|
64
by exhibiting the names of many thousands
who declared the treaty to have been unauthorized."
The weight of proof was against the authenticity
of the treaty, and yet the government had to ratify
the treaty or permit the worse alternative of allowing
the Cherokees to be driven out of their country by
the irritated citizens of Georgia, and thereby suffer
unnumbered cruelties and perhaps perish altogether.
It was a case where state's rights and power practically
nullified the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The public opinion of Georgia was strongly set against
the continued residence of the Cherokees, and in the
disastrous conflict of state and federal authority
in maintaining the rights of the Indians, the latter
would have been the chief sufferers. So that removal
from the state, despite the sympathy of a large portion
of the country for the oppressed Indians, was forced
as a solution that can be considered both politic
and humane.
Opposition to ratification of the treaty
with the Cherokees in 1835 lacked only one vote of
being successful. Benton ("Thirty Years' View")
says: "The discontented party of the Cherokees,
and the intrusive counselors, and party spirit, pursued
it [the treaty] to Washington city, and organized
an opposition to it, headed by the great chiefs then
opposed to the administration of General Jackson—Mr.
Clay, Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun. Immediately after
the treaty was communicated to the senate, Mr. Clay
presented a memorial and protest against it from the
'Cherokee Nation,' as they were entitled by the faction
that protested; and also memorials from several individual
Cherokees; all which were printed and referred to
the senate's committee on Indian affairs. . . . The
examination was long and close. . . . and assuming
very nearly a complete party aspect. On the 18th of
May Mr. Clay made a motion which, as disclosing the
grounds of the opposition to the treaty, deserves
to be set out in its own words. It was a motion to
reject the resolution of ratification, and to adopt
this resolve in its place: 'That the instrument of
writing, purporting to be a treaty concluded at New
Echota on the 29th of December, 1835, between the
United States and the chiefs, head men and people
of the Cherokee tribe of Indians, and the supplementary
articles thereto annexed, were not part of the Cherokee
tribe, competent to bind it; and, therefore, without
reference to the terms and conditions of the said
agreement and supplementary articles, the senate cannot
consent to and advise the ratification thereof, as
a valid treaty, binding upon the Cherokee tribe or
nation'; concluding with a recommendation to the president
to treat again with the Cherokees east of the Mississippi
for the whole, or any of their possessions on this
side of the river. The vote on this resolve and recommendation
was, 29 yeas and 15 nays; and it requiring two-thirds
to adopt it, it was, of course, lost." But the
vote was a test of strength and alarmed the friends
of the treaty, who finally saved the treaty with only
one vote to spare.
In addition to the five million dollars
paid the Cherokees as full value for their lands,
by the treaty of December, 1835, Congress, June 12,
1838, appropriated $1,147,067, as an additional payment,
being really a reward for removing, constituting a
sum from which the expenses of removal should be drawn.
Commenting on this and other features of the removal,
the commissioner of Indian affairs in his report of
November
|
65
25, 1838, says that " the case
of the Cherokees is a striking example of the liberality
of the government in all its branches. By the treaty
they had stipulated to remove west of the Mississippi
within two years from its ratification, which took
place on the 23d of May, 1836. The obligations of
the United States, state rights . . . . made a compliance
with this provision of the treaty indispensable at
the time stipulated or as soon thereafter as it was
practicable without harshness. To insure it General
Scott was despatched [dispatched] to their late country,
and performed a delicate and difficult duty . . .
. Early in the past season several parties had been
despatched [dispatched] to the west . . . . amounting
to 6,000. . . . The preparations for the removal of
those who remained being in progress, John Ross and
other chiefs . . . . proposed to the commanding general
that the entire business of emigration should be confided
to the nation." This request that the Cherokees
might manage their own removal was granted by General
Scott. The agreement was that all the Cherokees should
be collected and started on the way during the months
of September and October. The estimate submitted by
the chiefs put the cost of the removal of one thousand
souls at $65,880. This was deemed extravagant by General
Scott, whose comment deserves quoting: "Take
the principal item or basis of your calculation, one
wagon and five saddle horses for every twenty souls.
I have already consented, with a view to lighten the
movement by land, that all the sick, the crippled
and superannuated of the nation, should be left at
the depots until the rivers be again navigable for
steamboats. . . . . Deducting the persons just mentioned,
I am confident that it will be found that among every
thousand individuals, taken in families without selection,
there are at least five hundred strong men, women,
boys, and girls, not only capable of marching twelve
or fifteen miles a day, but to whom the exercise would
be beneficial. . . . . " Nevertheless, the Indians
not only insisted on their original estimate, but
included an additional item of "soap," three
pounds being considered necessary for every hundred
rations. As the Cherokees were using their own money
to pay for the removal, the general approved their
estimates.
"Throughout their collection and
emigration, so far as this office is informed, the
Cherokees have manifested proper temper, and an inclination
to do whatever was required, with fewer exceptions
than might have been expected. . . . . The latest
advices gives assurances that the last of the Cherokees
would be on the road early in November [1838]. It
has been estimated that 12,000 will be removed by
John Ross and the other chiefs, which, added to the
number that had emigrated previously during the year,
believed to be about 6,000, will give an aggregate
of 18,000 Cherokees who have ceased to live east of
the Mississippi during the spring, summer and autumn."
In June, 1839,9 the Cherokees
of all parties held a council at their new council
house at Takuttokah. The whole nation were invited
and about six thousand attended, for the purpose of
reconciling all differences
[Footnote]
9The
sources for the following events are SEn. Doc. 1st
Sess., 26th Cong., vol. I; Sen. Doc. 1st Sess., 26th
Cong., Vol. VI; Sen. Doc., 2nd Sess., 26th Cong.,
Vol. I
10June 21, 1839, John Ross and others addressed
the following explanation to the United States official
in the country: "We regret to say that the reasonable
propositions submitted to the consideration of our
western brethren have not been received by them in
a manner compatible with the
|
66
and to form a government for the whole
Cherokee Nation. Nothing, however, was effected. The
old settlers contended that, as their government was
elective, the new emigrants would be entitled to vote
for officers at the next general election and when
vacancies should occur, which they conceived to be
a fair participation in the government. The late emigrants
wished10 to have a convention called for
the purpose of framing a new constitution for the
government of the nation, which was objected to on
the part of the old settlers, and the council broke
up without results.
On June 22, three of the most influential
members of the Ridge or treaty party were cruelly
murdered, evidently at the hands of some of Ross's
adherents. The victims were Major John Ridge,
his son John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot.
The killing of Boudinot was especially treacherous.
On the morning of the crime he was assisting some
workemen in building a new house. Three men called
upon him and asked for medicine. He went off with
them to the house of the missionary not far distant,
where medicines were kept. On the way two of the men
seized Boudinot and the other stabbed him,
after which the three cut him to pieces with their
knives and tomahawks. The murder taking place within
two miles of the residence of John Ross, his
friends were apprehensive it might be charged to his
connivance, and some six or seven hundred armed Cherokees
gathered around the house of their chief to repel
any attack.
The murdered men were members of the
Ridge or treaty party, whose activity in behalf of
the treaty of 1835 had divided the eastern Cherokeees
into two factions. The murder of the Ridges was the
result of this factional fight among the eastern Cherokees,
rather than of the differences arising from the council
between the old settlers and the new. When the proposition
of the Ross party to form a new constitution was submitted
to the convention, the Ridge party joined the old
settlers in opposing the measure, and in the way the
old bitterness between the treaty and anti-treaty
factions was revived and the murders quickly followed.
After the council had adjourned without
practical results, Ross announced a national convention
of the eastern and western Cherokees at Illinois camp
ground (Tahlequah) on July 1, for the purpose of forming
a union. The succeeding events throwing the whole
nation into excitement and factional disturbance,
only certain representatives of the Ross party assembled
at the time and place indicated. In the meantime a
portion of the old settlers and members of the Ridge
party proposed to meet the eastern faction on condition
that no Cherokees should be "killed for their
former political acts and opinions," (referring
to the treaty of 1835), and that a national convention
equally represented from both parties, should meet
at Fort Gibson. The eastern party did not accept this
proposal, but substituted an invitaiton, dated July
5, and signed by John Ross as principal chief
and the officers of the "convention" then
sitting at Illinois camp ground, to "John
Brown, John Looney and John Rogers,
chiefs of
[Footnotes]
wishes of the whole people.
They require the unconditional submission of the whole
body of the people who have lately arrived, to laws
and regulations, in the making of which they have
had no voice. The attempt of a small minority to enforce
their will over a great majority contrary to their
wishes appears to us to be a course so repugnant to
reason and propriety that it cannot fail to disturb
the peace of the community and to operate injuriously
to the best interest of the nation."
|
67
the western Cherokees," to unite
with them in efforts to promote the prosperity and
happiness of their common country.
All efforts to bring the hostile parties
together were futile. A council of the western Indians
convened on July 22, and for several weeks communications
were interchanged between the council and the "convention,"
while both bodies addressed General Arbuckle
who, with other representatives of the government,
was confronted with the delicate task of reconciling
the factions and preventing a civil war.
Influences were at work overcoming the
obstinate position taken by the old settlers in the
matter of government. Their chiefs, John Brown,
John Looney and John Rogers, made an
appeal to the United States government (August 9,
1839) that they "be sustained in the enjoyment
of our rights and in the execution of our laws and
that the lives and liberties of all our citizens may
be protected." But this caused disapproval among
some of the old settlers, who declared that Brown
and Rogers should be deposed.11
The Ross party had been making converts among
the opposition, among them being John Looney,
one of the signers of the "appeal," but
who on August 23 was president of the convention that
declared Brown and Rogers deposed from
office.12 But it was claimed that the "eastern
Cherokees" whose names were signed to various
records and resolutions emanating from the convention
really represented only a very small percent of the
total number of the old settlers. On August 27 the
convention protested against the appeal of the western
party to Washington, insisting that, as the differences
grew out of questions of merely tribal politics, they
were not a sufficient cause for United States interference.
In July the Ross party, in convention
at Tahlequah, had published a decree granting amnesty
to all who had "exposed and made themselves liable
to the penalty of outlawry" provided they appeared
before the convention within a certain time to accept
this grant of pardon. After the treaty party, in a
communication to Washington of August 20, had denounced
the murder of the Ridges and Boudinot,
this grant of amnesty was again proclaimed by the
Ross party, September 4 being the last day
on which those guilty of the unspecified offense could
appear and take advantage of the clemency of the majority
party.
The great offense of those intended to
be reached by these proclamations of amnesty was the
signing of the treaty of 1835, though that act is
not specifically mentioned. The signers of that treaty
had alone been singled out for vengeance, and it was
claimed that the murders were resolved on
[Footnote]
11".
. . . Whereas, in identifying themselves with those
individuals known as the Ridge party, who by their
conduct have rendered themselves odious to the Cherokee
people, they have acted in opposition to the known
sentiments of that portion of the nation known as
the old settlers . . . .
"Resolved, by us, the undersigned
citizens of the Cherokee Nation, known as the old
settlers, in council assembled, that the aforesaid
John Brown and John Rogers have acted in a manner
unworthy of the office of chiefs . . . "
12General Arbuckle wrote from
Fort Gibson, September 4, 1839: "I visited Fort
Smith late in August, and understood, in passing through
the Cherokee Nation, that the emissaries of Mr. Ross
were passing through the Cherokee country with the
object of collecting and bringing to the convention
as many of the old settlers as possible; and since
my return here, I am informed that John Looney, one
of the principal chiefs of the old settlers, has joined
the late emigrants . . . . I am of the opinion that
Mr. Ross and his adherents have induced so many of
the old settlers to join them that the chiefs Brown
and Rogers and their friends will not attempt any
resistance to the new government. Yet the means which
have been employed to establish that government will
no doubt long disturb the harmony of the Cherokee
Nation. . . ."
|
68
at the Double Spring council ground
in June, 1839, and that those who took the life of
John Ridge started from that ground for the
express purpose.
The action on part of the old settlers
in deposing their two chiefs and in going over to
the Ross faction, was a severe blow to the
power of the Ridge party, who for a time were
in great danger. Outside of those who were not embodied
with the Ross adherents, some took refuge in
Arkansas, and one chief was reported to have fled
to Mexico. It was a situation that threatened not
only the internal peace of the Cherokee Nation, but
seemed likely to involve the neighboring tribes in
war. The border settlers in Arkansas were alarmed,
and a concentration of troops was effected to prevent
the Indians from disturbing the peace of the white
settlements. General Arbuckle and Captain
Armstrong were instructed to arrest the murderers
of the Ridges, it being held that under the
provision of the treaty binding the United States
"to protect the Cherokee Nation from domestic
strife and foreign enemies," the government had
a right to interfere in this factional strife. At
the same time all payments of money to the Cherokees
were withheld until peace and order should be restored.
In every way possible the government brought pressure
to effect a reconciliation of the factions. Convinced
that the Ross party was responsible for the
killing of the Ridges and Boudinot,
and that Ross was chiefly to blame for the
disorder then existing, the government officials were
instructed not to recognize the Cherokee government
as established at Tahlequah in September, 1839, and
that John Ross must be excluded from official
leadership of the nation.
Finally on April 20, 1840, General
Arbuckle secured a convention of the two parties
at Fort Gibson, and the following day addressed the
deputations with an explanation of the principles
which the government would insist upon in harmonizing
the conflicting elements. Lest the old settlers' party
be entirely excluded from the union government, as
would happen under strict majority rule because of
the preponderance in numbers of the late emigrants,
it had been determined, said General Arbuckle,
that the old settlers should enjoy in the new government
one-third of the officers. The reasons for the government's
interference in this matter, and the necessity of
excluding Ross and Coodey from office
as a means of restoring harmony, were also explained
to the deputies of the two parties.
This convention had no results. The eastern
Cherokees drew up resolutions in which they expressed
complete confidence in all the political acts of their
chief, John Ross, and also their protest at
the intervention of the general government. But the
power of the government was now being felt as an effective
instrument for composing the differences. The withdrawal
of the annuities was a particular hardship. On May
25 the emigrant party assembled for another discussion,
and acceded to the request of General Arbuckle
that a deputation of their number should meet a like
delegation from the old settlers at Fort Gibson. As
a result, following a year of contention, the representatives
of the two parties came together at Fort Gibson in
June, and adopted the act of union which has since
been considered the official covenant between the
two branches of this people.
"Whereas our fathers have existed,
as a separate and distinct nation, in the possession
and exercise of the essential and appropriate attributes
of sovereignty, from a period extending into antiquity
beyond the records and memory of man, and
|
69
whereas these attributes, with the rights
and franchises which they involve, remain still in
force and virtue, as do also the national and social
relations of the Cherokee people to each other and
to the body politic, excepting in those particulars
which have grown out of the treaties of 1817 and 1819,
between the United States and the Cherokee Nation,
under which a portion of our people removed to this
country and became a separate community. But, the
force of circumstances [in this way do they refer
to the treaty of 1835] having recently compelled the
body of the eastern Cherokees to remove to this country
(thus bringing together again the two branches of
the ancient Cherokee family), it has become essential
to the general welfare that a union should be formed,
and a system of government matured, adapted to their
present condition, and providing equally for the protection
of each individual in the enjoyment of his rights.
"Therefore, we, the representatives
of the eastern and western Cherokees, do hereby solemnly
and mutually agree to form the two branches into one
body politic, under the style and title of the Cherokee
Nation.
"In view of the union now formed,
and for the purpose of making satisfactory adjustments
of all unsettled business which may have arisen before
the consummation of this union, we agree that such
business shall be settled according to the provisions
of the respective laws under which it originated;
and the courts of the Cherokee Nation shall be governed
in their decisions accordingly. Also, that the delegation
authorized by the eastern Cherokees to make arrangements
with Major General Scott for their removal to this
country shall continue in charge of that business,
with their present powers, until it shall be finally
closed. And also, that all rights and title to public
Cherokee lands on the east or west of the river Mississippi,
with all other public interests which may have vested
in either branch of the Cherokee family, whether inherited
from our fathers or derived from any other sources,
shall henceforward vest entire and unimpaired in the
Cherokee Nation as constituted by this union.
"It is further agreed, that any
moneys due individuals from the United States as per
capita, each and every citizen of the Cherokee Nation
shall participate equally. And also, that portion
of the nation that has constituted the old settlers
of this country shall have a just proportion of the
officers and representation in the government of the
nation for the first constitutional term—that
is to say, the assistant principal chief, seven members
in the committee, nine members of the council, two
associate judges, two district judges, two executive
counselors and two sheriffs; all to be of their own
selection and to be chosen by the council of old settlers
now in session.
"It is also understood, that all
debts and expenses incurred by either branch of the
Cherokees, for holding councils, etc., shall be assumed
and paid out of the national fund. And it is further
agreed that, from and after the signing of this union,
the laws of each portion of the Cherokee Nation shall
be inoperative excepting so far as already provided
for in this union. The constitution, however, adopted
at Tahlequah the 6th of September, 1839, and the laws
enacted under its provisions, shall be the governing
laws of the nation.
"Done at Fort Gibson, the 26th June,
1840.
| David Vann |
R. Taylor |
| John Burge |
Stephen Foreman |
| Turtle Fields |
John Drew |
| John S. Boot |
Johnson Foreman |
| G. W. Gunter |
David Carter |
| Richard Fields |
|
| On the part of the
eastern Cherokees." |
| |
|
| Andrew M. Vann |
George W. Adair |
| Riley Thornton |
Charles Ruce |
| William Rogers |
Broken Canoe |
| Thos. L. Rogers |
Lame Glass |
| Ezekiel Starr |
Wrinkle Sides |
| The Wind |
C. Thornton |
| On the part of the
western Cherokees." |
The substance of this act
of union had been adopted by the convention at the
Illinois
|
70
camp ground July 12, 1839, and signed
by representatives of both eastern and western Cherokees,
though the action on the part of the latter did not
represent the sentiment of the majority party. The
union thus provided for may be considered permanently
effective, so far as preventing the disorder and civil
dissension that had characterized the relations of
the eastern and western Cherokees since the removal
of the latter. But the party lines thus established
were not obliterated for years, and the fires of factional
bitterness smoldered until the Civil war of 1861-65
fanned them into flame, when the Ross party
allied itself with the Union and the treaty party,
under Stand Watie (a brother of Ridge,
who had been murdered) and others, joined the Confederacy.13
In November, 1842, the commissioner of
[Footnotes]
13In
his report of November, 1844, the commissioner of
Indian affairs says: "The dissensions and ill
feelings that have so long and injuriously prevailed
in the Cherokee Nation have not yet disappeared .
. . . It is, perhaps, according to the infirmity of
our nature that the majority party, if they are not
so tyrannical as they are charged to be should be
more imperious than is agreeable to the other side
. . . . " Many of the old settlers had been forced
to leave their homes and rely on their Arkansas neighbors
for protection, while the dissentions between the
treaty and Ross factions were increasing, to
the extent that the peace of the frontier was endangered,
and many of the minority had gone into exile. Matters
continued in this way for a year or more, when the
government officials succeeded in uniting the three
factions by a treaty agreement, by which their various
differences were composed or compromised. The conduct
of the factions under this treaty was commented on
as follows by the commissioner in his report of November,
1846: "The treaty with the Cherokees so far appears
to have been productive of the happiest results. All
parties seem to have united to carry out in good faith
the judicious provisions of the treaty; to forget
the ancient feuds and past misunderstandings . . .
. Since the provisions of the treaty were generally
made known in the country not a murder or outrage
. . . . has been reported."
The treaty of August 6, 1846, was concluded
at Washington between three commissioners of the United
States and the three factions of the Cherokee Nation,
including representatives of what was known as the
government party, under John Ross, the treaty
party, among who were George W. Adair and Stand
Watie, and the western Cherokees or old settlers,
represented by Captain Dutch, John Brown
and others. The preamble of the treaty, referring
to the existence of serious difficulties between the
various factions of the Cherokees, introduces this
general principle: "The lands now occupied by
the Cherokee Nation shall be secured to the whole
Cherokee people for their common use and benefit;
and a patent shall be issued for the same." Article
2 states: "All difficulties and differences heretofore
existing between the several parties of the Cherokee
Nation are hereby settled and adjusted, and shall,
as far as possible, be forgotten and forever buried
in oblivion. All party distinctions shall cease, except
so far as they may be necessary to carry out this
convention or treaty. A general amnesty is hereby
declared. All offenses and crimes committed by a citizen
or citizens of the Cherokee Nation against the nation,
or against an individual or individuals, are hereby
pardoned. All Cherokees who are now out of the nation
are invited and earnestly requested to return to their
homes, where they may live in peace, assured that
they shall not be prosecuted for any offense heretofore
committed against the Cherokee Nation, or any individual
thereof." Further, it was declared that hereafter
no one should be punished for any crime except on
a conviction of a jury, and that fugitives from justice,
not included in the general amnesty, should be returned
to the Cherokee Nation by the United States authorities.
The fourth article of this treaty affirms
the undivided ownership of both the eastern and western
Cherokees not only in the lands set apart in the Indian
country by the treaty of 1828, but also in those lands
retained by the portion of the tribe that remained
in the east. The provisions of this article for an
equitable interest in the lands of both parties were
subsequently quoted in the arguments for and against
the inclusion of the Indian Territory in joint statehood.
The article asserted that by the treaty of 1828, and
in conformity with the general Indian policy, that
the old settlers or western Cherokees "had no
exclusive title to the territory ceded in that treaty,
but the same was intended for the use of, and to be
the home for, the whole nation, including as well
that portion then east as that portion then west of
the Mississippi," and that by the operation of
the same principle the western Cherokees also "acquired
a common interest in the lands occupied by the
|
71
Indian affairs reported that among the
Indians still living east of the Mississippi were
1,000 to 1,200 Cherokees in North Carolina, Alabama,
Georgia and Tennessee; some Creeks in Alabama; 50
to 250 Chickasaws in Mississippi and a few in Tennessee;
from 3,000 to 4,000 Choctaws in Mississippi, and a
remnant of Seminoles in Florida.
The process of removing the Indians continued
throughout the decade of the forties, some years showing
very significant results. Beginning with January,
1845, the removal of the Choctaws who lingered in
the state of Mississippi was undertaken, and 1,182
were removed during that year. In November, 1846,
the Indian commissioner reported that since the preceding
year the emigration of Indians from east of the Mississippi
had been: 1,786 Choctaws, 64 Chickasaws, from the
state of Mississippi; and 104 Creeks from Alabama.
By November, 1847, 19 Creeks, 44 Chickasaws and a
few Cherokees had gone voluntarily to their new homes,
while 1,623 Choctaws had been removed by the government
authorities.
The Choctaws who were removed during
1845-47 were those who, under the provisions of the
treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830), had elected
to remain citizens of the states and had accepted
individual allotments of lands. Though they did not
thereby lose their Choctaw citizenship, they did lose
their right to share in the annuities payable to the
emigrating Choctaws. Those who remained east of the
river eventually, as settlements of whites hemmed
them in, experienced the usual unhappy fate of such
Indians, and their removal seemed necessary to preserve
them from the hostility of the white people and from
the destructive effects of contact with white civilization.
The removal of the Indians was practically enforced,
but the government thereby assumed unnecessary obligations
from which the treaty above mentioned had entirely
freed it. By converting to cash a part of the Choctaw
land scrip that was granted the Indians in lieu of
actual allotments, a fund was created for the emigrating
Choctaws from the proceeds of which they were placed
on a basis of equality with those already in the west,
so far as annuity payments were concerned.
The Chickasaws have long been allied
with the Choctaws, and there is a tradition that many
centuries ago they dwelt together as one people, as
they are people of the same Indian stock (Muskhogean).
Many Chickasaws have resided on the west side of the
Mississippi for a century, joining the Choctaws in
their early migrations. In 1805, 1816, and 1818, the
Chickasaws ceded all their lands north of Mississippi,
and until their final removal to the Indian country
the larger portion of the tribe dwelt in Alabama and
Mississippi. In 1822 it was estimated that 3,625 Chickasaws
remained in the Mississippi territory. Though many
Chickasaws had found their way to the Indian country
along with their kinsmen, the Choctaws, as a tribe
they were not located
[Footnotes]
Cherokees east of the
Mississippi." And owing to the failure of the
treaty of 1835 to provide for a settlement of that
interest, the western Cherokees were declared to have
an equitable claim upon the United States for the
value of that interest, the share for per capita distribution
among the old settlers being fixed one-third the whole
amount of the residuum intended for that purpose.
This treaty also provided an indemnity fund for the
treaty party, for their losses growing out of the
conflicts between the two parties. The sum of five
thousand dollars was to be paid by the United States
to the heirs of Major John Ridge, a like sum
to the heirs of John Ridge, and also to the
heirs of Elias Boudinot, and one hundred thousand
dollars was appropriated for the satisfaction of the
claims of others of the treaty party who had suffered
through their contention with the Ross party.
|
72
in the Indian country until the latter
thirties. The first treaty looking to their removal
was in 1832. The Chickasaws of Alabama and Mississippi,
"finding themselves oppressed in their present
situation, by being made subject to the laws of the
states in which they reside," entered into a
treaty, October 20, 1832, by which they ceded all
their lands on the east side of the Mississippi and
agreed to select lands beyond that river for their
permanent home. Pending their removal, they were to
select homes in their old country which were to be
guaranteed to their possession as long as they desired
to live upon them.
Several years of negotiations followed
before the Chickasaws succeeded in selecting suitable
lands in the Choctaw country. By the treaty at Doaksville,
near Fort Towson, January 17, 1837, the Chickasaws
were to have the privilege of forming the "Chickasaw
district" in the Choctaw country. The boundaries
of the original Chickasaw Nation as defined in the
treaty mention some interesting features of the geography
of the times. The east limit of the district differed
somewhat from that later established, and all the
country west between the Red and Canadian rivers as
far as Texas was granted for the Chickasaw home.14
Disputes arose between the Choctaws and
Chickasaws as to their respective boundaries, and
the treaty of November 4, 1854, defined the Chickasaw
district as it was shown on later maps.15
About the same time the Choctaws protested
against sharing the net proceeds of the lands ceded
them by the treaty of 1830 with their allies, the
Chickasaws, and in the treaty by which these dissensions
were settled are contained, 1st, a final definition
of boundaries of the two tribes, and, 2d, the establishment
of the "leased district" west of the 98th
meridian. This "leased district" becomes
an important geographical division of the later Oklahoma
territory. The essential features of this treaty (June
22, 1855) are given below.16
[Footnote]
14The
Chickasaw district shall be bounded as follows: Beginning
on the north bank of the Red river at the mouth of
Island bayou, about eight or ten miles below the mouth
of false Wachitta; thence running north along the
main channel of said Bayou to its source; thence along
the dividing ridge between the Wachitta and Low Blue
rivers to the road leading from Fort Gibson to Fort
Wachitta; thence along said river to the line dividing
Musha-la-tubbe and Push-mata-haw districts; thence
eastward along said district line to the source of
Brushy creek; thence down said creek to where it flows
into the Canadian river, ten or twelve miles above
the mouth of the South Fork of the Canadian; thence
west along the main Canadian river to its source if
in the limits of the United States or to those limits;
and thence due south to Red river and down Red river
to the beginning.
15"It is agreed by the
Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes of Indians, in lieu of
the boundaries established under the article second
of the convention and agreement entered into between
said tribes Jan. 17th, 1837, the Chickasaw district
of the Choctaw nation shall be bounded as follows:
Beginning on the north bank of the Red river at the
mouth of Island bayou where it empties into the Red
river about twenty-six miles on a straight line, below
the mouth of false Wachitta, thence running a northwesterly
course, along the main channel of said Bayou to the
junction of three prongs of said Bayou nearest the
dividing ridge between Wachitta and Low Blue rivers
. . . . thence northerly along the eastern prong of
Island Bayou to its source; thence due north to the
Canadian river, thence west, along the main Canadian,
to one hundred degrees of west longitude; thence south
to Red river and down Red river to the beginning."
16Art. 1. The following shall constitute
and remain the boundaries of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
country: Beginning at a point on the Arkansas river,
one hundred paces east of old Fort Smith, where the
western boundary line of the state of Arkansas crosses
the said river, and running thence due south to Red
river; thence up Red river to the point where the
meridian of one hundred degrees west longitude crosses
the same; thence north along the said meridian to
the main
|
73
The history of the removal
of the Creek Indians has many points of resemblance
with that of the Cherokees. As in the case of the
Cherokees, there were the eastern and the western
divisions, consisting of those who had gone beyond
the Mississippi under the first treaties, and those
who delayed in their old homes until forced to remove
by the encroachment of white settlers, and the power
of the government.
The McIntosh emigration of the Creeks,
which has been described in connection with the history
of the Creek treaties, followed the treaty of 1825,
which had been ratified only by the faction headed
by McIntosh. Though the division thus created between
the eastern and western Creeks bore partisan fruits
that were later matured in the Civil was between the
states, the schism appears not to have produced such
active and uncompromising hostility as in the case
of the Cherokees.17
The removal of eastern Creeks, on the
commission by them of certain alleged hostile acts,
was a military operation. December 1, 1836, the office
of Indian affairs reported that all of them had been
removed under contract with the exception of the families
of a band of 700 warriors. The first party that was
removed, consisting of 2,300, encamped on the Verdigris
on the 7th of September, 1836. Their approach was
viewed by the resident Creeks with jealousy and distrust,
owing to the feat of the latter that the newcomers
might assume a dominating position in the affairs
of the tribe. They asserted that having, after encountering
dangers and privations, established
[Footnote]
Canadian river; thence
down said river to its junction with the Arkansas
river; thence down said river to the place of beginning.
. . . .
Art. 2. A district for the Chickasaws
is hereby established bounded as follows: Beginning
on the north bank of the Red river at the mouth of
Island Bayou [etc., as provided in the treaty of Nov.
4, 1854].
Art. 3. The remainder of the country
held in common by the Choctaws and Chickasaws shall
constitute the Choctaw district, and their offices
and people shall at all times have the right of safe
conduct and free passage through the Chickasaw district.
Art. 9. The Choctaw Indians do hereby
absolutely and forever quit-claim and relinquish to
the United States all their right, title and interest
in and to any and all lands, west of the one hundredth
degree of west longitude; and the Choctaws and Chickasaws
do hereby lease to the United States all that portion
of the common territory west of the ninety-eighth
degree of west longitude, for the permanent settlement
of the Wichita and such other tribes or bands of Indians
as the government may desire to locate therein; excluding
however . . . .
Art. 10. In consideration of the
foregoing relinquishment and lease, and as soon as
practicable after the ratification of this convention,
the United States will pay to the Choctaws the sum
of six hundred thousand dollars, and to the Chickasaws
the sum of two hundred thousand dollars.
16"November the 26th,
1828, our exploring party encamped on the Arkansas,
at the mouth of Verdigris river. We remained in this
neighborhood until the second of December. Here our
Creek delegation had an opportunity of enjoying the
company of about fifteen hundred of their countrymen,
who had recently arrived from the east of the Mississippi.
This interview appeared to be pleasant to both parties.
These Creek immigrants belonged to what was termed
the McIntosh party, and our delegation belonged to
the other and larger party. Old General McIntosh,
who had headed this smaller party on the east of the
Mississippi had been killed by the others, and some
fears were felt lest an existing grudge might mar
the future peace of the two parties, if located near
each other. It was, therefore, the more pleasant to
witness the friendly manner in which the delegation
was received by the immigrants. The expressed a desire
that their people generally should follow and settle
with them; and lest any should be deterred from doing
so, by supposing that the immigrants retained angry
feelings on account of a former quarrel, they held
a council, and prepared a written communication to
the other party, affectionately inviting them into
their country, under assurances that former grudges
were buried." (McCoy's "Baptist Indian Missions,"
pp. 365.)
|
74
themselves in comfort and framed a system
of government and laws for themselves, their situation
ought not to be rendered worse by the coming among
them of those who, by their hostile acts, had reduced
themselves to beggary and want. A council was held
at Fort Gibson, at which Roley McIntosh said
in behalf of the western Creeks that "they were
willing to meet the new emigrants as friends provided
they would submit to the laws now in force."
The newcomers expressed themselves willing to accommodate
themselves to the government and customs under which
the western Creek had prospered. In subsequent reports
the Indian commissioner finds that, while the two
divisions of the Creeds do not regard each other with
complete confidence and good will, there was no likelihood
of serious collision between the factions.
A document that incidentally tells the
story of the removal of the Indians is the contract,
dated September 7, 1835, between the commissary general
of subsistence and John W. A. Sanford and Company.
The latter agreed to remove "the Creek Indians,
occupants of the Creek Nation, in the state of Alabama,
from said nation, to a point in the new country allotted
to the Creeks west of the territory of Arkansas, and
within twenty miles of Fort Gibson, men, women and
children, with their slaves and their goods and chattels."
The involuntary emigration of a large
body of people from one territory to another is in
itself a severe measure, entailing hardships that
could not be recounted in detail. To take many thousand
persons across the almost unbroken wilderness of the
Mississippi valley three-quarters of a century ago
was a task that has not a parallel in American history.
The contract system under which the removal was made
at its best could not be safeguarded from opportunities
to unscrupulous men for exacting the highest profit
from the enterprise. At so much per head, for the
removal of the Indians, it was entirely a business
proposition with the contractors, and too often the
necessity of firm discipline was perverted by harshness
and unfeeling cruelty. In the hands of the contractors,
the removal of the Indians was not a great philanthropy,
but was carried out with the same business considerations
that would characterize the transportation of commodities
of commerce from one point to another.
The terms of the contract are the best
commentary for the reader who would understand these
features of the Indian migration. The contract mentioned
above called for the following rations: "The
ration of bread shall be one pound of wheat flour,
Indian meal, or hard bread, or three quarters of a
quart of corn; the meat ration shall be one pound
of fresh or three-quarters of a pound of salt meat
or bacon; and with fresh meat, two quarts of salt
to every hundred rations. The transportation shall
be one six-horse wagon and fifteen hundred pounds
of baggage to from 50 to 80 persons. The provisions
and transportation shall be the best of their kind.
The average daily travel shall not exceed twelve miles."
Those who were able-bodied proceeded
on foot. It was a long, straggling line of march for
men, women and children, through mud and dust, through
rain and sun, through a country that tried the hardihood
of trained soldiers, and under conditions that our
modern infantry would complain of. But it was provided
that "the sick, those enfeebled from age or other
cause, and young children, shall be transported in
wagons or horseback; that those who may be pronounced
unable to proceed my
|
75
be left on the route at some proper
place, and under the care of some proper person, at
the expense of the United States." The contractors
would receive twenty dollars a head for this transportation,
and for those dying by the way an amount proportioned
to the distance traveled. Each party was to be accompanied
by two or more military escorts and a surgeon to see
that proper treatment was accorded the Indians and
that the terms of the contract were fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
