U.S. History
Graybill
The Removal of the Cherokee Nation
A Documentary Source Problem
The Cherokee people lived in the southern Appalachian mountains (what is today the western
Carolinas, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia) for many generations before Europeans arrived there in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. From that point on, however, Europeans continually encroached
on Cherokee lands, which provoked continual conflict.
In an effort to reduce conflict, the U.S. Government and the Cherokee nation concluded an
agreement, the Treaty of Hopewell, on November 28, 1785. That treaty required the Cherokee to cede a
vast territory in what is, today, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama to
whites. In exchange, the treaty guaranteed to the Cherokee the right to inhabit their ancestral lands in
perpetuity; and through the device of the treaty, the Cherokee had placed themselves under the
protection of the United States Government. They believed that the treaty gave them full and permanent
rights to ownership of their territorial lands. Many white citizens of Georgia, however, as well as many
other white Americans elsewhere in the United States, did not regard Indians as equals. These whites
believed that Indians in general, and the Cherokee in particular, possessed only a temporary "right of
occupancy," a right that the federal government could, at its discretion, revoke. But there were also a
growing number of white people in the United States who had come to believe, by the 19th century, that
Indians who had signed treaties with the United States Government had rights that the federal
government and state governments could not simply take away from them arbitrarily. This tension
between different groups of whites led to a struggle over Indian policy within the United States
Government.
In the early 19th century, the federal government sought to facilitate the westward expansion of
the country by establishing federal ownership over western lands that individual states had claimed prior
to the creation of the federal Constitution. In 1802, the U.S. Government concluded a compact with the
State of Georgia, in which Georgia ceded its western land claims to the United States in return for a
promise by the federal government to extinguish Indian titles to lands within Georgia, as soon as this
could be done, as the terms of the compact stated, "peaceably and on reasonable terms." In practicality,
this meant that such an action could be taken only if Indians agreed to it voluntarily. The most
significant Indian nation affected by this agreement was the Cherokee, a tribe of approximately 25,000
Indians, including a small minority of so-called "mixed-bloods," who occupied a territory nearly the size
of the State of Massachusetts, extending, in a broad strip, from central Georgia up into the hills of
northeastern Alabama, eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina.
But because the U.S. Government had a pre-existing agreement with the Cherokee (the Treaty of
Hopewell, 1785), the Cherokee could not be legally forced off their land. As a matter of law, Cherokee
migration would have to be voluntary, for it to be legal. After 1802, the United States Government and
Georgia officials attempted to persuade the Cherokee to abandon their ancestral lands and move west.
The Cherokee, however, simply refused to go; and federal officials faithfully adhered to the terms of the
Treaty of Hopewell and did not force to them to move. But this enraged Georgia officials, who had a
different interpretation of Indians’ rights under federal law. By the 1820’s, a growing number of white
1
Georgians believed that the United States Government had failed to fulfill its obligations to Georgia
under the compact of 1802, and they were very angry.
After the Creek War of 1814, in which the Cherokee had helped General Andrew Jackson
subdue a dissident faction of the Creek tribe, some Cherokee reconsidered removal to the west. One
faction, about one-third of the Cherokee nation, which wished to retain the life of the hunt, moved west
across the Mississippi (what is today Arkansas and Oklahoma), while the remainder of the tribe adopted
many of the habits and forms of life common in white America. Not only had a majority of Cherokee
failed to move west, but those who remained had set themselves upon a deliberate program of
"civilization" on the white man’s terms. Accepting the Jeffersonian ideal of the independent, free
individual farmer, the Cherokee established successful farms, multiplied their livestock, educated their
children in missionary schools, and eventually, in 1827, developed a full-scale republican political
organization with institutions patterned directly upon those of the United States. They adopted a written
constitution, and soon developed their own written language and alphabet; they even established their
own newspapers. Every step toward "civilization" intensified their interest in retaining their homeland.
Moreover, those Cherokee who had moved west wrote to their relatives that the environment in their
new home was unfamiliar and very difficult. By the 1820's, then, the vast majority of the eastern
Cherokee had decided that they would never move to Oklahoma.
Evidence of Cherokee progress toward “civilized” lifestyles aggravated land-hungry white
Georgians. These whites believed, correctly, that the Cherokee were attempting to secure a "permanent"
claim to their land by adopting "civilized" (that is, white) practices. But no matter how many "white"
habits the Cherokee adopted, white Georgians on the frontier implacably opposed the idea that the
Cherokee had a permanent right to their land. For these whites, the Cherokee were an obstacle to white
progress, and in the 1820’s they compelled the Georgia state government to pressure the federal
government to evict the Cherokee. Regardless of the specific wording of the Treaty of Hopewell, they
believed that the federal government was legally and morally obligated to remove the Cherokee, at any
cost, from Georgia.
By the 1820s, then, the federal government faced a difficult problem. Whites in Georgia believed
that the 1802 compact compelled the United States Government to remove the Cherokee. But a precise
legal reading of the Treaty of Hopewell (1785) indicated that it explicitly promised the Cherokee the
land as long as they wanted to live on it. Several successive presidents, including Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams acted on the belief that the Treaty of Hopewell
obligated the federal government to respect the Cherokee’s decision to stay on their land. These
presidential administrations maintained, in the end, that the United States government was only
obligated to make a good-faith ATTEMPT to extinguish Indian titles to lands within Georgia, and only
IF this could be done, according to the wording of the compact of 1802, "peaceably and on reasonable
terms." While these presidents were universally sympathetic to white Georgians' desire to remove Indian
tribes to the West, federal negotiators failed to persuade the Cherokee to voluntarily surrender their land.
Despite their sympathy with white Georgians’ objectives, these same presidents, from 1802 to 1829,
were unwilling to use federal force to evict the Cherokee, because they believed that the Treaty of
Hopewell gave Indians legal rights to their land.
This state of affairs left white Georgians furious and bitter. To their delight, radical change was
on the horizon. In 1828, Andrew Jackson made Indian removal a major campaign issue in his quest for
2
the presidency. A large number of southerners and westerners enthusiastically supported Jackson, and
his position on Indian removal, unsurprisingly, was extremely popular among white Georgians. He won
election that year in a landslide. With his inauguration in 1829, the process of Indian removal,
particularly as it affected the Cherokee, entered a new stage.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT – PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION!!!!!
3
Prepare for writing the paper by reading (and then rereading) the documents until you have a
knowledgeable command of them. You should also consult the textbook for insight into the causes and
consequences of Cherokee Removal.
Your objective in this assignment is simple to explain but rather more difficult to complete. In an essay
of approximately 5 typed pages, double spaced, 1" margins, write an historical, interpretive account of
Cherokee Removal in the 1830s, based on your analysis of the documents in this collection.
That is, write a history of Cherokee Removal, just as an historian would. Explain its origins, the crucial
events of it, and, finally, the outcomes. Your principal task is to explain what happened in Georgia
between 1785 and 1838. While completing this task, you should also explain why it happened and the
consequences of the event.
USE ONLY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AS SOURCES TO WRITE YOUR ACCOUNT (You
may consult other sources to help you understand the context, but you may quote only the introduction
to this document collection and the textbook - no other sources are allowed). Since there are many more
issues and facts in these documents than you can possibly include in a five page paper, do not attempt to
discuss all of them. Concentrate on writing a coherent interpretation of the major events, supporting
your conclusions with relevant facts and examples drawn primarily from these documents.
Begin by reading through the documents several times. After you begin to get the feeling that you have a
good general command of the documents, you might make an annotated timeline of the events to help
you keep track of the major sequence of events. Then consider how to reconstruct the crucial sequence
of events in a way that makes chronological sense and also makes sense of the diversity of sources. As
you’ll see, the people who witnessed this event disagreed, sometimes violently, about what caused it.
Like an historian, you need to try to figure out how to make sense of these differences of opinion. Above
all, your paper should demonstrate a clear understanding of the major sequence of events leading to and
from Cherokee Removal.
Consider the documents in this packet as kind of puzzle. In the broadest sense, your task in this paper
assignment is to arrange the pieces of the puzzle so that they make sense - that is, so that they help you
explain WHAT happened, WHY it happened, WHO were the important figures in this event, WHERE
the events took places, and WHEN the most significant events occurred. Above all, be sure to make the
SEQUENCE OF MAJOR EVENTS in this incident clear!
Your essay should include numerous examples and evidence drawn directly from documents provided in
this package. ESSAYS MUST CONTAIN EVIDENCE DRAWN FROM THE DOCUMENTS,
THOUGHTFULLY COMPOSED AND ORGANIZED, IN ORDER TO SUCCESSFULLY
COMPLETE THIS ASSIGNMENT!
FINALLY, YOUR ACCOUNT SHOULD BE AS FLAWLESSLY AND GRACEFULLY WRITTEN
AS YOU CAN MAKE IT!
Rules of Composition
4
Each essay should also possess an introductory paragraph, a body, and a conclusion.
The introduction should provide just that - an introduction to the topic you're going to examine. A good
introduction provides a thesis statement (a sentence or sentences that decisively state an argument or
position that you will develop and demonstrate in your essay) and a brief statement of the main points
you intend to develop in your essay.
The body should be composed of several paragraphs that support your thesis and main points of your
essay. Above all, the body provides the EVIDENCE that proves your thesis. More than any other single
criteria, your work will be judged on the quantity and quality of the evidence you provide and your
analysis of it. So you should devote most of your time to assembling and intelligently examining
evidence.
Good essays will provide numerous pieces of evidence from the documents to support the argument.
Poor essays will provide little or no evidence drawn from the documents.
For the purposes of the essays you will be writing, the term "evidence" includes examples and major
ideas drawn from the documents. Thus your essays should contain numerous quotations drawn
specifically from the documents.
The conclusion can be constructed in a variety of ways: it may be a brief summary of the main points of
your essay; it may also be a restatement of your thesis; but the best conclusion is one that demonstrates
the historical significance of the issue at hand and your analysis of it.
Citation Style
5
When citing your document sources for this assignment, simply indicate the number of the document in
parenthesis following the quote.
For example:
Georgia state officials grew increasingly angry about the federal government’s inaction. In April 1825,
George M. Troup, Georgia’s governor, wrote to John Forsythe, a United States congressman from
Georgia, urging greater federal action. Troup demanded that, “[t]he Cherokees must be told, in plain
language, that the lands they occupy belong to Georgia … The United States are bound, in justice to
themselves, instantly to arrest the progress of improvement in the Cherokee country ... .” (Doc. #2)
You may also quote from the textbook as well. If you do, simply provide an abbreviation of the title of
the textbook, GML (for Give Me Liberty!) and the page number in the parenthesis following the quote.
For example:
Eric Foner concludes that “[a]t the time of independence, Indians had been a familiar presence in many
parts of the United States. By 1840, in the eyes of most whites east of the Mississippi River, they were
simply a curiosity, a relic of an earlier period of American history.” (GML, 331)
A Warning on Sources
These documents should be the only source upon which you base your paper. Do not write a paper based
on sources other than those that are provided for you here! There are numerous other accounts on
Cherokee Removal available in the library and on the web. But they are based on other - or additional
evidence, and they would be more likely to confuse you than to help you in working with this specific,
limited set of documents. In any case, your grade on this assignment will depend on how well you
analyze and interpret the documents in this collection!
A Warning on Plagiarism
What is plagiarism? Plagiarism is literary thievery. It is the use of somebody else’s material (as if it
were your own) in a paper or an essay without giving credit to the author. The following are examples of
the criteria that will be used in this class to identify plagiarism:
Plagiarism is a serious offense (and I treat it seriously). It can lead to dismissal from the college and
severe long-term consequences for completing a college or university education in the United States.
The questions below may assist you in making sense of the documents.
6
1. In the compact of 1802 the federal government agreed to extinguish Indian title to Georgia lands as
soon as this could be done peaceably and on reasonable terms. Did Georgia and federal officials
understand this stipulation in the same way? What evidence is there that the federal government adhered
faithfully to this policy? Is there any evidence that it did not?
2. What range of opinions existed about the reasons why the Cherokee had to be removed? Did anyone,
except some of the Indians themselves, oppose removal?
3. Did the federal government adhere to Andrew Jackson's stipulation that "the emigration should be
voluntary" in both letter and spirit?
4. Were the Cherokee given an opportunity to make a "democratic decision" on removal -- by the
Federal government? By the government of Georgia? By their own leaders?
5. What was the nature of the division of opinion within the Cherokee community? Which faction
appears to have been most justified in its position?
6. How did proponents of removal understand the relation between the Indians and a larger American
mission? Was there a role for the Indians in that mission?
7. How was "civilization" understood by white Americans? By the Cherokee?
8.What was the effect of each of the two major Supreme Court decisions?
9. How might the attitudes of officials in the Jackson administration toward the exercise of power in the
Cherokee tribal organization have been related to their views of "progress" and of the political elevation
of "the common man?"
10. What was the turning point - or turning points - in the process of Cherokee removal?
11. What are we to make of the role of John Ross in the whole matter?
12. How did the War Department respond to the messages it received back from its officers and agents
in the field?
These questions are intended as a guide to possible interpretive issues in the collection. Your main
concern should not be to answer these specific questions -but to construct a passage with continuity of
narrative and interpretation! You will certainly need to deal with some of these questions in the process
of explaining the broader meaning of the events you describe, but you should not interrupt the narrative
at an inappropriate point merely to answer one of the questions.
DOCUMENT #l
7
Cherokee National Council statement - excerpt, 1823.
It is the fixed and unalterable determination of this nation never again to cede one foot more of our
land.
DOCUMENT #2
Correspondence, Governor George M. Troup of Georgia to John Forsyth, Congressman from Georgia,
April 6, 1825.
The Cherokees must be told, in plain language, that the lands they occupy belong to Georgia ... Why
conceal from them the fact that every advance in the improvement of the country is to ensure to the
benefit of Georgia; that every fixture will pass with the soil into our hands, sooner or later .... The
United States are bound, in justice to themselves, instantly to arrest the progress of improvement in the
Cherokee country; it is the reason constantly assigned by the Cherokees for their refusal to abandon the
country.
DOCUMENT #3
Popular Georgia folk song in late 1820's and 1830's.
All I ask in this creation
Is a pretty little wife and a big plantation
Way up yonder in the Cherokee Nation.
DOCUMENT #4
Andrew Jackson, First Inaugural Address, excerpt, March 4, 1829
It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and
liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is
consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people.
DOCUMENT #5
8
Correspondence, Secretary of War, John Eaton to William Carroll, Governor of Tennessee and U.S.
Commissioner Plenipotentiary (that is, Carroll held two positions at once. He was Governor of
Tennessee and chief federal negotiator for removing the Cherokee from the Southeast), May 30, 1829.
A crisis in our Indian affairs has arrived. Strong indications are seen of this in the circumstance of the
Legislatures of Georgia and Alabama, extending their laws…. Emigration is the only relief for the
Indians
The President is "of opinion" that, if they "can be approached in any way that shall elude their
prejudices, and be enlightened as to their true relations to the States, they will consent to remove. He
therefore desires that you will undertake to enlighten the Creeks and Cherokees…
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 their own prejudices. This cannot be
done by "a General Council." It must be done by "an appeal to the Chiefs and influential men."
It is believed that the more careful you are to secure from even the Chiefs the official character you
carry with you, the better...Presents in your discretion to the amount of not more than $2000 might be
made with effect, by attaching to you the poorer Indians, as you pass through their Country, given as
their friend; and the same to the Children of the Chiefs, and the Chiefs themselves, in clothes, or
otherwise....
DOCUMENT #6
“William Penn” [pen name for Jeremiah Evarts, chief administrative officer, American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions – a religious missionary society], A Brief View of the Present
Relations between the Government and People of the United States and the Indians within Our National
Limits, November 1829.
… The positions here cited are deemed incontrovertible….
That the removal of any nation of Indians from their country by force would be an instance of gross
and cruel oppression:
That all attempt to accomplish this removal of the Indians by bribery or fraud, by intimidation and
threats, by withholding from them a knowledge of the strength of their cause, by practising (sic) upon
their ignorance, and their fears, or by vexatious opportunities, interpreted by them to mean nearly the
same thing as a command; - all such attempts are acts of oppression, and therefore entirely
unjustifiable:
That the United States are firmly bound by treaty to protect Indians from force and encroachments
on the part of a state; and a refusal thus to protect them would be equally an act of bad faith as a refusal
to protect them against individuals; and
That the Cherokees have therefore the guaranty [sic] of the United States, solemnly and repeatedly
given, as a security against encroachments from Georgia and the neighboring States. By virtue of this
guaranty the Cherokees may rightfully demand, that the United States shall keep all intruders at a
distance, from whatever quarter, or in whatever character, they come. Thus secured and defended in the
9
possession of their country, the Cherokees have a perfect right to retain that possession as long as they
please. Such retention of their country is no just cause of complaint or offence to any State, or to any
individual. It is merely an exercise of natural rights, which rights have been not only acknowledged but
repeatedly and solemnly confirmed by the United States.
DOCUMENT #7
Andrew Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress [state of the union address], excerpt, Dec. 8, 1829.
Our conduct toward these people is deeply interesting to our national character. Their present
condition, contrasted with what they once were, makes a most powerful appeal to our sympathies. Our
ancestors found them the uncontrolled possessors of these vast regions. By persuasion and force they
have been made to retire from river to river and from mountain to mountain, until some of the tribes
have become extinct and others have left but remnants to preserve for a while their once terrible names.
Surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization, which by destroying the resources of the savage
doom him to weakness and decay, the fate of the Mohigan [sic], the Narragansett and the Delaware is
fast overtaking the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek. That this fate surely awaits them if they
remain within the limits of the States does not admit of a doubt.
... I suggest for your consideration the propriety of setting apart an ample district west of the
Mississippi, and without the limits of any State or Territory now formed, to be guaranteed to the Indian
tribes as long as they shall occupy it, ...There the benevolent may endeavor to teach them the arts of
civilization, and, by promoting union and harmony among them, to raise up an interesting
commonwealth, destined to perpetuate the race and to attest the humanity and justice of this
Government.
The emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as it would be unjust to compel the
aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land. But they should be
distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits of the States they must be subject to their laws. In
return for their obedience as individuals they will without doubt be protected in the enjoyment of those
possessions which they have improved by their industry. But it seems to me visionary to suppose that in
this state of things claims can be allowed on tracts of country on which they have neither dwelt nor
made improvements, merely because they have seen them from the mountain or passed them in the
chase.
Editor’s Note: Jackson’s proposal to move Indians to the west was greeted by great enthusiasm from
southern and western politicians in 1830. But in the north and northeast, many white Americans were
outraged, especially religious groups like the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
(cited in document 6 above, and the Quakers, and these groups organized a ferocious campaign to block
the bill.
DOCUMENT #8
10
Bill of the Georgia Legislature, signed by the Governor, December 19, 1829, excerpt
[The law was authorized to go into effect in June, 1830].
Be it enacted by the senate and the house of representatives, of the state of Georgia.... that... all that part
of the unlocated [sic] territory, within the limits of this state, and which lies between the Alabama line
and the old path leading from the Buzzard Roost on the Chattahoochie to Sally Hughes', on the
Hightower river, thence to Thomas Petet’s, on the old federal road... be... added to and shall become a
part of the country of Carroll.
[the next four articles added sections of Cherokees territory to 4 other counties] ... And be it further
enacted, That all the laws, both civil and criminal of this state, be... extended over said portions of
territory respectively, and all persons shall, after the first day of June next, be subject and liable to the
operation of said laws ... And be it further enacted, 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,... are hereby declared to be null and
void and of no effect, as if the same had never existed ...
And be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any person or body of persons by arbitrary
power or by virtue of any pretended rule, ordinance, law or custom of said Cherokee nation, to prevent,
by threats, menaces, or other means, to endeavor to prevent any Indian of said nation residing within
the chartered limits of this state, from enrolling as an emigrant or actually emigrating, or removing
from said nation; ...
And be it further enacted, that any person or body of persons offending against the provisions of the
foregoing section, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, subject to indictment, and on conviction, shall
be punished by confinement in the common jail of any county of this state, or by confinement at hard
labor in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding four years....
And be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any person or body of persons,...to prevent... or
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 to prevent...any Indian, head man,
chief or warrior of said nation... from meeting in council or treaty, any commissioner or commissioners
on the part of the United States, for any purpose whatever...
... And be it further enacted, 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.
DOCUMENT #9
11
Representative Edward Everett of Massachusetts, Address in the U.S. House of Representatives, May
19, 1830.
They have but to cross the Cherokee line; they have but to choose the time and the place where the eye
of no white men can rest upon them, and they may burn the dwelling, waste the farm, plunder the
property, assault the person, murder the children of the Cherokee subject of Georgia, and though
hundreds of the tribe may be looking on, there is not one of them that can be permitted to bear witness
against the spoiler.
Editor's Note: Everett was one of a group of northern and northeastern politicians who vehemently
resisted Indian removal, and his remarks above were offered regarding the injustice of the imminent
enactment of the Georgia law of 1830 cited above, Document 8, which forbade anyone of Indian blood
to bring suit or to testify against a white man and which made invalid any contract between a white man
and an Indian unless established by the testimony of two white witnesses.
DOCUMENT #10
David Crockett, A Narrative of the Life of Davy Crockett, by Himself, 1834, excerpt describing his
position on the proposed Indian Removal Act in the spring of 1830, while he was serving in Congress as
a representative from Tennessee.
His [Jackson’s] famous, or rather should I say infamous, Indian bill was brought forward, and I
opposed it from the purest motives in the world. Several of my colleagues got around me, and told me
how well they loved me, and that I was ruining myself. They said it was a favourite [sic] measure of the
president, and I ought to go for it. I told them I believed it was a wicked, unjust measure, and that I
should go against it, let the cost to myself be what it might; that I was willing to go with General
Jackson in everything that I believed was honest and right; but further than this I wouldn’t go for him,
or any other man in the whole creation. I voted against this Indian bill, and my conscience yet tells me
that I gave a good honest vote, and that I believe will not make me ashamed in the day of judgment.
Editor’s note: Crockett lost his seat in the House of Representatives in the next election because
President Jackson and his allies were determined to punish him for his opposition to the Indian Removal
Act. He was later killed at the battle of the Alamo in Texas in February 1836.
DOCUMENT #11
12
Indian Removal Act, May 26, 1830, Congressional legislation that authorized the president to transfer
Eastern Indian tribes to western territories across the Mississippi River.
SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in
Congress assembled, That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so
much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of the river Mississippi, not included in any
state or organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguished, as he may judge
necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of
Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there; and to cause
each of said districts to be so described by natural or artificial marks, as to be easily distinguished from
every other.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to exchange any or
all of such districts, so to be laid off and described, with any tribe or nation within the limits of any of
the states or territories, and with which the United States have existing treaties, for the whole or any
part or portion of the territory claimed and occupied by such tribe or nation, within the bounds of any
one or more of the states or territories, where the land claimed and occupied by the Indians, is owned by
the United States, or the United States are bound to the state within which it lies to extinguish the Indian
claim thereto.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That in the making of any such exchange or exchanges, it shall and
may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made,
that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the
country so exchanged with them; and if they prefer it, that the United States will cause a patent or grant
to be made and executed to them for the same: Provided always, That such lands shall revert to the
United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That if, upon any of the lands now occupied by the Indians, and to be
exchanged for, there should be such improvements as add value to the land claimed by any individual or
individuals of such tribes or nations, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such value to
be ascertained by appraisement or otherwise, and to cause such ascertained value to be paid to the
person or persons rightfully claiming such improvements. 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.
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That upon the making of any such exchange as is contemplated by this
act, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such aid and assistance to be furnished to the
emigrants as may be necessary and proper to enable them to remove to, and settle in, the country for
which they may have exchanged; and also, to give them such aid and assistance as may be necessary for
their support and subsistence for the first year after their removal.
SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such tribe
or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other
tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.
13
SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to have the same
superintendence and care over any tribe or nation in the country to which they may remove, as
contemplated by this act, that he is now authorized to have over them at their present places of
residence.
Editors Note: The Indian Removal Act of 1830, which set aside what is today the state of Oklahoma as
“Indian Territory,” passed by a very narrow margin; many members of Congress, especially from the
Northeast, bitterly condemned it. For example, Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey
denounced the bill in the United States Senate: “We have crowded the tribes upon a few miserable acres
of our Southern frontier: it is all that is left to them of their once boundless forests: and still, like the
horse-leech, our insatiated [sic] cupidity cries, give! give! give! … 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?” In the end, northern congressman and
senators voted 2-1 against the bill, but a solid turnout by southern and western representatives led to a
very narrow victory by the pro-removal faction.
DOCUMENT #12
James Mooney, Ethnographer and Anthropologist, "Myths of the Cherokee," published in the19th
Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (a narrative drawn from personal interviews with Cherokee
survivors of the "Trail of Tears and U.S. Army officers who "escorted" the Cherokee),1897-1898.
The whole territory [of the Cherokee nation] was soon after (June 1, 1830), mapped out into counties
and surveyed by state surveyors into "land lots" of 160 acres each, and "gold lots" of 40 acres, which
were put up and distributed among the white citizens of Georgia by public lottery, each white citizen
receiving a ticket. Every Cherokee head of a family was, indeed, allowed a reservation of 160 acres, but
no deed was given, and his continuance depended solely on the pleasure of the legislature.... About the
same time the Cherokee were forbidden to hold councils or to assemble for any public purpose, or to dig
for gold upon their own lands.
DOCUMENT #13
Letter from George Gilmer, Governor of Georgia, to Andrew Jackson, June 17, 1830.
I transmit to the President, for his information, two proclamations. One of which is designed to notify
the Indians, within the State, of the extension of its jurisdiction over them; the other, white persons as
well as Indians, to desist from trespassing upon the property of the State, by taking gold or other
Valuable minerals from its ungranted land. Before these proclamations had reached the part of the State
occupied by the Cherokees, the United States' troops had driven from it all persons except Indian
occupants.
The President is aware that such an exercise of power is believed not to be authorized by the
Constitution of the United States, and more especially since the passage of the law, by Georgia,
extending the jurisdiction of the State over all its Indian territory. It is, however, so important an object
with the State, to obtain from the United States the execution of its contract of 1802, to remove the
14
Indians from within its limits, that it has been unwilling to create the least embarrassment by any
assertion of its rights in opposition to the policy of the General Government.
... The persons who have been removed by them (the federal troops) were those engaged in mining for
gold. Their number amounted to several thousand, most of whom had found their employment
exceedingly profitable. The Indians, in their immediate vicinity so far from objecting to the occupation
of their country by the gold miners, it is said, favored their presence. They were not interrupted in the
accustomed enjoyment of their country by the taking of gold from its soil.
When the gold diggers were removed by the troops, although much discontent was felt, they retired to
their homes without any actual resistance. It however soon became known that the mines, from which
they had been driven, were immediately taken possession of by the Indians, and the whites connected
with them, and that they were permitted to take the gold therefrom [sic] without any resistance from the
troops who had dispossessed the citizens of the State.
There is much reason to apprehend that the Indians will be forcibly driven from the whole of the gold
region, unless they are immediately prohibited from appropriating its mineral wealth to themselves.
....The State of Georgia is ... entitled to the gold and silver in its territory, occupied by the Indians
....Such is believed to be the legal doctrine of all the other States; it is certainly that of the Supreme
Court of the United States, as to the lands of Georgia. It is believed that if the Indians were permitted to
take possession of the gold mines, through the assistance of the United States Government that, instead
of being removed, they will become fixed upon the soil of Georgia. It is said that preparations are
making by a large number of the wealthy Cherokees to remove into the gold region, for the purpose of
participating in its mineral riches, if they can be protected in so doing by the United States. We shall
thus not only retain the Cherokees who have hitherto occupied the lands of the States, but many of those
who reside in Tennessee, Alabama, and North Carolina.
The State of Georgia cannot permit her rights to be violated by persons subject to her jurisdiction, as
the Indians are acknowledged to be, without applying a remedy adequate to the removal of the evil. In
exercising this power, however, if it should unfortunately become necessary, it will be the object of the
State to do it in such a manner as to aid, rather than thwart, the policy of the present administration...
DOCUMENT #14
Correspondence, Andrew Jackson to Major William B. Lewis, United States Army, August 25, 1830.
... I have used all the persuasive means in my power. I have exonerated the national character from all
imputation, and now leave the poor deluded Creeks and Cherokees to their fate, and their annihilation,
which their wicked advisers have induced. I am sure the stand the Executive has taken was not
anticipated by their wicked advisers. It was expected that the more the Indians would hold out, and
oppose the views of the Government, the greater would be the offers made by the Executive, and all the
missionary and speculating tribe would make fortunes out of the United States. The answer sent, has
blasted these hopes and if I mistake not, the Indians will now think for themselves, and send to the City a
delegation prepared to cede their country and move X the M [across the Mississippi].
15
DOCUMENT #15
Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Message to Congress, excerpt, December 6, 1830
Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would
go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy,
prosperous people.
DOCUMENT #16
Correspondence, Andrew Jackson to Lewis Cass, Secretary of War, 1831.
An absolute independence of the Indian tribes from State authority can never bear an intelligent
investigation and a quasi-independence of State authority when located within its Territorial limits is
absurd.
DOCUMENT #17
Chief Justice John Marshall, United States Supreme Court, majority opinion in Cherokee Nation v. State
of Georgia, March 5, 1831.
This bill is brought by the Cherokee nation, praying an injunction to restrain the state of Georgia from
execution of certain laws of that state, which, as is alleged, go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a
political society, and to seize, for the use of Georgia, the lands of the nation which have been assured, to
them by the United States in solemn treaties repeatedly made and still in force.
...Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore, unquestioned right
to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government;
yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the
United States, can with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly,
perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations .... Their relation to the United States resembles
that of a ward to his guardian...
...the majority is of opinion that an Indian, tribe or nation with the United States is not a foreign state in
the sense of the constitution and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States.
...The bill requires us to control the legislature of Georgia, and to restrain exertion of its physical force.
The propriety of such an interposition by the court may be well questioned. It savours too much of the
exercise of political power to be within the proper province of the judicial department. But the opinion
on the point respecting parties makes it unnecessary to decide this question.
If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be
asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is
not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future. The motion for an injunction is denied.
16
DOCUMENT #18
Correspondence, George R. Gilmer, Governor of Georgia, to Col. John W. A. Sanford, Georgia State
Militia, April 20, 1831.
Sir: I am desirous of receiving from you such information, in answer to the following inquiries as your
official station may enable you to obtain:
What effect has the late decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in dismissing their bill of
injunction against Georgia, had upon the Cherokees.
Are their chiefs disposed to make a treaty? If so, what means will be most efficient to secure that result.
If their chiefs are not so disposed is the temper of the middle and lower classes different? Could they be
induced to have a general meeting of the whole tribe without the concurrence of their chiefs?
What White men, residing among the Indians or elsewhere, can, with the greatest probability of success,
be employed to explain to them the policy of the General Government in desiring their removal to the
Arkansas, and the right of the State, which induced the extension of its jurisdiction over them, and to
convince them of the great advantage they will derive from an immediate removal?
Are there any individuals so situated that they could be employed for this object, without exciting the
suspicions of the Indians that they were the agents of the Government?
Are they any of the half-breeds who could be trusted with such an employment...
You are also requested to communicate to me whatever information you may have of the conduct of the
missionaries, Worcester and Thompson, or either of them, in opposing the removal of the Indians to the
west of the Mississippi, creating opposition to the laws of Georgia, or inducing the Indians to persist in
their attempt to establish an independent government ...
Editors Note: Early in 1831, under provision of the Georgia Law of December 22 1830, the Georgia
Militia arrested about a dozen missionaries for residing in Cherokee territory without a license from the
State of Georgia. Although first released as agents of the United States, several, including the Rev.
Samuel Worcester, were rearrested after President Jackson indicated that they were not serving as U.S.
agents and after he removed several of them, including Worcester, from posts as U.S. postmaster so that
they would have no federal position. Worcester was arrested, found guilty, sentenced to four years
imprisonment. From prison he appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the Cherokee
nation was independent of Georgia and that Georgia authorities therefore had no authority to arrest him,
or anyone else, in the Cherokee nation. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cherokee Nation v.
State of Georgia, the Cherokee nation could not be a party to a suit, but Worcester, as a U.S. Citizen,
could be.
17
DOCUMENT #19
Correspondence, Col. J.W.A. Sanford to Governor George B. Gilmer, May 5, 1831
...Their chiefs, seeing the country gradually wasting away from a cause they have ceased to control, may
make a virtue of necessity, and at length yield to what they can no longer prevent... They may be further
induced to this course from the expectation of getting reservations, which, under other circumstances,
they might fail in securing. After all, this may be the true secret of their conduct: and the part they are
now acting may be nothing more than a ruse de guerre played off to prevent a precipitancy in the nation
that might be prejudicial to their own views.
...As yet, they have listened alone to the representations of the interested chiefs, and the insidious and
not less interested missionary.
...Far from informing or enlightening their minds upon these subjects, their ignorance and their
prejudices are subservient to their purposes; and claim for them happiness and contentment, because
they themselves are happy and contented at an order of things that secures them power and influence.
If competent persons, therefore, were sent among them - men capable of exposing the frauds which have
been practised [sic] upon them... the delusion which has enchained the common Indian, in obedience to
the will of his chief, would be dispelled....
The people east of the Hightower are beginning to think in good earnest of taking their affairs into their
own hands, and I have urged them to do so by every argument I was capable of suggesting. However
averse, under other circumstances, to excite disunion and distrust among them, a sense of paramount
duty to the State has let me to view this measure with less repugnance, under the belief that it would
ultimately result in the good of the country... Of the missionaries, the concurring accounts from all
quarters represent them as a mischievous and intermeddling order of men, entirely regardless of their
vocation, and forgetful of their holy character in their active and violent opposition to the Government.
The good of the country requires their speedy removal...
DOCUMENT #20
Correspondence, Georgia Governor George Gilmer to John H. Eaton, U.S. Secretary of War, May 14,
1831.
Sir: I have learned through various sources, that since the late decision of the Supreme Court, the
Cherokee Indians are in the most unsettled state as to their future course.
It is exceedingly important that the Government should immediately send an agent among them who has
their confidence... Such an agent may be procured by the appointment of Dr. David A. Reese .... He is a
gentleman of intelligence, high respectability, a member of the Legislature of the State, and as such was
efficient in opposing the effort made at the last session to deprive the Cherokees, without their consent,
and without compensation, of the occupancy of their country. He is the relation of Boudinot, the Adairs,
and Charles Reese. He is personally acquainted with many others of their principal men... He is
18
thoroughly convinced that it is in their interest to exchange the territory which they at present occupy
for lands on the west of the Mississippi...
DOCUMENT #21
Correspondence, D.A. Reese to Governor Gilmer, June 8, 1831.
Dear Sir: I returned a few days since from the Cherokee nation, where I spent about two weeks. The
Adairs and Boudinot talked very freely with me of their affairs. I staid some time at each of their houses;
they are very much opposed to removal and treaty, as were all, in fact, that I conversed with missionary and common Indians; they urged many objections, most of which you know. There is
certainly great prejudice against Arkansas with the nation generally... I saw three common Indians who
had been to Arkansas, and asked them their objections; their account of the country is not so bad as I
expected, though they say they do not like it at all.
It was thought there was some chance of making a treaty with the Cherokees east of Hightower, for their
part of the country; and old Mr. Rogers was relied on to come out, and take an active part in the matter.
I saw a long letter from him, written by his son, saying he had declined doing any thing in the business,
as it would be attended with danger and ruin to his interest and influence in the nation; so unpopular
had he ascertained it would be....
DOCUMENT #22
Correspondence, George R. Gilmer to Andrew Jackson, June 20, 1831.
...Strong hopes were at one time entertained, that if the decision of the Supreme Court should be against
the application of the Cherokees for a writ of injunction to stay the jurisdiction of Georgia, that they
would immediately treat with the United States for an extinguishment of their present occupant rights.
It is known that, previous to that decision and during the pendency [sic] of the case before the Supreme
Court, all classes had expressed their belief that such would be the course pursued by them. These hopes
have, however, proved illusory. Since that decision, the wealthy and influential half-breed chiefs have
been exceedingly active in persuading the people to continue their present residence in opposition to the
desire of the General Government to extinguish their title, and in defiance of the rights and power of
Georgia. These efforts have unfortunately been very successful. This has resulted from the extra-judicial
opinions of the Supreme Court in determining that the Cherokees formed a distinct political society,
separate from others, and capable of managing its own affairs, and that they were the rightful owners of
the soil which they occupied.
The greater body of the common Indians are without wealth or power. Nothing prevents their
acquiescence with the offers of the Government to unite them with that part of their tribe on the west of
the Mississippi, but their habitual submission to the control of their chiefs and their inert and listless
character. What is said of their strong desire not to be separated from the bones of their fathers, is but
the expression of those whose ancestors' remains are deposited in Europe or the States. The confidence
of the common Indians in the rule of their chiefs has been of late impaired by their appropriation of the
wealth of the tribe to themselves, their descent from the whites, and the adoption of their manners; and
19
their listlessness of temper in some degree overcome by the fear of unknown evils from the operation of
the laws of Georgia. The guard which has been stationed among them has been successful in preventing
any trespasses upon the gold mines in putting a stop to their legislative councils, their courts, the
execution of their laws, and in removing all white men from among them disposed to excite their
opposition to the Government of the State. The chiefs can no longer prevent the people from enrolling
for emigration by the fear of punishment..
It is thought probably that the very attempt to remove the people, by enrolling individuals for
emigration, will tend to produce a willingness on the part of the chiefs to treat for the exchange of their
lands. They know that, by the removal of the common Indian, they will lose their power, the exclusive
possession of their country, and become subjected to the prejudices of a white population, with whom
they will be mingled...
It is important that the Government of the State should know whether it has become impossible for the
United States to execute the contract of 1802, so that its policy in relation to the Cherokees may no
longer be influenced by the expectation of that event.
Hitherto, the Indians have neither been compelled to pay taxes nor perform any civil duties. The State is
at this time maintaining a guard, at great expense, for the purpose of preventing the exercise of assumed
authority on the part of the chiefs, from the expectation that the President would be enabled, during the
present year, to succeed in removing the Indians beyond its limits, and the strong disposition felt by its
authorities to avoid the adoption of any measure which might have even the appearance of violating the
laws of humanity, or the natural rights of the Indians. If the Cherokees are to continue inhabitants of the
State, they must be rendered subject to the... ordinary operation of the laws, with less expense and
trouble, and more effectually than heretofore. The State must put an end to even the semblance of a
distinct political society among them.
....The millions of acres of land which are now of no value, except to add to the gratification of the idle
ambition of the chiefs, must be placed in the possession of actual cultivators of the soil, who may be
made the instruments for the proper administration of the laws.
DOCUMENT #23
Chief Justice John Marshall, United States Supreme Court, majority opinion, Worcester v. the State of
Georgia, 1832.
...From the commencement of our government, Congress has passed acts to regulate trade and
intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations... All these acts ... manifestly consider the
several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which
their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only
acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States.
... The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, in which the laws of
Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent
of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress.
20
... It is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the superior court... condemning Samuel A.
Worcester to hard labour, in the penitentiary of the state of Georgia, for four years, was pronounced by
that court under colour of a law which is void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws
of the United States and ought, therefore, to be reversed and annulled.
Editors' Note: Unauthorized leaks from sources high in white house circles indicated that President
Jackson, upon hearing of the Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia remarked, "John Marshall
has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Jackson ignored the Supreme Court order.
DOCUMENT #24
Wilson Lumpkin, Governor of Georgia, Message to the Georgia Legislature, November 6, 1832.
... These extraordinary proceedings of the supreme court have not been submitted to me officially, nor
have they been brought before me in any manner which called for my official action. I have, however,
been prepared to meet this usurpation of federal power, with the most prompt and determined
resistance...
Editors' note: By 1833 and 1834 the distribution of Cherokee lands by Georgia lottery (See Doc. #8)
was beginning to have its effect. Georgia citizens began ousting Cherokees from lands and homes to
which they had successfully drawn rights in the lottery. Even John Ross, the principal chief, returned
from Washington in 1833 to find his wife and children confined to two rooms in his large house, which,
along with his fields, orchards, livestock and barns had been appropriated by lottery winners. Ross was
forced to move his family across the state line to Tennessee.
Distressed by this pressure and despairing in their hopes of protection through the Supreme Court, a
small minority of the Cherokee leaders gravitated into a "treaty party" which now began to favor making
the best possible terms with the federal government for removal. Some writers have claimed that
members of the treaty party began to receive favored treatment by Georgia officials in protecting their
lands and homes against lottery claims.
After a meeting of the national council in August, 1834, during which the question of removal was
debated in, what was officially described as, a "tumultuous and excited meeting", one of the main
advocates of emigration, a mixed-blood leader named John Walker Jr. was assassinated while returning
home.
21
DOCUMENT #25
Correspondence, Andrew Jackson to B. F. Currey and H. Montgomery (emigration and enrolling agents
for the Cherokee), September 3, 1834.
I have just been advised... that Walker has been shot, Ridge and other chiefs in favour of emigration,
and you as the agent of the U. States Govern't threatened with death. The Government of the U.S. has
promised them protection, it will perform its obligations to a tittle [sic]. On the receipt of this, notify
John Ross and his council, that we will hold them answerable for every murder committed by his people
on the emigrants or emigrating party....
Editors' Note: John Ross was born in 1790. He served as the Indian Agent on a mission to the Arkansas
Territory Cherokee in 1809 and served under Andrew Jackson at the battle of Horseshoe Bend against
the dissident Creeks in 1814. In 1817 he was elected a member of the national committee of the
Cherokee Council, in 1819 president of the national committee, in 1827 president of the Cherokee
convention, which adopted the constitution of 1827, and from 1828 to the removal he was principal
chief of the eastern Cherokee. From 1839 until his death in 1866 he was principal chief of the united
Cherokee Nation.
DOCUMENT #26
Correspondence, John Ross to Andrew Jackson, September 15, 1834.
...The idea, that myself and the Council shall be held and made responsible for offences which by
possibility may be committed by others on the emigrants or officers of the Govt. when at the same time
we shall be as innocent of any Crime whatever... is too horrible to conceive. ...If the unfortunate affair...
respecting John Walker Jr. being shot, has been reported to you as having been done by the connivance
or knowledge of myself and the General Council of the nation, I pronounce it to be a malicious and
slanderous falsehood against our character...
... I love peace and friendship with all men, and hold myself individually responsible for my Own Acts,
but do most solemnly protest against any responsibility for the private Conduct of Others.
DOCUMENT #27
Memorial statement of a Cherokee Council held at Running Waters in the Cherokee nation in Georgia,
November 28, 1834, "on behalf of those members of the Cherokee tribe ... who are desirous of removing
west of the Mississippi."
... In the full time of this successful improvement (of Cherokee civilization) all... hopes of happiness have
been blasted, in consequence of the extension, by force, of the jurisdiction of the States ....
In the midst of the painful feeling which the destruction of our Government creates in our bosoms, we
also perceive, the same melancholy fate has attended the other aboriginal tribes. On this side of the
Mississippi scarcely a solitary council fire blazes under the heavens.
22
It is well known that our applications to the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, to interpose
the United States authority in our behalf, have all proved fruitless, as well as that the decisions of the
Supreme Court in behalf of individuals claiming the right of protection under the Cherokee laws and
treaties, have been disregarded by the State of Georgia....
... now, our earliest friends have told us that it is in vain to hope for the restoration of our rights.
In view of all these circumstances, we have been compelled to the hard case of choosing an alternative...
In the decision we have made on this subject, we have taken the unhappy condition of our people, as
individuals, into consideration. It is not to be disguised that there are in existence two parties among
our people, whose policies are the antipodes of each other. Since the suppression of our Government, no
elections have been held among us... The party who hold the councils at Red Clay have kept themselves
in perpetual office by a resolution enacted of themselves. They are willing to take an individual standing
in the States, and become citizens. Heretofore, as you will perceive, in looking at the treaty of 1819, the
leaders of this party have already received valuable reservations in fee simple.
They hold their councils in the chartered limits of Tennessee. The party which we represent are not in
favor of taking reservations of land, and abandoning the political existence of the nation...
When we reflect upon the character of our people in general, their ignorance, weakness, and total
incapacity to contend in competition with the white man for wealth, science, and fame; and when we
reflect on the fearful odds against which we have to run our career, laws expressly made to discredit us
as men, with no legal rights to the soil, and all the unrelenting prejudices against our language and
color in full force, we must believe that the scheme of amalgamation with our oppressors is too horrid
for a serious contemplation. ... If then, it is the opinion of Congress that the tide of white population and
State jurisdiction, which is pressing upon us, cannot be restrained, it would be the greatest act of
humanity to devise immediate measures to remove our people upon as liberal terms as the General
Government can afford....
signed by Major Ridge, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot, and approximately 50 others.
Editors' Note: Major Ridge was a prosperous Cherokee trader and planter who had been bestowed the
rank of major of U.S. Volunteers by Andrew Jackson for his efforts in the war against a segment of the
Creek Indians in 1814. As a young chief, his passionate denunciations of a proposal for the migration of
the Cherokee to the West in 1808 helped block the scheme. John Ridge, his son, and his nephew Elias
Boudinot, had been educated at the missionary schools, first in Georgia and then in Connecticut. Both of
the latter married white women while living in Connecticut. John Ridge became a member of the
national council and a frequent member of Cherokee delegations to Washington and elsewhere.
Boudinot became editor of the Cherokee newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix, and helped promote
Cherokee literacy in their new written language, based on the alphabet developed by Sequoia.
23
DOCUMENT #28
Correspondence, Georgia Governor Wilson Lumpkin to Ben Currey (U.S. emigration enrollment agent),
December 13, 1834.
.... assure Boudinot, Ridge, and their friends of state protection under any circumstances. I shall feel it
my imperative duty to pay due regard to the situation and afford them every security which out laws will
justify or authorize.
DOCUMENT #29
Congressman Edward Everett of Massachusetts, January 19, 1835, Presentation of motion for a
resolution for an Indian memorial in favor of removal. This petition had been brought to Washington by
John Ridge and Elias Boudinot.
I certainly never expected to present a memorial in this house in favor of the removal of Indians; but I as
little expected to be requested by Indians to do so. I have performed this duty, at the request of a
delegation of three, two at least of whom were among those, most active and influential, among their
brethren at the time the great stand was made on this floor, against the Indian policy of the government.
...
I have changed no opinion then expressed by me. But it is the lesson of practical wisdom to yield, when
it can be no longer helped, to the force of circumstances. ... I fear that swift and certain destruction
impends over them, if they much longer delay their removal. I believe that they can now make better
terms with the government, than they will be able hereafter to make, and that the longer they remain in
their present abode, the more of that which they most wish to preserve - their national identity, will
perish.
DOCUMENT #30
Correspondence, Georgia Governor Wilson Lumpkin to Andrew Jackson, May 20, 1835.
...I incline to the opinion, that John Ross and his associates will have the address and influence to
prevent the majority of the Cherokees from accepting, at present, the very liberal terms of the Treaty
arrangement recently provided at Washington under your direction.
I have, and do still protest against any further efforts to treat with John Ross and his white advisers, by
any modification or alteration whatever, in the treaty lately negotiated (sic) by Ridge and others at
Washington.
Ross, and his friends would be perfectly satisfied with the proposed treaty, provided they could be
entrusted with the disbursement of the consideration money.
I have carefully read the treaty, and was glad to perceive that its liberal provisions secure the interest of
every individual attached to the Cherokee people, affording but limited opportunity for the aristocratic
leaders of this unfortunate race to defraud them of their national inheritance. ...If the door is once
24
opened for modifications, Ross and his friends will secure to themselves fortunes at the expense of the
common Indians.
DOCUMENT #31
Correspondence, J. F. Schermerhorn, U.S. Commissioner appointed by the President to negotiate, with
the eastern Cherokee, removal of the tribe; to John Ross, principal Chief of the eastern Cherokee, and
the delegation to negotiate with the commissioners. October 30, 1835.
... the commissioners are instructed to convene a council at New Echota at such time as they think best
... you are therefore hereby notified that the commissioners will meet the Cherokee people in general
council on the third Monday in December next; and you are requested to assemble the people
accordingly, for the purpose of negotiation and concluding a treaty with the United States.
I feel it my duty also to inform you, that if the Cherokee people refuse the terms of a treaty the
commissioners will then offer them, it will be the last overture which the President of the United States
will make during his administration; and on their own heads must rest the consequences; neither will he
receive any delegation from the Cherokee nation at Washington to transact any business of this kind. If
a treaty is made, it must be done here in the nation...
DOCUMENT #32
Correspondence, John Ross, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot, Elijah Hicks, Sleeping Rabbitt, and others; to
J. F. Schermerhorn, October 31, 1835. Red Clay Council Ground.
.... our former answer must be considered as final, and our arrangements requiring dispatch [sic], we
have closed our meetings as a delegation and shall do no further business until we arrive at
Washington.
In reference to another council at New Echota, we cannot enter into your views, as the people have
already made their election upon the course they wish pursued. We, in their name, protest against any
future meeting being called under the name of a council, in the way you propose, as an unnecessary
agitation of the public mind...
It, therefore, only remains for us to desire that you will have the goodness to apprize your Government
that we depart for Washington on the first of December next, with full powers from the Cherokee
people... to make such a treaty as may appear to us best calculated to ensure the present peace and
future prosperity of our country....
25
DOCUMENT #33
Correspondence, Elias Boudinot to John Ross and others, Cherokee Delegation, New Echota, Georgia,
November 25, 1835.
Gentlemen: Finding that I cannot consistently accompany you to Washington as a member of the
Cherokee delegation, I have thought proper to resign my appointment, which I herewith accordingly do.
DOCUMENT #34
Correspondence, John Ridge to John Ross, December, 1835.
Sir: I have the honor to decline going on with you to Washington city, after having read...the Cherokee
address to the people of the United States, prepared, no doubt, at your request and suggestion.
That address unfolds to me your views of policy, diametrically opposite to me and my friends, who will
never consent to be citizens of the States, or receive money to buy land in foreign parts.
I trust that, whatever you do, if you can effect a treaty, that the rights of the poor Indians, who are
nearly naked and homeless, will not be disregarded.
DOCUMENT #35
Correspondence, John Ross to John Ridge, Dec. 4, 1835.
Sir: You do me unmerited injustice in your remarks I have not settled upon any fixed course in relation
to the duties assigned to the delegation. In their business, the whole delegation are to determine, and I
am but one of them. It is the good of the whole Cherokee people alone which I desire, in whatever may
be done, therefore I must request you to pause and reconsider your intention of declining to go on with
the delegation.
DOCUMENT #36
Charles C. Royce, Ethnographer and Anthropologist, "The Cherokee Nation of Indians", in Fifth Annual
Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1883-1884, p. 297.
In connection with this subject of an investigation into the affairs of the Cherokees, a confidential letter
is to be found on file in the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, from Hon. P. M. Butler of South
Carolina, who had a few months previous to its date (March 4, 1834) been appointed United States
agent for the Cherokees, interesting as throwing light on the negotiation and claimed to be susceptible
of proof, that Mr. Merriweather, of Georgia [an official of the state government], in an interview with
President Jackson, a considerable time before the treaty was negotiated, said to the President, "We want
the Cherokee lands in Georgia, but the Cherokees will not consent to cede them," to which the President
emphatically replied, “You must get clear of them [the Cherokee] by legislation. Take judicial
jurisdiction over their country; build fires around them, and do indirectly what you cannot effect
directly.”
26
Editors' Note: When it became clear that the tentative treaty arranged with the federal government by
the "treaty party" among the Cherokees would be overwhelmingly defeated at the General Council of the
Cherokee Nation in October, 1835 (held at the safety of Red Clay on the Tennessee-Georgia border),
U.S. Commissioner Schermerhorn summoned the Cherokee Nation to meet with him in another council,
on Georgia ground at New Echota. He also ruled that all who did not attend would be counted as voting
for any treaty adopted at that council. But Ross and the Cherokee General Council considered the issue
of the treaty already decided at the Red Clay meeting, and the Cherokee Council directed Ross to return
to Washington, D.C. with a delegation to Congress to renew his petition for a redress of Cherokee
grievances.
Apparently despairing of gaining Cherokee assent to a treaty as long as Ross was free to influence the
people directly, a detachment of Georgia Militia crossed the Tennessee line on November 7, 1835 and
seized Ross and "a strange Man" and carried them back into confinement in Georgia. It turned out that
the "strange man" was the famous author John Howard Payne, author of numerous novels and "Home
Sweet Home" who had been visiting Ross while working on a history of the Cherokee. Payne's effective
voice was soon added to the passionate defenders of the Cherokees. After 13 days, the two were released
without charges and Ross proceeded on his mission to Washington. While Ross was in Washington, he
was shunned by most federal officials, and the "treaty faction" of the Cherokee, headed by Boudinot and
the Ridges, signed the Treaty of New Echota with Schermerhorn.
DOCUMENT #37
Excerpt from a treaty concluded December 29, 1835, at New Echota, Georgia, between General William
Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn, United States Indian commissioners, and the chiefs, headman and
people of the Cherokee tribe of Indians. Ratified by the U.S., Senate, May 1836.
The Cherokee Nation cedes to the United States all the land claimed by said Nation east of the
Mississippi River, and hereby releases all claims on the United States for spoilations (sic) of every kind
for and in consideration of $5,000,000,
The description of the 7,000,000 acres of land guaranteed to the Cherokees west of the Mississippi by
the treaties of 1828 and 1833 is repeated, and in addition thereto the further guaranty is made to the
Cherokee Nation of a perpetual outlet west, and a free and unmolested use of all the country west of the
western boundary of said 7,000,000 acres, as far west-as the sovereignty of the United States and their
right of soil extend...
...The United States agree that the land herein guaranteed to the Cherokees shall never, without their
consent, be included within the limits of jurisdiction of any State or Territory.
The United States agree to remove the Cherokees to their new home and to provide them with one year's
subsistence thereafter.
The United States agree to make an appraisement of the value of all Cherokee improvements and
ferries. The just debts of the Indians shall be paid out of any moneys due them for improvements and
27
claims. The Indians shall be furnished with sufficient funds for their removal, and the balance of their
dues shall be paid them at the Cherokee Agency west of the Mississippi.
Such Cherokees as are averse to removal west of the Mississippi and desire to become citizens of the
States where they reside, if qualified to take care of themselves and their property, shall receive their
proportion of all the personal benefits accruing under this treaty for claims, improvements and per
capita.
Such heads of Cherokee families as desire to reside within the States of North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Alabama, subject to the laws thereof and qualified become useful citizens, shall be entitled to a preemption right of 160 acres at the minimum Congress price, to include their improvements.
The Cherokees stipulate to remove west within two years from the ratification of this treaty, during
which time the United States shall protect them in the possession and enjoyment of their property...
This treaty is to be obligatory after ratification...
DOCUMENT #38
Correspondence, Major William M. Davis to Lewis Cass, United States Secretary of War, March 5,
1836.
Editors' Note: Major William M. Davis was appointed by the Secretary of War to act as an agent of the
federal government in the enrollment of Cherokee who desired to remove to the West.
I conceive that my duty to the President, to yourself, and to my country, reluctantly compels me to make
a statement of facts in relation to a meeting of a small number of Cherokees at New Echota last
December who were met by Mr. Schermerhorn and articles of a general treaty entered into between
them for the whole Cherokee Nation.
I should not interpose in the matter at all but I discover that you do not receive impartial information on
the subject... I will not be silent when I see that you are about to be imposed on by a gross and base
betrayal of the high trust reposed in Rev. J. F. Schermerhorn by you.
Sir, that paper... called a treaty is no treaty at all, because not sanctioned by the great body of the
Cherokees and made without their participation or assent. I solemnly declare to you that upon its
reference to the Cherokee people it would be instantly rejected by nine-tenths of them and I believe by
nineteen-twentieths of them. There were not present at the conclusion of the treaty more than one
hundred Cherokee voters ... The most cunning and artful means were resorted to conceal the paucity of
numbers present at the treaty. No enumeration of them was made by Shermerhorn. The business of
making the treaty was transacted with a committee appointed by the Indians present, so as not to expose
their numbers.... The delegation ... had no more authority to make a treaty than any other dozen
Cherokees accidentally picked up for that purpose.
28
DOCUMENT #39
Elias Boudinot, selection from a Pamphlet address to Cherokee Nation, 1836.
We cannot conceive of the acts of a minority to be so reprehensible and unjust as are represented by Mr.
Ross. If one hundred persons are ignorant of their true situation and are so completely blinded as not to
see the destruction that awaits them, we can see strong reasons to justify the action of a minority of fifty
persons to do what the majority would do if they understood their condition, to save a nation from
political thralldom and moral degradation.
DOCUMENT #40
Correspondence, Lewis Cass, U.S. Secretary of War, to Brigadier General John E. Wool, U.S. Army,
June 20, 1836.
Sir: You will repair to the Cherokee country without delay and ascertain the condition and probable
designs of the Cherokee Indians. Rumors have reached here that these Indians are meditating hostilities
against the United States, and that depredations have actually been committed.
... Should the conduct of the Cherokees require the application of force, you will proceed to subdue them
with as much expedition as possible. When this is effected, their arms will be immediately taken from
them, and they will be kept together, under proper guards, till you can complete your arrangements for
their removal west.
DOCUMENT #41
Correspondence, Brigadier General John E. Wool, U.S. Army, to Andrew Jackson, August 30, 1836.
... I met with Mr. John Ross, just arrived from his visit to Washington. He, like many others of the
nation, expressed a strong desire to have a council of the Cherokee people for the purpose of laying
before them the whole proceedings of the delegation assembled at Washington in relation to the late
treaty; at the same time asked me if I had the authority to prevent such a meeting, which, he said, would
be in accordance with the practice and laws of the nation. I replied that I had not authority to prevent
such a meeting. I advised him however, to be careful how he advocated such a measure if he had for
object any other course than merely explaining the treaty and with reference to an entire submission to
its terms. That any discussion or explanation tending to a different result I was confident would find no
favor with the President, who was determined to have the treaty executed. He merely replied that he
thought the President would be convinced that he had been in error, and that he would finally yield and
be willing to do justice to the Cherokees.
Since my arrival at this place I have been informed that Mr. Ross has sent runners through the country,
disseminating his views, which I am apprehensive will do much injury, and very much retard emigration
to the west, particularly this fall. Will there not be a danger, if such a course is allowed, that he will
make good his declaration, which will be found at the close of his letter dated Washington, June 21,
1836, in answer to inquiries by a friend, viz: "The delegation must repeat, the instrument entered into at
29
New Echota, purporting to be a treaty, is deceptive to the world, and a fraud upon the Cherokee people.
... if the Cherokees are removed under that instrument it will be by force."...
Your instructions are requested on the subject.
DOCUMENT #42
Correspondence, Lewis Cass, U.S. Secretary of War to Brigadier General John E. Wool, U.S. Army,
September 3, 1836.
Sir: I have just received your letter of the 20th ultimo, and approve entirely the views taken by you in the
conversation with John Ross, concerning the council proposed by him to be held with the Cherokees. If
the Indians are to be assembled with the fair intention of explaining to them their duty under the treaty,
and the necessity of an immediate compliance with its terms, the measure may perhaps be useful.
... If you think good can result from it, you are at liberty to encourage the measure. But if the object is to
discuss the validity of the treaty, and thus to excite the Cherokees ultimately to opposition, it is certainly
proper that you should express your decided disapprobation of the proposition. I would not, however,
have you use actual force till you are satisfied that the measure will have a tendency to provoke
disturbances; in that event it must be put a stop to...
DOCUMENT #43
Correspondence, Andrew Jackson to Brigadier General J. E. Wool, U.S. Army, September 7, 1836.
...The Treaty is to be religiously fulfilled; you may assure all concerned that no modification or
alteration in it will be made by me. Of this Mr. John Ross is fully advised...
You will caution John Ross from calling any council of the Cherokee people with the view of opposing
or altering the treaty. He knows that there will be no further negotiation on the subject; that the
Cherokees are to emigrate in two years from the ratification of the treaty, and will be obliged to go
within that period; that the collisions between them and the whites have been too long continued for the
gratification of himself at the expense of the poor in the nation....
30
DOCUMENT #44
Correspondence, John Ross, principal chief, Cherokee Nation, and members of the National Council of
the Cherokee Nation, to Brigadier General John E. Wool, U.S. Army, September 30, 1836.
Sir: The undersigned chiefs and representatives of the Cherokee people, beg leave to address you as the
commanding general entrusted with the execution of the orders of the President of the United States
concerning the instrument purporting to be a treaty between the United States and the Cherokee
nation.... your communications ... to the Cherokee people, respecting your instructions on the subject,
were promptly read and interpreted to them in general council assembled. The result of their
deliberations, and the expression of sentiments adopted by upwards to twenty-one hundred male adults
on this occasion, the undersigned would also most respectfully communicate, through you, to the
government of the United States as follows, to wit: The chiefs resolved that the instrument purporting to
be a treaty made at New Echota, on the 29th day of December, 1835, by the Rev. John F.
Schermerhorn... is a fraud upon the government of the United States and an act of oppression on the
Cherokee people; that those who are represented as acting on the part of the Cherokees, and who
assumed the style of "chiefs, and headmen," hold no such title or designation from the Cherokees, nor
have they received authority from the nation to form said instrument, therefore said instrument is null
and void, and can never, in justice, be enforced upon the nation....
...In thus frankly communicating the sentiments of the Cherokee people and the doings of the general
council, the undersigned beg leave to reassure you that they are actuated from the purest motives and
the most friendly feelings toward the public functionaries and the private citizens of the United States....
...The undersigned beg you to accept their cordial thanks and sincere regard for your honorable course
in the discharge of your military duties here... and the orderly conduct of the soldiers under your
command during the sitting of the general council.
DOCUMENT #45
Correspondence, C. A. Harris, Acting U.S. Secretary of War, to Brigadier General John E. Wool, U.S.
Army, October 12, 1836.
...I am instructed to express the surprise of the President that you permitted the council of the Cherokees
to remain in session a moment after it became apparent that it was determined to declare the treaty
void. This was the contingency contemplated in the letter of the department of September 3, in which you
were instructed to interfere and disperse such assemblage. If upon any future occasion the nonexecution of the treaty should be discussed in council you will immediately close its session.
31
DOCUMENT #46
Correspondence, Brigadier General John E. Wool, U.S. Army, to Adjutant-General of the United States,
February 18, 1837.
I called them (the Cherokees) together and made a short speech. It is, however, vain to talk to a people
almost universally opposed to the treaty and who maintain that they never made such a treaty. So
determined are they in their opposition that not one of all those who were present and voted at the
council held but a day or two since, however poor or destitute, would receive either rations or clothing
from the United States, lest they might compromise themselves in regard to the treaty.
DOCUMENT #47
Correspondence, Brigadier General John Wool, U.S. Army, to U.S. Secretary of War, Joel R. Poinsett,
March 31, 1837.
Recent occurrences, which are but repetitions of those which have heretofore taken place, show plainly
that it is vain to appeal to the civil authorities of the country to repress the disposition of the whites to
oppress this people and trample on their rights. In illustration ... An Indian at his home was shot down
and basely murdered by a party of white men, who had not the semblance of provocation, unless an
attempt to escape from their barbarity be so considered. These men were arrested by my order, and
immediately turned over to the civil authority to be dealt with according to their deserts; but so strongly
have the prejudices of the people, stimulated by avarice, been excited against the Indians, that it is
exceedingly doubtful if justice can be done in the case. With these, people it really seems to be no crime
to kill an Indian.
DOCUMENT #48
Correspondence, John Mason, Jr. to Secretary of War, September 25, 1837.
Editor's Note: In summer of 1837, John Mason, Jr. was sent as a confidential agent of the War
Department to make observations in the Cherokee nation and report.
The chiefs and better informed part of the nation are convinced that they cannot retain the country. But
the opposition to the treaty is unanimous and irreconcilable. They say it cannot bind them because they
did not make it; that it was made by a few unauthorized individuals; that the nation is not a party to it ...
They retain the forms of their government in their proceedings among themselves, though they have had
no election since 1830; the chiefs and headmen then in power having been authorized to act until their
government shall again be regularly constituted. Under this arrangement John Ross retains the post of
principal chief. The influence of this chief is unbounded and unquestioned. The whole nation of eighteen
thousand persons is with him, the few, about three hundred, who made the treaty having left the country.
It is evident therefore, that Ross and his party are in fact the Cherokee Nation....
.... The officers say that, with all his power, Ross cannot, if he would, change the course he has
heretofore pursued...Were he ...to advise the Indians to acknowledge the treaty, he would at once forfeit
their confidence and probably his life. Yet though unwavering in this opposition to the treaty, Ross's
32
influence has constantly been exerted to preserve the peace of the country ... the opposition to the treaty
on the part of the Indians is unanimous and sincere, and it is not a mere political game played by Ross
for the maintenance of his ascendancy in the tribe.
DOCUMENT #49
Major General Winfield Scott, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Proclamation to Cherokees, May 10,
1838.
The President of the United States has sent me with a powerful army to cause you, in obedience to the
treaty of 1835, to join that part of your people who are already established in prosperity on the other
side of Mississippi. Unhappily the two years ... allowed for that purpose you have just suffered to pass
away ... without making any preparation to follow, and now ... the emigration must be commenced in
haste ... The full moon of May is already on the wane, and before another shall have passed away every
Cherokee, man, woman, and child ... must be in motion to join their brethren in the Far West ... This is
no sudden determination on the part of the President .... I have come to carry out that determination. My
troops already occupy many positions, and thousands and thousands are approaching from every
quarter to render resistance and escape alike hopeless ... Will you then by resistance compel us to arms
... Or will you by flight seek to hide yourselves in mountains and forests and thus oblige us to hunt you
down. Remember that in pursuit it may be impossible to avoid conflicts. The blood of the white man or
the blood of the red man may be spilt, and if spilt, however accidentally, for the discreet and humane
among you, or among us, to prevent a general war and carnage.
DOCUMENT #50
James Mooney, Ethnographer and Anthropologist, "Myths of the Cherokee," 19th Annual Report of the
Bureau of Ethnology (narrative drawn from personal interviews with Cherokee survivors of the "Trail of
Tears and U.S. Army officers who "escorted" the Cherokee),1897-1898.
...Under Scott's orders the troops were disposed at various points throughout the Cherokee country,
where stockade forts were erected for gathering in and holding the Indians preparatory to removal.
From these, squads of troops were sent to search out with rifle and bayonet every small cabin hidden
away in the coves or by the sides of mountain streams .... Men were seized in their fields or going along
the road women were taken from their wheels and children from their play. In many cases, on turning
for one last look as they crossed the ridge, they saw their homes in flames, fired by the lawless rabble
that followed on the heels of the soldiers to loot and pillage. So keen were these outlaws on the scent
that in some instances they were driving, off the cattle of the Indians almost before the soldiers had
fairly started their owners in the other direction... in October, 1838, the long procession of exiles was
set in motion. A very few went by the river route; the rest, nearly all the 13,000, went overland. Crossing
to the north side of the Hiwasse at a ferry above Gunstocker creek, they proceeded down along the river,
the sick, the old people, and the smaller children, with the blankets, cooking pots, and other, belongings
in wagons, the rest on foot or on horses. The number of wagons was 645. It was like the march of an
army, regiment after regiment...
33
Somewhere along that march of death - for the exiles died by tens and twenties every day of the journey
- the devoted wife of John Ross sank down, leaving him to go on with the bitter pain of bereavement
added to the heartbreak at the ruin of his nation. The Ohio was crossed at a ferry near the mouth of the
Cumberland, and the army passed on through southern Illinois until the great Mississippi was reached...
It was now the middle of winter, with the river running full of ice, so that several detachments were
obliged to wait some time on the eastern bank... In talking with old men and women... the author found
that the lapse of over half a century had not sufficed to wipe out the memory of the miseries of that halt
beside the frozen river, with hundreds of sick and dying penned up in wagons or stretched upon the
ground, with only a blanket overhead to keep out the January blast. At last their destination was
reached. They had started in October, 1838, and it was now March, 1839, the journey having occupied
barely six months of the hardest part of the year.
DOCUMENT #51
President Martin Van Buren, Second Annual Message to Congress (state of the union address),
December 1838.
... It affords me sincere pleasure to apprise the Congress of the entire removal of the Cherokee Nation of
Indians to their new homes west of the Mississippi. The measures authorized by Congress at its last
session have had the happiest effect. By an agreement concluded with them by the commanding general
in that country, their removal has been principally under the conduct of their own chiefs, and they have
emigrated without any apparent reluctance.
DOCUMENT #52
Eyewitness account, signed anonymously, "A Native of Maine," appearing in the New York Observer,
January 26, 1839.
... On Tuesday evening we fell in with a detachment of the poor Cherokee Indians... about eleven
hundred Indians - sixty wagons ... We found them in the forest camped for the night... under a severe fall
of rain ... many of the aged Indians were suffering extremely from the fatigue of the journey, and the ill
health consequent upon it... several were then quite ill, and one aged man we were informed was then in
the last struggle of death...
... we found the road literally filled with the procession for about three miles in length. The sick and
feeble were carried in wagons - about as comfortable for traveling as a New England ox cart with a
covering over it. A great many ride on horseback and multitudes go on foot - even aged females,
apparently nearly ready to drop into the grave, were traveling with heavy burdens attached to the back
... on the sometimes frozen ground ... with no covering for the feet except what nature had given them.
...We learned from the inhabitants on the road where the Indians passed, that they buried fourteen or
fifteen at every stopping place, and they make a journey of ten miles per day only on an average. One
fact which to my own mind seemed a lesson indeed to the American nation is, that they will not travel on
the Sabbath ... The Indians as a whole carry on their countenances every thing but the appearance of
happiness. Some carry a downcast dejected look bordering upon the appearance of despair; others a
wild frantic appearance as if about to burst the chains of nature and pounce like a tiger upon their
enemies....
34
When I read in the President's Message that he was happy to inform the Senate that the Cherokees were
peaceably and without reluctance removed - and remember that it was on the third day of December
when not one of the detachments had reached their destinations; and that a large majority had not made
even half their journey when he made that declaration, I thought I wished the President could have been
there that very day in Kentucky with myself, and have seen the comfort and the willingness with which
the Cherokees were making their journey.
Editor's Note: On June 22, 1839, three leaders of the "treaty party" - John Ridge, Major Ridge, and
Elias Boudinot were murdered. Those responsible were never apprehended, though many white
authorities suspected that the followers of John Ross or other Cherokee (who regarded the Ridges and
Boudinot as traitors for their role in the New Echota Treaty) were responsible.
35