands which indicated their sovereignty over those lands and the United States recognition of such. Combined with the idea of separate Indian lands was the recognition of Indian autonomy within those lands".(57) The language of these treaties was very clear. For example, the United States treated with the Delaware Nation (however, gradually the term "nation" was replaced by the term "tribe"). The Cherokees thought that this sovereignty would protect them, and announced that they would use it to stop any further actions such as this in the future.
The American Board of Commissioners For Foreign Missions was at the forefront of the opposition. But they were recipients of federal funds allocated for civilizing the Indians.(58) They argued in defense of the Indians right to remain on their ancestral land on legal, moral and religious grounds. From the northern states, humanitarian groups backed them along with anti-Jackson politicians who feared that Indian removal was a move to pacify the South. Other humanitarian groups, most of them located in the North, also raised staunch opposition to this policy. To be sure there were arguments from Whites against Indian Removal.
The Cherokees themselves fought all the way to the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia and won their case. Known as the Cherokee cases, 1831-1832, Chief Justice John Marshall stated: "Is the Cherokee nation a foreign state, in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution? The counsel for the plaintiffs, have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a state, from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States, recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States, by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee nation as a state, and the courts are bound by those acts."(59)
President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling and went ahead with his plans. The Indians went from "adulthood to childhood, independent sovereign nations to domestic dependent nations". Clearly, this designation would preclude them from fulfilling their ideas of liberty and freedom, for they were no longer in control of their destinies. Their destinies were being determined by the states in which their land was to be found and ultimately in Washington. For example, the later Palmer treaties "included a blanket agreement to move from these reserves to other locations selected by the government should the President at any time believe it demanded by the public good and promotive of the best interest of said Indians".(60) And all the time, Whites kept moving into areas that the government had treated with the Indians.
The Choctaws were the first to go. It was supposed to have gone smoothly. But rushing to open Indian lands "almost before the ink was dry" proved disastrous for the Indians. The basic policy was to "promote removal without doing anything that would alienate the public and reduce their support while at the same time not appearing blatantly immoral". Here's how Jackson wanted this played out: do this as quickly and as cheaply as possible while still acting humanely. The emphasis was on speed and economy and that overrode adequate care for the emigrating Indians.(61) Jackson secured the passage of the Indian Removal Bill of 1830 and then invited representatives from the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek and Chickasaw to Tennessee to "discuss their future".(62) The Cherokees and Creeks didn't attend because they were already seeking relief from the United States Supreme Court. All Choctaws were not against the move. Some wanted to receive personal gain if they could persuade the tribe to relocate.
The so-called "civilizing" policies were to have brought to Indians what Whites honestly believed to be the benefits of American society so that they might then be absorbed into White society. Today we call that "cultural imperialism." In his book, American Indian Policy, Ronald N. Satz argues, "Civilizing the Indians for their assimilation into American society never took precedence over pushing them outside the area of White settlement: it merely justified it."(63)
Back in 1802, the federal government had made a pact with the state of Georgia to extinguish all remaining Indian title as soon as possible in return for Georgia's cessation of its western land claims.(64) Georgia's officials charged the Federal Government with reneging on the deal. So this was the worst time for the "Cherokee Nation's declaration of absolute sovereignty within the southern states".(65) "Then too, a decade earlier Georgia had made a pact with the Cherokees which solemnly guaranteed them their existing tribal land".(66) Conflict! As late as 1798, the government had reaffirmed its promise to the Cherokees. But as the years passed and Georgia did not get what it bargained for, its political leaders decided to handle the matter themselves. Viewed by Georgia as "dependent tenants" who held their land by the doctrine of "right of occupancy", which was subordinate to the doctrine "right of discovery" that the United States had inherited from the British, Georgia, encouraged by Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in 1823, was disgusted when then President Adams would not force the Indians to abandon their land. The Cherokee Constitution angered them more and so Dear reader, the State Legislature of Georgia, on December 20,1828 decreed that "all Indian residents would come under its jurisdiction after six months."(67) Some of the nation's best legal minds banded together to defend the Cherokees. The Cherokees even contributed funds to help promote their cause. However, Andrew Jackson ignored it and went ahead with his plans.
Comments: