H. OF R.] Removal of the Indians. [MAY 19, 1830. mission and power ceased at the Indian boundary, beyond, Georgia) is stated in these terms, "the boundary allotted which they had no right to go, and beyond which no citi- &c. is, and shall be, the following," going on to state i zen of Georgia could go to execute them. If Congress has Now, sir, what form of words can add any thing to the power under the constitution to regulate commerce with strength of the covenant or guaranty involved in the phrase foreign nations, to say by whom, and under what restric-is, and shall be," and that without limitation as to time! tions, it may be carried on; to interdict it altogether The guaranty in the treaty of Holston is nothing more even; it has the right as to the Indian tribes. And having than this. It binds the United States and Georgia will done it, Georgia is bound by it, unless she be above law, them, and will bind forever, unless the Cherokees choose and so not subject to law. to remit the obligation. She is bound also by treaties which the United States have made with the Cherokees. The power to make trea ties is in these words: "The President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate concur." The effect of treaties is declared in these words: "All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It has been intimated, to get rid of the effect of our Indian treaties, that they are not treaties. What, then, is a treaty Hamilton says, "treaties are contracts with nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith"-" agreements between a sovereign and sovereign"-another name for a bargain, but a bargain between those who are sovereign. 5. The citizens of the United States who had settled or should attempt to settle, westward of the boundary established by that treaty, are outlawed, and left to the Indians to punish as they please. What, then, becomes of the right claimed by Georgia to take possession of this whole country, and annex it to the contiguous counties of that State ? 6. Congress "shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and managing all their affairs in such manner as they shall think proper." This article, which has been the subject of some eriticism elsewhere, is in the very words of the power given to Congress upon this particular subject, in the articles of confederation, with this difference, that, instead of saying "regulating trade and managing affairs with the Indians,” it makes a wrong collocation of the words, and says "regulating trade with the Indians, and managing all their affairs," the intent obviously being to make the Indians The treaties between the United States and the Chero- agree that Congress should have the power to regulate kees were negotiated as treaties, and treaties between na- the trade of the United States, and manage the affairs of tions competent to make treaties. They were ratified as the States, individually or collectively, or both, with them. treaties. They were called treaties, not only by us, but Congress had no power to go further. The treaties at by the French, Spanish, and English, before our time. Hopewell with the Choctaws and Chickasaws are expressThey were admitted to be treaties by Georgia. But whe-ed in the same terms, They were probably written by ther treaties. or not, is of no importance, because indispu- Governor Blount, who attests them, and hence the simitably they are what was meant and intended by the term larity. as used in the constitution; they are the thing that was to have the power and force given to it in the constitution, to control State laws and State constitutions. How, then, can we say to the Indian nations, that what we called treaties and ratified as treaties, were not in fact treaties! The object for which this power is given to the United States, is set forth in the same article, viz. "For the bene fit and comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuries and oppressions on the part of the citizens." By what authority, then, does Georgia, in the face of this tresty, abrogate all their laws, usages, and customs; subject them to her laws, and throw their country open to the in roads, injuries, and oppressions of her own citizens! And what becomes of the guaranty of boundary, and the protection of the United States promised them! I will call the attention of the House to the treaty of Hopewell, in 1785. This was a treaty in force when the constitution was adopted. It was a treaty then "made," and "all treaties made, or which should be made," &c. were to be the supreme law of the land. These are the words of the constitution. Georgia, by adopting the con 7. Retaliation is not to be practised on either side, “ exstitution, agreed, at least, to this treaty. Nor is there the cept for a manifest violation of this treaty; and then it slightest foundation for the suggestion that she did not in-shall be preceded by a demand of justice, and, if refused, tend to affirm this treaty. Let it be recollected that this by a declaration of hostilities." This, sir, looks very much treaty was not only uniformly called a treaty, known as like sovereignty. such, but, of all other treaties, this was most likely to be distinctly in view. 1st. Because it was one subject of her remonstrance to Congress in 1786. 2d. Because the boundary to which it related bad been a matter of perpetual dispute between her and the United States; and, 3d. Because, when she adopted the constitution, the proclama tion of Congress was then before the people, requiring submission to this very treaty, and calling upon the army to enforce it against the citizens of Georgia. Of all subjects, therefore, which Georgia had openly and fully in view, this was the most prominent, made so by the important cotemporaneous events which affected that State individually. But, independent of all this, it is enough that it was then deemed a treaty, and, as such, was made the supreme law of the land. Now, what is it? I have said that this treaty was affirmed by the adoption of the constitution as a "treaty made," and it is still in force. To remove all doubt upon this subject, I have only to remark, that, by the treaty of Philadelphia, in 1794, at Tellico in 1798, and again in 1805, and at the Cherokee agency in 1817, by General Jackson, this treaty of Hope well is recognised as a treaty in force, and perpetuated. But this is not all. In August, 1790, after the constitution was adopted, Washington addressed the following note to the Senate: "I shall conceive myself bound to execute the power entrusted to me by the constitution, to carry into effect and faithful execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless it shall be thought proper to attempt to arrange a new boundary with the Cherokees, embracing the settlements, and compensating the Cherokees for the cessions they shall make on the occasion." The white people had encroached upon the Cherokees contrary to the treaty of Hopewell; 3. A mutual restoration of prisoners, &c. is agreed upon. and the question was whether to expel them by force, 4. The boundary between the Cherokees and the citi-or purchase the land they occupied, and so by agreement zens of the United States (within "the United States of change the boundary fixed by the treaty of Hopewell America"-the technical corporate name of the confedera-He goes on" Is it the judgment of the Senate that overtion, excluding the idea that the hunting grounds lay in tures shall be made to the Cherokees to arrange a new 1. It is negotiated by plenipotentiaries on both sides. 2. The United States give peace to the Cherokees, and receive them into favor and protection. MAY 19, 1830.] Removal of the Indians. [H. or R. boundary, so as to embrace the settlements made by the to sustain this claim-are a dead letter, the sovereignty of vhite people since the treaty of Hopewell?" The Senate the Cherokees is recognised, and the protection of them nswer "That they do advise and consent that the Pre- guarantied. ident cause the treaty of Hopewell to be carried into ef ect according to its terms; or enter into arrangements for A further cession of territory from the Cherokees, at his discretion." At this stage in the progress of my remarks, allow me to advert to the origin of the claim on the part of Georgia, with a view to a consideration of the settlement of it in 1802. I have already remarked that, at the commencement of Hence the House see that this treaty was not only af- the revolution, the Indian boundary, in the different States, irmed by the constitution, but, at the first session of Con- was the boundary of their ordinary jurisdiction, and ingress under the constitution, it was recognised as a treaty in cluded the lands which had been purchased of the Indians orce; and without any change, except as to the boundary, as the aboriginal proprietors of them. In the progress of which has varied with the subsequent cessions of territory, the war, a question arose as to the wild lands west of the t still remains a treaty in force. It had in it no limitation boundary, and east of the Mississippi. Some of the States, s to time; and if it be not now in force, let the advocates having no particular title to these lands, being severed of this bill tell us when, where, and how it was abrogated. from them by other interjacent States, had nevertheless a The treaty of Holston with the Cherokee nation of 1791, deep interest in this question. An extract from the Jourvas accordingly negotiated, by which a further cession of nal of Congress in 1783, will show how this matter was and was obtained, and thereby the necessity of removing viewed by one side, at least, at that time. It is by way of he intruders obviated. A new boundary was established, recital. Whereas the territory (of the United States) of course; "and in order to preclude forever all disputes comprehends a large extent of country lying without the elative to said boundary, the same shall be ascertained, lines, limits, or acknowledged boundaries of any of the says the treaty) and marked plainly." And by the seventh United States, over which. or any part of which, no State article, "The United States solemnly guaranty to the can or ought to exercise any sovereign, legislative, or ju Cherokee nation all their lands not ceded by that treaty." risdictional faculty, the same having been acquired under Here the guaranty in the treaty of Hopewell is reiterated in the confederation, and by the joint and united efforts of more distinct and solemn form; for it will be found that all: And whereas several of the States acceded to the conWashington, when he asked the advice of the Senate to federation under the idea that a country unsettled at the which I have alluded, and in prospect of this identical commencement of this war, claimed by the British Crown, reaty of Holston, put this question. "Shall the United if wrested from the common enemy by the blood and States stipulate solemnly to guaranty the new boundary treasure of the thirteen States, should be considered as which may be arranged?" And the Senate answer, "That, a common property," therefore, Resolved, &c. Nothing n case a new boundary, other than that in the treaty of was done by Congress upon this proposition. The other Hopewell, be made, the Senate do advise and consent so- States, however, ceded their right to these lands, under emnly to guaranty the same." Sir, treaties cannot be certain limitations and reservations not material to be stated, nnulled at pleasure. There may not be good faith enough to become a common fund for the benefit of the United the parties to keep them, but their obligations live. States.* Georgia held on, and claimed as her own the imWhat answer can you give the Cherokee nation when now mense and valuable tract of land lying between the Atlantic alled upon to redeem this pledge? To make good your and the Mississippi, a part of which now constitutes the uaranty of this boundary, and to prevent the partition of States of Alabama and Mississippi. This was gained by the heir nation, and the annexation of its parts to Georgia? war of the revolution, the expense of which was apportionThe President has told us "they must submit." This billed among the States according to "the white, black, and ells us so, and tells the world so. Submit or remove, is e language. This treaty of Holston, the ninth article urther stipulated “that no citizen of the United States hould go into the Cherokee country without a passport," he barriers of which are all prostrate, and any man may yo at pleasure into it, or over it, unless this Government nterpose. Another treaty was concluded at Philadelphia in 1794, and another at Tellico in 1798, by which the Cherokees ede more land, and by which the United States, “in conideration of the cession thereby made, say to the Cherozee nation, that they will continue the guaranty of the emainder of their country forever, as made and contained n former treaties"-Hopewell, Holston, and Philadelhia. This is found in the sixth article of the treaty of l'ellico. In the face of these admissions on our part, who vill venture to say that the Cherokees are the citizens, The tenants at will, of Georgia! or subject to the jurisdicion of Georgia! Who does not see that they were soveeign-the sole, the admitted proprietors of the country ve guarantied to them forever"-we, the United States of America! The same stipulations as to boundary, settlement, trade, and generally as to intercourse, are contained in these creaties, as are comprised in the law of 1802, and show Conclusively, not only that the Cherokees are not subject to the jurisdiction of Georgia, but they interpose the most nsurmountable obstacles to an assumption of it by Georgia. And I feel justified in affirming, that, unless the laws of the United States and treaties under which we hold millions of acres of land-laws and treaties never questioned until it became necessary to deny their authority mulatto population," excluding Indians; and, during the confederation, according to the "value of the land in each State granted or surveyed for any person," excluding the wild lands. While Virginia paid eight hundred, and Massachusetts eight hundred and twenty thousand dollars, Georgia paid sixty thousand only. Immediately after the preliminaries of peace, Georgia undertook to fortify her claim, and passed an act declaring that the boundary of Georgia “do and did, and of right ought to, extend to the Mississippi," resting the right to such an extent of boundary upon her charter and the articles of confederation. The charter had been given up long before, and therefore no claim could be sustained under that, and it is clear the confederation settled nothing in relation to the title to these lands. Georgia, in her constitution of 1798, after setting forth her boundary as in the act of 1783, declares that all the territory without the present temporary line, and within the limits aforesaid, (that is, between the Indian boundary and the Mississippi,) is now, and of right, the property of the free citizens of this State." By the same article, authority is given to sell to the United States the land lying west of the Chatahoochee, and to procure an extinguishment of Indian claims to the land east of that river. The boundary of the ordinary jurisdiction of Georgia-" the temporary line”— is here recognised in her constitution, and the Cherokee country as lying without that boundary, as also the right of the Cherokees thereto. The purpose of Georgia was to establish in herself the right of pre-emption, as adverse to the right claimed by the United States. [MAY 19, 1830. ment of the Indian title. Conformably to this view, both parties acted for the twenty-six years next succeeding the compact. If Georgia be now right, the intercourse la of 1802, which was in force when her compact was made, was a direct invasion of her sovereignty. Did she ask for its repeal! No, sir. Her courts enforced it, and have done it ever since. The treaties then existing were also an invasion of her sovereignty, interdicting the Governor, upon her assumption, from passing a line within her ova jurisdiction-from entering or leaving the city of Savannah, for example. Did she require that they should be modźed or annulled? Not only no stipulation was made on this subject when it was under examination by the commissioners, but no request even. And until very lately she has acquiesced in them, and in ten other successive treaties of the same character, made since, taking the fruits of them, without an intimation to the Indian nations that they were void, or that they were parting with their land fur nothing. Now, sir, I say this question-this long die puted, and, if you please, vexed question-is settled; is not open to re-examination by Georgia. If there be force in law, or force in treaties, or force in contract, this question is settled, and Georgia is bound and stopped on this subject. But admitting the right of pre-emption to those lands to be in Georgia, by virtue of the compact of 1802, and if impatient that she may extinguish the Indian title, let us see how she may do it under the compact by which she claims the right to do it. This is supposing her not bound by the laws or treaties of the United States, but by the act she affirms and under which she claims. After twenty years' dispute upon this subject, in 1802, commissioners mutually appointed by the United States of the one part, and Georgia of the other, settled this much agitated and long disputed subject. Georgia ceded to the United States the land west of the Chatahoochee, now Alabama and Mississippi, the United States paying her one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and taking it subject to certain other claims, and among them the Yazoo claim, for which we have paid about five millions. The United States ceded to Georgia the lands lying east of said river, or the line of cession, whatever it was, and west of the Indian boundary, or the boundary of her ordinary jurisdiction, and engaged to extinguish the Indian title to it "as early as the same could be peaceably obtained on reasonable terms." The words of cession were, "the United States cede to the State of Georgia whatever claim, right, or title they may have to the jurisdiction or soil of any lands," describing them. It is an assignment or release of the right which the United States had to the jurisdiction and the soil. Now, sir, what was that? Not a right to dietate laws to the Cherokees ; not a right to cancel their laws and customs; not a right to invade, cut up, and distribute their country at pleasure. No, sir; the United States never claimed, nor had, nor exercised that right. All our obligations to the Cherokees, by treaties, laws, and what not, were incompatible with it. Not the federative obligation we were under to protect the Cherokees. That was, in no One article of that compact was, that the ordinance of sense, a jurisdictional right, but an obligation, growing 1787," in all its parts, should extend to the territory conout of treaty stipulatious-a trust, personal and confiden- tained in the act of cession," except in one particular, not tial, to be exercised by the United States, and not assign-material here to be considered. One part of that ordinance able nor removable, but by the consent of the Cherokees. of 1787, was, that "the utmost good faith should always Nor was it intended to be "ceded," because it has been be observed towards the Indians; their land and property recognised in ten successive treaties, since the cession, as should never be taken from them without their consent; still existing in the United States. It was a trust, for as- and in their property, rights, and liberty, they never should suming which, the United States received an equivalent be invaded nor disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars, for which they were paid. It conferred no favor, but im- authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and posed an obligation-one, therefore, that Georgia would humanity should from time to time be made, for prevent not have been willing to receive if the United States could ing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace have transferred it. What was it, then! Simply and solely and friendship with them." Another part of the compact the right of pre-emption. This was all the "claim, right, was, that whenever any new States, that might be formed or title" the United States had to the "soil." And the out of the territory so ceded, should be admitted into the right to protect that right of pre-emption-to defend it, if Union," it should be on an equal footing with the original need be, in any way in which it might be assailed-was all States in all respects whatever." the claim, right, or title the United States had to “juris- This article in the ordinance of 1787, in relation to the diction." And these were all the United States could or Indians, is declaratory of the rule of justice and policy to did assign to Georgia, or attempt to. But this whole coun- which all the States are subject and by which to be go try was then subject to the Indian title, possessed by the verned, as the new States are to come into the Union on Indian nations, under the government of the Indian laws, equal terms with the old States in all respects whatever,” such as they were, and fully and absolutely, with the limit- entitled to the same privileges, and subject to the same ations I have named, and those not at all affecting their duties. When, therefore, the old States require of the Sovereignty. In this condition of things, the United States new "to make laws to prevent wrongs being done to the stipulated with Georgia to extinguish the Indian title. Indians, that good faith shall always be observed, that their When? When it could be done peaceably-by treaty, not property, rights, and liberty shall not be invaded," it is an force-by cession, not usurpation-with the free consent, admission that they are under the same obligations. Indeed, not against the will of the Cherokees. Here was no stipu- these are such principles of natural justice as bind all men, lation on the part of the United States, express or implied, whether declared or not. They, at least, are not unconstito adopt any expedient to hasten the extinguishment of tutional principles. Now, sir, can any thing be more clear their title, which was not open and honorable; not even than that Georgia here admits that the Indians have landwhen it could be done" peaceably," unless on "reasonable have property-have rights-have liberty? That in the terms"-for a fair equivalent-not at all events and haz enjoyment of them they are never to be invaded nor disards; not an obligation absolute, but conditional. And if turbed? Or, if at all, only in just and lawful wars authothe Cherokees refuse to sell, and to leave their country, rized by Congress? This is what Georgia concedes to, and by compact with Georgia, the United States are under no affirms of the Indians west of the line of cession—a line obligations to her, subjecting the compact to any rule of that runs through the Cherokee nation. This is what she right reason, by which contracts with individuals are go- imposes upon the new States as a fundamental law of their verned. The land was not hers before. The compact is being, subject to which they come into the Union. If true, an admission of it. It is not to become hers until the event of the natives of Alabama and Mississippi, is it not true, happens that is to make it hers; and that is, the extinguish- also, of the natives belonging to the same nation on the MAY 19, 1830.] Removal of the Indians. [H. OF R east as well as on the west side of the line of cession of what it is now doing; that is, to put an end to the CheroGeorgia as well as of Alabama and Mississippi? Does the kee nation. In the third place, if a "new State," it is not compact make a distinction among the people of the same a State formed" within the jurisdiction" of Georgia. The ribe or between the lands they have not seen from the constitution does not say, in the often repeated phrase, nountains, or passed in the chase, and those they have cul- within the "chartered limits," or "geographical limits," ivated? The Cherokees have not only this land, property, or "limits" of Georgia-terms used as if they were of and liberty, and these rights here spoken of, but in these the same meaning as "jurisdictional limits"-the same they are never to be invaded nor disturbed by any State; lines, all coincident. No such thing. The Indian bound. never except in a war declared by Congress. How, then, ary is the limit of the jurisdiction of Georgia The other can Georgia extinguish the Indian title, take possession of lines indicate the extent of country to which she claims he Indian lands, without their consent, unless she violates the right of pre-emption, and, by every new purchase, of her own compact, as well as the laws and treaties of the adding to her territory, and thus extending the limits of United States. But has she not disturbed the Cherokee her jurisdiction. mation, and invaded their property, rights, and liberty? If by an act to make "all the laws, ordinances, orders, and egulations of a nation," as if they had never been; if to ubject the people of it to alien laws, and at the same time o exclude in any suit the evidence of the laws, usages, and customs upon which their property, rights, and liberty all rest as upon their basis, and without which there can be no property, or distinction of property, or rights, or iberty, be not disturbing and invading their property, ights and liberty, will you tell me, sir, what is? If this s not something more than making laws founded in justice and humanity, to prevent wrongs being done to them, what would be? These equivocal terms were rejected, and the word "jurisdiction" was substituted by the framers of the constitution for the word "limits"-the one extending to the Indian boundary only, and so considered by Georgia herself, down to the time of this dispute, the other being the geographical boundary of the State. Now, I take it upon myself to say, that, after the adoption of the constitution, there was no pretence for affirming that the Cherokees were within the jurisdiction of Georgia. I do not remark upon the improvement made in their form of government; for any man of sense must see that this can make no difference. The more perfect the system the better. Less the trouble from it. What the views of the framers of that instrument were in relation to these remnants of once mighty nations, I cannot say. Probably they looked forward to the time when they would melt away, or mingle with the current of There is not an act of Georgia since Oglethorp first white population, or pass off in some other form. Certain planted his foot upon the site of Savannah, when duly I am it was not their intention that "in their property, considered; there is not a resolve, ordinance, or law of rights, or liberty, they should ever be invaded or molestCongress; there is not a treaty of the United States with ed." This our ancestors said in 1787, and placed it on reche Indian tribes, that does not tend to establish the fact cord: and Georgia said the same in 1802. The Cherokee that the Indians are the proprietors of the lands, and hunt-nation, is not, therefore, a new State, formed within the ng grounds they claim, subject only to the restriction upon "jurisdiction" of Georgia. cheir right of alienation. You might have put the quession to every man in this nation, or child on the frontier, and he would have told you so, until the legislation of the States, aided by interest, instructed him otherwise. What, chen, becomes of the tenancy at will-at sufferance, as asserted by Georgia? Not one act, law, or treaty that does not establish the fact that they are sovereign. Sir, when were they otherwise? In what field were they conquered Produce the proof. But be it what it may, it is all controlled by a single, undisputed, admitted fact-here is the nation, until this invasion of it, still sovereign. There is no tradition that has not been lost in its descent, that it was ever otherwise than sovereign. The pyramids of Egypt, upon their own broad and solid foundations, are not better proof of themselves, than the Cherokee nation is of its sovereignty. Sir, the emblems of it were sparkling in the sun, when those who now inhabit Georgia, and all who ever did, were in the loins of their European ancestry; and the bird that bore them aloft in the upper skies the region that clouds never darkened-was not more the king of birds, than the Cherokees were the lords of the country in which they dwelt, acknowledging no supremacy but that of the Great Spirit, and awed by no power but his absolute, erect, and indomitable as any creatures upon earth the Deity ever formed. But it is said the constitution forbids the "creation of a new State within the jurisdiction of another State," and therefore the Cherokee Government cannot be tolerated. Before I examined this subject, I was embarrassed by this consideration. But it will be found that this article was drawn with great caution and forecast, and for the very purpose of saving these little sovereignties of the aboriginal inhabitants. In the first place, as has been clearly shown in this debate, they are not a "State," within the meaning of the constitution. In the next place, they are not a "new State." They were sovereignties when the constitution was adopted; therefore, the existence and toleration of them then was as much a violation of the constitution as it is now. According to the Georgia doctrine, the Government of the United States was then bound to do VOL. VI.-133. It has been said also that the United States have not extinguished the Indian title to the lands in question, as agreed at the cession. I have already remarked upon the conditions of the obligation then entered into; and it is a full answer to this complaint, to say that the United States have extinguished the title, until the Indians have refused to cede another acre; and that they have been always ready and willing, and are now ready to do it, if the Indians will consent to it. Then again it is said that the indisposition to sell is the result of the civilization of the Cherokees; and that that has been brought about by the agency of the Government. The answer to this is, that the United States were under obligation to do what they have done prior to the compact of 1802; and this was known to Georgia; and she took the stipulation, subject to this obligation, which is distinctly recognised in her own compact. Again; It has been urged against some of the treaties guarantying this country to the Cherokees, that the "just claims of the State of Georgia were" prejudiced thereby, contrary to the constitution. This is begging the question; for Georgia has no "just claim" to the Cherokee country; and, therefore, none is prejudiced. Georgia has no right, constitutional, or any other, that is incompatible with the engagements you have made to the Indian nations, or that is invaded by any law you have passed to" prevent wrongs being done to them, or to preserve peace and ¡friendship with them." But, sir, you cannot trace a step in the argument towards the result contended for by the friends of this bill, without blotting out a treaty, or tearing a seal from your bond. I give to the bill the connexion which it has in fact, whatever may be said to the contrary, with the laws of the States to which it is subsidiary, and with the decision of the President, that the Indians must submit or remove. Now, sir, I say you are bound to protect them where they H. OF R.] Removal of the Indians. [MAY 19, 1830. are, if they claim it at your hands. That you violate nowe must be made to blush, let it be before our equals, right of the States in doing it, and will violate the rights of Let there be at least dignity in our humiliation, and therethe Indian nations by not doing it. That when the United fore something of generosity, or courageous daring-someStates, in consideration of the cession of land made by the thing besides unmixed selfishness and domineering coward Cherokees to this Government, guarantied to them the ice in the act that produces it. ❝ remainder of their country forever," you meant some- Mr. EVERETT said he sensibly felt the disadvantages u thing by it. Sir, it is in vain to talk upon this question; der which he rose to address the House. Submissive as be impossible patiently to discuss it. If you have honor, it would ever be to the will of a majority of that body, be is pledged; if you have truth, it is pledged; if you have must express the opinion, that this discussion had been faith, it is pledged-a nation's faith, and truth, and honor! urged forward somewhat too severely. The bill was first And to whom pledged To the weak, the defenceless, the taken up [said Mr. E.] in Committee of the Whole, dependent. Fidem Anglorum in fœdere elegimus, they Thursday last. That and the following day were occupied say to you. Selecting your faith and no other-you would by the worthy chairman of the Committee on Indian Ai not have it otherwise we reposed our trust and confi- fairs, with the exposition in which he opened the case. The dence in you, and you alone. And for what pledged? hours appropriated to debate on Saturday were taken up Wherever you open your eyes, you see it; and wherever by the gentleman from New York, on the other side of the you plant your foot, you stand upon it. And by whom question. Monday was consumed by two gentlemen from pledged By a nation in its youth-a republic boastful of Georgia [Messrs. LUMPKIN and FOSTER] in supporting the its liberty: may it never be added, unmindful of its honor. bill, and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. ELLSWORTE Sir, your decision upon this subject is not to be rolled up in opposition to it. Yesterday was occupied by several in the scroll of your journal, and forgotten. The transac- gentlemen opposed to the bill: but the able argument of tion of this day, with the events it will give rise to, will the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. JOHNS] was made when stand out upon the canvas in all future delineations of this it might as well not have been made; at that hour of the quarter of the globe, putting your deeds of glory in the day, or rather of the night, when it is impossible to bring shade. You will see it everywhere. You will meet it on the attention, worn down by a protracted session, to the the page of history, in the essay of the moralist, in the consideration even of a subject as important as this. After tract of the jurist. You will see it in the vision of the a session of more than twelve hours, last night, the Compoet; you will feel it in the sting of the satirist; you will mittee of the Whole refused to rise, at the request of more encounter it in the indignant frown of the friend of liberty than one gentleman, who expressed a wish to address them and the rights of man, wherever despotism has not sub- against the policy now proposed; and when the committee dued to its dominion the very look. You will meet it upon did rise, the bill was reported to the House. Thus, sir, of the stage; you will read it in the novel; and the eyes of five days given to the discussion of a bill of this vast im your children's children, throughout all generations, will portance, a little more than two is all that has been allowed gush with tears as they run over the story, unless the ob- to those who think that it ought not to pass. The bill is livion of another age of darkness should come over the now out of committee, and it is not in order to reply to any world, and blot out the record and the memory of it. thing that has been urged in its favor. You have given m And, sir, you will meet it at the bar above. The Chero- less time to discuss this all-important measure than you de kees, if they are men, cannot submit to such laws and voted to the subject of a draughtsman for the House. I eatsuch degradation. They must go. Urged by such per- not think an urgency and a precipitation like this to be jus suasion, they must consent to go. If you will not inter- tifiable on such a subject. fere in their behalf, the result is inevitable-the object will Had the discussion been permitted to go on a little be accomplished. When the Cherokee takes his last look longer in Committee of the Whole, as we were promised of the cabin he has reared-of the field he has cultivated it should by the worthy chairman, (who, as far as it deof the mound that covers the ashes of his fathers for un-pended on him, would, I am quite sure, gladly have known generations, and of his family and friends, and leaves all to be desecrated by the greedy and obtrusive borderer-sir, I will not venture upon a description of this scene of a nation's exit and exile. I will only say, I would not encounter the secret, silent prayer that should be breathed from the heart of one of these sufferers, armed with the energy that faith and hope would give it, if there be a God that avenges the wrongs of the injured, for all the land the sun has looked upon. These children of nature will go to the stake, and bid you strike, without the motion of a muscle; but, if they can bear this; if they have reduced whatever there is of earth about them, to such a subjection to the spirit within, as to bear this, we are the meu to go into the wilderness, and leave them here as our betters. There are many collateral arguments bearing upon the main point of this discussion, that I intended to have urged, and many directly in my way that I have passed over, and most of them I have but touched. But full of interest as this question is, 1 dare not venture longer upon the patience of the House. At this age of the world, and in view of what they have been, and what we were, and of what they have become, and we are, anything but a breach of faith-the deep and lasting infamy, to say nothing of the appalling guilt of it-with the Indian tribes. If the great men who have gone before us were so improvident as to involve the United States in. contradictory and incompatible obligations, a breach of faith with all the world besides, rather than with these our confiding neighbors. If redeemed his pledge,) I intended to get at length into the argument set forth with such ability in his exposition of the policy of the bill. It is not in order now to execute this purpose; and if I were otherwise in a condition to do it, I could not attempt it. For the purpose of pushing forward this measure, the sessions of the House have been protracted to a point beyond the power of the human eonstitution to bear; and the little strength which I brought with me five hours ago to the House, has failed in the long waiting for an opportunity to address the House. I shall not, therefore, attempt to engage in the great constitu tional argument involved in this bill, nor to travel through the wide region of historical research, necessary to illos trate it in all its bearings. I shall confine myself to a limited and practical view of the subject, and a single branch of the argument. But, before I proceed, I will say a word or two on the imputation of mercenary motives against some of those individuals who, out of this House, have been conspicuots for their endeavors to enlighten the public mind on this subject. That imputation has obtained no small currency elsewhere, and has, to say the least, lost no strength by the terms in which it has been repeated on this floor. It has been more than insinuated, that their pretended zeal in the cause of the Indians, on the score of humanity and religion, is prompted by the basest motives of selfishness, and that the annuities of the Cherokee nation have been looked to, and have been disbursed, as the reward of these pretended efforts of philanthropy. |