« AnteriorContinuar »
May 18, 1830.]
Removal of the Indians.
(H. or R.
degree upon assumptions for which I discover vo founda-, States bad engaged to extinguish the lodian titles for her. tion.
She says, expressly, “ that the land is here, and she will But the gentlemen inquire why any opposition should bave it," but that she will not resort to violence “ until be made to the bill, which contemplates only the volun-fother means have failed.” Other means, then, it seems, tary removal of the Indians; and they complain of great are first to be tried; and, if they fail, the obvious consemisrepresentation on the part of those who oppose it
, be: quence is, that she will resort to violence. Now, what are cause they hold out the idea that force is to be used, and these other means ? The gentleman from Georgia has told they strenuously deny that such a purpose is cherished in us, that, after having long exercised great forbearance, any quarter. Now, sir, if the gentleman had coufined his Georgia has, at length, caught a gleam of hope from the denial to the intentions of the Government of the United elevation of our present Chief Magistrate, and the recog. States, it is very possible be may be correct. I do not nition by him of her long delayed rights. Give me leave know that the administration means to employ any force; to tell the geutleman that the president has never recogs but if that gentleman meant to assert that the Indians with nised the rights which Georgia claims, unless the right of iu the limits of Georgia are not to be operated upon in a jurisdiction, which the President admits to be in Georgia, compulsory manner, from some other quarters, I do not as- be equivalent to the right of soil which Georgia claimssent to his position. I believe they are. It may not, to be unless it give also a title to the land; for this she is to get sure, be by an army in the field, advancing to the sound of by violence, if other means fail. drum, with banners displayed, to drive them from their [Here Mr. LUMPKIN interposed, and denied that he had bomnes, at the point of the bayonet. But, sir, is there no ever said that Georgia meant to resort to violence in any compulsion except military compulsion! Can men be co- case.) erced by nothing but guns and bayonets ! I say that thore Sir, I did not charge this language upon that gentleman; Indians are not to be left in circumstances where they can he is not authorized to speak as to what Georgia will or act in an upconstrained and voluntary manner. And when will not do. The language I have cited, and the
principles the gentleman inquires why we oppose the bill, I tell him avuwed, are to be found in a report and resolutions adoptbecause it does not provide for the exigency of the case. ed by the Legislature of that State in 1827; they are the It does not provide for the security and protection of the solemn declarations by the State of the policy which she Indians in their possessions and rights. It does not answer means to pursue. The gentleman said, to be sure, that their demands upon us. Though this bill professes in it- perhaps the language of that report was too strong; and self nothing hostile, yet, if its effect will be to leave the probably the State of Georgia will say the same thing now. lodians in circumstances where they can make but one Why? Because she feels sure of getting the land without choice, then it is clear that they are compelled. For what violence. Other means are in progress, which must be is compulsion, but placing men in circumstances where successful. Is it pot apparent that the object of extending they have no alternative left them! The gentleman affects her laws over the Indians is to drive them across the Misto be greatly amazed that we do not at once assent to his sissippi? And now they tell us that no compulsion is conbill. But supposing that the bill shall pass, and the Indians templated. Sir, if compulsiou is not contemplated to be shall vot choose to leave their homes, I ask the gentlemun, practised, it is contemplated to be permitted. The Indians will they be left in the same situation in which they have tell us that they cannot remain under the laws of Georgia ; bitherto been placed? Will they be permitted to enjoy aud the President himself, and the Secretary of War, say, the undisturbed possessiou of their soil and jurisdiction in so many words, to the Indians, that their only means of If so, and no external bias or oppression is to be brought to escaping this dreadful calamily is to emigrate to the West. bear upon them, and they shall be left perfectly free and The tenor of all the language employed proceeds upon the independent, as they were left when previous laws bave idea that it is a calamity which they cannot endure. And been passed, relating to the removal to wbich the gentle. this is no new idea. A gentleman, not now a member of man bas referred, then I am content. We have not a word this House, in a report made upon this subject to a former to say. But it is not so; and the gentleman kpows it is not Congress, has truly said “ that such a measure must prove
He says no force is to be applied. Oh, no. No force. destructive to the Indians.” Doly the laws of Georgia are to be extended over them! I bave said that the president had not recognised the Their ancient customs, laws, usages, are to be abolished rights of Georgia, as Georgia lays them down. Wbat is their council fires are to be extinguished-their existence bis language? He says, through the Secretary of War, as a political community to be annihilated. Sir, in what to a delegation of Cherokees, an interference to the ex mander has this subject been brought before us! The tent of affording you protection, and the occupancy of President, to be sure, has called our attention to it in his your soil
, is what is demanded of the justice of this counanessage, and recommends the measure proposed in this try, and will not be withbeld.” It seems, then, that they bill. But, beride this, we have urgent memorials from the are to remain in the occupancy of their soil. But this is Creeks and Cherokees, reminding us of our treaties and not computible with the claims of Georgia. Where does our engagements to them, and demanding the fulllment of the gentleman discover his ray of hope, but in the assurthose stipulations. What answer do we propose to give ? ance that the operation of the laws of Georgia will compel They ask, will you perform your engagemeuts! We re- the Indians to abandon their country ?” ply, we will help you to remove farther into the wilder The chairman of the committee takes the same ground, ses. Is this such a reply as we are bound to give? They and says that it is no great hardship for the ludians to be tell us they wish to remaiu and to be protected, where brought under the laws of the State, in as much as they will they now are;
and I object to the bill because it does not still enjoy their owo lands;" and “as it is understood” that furnish this protection. For what purpose does Georgia the States do not contemplate to take the land away from extend her laws over these Indians, but for compelling the Indians by force, there can be no barm in passing this them to remove! To enable ber to get possession of the bill. I do not koow whence the gentleman derives this land? What does Georgia gain by legislating over these " understanding." I, for one, understand no such thing. Indians, unless it be their lands? We all know the pature I understand that the States do meau to have the land. It of the claim which Georgia sets up-that the soil of the is the land they want: Georgia claims by the compact of Indian country belongs to her that its jurisdiction is in 1802, that the Iudian title shall be extinguished, in order ber-that the Indians are tenants at her will, whom she that the land may come into her possession. Has she ever may at any time remove-that, before the compact of 1802, claimed the mere sovereignty, as such Never-but alAlie had a right at any time to take the land by force, and ways the land. When, therefore, the honorable chairman that she has hitherto forborne ouly because the United says “it is understood," I say that it is not understood,
H. of R.]
Removal of the Indians.
(MAY 18, 1830.
and that it cannot be understood, from the public acts of ty of Holston was formed; which was also “a treaty of the State. Is there any man on this floor entitled to speak peace and friendship.". The tribe again placed itself uin the name of a sovereigu, independent State, as to what der the protection of the United States, and of no otber she will or what she will not do? And this
, when she tells sovereigo whatever," and stipulated that they would not us that the land is bers, and that she “ will have it,” though treat with any foreign power, individual State, or with is i she will not resort to violence until other means fail
. | dividuals of any State." A liberal session of territory was These other means are her laws. If she extends them made to be United States ; and the United States, by the over the Jodians, and the Indians still remain where they seventh article," solemnly guarantied to the Cherokee asare, then, clearly, the other means will have failed; and tion all their lands not hereby ceded. Various other treathen, if we may believe her own words, she does mean to lies have been made since that time, by which a large resort to violence. When the gentleman therefore says territory has been acquired, and renewed guaranties givea. that it is with great satisfaction he observes that the Pre- These treaties bave beeu negotiated by every administra. sident recognises the rights of Georgia, I tell him the Pre- tion, except the last-have been confirmed by every sident dues no such thing, and that Georgia will be as lit. Senate, and approved and sanctioned by every House of tle satisfied with this Executive as she was with the last, Representatives is the appropriations they bave inade to if be protects the Indians op any terms in the occupancy carry them into effect. of their lands. Sir, I have been endeavoring to show that By these treaties we have recognized the Cherokees a the object and intention of Georgia, in extending her juris- a "vation "-a political community, capable to contract, diction over the Indian tribes, is to compel then to re- and to be contracted with. We hare received them uomove. Such will be its effect. Upon this subject, bear der our protection and sovereignty, and probibited them the commissioners who were sent last year to negotiate from treating with any“ individual State," or placing them with the lodians for their removal:
selves " under any other sovereiya whatever." We have ad General Carroll to the Secretary of War, describing the mitted their title to the lande in their occupancy-bave paid difficulties be met with in inducing the lodians to emigrate, them for the cessions they bave made, and solemnly gusi says, " The truth is, they rely with great confidence on a rantied to them “ their lands." Yes, sir, " their lands,"
1 favorable report on the petition they bave before Con- which had not been ceded. All these rights they claim of gress. If that is rejected, and the laws of the States are the Voited States by virtue of treaties still subsisting. Bat enforced, you will bave no difficulty of procuring au ex- we are told that they are not a nation or community, and change of lands with them."
the laws of Georgia have abrogated and dissolved their poGeneral Coffee, upon the same subject, says—“They litical character, and incorporated them as citizens of the express a confident hope that Congress will interpose its Stale, subject to its ląws. The party with whom we conpower
, and prevent the States from extending their laws tracted is unuihilated. This is the first infraction of which over them. 'Should they be disappointed in this, I hazard they complaiu. They are now claimed as under the sore little 10 saying that the Government will bave little diffi- reignty of Georgia alone, though we had received them culty io removing them west of the Mississippi.”. under our sovereigoty, und guarantied to them our pro
I think it can require no further proof to satisfy us that tection. Of these they also complain as a violativa of our the legislation of Georgia is designed, and will bave the treaties. The lands which they occupy are denied to be certaiù effect, to coerce the lodian tribes, and to compel theirs; and Georgia says "she will have them." How them to seek a new home beyond the reach of the avidity does this chim comport with the obligations we have en and oppression of the white man, if such a spot remains tered into ? Our stipulation with the Indians is, that they to them of all their once vast domaids. Yet we are told are a distinct community, and have the power of holding that this removal is to be purely voluntary; and gentlemen their own land. This guaranty is about to be violated, point us to the bill, and say, there is no compulsion there. and we are called upon to sit still and see it violated. Sir, No, sir ; and there is no protection there.
I could go further. The guaranty in the treaty of I shall proceed now, sir, to consider the general subject Holstoo is a guaranty to the lodiads as a pation. No indiof our relations to some of the Indian tribes who are to be vidual ownership is therein recognised ; and, wben indiaffected by this bill, and who have invoked our protec viduals leave the tracts on which they bave resided, those tion; the obligations we bave entered into with them; the tracts revert, not to the United States, nor to the Governelaims they bave upou us; and the duties which we are ment, nor to anybody else but to the nation as a nation. But bound, by the most solemo stipulations, to perform toward this bill contemplates a separate negotiation with individuthem. In this question are involved the rights of Georgia, als, and declares that all the land abandoned by individeas a member of the Union, and the powers of the Geneals who become emigrants, reverts not to their tribe, but ral Government over Indian tribes resident within the bor to the State of Georgia. We are called to pass a law er. ders of a State. These topics have already been so fully changing land with private individuals, when we have and ably discussed elsewhere, and so eloquently and ela- guarantied the possession of that land to the Cherokee borately debated here by the bonorable member from nation, as commou property; so that we are not only to New York, (Mr. STORAS) that I am sensible very little re- stand by, and see Georgia violate our faith, but to pass a mains to be said. I shall endeavor, as far as possible, to bill—which very bill expressly violates it. The President avoid the repetition of arguments and authorities which tells us, Georgia had a righi at any time to extend ber have been used by others much more ably than I could laws over the Indians within her limits, and says that ber
I hope to do. Our relations with the Indian tribes upon doing so will be no violation of our guaranty. But I ask whom this bill is designed to operate, grow out of trea- whether the laws of Georgia do pot annihilate the party tiés entered into between them and the Goveroment we coutracted with. Georgia comes in, and says that al of the United States. With the Cherokees, who are laws, customs, and usages of the Indians as a natica, more directly concerned in this question than either of the shall be utterly obliterated. When this has been done, other tribes, we have negotiated not less than sixteen. where, I ask, ia the party with whom we contracted! The first was that of Hopewell
, in 1785, entered into by I ask Georgia to show us the community with which we Congress under the articles of confederation. This was a bave entered into engagemeuts. They will tell me there treaty of peace, and terminated a war which had existed is no such party. The nation, as such, censes to exist. between them and the United States. The Cherokees But what has caused it to cease? The laws of Georgis. placed themselves under the protection of the United It is those laws that have violated our stipulation, and utStates, and “of no other sovereign whatever.". After terly annihilated the very party with whom we stipulated. tbe adoption of the federal constitution in 1791, the trea. It seems to me the gentlemen get into a dilemma-ibe
May 18, 1830.)
Removal of the Indians.
(H. OF R.
zround they take is, that Georgia has a right to abolish by virtue of the compact of 1802. The lands in Alabama the tribe, and to resolve it into its elements—as individuals, upon the extinguishment of the Indian title, belonged to sitizens of the State. Well, sir, grant this, and what then the United States, while those in Georgia, agreeably to l'hen they bring in a bill to enable the President to hold our engagements in the compact, belonged to that state. treaties-but with whom? With the tribe of Indians ? These treaties became the subject of discussion in the SeWith the Cherokee nation! Why, sir, that tribe is abolish- date ; and I will read a short passage from the debate : Mr. ed-there is no Cherokee nation. With whom, then, is the Benton, of Missouri, said " he thought that Georgia had no President to make a treaty! With the Indians convened further cause of dissatisfaction with the treaty; it was Ala**n council! Sir, they cannot convene-the laws of Geor- bama that was injured by the loss of some millions of acres,
zia forbid it, and subject them to imprisonment and pun which she had acquired under the treaty of 1825, and lost Toshment if they do. They dare not assemble to treat, and under that of 1826.”. “She had lost the right of jurisdicJet the President is to hold a treaty with them? If the tion over a considerable extent of territory” lost the right
gentleman's positions are true, he will have nobody to treat of jurisdiction. So, sir, the doctrine then was, that right with. Not with individuals--that is in the very face of of jurisdiction was acquired by treaty; and when the treaty
our contract. I refer gentlemen to the treaty of Holston, was rescinded, the right of jurisdiction fell with it. Mr. bere the guaranty is to the nation.
King, of Alabama, said: "''he constitutional question, as But we learn, as I have already had occasion to remark, regards Georgia, yet remains in force ; and though it may hat the construction which the President places upon not seem to apply to Alabama, I still think our rights were hese treaty stipulations is not "adverse to the sovereignty violated in annulling that treaty and adoptiog another." f Georgia." While he admits the Indians to bave a just Now, the rights which Alabama acquired under that right to the occupancy of the lands, he denies to them the treaty were merely rights of jurisdiction: the soil passed right of jurisdiction and government over their territory. to the United States. If therefore, the complaint of the
Sir, have we not received those tribes under our proteo. Senator was well founded, it was the right of jurisdiction tion, and refused to permit them to become subject “ to which was taken away by the last treaty. If Alabama lost any other sovereign whatever ?” Is this not “ adverse to any rights by the abrogation of the first compact, it was "he sovereignty of Georgia?". The idea of separating the that of jurisdiction. Yet the argument now is, that the purisdiction of a nation from the territory which it owns as State always had jurisdiction anterior to all treaties, and * nation, is a modern discovery. And I'yield so far to the by virtue of it her laws have been extended over the whole Ergument of gentlemen on the other side, as to admit that lørlian country. But, sir, there is a more direct renunciaahe discoverer, whoever be may be, is entitled to the full tion of this doctrine still
. azredit and benefit of the discovery. Such was not the In the session of 1826, a Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
soctrine of Georgia in 1825. In the discussions which then Reed) moved a resolution of inquiry into the expediency' mok place between her Chief Magistrate (Governor Troup) of authorizing process, both civil and criminal, to be serv and the Secretary of War, in relation to the treaty of the ed upon persons, citizens of the States, who had fled to the indian Springs, the former said, “ soil and jurisdiction go Indian territory for protection. The resolution proposed ogether; aod if we have not the right of both at this no other action than upon citizens of the United States. Jo aoment, we can never have either by better title. If the explanation of bis viewe, Mr. Reed said, “ be presumed it
bsolute property and the absolute jurisdictiou have pot was already known that more than half of the State of Mispassed to us, when are they to come? Will you make a sissippi is still in the occupation of the Indian tribes, the normal concession of the latter When and bow? If the Choctaw aud Chickasaw nations. In regard to the action virisdiction be separated from the property, show the reo of the State laws upon these people, there never had been ervation which separates it: it is impossible.”
any difficulty, por was it ever sought, on the part of the The argument then was, that jurisdiction was acquired State of Mississippi, to extend its jurisdiction over them." suy treaty, as well as soil. The argument now is, tbat ju His object was to call the serious consideration of the sdiction always belonged to the State, and that compact Seoate to the condition of our own citizens, who, after
not necessary to confer it. The Governor inquired baving committed crimes, or contracted debts, locate them. ben and how you could obtain jurisdiction, if separated selves among those Jodians, and consider themselves as be. om the property, and declared that it was impossible. yood the jurisdiction of our laws."
“He reir, the doctrines then relied upoo for the promotion of peated, it was not sought, on the part of the State of Misde interests of Georgia, are in direct collision with the sissippi, or by ber Senators in this House, to enforce the fioctrines now advocated for her benefit. Will she pre action of the laws on the Indians themselves; they did not prve consistencey, or must new principles of law and right claim to consider them as subject to their operation. The e discovered at every new emergency? The honorable Indian tribes have laws and traditionary usages of their jairman, (Mr. BELL) in his report upon this subject, says, own, and are entitled to the patronage and protection of The fundamental principle, that 'the Indians had no the Geveral Goveroment." glits, by virtue of their ancient possessious, either of soil "At present, as far as he had been able to investigate ir sovereignty, bas never been abaudoned, either expressly the subject, it was the opinion of some able jurists on this
by implication.". Sir, it might be answer enough to point, that process does not extend to persons residing on uy that this principle has never been asserted, and to call the Indian territory—and be would wish to bring to the pon gentlemen to prove its existence by other means consideration of the legislative authority of the Union, the han the absence of an abandonment of it. But, as the question whether it is competent for us to extend our civil entleman has chosen to state the proposition in this form, and criminal process, or whether it is one of the appendwill endeavor to show that it has been expressly aban. ages-one of these people's rights as sovereigns, to afford pued, and by some of the States which are most inter- a sanctuary to vagabonds from every part of the Union." sted in the passage of this bill. By the treaty of the adian Springs, in 1825, with the Creck nation, all their " At the last session of the Legislature of Mississippi, a od in Georgia, and a considerable portion of that in Ala- proposition was made to extend the civil power of their ama, was ceded to the United States. This treaty was courts to their own citizens who bad contracted debts inulled in 1826, for gross fraud and corruption, and a pew within the State, and bad fled to this savage sanctuary ; eaty formed, ceding the lands in Georgia, but not those the matter was debated for many days, and it was at last
Alabama. These States protested agaiust rescinding decided that there existed no power in the State to extend le first treaty, because, as was contended, Georgia bad its laws in the manner sought by the proposition." * quired vested rights under it; the property in the soil, 1“ Therefore, if there was any remedy on this subjeet to
H. OF R.)
Removal of the Indians.
(May 18, 18:30
be obtained, it was to be at the bands of the General Go-Joue was the consideration for the other. Sball we restore vernment, and not by force of any competent authority in them to their original condition? Shall we re-cede the the State Government."
territory? Gentlemen have foreseen the difficulty, sod I think it sufficiently appears from the extracts I have they say, as we cannot give back the land, we will mate read, that the State of Mississippi, so deeply interested in compensation; and wbat is the compensation which they this question, and so anxious to maintain all its rights, bas propose? It is, that we should say to these lodiaps, more wholly repudiated, both by its Senators in Congress, and farther off-leave us—cross the Mississippi-go to the by its Legislature, the doctrine which the chairman asserts Rocky Mountains. This is our will, and you must obey. " has never been abandoned.” Jurisdiction, in its most Sir, it requires two parties to make a contract, and the lo ample extent, is hereby conceded to the lodians; and if dians do not agree to this mode of compensation. They that State has more recently, under the auspices of the tell us it is inflicting a deeper injury still. And now, sit, present Executive, adopted a different course, and obtain- when we are about to compensate them for a violation of ed new views of its rights, it remains for it to justify its our faith, we propose to do it not as they will, but as se i course to an enlightened public opinion, and to the scru-will--- by withholding our aid and our good neighbertiny of the world. But, sir, by the eleventh article of the hood” by permitting them to be driven into the recesses
) treaty of Holston, we have expressly recognised the Che of the forests, to become the prey of more barbarous arokee country not to be within the jurisdiction of any tions. And this we call compensation. State. That article provides, that if any crime be com. But why bad we po right to enter into the stipulations! mitted within their territory, by a citizen of the United Gentlemen tell us that we are thereby erecting a State States, which is committed within the jurisdiction of any within the limits of another State, against the consent of State," would be punishable by the laws of such State, it the latter, which is expressly interdicted in the constitushall be proceeded against in the same manner as if the tion. Sir, I deny the fact. I deny that, by any thing is offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the treaties, we do erect or form another State. If these the State, &a" Can any thing be more manifest than Indian tribes are a State now, they were a State before. that the Indian territory was not to be deemed within the They obtain no additional authority from the treaty. They jurisdiction of the State ? This is, in truth, a guaranty on derive from it do political existence. The treaty merely our part that we will not invade their jurisdiction. And recognised that which had existence at the time it was we are now to be told that we have given no guaranty made. It gave the Indians nothing. They were as mueh " adverse to the sovereignty of Georgia ?" Sir, is it be a State before as they are now. But I ask, what is tbe coming a great and magnanimous nation to fritter away true meaning of that term in the constitution! The its obligations—to search for pice distinctions and refined State" there mentioned, meads a member of this cocasuistry, to justify its violations of faith ? I have been federacy--a State having all the prerogatives, and bound attempting to show, sir, that the idea of separating the by all the obligations, which that instrument euntainedright of jurisdiction from the right of soil is novel and un- that shall have representmives on this floor and in the founded ; and that by our stipulations the right of jurisdic Senate, and should bave a voice in the election of Preei tion is fully conceded to the Indian tribes within their dent. The clause is simply a limitation of the power el own territories. If I have suoceeded in this, it will bardly Congress in the admission of new States into the Unice be contended that the soil is not theirs also. Jodeed, I do Sir, do we admit a new State into the Union when we ac not understand that the Executive or the committee assume knowledge the Cherokeen as an independent tribet Do the positiou that they have not a right to the occupancy of we restrict them as the coustitution restricts the States of their lands, however Georgia may assert the contrary, this Union? Do we confer powers and privileges wbiek and claim them as exclusively her own. It will not, there that instrument confers? We do not. "When I beard fore, be necessary for me to discuss the question, what gentleinen urge tbis objection, and talk about erecting rights have the Indians to their lands, more especially as State within the limits of another State, I was astonished. the gentleman from New York (Mr. STORes] has done it It may be proper enough to call the Cherokees a State," with so much ability.
if we affix to that word some other meaning than it bears I shall
, however, notice bereafter some of the arguments in the constitution ; but “State," as there used meats' which have been adduced to sustain the right which Geor- neither more por less than a member of the Union gia sets up to these lands.
It is said, bowever, that these Cherokees are forming a The gentleman who last addressed the committee, [Mr. Government, and are taking rapid strides to power. The FOSTER) seems to be aware that the obligations and gua. position is equally untrue. They have not formed a Ge ranties contained in our treaties do, in truth, conflict with vernment. They always bad a Government. They were the pretensions of Georgia; and he assumes the position ruled by councils, and by traditionary laws; and all thes that they are, therefore, unconstitutional and void. The have done is to put that which was formerly oral only, into same sentiment is advanced by the President, and by the a written form. This may be improving their GoversCommittee on Indian Affairs, if the meaning and construc-ment, but it is not creating it, por assuming any new tion of the treaties are such as we have endeavored to main power. They disclaim such an idea. But it is said that tain. The ground taken is, that the United States had no this recognition is inconsistent with the sovereignty ssd right to enter into stipulations inconsistent with the sove- jurisdiction of Georgia. Do not geutlemen perceive thai reignty of Georgia : that we are under obligations to her this argument assumes the whole question! The very which we must first discharge. Now, sir, it comes with question is, whether the sovereiguty and jurisdictios af au exceeding ill grace from us, when we are called upon Georgia does or does not extend over the Cherokes. to perform our promises, to return for answer that we had They assume the very question we are debating. They do authority to make them. Have we not received ample say that these lands lay within her chartered limits, uus compensation for the promises made ? Whether we bad that therefore she has jurisdiction over them as a matter the authority or not, is a question between us and Geor- of course. “ Chartered limits." * Chartered limits." Sir gia, and not between us and the Cherokees. They hold one would think that there was some magic, some chartt out warranty of authority; and shall we refuse to be bound in these words, which conferred immense powers, so gick by it? But if we had no right to make the contract, what as to subvert all Indian rights whatever. But whai ant is to be done? I presume, sir, it is to be rescinded. chartered limits! Ce in lipes described in charteis de
If the treaty is not bivding op us, can it be binding on rived from Great Britain. Gentlemen argue that the safe the Cherokees? If we refuse to be bound by the guaran- reignty of Georgia is derived from her chartered Limits ty, may they not refuse to be bound by the cession 1 The Sovereignty follows them, as a thing of course.
MAY 18, 1830.)
Removal of the Indians.
[H. OP R
brings us to a further question. What right had the make good a right to usurp the Indian possessions on the Crown of Great Britain to grant these chartered limits, ground of the superior title of civilization. The gentleEvand to extend them round the Indian possessions ? Did the man from Georgia [Mr. FOSTER] read the opinion of Mr. Indians consent ? No, sir. I shall be told that it was an Adams, the late Ühief Magistrate of the Union, of Dr. o act of sovereignty; and this brings us back again to the Morse, and of some other person, said to be an eminent former question, whence comes your sovereignty! And lawyer, upon this poiut; and how für did it meet the preEnthus we are reasoning in a circle.
Bent juncture The subject under consideration was the * The State has jurisdiction and sovereignty because it original right of the natives to the whole continent. Did has received chartered limits
, and it has chartered limits be assert that the rights of civilization were so imperious from its rights of sovereignty. Each of these is the cause, and inexorable as to leave the Indian no spot of earth to zand each the effect of the other. To such reasoning as rest upon! Does he deny that the right, whatever it was
bis I have a short auswer. I tell gentlemen that chartered origivally, may be modified by compact ? Does he assert limits are one thing, and jurisdictional limits are another. the monstrous position that when civilized man coveI deny that the two are co-extensive. Chartered limits pants with savage map, the compact is not binding! No, sir ; convey no other right than as against those who grant the he went into the question only as considered aside from charter--no other power than to obtain sovereignty and all compacts and conventions, and the strongest language jurisdiction from those who possess it, and could confer it. used was, " that the original right of the Indian had been If the gentlemen mean to fix any other idea to the term doabted.” None, surely, will contend that out of the chartered limits, then I deny that the Indians are within rights of civilization grows å right to obliterate at will the chartered limits of Georgia
, and I ask, how came they all your own agreements and promises. We stop here. there i And here we come to an argument wbich bas We base our argument on the foundation of contract. been much pressed. We are told of the right of discovery But to return, sir, to the question, wbat authority the
that the discoverers had a right to plant colonies and to United States had to enter into these stipulations. It seems protect them, to drive off the hostile tribes : and we are strange to me that those who so strenuously deny it should further told that civilization has a superior claim over the account for its undisturbed exercise for so many years savage life; that the earth was intended by Providence past. It was first exercised under the confederation, by to be cultivated. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fos- virtue of which, the treaty of Hopewell was formed. The TER] bas read the opinions of eminent men to sustain gentleman read an article in that instrument, to show that these positions. Sir, these are very fine theories, and I ench State retained its own sovereignty, and hence be arshall pot stop to question them; but they have nothing to gues that the United States were divested of all power do with the matter in band. The question is, not what within the range of that sovereignty. But, sir, the rights rights the first discoverers and settlers had, nor whether retained were those not delegated. The States did delecivilization might or might not lawtully usurp the posses- gate to the United States the right of peace and war, and sious of the savage. All these might be very good con- they expressly interdicted that power to the States. siderations, and very interesting questions, before we State shall engage in any war without the consevt of the entered into contracts with the Indians. But the simple United States in Congress assembled, unless such State question bow is, what are their rights under these cou be actually invaded by enemies, or shall bave received tracts? How have the natural, original rights of the certain advice of a resolution being formed by some baIndias been modified, confirmed, and guarantied by tion of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is 80 rompacts! How have our rights as discoverers, or as imminent as not to admit of delay," &c. Georgia could zivilized nations, been waived, defoed, and limited by not, therefore, engage in war, except in the imminent treaties i Surely it will not be contended that the rights danger provided for. As to peace, “the United States of discovery or conquest, or civilization, are so sacred and shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of deimmutable as to be incapable of change or modification termining on peace and war, except in the cases" men. by voluntary compact.
tioned before.' The States had, therefore, no right to The rights of discovery have been so clearly defined by make war, except when under actual invasion, or immithe honorable member, from New York, (Mr. STORES) aud Debt danger of invasion; but they had not the correspond30 ably expounded in the other branch of Congress, in de ing right of making peace, under any circumstances. The bates now before the world, that I shall say nothing in re- right of war was derived from the imminence of the lation to them, but to repeat, in a single word, that they danger, but the United States must come in, in order to are cooventivnal rights between discoverers. As to the conclude a peace. · The treaty of Hopewell was å treaty right derived from cultivation and civilization, when does of peace forned by virtue of this power. it commence : Only when that part of the worid inhabited It was made to put an end to war. Had the State of by civilized man is full and overflowing, and a portion of Georgia a right to conclude the peace? No, sir. The
iis inhabitants are compelled, from the necessity of the United States alone could do it by treaty. Is there any case, to seek a new home. Civilization may not till then other mode! Nope. The gentleman complained, in resay to the savagesgive ground, yield us more space. spect to the treaty of Hopewell
, that the Cherokees had Now I ask whether Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi are acknowledged their dependence on the Government of so densely populated that more land is wanting for their the United States, had placed themselves under its proteccitizens. Are there not two hundred millions of acres be- tion, and under no other sovereign whatever. He said
longing to the United States still unsold! Is not the po- the Government had no right to make such a stipulation. pulation of these States sparse and this ! Let them wait But if the Government must conclude a peace, and all till their own territory shall be filled up: then they may yield that, surely they had the right to fix the terms. assert this right with a better grace. But then another Why was this objection not made at the time! I am told question may arise on this very doctrine. The Indian ter- that Georgia protested against the treaty. I am well aware
ritory may then be as dense iu population as Georgia, and of it. The ground of that protest was, that the United its inhabitants as civilized also. If that period should States were assuming the right of regulating matters with ever arrive, may not the Indians turn round on Georgia, the Indians which belonged to Georgia, and that the legisand say, we are a civilized people; our country is full to lative right of Georgia had been expressly reserved in overflowing, and we want some of your land to accom the articles of confederation. The article reads thus :
modate our suffering population. Will Georgia be willing The United States shall have the power of “ regulating to yield to such a claim
the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians not Šir, the period is distant, very distant, when we can members of any State, provided that the legislative right