Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic 9780691186481, 0691047413, 069100627X

Citation preview

CHEROKEE RENASCENCE IN THE NEW REPUBLIC

I can see m y native country, rising f r o m the ashes of her degradation . . . and taking her seat w i t h the nations of the earth. Buck Watie (Elias Boudinot), 1826

CHEROKEE RENASCENCE I N THE N E W REPUBLIC

W I L L I A M G. M c L O U G H L I N

PRINCETON

UNIVERSITY

PRINCETON,

NEW

PRESS

JERSEY

C o p y r i g h t © 1986 b y Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press Published b y Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 41 W i l l i a m Street, Princeton, N e w Jersey 08540 I n the U n i t e d K i n g d o m : Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, Chichester, West Sussex A l l Rights Reserved L I B R A R Y OF C O N G R E S S CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

M c L o u g h l i n , W i l l i a m Gerald. Cherokee renascence i n the N e w Republic. Bibliography: p . Includes index. 1. Cherokee Indians—History. 2. Cherokee Indians—Government relations—History. I . Title. E99.C5M4 1986 9 7 5 ' . 0 0 4 9 7 86-42843 ISBN 0-691-04741-3 (alk. paper) ISBN 0-691-00627-X (pbk.) First Princeton Paperback p r i n t i n g , 1992 Publication of this book has been aided b y a grant from The A n d r e w W. M e l l o n Foundation This book has been composed i n L i n o t r o n A l d u s The rising phoenix o n the title page is from the masthead of the Cherokee Phoenix, official newspaper of the Cherokee N a t i o n The cover i l l u s t r a t i o n is reproduced from The Portrait-Gallery of the American Indian by McKenney and H a l l . Princeton University Press books are p r i n t e d on. acid-free paper, and meet the guidelines for permanence and d u r a b i l i t y of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book L o n g e v i t y of the C o u n c i l on L i b r a r y Resources Printed i n the United States of America by Princeton Academic Press 5

7

9

10

8

6

4

This book is dedicated to CRAIG

ELLIOTT

and PETER G R E N I E R ,

two nice guys

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations xi

List of Tables xii

Acknowledgments xiii

Preface

xv

List of Abbreviations Used i n the Notes xxi One. Changing Cherokee Ways, 1690-1790 T w o . Disorientation and Restructuring, 1794-1810

3 33

Three. Starting Farms and Debating the Augusta-Nashville Road, 1799-1804

58

Four. The Sale of the H u n t i n g Grounds, 1805-1806 Five. The Revolt of the Young Chiefs, 1806-1807 Six. Efforts to Divide the N a t i o n , 1808-1809

92 109 128

Seven. The First Step toward Nationalism, 1808-1810

146

Eight. The Ghost Dance M o v e m e n t , 1811-1812

168

N i n e . The Creek War, 1812-1814

186

Ten. N a t i o n a l U n i t y Falters, 1816-1817

206

Eleven. The Struggle for Sovereignty, 1817-1819

228

Twelve. "Friends at the N o r t h , " 1819

247

Thirteen. The Creek Path Conspiracy, 1819-1822, and the Experiment i n Citizenship, 1818-1832 Fourteen. Cherokee Renascence, 1819-1829: Politics and Economics

260 277

Fifteen. Testing the L i m i t s of Sovereignty, 1819-1826

302

Sixteen. Class, Gender, and Race i n the N e w Cherokee State, 1819-1827

326

ix

C O N T E N T S

Seventeen. Sequoyah and the Christians, 1819-1827

350

Eighteen. Too M u c h A c c u l t u r a t i o n , 1824-1828

366

Nineteen. Rebellion against the Constitution, 1827

388

T w e n t y . The Removal Crisis of 1828 T w e n t y - o n e . The Missionaries and the Supreme Court, 1829-1833 Epilogue. The End of the Cherokee Renascence, 1833 Bibliography 453

Index 461

x

411

428 448

ILLUSTRATIONS

following page 266: Colonel Return J. Meigs (1740-1823), U.S. agent to the Cherokees Sequoyah (1828), inventor of the Cherokee syllabary George Lowrey, c. 1844 Cherokee Indians of the early to mid-1800s Major Ridge (The Ridge), c. 1835 John Ridge, son of The Ridge, in 1826 Part of the first page of the Cherokee Phoenix, March 13, 1828 Elias Boudinot, (c. 1835), editor of the Cherokee Phoenix Cabin home on the Qualla Reservation, North Carolina, 1888 Walini', a Cherokee woman, 1888 James Vann's tavern at Diamond Hill, Cherokee Nation, built 1803-1804 James Vann's home at Diamond H i l l , Cherokee Nation, built 1803-1804 John Ross's home, Rossville, Cherokee Nation, 1827 John Ross, c. 1835 MAPS

The Cherokees and their neighbors Cherokee territorial losses in the periods 1700-1783 and 1783-1819 Cherokee land cessions, 1721-1835 Cherokee settlement areas before and after 1794

xi

TABLES

1. Fur Shipments to England from South Carolina, 1700-1715

5

2. Fur Trade Exchange Rates, Charleston, South Carolina, 1716

6

3. Cherokee Land Cessions, 1721-1806 4. Cherokee Income from Land Cessions, 1791-1835

26 107

5. Schools and Pupils in the Cherokee Nation, 1809

274

6. Prosperous Cherokees in 1809 (partial list)

174

7. Cherokee Economic Growth, 1809-1835

295

8. Cherokee Agricultural Production, 1835

299

9. Mixed-Blood and Full-Blood Students at Brainerd Mission, 1817-1827

379

10. Cherokee Converts to Christianity by Denomination, 1800-1838 Chronology of Treaties with the Cherokees, 1721-1835

xii

382 29

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

D

u r i n g the ten-year course of researching and w r i t i n g this book, I have r u n up numerous debts to people w h o have given me their gen­ erous help along the way. First I w i s h to acknowledge gratefully the f i ­ nancial assistance of the National Endowment for the H u m a n i t i e s , the A m e r i c a n Council of Learned Societies, and the N e w b e r r y L i b r a r y for fellowships and scholarships. Then I want to thank the m a n y librarians and archivists w h o have been of invaluable help i n tracking d o w n mate­ rials: Dan McPike and M a r i e E. Keene of the Gilcrease Institute, Tulsa, Oklahoma; B i l l Towner and John A u b r e y of the N e w b e r r y L i b r a r y , C h i ­ cago; Relia Looney and Louise Cooke of the Oklahoma Historical Soci­ ety, Oklahoma C i t y ; M a r t y Shaw of the H o u g h t o n L i b r a r y , H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y ; George Stevenson of the N o r t h Carolina State Archives, Ra­ leigh; the staff of the Cherokee L i b r a r y , Cherokee H i s t o r y M u s e u m , Qualla, N o r t h Carolina; M a r y Creech and Elizabeth M a r x of the M o r a ­ vian Archives, Winston-Salem, N o r t h Carolina; Lother M a d e h e i m of the M o r a v i a n Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Jack D . Haley of the Western Historical Collections of the U n i v e r s i t y of Oklahoma, N o r m a n ; Elma S. K u r t z of the A t l a n t a Historical Society, A t l a n t a ; M a r i l y n Bell and Dawnene M a t h e n y of the Tennessee State L i b r a r y and Archives, Nashville; Pat B r y a n t of the Secretary of State's Office, A t l a n t a ; Dean R. K i r k w o o d of the A m e r i c a n Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania; W i l l i a m H . Brackney of the A m e r i c a n Baptist H i s ­ torical Society, Rochester, N e w York; Janet S. Fireman and John M . Cahoon of the N a t u r a l H i s t o r y M u s e u m of Los Angeles C o u n t y , Los A n ­ geles; and D a v i d A . Jonah, D o r o t h y Day, and Janet Draper of the B r o w n U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , Providence. I also w i s h to thank numerous scholars i n the field of Native A m e r i c a n h i s t o r y whose works I have cited and particularly those w h o have gone out of their way to provide me w i t h specific answers to queries: T h u r m a n W i l k i n s , Douglas C. W i l m s , Edwin A . Miles, A . D . Lester, Theda Perdue, Walter H . Conser, Jr., Michael Coleman, D w i g h t Heath, and Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. I want especially to thank M a r y E. Y o u n g for her com­ ments on the manuscript. xiii

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

A n d finally, as always, I wish to express m y deepest thanks to m y wife, V i r g i n i a W . M c L o u g h l i n , whose assistance has been constant and whose judgments always sensible.

xiv

PREFACE

T

his is a study of the rise of romantic nationalism i n America, told i n terms of the struggle of the Cherokee people to accept the promise of equal citizenship i n the new nation. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur had asked i n 1783, as the U n i t e d States was b o r n i n t o nationhood, " W h a t then is the A m e r i c a n , this new m a n ? " He answered his question i n prophetic terms: " H e is either an European or the descendant of an European." The Founding Fathers, however, had a different view. For t h e m an A m e r i c a n was a rational, civilized, more or less Christian citizen w h o was committed to republican ideology and to the rising greatness of the U n i t e d States. George W a s h i n g t o n held out the promise of full and equal citizenship to the Indians w i t h i n America's boundaries. The first Congresses implemented this promise b y passing legislation to provide aid that w o u l d enable these "savages" to become civilized, Christianized farmer-citizens. Thomas Jefferson continued the promise; " W e shall all be Americans," he told the western Indians, and to that end intermarriage was encouraged and federal assistance c o n t i n ued t h r o u g h the first six presidential administrations. " T h e I n d i a n , " Jefferson w r o t e , "is the equal of the European i n m i n d and b o d y . " Jefferson, a true apostle of the Enlightenment, believed i n the u n i t y of the h u m a n race; he w r o t e that i t was a self-evident principle that " a l l m e n are created equal." I t was the accepted scientific view of his day. A d a m and Eve were the progenitors of all h u m a n k i n d ; skin color was o n l y an e n v i r o n m e n t a l accident.

Yet between 1783 and the end of the Cherokees' remarkable effort to become civilized and Christianized citizens fifty years later, something drastic happened to the self-image of w h i t e Americans. Scientists abandoned the Enlightenment view of the u n i t y of the h u m a n race and concluded, w i t h revisionist scientific backing, that there was a hierarchy of races. N o t surprisingly, they found the new race of Americans ( w i t h their presumed Anglo-Saxon heritage) superior to all others. This shift i n the definition of what i t meant to be an A m e r i c a n has generally been described i n terms of the transition i n Western culture f r o m the w o r l d view of the Enlightenment to the w o r l d view of Romanticism.

xv

P R E F A C E

Literary historians have long noted that American writers (chiefly on the eastern seaboard) romanticized the Indian into a noble, but disappearing, savage to cover up the dramatic d i m i n u t i o n of the ideal of American-ness f r o m an all-inclusive to a particularistic definition. B y 1833, "the I n d i a n " was a race apart. M a n y historians have explained the shift i n terms of "western expansion" or "the land greed" of the frontiersman and the land speculator eager to make excuses for stealing the Indian's land. Some have even argued that no great change took place i n Indian policy. The effort to remove the Indians from the eastern Mississippi Valley to the west, they claim, was consistent w i t h the original Indian policy; i t marked o n l y a change i n strategy—a recognition that, for the good of the Indians (because of Indian cultural persistence and the inveterate a n t i - I n ­ dian prejudice of the w h i t e frontiersmen), they needed more t i m e to be­ come t r u l y civilized and Christianized. These explanations are inade­ quate. A tremendous cultural reorientation took place i n America between 1783 and 1833. W h i t e Americans drastically revised their views of na­ ture, the supernatural, and h u m a n nature. I n the process a v e r y different k i n d of national outlook developed. The removal of the Indians to the west was not simply an incident i n this cultural transformation; i t was an integral part of i t . The changing attitude toward the Indian's place i n the new nation was essentially a redefinition of what i t meant to be an A m e r ­ ican ; to study what happened to the Indians is to study what happened to w h i t e Americans i n these years. In redefining God d u r i n g the Second Great A w a k e n i n g (theologically described as the shift from Calvinism and deism to Evangelical A r m i n i anism), Americans also redefined h o w He worked, which is to say h o w t h e y t h o u g h t about man's place i n the universe and America's role i n h u ­ man h i s t o r y . The shift from Calvinistic or Enlightenment determinism included the belief that man had free w i l l , that he and God were partners, and that God had chosen the Americans as a special people w i t h a special mission to save the w o r l d and b r i n g on the m i l l e n n i u m . The nineteenth-century missionary impulse to perfect the w o r l d by converting everyone i n i t became so ethnocentric that i t embodied a pa­ triotic zeal to exclude lesser breeds from more than spiritual salvation. In popular t h o u g h t , God had chosen the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Americans to save the w o r l d . As the voice of the people became the voice of God (a view the Founding Fathers doubted but that Jacksonian demo­ crats voiced freely by 1833), it became important to define the "people" i n terms particularly favorable to a romantic nationalism. Americans dis­ covered w h o they were by deciding w h o they were not, and those w h o were deciding were not black Africans or red Indians; this was a w h i t e xvi

P R E F A C E

man's c o u n t r y led by special kinds of Europeans w h o had the innate po­ tential to fit the m o l d n o w called " A m e r i c a n . " The republican ideology ceased to be universal and became exclusionary. The Cherokees did not t h i n k of themselves as a nation i n 1776 or i n 1789. They were a people united by language, customs, and kinship. T h e y had fought not to establish the new A m e r i c a n nation but to prevent its independence. N o r had they been consulted about the first Indian p o l ­ icy of the United States. However, m a n y Cherokees came to accept the generous promises of that policy to a conquered and " u n e n l i g h t e n e d " people, for the policy granted t h e m respect, hope, and the promise of equal participation. Realizing after their defeat i n 1794 that their greatly diminished t e r r i t o r y necessitated a transition f r o m a h u n t i n g to a f a r m i n g economy, the Cherokees accepted the " c i v i l i z i n g " policy set for t h e m , at least to the extent that survival depended on agriculture rather than o n the fur trade. A few of their leaders, especially those of m i x e d (Indianwhite) ancestry, pressed eagerly forward i n this effort. From 1794 to 1815 the Cherokees did their best to adapt to their new situation. Even after the great disappointments f o l l o w i n g their decision to j o i n General Jack­ son against the B r i t i s h , the Creeks, and Tecumseh i n the W a r of 1812, they continued to hope that the original promises w o u l d be kept. H o w ­ ever, t h e y became increasingly aware of the shifting mood of w h i t e America. As early as 1816 some Western governors were saying that i f the Indians were given citizenship, their status w o u l d o n l y be that of freed slaves; after a l l , were they not a savage, pagan, people of color? From 1815 to 1833 the people of the United States wrestled w i t h the conflict between their original c o m m i t m e n t to integrate Indians and their desire to expand and exploit the land the Indians occupied. A t the same t i m e , the Indians wrestled w i t h the question of their o w n i d e n t i t y and f u ­ ture. W i t h u n e r r i n g logic, they concluded that national i d e n t i t y rested upon a cultural heritage imbedded i n history, language, culture, and a distinct and identifiable " h o m e l a n d . " They too became romantic n a t i o n ­ alists, stressing their differences from other people. A f t e r all, t h e y had a perfect model of evolving nationhood before t h e m . W h e n t h e y t h o u g h t about this, they realized that they had a far better claim to ethnic i d e n t i t y and nationhood than the m o t l e y , polyglot European peoples w h o had come to the N e w W o r l d . Ironically, however, the concept of tribal sovereignty that the Chero­ kees evolved shared much of the ideology of the individual sovereign states of the U n i o n . States' rights and the bitter conflict over federal su­ premacy also reached its first peak i n the 1820s. The w h i t e frontiersmen therefore argued that the Indian nations were t r y i n g to establish " i m peria i n i m p e r i a , " nations w i t h i n the states of the U n i o n . The federal xvii

P R E F A C E

treaty power, w h i c h had sustained the i n t e g r i t y of Indian nations, became the b u l w a r k of Indian sovereignty at the very t i m e that states' rights be­ came the b u l w a r k of the new program of Indian removal. Western p o l i ­ ticians claimed that Indian nationalism derived f r o m the backwardness of a savage people too lazy, ignorant, or simple to adopt civilized ways. I n fact, the most sophisticated of Cherokee mixed bloods, as w e l l as the g r o w i n g ethnic i d e n t i t y of the full bloods, sustained their g r o w i n g na­ tionalism. Furthermore, awareness of the racial and ethnocentric pater­ nalism developing among even the most benevolent w h i t e p h i l a n t h r o ­ pists forced the Cherokees to struggle to retain their sovereignty and their land. The Cherokees were at least as "progressive" i n this respect as white romantic nationalists. The evidence indicates that the w h i t e A m e r ­ icans reversed their view of the Indian's potential before the Indians al­ tered their c o m m i t m e n t to the policy of civilization and integration. By 1827 the Cherokees had learned so well the ideology of their con­ querors that they were able to use i t against t h e m . I f Americans fought for freedom i n order to assert government by the consent of the gov­ erned, so should the Indians. I f the Constitution made treaties "the su­ preme law of the l a n d , " the states had no control over Indian affairs. I f treaties "guaranteed" t h e m the r i g h t to hold their land and to refuse its sale, then Indian sovereignty was inviolable. Furthermore, b y treaties and under the Trade and Intercourse Acts of Congress, the federal gov­ ernment (in r e t u r n for Indian nonviolence) promised to use its a r m y to protect the boundaries of the Indian nations from all intrusions. The Cherokees, adopting their o w n w r i t t e n constitution (after a con­ vention elected by their citizens) i n 1827—a constitution modeled d i ­ rectly on that of the United States i n its republican ideology—seized the initiative for sovereignty from the states'-rights theorists w h o sur­ rounded t h e m . I n the critical years from 1827 to 1833, Cherokee sover­ eignty, states' rights, and American nationalism moved i n the same d i ­ rection. W i t h the election i n 1828 of a western, populist Indian-fighter to the Presidency, w h i t e Americans faced the necessity of reconciling the conflicting impulses of their o w n destiny. I t was no accident that the n u l ­ lification crisis over the tariff i n 1828 coincided w i t h the constitutional crisis over "the Indian question," raised by Georgia's effort that same year to assert its sovereign jurisdiction over the Cherokee N a t i o n . The ability of the Cherokees to hire the most influential jurists and lawyers to plead cases for t h e m i n the U n i t e d States Supreme Court and to arouse intense popular l o b b y i n g i n Congress on their behalf indicates that more was at stake than the plight of 15,000 "savages." Two other i m p o r t a n t features of Cherokee history unite their struggle w i t h that of the U n i t e d States: slavery and C h r i s t i a n i t y . The Cherokees xviii

P R E F A C E

were slaveholders; their laws and constitution upheld the i n s t i t u t i o n of chattel slavery. Their land was suitable for g r o w i n g cotton and, as the slaves among t h e m increased f r o m 583 i n 1809 to over 1,500 b y 1833, t h e y developed a "black code" relegating Africans to precisely the same status t h e y had i n the slaveholding states s u r r o u n d i n g the Cherokee N a ­ t i o n . The Cherokees knew they could not be an abolitionist nation i n the heart of the Deep South. They also knew that t h e y could not expect equality for themselves i f they gave equality to Africans. The g r o w i n g influence of w h i t e missionaries also links the rise of Cher­ okee nationalism w i t h the rise of w h i t e A m e r i c a n nationalism. B y the 1820s w h i t e Americans considered the United States not o n l y "a w h i t e man's c o u n t r y " but "a Christian n a t i o n . " I t had been argued that I n d i ­ ans, being pagans, were not fit for equal citizenship; i n w h i t e courts (where all their civil and criminal trials i n v o l v i n g whites were tried) I n ­ dians were denied the r i g h t to testify i n their o w n defense. Yet b y 1828 C h r i s t i a n i t y had made such rapid strides i n the conversion of Cherokees to Protestantism that m a n y of the missionaries i n the Cherokee N a t i o n (Methodists, Baptists, Moravians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists) were prepared to state that the Cherokee N a t i o n was as Christian i n spirit and practice as most of the w h i t e communities s u r r o u n d i n g i t . A n d could one Christian people treat another as contemptuously as frontier whites wished to treat these Indians? H a v i n g become farmers, having learned to read, dress, talk, vote, and worship like w h i t e Americans, the Cherokees became the focal p o i n t of this dramatic A m e r i c a n confrontation between ideals and practicality, be­ tween laws and prejudice, between constitutional principles and the w i l l of the m a j o r i t y , between Christian principle and secular materialism. The rhetoric was equal to the occasion on b o t h sides. B u t i n this study I have tried to get beneath the rhetoric to the reality, at least as far as the cultural historian can. The great Cherokee renascence of 1794—1833 was the re­ b i r t h of that people i n the image of the United States, yet w i t h a differ­ ence. Providence, Rhode Island

W i l l i a m G. M c L o u g h l i n

xix

ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations will be used in the footnotes:

ASP I ,

ASP II

BFMB

Brainerd Journal

Cherokee Laws MAB MAS

Payne Papers

Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. These are indexed by name in the Houghton Library, Harvard University. American State Papers: Indian Affairs, vols. I and I I , Docu­ ments, Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, edited by Walter Lowrie, Walter S. Franklin, and Mat­ thew St. Clair Clarke (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832,1834). Baptist Foreign Mission Board (later Baptist Mission Union) Papers, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, New York. These consist of "letters sent" and "letters received," ar­ ranged by tribe or nation and ordered alphabetically by the names of the missionaries. The official journal kept by the missionaries of the ABCFM at Brainerd Mission in the Cherokee Nation. Entries are not at­ tributed to any single individual. This journal is located with the ABCFM Papers at Houghton Library, Harvard University. The Laws of the Cherokee Nation (Tahlequah, Cherokee Na­ tion, 1852). Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Moravian Archives, Salem (Winston-Salem), North Carolina John Howard Payne Papers, Newberry Library, Chicago. I have given the volume and pages for the typescript rather than for the originals, although the typescripts are not always accurate and should be checked against the originals.

G O V E R N M E N T

M I C R O F I L M

The government microfilm series cited most frequently in this volume fall into two groups: those from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group 75, and those from the Office of the Secretary of War, Record Group 107. M-15 Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75: Letters Sent by the Secretary of War Relating to Indians Affairs, 1800-1824. (Letterbooks, paginated.)

xxi

L I S T

M-21 M-22 M-208

M-221 M-222 M-234 M-271 M-668

O F

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75 : Letters Sent by the Office of Indian Af­ fairs, 1824—1832. (Letterbooks, paginated.) Office of the Secretary of War, RG 107: Register of Letters Received, Main Series, 1800-1870. (Frame numbers given as #1341, etc.) Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75 : Records of the Cherokee Indian Agency, Tennessee, 1801-1835. (Arranged by date; no pagination, no frame numbers.) Office of the Secretary of War, RG 107: Letters Received by the Secretary of War, Main Series, 1801-1870. (Frame numbers given.) Office of the Secretary of War, RG 107: Letters Received by the Secretary of War (Unregistered), 1789-1861. (Frame numbers given.) Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75: Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1881. (Frame numbers given.) Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75: Letters Received by the Secretary of War Relating to Indian Affairs, 1800-1823. (Frame numbers given.) Bureau of Indian Affairs, RG 75: Ratified Indian Treaties. (Frame num­ bers given.)

xxii

CHEROKEE RENASCENCE IN THE NEW REPUBLIC

ONE

C H A N G I N G CHEROKEE WAYS, 1690-1790 My people cannot live independent of the English. . . . The clothes we wear we cannot make ourselves. They are made for us. We use their ammunition with which to kill deer. We cannot make our own guns. Every necessary of life we must have from the white people. —Chief Skiagunsta to the governor of South Carolina, 1745 Game is going fast away from us. We must plant corn and raise cattle, and we desire you to assist us. . . . In former times we bought of the trader['s] goods cheap; we could then clothe our women and children, hut now game is scarce and goods dear. —Chief Eskaqua to George Washington, 1792

B

y 1790 the Cherokees were no longer sure of their place i n the u n i ­ verse. N o t o n l y had they suffered m a n y bloody and devastating de­ feats i n battle d u r i n g the previous fifteen years, but ever since their first regular contact w i t h Europeans i n the 1690s they had gradually lost touch w i t h i m p o r t a n t aspects of their old way of life. A t first, they v o l u n t a r i l y accepted the fascinating and useful technology that the Spanish, French, and English offered t h e m i n exchange for deerskins and furs. Then t h e y became, i n effect, the employees of the fur traders w h o established reg­ ular markets for larger and larger catches each year. Soon they fell v i c t i m to the w h i t e man's diseases, against w h i c h neither their o w n health de­ fenses nor the practices of their priest/doctors were able to save t h e m . A l ­ t h o u g h they were one of the largest tribes east of the Mississippi i n 1690, their population decreased b y more than half by 1740—from over 20,000 to less than 10,000. As the tide of English settlement moved irresistibly inland, frequent disputes took place that were resolved b y forcing the Cherokees to yield more and more of their t e r r i t o r y . B y 1776, they had ceded 50,000 square miles, some of i t h u n t i n g areas they had shared w i t h other tribes. D u r i n g the A m e r i c a n Revolution, as defeat followed defeat, their cultural framework suffered shocks that further undermined its cohesion and order. Thousands of their people were d r i v e n f r o m their homes and forced to resettle further inland. B y 1790, the Cherokees had 3

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

lost t h e i r ability to sustain the proper relationship between themselves and their e n v i r o n m e n t . The w o r l d of spirits that protected (and plagued) t h e m did not respond to their prayers, rituals, and ceremonies as i t had i n earlier times. Forces beyond their reckoning and control c o n t i n u a l l y overwhelmed t h e m . H a r m o n y was their highest social and religious value, yet the sense of l i v i n g i n h a r m o n y among themselves as w e l l as w i t h nature and the spirit w o r l d seemed to have been lost. Disorder was everywhere—between old chiefs and y o u n g chiefs, between one t o w n and another, between parents and children, between m a n and the retreat­ i n g animals. Somehow they had lost control of their destiny as a people. W h e t h e r this was permanent or simply a temporary disorientation t h e y could not tell. Before the w h i t e man came there had been a clearly established pattern and structure to their lives, sustained by age-old customs, rituals, beliefs, ceremonies, and symbols guiding the r i g h t f u l and eternal order of things. A f t e r 1690, w h a t had seemed at first to be miraculous blessings, b r o u g h t f r o m afar b y w h i t e men i n their great white-sailed ships, had become a curse. Once the Cherokees had p r o u d l y defined their name, A n i - Y u n w i y a , to mean "the real people" or "the principal people." B y 1790 t h e y seemed a ruined people. I n order to appreciate the remarkable renascence of the Cherokee people f r o m 1794 to 1833, i t is first necessary to under­ stand the shocks suffered b y their culture i n the century f r o m 1690 to 1790. Some of these occurred gradually, such as their entanglement i n the market economy and political wars of the expanding empires of west­ ern Europe. Some of t h e m came i n swift and repeated blows, such as smallpox epidemics and border wars. C u l t u r a l shock reached its most des­ olating stage i n the quarter century after 1776. The Cherokees fought on the side of the losers—first the British, then the Spanish—in the struggle for control of the N e w W o r l d . 1

W h e n the Cherokees began to obtain guns i n large numbers f r o m the English colonists of V i r g i n i a and the Carolinas (probably b y the 1690s), t h e y inaugurated the first phase i n the radical transformation of their tra­ ditional w a y of life—the transition from a stable, h u n t i n g - g a t h e r i n g f a r m i n g society w i t h a subsistence economy and an i n t e r n a l l y oriented, c o m m u n a l order to a mobile, free-trade, market economy w i t h heavy re­ liance on European trade goods and alliances. This transformation began 2

See Gary C. Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition (Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1977), pp. 105-149, for a good description of the ecological reasons for this cultural disorder. The best anthropological studies of Cherokee society in the eighteenth century are Charles M . Hudson, The Southeastern Indians (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1976); James Mooney, "Myths of the Cherokees," Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology 19th Annual Report, 1897-98, part 1 (Washington, D.C.: Govern1

2

4

CHANGING

CHEROKEE

WAYS

TABLE 1

Fur Shipments to England from South Carolina, 1700-1715 Number Shipped

Type of Skin Dressed deerskins Undressed deerskins Beaver pelts Fox pelts Raccoon skins Otter skins

Type of Skin Moose hides Wildcat skins Black fox belts Elk skins

718,719 164,267 9,841 8,159

Number Shipped 1,365 848 283 41

3,615

Total

2,035

909,173

SOURCE: Gary C. Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition (Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, 1 9 7 7 ) , p. 9 6 .

v o l u n t a r i l y as the Cherokees eagerly sought guns to assist t h e m i n their wars w i t h neighboring Indian tribes, tribes that m i g h t have been barriers and allies against the European invasion but whose previous e n m i t y seemed more threatening. W i t h guns, the Cherokees could k i l l deer more easily; w i t h deerskins, they could enter regular trading relations w i t h the English to the east of t h e m , the Spanish to the south, and the French to the southwest. B y obtaining more guns, steel traps, sharp knives, and hatchets, the Cherokees enlarged their participation i n the fur trade. B y 1725 i t had become the central feature of their lives. As they became s k i l l ­ ful w i t h guns and traps, they rapidly depleted the game around t h e m and had to spend more t i m e h u n t i n g farther west, i m p i n g i n g upon the do­ mains of other tribes. A good Indian hunter could sell fifty or more dressed deerskins a year; b y 1750, the Cherokees alone were selling 25,000 a year (see table 1). As the occupation of the m e n changed, so did the lives of their families. W o m e n welcomed manufactured goods that made their lives easier-— i r o n , brass, and tinware to cook i n ; machine-woven cloth and blankets to replace dressed deer- and bearskins. They learned to use steel needles, scissors, and thread rather than bone needles, sinew, and buckskin; the ancient arts of f i r i n g clay pottery, m a k i n g bone tools, and weaving fiber mats were neglected. B y the 1790s some w o m e n were cooking pork and 3

ment Printing Office, 1 9 0 0 ) ; Fred O. Gearing, Priests and Warriors, American Anthropo­ logical Association Memoir 9 3 (Menasha, Wis. : American Anthropological Association, 1 9 6 2 ) ; the most useful historical sources for eighteenth-century Cherokee life are Henry T. Malone, Cherokees of the Old South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1 9 5 6 ) and David H . Corkran, The Cherokee Frontier, 1740-1762 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962).

On changing agricultural and settlement patterns among the Cherokees in the eight­ eenth century see Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition, and Douglas C. Wilms, "Cherokee Settlement Patterns/ Southeastern Geographer 1 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 4 6 - 5 3 . 3

7

5

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

TABLE 2

Fur Trade Exchange Rates, Charleston, South Carolina, 1716

Item Traded For Gun Broadcloth coat, laced Half-thick coat Pistol White Duffield blanket Calico petticoat Stroud (per yard) Shirt Axe Broad Hoe

Deerskins Required

Item Traded For

Deerskins Required

35 30 20 20 16 14 8 5 5 5

Narrow Hoe Hatchet Half thicks (per yard) Red girdle Bullets (30) Knife Scissors Flints (12) Steel (to strike flint) Strings of beads (2)

3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

SOURCE: Gary C. Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition (Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, 1977), p. 96. NOTE: In one hunting season a good hunter might get 50 deerskins.

beef and m a k i n g butter and cheese f r o m cow's m i l k , had learned to g r o w and spin cotton, and were starting to weave their o w n cloth on European looms. W i t h heavy steel axes Cherokee men b u i l t different styles of houses and boats. W i t h more efficient hoes, shovels, and mattocks and eventually w i t h horses, cattle, hogs, and plows, the Cherokees developed a more intensive f o r m of agriculture, an increasing reliance u p o n domes­ tic livestock, and a new diet. From Europeans they had also acquired new fruits and vegetables—potatoes, watermelons, peaches, and apples. T h e y replaced their older ornamentation of w a m p u m , carved bone, dyed por­ cupine needles, and feathers w i t h colored beads, m i r r o r s , and glass ob­ tained f r o m the traders, t h o u g h Cherokee silversmiths continued to make fine silver ornaments. I r o n pipes to smoke tobacco replaced soapstone pipes; the carvers w h o had sculpted bird and animal figures on the pipes gave up this art. A l t h o u g h manufactured goods brought greater efficiency and new dec­ orative arts, t h e y also b r o u g h t increasing Cherokee dependence u p o n the traders w h o supplied t h e m (see table 2). A Cherokee chief i n 1745 pleaded w i t h the authorities i n Charlestown, South Carolina, to reopen t r a d i n g w i t h t h e m that had been cut off because of murders by Indians along the frontier: " M y people cannot live independent of the English. . . . The clothes we wear we cannot make ourselves. They are made for us. We use their a m m u n i t i o n w i t h w h i c h to k i l l deer. We cannot make our o w n guns. Every necessary of life we must have from the w h i t e p e o p l e / ' As all the 4

4

This statement by Chief Skiagunsta is quoted in Corkran, Cherokee Frontier, p. 14.

6

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

Indian tribes east of the Mississippi obtained guns, alliances w i t h Euro­ peans were necessary to obtain replacements—more lead, flints, powder, parts—or else each tribe w o u l d be at the mercy of its enemies.

Guns

b r o u g h t a new and more terrible f o r m of warfare; the Europeans taught the Indians about massive attacks to exterminate enemy forces and ex­ propriate large tracts of land. Before they realized the significance of i t , the Cherokees had helped to wipe out the Yemassees, Tuscaroras, Catawbas, and Uchees (Yuchis) w h o had stood between t h e m and the w h i t e coastal settlements. The Cherokees felt secure f r o m w h i t e invasion be­ cause their towns were located 150 to 200 miles or more from the A t l a n t i c Coast, some across the Appalachians. Yet b y 1721 t h e y had to make the first cession of their o w n land to the English i n South Carolina; b y 1790, t h e y had lost forever thousands of square miles and m a n y former t o w n sites. W i t h the admission of Tennessee to the U n i o n i n 1792 and K e n ­ t u c k y i n 1796, the Cherokees had whites on every side—the Spanish were i n Florida and French settlements were m o v i n g up the Mississippi f r o m N e w Orleans to St. Louis. The Cherokees were an Iroquoian people, different i n language and customs f r o m the Muskogee peoples among w h o m t h e y lived (the Creeks to the south of t h e m , the Choctaws and Chickasaws to the southwest, the Seminoles i n Florida; see map, p. 8). Centuries before the English came to N o r t h A m e r i c a , the Cherokees had been driven south, out of the I r o ­ quoian area n o r t h of the O h i o River, probably after years of warfare w i t h the Delawares. B y 1700, they had been established for several centuries 5

i n the southernmost part of the Appalachians i n a region that was later to become the states of West V i r g i n i a , N o r t h and South Carolina, K e n t u c k y , Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. The t e r r i t o r y over w h i c h the Chero­ kees claimed hegemony i n the eighteenth century was almost 350 miles f r o m east to west and 300 miles f r o m n o r t h to south, i n c l u d i n g all the land between the O h i o and Tennessee rivers and f r o m the Blue Ridge mountains t h r o u g h the middle of Tennessee. M o s t of the western area was h u n t i n g g r o u n d that they shared w i t h other tribes—the area that be­ came K e n t u c k y (their upper h u n t i n g ground) and the area f r o m the C u m ­ berland River to the Tennessee River (their lower h u n t i n g g r o u n d ) . Cherokee settlements covered r o u g h l y 15,000 square miles f r o m western South Carolina to w h a t is n o w northeastern Tennessee; they centered i n the Great S m o k y M o u n t a i n s that n o w separate N o r t h Carolina f r o m Ten­ nessee. The best estimates of Cherokee population i n 1700 place i t at r o u g h l y On the Iroquoian origin of the Cherokees see James Mooney, Historical Sketch of the Cherokee (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 3-8. 5

7

Iroquoian peoples prior to European settlement are shown by the wide lines. Those described in the text as the "western Cherokees" lived from 1794 to 1828 in the area shown by hachure and designated as the "Arkansas band." The area oc­ cupied by the Cherokee Nation from 1838 to 1906 and the areas occu­ pied today by those Cherokees who resisted removal are shown in black. From James Mooney, Historical Sketch of the Cherokee (Chicago: A l dine Publishing Co., 1975), p. 2. T H E CHEROKEES A N D THEIR NEIGHBORS.

20,000 individuals or about 4,000 families. These families were divided into sixty or more settlements, called towns or villages b y the English, usually of 300 to 400 acres and containing an average of about 300 to 350 persons. Each t o w n had a large council house, a ceremonial square, and 8

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

f r o m 20 to 200 square, stick-and-wattle houses covered w i t h bark; some towns were surrounded by a palisade of u p r i g h t logs. The towns were clustered i n t o five distinct regions on both sides of the Appalachian Ridge, along the banks of rivers flowing d o w n the eastern slopes of the Appala­ chians i n t o the Atlantic Ocean and d o w n the western slopes i n t o the u p ­ per Tennessee River. The cluster k n o w n i n 1700 as the Lower Towns, closest to the English settlements, was on the Chattooga, Tugaloo, and Keowee rivers (the upper branches of the Savannah River) i n w h a t is n o w the western t i p of South Carolina. To the northwest of these towns, i n western N o r t h Carolina, were the O u t Towns of the Tuckaseegree River, the M i d d l e Towns along the uppermost reaches of the Little Tennessee, and the Valley Towns along the upper Hiwassee, the Valley, and the N o t ley rivers. Beyond these to the northwest were the O v e r h i l l Towns to the west of the Unicoi range of the Great Smoky M o u n t a i n s on the Little Tennessee, Tellico, and lower Hiwassee rivers i n what is n o w the n o r t h ­ eastern t i p of Tennessee. Beyond the O v e r h i l l Towns, between the O h i o and Tennessee rivers, lay the great h u n t i n g g r o u n d that t h e y shared w i t h the Chickasaws, Creeks, Iroquois, and Shawnees. The Cherokees were a tall, athletic, and handsome people, whose pos­ ture, stamina, physique, and good looks were universally admired by the Europeans. They were taller than most Europeans, hardier, and better athletes. Oval-headed and olive-colored, they did not have the h i g h cheekbones and Roman noses of the Plains Indians. M e n and w o m e n usu­ ally tatooed their faces, arms, and bodies; they also wore silver a r m bands, earrings, and nose ornaments. The m e n shaved their faces and heads, except for a small topknot; this they bound w i t h silver or w a m p u m and decorated w i t h tufts of feathers for ceremonial occasions. For war and ceremonies the m e n also colored their faces w i t h stripes and circles of red, black, ochre, and blue earthen pigments. Prior to 1700 the Cherokees had lived a sedentary life that was balanced between h u n t i n g , agriculture, war, and ceremonial activities. Every t o w n had a c o m m u n a l garden i n w h i c h w o m e n , children, and old m e n c u l t i ­ vated three kinds of maize (corn), several types of beans (chiefly l i m a and k i d n e y ) , various kinds of m e l o n and squash, and Indian tobacco. The land was held i n c o m m o n and food was shared f r o m a t o w n granary, where hundreds of bushels were stored i n cribs f r o m harvest to harvest. I n ad­ d i t i o n , each f a m i l y had a truck garden near its house. B y 1700 t h e y were planting sweet potatoes, watermelons, and starting peach and apple or­ chards w i t h seed acquired f r o m the Spaniards. Their rivers and lakes p r o ­ vided fish, eels, crawfish, and mussels; i n the spring and summer t h e y gathered twelve varieties of w i l d berries ( p r i m a r i l y blackberries, raspber­ ries, and strawberries) and i n the fall they gathered ten kinds of nuts and 9

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

seeds (especially pecans, chestnuts, acorns, and sunflower seeds). M e a t was dried and salted; dried fruits were also preserved. H u n t i n g was done by the able-bodied men i n the fall and w i n t e r . Their chief game was deer, elk, moose, buffalo, and bear. They also caught woodchucks, rabbits, and chipmunks as well as turkeys, partridges, and pigeons. T h e y shot heavy game w i t h bows and arrows or trapped i t i n snares; the lighter game, especially birds, was killed w i t h blowguns. C l o t h i n g and moccasins were made from deerskins; the implements for planting and cultivation from shoulder bones, sharpened stones, and pointed sticks. C o r n and nuts were crushed by stone pestles i n h o l l o w e d out l o g mortars. The w o m e n wove mats and skirts f r o m bark, reeds, and fibers and baked pottery from clay. Skilled craftsmen sculpted figures on soapstone pipes, worked silver i n t o ornaments, and made w a m p u m f r o m shells. 6

Families were kept small, averaging three children. M o t h e r s r e g u l a r l y practiced abortion and infanticide; brain-damaged or deformed infants were seldom allowed to live. The hospitality ethic required sharing fam­ i l y food and supplies, no matter how meager, w i t h anyone w h o came to the door or asked to stay overnight. Occasionally an early or late frost, a prolonged drought, insect plagues, floods, or hailstorms m i g h t r u i n a crop and cause food shortages. A t these times their priests (shamans, medicine men) performed ceremonial prayers and dances to alleviate the disaster and extra effort was put into h u n t i n g , fishing, and foraging. The Cherokees had no centralized political system i n the eighteenth century. Each t o w n was self-sufficient and self-governing. M e n and w o m e n could speak i n the t o w n council meetings, w h i c h chose and could demote the chiefs or headmen i n each t o w n . The t o w n councils did not make laws b y m a j o r i t y vote, for the Cherokees lived by well-established, u n w r i t t e n customs. Council meetings resolved problems w i t h i n the u n ­ w r i t t e n law or dealt w i t h wars and alliances; decisions were reached by consensus, usually after prolonged discussion over m a n y days. U n t i l the English began to dominate their trade and alliances, there was no tribal chief or tribal council. Towns m i g h t act totally independent of each other. The Cherokees were an ethnic nation, but not a nation-state. There were, however, " M o t h e r T o w n s ' ' and "Sacred T o w n s " (called b y some " T o w n s of Refuge"), whose chiefs were held i n somewhat higher esteem. N a t i o n a l councils were occasionally called i n the eighteenth century to deal w i t h major problems of war, peace, or trade alliance that concerned 7

See Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition, and Wilms, "Cherokee Settlement Patterns," on Cherokee agricultural patterns and land use. The best study of Cherokee tribal leadership in the eighteenth century is Gearing, 6

7

Priests and Warriors.

10

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

all the towns. Everyone could attend and speak at national councils as i n t o w n councils. T r i b a l decisions were not b i n d i n g on the towns. N o na­ tional or t o w n authorities were empowered to m a i n t a i n a police or court system; the councils exercised no coercive power over individuals. Cus­ t o m and public opinion sufficed to m a i n t a i n order. Usually war parties were combinations of towns retaliating against an enemy raid that had killed some of their relatives. I n times of war the " r e d " or " w a r chiefs" assumed power; i n peacetime the old men of the t o w n (the " w h i t e " or "peace chiefs") took charge. A t o w n m i g h t have f r o m five to seven head­ m e n w i t h various counselors. W h a t t r i b a l u n i t y existed came i n part f r o m the common customs and language but more essentially derived f r o m the clan kinship system. There were at least three (and probably more) distinct t r i b a l dialects, one of w h i c h replaced / sounds w i t h r sounds, and thus made " T s a - l a - g i " (Cherokee) i n t o " T s a - r a - g i " or the t o w n " U s t a n a l i " i n t o " U s t a n a r y . " Seven m a t r i l i n e a l , exogamous clans (sometimes called " t r i b e s " or " f a m ­ ilies") to w h i c h all Cherokees belonged provided the basic cohesion and social infrastructure of the nation. Each clan had its o w n totemic name (Bird Clan, Deer Clan, W o l f Clan, etc.). They governed marriages, p r o ­ vided protection for members, regulated incest and homicide, and pro­ vided a m a t r i l i n e a l kinship system that ordered f a m i l y life and i n h e r i t ­ ance. Members of all seven clans inhabited each t o w n , and thus clan u n i t y transcended t o w n self-government and kinship u n i t e d all the towns. Every t o w n council house had seven sides and people seated themselves by clan at council meetings, even t h o u g h this separated wives f r o m hus­ bands and children f r o m fathers. N o one could m a r r y someone of his or her o w n clan. W h e n a traveling Cherokee entered another t o w n , his first concern was to find the members of his o w n clan for hospitality and p r o ­ tection. 8

9

The great ideal of the Cherokees social order was h a r m o n y i n t o w n af­ fairs, personal relations, and tribal business, as w e l l as i n their relation­ ship to nature and to the supernatural. I f a Cherokee could not agree w i t h a carefully worked-out consensus i n a t o w n council, he w i t h d r e w f r o m that a c t i v i t y ; he did not f o r m an opposition movement. He m i g h t be scorned for refusing to go along w i t h the group, but he was not punished. There was no such concept as treason, even for those w h o refused to j o i n i n a war. The desire to obtain as complete a consensus as possible often 7

On the various Cherokee dialects see Mooney, Historical Sketch, pp. 16-17. On Cherokee clan structure and its fundamental role in sustaining the unity and order of Cherokee life see Hudson, Southeastern Indians, pp. 184—96; John Philip Reid, A Law of Blood (New York: New York University Press, 1970) and Rennard Strickland, Fire and Spir­ its (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1975). 8 9

11

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

meant that no decision at all could be reached. Q u a r r e l i n g was avoided and slights or injuries were ended by efforts to forget bad thoughts on b o t h sides and replace t h e m w i t h good thoughts. A n annual "purifica­ t i o n " ceremony was dedicated to w i p i n g the slate clean of all disagree­ ments and to seeking h a r m o n y w i t h the spirits w h o governed the u n i ­ verse. Social order was maintained by clearly understood and faithfully car­ ried out responsibilities of kinship, respect, honor, and m u t u a l i t y that were taught to children f r o m b i r t h . Public ridicule, disdain, or ostracism were the o n l y forces employed to keep down dissidence, but these were extremely powerful given the h i g h value placed upon not disturbing the public h a r m o n y . The Cherokees knew that there was a distinct spiritual order i n the w o r l d that must also be sustained. Offenses against spiritual order b r o u g h t penalties to the individual concerned, to his clan, and to his t o w n . Punishment of spiritual offenses, however, was inflicted b y the spirit w o r l d and not by the chiefs of the c o m m u n i t y . A man w h o did not participate i n t o w n festivals or who broke taboos m i g h t be socially scorned or ostracized u n t i l he had purged himself, but his punishment w o u l d come w h e n the offended spirits sent sickness or misfortune to h i m or his f a m i l y . Socially unacceptable actions ( l y i n g , stealing, failing to re­ spect the chiefs or one's elders, refusing to grant hospitality) caused of­ fenders to be held up to scorn and ridicule. Sometimes the offender re­ ceived a sarcastically appropriate name and was shunned u n t i l he altered his behavior and made amends. Such public disgrace was hard to bear; few risked i t . Children were taught that their self-interest should give w a y to the w i l l of the c o m m u n i t y . The clan was the o n l y body granted coercive a u t h o r i t y , and o n l y i n cases of homicide or incest (i.e., marriage w i t h i n the clan). As an ex­ tended f a m i l y the clan had the d u t y to avenge or seek restitution for loss b y death (whether by malice or accident) of any of its members. The pur­ pose of clan retaliation was not p u n i t i v e but rather to equalize the balance of things and to overcome the disorder brought by premature death. The obligation to avenge homicide fell upon the closest related male relative on the mother's side (an older brother of the deceased or his mother's brother). I f the murderer could not be found, r e t r i b u t i o n could be taken upon a clan relative of the murderer. K n o w n as "the law of b l o o d " or " b l o o d revenge," this process was so clear, so w e l l defined, that its exe­ cution required no court and no police. Homicide was a private, not a pub­ lic, act. W h e n the murderer was killed by the injured clan, his relatives took no counteraction. The deaths were thus balanced; order was re­ stored; the debt was paid. Often murderers simply gave themselves up, so certain was the death sentence to be inflicted. A n older brother or uncle 12

CHANGING

CHEROKEE

WAYS

w h o failed to carry out vengeance was held i n the highest contempt. The Cherokees believed that after death the spirits of the dead w e n t to live i n a similar b u t better w o r l d . This afterworld was located i n the west, where the sun set. However, the aggrieved spirit of a murdered m a n , whose r e l ­ atives had not yet avenged his death, m i g h t continue i n this w o r l d and cause m i s f o r t u n e to fall upon the delinquent clan members. M u r d e r b y a member of another tribe or b y a European also called for retaliation to restore the balance. The clan members of the person m u r ­ dered were the first to volunteer for a war p a r t y against the g u i l t y tribe. I n this case other Cherokees were encouraged to j o i n i n t a k i n g vengeance. B u t for theft, i n j u r y , assault, or rape, there was no f o r m of corporal p u n ­ ishment, o n l y c o m m u n i t y disdain. Rape was extremely u n c o m m o n be­ cause sexual permissiveness was so pervasive f r o m the advent of p u b e r t y . W o m e n were not considered the private property of their husbands. A husband m i g h t punish his wife for adultery but i t was more c o m m o n s i m p l y to leave her. Likewise, a w o m a n could put her husband out of her house for adultery, or for any reason, to end her relationship w i t h h i m . M a r r i a g e , t h o u g h usually honored for long periods i f not for life, was never considered permanently b i n d i n g on either party. The Cherokee w o r d for husband meant literally, " t h e man I am l i v i n g w i t h . " M a r r i a g e sometimes followed an elaborate r i t u a l (including the exchanging of v e n ­ ison b y the m a n for corn b y the w o m a n ) . N o r was m o n o g a m y pre­ scribed. Sometimes a m a n m i g h t m a r r y t w o or even three sisters at the same t i m e . Divorce was simple and often unilateral. Because of the m a t ­ rilineal clan system, separated mothers, w i t h their children, could always count u p o n their mothers, brothers, and sisters to support t h e m . Fur­ t h e r m o r e , at marriage the husband came to live i n the wife's t o w n , where she was near the care and protection of her f a m i l y . W h e n a husband left or was p u t out, the wife kept their home, their children, and any p r o p e r t y of her o w n ; the husband returned to his t o w n . 1 0

The penalty for clan incest was death, as was the penalty for witchcraft. The clan killed the incestuous member; the bewitched person or persons killed the w i t c h (after consulting a priest, w h o had to confirm that the of­ fender was a w i t c h ) . Witches were perennial troublemakers whose f a i l ­ ure to live i n h a r m o n y w i t h their fellow townspeople indicated that t h e y were malevolent and, as such, i n league w i t h evil spirits. Unless such per1 1

On marriage ceremonies see Hudson, Southeastern Indians, pp. 196-202, and William H . Gilbert, Jr., "The Eastern Cherokees/ Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1943), pp. 169414. On witchcraft see Raymond D. Fogelson, ' 'An Analysis of Cherokee Sorcery and Witchcraft in Four Centuries of Southern Indians, ed. Charles M . Hudson (Athens: Uni­ versity of Georgia Press, 1975), pp. 113-31. 10

7

11

77

13

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

sons were killed, the t o w n w o u l d continue to live i n disorder and confu­ sion. A l t h o u g h Europeans, finding no w r i t t e n law, courts, or police system among the Cherokees, concluded that there were no laws among the I n ­ dian tribes, the u n w r i t t e n laws were clearly understood and faithfully carried out. The Cherokee belief system imposed both a rigid personal m o r a l i t y and an intense communal ethic. I t integrated their lives i n t o a clear, cohesive, and meaningful order. S i m i l a r l y , European observers often said that the Cherokees had no re­ ligious system because no churches, shrines, idols, or state-supported priesthood were found. B u t the Cherokees led a life full of r i t u a l , cere­ m o n y , m y t h , and symbol. I n their cosmology, the earth was a flat, cir­ cular disc suspended f r o m the stone dome of heaven at the four cardinal points of the compass and resting upon a vast and deep body of w a t e r . Above the dome of the earth was the Upper W o r l d of benevolent, g u i d i n g spirits; below the earth was the Under W o r l d of malevolent spirits. Wicked spirits crept f r o m the Under W o r l d onto the earth t h r o u g h caves, springs, and deep lakes. W h e n they caused trouble, the priest/doctors of the nation, called "ado-ni-sgi," (sometimes m e n , sometimes w o m e n ) , were asked to call upon the powerful spirit of the Upper W o r l d to counter the evil activities and restore order again. The necessary h a r m o n y be­ tween the h u m a n and animal w o r l d could easily get out of balance. Sick­ ness was the most obvious sign of this. For a m a n , sickness usually i n d i ­ cated that he had, w h e n h u n t i n g , failed to ask forgiveness before k i l l i n g an animal and thus caused the spirit of that animal to avenge itself upon h i m . Every animal inflicted its o w n special sickness. For a w o m a n , sick­ ness was usually ascribed to breaking some taboo of female i m p u r i t y . Fortunately, the plant w o r l d was friendly toward the h u m a n w o r l d . The adonisgi were skilled i n the proper herbal remedies to be applied to the sick i n conjunction w i t h r i t u a l prayers and dances i n v o l v i n g the aid of the proper superior animal spirit. Medical treatment consisted of g i v i n g or applying the proper herb and then, after the r i t u a l song or prayer, liter­ ally r e m o v i n g (often b y sucking i t out) the i n t r u d i n g source of the pain that was gnawing or poking at the inner parts of the sick person. Euro­ peans w h o observed this process described i t as " c o n j u r i n g " and spoke of the medicine m e n as " c o n j u r o r s " because they w o u l d often produce a small, sharp stone or stick after their ceremonies that they said they had removed f r o m the sick person—-the cause of his or her pain. 12

Failure to p e r f o r m the required religious duties t o w a r d the spirit w o r l d On Cherokee cosmology see James Mooney, "The Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees/' Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology 7th Annual Report, 1885-86 (Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1891). 12

14

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

w o u l d also disturb the balance between man and the elements. D r o u g h t s or w i n d s t o r m s that harmed the crops indicated some failure i n the com­ m u n i t y to fulfill spiritual obligations. Likewise, deaths or injuries i n a war p a r t y could be attributed to the omission of some purification rite b y a w a r r i o r , to his commission of some offense (such as failure to m a i n t a i n sexual abstinence before going on the warpath), or to the failure of the war party's leader to heed some w a r n i n g dream or omen. Even sporting events (surrogates for w a r ) , such as the i m p o r t a n t Cherokee ball play (an early f o r m of lacrosse played w i t h web-ended sticks), required intense spiritual preparation and purification (including sexual abstinence and a scratching ceremony to p u r i f y the blood) for each player p r i o r to every game.

13

Cherokee life was hedged w i t h spiritual significance i n every respect. A l l dreams were i m p o r t a n t omens. There was no secular area of life free f r o m spiritual meaning; sports, war, h u n t i n g , agriculture, f a m i l y , t o w n , and t r i b a l affairs were all w o v e n together i n t o a unified pattern of r e l i ­ gious rules and connections i n v o l v i n g h a r m o n y w i t h the w o r l d above, the w o r l d below, and the w o r l d around t h e m . Furthermore, all the physical aspects of t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t — r i v e r s , caves, springs, m o u n t a i n tops, lightning-scarred trees—-were i m b u e d w i t h spiritual significance. The sun and m o o n were sources of spiritual power, as were t h u n d e r and w i n d . Fire was i m p o r t a n t for home and t o w n life. Tobacco smoke was particu­ l a r l y associated w i t h creating a harmonious atmosphere between m a n and nature or for discussions of political affairs. To sustain t h e i r spiritual h a r m o n y w i t h the w o r l d of nature (which i t ­ self was supernatural), the Cherokees not o n l y performed daily personal prayers and rituals b u t also engaged i n a series of festivals and rites closely linked to the agricultural seasons. The headmen and priests set the dates for these c o m m u n a l celebrations at the t i m e of the new year, the first green grass, the first harvest of green corn, the final fall harvest, the end of the year, the purification ceremony (when personal grievances were set aside and forgotten), and the l i g h t i n g of the new fires i n each house. A l l - n i g h t dances accompanied these ceremonies, i n w h i c h b o t h w o m e n and m e n participated, to the music of drums, flutes, and g o u r d or tortoise-shell rattles. Singing and prayer, chanting and s m o k i n g , and d r i n k i n g special (but not alcoholic) concoctions were all part of these cer­ emonies. A t the annual purification festival, w h i c h started the new year after the harvest was i n the corn cribs, the w h o l e t o w n w e n t i n t o the near­ est r u n n i n g water. The n e w l y fallen leaves gave the water a healthful m e See James Mooney, "The Cherokee Ball Play/' American (1890): 105-132. 13

15

Anthropologist,

o.s., 3

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

dicinal q u a l i t y ; as the priest chanted the sacred f o r m u l a , the people re­ moved their old clothes to let t h e m float away, dipped themselves four times i n the river, facing each of the cardinal points of the compass, and then emerged to don new clothes and start w i t h a clean heart and friend­ ship t o w a r d their neighbors, having made peace w i t h each other and w i t h the spirit w o r l d . I n t o this carefully balanced w o r l d of man, animals, seasons, sun, m o o n , plants, spirits, water, fire, w i n d , and smoke came the w h i t e i n v a d ­ ers f r o m Europe. They moved steadily westward f r o m the A t l a n t i c shore­ line and the fertile tidewater areas, up the rivers and i n t o the Piedmont and m o u n t a i n valley areas, h u n t i n g for game, c u t t i n g timber, grazing cat­ tle, l o o k i n g for m i n e r a l deposits, and starting farms wherever the land was fertile. The Cherokees had first met the w h i t e man i n 1540, w h e n Hernando De Soto's expedition passed t h r o u g h their t e r r i t o r y i n its search for the seven cities of gold. De Soto's m e n rode horses, wore ar­ mor, carried guns, and used African and Indian slaves as burden bearers. The Cherokees met other explorers i n the seventeenth century. A t one t i m e the Spanish i n Florida sent miners to dig for gold along streams at the eastern edge of the Cherokee nation. I n 1634 the Cherokees first met the B r i t i s h w h o settled i n V i r g i n i a . B u t not u n t i l the 1690s did t h e y come i n t o regular contact w i t h the closer British settlements i n South Carolina. 1 4

The B r i t i s h , failing to find gold, turned to the cultivation of tobacco. For this t h e y needed land and labor, both of w h i c h they tried to acquire f r o m the nearest Indians. As early as 1693, a group of Cherokee chiefs came to Charleston to complain that the neighboring Catawbas, Savan­ nas, and Congarees had been capturing Cherokees and selling t h e m to the colonists as slaves. The English kept up this practice for t h i r t y years but finally had to abandon i t . Unless shipped to the West Indies, Indian slaves too easily escaped back to the woods, often taking runaway African slaves w i t h t h e m . Furthermore, the increasingly lucrative fur trade made i t nec­ essary to remain on good terms w i t h the Indians. N e x t to tobacco and timber, the most i m p o r t a n t sources of income for the B r i t i s h colonies were furs and hides. 15

Game was plentiful and the European trade goods were greatly desired by the Cherokees. I t was hard to imagine that w i t h i n one man's lifetime the game w o u l d be depleted and the w h i t e man w o u l d be pushing the I n ­ dians off their land. By 1714 w h i t e traders were m a k i n g annual trading trips to the Cherokee towns. Some settled i n t h e m and raised m i x e d On purification rituals and other ceremonies see Hudson, Southeastern Cherokees, pp. 317-75. See Theda Perdue, Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 1540-1866 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1979). 14

15

16

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

blood families. The traders encouraged the Cherokees to spend less and less t i m e i n ceremonies and t o w n affairs and more and more t i m e h u n t i n g for profitable beaver, otter, fox, and bear furs or deer, elk, and moose hides. B y 1740, there were 150 traders b u y i n g up the Cherokees' pelts and furs b y the thousands each spring. Tribes as far f r o m the coast as the Cherokees had the choice of t r a d i n g w i t h the English on the A t l a n t i c , the Spanish on the Gulf, or the French on the Mississippi. They learned h o w to play off one European n a t i o n against another b y threatening to switch trade and alliances i n order to obtain higher prices for their labor or more guns. B u t i n general the Eng­ lish were the most i m p o r t a n t European people. They were more easily accessible, had more traders, more and better goods, and usually were the most threatening to Cherokee security. Alliances, however, required t r i b a l u n i t y . Europeans wanted to bargain w i t h heads of state whose agreements w o u l d b i n d the w h o l e nation. Finding that the Cherokees had no such national chief or political u n i t y , the English tried to create a " K i n g " to u n i t e t h e m . I n 1721, the Governor of South Carolina met w i t h t h i r t y - s e v e n Cherokee chiefs and persuaded t h e m to make Chief W r o s e tawasatow t h e i r " K i n g . " I n 1730, Sir Alexander G u m m i n g helped the Cherokees to designate a chief named M o y t o y as " E m p e r o r . " I n later years a succession of chiefs were assumed by the English (and later b y w h i t e Americans) to speak for the n a t i o n : O l d H o p i n the 1740s; A t t a kullaculla (The Little Carpenter) i n the 1760s, Oconostota i n the 1770s, O l d Tassell, Little T u r k e y , and H a n g i n g M a w (Scoloscuta) i n the 1780s. O n t w o occasions groups of Cherokee chiefs were taken to England to meet the B r i t i s h K i n g and to be impressed w i t h the m i g h t of his empire. M o s t of these were war chiefs, because the Cherokees experienced fewer and fewer periods of peace as the century wore o n . A s war and h u n t i n g came to dominate their lives, the quality of h a r m o n y and balance i n c o m ­ m u n a l life became harder to sustain. European aggressiveness forced the Cherokee i n t o a more aggressive style of life i n the eighteenth century. B u t not being a u n i t e d n a t i o n at the t i m e , they were never able to w i e l d the power that they m i g h t have. 1 6

European diseases caused more Cherokee deaths than all of the border raids and Indian wars. Smallpox, t y p h u s , w h o o p i n g cough, and measles were h i t h e r t o u n k n o w n i n America and the Cherokees had neither b u i l t up i m m u n i t i e s nor found cures. The remedies tried b y t h e i r medicine m e n often simply hastened the death of the victims. This failure of t h e i r doctor/priests tended to erode faith i n t h e m and their rituals. A f t e r a par­ t i c u l a r l y devastating epidemic of smallpox i n 1738-1739, w h i c h was re16

Mooney, Historical Sketch, p. 24.

17

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

ported to have killed almost half of the Cherokees, tribal a n i m o s i t y against the priests resulted i n what seems to have been a repudiation of t h e m and their methods, perhaps even their assassination. Some gener­ ations later, the Cherokees spoke of a former priestly hierarchy that had existed i n olden times but of which no remnants were left. The adonisgi w h o performed similar roles after 1790 were said to be of a different and lesser o r d e r . The fact that European doctors were able to prevent or cure m a n y of these diseases led some Cherokees to argue that the w h i t e man's understanding of the spirit w o r l d and his power to apply that knowledge to prevent death were greater than those of the Indian. B u t whether the w h i t e man's medicine and religion were meant for the use of the red man remained unclear. M a n y Indians concluded that the Great Spirit had or­ dained total separation between the two people and that w h a t w o r k e d for one w o u l d n o t w o r k for the other. 17

I n the eighteenth century, friction occurred more and more frequently between Cherokees and w h i t e traders, who filled the Indians w i t h r u m or brandy and then cheated t h e m of their winter's catch. B y 1755, so m a n y Cherokees had become angry at the truculent behavior of the B r i t i s h that they became more friendly toward the French and Spanish. N e i t h e r of these nations was planting settlers on their land; France and Spain were p r i m a r i l y interested i n sustaining the fur trade. 18

W h e n war broke out between the French and the British i n 1755, the Cherokees at first honored their alliance w i t h England, but after several unprovoked assaults upon t h e m by Carolina frontiersmen i n 1760, some Cherokees switched sides. For t w o years fierce warfare took place i n the Cherokee N a t i o n . Large armies of English frontiersmen invaded Chero­ kee towns, b u r n i n g the houses and granaries, l a y i n g waste to crops, and slaughtering m e n , w o m e n , and children. Over a dozen of the Cherokee Lower and M i d d l e Towns nearest to the Carolinas were destroyed i n 1760-1761. The frontier settlers used the occasion to t r y to drive the Cherokees west of the Appalachians. The Cherokees were not sufficiently u n i t e d or w e l l armed to defend themselves and the French did not provide adequate support. I n 1761, the Cherokees made peace on the English­ men's terms. W h e n the French gave up the war w i t h B r i t a i n i n 1763, leaving the B r i t i s h i n control of the upper Mississippi Valley, the K i n g of England tried to halt the westward expansion of the A m e r i c a n colonists b y a r o y a l proclamation that forbade any settlements beyond the Appalachian Mooney, Historical Sketch, p. 26. On the impact of the fur trade upon the Cherokees see Goodwin, Cherokees in Tran­ sition, pp. 96-106, and John Philip Reid, A Better Kind of Hatchet (University Park: Penn­ sylvania State University Press, 1976). 17 18

18

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

Ridge. The B r i t i s h surveyed the ridge line f r o m M a i n e to Georgia and es­ tablished superintendents among the western Indians to sustain the fur trade, u p h o l d the King's rule, and keep the peace. T w o of the assistant su­ perintendents came to live among the Cherokees: Alexander Cameron i n the N o r t h Carolina mountains and John M c D o n a l d along the Tennessee River near w h a t is n o w Chattanooga. B u t the K i n g could not stop the westward t h r u s t of w h i t e farmers and land speculators w h o were always seeking more and better land. I n the late 1760s Daniel Boone led h u n ­ dreds of families t h r o u g h the Cumberland Gap i n t o what later became K e n t u c k y and Tennessee, where the Cherokees had m a n y towns and some of their best h u n t i n g grounds. As these settlers cleared trees and depleted the game upon w h i c h the Indian hunters depended for t h e i r l i v e ­ lihood, further animosities developed and hostilities occurred. East of the Appalachians the Cherokees agreed to part w i t h thousands of square miles of their land i n 1768,1770, and 1773, as the colonists moved farther i n t o the Piedmont and Blue Ridge M o u n t a i n s region. Then, i n 1775, a group of K e n t u c k y settlers, led by Richard Henderson, persuaded a hand­ ful of the chiefs (led b y Attakullaculla and Oconostota) to sell t h e m , for a cabin f u l l of trade goods, the whole upper half of their h u n t i n g grounds, including almost all of what is n o w the State of Kentucky and the C u m ­ berland Valley. Henderson's Purchase of 27,000 square miles was illegal under b o t h tribal and English law. The chiefs involved later said that t h e y t h o u g h t they were o n l y r e n t i n g the land. B u t the Cherokees were never able to get i t back, and perhaps the chiefs knew that i t was not e n t i r e l y the property of their people but also of the Shawnees and Iroquois w h o h u n t e d there. The war that broke out between the u n r u l y colonists and the K i n g i n 1776 found the Cherokees on the side of the K i n g . Eager for an excuse to strike back at the w h i t e colonists, the Cherokees launched a series of dev­ astating border raids i n the summer of 1776 i n the Carolinas, Georgia, and eastern Tennessee (on the Watauga and H o l s t o n settlements). The frontiersmen soon raised large armies to retaliate. The K i n g and his I n ­ dian superintendents were unable to provide either the arms or the m i l i ­ t a r y assistance to support their Cherokee allies. Once again dozens of I n ­ dian towns east of the Appalachian Ridge were subject to fire and slaughter. I n addition, the settlers i n what became K e n t u c k y and Tennes­ see attacked the towns west of the Appalachians. Several thousand Cher­ okees became homeless, fleeing further to the southwest. Their chiefs were forced to sign treaties w i t h the eastern states of the new A m e r i c a n nation i n 1777, ceding over 8,000 more square miles. This t i m e the land ceded was not unsettled h u n t i n g g r o u n d but the site of some of their o l d ­ est towns, i n w h i c h their people had lived for centuries. T h e y were t o t a l l y 19

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

expelled f r o m V i r g i n i a and lost all but a t i n y tract i n South Carolina; their t e r r i t o r y i n N o r t h Carolina and what is n o w Tennessee was cut i n half. I n 1783 Georgia forced the Cherokees to cede 1,650 square miles near the Chattahoochee River where the Cherokee N a t i o n bordered on the Creek N a t i o n . M a n y of the chiefs and warriors were angered not o n l y b y the fraud­ ulent cession made to Henderson by the old chiefs i n 1775 but also b y the quick peace signed w i t h the revolutionaries by these same chiefs i n 1777. A group of the intransigent chiefs, led by Dragging Canoe, The Glass, Bloody Fellow, Tolluntuskee, Fool Charles, The Badger, W i l l Webber, W i l l Elders, Doublehead, P u m p k i n Boy, Unacata, and John Watts gath­ ered together the warriors w h o were still w i l l i n g to fight and the displaced families f r o m the eastern part of the nation. T h e y moved to the far south­ western area of the nation, on land shared w i t h the Creeks and Chickasaws. Here they founded a series of new towns along the Tennessee River between Chickamauga and Muscle Shoals, m o s t l y i n what is n o w n o r t h ­ ern Alabama. They were called the Chickamauga, or Lower Towns, p a r t l y because so m a n y of the Cherokees w h o moved there came f r o m the old Lower Towns i n South Carolina and partly because these towns were lower d o w n the Tennessee River from the old O v e r h i l l t o w n region n o r t h of the H i was see River. The King's agent, John M c D o n a l d , and his son-in law, Daniel Ross, lived among them and encouraged t h e m to keep up the war. Scores of adventurous colonists loyal to the K i n g fled f r o m their homes i n the colonies to settle i n the Chickamauga towns. M a n y of these w h i t e Loyalists married Cherokees and later played a large part i n Cher­ okee history—John Rogers, John Walker, John M c L e m o r e , John Fields, John Thompson, John D . Chisolm, John M c i n t o s h , Edward Adair, Ed­ w a r d Gunter, A r t h u r Coody, Richard Taylor, and W i l l i a m Shorey. Once married to Cherokees, they were considered full members of the tribe or "Cherokee c o u n t r y m e n . " They assisted Dragging Canoe i n his guerrilla warfare against those seeking independence f r o m England and some L o y ­ alists donned buckskins and war paint to participate i n the continual raids along the frontier for the next seventeen years. They were joined i n this border warfare by Creek warriors to the south and Shawnees to the n o r t h . The w h i t e revolutionary patriots settled i n Watauga and T r a n s y l ­ vania (in w h a t became eastern Tennessee) as well as on the western bor­ ders of Georgia and the Carolinas bore the b r u n t of this warfare and never forgot their hatred and distrust of "the savages." As i n most guerrilla wars, no quarter was given on either side; men, w o m e n , and children were shot, hacked, scalped, burned, and taken captive. The bitter e n m i t y long outlasted the w a r . 19

19

Detailed accounts of the Cherokee border warfare from 1780 to 1794 can be found in

20

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

W h e n the K i n g made peace w i t h the colonists i n 1783, his peace treaty contained no provisions to rescue the Indians and their Loyalist " c o u n ­ t r y m e n " f r o m the vengeance of the colonial frontiersmen. M a n y of the Cherokees remained at war for another decade. Freed f r o m f i g h t i n g the King's armies, the A m e r i c a n frontiersmen n o w t u r n e d their f u l l force against the Cherokees, Creeks, and Shawnees. I n Tennessee and K e n ­ t u c k y these m i l i t i a m e n ravaged the western Cherokee towns and forced more land cessions i n 1783-1784. Finally, the Continental Congress, h a v i n g persuaded the new states that i t should take charge of Indian af­ fairs, made the first national treaty for the U n i t e d States w i t h the Cher­ okees i n 1785 at Hopewell. The Treaty of Hopewell was unique i n several w a y s : first, i t accepted the Cherokee version of their current boundaries even t h o u g h m a n y whites had already settled w i t h i n those boundaries; second, i t gave the Cherokees permission to evict any whites w h o were w i t h i n their boundaries; t h i r d , i t proposed to t r y to evict some of those whites w h o were located o n the French Broad and H o l s t o n rivers (on the borders of w h a t are n o w N o r t h Carolina and Tennessee). I n effect the new A m e r i c a n nation agreed to protect what was left of Cherokee t e r r i ­ t o r y f r o m l a n d - h u n g r y citizens and to allow the Indians to m a i n t a i n t h e i r o w n tribal self-government. I n exchange for peace, the Cherokees made a series of crucial conces­ sions i n 1785. T h e y agreed that "the U n i t e d States, i n congress assem­ bled, shall have the sole and exclusive r i g h t of regulating the trade w i t h the Indians and managing all their affairs i n such manner as t h e y t h i n k proper." T h e y conceded that " a l l traders" should have " l i b e r t y to go to any of the tribes or towns of the Cherokees to trade w i t h t h e m . " The Cherokees were to "give notice" of any designs by other tribes "against the peace, trade or interest of the U n i t e d States." The Cherokees ac­ knowledged themselves " t o be under the protection of the U n i t e d States," and agreed that any robbery, murder, or assault i n v o l v i n g whites (or whites and Cherokees) w i t h i n the Cherokee boundaries was to be t r i e d and "punished according to the ordinances of the U n i t e d States." The U n i t e d States was permitted " t o send a deputy of their choice" to reside among the Cherokees as the agent of the U n i t e d States. A n d , finally, the Cherokees agreed to give up "the idea of r e t a l i a t i o n " or blood revenge against whites w h o murdered Cherokees and to leave justice i n such cases to the w h i t e authorities. M a n y of the harassed Cherokees were happy i n 1785 to have t h e i r land under the protection of the federal government and to be freed f r o m deal­ i n g w i t h frontier leaders i n each of the states. The federal government John P. Brown, Old Frontiers (Kingsport, Tenn. : Southern Publishers, 1938) and Robert S. Cotterill, The Southern Indians (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1954).

21

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

seemed to t h e m to express a generous, even-handed view of Indian rela­ tions, u n l i k e the vindictive westerners. A s s u m i n g that the federal gov­ ernment was superior i n power to the states, the Cherokees expected that their boundaries w o u l d be secure. They were especially eager to have the government eject the m a n y whites w h o had settled upon the French Broad and H o l s t o n rivers. They did not realize h o w weak the federal gov­ ernment was and h o w sensitive i t was toward the feelings of its western citizens. N o r did they realize that m a n y whites assumed that the clause i n A r t i c l e 8 of this treaty g i v i n g the United States the r i g h t to manage " a l l their [Cherokee] affairs i n such manner as they t h i n k proper" meant that the Cherokee had lost all sovereign rights and become merely "tenants at w i l l " to the w h i t e m e n w h o had conquered t h e m . The Continental Congress proved to be a weak reed upon w h i c h to hang their hopes. I n the first place, neither Georgia nor N o r t h Carolina had yet given up its western land to the United States and therefore most of the Cherokee t e r r i t o r y was still technically under the jurisdiction of these states. Before N o r t h Carolina yielded its western land ( u l t i m a t e l y the State of Tennessee) i n 1790, it allocated thousands of square miles there (much of i t w i t h i n Cherokee t e r r i t o r y ) to its Revolutionary W a r veterans as bounties for their war service. W h e n N o r t h Carolina yielded this Tennessee area to Congress i t stipulated that these b o u n t y rights were to be protected and, whenever land on w h i c h bounties had been given was ceded b y the Cherokees, the b o u n t y land was to revert to the veterans or their heirs or assigns. Before Georgia yielded its western land to Congress i n 1802 ( u l t i m a t e l y to become the states of Alabama and Mississippi) the state legislature sold off m i l l i o n s of acres of Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Cherokee land to various land-speculating com­ panies (notably the Yazoo fraud tracts). Georgia agreed to allow the fed­ eral government to b u y out the land-speculating companies i n exchange for Georgia's t u r n i n g this whole area over to the federal government. However, i n the famous "Georgia Compact" that Thomas Jefferson made w i t h Georgia i n 1802 to seal the bargain, the President agreed that the federal government w o u l d extinguish all Indian claims to land w i t h i n the l i m i t s of Georgia as soon as reasonably possible and r e t u r n that land to Georgia. 20

The i n a b i l i t y of Congress after 1785 to compel N o r t h Carolina to eject its citizens f r o m farms they had established w i t h i n the Cherokee b o u n d ­ aries on the French Broad and H o l s t o n rivers led the Chickamauga Cher­ okees, under Dragging Canoe and Bloody Fellow, to repudiate the HopeThe "Georgia Compact" of 1802 is discussed in Cherokee Removal: The 'William Venn Essays and Other Writings by Jeremiah Evarts, ed. Francis Paul Prucha (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1981), pp. 156-61. 2 0

22

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

w e l l treaty. W i t h their Creek and Shawnee allies, t h e y continued to attack whites w h o had settled anywhere i n K e n t u c k y and Tennessee as w e l l as those on the Cherokee border i n Georgia. The Upper T o w n Cher­ okees (those w h o lived i n the towns that wished to abide b y the t r e a t y ) , led by O l d Tassell, Little T u r k e y , and H a n g i n g M a w , tried to restrain the Lower T o w n warriors. N o t being able to do so, they suffered f r o m i n v a ­ sions of frontier armies w h o made little distinction between the friendly and the u n f r i e n d l y Indians around t h e m . The federal government stood b y ineffectually as this frontier phase of the R e v o l u t i o n continued for nine years after the Treaty of Hopewell, w i t h considerable losses on b o t h sides. A f t e r the t h i r t e e n original states of the U n i o n adopted a new C o n s t i ­ t u t i o n i n 1789 and inaugurated George Washington as their President, he and his Secretary of War, the N e w Englander H e n r y K n o x , tried t h e i r best to compel the N o r t h Carolinians i n eastern Tennessee to move o u t ­ side the bounds of the Cherokee N a t i o n , but b y then these frontiersmen were i n rebellion against N o r t h Carolina. They had created a new state, called Franklin, centered i n the area under dispute w i t h the Cherokees. The Franklinites, led by men like John Sevier and James Robertson, were determined to drive all Indians f r o m their area (later the State of Tennes­ see). I n defiance b o t h of N o r t h Carolina officials and the new President, these westerners not o n l y continued to expand their settlements o n Cher­ okee land but to wage their o w n f o r m of guerrilla warfare against the Cherokees. C l a i m i n g that the Upper Towns, t h o u g h ostensibly friendly, were i n fact aiding and abetting the Chickamauga Cherokees i n the Lower Towns, these frontier fighters i n 1788 murdered a group of Upper T o w n chiefs led b y O l d Tassell w h o came to bargain w i t h t h e m under a flag of truce; i n 1792 they seriously wounded his successor, H a n g i n g M a w , and killed his wife, although H a n g i n g M a w was at peace. These assassinations led m a n y Upper T o w n warriors to migrate south to j o i n the Chickamaugans i n the Lower Towns and to continue the effort to t h r u s t the whites back across the Appalachians. I n 1791, after N o r t h Carolina had ceded the Tennessee area to the fed­ eral government, President Washington tried to obtain peace i n the area. That year the Treaty of H o l s t o n asked the Cherokees to y i e l d the land i n eastern Tennessee f r o m w h i c h the government could not expel the whites; the President said that i n exchange for this he w o u l d guarantee that the remainder of their land w o u l d be kept free f r o m intruders. Wash­ i n g t o n left the negotiation of the treaty to Governor W i l l i a m B l o u n t of Tennessee T e r r i t o r y . Blount, like most western politicians, was eager to obtain as m u c h land f r o m the Indians as possible to satisfy the intruders w h o were his constituents. He was also heavily engaged i n land specula23

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

t i o n that w o u l d net h i m handsome profits from the treaty. The chiefs summoned to the council at H o l s t o n i n July 1791 were astounded w h e n B l o u n t told t h e m that the government could not live up to its treaty at Hopewell to " s o l e m n l y guarantee forever" the boundaries arranged at that t i m e . Instead of r e m o v i n g the whites w h o had intruded, B l o u n t asked the Cherokee to cede 4,157 square miles of land on the French Broad and H o l s t o n rivers for an a n n u i t y of one thousand dollars. The chiefs, led b y Bloody Fellow, objected strenuously. Blount said that there was no other solution and that w i t h o u t such a cession friction w o u l d con­ tinue on that frontier. He threatened t h e m w i t h dire consequences i f t h e y did not yield. Reluctantly the chiefs agreed. Blount then ran the bound­ ary w h e n no Cherokees were present, i n their opinion r u n n i n g i t to his advantage.

21

Washington was embarrassed b y Blount's actions; he later

agreed w h e n Bloody Fellow came to see h i m i n Philadelphia to increase the a n n u i t y to $1,500 and to require Blount to remove some intruders w h o were still w i t h i n the new line. But Blount could not, or w o u l d not, do this and the bloody warfare continued. Dragging Canoe died i n 1792 and John Watts, Bloody Fellow, and Doublehead succeeded h i m as leaders of the Chickamaugans. The Upper Towns considered the Treaty of H o l s t o n to have superseded the Treaty of Hopewell and were pleased that i t seemed to restore Cher­ okee sovereignty. A l t h o u g h A r t i c l e 3 stated that "the U n i t e d States shall have the sole and exclusive r i g h t of regulating their trade" i t n o w o m i t t e d the phrase saying the U n i t e d States could manage " a l l their affairs i n such manner as they t h i n k f i t . " The fact that the U n i t e d States purchased this cession f r o m t h e m indicated, they believed, that they were not tenants at w i l l but full owners of their land. N o t o n l y were they again solemnly guaranteed " a l l their lands not herein ceded" but they retained i n t e r n a l self-government under their o w n chiefs and councils. Under A r t i c l e 14, the U n i t e d States agreed to " f u r n i s h gratuitously, the said nation w i t h useful implements of husbandry" i n order that they " m a y be led to a greater degree of civilization and to become herdsmen and cultivators i n ­ stead of r e m a i n i n g i n a state of h u n t e r s . " From this the Cherokees as­ sumed that t h e y were to be accepted as part of the U n i o n , w i t h their o w n guaranteed borders and government and w i t h direct assistance t o w a r d i m p r o v i n g their condition so as to become useful citizens of the republic. Furthermore, the treaty allowed the Cherokees to punish and evict any citizens of the U n i t e d States w h o trespassed on their land and i t stipulated On the boundary of the Treaty of Holston see Charles C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians, 1887 (reprint, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 34—42. 21

24

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

that no w h i t e citizen could "go i n t o the Cherokee c o u n t r y w i t h o u t a pass­ p o r t / ' W h i t e citizens w h o c o m m i t t e d crimes against Cherokees and Cherokees w h o c o m m i t t e d crimes against whites were still to be t r i e d i n the w h i t e man's courts. The Cherokees agreed to set aside land for a fed­ eral agent to live o n and to grant a r i g h t of w a y t h r o u g h their n a t i o n for the Cumberland Road connecting K n o x v i l l e w i t h Philadelphia to the east and Nashville to the west. The U n i t e d States delayed i n m a k i n g its final survey of the cession of 1791 u n t i l more whites had settled i n areas w i t h i n the new Cherokee boundaries. The Chickamaugans were still determined to drive the whites out of their h u n t i n g lands. T h e y saw no reason to believe that the Upper T o w n chiefs had done any more for the nation i n 1791 than t h e y had i n 1785. I n 1792, M c D o n a l d and the Lower Towns made an alliance w i t h the Spanish, and the guerrilla war w e n t on, aided b y supplies f r o m Spanish Florida. B u t i t was hopeless. The Cherokees' l o n g war w i t h the U n i t e d States finally ended i n November 1794, after the defeat of John Watts and Bloody Fellow i n a series of destructive attacks u p o n the Lower Towns b y Colonel James Ore of Tennessee. Furthermore, the Spanish had stopped assisting the Chickamaugans due to Napoleon's invasion of their coun­ t r y . I n the area n o r t h of the O h i o River, General A n t h o n y W a y n e de­ feated the N o r t h w e s t e r n Indian Confederacy of M i a m i s , Ottawas, and Shawnees (aided b y a contingent of one hundred Cherokees) at the Battle of Fallen Timbers i n 1794, thus depriving the Chickamaugans of Shawnee assistance. The treaty made b y the Lower Towns i n 1794 m e r e l y con­ firmed their acquiescence i n the treaty of 1791. I n February 1795, George W a s h i n g t o n t o l d Congress: " H o s t i l i t i e s w i t h the Cherokees have ceased and there is a pleasing prospect of permanent peace w i t h that n a t i o n . " 2 2

Between 1776 and 1794 the Cherokees had reached a critical j u n c t i o n i n their h i s t o r y . Their population was barely ten thousand; three-fourths of the land they had once considered theirs was closed to t h e m (see table 3, chronology of treaties, and maps of t e r r i t o r i a l losses and land cessions) ; over half of their towns were destroyed and ceded to the U n i t e d States; those w h o lived i n those towns had to move i n t o w h a t was left of the na­ t i o n and start over again. Precisely h o w m u c h independence was left to t h e m as a people was unclear. A l t h o u g h they continued to follow their traditional patterns as m u c h as possible, they found i t increasingly d i f f i ­ cult to make a l i v i n g . The fur trade upon w h i c h t h e y had depended for 22

American State Papers: Indian Affairs, vols. I and II, Documents, Legislative and Ex­

ecutive of the Congress of the United States, ed. Walter Lowrie, Walter S. Franklin, and Matthew St. Clair Clarke (Washington, D.C. : Gales and Seaton, 1832,1834), vol. I , p. 51. Hereafter abbreviated as ASP I and n.

25

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

TABLE 3

Cherokee Land Cessions, 1721-1806

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

Year

Colony/State

1721 1755 1768 1770

S.C. S.C. Va. Va. W.Va. Ky. W.Va. Ky. Va. Ga.

1772

1773 1775 "Henderson's Purchase"

8. 9.

1777 1777

10. 11.

1783 1785

12.

1791

13.

1798

14. 15.

1804 "Wafford's Tract" 1805

16.

1806

Total Area per Cession (sq. mi.)

Area (sq. mi.) 2,623 8,635 850 4,500 \ 4,300 1

2,623 8,635 850 9,050

250 J 437 | 10,135 | 345 * 1,050

Ky. Va. Tenn. S.C. N.C. Tenn. Ga. N.C. Tenn. Ky. Tenn. N.C. Tenn. N.C.

22,600 1,800 2,650 2,051 4,414 1,760 1,650 550

Ga. Ky. Tenn. Tenn. Tenn. Ala.

1,050

J

1

27,050

'

X J

6,174

8,225 1,650

\

4,914 1 917 ' 3,435 )

6,381

722 J 952 ) 587 J

4,157 1,539

135 1.086 )

135 8,118

7,032 J VA 5,269 )

6,871

1,602

Total

10,917

J

97 252 / 1

/

4

SOURCE: Charles C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (reprint, Chiicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975), p. 256.

almost a century was n o w so small that the hunters had to stay out longer and travel further each w i n t e r to make a good catch. Their old h u n t i n g grounds were filling up w i t h w h i t e hunters and often w i t h illegal w h i t e squatters. The federal government had promised i n 1791 to help t h e m make a l i v i n g as herdsmen and farmers, but the Cherokees knew little about the k i n d of horse-and-plow f a r m i n g needed to support a f a m i l y , nor did Indian wives k n o w h o w to be farmers' wives. The Cherokees

26

C H E R O K E E T E R R I T O R I A L LOSSES, I N T H E PERIODS 1 7 0 0 - 1 7 8 3 A N D

1 7 8 3 - 1 8 1 9 . I n 1838 the Cherokees were forcibly removed from the area marked 1835 as a result of the fraudulent Treaty of New Echota in 1835. From James Mooney, Historical Sketch of the Cherokee (Chi­ cago: A l d i n e Publishing Co., 1 9 7 5 ) , p. 10, with additions. seemed unable, even i n peace, to regain the stability, h a r m o n y , and order they had k n o w n i n the past. N o r were their religious ceremonies any longer able to give t h e m a sense of control over their destiny. T h e y n o w lived on a different part of their land from that of their ancestors. Their

27

CHEROKEE L A N D CESSIONS, 1721-1835. The years shown corre­ spond to the treaties listed in the accompanying chronology. The starred years mark cessions discussed in detail in the text: Wafford's Tract (1804); the upper hunting grounds (1805); the lower hunting grounds (1806); the land taken from the Cherokees in 1814 by the Creek Treaty, returned in March 1816, and then fraudulently ceded back to the U.S. (1816b); and the tract given to Doublehead for a model town in 1806 and taken back by the U.S. in 1817 (1817a). Based on maps in Charles C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975); prepared by Lisa Tingey Davis.

28

CHANGING

CHEROKEE

WAYS

C H R O N O L O G Y OF T R E A T I E S W I T H T H E C H E R O K E E S , 1721-1835 The land ceded in each treaty is shown in the accompanying map, where the cessions are dated as in the first column below.

Colonial 1721 1755 1768 1770 1772 1773 1775 1777a 1777b 1783

Period Treaty Treaty Treaty fairs Treaty Treaty Treaty Treaty Treaty Treaty Treaty

of 1721 with Gov. Nicholson of South Carolina of November 24,1755, with Gov. Glenn of South Carolina of October 14, 1768, with J. Stuart, British Supt. of Indian Af­ of October 18,1770, at Lochaber, South Carolina of October 1772 with the governor of Virginia of June 1,1773, with J. Stuart, British Supt. of Indian Affairs of March 17,1775, with Richard Henderson and others of May 20,1777, with South Carolina and Georgia of July 20,1777, with Virginia and North Carolina of May 31,1783, with Georgia

Federal Period (all treaties made with the United States) 1785 Treaty of November 28,1785 1791 Treaty of July 2,1791 1798 Treaty of October 2,1798 1804 Treaty of October 24,1804 ( Wafford's Tract) 1805 Treaty of October 25,1805 (upper hunting grounds) 1805 Treaty of October 27, 1805 (covered small area, not distinguished on map) 1806 Treaty of January 7,1806 (lower hunting grounds) 1816a Treaty of March 22,1816 1816b Treaty of September 14, 1816 (area taken from Cherokees in 1814 by the Creek Treaty, returned in March 1816, and then fraudulently ceded back to the U.S. in this treaty) 1817, Treaty of July 8, 1817 (1817a is tract given to Doublehead by Jefferson 1817a on January 7, 1806, for a model town and ceded back to the U.S. in 1817) 1819 Treaty of February 27,1819 1835 Fraudulent treaty of December 29,1835 Adapted from Charles C. Royce,The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co., 1975), p. 256.

center of population had moved almost one hundred miles south and west of the towns they had surrendered since 1775 (see map of settlement areas). Their y o u n g m e n were no longer to be trained to be warriors and h u n t i n g was becoming less and less profitable. They could not r e t u r n to the w a y they had lived before the w h i t e man came, nor did they feel able to become farmers as their conquerors expected t h e m to do. Equally i m p o r t a n t , the values of subsistence f a r m i n g were i n d i v i d u a l ­ istic. The Europeans expected m e n and w o m e n to be guided b y self-inter29

C H E R O K E E S E T T L E M E N T A R E A S BEFORE A N D AFTER 1 7 9 4 . Between

1775 and 1 7 9 4 the demographic center of Cherokee population shifted 100 miles to the southwest. Scale: 5/8" = 100 mi. Map prepared by Lisa Tingey Davis; based on map in Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition.

est, p u t t i n g themselves and their family first and striving always to ac­ quire more goods, more land, and more personal wealth. The w h i t e men loved competition, but the Cherokee way of life honored subjugation of the self to the good of the clan and the c o m m u n i t y . I n the past, a man's few w o r l d l y goods were placed beside h i m i n his grave—his bow, his pipe, his medicine bag. But as Cherokees acquired property of more value, too m a n y relatives had uses for his gun, his axes, his knives, his horse and bridle, his cattle. Already, m u c h of the ritual centered around burial and m o u r n i n g for the dead had been curtailed because so m a n y died quickly i n the wars and epidemics, and the l i v i n g had to flee before invading w h i t e men. M u c h of their ceremonial life was related to h u n t i n g and war or concerned w i t h sustaining communal h a r m o n y . I f they dispersed to be­ come farmers, they w o u l d have to give these up. O f what use n o w were the Scalp Dance, the War Dance, the Buffalo Dance, the Eagle Dance? I t is true that new ceremonies m i g h t arise or old ones be adapted, but they w o u l d have to deal w i t h a different ordering of life. For example, i n the 1750s the Cherokees began to practice a new ceremony called the Booger Dance. I n i t the dancers wore elaborate false faces p o r t r a y i n g h o r r i f y i n g spirit figures; they shouted and frightened the children. Some say i t was designed to scare the y o u n g into obedience, but others believe i t grew out 30

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

of the pervasive fears of death and destruction w r o u g h t b y w h i t e i n v a d ­ ers.

23

I t seemed to teach that there was a new k i n d of disorder loose i n

their w o r l d . Demons f r o m outside the Cherokee cosmogony were almost impossible to exorcise. O n the other hand, m a n y whites had come to live among t h e m and had fought w i t h t h e m as allies. N u m e r o u s Tories had joined t h e m i n the war against the A m e r i c a n colonists after 1776; some deserters f r o m the ranks of the French and Spanish had become i n t e r m a r r i e d " c o u n t r y m e n . " Their children did not speak Cherokee or k n o w Cherokee customs. These w h i t e m e n and their foreign-speaking, European-dressed children, w h e n g r o w n , proved helpful i n certain ways. They understood the language and customs of whites and provided useful knowledge as w e l l as serving as interpreters for the Cherokee leaders. However, m a n y of the whites w h o fled to Cherokee towns were outlaws, renegades, bankrupts, and confidence m e n , eager to take advantage of Cherokee hospitality and of their w o m e n but indifferent to the Cherokee N a t i o n i n its troubles. These w h i t e m e n were not part of any clan; a few were adopted i n t o a clan, b u t not m a n y . W h i t e husbands did not respect the Cherokee customs regard­ ing the r i g h t of the wife to her o w n property, her r i g h t to her house and children, her r i g h t to live i n her o w n t o w n near her k i n ; t h e y refused to accept the m a t r i l i n e a l practices of inheritance. O n the w h o l e , the w h i t e men

and m a n y of their children were as m u c h trouble as help i n these

years. Moreover, the children of mixed ancestry tended to m a r r y t h e i r o w n k i n d , to raise their children as whites d i d , and to perpetuate a social group separate f r o m the rest of the nation. A n o t h e r d i s t u r b i n g element after 1794 was the increasing n u m b e r of African slaves and freedmen coming into the nation. Early i n the eight­ eenth century the B r i t i s h colonists had made i t plain that they did not i n ­ tend to let the Indians on their borders harbor runaway slaves. I n large parts of the southeast, the combined total of Indians and slaves had o u t ­ numbered the whites. There was always fear that these "colored peo­ ples," feeling oppressed, m i g h t j o i n forces against the whites w h o m i s ­ treated t h e m . Fortunately for the Europeans, the Cherokees had l i t t l e use for slave labor i n the eighteenth century and were happy to accept the large rewards that the whites offered for the r e t u r n of runaway slaves. B y 1794 there were about one hundred blacks l i v i n g among the Cherokees. Some of these had been captured f r o m whites as the b o o t y of raiding par­ ties d u r i n g the guerrilla wars. Some were runaways. Others were freed blacks w h o preferred to live among a people w h o did not as yet d i s c r i m i 23

On the Booger Dance see Hudson, Southeastern Indians and Goodwin, Cherokees in

Transition, p. 143.

31

C H A N G I N G

C H E R O K E E

W A Y S

nate against t h e m , l e t t i n g t h e m i n t e r m a r r y and live as equals. But most blacks i n the nation were owned by w h i t e traders, Loyalists, and other whites w h o had brought t h e m w i t h t h e m as slaves. Because there were few laws and no taxes and because land was free w i t h i n the nation to all " c o u n t r y m e n , " the Cherokee N a t i o n was an ideal place for a w h i t e m a n to start a farm or a plantation and gain a stake for himself. Cherokees of m i x e d ancestry saw the value of slave labor i n an agrarian, staple-crop system. For full-blood Cherokees w h o could afford slaves, i t was easier to let t h e m do the heavy labor of a farm (a task t r a d i t i o n a l l y assigned to w o m e n ) . As the Cherokees were forced to become farmers to survive, they n a t u r a l l y followed the pattern set by the w h i t e Southerners around t h e m . Eventually they had to face the problem of being a m u l t i r a c i a l na­ t i o n . Could one be a black man and also be a Cherokee? Could persons of m i x e d black-and-Cherokee or black-and-white ancestry be Cherokees ? I n the states s u r r o u n d i n g the Cherokee N a t i o n the prejudices against color, whether black or red, made this question particularly difficult for the Cherokees to solve using their traditional principles. 24

Life i n 1794 was far different from life i n 1694. Confusion i n their cul­ ture made i t hard for the older generation to fulfill their roles as leaders, teachers, and guides for the y o u n g . So m u c h that had been true for par­ ents and grandparents simply was not applicable to the lives of the rising generation. C u l t u r a l persistence was powerful; most tried to retain the old patterns as best they could once peace was attained. But i t seemed u n ­ l i k e l y that they could ever r e t u r n w h o l l y to the old ways. A new, and as yet unspecified, w a y of life had to be found to fit their new circumstances. Somehow they had to revitalize their culture by c o m b i n i n g old ways w i t h new ones or by finding Cherokee versions of white ways. I n the struggle to survive, the Cherokees did develop new patterns for life, but o n l y after fifteen years of intense social and political crisis that at times amounted to civil war. 24

See Theda Perdue, Slavery and Cherokee Society, pp. 50-56.

32

TWO

DISORIENTATION A N D RESTRUCTURING, 1794-1810

The day will soon come when you will unite yourselves with us, join in our great councils, and form a people with us, and we shall all be Amer­ icans; you will mix with us by marriage; your blood will run in our veins and will spread with us over this great continent. —Thomas Jef­ ferson to the western Indians, 1808

W

hen peace finally came to the Cherokees i n 1794, they were beset w i t h problems. A l t h o u g h ostensibly united under Chief Little T u r k e y , they were still politically divided between the Lower Towns and the Upper Towns, each w i t h its o w n regional chiefs and councils. T h e y were also divided i n m a n y other ways. The older generation tried its best to sustain the old ways; the intermarried whites and Cherokees of m i x e d white-Cherokee ancestry were eager to t r y new ways. The y o u n g were caught between t w o worlds. The priests and medicine men tried to pre­ serve the orderly relations between man and nature, but the old ways and the old belief system did not correspond w i t h their new circumstances. T h e y were still rebuilding old towns and starting new ones. The ablebodied m e n went out every fall to spend the w i n t e r i n what was left of the h u n t i n g g r o u n d between the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers but were unable to find enough furs and skins to purchase all they needed for their families. The w o m e n , old men, and children continued to cultivate com­ m u n a l gardens, but w i t h more people squeezed onto less land they often did not grow a large enough crop to carry t h e m from harvest to harvest. T h e y still celebrated some of their old festivals—the Green C o r n Dance for thanksgiving, the purification ritual, the l i g h t i n g of the new fire at the start of the new year, but other ceremonies died away. The biggest social occasions were the ball plays, where y o u n g men could still demonstrate their physical daring, stamina, and skill, but m u c h of the religious con­ tent had gone out of these occasions. They often became scenes of d r u n k ­ enness, gambling, b r a w l i n g , and quarreling. E v e r y t h i n g seemed out of joint. For its o w n reasons the federal government tried to b r i n g some order 33

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N C

and conciliation to the frontier region. The U n i t e d States needed a stable situation i n the west and hoped to w i n the 250,000 Indians there i n t o peaceful cooperation to control the Mississippi Valley. Resident federal agents were sent to each tribe i n the 1790s to help t h e m shift from the declining fur trade to intensive agriculture. There were eighty-five dif­ ferent tribes l i v i n g i n the area between the Appalachian Ridge and the Mississippi River. B y treaty they still owned most of the land i n that area. However, the British i n Canada, the French on the lower Mississippi, and the Spanish i n Florida continued to maintain their influence i n the valley. The new A m e r i c a n nation was not sufficiently wealthy to support the k i n d of a r m y such a vast region needed for national security. C o m m o n sense dictated that the government, though i t had t e m p o r a r i l y defeated the Indians, should do its best to remain on good terms w i t h t h e m . M o r e than that, i t seemed wise to find some way to unite the interests of the Indians w i t h those of the U n i t e d States. The obvious means for this were commercial trading ties, intermarriage, and economic assistance to con­ vert the Indians into yeoman farmers. Promises of citizenship and i n t e ­ gration into the future destiny of the United States also seemed a wise and generous approach to "the Indian question." By 1794 the w h i t e population west of the Appalachians i n 1796 was larger than that of the Indians. M a n y frontiersman wished to drive all of the Indians across the Mississippi even if i t meant further war. B u t the new nation could not afford that choice. " I t is h i g h l y probable," said Sec­ retary of W a r Knox i n 1789, "that by a conciliatory system the expense of managing the said Indians and attaching t h e m to the U n i t e d States for the ensuing period of fifty years, may on an average cost $15,000 an­ n u a l l y " whereas "a system of coercion and oppression pursued f r o m t i m e to t i m e for the same period . . . w o u l d probably amount to a much greater sum of m o n e y . " One of the first orders of business i n Washing­ ton's administration was to establish a clear set of policies to guide the nation's relations w i t h the Indians. From the Indians the Americans wanted t w o things-—peace and land. The fur trade was to be replaced by trade i n agricultural products, livestock, and the manufactured goods nec­ essary to a f a r m i n g c o m m u n i t y . Peace was to be preserved by helping the Indians to acculturate. 1

The policy that Knox and Washington presented to Congress i n 1789 and that guided w h i t e - I n d i a n relations from 1789 to 1833 was based on the assumption that the Indians could and should be civilized to the p o i n t of becoming "incorporated" or integrated as equal citizens on the land where they were now to become farmers. A l t h o u g h many westerners 1

ASP I,

13.

34

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

disliked various aspects of this policy, i t was designed to assuage the w h i t e settlers' problems as m u c h , or more, than those of the Indians. H a v i n g no alternative to i t , the w h i t e westerners sullenly accepted i t , b u t o n l y as long as the promise of an increasing amount of Indian land being placed i n the hands of w h i t e settlers was met by the federal government. Federal Indian policy i n Washington's administration consisted of five interlocking parts. First, the Indians were to be considered owners of the land on w h i c h they c u r r e n t l y lived ( w i t h i n their existing treaty bounda­ ries) and no part of i t was to be taken from t h e m w i t h o u t their consent. A s K n o x put i t to W a s h i n g t o n : " T h e Indians being the prior occupants, possess the r i g h t to soil. I t cannot be taken f r o m t h e m unless b y their free consent. . . . To dispossess t h e m i n any other principle w o u l d be a gross v i o l a t i o n of the fundamental laws of nature, and of that distributive jus­ tice w h i c h is the glory of a n a t i o n . " Knox even went so far as to say that the Indian tribes should be regarded as "independent nations" and " o u g h t to be considered as foreign nations." A s s u m i n g that "the Indians possess the rights to all their t e r r i t o r y , " he added, " t h e y should not be divested thereof but i n consequence of open treaties made under the au­ t h o r i t y of the U n i t e d States." 2

* Second, the federal agents w h o were to reside i n each Indian nation i n the future were to act as the liaison between the chiefs and the federal government. They were to "attach" the Indians " t o the interests of the U n i t e d States" and to assure t h e m of the President's constant "desire to better the situation of the Indians i n all respects." The agent was also to protect the Indian boundaries b y " p r o h i b i t i n g the citizens [of the U n i t e d States] f r o m i n t r u d i n g on the Indian lands"; he was to obtain permission f r o m the Secretary of War whenever necessary to employ the U n i t e d States a r m y troops at the nearest frontier garrison for that purpose. I n addition to resident agents of the W a r Department, the government es­ tablished trading posts (or factories) i n the larger Indian nations. A factor or manager for the trading post was paid b y the government i n order to provide the Indians w i t h a place to sell their furs and skins at reasonable prices or to exchange t h e m for well-made tools for farming so that t h e y w o u l d not be at the mercy of unscrupulous w h i t e traders. I n addition, as the Indians became farmers, the trading post extended t h e m credit w i t h w h i c h to purchase seed, hoes, horses, plows, and other farm implements. "Trade," as one western political leader put i t , "is the great lever by w h i c h to direct the policy and conduct of the Indian t r i b e s . " Agents and factors were to encourage the Indians to divide up their tribal property to 3

4

2

3

4

ASP i , 13,53,61. i , 247. ASP i i , 78. See also ASP I I , 26-28 and ASP I , 684.

ASP

35

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

give each family a tract of its o w n , i n order to make i t independent and self-reliant: " W e r e i t possible to introduce among the Indian tribes a love for exclusive p r o p e r t y " (or property owned " i n severalty" rather t h a n i n c o m m o n ) , said Knox, " i t w o u l d be a happy commencement of the busi­ ness" of civilizing t h e m . "The civilization of the Indians" was, i n the long r u n , the p r i m a r y goal of the government agents. To this end, Congress was to appropriate funds for the "tools of husbandry and domestic m a n ­ ufactures" that the agent w o u l d then freely distribute among the I n d i ­ ans—plows, axes, mattocks for the men; spinning wheels, cards, and looms for the w o m e n . The resident agent was also to use federal funds to hire skilled workmen—blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers, t i n s m i t h s , coopers—to teach the Indians the skills they needed to become self-suf­ ficient. Finally, the agent was to keep peace between the Indians and the whites and to see to i t that criminal acts by whites against Indians or vice versa were prosecuted i n the nearest state or federal court. 5

T h i r d , Washington's policy stipulated that no Indian tribe was to make any treaty or trade alliance w i t h any nation other than the United States and that no state or private citizen i n the United States was to make trea­ ties w i t h Indians: " T h e general sovereignty [i.e., the federal govern­ m e n t ] must possess the r i g h t of m a k i n g all treaties," Knox told Washing­ t o n , because "the independent nations and tribes of Indians ought to be considered as foreign nations, not as the subjects of any particular States." Fourth, "missionaries of excellent m o r a l character should be ap­ pointed to reside i n their nation w h o should be w e l l supplied w i t h all the implements of husbandry and the necessary stock for a [model] f a r m " i n order to establish vocational t r a i n i n g schools, where Indian boys w o u l d learn to be farmers and artisans and Indian girls w o u l d learn to sew, weave, cook, make butter and cheese while at the same t i m e t h e y were all learning to read, write, and do arithmetic. 6

Fifth, i n exchange for these various forms of "management," "assist­ ance," "benevolence," and " e n l i g h t e n m e n t , " the Indians were to cede, f r o m t i m e to t i m e , such land that they were not cultivating. For these ces­ sions of their "excess l a n d , " the federal government w o u l d provide cash or trade goods for their further economic development. The regular sale of their unused land w o u l d thus become the basic means of capital fund­ i n g for the Indian nations, enabling t h e m to build roads, bridges, ferries, m i l l s , and the other elements of a market economy that individuals alone could not provide. M o n e y from land sales w o u l d go into the national treasury of each tribe and be administered under its o w n chiefs and coun5

6

i , 53. Ibid.

ASP

36

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

cils. " A s the population [of w h i t e Americans] shall increase/' K n o x said, " a n d approach the Indian boundaries, game w i l l be diminished and new purchases [of Indian land] made for small considerations. This has been, and probably w i l l be the inevitable consequence of c u l t i v a t i o n . " Even­ 7

t u a l l y , the Indians w o u l d become self-supporting yeoman farmers and no longer need government aid. Once they understood the principles of ag­ r i c u l t u r e , stock raising, and trade, they w o u l d no longer w a n t their old h u n t i n g land. Gradually, over a generation or t w o , t h e y w o u l d acquire the same characteristic mode of life as the w h i t e settlers and w o u l d i m ­ perceptibly merge i n t o the advancing w h i t e frontier as equal citizens. Thomas Jefferson, like all other Presidents f r o m 1789 to 1828, f a i t h ­ f u l l y carried out this policy and summarized its expected consequences i n a talk he gave to a group of Indians i n Washington, D . C . , i n 1808: Let me entreat you, therefore, on the lands now given you to begin to give every man a farm; let him enclose it, cultivate it, build a warm house on it, and when he dies, let it belong to his wife and children after him. Nothing is so easy as to learn to cultivate the earth; all your women understand it, and to make it easier, we are always ready to teach you how to make plows, hoes, and necessary uten­ sils. If the men will take the labor of the earth from the women, they will learn to spin and weave and to clothe their families. . . . When once you have property, you will want laws and magistrates to protect your property and person. . . . You will find that our laws are good for this purpose; you will wish to live under them, you will unite yourselves with us, join in our great councils and form one people with us, and we shall all be Americans; you will mix with us by marriage, your blood will run in our veins, and will spread with us over this great continent. 8

To i m p l e m e n t this " c i v i l i z a t i o n p r o g r a m , " Congress passed a series of laws governing "Trade and Intercourse w i t h the Indians," the first of w h i c h came i n 1790. The act was subsequently renewed and amended i n 1793, 1796, 1802, and 1822. These acts incorporated all of the essential features of the policy that K n o x and Washington had recommended i n 1789. However, i t was not u n t i l 1792 that the first agents were appointed and Congress appropriated $15,000 annually to provide economic assist­ ance to the Indians, and not u n t i l 1795 was the program of Indian t r a d i n g posts put i n t o effect. Congress took no steps u n t i l 1819 to provide m o n e y for the education of Indian children. I t had assumed that private mission­ ary agencies w o u l d undertake this out of their spiritual c o m m i t m e n t to Christianizing the Indians. However, missionary activity among the southeastern Indians was v e r y slow i n starting and extensive missionary i , 13, 53. Quoted in Saul K. Padover, Thomas Jefferson on Democracy (New York: Mentor, New American Library, Appleton-Century Co., 1939), pp. 106-107. 7

ASP

8

37

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

w o r k did not enter i n t o Indian life there u n t i l after 1817. The first phase of Cherokee acculturation from 1794 to 1817 was consequently secular. The first Trade and Intercourse A c t i n 1790 prohibited any state or p r i ­ vate p a r t y f r o m m a k i n g treaties w i t h any Indian n a t i o n , established a sys­ t e m for licensing w h i t e traders, and required that whites accused of crimes i n Indian nations be tried i n the federal courts (a later act, i n 1802, changed this to allow any state court to t r y such cases). The second Trade and Intercourse A c t authorized the W a r Department to make "presents" to the Indians to assist t h e m i n becoming farmers, herdsmen, and house­ wives; this law also authorized the a r m y garrison nearest to any Indian nation to be used to remove w h i t e intruders f r o m that nation. The law establishing Indian trading posts i n 1795 created funds to regulate trade and commerce w i t h the Indians t h r o u g h the establishment of federal fac­ tories and factors. A law i n 1796 placed more stringent l i m i t s on intruders i n t o Indian nations. Finally, the Trade and Intercourse A c t of 1802 made it illegal for whites to introduce spirituous liquor i n t o any Indian nation. This act, modified slightly i n 1822, remained i n force u n t i l 1834. 9

The Trade and Intercourse Acts and the Factory or Trading Post Laws provided o n l y the broad outlines of Indian policy. M u c h depended upon the political climate of each administration and upon the a b i l i t y and char­ acter of the resident agents. A l t h o u g h Knox assumed that the Indians had sovereignty over their land and also the r i g h t of internal self-govern­ ment, clearly there were m a n y ambiguous elements i n the policy. Just as the states of the U n i o n were not certain of h o w m u c h sovereignty they retained under the C o n s t i t u t i o n , so the Indian states never knew exactly h o w m u c h sovereignty they retained under their treaties and the Trade and Intercourse Acts. H o w far, for example, could an Indian nation go i n refusing to grant land to the federal government? I f i t failed to follow the guidelines for civilization—perhaps by refusing to divide its land i n sev­ e r a l t y — d i d i t thereby abrogate other aspects of the program—say, fed­ eral economic assistance? D i d the r i g h t of Congress to control interstate commerce mean that navigable waters t h r o u g h Indian nations were au­ tomatically open to all traffic? D i d Congress have to ask for and pay for the r i g h t to construct federal turnpikes t h r o u g h Indian nations? Could ca­ nals, and later railways, be constructed t h r o u g h Indian nations w i t h o u t their permission? H o w much r i g h t did w h i t e police agencies on the Indian borders have to enter the nation i n search of criminals such as horse, cat­ tle, or slave thieves, runaway slaves, debtors, or murderers? I f the federal The best discussions of American Indian policy are by Francis Paul Prucha. See his American Indian Policy in the Formative Years (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 9

1962) and The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, 2 vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984).

38

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

agent could license w h i t e traders, could Indian councils eject t h e m any­ way? Could an Indian nation refuse to admit missionaries or, having ad­ m i t t e d t h e m , eject them? Could t h e y admit and eject all whites w h o came to pursue some trade—blacksmith, schoolteacher, m i l l w r i g h t , carpenter, sharecropper, gambler? Could an Indian nation levy taxes on its o w n peo­ ple and upon whites w h o lived or worked i n the nation, such as traders? D i d Indian nations have the r i g h t to exploit their o w n natural resources— timber, salines, saltpeter, gold, silver, minerals? Could the relatives of a w h i t e m a n enter the nation to claim his property w h e n he died? Could t h e y do so even i f he left an Indian wife? Could the Indians continue to practice infanticide and to execute witches? Could an Indian nation abol­ ish slavery and become a haven for runaway slaves? A n d , more i m p o r t a n t for the u l t i m a t e fulfillment of the integration program, w h e n did an I n ­ dian become "civilized"? H o w did he or she attain equal citizenship? Was citizenship o n l y available w h e n a whole nation was somehow judged to have reached the appropriate level, or could individual Indians be given citizenship as they attained certain proficiencies? A n d w h a t was equal cit­ izenship? Under the federal system, everyone had t w o kinds of citizen­ ship, state and federal. The federal government m i g h t grant f u l l and equal citizenship to a person, yet the state i n w h i c h he lived was entitled under the C o n s t i t u t i o n to set its o w n standards for v o t i n g and other p r i v ­ ileges (holding office, attending schools, serving i n the m i l i t i a , testifying i n court). Suppose the southern or western states did not agree w i t h K n o x , Jefferson, and most educated easterners that the Indian was poten­ t i a l l y the full equivalent of the w h i t e man i n m i n d and body? D i d state or federal a u t h o r i t y define the rights of Indians w h o became citizens ? U l t i m a t e l y the Cherokee people raised all of these difficult questions as t h e y tried to come to terms w i t h their new circumstances. To their sur­ prise and confusion, no consistent answers were given to most of t h e m , either by their various federal agents, the various Presidents and Secre­ taries of War, the leading politicians, or b y the v o t i n g public i n the U n i t e d States. To find their w a y under the aegis of the Indian policy of the U n i t e d States, the Cherokees had to chart their o w n path and apply t h e i r o w n political solutions. B u t before they could do that, they had to decide among themselves what direction they wished to move i n . The federal agents on the whole did their best to help t h e m solve their problems, b u t the initiative rested w i t h the Cherokee people. The first federal agent sent to the Cherokees was Leonard Shaw, a re­ cent graduate of Princeton U n i v e r s i t y w h o came to live among t h e m i n 1792. Shaw proved to be most unusual. He had been reminded i n his commission f r o m the W a r Department that differences i n skin color i n no way indicated any fundamental difference between w h i t e and red m e n : 39

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

" T h e difference between civilized and savage modes of life is so great as, upon first view, almost leads to the conclusion that the earth is peopled w i t h races of men possessing distinct p r i m a r y qualities; but upon closer inspection this w i l l appear fallacious, and that the immense differences arise f r o m education and h a b i t s . " Shaw took this seriously, and soon after a r r i v i n g i n the nation he married a Cherokee. His p r i m a r y task was to put an end to the guerrilla war and prevent any more of the Upper T o w n (friendly) Cherokees from j o i n i n g the Chickamauga guerrillas w h o had refused to abide by the treaty of 1791. John Watts, w i t h the aid of the B r i t i s h agent John M c D o n a l d , had aligned his guerrillas w i t h a confed­ eracy of Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws w h o were still eager to carry on the war against the w h i t e Americans. These Indians made a treaty i n 1792 w i t h A r t u r o O ' N e i l l , the Governor of Spanish West Florida, to pro­ vide t h e m w i t h arms and a m m u n i t i o n . Watts and his warriors were meeting at W i l l s t o w n , west of Lookout M o u n t a i n , to plan the war w h e n Shaw reached the Upper T o w n capital at Ustanali, east of Lookout M o u n ­ tain. Little T u r k e y was at this t i m e the ostensible chief of all the Chero­ kees. He was t r y i n g to maintain the peace agreed upon at H o l s t o n i n 1791, b u t he had no control over the Lower Towns. Watts felt that the United States had been dishonest i n that treaty because i t had not re­ moved the w h i t e intruders from w i t h i n the Cherokee boundary on the French Broad and H o l s t o n rivers. I n the instructions to Shaw, the W a r Department said that he must "infuse into all the Indians the uprightness of the views of the President of the United States and his desire to better the situation of the Indians i n all respects. . . . You w i l l f u l l y and fre­ q u e n t l y inculcate the p u r i t y of the conduct of the General Government to the hostile Indians" and t r y to "make a f i r m peace w i t h the said Indians." But h o w could Shaw tell t h e m that the President was powerless to assert federal a u t h o r i t y over the stubborn frontiersmen of the Tennessee— N o r t h Carolina border w h o saw their safety and future at stake? N o n e ­ theless, u n t i l peace was obtained, Shaw was instructed to tell the Chero­ kees that " t h e i r y o u n g men, being constrained to j o i n one side or the other . . . should j o i n ours i n preference to that of the hostile Indians." Moreover, since the Indian conflict n o r t h of the O h i o River was coming to a head, i t was " o f h i g h importance that the Southern Indians should be prevented f r o m j o i n i n g the Indians n o r t h of the O h i o . " Over this Shaw had no control whatever, and Watts's guerrillas continued to w o r k closely w i t h the Shawnees i n the n o r t h . Shaw was also told to "learn their lan­ guage" (an order that not a single agent ever followed o u t ) , to "collect materials for a h i s t o r y of all the Southern Tribes," and to "teach t h e m 10

1 0

ASP

i , 247.

40

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

agriculture and such useful arts as y o u m a y k n o w or can acquire." Above all, he was to keep i n close touch w i t h Governor W i l l i a m B l o u n t of Ten­ nessee T e r r i t o r y , w h o was the federal Superintendent of Indian Affairs south of the O h i o R i v e r .

11

Shaw found i t almost impossible to achieve any of his goals. He could not stop the guerrilla war i n Tennessee nor even keep a group of w h i t e , frontier Indian-haters f r o m entering the Cherokee t o w n of Chota and t r y i n g to k i l l the friendly chief, H a n g i n g M a w . D u r i n g his t w o frustrat­ ing years among the Cherokees, Shaw watched helplessly as the people of Tennessee took their o w n measures to stop Watts and the Lower T o w n w a r r i o r s . Governor B l o u n t , Shaw's superior, convinced the

President

that matters were best left i n the hands of frontier m i l i t i a , w h o were ex­ perienced Indian fighters. Shaw discovered that B l o u n t was heavily en­ gaged i n land speculations and was hoping that the defeat of the Cherokee guerrillas w o u l d force further land cessions f r o m w h i c h he expected to profit. B l o u n t and his friends were already profiting f r o m the land ceded at H o l s t o n i n 1 7 9 1 .

12

Shaw, having allied himself b y marriage to the Cherokees and h a v i n g thereby become a " c o u n t r y m a n , " frankly warned the Cherokee chiefs to t r u s t n o t h i n g that B l o u n t told t h e m because Blount's private interests were i n conflict w i t h his public trust. A t a council of chiefs f r o m the Lower Towns early i n 1793, Shaw told John Watts not to t r y to negotiate w i t h B l o u n t about the intruders still w i t h i n the line surveyed b y B l o u n t after the treaty of 1791. Watts should instead go directly to the President or Secretary of War, for B l o u n t was " o n l y a servant of the U n i t e d States." Furthermore, according to James Carey, Shaw's interpretor, Shaw t o l d Watts that "he ought not to m i n d Governor B l o u n t or his letters; that t h e y had better apply to Congress, for he knew that the U n i t e d States, as soon as t h e y had heard r i g h t l y h o w Governor B l o u n t had w r o n g e d t h e m out of their lands, he was satisfied they w o u l d restore t h e m to the Indians again and send commissioners to r u n the line to their l i k i n g . T f y o u go to B l o u n t , y o u w i l l be as far f r o m getting y o u r lands as ever. . . . Observe how m u c h better the Lower Creeks are treated than y o u are; that is be­ cause t h e y have a good m a n to do for t h e m ; that is more t h a n y o u have got. . . . See h o w m u c h Governor B l o u n t has r u n the lines w i t h o u t y o u r knowledge or [ y o u r ] being present. . . . I w i l l no longer be controlled b y him.

I w i l l go to Congress and recover y o u r lands for y o u , to the old

l i n e . ' " H e a r i n g this, John Watts grasped Shaw b y the a r m , saying, " Y o u r offering is good to us, and we w i s h y o u to go to Congress and do 11

12

Ibid. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 41-45.

41

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

it for us . . . i f y o u do that for us, we w i l l then take y o u b y the hand as a brother forever." Shaw told the Chickamaugans to m a i n t a i n peace for seventy-five days u n t i l he went to Congress to rectify Blount's false treaty line. He also said that " i f he did not get that line, he w o u l d r e t u r n to t h e m and share the same fate w i t h t h e m , " since he was their c o u n t r y ­ m a n . He said "he w o u l d keep n o t h i n g h i d from them and w o u l d j o i n t h e m i n protecting their c o u n t r y " from the rapacious western land spec­ ulators. Watts gave Shaw his w o r d that no further acts of warfare against the whites w o u l d take place u n t i l he tried to accomplish this peaceful res­ o l u t i o n of the problem. Shaw then returned to Ustanali and persuaded the chiefs of the Upper Towns to agree to what he had worked out w i t h Watts. Carey, however, w h o had been Shaw's interpreter t h r o u g h all this, was l o y a l to B l o u n t . W i t h a handful of Upper T o w n chiefs, Carey w e n t to B l o u n t i n Knoxville and revealed that Shaw was t r y i n g to under­ m i n e his a u t h o r i t y . Carey said that the chiefs he trusted most (The K i n g Fisher, Captain Dick, The O l d Prince, and George M i l l e r ) preferred to w o r k w i t h Governor B l o u n t as this w o u l d be " m o r e advantageous to their nation." 13

B l o u n t thereupon explained Shaw's insubordination to the Secretary of War, adding to the charge of "great want of prudence" that of habitual " i n e b r i e t y . " Shaw was replaced i n 1794 by John McKee, w h o left all i m ­ portant decisions to B l o u n t and former Franklinite James R o b e r t s o n . Shaw's experience epitomized the three-way struggle between the Cher­ okees, the westerners, and the federal authorities that made Cherokee revitalization so difficult over the next f o r t y years. The goals and motives of these three groups were frequently at odds. B l o u n t was elected to the U n i t e d States Senate i n 1796, but he was expelled from his seat w h e n the Senate learned that he had plotted to undermine United States a u t h o r i t y i n the west. He and Carey had entered into a scheme w i t h another nation (not named i n the records) for this purpose; i n effect, B l o u n t was g u i l t y of treason. T w o Loyalists w h o had become Cherokee c o u n t r y m e n , John Rogers and John D . C h i s h o l m , were involved w i t h h i m i n the p l o t . 14

15

16

A f t e r B l o u n t was relieved of the superintendency, President W a s h i n g ­ t o n appointed Benjamin H a w k i n s , a former Senator from N o r t h Caro­ lina; his title was "Principal Temporary A g e n t for Indian Affairs South of the O h i o . " H a w k i n s i n t u r n appointed Silas D i n s moor as his assistant. ASP i , 437, 440-41. ASP I, 436. Malone, Cherokees of the Old South, pp. 37-38. Malone, Cherokees of the Old South, p. 38; ASP I, 531. Merrit B. Pound, Benjamin Hawkins, Indian Agent (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1951), pp. 126-28. Blount was clearly plotting with the British. Rogers and Chisholm were to play important parts in Cherokee affairs in subsequent years, as was Blount's son, Willie. 13

14

15

16

42

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

H a w k i n s went to live among the Creeks; D i n s m o o r resided among the Cherokees. These agents made the first significant efforts to persuade the Creeks and Cherokees to abandon h u n t i n g for farming. They distributed plows, spinning wheels, cotton cards and looms at government expense and employed w h i t e w o m e n to teach spinning and weaving to I n d i a n w o m e n . H a w k i n s reported i n 1796 that the Cherokee w o m e n were rap­ i d l y t a k i n g up the p l a n t i n g of cotton and were eager to learn h o w to spin it i n t o thread and then to weave the thread into cloth. However, b o t h m e n found that Indian males were reluctant to become tillers of the soil. I n Cherokee m y t h and t r a d i t i o n , that task was always assigned to w o m e n . The m e n therefore continued to t r y to make a l i v i n g f r o m the fur trade. Every October most of t h e m left for the h u n t i n g g r o u n d i n n o r t h e r n A l ­ abama and M i d d l e Tennessee. Some of the h u n t i n g parties ranged as far west as Arkansas i n search of the d w i n d l i n g game. Yet every spring the hunters returned w i t h smaller and smaller catches. A l t h o u g h the govern­ m e n t had established a trading post among the Cherokees at Tellico Gar­ rison i n 1795, Cherokee hunters often preferred to trade w i t h private traders, w h o went out to meet t h e m as they came back. These traders sometimes offered better prices; they also provided w h i s k e y , w h i c h the government trader was forbidden to do. The quality of trade goods was better at the government post, but the cost of transporting t h e m f r o m Baltimore and Philadelphia made the prices h i g h . D i n s m o o r was an able and conscientious agent w h o did his best to help the Cherokees adjust to a new w a y of life. He was particularly concerned w i t h the continual friction between the Cherokees and the frontier whites. These quarrels frequently ended i n murders and, despite treaties to the contrary, the brother or uncle of the murdered Cherokee retaliated against the w h i t e murderer or his k i n . W h i t e s , m a n y of t h e m ScotchI r i s h , held a similar code of family revenge. "Peace is the general talk of this c o u n t r y , " D i n s m o o r said i n 1795, "and I believe i t is really the desire of the Cherokees to b u r y the hatchet and not shed any more blood. W o u l d to God the frontier people were of the same m i n d . " Part of the difficulty stemmed f r o m the fact that the Creeks continued to make oc­ casional raids on w h i t e communities i n Tennessee and traveled t h r o u g h Cherokee t e r r i t o r y on these occasions. " T h e Whites say," D i n s m o o r re­ ported, " t h e y cannot distinguish between the Cherokees and Creeks, and I believe i t w o u l d not be transgressing the bounds of C h a r i t y to say they do not w i s h to d i s t i n g u i s h . " Even i f all Indians did not look the same, t h e y were all "savages" w h o had probably participated i n assaults on whites; 1 7

Silas Dinsmoor to David Henley, March 18,1795, Ayer Collection, Newberry Library, Chicago, 111. 1 7

43

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

all Indians were therefore equally deserving of death. Some weeks later D i n s m o o r wrote that the Cherokees were uneasy over the continued hos­ t i l i t y : " T w o of their people were killed a short t i m e since by a scout f r o m South Carolina for stealing horses. The honest people among t h e m con­ sider i t as just, and the headmen have prevailed on the relations to accept w h i t e beads and not take satisfaction [retaliation]. The stealing of horses w i l l , I fear, continue w h i l e the w h i t e people encourage t h e m to i t by p u r ­ chasing t h e m . The licensed traders at Tuskeega [ i n South Carolina] have lately purchased some horses k n o w i n g t h e m to have been stolen f r o m the frontiers of G e o r g i a . " 18

To t r y to solve these problems, Dinsmoor and H a w k i n s together m a n ­ aged to persuade the Cherokee national council to take t w o major steps i n 1797 t o w a r d centralizing political a u t h o r i t y i n the name of order and sta­ b i l i t y . One concerned l i m i t a t i o n s on clan revenge, the other the estab­ lishment of a police force. I n the social confusion of that period there were also frequent quarrels among the Cherokees themselves that resulted i n assault and death. B y Cherokee t r a d i t i o n , k i l l i n g i n self-defense or b y ac­ cident ( d u r i n g a drunken b r a w l , for example) did not exempt the m u r ­ derer f r o m the law of blood; a life must be given for a life lost. But times were different now. The Cherokees had already conceded i n the Treaties of H o p e w e l l and H o l s t o n that murders committed by whites w o u l d be settled i n w h i t e courts under the w h i t e man's jurisdiction. I n 1797 D i n s ­ m o o r and H a w k i n s persuaded the Cherokee (and the Creek) council to m o d i f y this t r a d i t i o n still further. Clan revenge served no useful purpose any longer, they said; i t o n l y added to social tensions w h e n clans took re­ venge for accidental death. The council agreed, and voted that henceforth clans could retaliate o n l y w h e n a murder resulted f r o m malice afore­ thought—a major concession to the Anglo-Saxon concept of i n d i v i d u a l responsibility. H a w k i n s explained the council's decision to the Secretary of W a r : " T h e Cherokees are g i v i n g proofs of their approximation to the customs of well-regulated societies; they did, i n full council, i n m y pres­ ence, pronounce, after solemn deliberation, as law, that any person w h o should k i l l another accidentally should not suffer for i t , but be acquitted; that to constitute a crime, there should be malice and an i n t e n t i o n to kill." 1 9

H a w k i n s did not explain what k i n d of judicial process w o u l d sort out the facts to " a c q u i t " the defendant and save h i m f r o m clan revenge ; i t m a y have been done by the clan elders or i t m a y have been done b y the council. I n addition, at this same council, the Cherokees took the first maSilas Dinsmoor to David Henley, July 8, 1795, ibid. Quoted in Rennard Strickland, Fire and the Spirits, p. 57. For an excellent analysis of the Cherokee practice of clan revenge see Reid, A Law of Blood. 18

19

44

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

jor step t o w a r d creating a national system of law enforcement and p u n ­ ishing of crimes not associated w i t h clan revenge. " T h e y at the same t i m e gave up, of their o w n m o t i o n / ' H a w k i n s said, "the names of the great rogues i n the nation, as w e l l as those of their neighborhood, and ap­ pointed some warriors expressly to assist the chiefs i n preventing stealing and i n c a r r y i n g their stipulations w i t h us i n t o effect."

20

Several issues

were i n v o l v e d . First, by " s t i p u l a t i o n w i t h us," H a w k i n s referred to the fact that treaty clauses required repayment f r o m t r i b a l funds of $60 per stolen horse w h e n a w h i t e could prove that his horse had been stolen b y a Cherokee. B y " g i v i n g us the names" of those Cherokees k n o w n to be horse thieves, the council was a d m i t t i n g the collective responsibility of the tribe for such crimes and asserting a new f o r m of national a u t h o r i t y . I n the past, the nation had sometimes accepted responsibility for the m u r ­ der of a w h i t e or for the r e t u r n of stolen or runaway slaves. B u t this oc­ curred o n l y under extreme duress i n order to avoid massive w h i t e retal­ iation. B y the law of 1797, the nation assumed responsibility for r o u t i n e maintenance of law and order; i n effect, i t established a system of i n t e r n a l policing for crimes that tribal law had previously ignored. H a w k i n s d i d not explain the k i n d or f o r m of punishments but presumably i t was b y w h i p p i n g . This adoption of the concept of centralized t r i b a l authorization for the protection of private property and the administration of physical coercion upon individuals was a significant step i n Cherokee political cen­ tralization and judicial restructuring. However, i t was seen as an emer­ gency measure and faltered badly over the next decade. The Cherokees as a whole were b y no means ready to accept all its implications. A n o t h e r hesistant step i n this direction was taken i n 1799 w h e n the federal government and the Cherokee council j o i n t l y created a regular, paid police force. I n 1797, ad hoc agents of law enforcement were ap­ pointed by the council to seize and punish specific individuals for specific crimes, such as k n o w n horse thieves. I n 1799, the police force became a standing body, acting to m a i n t a i n order on its o w n initiative. This action was instigated b y M a j o r Thomas Lewis, w h o replaced D i n s m o o r as fed­ eral agent to the Cherokees i n 1798. Lewis persuaded the W a r Depart­ m e n t to let h i m use agency funds to pay for m o u n t e d Cherokee police, k n o w n as "the lighthorse regulators" or the Lighthorse. Lewis proposed that there should be fourteen regulators appointed b y the council; the federal government w o u l d pay the wages for half of these, the Cherokees w o u l d pay for the other h a l f .

21

The law of 1797 had failed to stem the tide

Strickland, Fire and the Spirits, p. 57. Hawkins also persuaded the Creeks to institute a similar police system. The Glass to Return J. Meigs, June 30,1801, M-15, reel 1, p. 72. Glass referred to it as 2 0

2 1

45

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

of horse stealing and more strenuous measures were needed. T w o years later, however, i n 1801, President Jefferson discontinued payment of the government's share of wages to the Cherokee regulators and thereafter policing became sporadic. From t i m e to time Cherokee chiefs i n various parts of the nation sought to reconstitute the force, but u n t i l 1808 the t r i b a l council took no steps to do this. The Cherokees were demonstrating their reluctance to alter their traditional system of law and order; they did not like corporal punishment and they preferred decentralized t o w n gov­ ernment. Such drastic changes had to come slowly. Lewis also helped the federal government respond to a request b y the State of Tennessee asking the federal government to obtain more land for its settlers. Tennessee's legislature told President John Adams that i n its opinion the Indians were o n l y "tenants at w i l l " on their land, and i t was the w i l l of Tennessee that these tenants give up a large part of their h u n t ­ i n g g r o u n d to satisfy the needs of w h i t e farmers. Adams appointed treaty commissioners and Congress appropriated funds to treat w i t h the Cher­ okees; the commissioners hoped to obtain several m i l l i o n acres i n M i d d l e Tennessee. The negotiations took place i n July 1798 at Tellico. The Cher­ okees flatly refused to sell any of their land. The government refused to take no for an answer; the commissioners returned to the nation i n the fall and after m u c h bickering they managed to obtain 90,000 acres i n east­ ern Tennessee and 376,000 acres i n western N o r t h Carolina, but the h u n t i n g g r o u n d remained intact. The Cherokees received $5,000 i n cash and an addition of $1,000 to their perpetual a n n u i t y for these 1,644 square m i l e s . 22

I n 1799 the first missionaries applied for a plot of land on w h i c h to es­ tablish a permanent station among the Cherokees. T h e y were Moravians (or U n i t e d Brethren) from Salem, N o r t h Carolina, a small evangelical Protestant group o r i g i n a l l y from Germany. The mission board's agents arrived f r o m Salem i n October to find that the able-bodied Cherokee males were all out on the h u n t i n g ground for the w i n t e r . Lewis t o l d the missionaries to r e t u r n the f o l l o w i n g fall; d u r i n g the ensuing year he w o r k e d hard to persuade the chiefs of the advantages of a mission. W h e n the Moravians returned i n September 1800, Lewis arranged to have t h e m speak t h r o u g h an interpreter to the council. The council asked whether the school the missionaries promised to start w o u l d provide free r o o m , board, and clothing for the students. The Moravians said they did not ex­ pect to provide these, and the council rejected their offer. The mission­ aries were about to r e t u r n to N o r t h Carolina, but Lewis persuaded t h e m the "mounted Indian Patrole." See also M-208, November 20,1802, and December 3,1802, for other references to this first system of mounted police among the Cherokees. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 46-55. 22

46

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

to stay a week and t r y again. Finally, on October 6, several chiefs of the Upper Towns agreed to let the Moravians start a mission station near the house of James V a n n i n Springplace, Georgia. The mission opened i n the spring of 1801, but i t ran i n t o trouble t w o years later w h e n the chiefs dis­ covered that the Moravians had no i n t e n t i o n of opening a school u n t i l t h e y had first converted a group of Cherokee parents to C h r i s t i a n i t y w h o w o u l d agree to come to live at the mission station, start farms, and place their children at a day school t h e r e . 23

M e a n w h i l e Lewis left his post under a cloud early i n 1801. A p p a r e n t l y he had succumbed to the same problem that B l o u n t alleged against Shaw, an addiction to alcohol. A revealing insight i n t o the politics of patronage i n the appointment of Indian agents was provided b y Benjamin H a w k i n s . H e made the statement i n 1802 d u r i n g a talk to the Creek council i n order to explain the difference between John Adams's c o m m i t m e n t to the p o l ­ icy of I n d i a n civilization and that of Thomas Jefferson: The President, M r . Adams, who was the predecessor of the present President, he, although a great man and a good man, began to believe that the experiment for civilization could not be carried into effect; that the plan itself was ideal [but i m ­ practical] . He began to give it up by withdrawing his confidence from those en­ trusted with its execution. Your enemies [the frontier whites] by misrepresenta­ tion, induced him to turn out M r . Dinsmoor, one of the best men in the Indian department—sober, prudent and very attentive to the duties of his appoint­ ment—and to replace him by quite another sort of man—one, as the Cherokees informed you and me, more attentive to his bottle and woman than to their i n ­ terest. And serious attempts were made to lessen my standing with him . . . be­ cause I was an enemy to those speculative [i.e., land speculation] views of your enemies. In this state of things, M r . Jefferson came into office. . . . He has kept me i n ; he has re-animated the plan for bettering your condition; he placed Colo­ nel Meigs, an honest and estimable man, among the Cherokees; he has sought for and sent Mr. Dinsmoor to the Choctaws. 24

R e t u r n J. Meigs, a Connecticut veteran of the R e v o l u t i o n and ardent Jeffersonian, became the federal Cherokee agent i n June 1801, w h e n he was sixty-one years old. Honest and efficient, he remained i n that post u n t i l his death at eighty-three i n 1823. Meigs found the Cherokees still i n considerable disarray and still suffering f r o m the problems of v i o l e n t w h i t e intruders, murderous brawls, bloody retaliations, and constant horse stealing. Like previous agents, Meigs discovered that m u c h of their William G. McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, 1789-1839 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 13-53, and Edmund Schwarze, History of the Moravian Mis­ sions among the Southern Indian Tribes of the United States (Bethlehem, Penn.: Times Publishing Co., 1923), pp. 43-55. A S P i , 677. 2 3

2 4

47

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

difficulty derived f r o m the hostility of whites on the Cherokee borders. The frontiersmen did not want the Cherokees to remain where they were and become integrated; they considered Indians incapable of rising to equal citizenship. The Cherokees found that they were held i n such l o w esteem by most frontier whites that they began to doubt whether there was any hope for peaceful coexistence w i t h such people. I n particular, the program for civilizing and educating the Indians annoyed the westerners; they feared that once the Indians became farmers, they w o u l d never get r i d of t h e m . "There are some [whitesJ/' Meigs said, " t h a t w o u l d not spend a dollar towards their i m p r o v e m e n t . " 23

The hatred frontier whites had developed for the Indians d u r i n g the war years was n o w tinged w i t h contempt. The frontiersmen considered the Indians to be either simple, backward, ignorant, and lazy or else u n ­ t r u s t w o r t h y , w i l y , volatile, and thieving. A drunken Indian was consid­ ered prone to violence and a poor Indian prone to l y i n g , begging, and stealing. M a n y eastern visitors noted that frontier whites t h o u g h t of I n ­ dians as little better than animals and were as ready to r i d the c o u n t r y of t h e m as they were to wipe out bears and wolves. The terms " b a r b a r i a n / ' "savage," and "heathen," were meant to convey the opposite of civilized, Christian, and rational. One early missionary noted : " M y residence and extensive acquaintance i n Tennessee has given me an o p p o r t u n i t y to con­ verse much respecting the Indians, and I hope to remove some of the prej­ udices against t h e m . But y o u cannot conceive the state of feelings [against t h e m ] even among professors [of r e l i g i o n ] . " He also wrote : " T h e sentiment v e r y generally prevails among the w h i t e people near the southern tribes . . . that the Indian is by nature radically different f r o m all other m e n and that his difference presents an insurmountable barrier to his c i v i l i z a t i o n . " 26

27

If the frontiersmen considered Indians scarcely h u m a n , m a n y Chero­ kees concluded f r o m their experience that the w h i t e frontiersmen were the offscouring of the h u m a n race. M a n y of t h e m accepted the view that the t w o races were never meant to intermingle. " M a n y of the Chero­ kees," Meigs discovered, " t h i n k that they are not derived f r o m the same stock as whites, that they are favorites of the great spirit, and that he never intended they should live the laborious lives of w h i t e s . " Meigs believed that Indians were potentially capable of civilization, i f o n l y they 28

Return J. Meigs to Valentine Geiger, June 6, 1806, M-208. Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, November 28, 1916, Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Hereafter abbreviated as A B C F M . Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, July 3, 1818, A B C F M . Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13, 1805, M-208. 25

2 6

2 7 2 8

48

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D R E S T R U C T U R I N G

could overcome their inveterate dislike of the hard labor involved i n sub­ sistence f a r m i n g ; he responded to their polygenetic concept of the sepa­ rate creations of different colors of people b y n o t i n g that "these ideas, i f allowed to have practical effect, w o u l d undoubtedly finally opperate [to] their e x t i n c t i o n . " He considered i t his d u t y to rescue the Cherokees f r o m their l o w opinion of themselves, to convince t h e m that they were capable of achieving all that whites could achieve, and thereby to persuade the frontier whites that Indians deserved respect, assistance, encourage­ ment, and equal citizenship. This proved to be a far more difficult task than he anticipated i n 1801. 29

The i n a b i l i t y of the Cherokees to control either the murderous friction between whites and Indians or horse stealing was a significant part of their social and cultural confusion. Both Cherokees and whites were g u i l t y of violent behavior w h e n they met, but as the French traveler, the Duke de LaRochefoucauld, noted after t o u r i n g the southern frontier i n the 1790s, " a l t h o u g h these people [the southeastern Indians] are held i n aversion and endeavours are made to drive t h e m beyond the Mississippi, yet i t is allowed on all hands that i n the continual quarrels w h i c h t h e y have w i t h the people on the boundaries, the latter are i n the w r o n g four times out of f i v e . " Furthermore, despite their efforts, the Cherokee chiefs were unable to stamp out the age-old practice of clan retaliation. U l t i m a t e l y , Meigs had to develop his o w n solutions to the issue; he was forced to an alternative because he was unable to procure justice for the Cherokees i n the frontier courts. 30

The problem of w h i t e aggression and Cherokee retaliation was com­ plex, and at the t u r n of the century the Cherokees felt angry, frustrated, and desolate about i t . The problem can best be described i n terms of four m u r d e r cases that Meigs had to cope w i t h i n 1802. The first took place o n A p r i l 21 i n the Tennessee region of the Cherokee border. T w o w h i t e horse thieves named Richmond and I r w i n tried to take a horse f r o m a Cherokee t h o u g h they had no claim to i t . The Cherokee resisted. The whites, according to Meigs's i n f o r m a t i o n , put " t w o bullets t h r o ' his head" and took the horse. Colonel H e n r y M c K i n n e y of Tennessee, w h o investigated this affair for the W a r Department, wrote that there was no doubt that "the k i l l i n g [of] the Indian was a W a n t o n , unprovoked m u r ­ der." The whites i n the v i c i n i t y were " m u c h alarmed" by the act " a n d some of t h e m are m o v i n g a w a y " for fear of Cherokee retaliation b y the clansmen of the murdered Cherokee. Meigs recommended restraint on the part of the Cherokees and tried to have the murderers prosecuted b y Ibid. Quoted in the Papers of John Howard Payne, ix:105, Newberry Library, Chicago. Hereafter abbreviated as Payne Papers. 29

3 0

49

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

Tennessee authorities. He discovered that friends of Richmond and I r w i n were w i l l i n g to swear that the murder was justified because the Indian was r i d i n g a stolen horse. Meigs had evidence that this was not true. A j u r y of inquest was held and reported that "the Indian was m u r d e r e d " and " a l l the circumstances . . . go to prove that Richmond and I r w i n killed the Indian w i t h o u t provocation." Nevertheless, since there were no witnesses, the State of Tennessee w o u l d not proceed w i t h the case. Meigs warned the Secretary of War that if such murderers were not p u n ­ ished, they m i g h t " i n v o l v e us i n the horrors of an Indian war," but the Secretary did not pursue the matter. The Cherokee chiefs had restrained the murdered man's relatives on the false hope that Meigs could obtain punishment of the murderers by the w h i t e man's c o u r t s . 31

32

The second incident took place a m o n t h later, i n M a y 1802, on the Georgia border of the Cherokee N a t i o n . Here, the agent learned f r o m James V a n n , "an Indian, happening to come into the Settlements . . . i n a drunken frolic, came to a Plantation where he behaved shockingly. I n his Rage he t h r e w a child into the fire but happily the Child crawled out and is l i k e l y to do well. A y o u n g w o m a n , w h o happened i n his w a y , he killed w i t h a M a t t u c k , splitting t h e r e w i t h her face f r o m the forehead to the chin. . . . the M a n of the House . . . took his G u n , loaded her w i t h Nails, for wants of Bullets, and shot the Indian dead." Vann, the most influential Cherokee chief l i v i n g i n this v i c i n i t y told Meigs, "the Indian certainly got what he deserved for his h o r r i d deed," but he could not promise that there w o u l d be no clan revenge nor could he help expressing fear that the incident w o u l d "breed further t r o u b l e " among the whites, w h o m i g h t be goaded to additional retaliation against the Cherokees. 33

T w o months after this, on July 2, a Cherokee named " T h e Goose" (or S a m m y Goose) was killed i n Tennessee by Barefoot R u n i o n , a w h i t e man. R u n i o n said the k i l l i n g was an accident, and the chiefs i n the council ac­ cepted his story. To avoid trouble, another council held i n A u g u s t " w r o t e o f f " the death and forbade Goose's clan relations to take revenge. Never­ theless, Ca-tah-coo-kee (or D i r t Bottle), his uncle, believed that Goose's spirit required vengeance. W i t h four or five other kinsmen, Ca-tah-cookee went to Sevier C o u n t y , where Runion lived, and on September 8 killed Runion's son Travenor w i t h a tomahawk. A w o m a n of the f a m i l y was also killed i n the fray. The whites i n the v i c i n i t y were " m u c h alarmed," Meigs reported, not k n o w i n g w h o else m i g h t be caught i n this Captain Sampson Williams to Governor Archibald Roane, May 9,1802, M-208; Colo­ nel Henry McKinney to Governor Archibald Roane, May 14,1802, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 6, 1802, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 19,1802, M-208. James Vann to Return J. Meigs, May 3, 1802, M-208. 31

3 2 33

50

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

feud. Some of t h e m wished to gather a posse and go after Ca-tah-coo-kee and his companions. One of t h e m wrote to Meigs that " i f the U n i t e d States is B o u n d to keep up the Cherokee N a t i o n i n an A n n u a l Salary [an­ n u i t y ] , those w h o were the A v o w e d Enemies of the United States i n their Struggle for Independence, and Good Citizens w h o have Suffered i n the Defence of their Right and their C o u n t r y , M u s t N o w S u b m i t to the Laws of that N a t i o n , I mean the Cherokee N a t i o n , Executed on t h e m [blood re­ venge] w i t h I m p u n i t y , " then matters had come to a dangerous pass. W h e n Ca-tah-coo-kee returned home, the council, under prodding f r o m Meigs, agreed to arrest h i m and t u r n h i m over to the w h i t e authorities i n Tennessee. However, fearing that a l y n c h mob m i g h t hang h i m , the council insisted that he be placed i n the United States a r m y garrison jail i n Hiwassee u n t i l his t r i a l . W h e n the trial took place, Ca-tah-coo-kee ex­ plained his position i n terms of the tradition of clan retaliation, but the court took no cognizance of i t , and he was hanged. The f o u r t h case that year took place i n N o r t h Carolina i n September, w h e n a group of Cherokees took vengeance upon the son of a w h i t e m a n who had murdered a member of their clan. This t i m e the council refused to give up the murderer. As they told the agent, "the number of t h e i r people that have been killed by whites and for w h i c h no punishment has ever taken place" was n o w so large that the burden rested upon the w h i t e authorities and the War Department to fulfill its side of the treaty stipu­ lation before i t asked the Cherokees to execute another of their o w n peo­ ple. A l t h o u g h the Cherokee council easily identified and apprehended its murderers, the council could see no evidence that the whites ever p u n ­ ished one of their o w n m u r d e r e r s . Meigs had to report frankly to the Secretary of War that their observation was correct. Two years later, Meigs wrote to Governor John Sevier of Tennessee 34

35

36

Colonel Samuel Wear to Return J. Meigs, September 27, 1802, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Davis, July 27, 1802, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Colonel Samuel Wear, September 21,1802, M-208; Colonel Samuel Wear to Return J. Meigs, Sep­ tember 27, 1802, M-208; Cherokee Council to Return J. Meigs, November 17, 1802, M 208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, October 5,1802, M-208. Meigs reported that the white man had killed the Indian on July 27 in Tennessee and the chiefs had tried to hold back his relatives from clan revenge, but when no legal action was taken against the murderer by September 8, "a small party of Indians watched the House of the Whiteman who had killed the Indian, with a view to kill him, but not finding him, they killed his son, a young man about sixteen years old. It has been with difficulty the white people in that quarter were restrained from going against the Indians. Gov. Roane has exerted himself to keep peace/' Meigs said he would ask the Council to turn over the murderer. See reply of the Cherokee Council to Return J. Meigs, April 20, 1803, M-208. In December 1802 Meigs looked into the murder of a Cherokee supposedly killed by a white man, only to find that he was killed by another Indian; see "Examination into the death of an Indian," December 22,1802, M 208. 34

35

36

51

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N

G

that there had been additional murders of Cherokees by whites but that so far, d u r i n g his five years among the Cherokees, he had not been able to obtain the punishment of a single w h i t e man for the murder of an I n ­ d i a n . The Cherokees blamed the federal government for this. Several years later the chiefs complained, Meigs reported, that " t h e y have eight lives standing against us; their language is that we owe t h e m eight lives. This I have no doubt is true. But as no proof but that of Indians can be adduced, the murderers could not be convicted and never w i l l . " 37

3 8

The reason for this state of affairs was obvious. Even w h e n a w h i t e murderer was brought to t r i a l , w h i t e juries w o u l d not convict one of their neighbors of k i l l i n g an Indian. I n 1813, Colonel Meigs prosecuted four separate cases against whites for the murder of Cherokees; " a l l , " he re­ ported, "failed of producing p u n i s h m e n t . " A second reason preventing the conviction of whites was that western and southern state courts w o u l d not allow Indians to testify as witnesses. " T h e state of the Indians is a deplorable one i n this respect," Meigs said i n 1812. " W e arraign t h e m as m o r a l agents, charge t h e m w i t h crimes that cannot be committed w i t h o u t including an idea that they are, like ourselves [ m o r a l l y responsible], at the same t i m e , we exclude them f r o m all the advantages of beings capable of m o r a l or religious conceptions; their testimony on oath is not admissable." The Cherokee agent gave credit to the judges for t r y i n g to be fair, but t h e y had no choice i n the matter: 39

40

It is a fact that they [Indians] cannot have justice done to them in the courts of law. The judges are just and l i b e r a l . . . as far as related to distributive justice, and would deal out rewards and punishments to all men without being influenced by the accidental difference of the colour of the skin, but a jury impaneled in the frontier Counties dare not bring in a Verdict to take the life of a citizen for Killing an Indian. The Indians are . . . condemned and executed on the testimony of any white citizen of common character and understanding when at the same time a white man can kill an Indian in the presence of 1 0 0 Indians and the testimony of these hundred Indians to the fact amounts to nothing and the man will be acquit­ ted. 41

Long before this, the Secretary of War had proposed a solution that i n ­ dicated the tendency of the government to reduce all conflicts to m o n ­ etary terms. I n 1802, fearing that the Cherokees w o u l d use the failure of w h i t e courts to uphold A r t i c l e 8 of the Treaty of H o l s t o n as an excuse for Return J. Meigs to John Sevier, February 23, 1804, M-208. Meigs's memorandum listing eight deaths of Cherokees for which no murderer had been tried, March 19,1812, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Governor Willie Blount, February 11, 1813, M-208. Return J. Meigs, memorandum, March 19, 1812, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, April 6,1812, M-208. 37 38

39 40

41

52

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D R E S T R U C T U R I N G

not m a k i n g further cessions of land and rights of w a y desired b y the gov­ ernment, Secretary of W a r H e n r y Dearborn proposed to all Indian agents among the southeastern Indians that they "endeavor to settle the dis­ putes" b y other means such as a "pecuniary compensation" to be paid to " t h e f a m i l y or friends of the deceased." I t was left to the agents to set "such pecuniary satisfaction as i n y o u r judgment may be acceptable and proper." Dearborn suggested that a figure of " f r o m one hundred to t w o hundred dollars for each m a n or w o m a n actually murdered by w h i t e cit­ izens" ought to suffice. O f course, the Indians were told that "the com­ pensation is not intended to operate as an acquittal of the murderers," and the agents were to continue to t r y to prosecute t h e m . 42

4 3

W h e n the Cherokee agent first suggested this option to the chiefs, t h e y spurned i t . They were not interested i n financial compensation; t h e y wished the whites to indicate respect for Indians, and they expected the federal government to uphold its treaty obligations and to deal j u s t l y w i t h t h e m . A f t e r repeated failures to obtain justice, and fearing that the clans m i g h t continue to insist on their o w n f o r m of revenge, the chiefs finally gave i n . After 1803 murders were paid for at the rate of $100 to $200 each. The Cherokees continued to keep a strict account of the w h i t e s ' lives " o w e d to t h e m , " because the unavenged spirits of the murdered Chero­ kees were not at rest. The clan relatives accepted the government pay­ ments but felt very uneasy about i t . M a n y Cherokees held their chiefs to blame for their i n a b i l i t y to force compliance w i t h treaty guarantees i n this respect. Others s i m p l y became angry and resentful over the failure of their efforts to cooperate w i t h w h i t e officials. 4 4

M u r d e r was o n l y the most egregious f o r m of abuse of Cherokees b y whites. The agents were constantly being i n f o r m e d of assaults, stabbings, thefts, frauds, and breaches of contract. Unable to obtain legal redress for any of these civil claims i n the state courts, the W a r Department itself had to pick up the b i l l i n order to m o l l i f y the Indians. W h e n the department began to complain of the enormous sums required for this purpose every year, the Cherokee agent provided documentary evidence of the cases. The nature of these kinds of claims cannot be equitably determined by strictly adhering to the law of evidence. The Indians can't give legal testimony and by means of this disability the whites have an advantage; but by attending carefully Henry Dearborn to Silas Dinsmoor, May 18,1802, M-15, reel 1, p. 213; Henry Dear­ born to Return J. Meigs, May 30,1803, M-208. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, May 30,1803, M-208; Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, May 30,1803, M-15, reel 1, p. 352; Henry Dearborn to Silas Dinsmoor, January 7,1804, M-15, reel 1, p. 417. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, April 22, 1805, M-208. See also reply of Council to Return J. Meigs, April 20, 1803, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 4, 1803, M-208. 4 2

4 3

4 4

53

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

to all the circumstances and to the character of the parties, justice can be done to the claimant, for altho' the claims may be just, the parties, especially the Indians, cannot support their rights and some characters of each party cannot be credited; but by care here we can, with few exceptions, make equitable decisions. 45

I n effect, the Indians had to depend upon the skill and fairness of the federal agents to "support their r i g h t s , " and hope that the W a r Depart­ m e n t w o u l d honor his judgments. The agent was their judge and j u r y , their o n l y source of justice. O n the other hand, the department was v e r y strict i n its insistence that the claims of whites against Cherokees should be paid out of Indian annuities. The agent was thus also judge and j u r y for w h i t e claimants against Cherokees w h o did not pay debts, c o m m i t t e d thefts, committed injuries, or failed to fulfill contracts. Just as the U n i t e d States Treasury bore the penalties for individual injustices b y whites t o ­ ward Indians on the frontier, so the Cherokees' treasury bore the penal­ ties for the individual crimes of their citizens toward whites. I t was h a r d l y a w a y to teach the Cherokees the American belief i n individual responsi­ b i l i t y and self-reliance. Furthermore, the necessity of r e l y i n g upon the good w i l l of the agent to redress their grievances and disputes w i t h whites did little to build up their sense of s elf-worth. Prior to their defeat i n bat­ tle, the Cherokees had been a proud and independent people. N o w they were reduced to the status of children asking their parents for help. Their council was powerless to render order or justice against whites. A g e n t Meigs tried to explain to a friend w h y , after all the government was t r y i n g to do to raise up the Indians, they still harbored "prejudices" against whites: " I t does not arise from pride, as our [prejudices against them] do; i t arises i n the Indian from his humble conception of himself and of his fate f r o m the discovery he makes that we look down on h i m as an inferior race of beings." The agent did not mean simple racial prej­ udice; he meant that whites considered the Indian to be incompetent to fend for himself. The Indian was treated as a w o m a n , a child, a ward, or a mental incompetent under w h i t e civil and criminal law of the t i m e . 46

I n addition, the Cherokees were well aware of the racial component to this treatment. I n the southern states the o n l y other "race of beings" placed i n a similar childlike, dependent position vis-à-vis whites was the African. To m a n y southeastern whites, the Indian was "a red nigger." Even the most distinguished leaders of the Cherokee tribe, m e n of wealth and respect (some of t h e m w i t h w h i t e ancestry) among their o w n people, were subject to continual indignities when they faced w h i t e men. Chief Richard B r o w n , son of a w h i t e trader and a Cherokee w o m a n , was head45 46

Return J. Meigs to Jenkin Whiteside, February 22, 1810, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Samuel Trott, August 3, 1817, M-208.

54

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

m a n i n his t o w n and a leading figure i n Cherokee affairs. One day, he and some friends were searching for a stolen horse along the western border of the nation i n w h a t is n o w Alabama but was then part of Mississippi T e r r i t o r y . They found the horse i n the possession of a w h i t e m a n , but he w o u l d not r e t u r n i t to t h e m . U n w i l l i n g to resort to force, B r o w n w r o t e to the agent for help: " W e have found a horse belonging to an Indian near Dittoes Landing or near H u n t s v i l l e . We cannot recover h i m w i t h o u t aid. The oath of an Indian is not k n o w n by y o u r laws. Decide i n some w a y to give us our r i g h t . A r e we considered as negroes w h o cannot support our c l a i m s ? " The situation was galling to B r o w n , w h o owned black slaves himself. W h e r e was the Indian to fit i n this evolving social order ? 47

As the younger Indians came of age and saw their chiefs, grandparents, parents, and friends continually abused and cheated, they sought ways to express their anger. There was a direct relationship between the loss of Indian self-esteem after 1794 and the rise of horse stealing, cattle rus­ t l i n g , and other forms of c r i m i n a l activity. The most satisfying w a y to "get even" w i t h the whites was to steal their property. This not o n l y sat­ isfied vengeance but brought quick profits. M o r e i m p o r t a n t , i t was a sur­ rogate for war. I t required m a n y of the same skills—daring, courage, selfdiscipline, planning, endurance. I t also produced a sense of a camaraderie and l o y a l t y among those w h o took dangerous risks together. Horse steal­ i n g was a group enterprise and the gangs that engaged i n i t regularly were k n o w n as " p o n y clubs." They had their o w n chiefs, their o w n rules, their o w n professional code and secrets. O u t of the chaos of their old system, these m e n created a different sort of organization and discipline. Success i n these activities brought back a sense of self-respect and perhaps even w o n the respect of other angry Cherokees. The excuse for stealing was made very clearly: " T h e Indians steal horses f r o m the w h i t e people and the white people steal their land; this is their w a y of expressing i t , " Meigs said. Located on the frontier, where horses often served as money, i t was not hard to dispose of stolen horses; the thieves w o u l d take t h e m f r o m Georgia settlers on their eastern boundaries, r u n t h e m t h r o u g h the nation, and sell t h e m i n Alabama or Tennessee on their western boundary. The agent told the Secretary of W a r i n 1807: " T h e number of horses carried t h r o ' and i n t o this c o u n t r y is almost incredible—from Georgia, both the Carolinas, and K e n t u c k y . " He then explained the economic reasons for this. " A considerable part of the land purchased in this country [the w h i t e frontier] is paid for i n horses; they serve as a k i n d of currency for this purpose all over this 48

4 7 4 8

Richard Brown to Return J. Meigs, June 21, 1811, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, February 9,1801, M-208.

55

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D

R E S T R U C T U R I N G

western c o u n t r y and hence arises the facility w i t h which they are stolen b y Indians and o t h e r s / ' I n former times, all Cherokees held stealing of any k i n d i n abhorrence; n o w the chiefs often w i n k e d at i t and a few ac­ cepted some of the profits from it. The prevalence of Indian horse stealing made i t difficult for honest chiefs to complain about whites w h o stole horses f r o m Indians, but because Indian horses were notably t h i n and s t r i n g y , there was more profit for Indian thieves. Proven thefts were costly to the tribal treasury, but m a n y of the younger Cherokees saw no v i r t u e i n a treasury designed to make t h e m into farmers to walk all day behind a plow. The struggle between the lawless thieves and those w h o supported a lighthorse patrol to catch and punish t h e m added to the d i ­ visions w i t h i n the nation i n these years. The agents took the view that horse stealing arose because the h u n t i n g was too poor to support the ablebodied m e n and their families. Their answer to i t was to speed up the process of " c i v i l i z i n g " the hunters. 49

Faced w i t h the pervasive breakdown of law, order, and a u t h o r i t y i n the years 1794 to 1810, the Cherokees had several options. There were some w h o s i m p l y gave up the effort to make any sense of life. These tried to escape b y constant intoxication; they helped to provide the basis for the frontier stereotype of the d r u n k e n Indian and the m y t h that something i n the Indians' physiology made t h e m particularly susceptible to "fire w a t e r . " A second alternative for the frustrated and despondent was to emigrate west, to leave a chaotic cultural order and t r y to start over again far away f r o m the w h i t e man. H o w many Cherokees took this option i t is hard to say; hundreds certainly did so. I n 1782, the first k n o w n e m i ­ grants crossed the Mississippi River to live i n Spanish t e r r i t o r y after re­ ceiving permission from the Spanish governor to settle there. A f t e r 1795 there was a stream of emigration to the part of Spanish t e r r i t o r y that be­ came Arkansas, particularly along the St. Francis River. Later emigrants w e n t four hundred miles up the Arkansas River to Dardanelles Rock. B y 1807, w h e n the federal government decided to encourage Cherokee e m i ­ gration, there were three to four hundred Cherokees l i v i n g i n Arkansas between the Arkansas and W h i t e rivers. This was an area their hunters had come to k n o w w e l l after 1794 as the game diminished i n the east. However, i t was also inhabited b y other tribes, notably the Osages and the Quapaws w h o looked upon the Cherokee emigrants as invaders. A g e n t Meigs reported warfare between the Cherokees and the Osages i n 1805-1807 and President Jefferson did his best to discourage i t . But m a n y 50

A S P i , 265; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 19, 1807, M-208. See Dwight Heath, "Alcohol Use among Northern American Indians," Research Ad­ vances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, vol. 7, ed. Reginald G. Smart et al. (New York: Plenum Press, 1983), pp. 343-95. 4 9

5 0

56

D I S O R I E N T A T I O N

A N D R E S T R U C T U R I N G

Cherokees preferred the traditional activities of h u n t i n g and warfare that t h e y knew w e l l to the uncertain and frustrating life of a farmer. A t h i r d alternative for m a n y Cherokees was to w i t h d r a w to the most remote regions of the Cherokee N a t i o n , the h i g h hills and hidden valleys of the Great S m o k y M o u n t a i n s of western N o r t h Carolina. Others w i t h d r e w to the southern part of the nation on the border shared w i t h the Creeks, where they seldom saw whites. I n the Great Smokies life was dif­ ficult, b u t here the old customs could be continued, English was seldom spoken, and the festivals of the changing agricultural seasons were h o n ­ ored. There was a tendency among those w h o moved to these o u t l y i n g areas of the nation to believe i n the m y t h of racial separatism. The Great Spirit had not meant the red m a n to adopt the w h i t e man's ways and cease to be a Cherokee. I n these areas, the Cherokees adopted f r o m w h i t e cul­ ture o n l y the m i n i m u m they needed to survive. A b o u t three thousand Cherokees lived i n the Great Smokies after 1794, i n the area k n o w n as the O v e r h i l l or Valley Towns. A n o t h e r three thousand lived i n the Lower T o w n area near the Creeks and Chickasaws and along the Etowah River. The federal agent took l i t t l e interest i n these areas. He preferred to deal w i t h those of m i x e d ancestry w h o spoke Eng­ lish and w h o offered a convenient bridge between the old ways and the new. The federal agency (or agent's headquarters) and the government factory were located u n t i l 1807 i n the extreme northwestern t i p of the na­ t i o n at Southwest Point, Tennessee, along the Cumberland Road. I t was an area where contact w i t h whites was constant; the federal agent and the factor felt more secure here. The a r m y garrison was located at Tellico Blockhouse o n l y a few miles to the east. I n the years 1794 to 1810, rigid boundaries and d i m i n i s h i n g freedom h e m m e d i n the Cherokees, w h i l e internal divisions prevented u n i t y . For the m a j o r i t y , none of the three forms of w i t h d r a w a l seemed appropriate. To end their confusion they had to find ways to accommodate old t r a d i ­ tions to new circumstances. They had to keep what was i m p o r t a n t f r o m their heritage and yet graft onto i t those aspects of the government's civ­ ilization program that w o u l d b r i n g order to their lives and a new k i n d of economic and political security. But what parts of the older order could and should be held on to and w h a t should be abandoned? T h o u g h desper­ ately i n need of social and political reintegration, the Cherokees found the federal Indian policy too alien. I t had no roots i n their culture or experi­ ence. I n essence, i t demanded obliteration of their past. To preserve their coherence and i d e n t i t y as a people the Cherokees w o u l d have to find their o w n w a y out of disorder, their o w n leaders, and their o w n w i l l to survive as a people.

57

T H R E E

STARTING FARMS A N D DEBATING THE A U G U S T A - N A S H V I L L E ROAD,

1799-1804

To fix the precise point where Barbarity terminates and when Civili­ zation begins is perhaps impossible. But without the Knowledge of till­ ers [of the soil] civilization can hardly be said to exist. —Agent Return ]. Meigs to the Cherokees, 1803 Additional presents may be made [to certain chiefs] for the purpose, but at all events, we must have a road. —Secretary of War Henry Dear­ born to the Cherokee agent, 1803

B

y 1800 the federal government's paternalistic Indian policy was w e l l under way. I t was helping the Cherokees to become farmers w i t h one hand and arranging for t h e m to give up their old h u n t i n g ground w i t h the other. The Cherokees were dubious about both aspects of this program. The relentless quest of the federal government to obtain Cherokee land required a united response, but the Cherokees were as divided i n their at­ titude toward land cessions as they were i n their response to becoming farmers. The regional division between the Upper and Lower Towns be­ came more pronounced. The Lower Towns tended to dominate tribal af­ fairs. Theirs was the region south of the Hiwassee River along the Ten­ nessee River; their towns stretched from the Conasauga and Ustanali (Oostanaulah) rivers i n western Georgia, across Lookout M o u n t a i n , to the western edge of what became Alabama (where the Cherokee N a t i o n bordered on the Chickasaw Nation) and from the Hiwassee River south to the n o r t h e r n border of the Creek Nation. Popular support was stronger for the war chiefs of the Lower Towns (also called the Chickamauga or River Towns) because of their stubborn defense of the nation up u n t i l 1794, but these chiefs seemed to have no clear policy. M o s t of t h e m en­ couraged the nation to continue h u n t i n g and the fur trade economy; a few of the most influential, however, had concluded by 1800 that this was no longer feasible. The Upper Towns were themselves politically divided. Those l i v i n g i n 58

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

the Great S m o k y M o u n t a i n s of N o r t h Carolina, along the headwaters of the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee rivers (sometimes called the O v e r h i l l Towns) were among the most conservative i n the nation. Their land was not suited to intensive or staple-crop f a r m i n g and their isolation allowed t h e m to sustain their old ways w i t h less interference f r o m whites. The part of the Upper Towns located i n northwestern Georgia between the Chattahoochee and Connesauga rivers was filled w i t h Cherokees w h o had been forced out of towns further east w h e n their land was ceded to the states of South Carolina and Georgia. These uprooted people were con­ fused, disorganized, and discouraged; their chiefs had little influence i n council. The leadership of the Upper Towns rested w i t h chiefs located i n eastern Tennessee, n o r t h of the Hiwassee River. The towns here were among the oldest and most venerable i n the nation, but they were also i n closest contact w i t h the whites. The chiefs i n this area lacked the prestige of those i n the Lower Towns because of their early capitulation to the whites i n 1777 and their reluctance to fight afterward. I t proved easy for the federal agent to follow a policy of divide and conquer among these various regional factions and he generally found the Lower T o w n chiefs more pliable. Flattery, gifts, bribes (called "inducements" by officials i n W a s h i n g ­ t o n ) , and favors (such as extended credit at the federal trading post) gave the agent i m p o r t a n t tools for w i n n i n g support for land cessions or road rights. The Cherokees, accustomed to a system of decentralized t o w n government and t r a d i t i o n a l l y committed to consensus decision m a k i n g , were ill-equipped to stand up to the federal pressures for immediate ac­ t i o n . The agent pressed for a system of m a j o r i t y rule, arguing that the chiefs i n council were delegated to act for the nation. The Cherokees had always believed that neither individuals nor towns were necessarily bound b y actions of tribal councils. Furthermore, councils were supposed to act openly, i n the presence of all the people; a general acquiescence was required to cede tribal land. The federal government, however, insisted upon quick and b i n d i n g decisions. Between 1794 and 1810 the Cherokees had to w o r k out a new political and economic system to cope w i t h their precarious situation. Tradition was inadequate to their exigencies. A l t h o u g h the Cherokee N a t i o n was ostensibly u n i t e d after 1794 under Little T u r k e y (and, after his death i n 1802, under Black Fox), the major decisions for Cherokee affairs were at first made by a small group of Lower T o w n war chiefs w i t h w h o m Little Turkey and Black Fox were as­ sociated. The Lower T o w n chiefs had not o n l y earned the respect of the average Cherokee but of the U n i t e d States as well. They had also gained the attention of federal authorities because of their strategic location i n the western and southern parts of the nation. Here, allied w i t h the 59

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

Creeks, they had access to Spanish, British, and French agents. Predom­ i n a n t l y full bloods of great shrewdness and tenacity, the Lower T o w n w a r r i o r chiefs were led by John Watts u n t i l his death i n 1802, b u t essen­ t i a l l y t h e y acted as an oligarchy that included chiefs Doublehead, Bloody Fellow, Little T u r k e y , W i l l Elders, The Glass, Dick Justice, O l d Cabin, Turtle at H o m e , Pathkiller, Kategiskee, Tolluntuskee, Tuskegitehee, Black Fox, and Young Watts. W i t h t h e m were allied several influential whites (British agents or Loyalists) w h o had m a r r i e d i n t o the n a t i o n , fought against the colonists, and provided links w i t h British and Spanish traders : John D . C h i s h o l m and John Rogers (who had conspired w i t h Governor W i l l i a m Blount) and John M c D o n a l d , John Walker, W i l l i a m Thorp, and Daniel Ross (Loyalists w h o had little allegiance to the new A m e r i c a n nation but w h o wished to protect the wealth they had acquired t h r o u g h trade). The Cherokees were convinced that under the leadership of the Lower T o w n chiefs the nation could expect stout resistance to w h i t e pressures for land casions and f i r m insistence upon Cherokee treaty rights and self-gove tment. I n this they proved mistaken. Because of the importance of the Lower T o w n region, Governor B l o u n t had been annoyed w h e n Leonard Shaw decided to settle at the t o w n of Ustanali (east of the Oostanaulah River), where the Upper Towns held their regional councils. B l o u n t wanted Shaw to settle i n W i l l s t o w n near the western end of Lookout M o u n t a i n , site of the regional councils of the Lower Towns. I n 1801, Return J. Meigs gave a large A m e r i c a n flag to the Lower T o w n chiefs to f l y over their council house i n W i l l s t o w n . Meigs regularly attended the Lower T o w n councils and assigned his assistant, M a j o r W i l l i a m S. Lovely, to attend the Upper T o w n councils. O n l y later did Meigs agree to provide an American flag to the Ustanali council house. He told the Secretary of W a r that W i l l s t o w n was the most i m p o r ­ tant t o w n i n the nation, and he directed the bulk of the government's eco­ nomic and technical assistance to this region. The Upper T o w n chiefs, es­ pecially those i n the O v e r h i l l Towns or Valley Towns of N o r t h Carolina (who seldom attended councils at Ustanali or W i l l s t o w n because they had their o w n regional councils), u l t i m a t e l y complained to President Jeffer­ son about Meigs's favoritism toward the Lower T o w n s . 1

I n 1794, Doublehead, w h o had been chosen "Speaker" for the n a t i o n , made a favorable impression upon the Cherokees b y personally confront­ i n g President W a s h i n g t o n i n Philadelphia. Speaking, he said, w i t h " t h e voice of the whole n a t i o n , " Doublehead protested that the annual pay­ m e n t of $1,500 that the federal government had granted to the Cherokees i n 1792 was too small a consideration for the large cession of land they 1

Mooney, Historical Sketch, pp. 72-73.

60

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

had yielded i n 1791 to appease Governor Blount and the frontier whites i n eastern Tennessee: " T h e land is v e r y valuable to the U n i t e d States," Doublehead told W a s h i n g t o n , and the needs of the Cherokees to rehabil­ itate t h e i r c o u n t r y , n o w that peace was at hand, were v e r y great. W a s h ­ i n g t o n and Secretary of War H e n r y Knox, eager to placate the Lower T o w n warriors and secure lasting peace, agreed to raise the Cherokee an­ n u i t y to $5,000 a year. I n addition, they p e r m i t t e d Doublehead to pick out $2,000 w o r t h of trade goods w h i l e he was i n Philadelphia, w h i c h he took back w i t h h i m . A n a r m y escort was provided for his t r i u m p h a l re­ t u r n . A chief of such boldness and self-assurance seemed w e l l suited to speak for the nation i n its years of readjustment. As i t t u r n e d out, D o u ­ blehead used his influence p r i m a r i l y to aid the Lower Towns. 2

T w o years earlier another Lower T o w n chief, Eskaqua (Bloody Fellow), had gone to Philadelphia to r e m i n d the President that i n the treaty of 1791 the Cherokees had been promised economic assistance for their i m ­ provement: " T h e treaty mentions ploughs, horses, cattle and other things for a f a r m ; this is w h a t we want. Game is going fast away f r o m us. W e m u s t plant corn and raise cattle, and we desire y o u to assist us. . . . W e w i s h y o u to attend to this point. I n former times we bought of the trader's goods cheap; we could then clothe our w o m e n and C h i l d r e n ; b u t n o w game is scarce and good dear; we cannot live comfortably. W e desire the U n i t e d States to regulate this m a t t e r . " Congress voted to provide sufficient funds for such economic assistance i n 1792. 3

A l t h o u g h Bloody Fellow, Doublehead, and Little T u r k e y seemed eager to promote a new system of f a r m i n g and "domestic manufactures," the Cherokee N a t i o n as a whole was still hoping to m a i n t a i n the fur trade as the basis of its economy. W h e n Benjamin H a w k i n s came to the n a t i o n i n 1796, he found few Cherokees engaged i n f a r m i n g and most of these were of m i x e d white-and-Cherokee ancestry. W h e n Silas D i n s m o o r first broached the total abandonment of h u n t i n g to the national council i n 1796 and suggested self-subsistent f a r m i n g , "he was u n a n i m o u s l y laughed at b y the Council for attempting to introduce w h i t e people's hab­ its among the Indians w h o were created to pursue the chase." Neverthe­ less, D i n s m o o r persisted i n this a i m as did his successors, Thomas Lewis and R e t u r n J. Meigs. The transition proved far more difficult t h a n ex­ pected. Ten years after the peace of 1794, every able-bodied Cherokee still spent the w i n t e r i n the h u n t i n g g r o u n d w h i l e every spring the w o m e n i n the towns did the p l a n t i n g . B u t , as Eskaqua recognized, h u n t i n g was y i e l d i n g smaller and smaller results each year. I n 1801, The Badger's Son 4

2 3 4

Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 44. Malone, Cherokees of the Old South, p. 51. John Ridge to Albert Gallatin, Payne Papers, vm:113.

61

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

complained to Meigs that w h i t e hunters were destroying their game and robbing their traps i n Tennessee. Meigs told the War Department that Cherokee hunters i n Tennessee had been reduced to catching o n l y small game—"raccoons, foxes and wildcats"—for whose pelts they received just fifty or twenty-five cents. He blamed the rise i n horse stealing upon the poor h u n t i n g and urged the Cherokees to sell their w o r n - o u t h u n t i n g g r o u n d and use the income to b u y livestock and supplies to start farms: " T h a t land is of no use to t h e m [he wrote i n 1805]; there is not a single f a m i l y [living] on i t and the h u n t i n g is poor. Yet those of an idle dispo­ sition spend m u c h t i m e r a m b l i n g there and often r e t u r n w i t h a stolen horse" [ i n order to have something w o r t h selling]. " I n fact," he went on, their old h u n t i n g ground "is o n l y a nursery of savage habits and operates against civilization w h i c h is much impeded by their h o l d i n g such i m ­ mense tracts of wilderness." But i t was o n l y i n part their antipathy to " c i v i l i z a t i o n " and "the w h i t e man's w a y s " that led the Cherokee to cling to h u n t i n g . To become horse-and-plow farmers required skills they did not have, and bad harvests w o u l d put their families i n jeopardy of starv­ ing. 5

6

7

Cherokee men found i t harder than Cherokee w o m e n to t r y new ways. W o m e n were closer to the daily problems of p r o v i d i n g food and clothing for their families. I r o n hoes and mattocks made cultivation easier for t h e m ; brass pots, t i n kettles, sharp knives, and blankets had become ne­ cessities. W h e n the federal agents promised to show the w o m e n h o w to grow, spin, and weave cotton to make the cloth that their husbands' h u n t ­ i n g income could no longer provide, they were w i l l i n g to t r y i t . Cotton g r o w i n g began among the Cherokees i n the 1790s i n those areas w i t h good soil. I t grew readily and the agents provided cotton combs to extract the seeds and card or comb out the fibers. They gave t h e m spinning wheels and looms and hired teachers to show the w o m e n h o w to spin cot­ t o n i n t o thread and to weave cloth. Cherokee w o m e n learned these skills quickly and were enthusiastic about their ability to provide the cloth, and hence clothing, for their families. As hunters lost status as providers, their w o m e n f o l k gained i t . Probably some Cherokees shared the v i e w of the Creek men w h o told Benjamin Hawkins that they objected to his teaching their w o m e n to spin and weave because " i f the w o m e n can clothe themselves they w i l l be proud and not obedient to their husbands." I n a 8

Badger's Son to Return J. Meigs, September 7, 1801, M-208; George of Valley Town to Return J. Meigs, December 4, 1801, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Dearborn, December 7, 1801, M-208. A S P i , 676. Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13,1805, M-208. Pound, Benjamin Hawkins, p. 114. See also Mary E. Young, "Women, Civilization, and The Indian Question," in Clio Was a Woman: Studies in the History of American 5

6

7

8

62

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

m a t r i l i n e a l society the status of w o m e n was already strong, however, and these new skills for w o m e n made i t stronger. Soon the women's demands for cards, combs, wheels, and looms exceeded the ability of the agents to supply t h e m . B y 1801 Meigs reported to the Secretary of W a r : " T h e ap­ plications for wheels, cards and looms, etc. are numerous . . . t h e y raise considerable quantities of C o t t o n for their o w n use. I have not h i t h e r t o been able to supply half the number w h o apply; they say t h e y have Cot­ t o n and cannot w o r k i t for w a n t of wheels, cards, etc." A year later, he reported: " T h e raising and manufacturing of C o t t o n is all done b y Indian W o m e n ; t h e y find their conditions so m u c h bettered b y this i m p r o v e ­ m e n t that t h e y apply for wheels, cards, etc. w i t h great earnestness." T h e y were disappointed that the agent's supplies were so quickly ex­ hausted each y e a r . I n July 1801, he said he had been " i n f o r m e d that there was 32 pieces of C l o t h wove i n Doublehead's T o w n w i t h i n 14 m o n t h s past." I n September he reported that " t h e Bold H u n t e r , a Cher­ okee Chief, has made six Looms for weaving C o t t o n Cloth—has five spin­ ners i n his f a m i l y . . . [who] made n i n e t y yards of C o t t o n C l o t h f r o m C o t t o n of his o w n r a i s i n g . " A s k i n g the Secretary of W a r to increase the q u a n t i t y of tools for the Cherokees, Meigs w r o t e i n 1802: " I have m e n ­ tioned the need for more Wheels and cards than I have done at any other Quarter of the years because the Indians have, almost all of t h e m , C o t t o n i n hand and say they cannot w o r k i t for want of the wheels and cards. . . . It appears to me f r o m the present temper of the Indians that the raising of C o t t o n and sheep and manufacturing of these articles m a y be easily carried to a v e r y considerable extent and thereby civilization even amongst those w h o have been strongly attached to the h u n t i n g l i f e . " 9

10

11

1 2

A story began to circulate at this t i m e about a h u n t e r w h o returned w i t h his small catch one year to discover that his wife and daughters had w o v e n " w i t h so m u c h assiduity as to make more cloth i n value t h a n the Chief's h u n t of six months amounted to. He was astonished, and came to the agent w i t h a smile, accusing h i m for m a k i n g his wife and daughters better hunters [providers] than he and requested to be furnished w i t h a p l o u g h and w e n t to w o r k on his f a r m . " I t was a H o r a t i o A l g e r folk tale designed and promulgated by those i n favor of acculturation to make the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m the old ways to the new seem easier than i t really was. 1 3

Women, ed. Mabel E. Deutrich and Virgina G. Purdy (Washington, D.C.: Howard Uni­ versity Press, 1980), pp. 98-110. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 7,1801, M-208. Return J. Meigs, "Journal," August [no day], 1802, M-208; see also Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, January 1, 1803, M-208. Return J. Meigs, "Journal," July 6,1801, September [no day], 1801, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, January 11,1802, M-208. Payne Papers vni:114. 9

1 0

11 12

13

63

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

A l t h o u g h the federal agents provided sheep to the Cherokees after 1794 to t r y to persuade the w o m e n to spin and weave w o o l , this was never as popular as cotton. Sheep were difficult to care for, t h o u g h some did i t . Gradually Cherokee craftsmen w i t h w o o d w o r k i n g skills began to make looms and spinning wheels to supplement those provided b y the govern­ ment as w e l l as m a k i n g and repairing the wooden parts of plows. For m a n y Cherokee males the transition from h u n t i n g to farming began w i t h raising cattle and horses. W o m e n w h o raised hogs, chickens, geese, and m i l k cows learned at the same t i m e to manufacture cheese and butter f r o m m i l k . H i t h e r t o the Cherokees had taken little interest i n horses and cows. T h e y hunted and fought on foot. Cattle ("the w h i t e man's buf­ falo") were troublesome to keep out of the corn and tiresome to m i l k daily. The Cherokees had learned by 1794 to like pork; hogs could be al­ lowed to r u n w i l d and pork was easier to salt and store than beef. But w h e n the deer became scarce and their carcasses had to be carried long distance, raising horses to carry burdens and cattle for meat and hides be­ came necessary. B y 1800 some Cherokees were regularly taking droves of cattle, hogs, and geese into the w h i t e settlements for sale or barter. Livestock sales provided a cash income to replace the bartering of pelts and skins. Cowhide also served m a n y of the same purposes as deerskin. Beef cattle sold for ten dollars a head ; horses for f o r t y to sixty dollars. " T h e raising of Cattle and m a k i n g of C l o t h , " said Meigs i n 1801, "are their principle objects; they are not fond of expanding their tillage, but i t must increase for their h u n t i n g is fast failing t h e m . " Some of the more enterprising Cherokees, like James Vann, Daniel Ross, Samuel Riley, and W i l l i a m Shorey, w o u l d b u y up cattle from nearby families u n t i l they had a herd large enough to make i t w o r t h d r i v i n g to a large city like Charles­ t o n , Augusta, or Knoxville for sale. These early Cherokee traders were usually whites (married to Cherokee women) or mixed bloods (whose fa­ thers were white) w h o spoke English and were able to barter successfully w i t h whites. 1 4

Cherokee m e n did not rush to "expand their t i l l a g e " b o t h because f a r m i n g was not a role for men and because i t was a new and different w a y of life. For families to leave their towns and move out to start homesteads ran counter to the c o m m u n a l ethic and the village life the Cherokee had always lived. Cherokees were gregarious. The w o m e n worked i n groups; the m e n hunted and waged war together; the whole t o w n joined i n cere­ m o n i a l activities. W h e n the men were not h u n t i n g , they met regularly at the t o w n council house to settle local problems; they repaired their i m ­ plements or prepared for ball plays together. The agents spoke repeatedly 14

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 7,1801, M-208.

64

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

of the " s l o t h f u l habits" or "indolence" of the Indian males, w h o allowed their w o m e n to t o i l i n the hot sun w h i l e they sat i n the shade, t e l l i n g sto­ ries, and l a u g h i n g together w i t h other men. " F r o m the soil t h e y derived a scanty supply of corn, barely enough to furnish t h e m w i t h gah-no-hanah [the staple Indian cornmeal], and this was obtained b y the labor of w o m e n and grey-headed men, for custom w o u l d have i t that i t was dis­ graceful for a y o u n g man to be seen w i t h a hoe i n his h a n d . " P l o w i n g i n the fields, said Meigs i n 1808, "is painful and, i n the idea of most of t h e m , dishonorable." 15

16

It was also risky. Those Cherokee men w h o first decided to brave the o p p r o b r i u m of their peers and become farmers often failed miserably at i t . T h e y had never plowed fields before and they did not k n o w precisely h o w or w h e n to plant i n deep furrows. They did not always choose the r i g h t soil or understand the need to fertilize or rotate crops. Moreover, i t was expensive to b u y good p l o w horses, a harness, and horsecollars, to b u i l d a stable, and to pay for constant horseshoeing. The federal govern­ ment t r i e d to provide plows and to hire blacksmiths to w o r k here and there i n the nation but, as w i t h spinning wheels, looms, spinners, and weavers, i t could not supply enough of t h e m . The government d i d not supply experienced farmers to teach the science of f a r m i n g ; this was sup­ posed to come naturally—just plow, plant, cultivate, and harvest. B u t i t was not so simple. L i g h t plows required o n l y one horse; heavier plows required t w o . The plows donated b y the government were l i g h t plows w i t h an i r o n m o l d board attached to the wooden plowshare. O n l y a blacksmith could repair or replace the m o l d b o a r d . Insecure about their ability to be competent farmers but confident of their skill as hunters, Cherokee m e n hoped that better hoes and mattocks w o u l d enable their wives to improve their gar­ den plots w h i l e they continued to provide furs and hides to barter for other necessities. Self-subsistent farmers needed m a n y skills that the Cherokees had yet to learn. Even i f a crop of corn yielded a surplus, i t was not easy to find a market i n w h i c h to sell i t or to calculate the r i g h t market price for i t . 17

O b t a i n i n g farmland, however, was no problem. Under the system of t r i b a l ownership of the land any tract not occupied was available to any Cherokee (or Cherokee " c o u n t r y m a n " ) w h o wanted i t . B y 1805 there was l i t t l e alternative to f a r m i n g , t h o u g h i t was hard to abandon t h e i r v i l ­ lage life. Wives had to follow their husbands away f r o m their clan relaCherokee Phoenix, January 21,1829. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 3,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, October 10, 1802, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, February 25, 1804, M-208. 15

16

17

65

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

tions to live i n isolated cabins. Children lost touch w i t h their grandpar­ ents, aunts, and uncles w h o told t h e m ancient stories and taught t h e m traditional customs. Once they had left the t o w n to farm, men had less t i m e for council affairs, festivals, dances, and ballgames. W o m e n no longer met each other daily to share their problems and their w o r k or to seek help from each other i n the chores of childbearing, childrearing, and sickness. The r i t u a l taboos of female purification fell away. After 1805 the w i d e l y dispersed farms, w i t h nuclear families, marked the beginning of the end of Cherokee communal life i n the townhouse and the cere­ m o n i a l square. People still came together for major religious celebrations, like the Green Corn Dance or for a ballplay, as frontier whites came t o ­ gether for camp meetings, husking bees, and house raisings, but daily life became centered upon the conjugal family. There was more emphasis upon self-reliance and individualism. A new ethic evolved for both men and w o m e n as private rights and profits replaced clan and t o w n duties. Federal agents told the Cherokees that the self-discipline of hard w o r k and the r o u t i n i z a t i o n of life w o u l d make t h e m more prosperous, happy, and secure, but as Meigs reported, the Cherokees at first t h o u g h t " o u r enjoy­ ments cost more than they are w o r t h . " Cherokee pleasures had always come f r o m daily social activities; the w h i t e man's satisfaction came f r o m accumulating material goods for his family. The w h i t e m a n believed i n personal achievement and delayed gratification; the Cherokees lived for the c o m m u n i t y and the enjoyment each day could b r i n g . 1 8

It required dire necessity and the example of respectable chiefs to per­ suade the Cherokees to take up the new way of life. I n m a n y respects, the chiefs were better able to make the change. They had special relationships w i t h the agent and were able to make personal requests to h i m for credit at the factory or for government technical assistance. I n 1801 Little T u r ­ key, Principal Chief of the nation, gave up going on the w i n t e r h u n t be­ cause he was too old. Deciding to become a farmer, he wrote ( t h r o u g h a scribe) to the federal agent: " I am under necessity of acquainting y o u that m y f a m i l y is at a great loss for the want of k n o w i n g h o w to spin and weave. There is a certain A b s o l o m H a r r i b y lives i n Pine Log [a nearby t o w n ] w h i c h is a wheel maker by trade and his wife learns the Indians h o w to weave. I can assure y o u we are i n great want of t h e m i n this part to instruct us, and I shall take i t as a Singular favour i f y o u w i l l send h i m i n t o these parts; wheels and cards we are lacking. We have made a fine crop of cotton this year but for the want of utensils i t does us no good." Little T u r k e y wanted these women's utensils "as quick as possible." "For m y part," he went on, " I want . . . two shovel-plough moles [molds], 18

Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13, 1805, M-208.

66

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

twelve sheep, six mattocks, t w o pair Clivesses [clevises], single coalter [colter], twelve weeding hoes, six club axes. Be so good as to send these to me . . . as I w i s h to goe by the directions of the President and likewise yourself [and take up f a r m i n g ] . " 19

As other local chiefs made similar decisions, the onus of spending one's life behind a p l o w became more acceptable to Indian m e n ; f a r m i n g be­ came sensible and respectable. W i t h f a r m i n g came the need for fencing and for new buildings—barns, stables, corn cribs, pig pens. Buildings re­ quired wood sawed i n t o planks at sawmills. As the Cherokees grew more corn, they wanted gristmills to g r i n d i t . As they grew more cotton, they wanted cotton gins to remove the seeds. W h e n the government requested a new r i g h t of w a y for a road or a new cession of land, the chiefs began to stipulate as part of the bargain that the government b u i l d these new m i l l s for t h e m . A n d the government provided t h e m , t h o u g h never as m a n y as requested. The chiefs i n whose towns the mills were b u i l t began to g r o w w e a l t h y and to b u y black slaves to extend their fields and tend their l i v e ­ stock. W h i t e m e n w h o married Cherokees enjoyed the o p p o r t u n i t y to be­ come the owners of large plantations; land cost t h e m n o t h i n g and t h e y paid no taxes. M i x e d - b l o o d Cherokees w h o spoke English began to adopt the life style of s u r r o u n d i n g w h i t e farmers. Gradually the Cherokees de­ veloped a landed elite and a small group of shopkeepers and entrepreneurs formed a k i n d of bourgeoisie. Eventually these persons w o u l d become as influential as the war chiefs i n decision m a k i n g . B u t the transition was slow and uneven. Even the best of farmers often failed to reap the harvest for w h i c h they worked so hard. N a t u r a l catas­ trophes were frequent and whole sections of the nation suffered w h e n a drought, flood, hailstorms, or early frost destroyed the crops. I n M a r c h 1804, the chiefs f r o m Doublehead's t o w n near Muscle Shoals (Doublehead, Kattegiskee, Pathkiller, Sequeechy, and Jucutul or The Seed) sent Meigs a letter that began, " w e are like to perish for Bread. We have b y Industrey failed the Last year to make Bread, not o w i n g to Indolence b u t oweing to the hand of the great Spirit above—not sending us Rain—to w i t t , the D r o t h . " There were 121 Indians and 15 w h i t e m e n i n the t o w n . The chiefs said they w o u l d starve unless the agent sent t h e m enough corn to provide food u n t i l the harvest. " W e are all at this place w o r k i n g hard and I n l a r g i n g our farms and [we] stands i n great Kneed of plows and mat­ tocks to grub our g r o u n d . " They had been given tools, but t h e y are " n e a r l y w o r n out b y so m a n y using t h e m . O u r w o m e n are Raising cotton and spinning and is i n great need of [new] wheels." The c o m m u n i t y needed emergency assistance: " N o w , our great frend, father and Brother, 19

Little Turkey to Return J. Meigs, December 23, 1801, M-208.

67

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

we are looking up to the great Spirit above to protect and lengthen y o u r Days and Incline y o u r hart to Relieve us." The letter also asked for "gar­ den seeds" of cabbage, lettuce, mustard, onions, " c o l l e t , " parsnips, car­ rots, "Parcelay, Sparrowgrass," turnips, sage, and w o r m w o o d . A new k i n d of diet was developing w i t h truck gardening. The " s t a r v i n g t i m e s " (in 1804, 1807, 1811) alternated w i t h epidemics of smallpox (1806, 1817, 1824) and other diseases that kept m a n y Cher­ okees i n an almost chronic state of emergency. Like any frontier com­ m u n i t y , the transformation of the wilderness into farmland required more than hard w o r k ; a great deal of luck was needed as w e l l as continual access to capital or credit. W h e n Washington and Knox worked out their policy i n 1789 they had not realized h o w difficult the " c i v i l i z a t i o n " of the Indians w o u l d be nor how expensive the technical assistance offered w o u l d become. Meigs sent three hundred bushels of corn to Doublehead's t o w n i n 1804 to help t h e m t h r o u g h their shortage, but he kept track of such favors. W h e n the next treaty negotiations took place he did not hesitate to r e m i n d the chiefs of h o w m u c h they owed to the benevo­ lent support of their Great Father i n Washington. There was no hospital­ i t y ethic, no "free l u n c h , " i n the capitalist system. Meigs reported i n June 1801 that d u r i n g the first eighteen months of his agency, " I distributed 13 Mattocks, 58 plough irons, 44 Corn hoes, 204 pairs cotton cards, 215 spinning wheels, 28 [cotton] Reels, 4 looms, 53 sheep." The next year he distributed (in addition to dozens of brass pots, t i n kettles, blankets, cards, hats, rolls of thread, yards of calico cloth, needles, and scissors) " 6 0 plough irons, 112 small axes, 150 corn hoes." Part of this was paid for by the government and part by the Cherokees out of their a n n u i t y . Supplies were also provided on credit at the government trading post or on credit extended by w h i t e and Cherokee merchants. I n increasing numbers the Cherokees left their villages between 1794 and 1810, gave up large-scale h u n t i n g for furs and skins, built log cabins, chopped d o w n trees, dug up the stumps, plowed fields, and adopted the lives of husbandmen and farmers' wives. 20

I n this " c i v i l i z a t i o n " process, the Lower Towns received the most help f r o m the government, but the Upper Towns i n the Tennessee area used their government assistance more wisely. The O v e r h i l l Towns i n N o r t h Carolina and the southernmost towns along the Creek border received the least assistance and remained the poorest parts of the nation. This was i n part because the soil was poorer i n the m o u n t a i n areas but also because the people i n these o u t l y i n g districts were the most reluctant to acculturate. I t was also apparent that families i n which the father was w h i t e and Doublehead and others to Return J. Meigs, March 27, 1804, M-208. When those who signed a letter or other document are listed in the text, their names are spelled as in the original. A n alternate spelling is sometimes noted. 2 0

68

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

the m o t h e r Cherokee or i n w h i c h b o t h parents were of m i x e d ancestry and spoke English made the t r a n s i t i o n more easily t h a n full-blood f a m i ­ lies. The framers of America's Indian policy and the Presidents and agents w h o carried i t out always t h o u g h t of intermarriage between I n d i ­ ans and whites as one of the keys to rapid acculturation. I n t e r m a r r i e d whites, especially males, tended to b r i n g up their children to act and t h i n k like whites. T h e i r success as farmers or entrepreneurs set the tone for the " c i v i l i z a t i o n " process. The agents w o r k e d most closely w i t h those w h o spoke English. M a n y of the influential chiefs went i n t o partnership w i t h w h i t e " c o u n t r y m e n , " as Doublehead did w i t h John D . C h i s h o l m . Those of m i x e d ancestry constituted a higher p r o p o r t i o n of the chiefs, m o r e ­ over, because their skills enabled t h e m to deal most effectively w i t h w h i t e officials. R e t u r n J. Meigs attributed most of the "progressive" leader­ ship i n the nation to these mixed bloods: " T h e Cherokees are m a k i n g considerable i m p r o v e m e n t and are becoming more and more attached to the habits of a civilized life [he w r o t e i n 1805]. Those of the m i x e d Blood are at least one half i n number of the nation, and they are attached to the pursuits of husbandry and domestic manufactures and w i l l eventually be­ come an acquisition of useful people to the U . States [ w h e n i n t e ­ grated]." 21

22

Meigs overestimated the number of mixed-blood Cherokees; the m i x e d bloods at this t i m e probably constituted less than 15 percent of the Cherokee population. He was misled because he lived i n an area where there were more such persons and because these were the Cherokees w h o most often came to talk w i t h h i m . The full bloods ( w h o m he called " t h e real Indians") stayed b y themselves, eschewing contact w i t h whites. A year later, Meigs reiterated his point to the Secretary of War. The m i x e d bloods "are almost w i t h o u t exception i n favor of improvements and have v e r y m u c h t h r o w n off the savage manners and habits. B u t those of the real Indians still h u g the savage manners and habits and are u n w i l l i n g to give [up] the pleasure of the shade and idelness." Meigs feared that there was something rooted i n the nature of the full bloods that made t h e m incapable of acculturating. " I t seems as i f the Graver of t i m e had fixed the savage character so deeply i n the native Indians, I mean those who have arrived at manhood, that i t cannot be effaced: but where the blood is m i x e d w i t h the whites, i n every grade of i t , there is an apparent disposition leaning t o w a r d civilization, and this disposition is i n propor­ t i o n to its distance f r o m the original s t o c k . " 23

24

Part of the solution was to promote intermarriage and thus to infuse 21 22 23 24

See Malone, Cherokees of the Old South, pp. 53-55. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 4,1805, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 27,1805, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13,1805, M-208.

69

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

" b a c k w a r d " savage blood w i t h "progressive" w h i t e blood (blood i n this case being a metaphor for t r a i n i n g and habits) ; the other part was to con­ centrate upon t r a i n i n g the y o u n g . " I t cannot be expected that the adult real Indian w i l l alter his habits but i n a partial degree, but by their Inter­ marriages w i t h the half Blood and w i t h the w h i t e s " this obstacle w o u l d be overcome and "the real Indian w i l l disappear." They w o u l d disappear in t w o ways : their habits w o u l d become like those of whites and their skin color w o u l d lighten. "The Children that are coming up, especially those of the mixed Blood, and they compose a considerable part of the w h o l e , m a y be brought to such a stage of improvement as to become an acquisi­ t i o n of useful c i t i z e n s . " 25

26

Meigs once told a traditionalist Cherokee w h o held Meigs's encourage­ ment of intermarriage against h i m : " Y o u say I encouraged marriages be­ tween w h i t e men and Cherokee w o m e n ; I always have and shall do i t . " I t was for their o w n good, "because y o u r w o m e n are industrious and be­ cause I conceive that by this measure civilization is faster advanced than i n any other w a y . " He conspicuously o m i t t e d encouraging the marriage of w h i t e w o m e n to Indian men because he assumed that husbands w o u l d play the major role i n setting family standards. Believing that n u r t u r e and not nature was to blame for Cherokee "backwardness," he said he "always considered the whole h u m a n race as b r o t h e r s . " Ethnocentrism, however, led h i m , as i t led m a n y later observers, to assume that w h i t e blood i n Indian veins constituted some k i n d of beneficial change i n Indian outlook and behavior. 27

A l t h o u g h most Cherokees had no racial objections to the intermarriage of whites and Indians, m a n y held the similarly ethnocentric view that the Great Spirit had established a distinctly different w a y of life for Indians and for whites. However, w h e n Meigs spoke of "the original stock" of the two races and when the Cherokees said that " t h e y are not derived f r o m the same stock as the w h i t e s , " the line between ethnocentrism and p o l y genesis became blurred. I t all depended on w h e n and w h y the Great Spirit made m e n of different colors and whether he permanently " f i x e d " their habits and attitudes t o w a r d life. Because those w h o provided the example and set the pattern of Cher­ okee acculturation were usually whites (or descendants of whites) w h o followed the agricultural and social patterns of the southern part of the United States, the Cherokees farmed by southern standards. T h e y chose crops that n a t u r a l l y flourished i n the climate; they adopted a staple- or cash-crop system; and they employed slave labor as soon as they could 25 26 27

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 4, 1805, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13, 1805, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Chiefs Chulio and Sour Mush, March 14,1808, M-208.

70

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

afford i t . I n the 1790s there were probably fewer than 100 slaves i n the nation, but according to a census or "statistical table" that Meigs com­ missioned i n 1808, there were by that time 583 black slaves i n the Cher­ okee N a t i o n . Some of the wealthier Cherokees, like James V a n n , Doublehead, Charles Hicks, Samuel Riley, and John M c D o n a l d , owned ten or more; V a n n was said to have owned almost 100. The vast m a j o r i t y of Cherokees owned none. But those w h o owned t h e m set the n o r m for the new entrepreneurial class, just as the large cotton planters did i n southern w h i t e society. For the Cherokee bourgeoisie, slave ownership was a source of inheritable wealth and, w i t h slaves, the size of a f a r m or plan­ tation that a man could pass on to his children w o u l d n a t u r a l l y be larger (even t h o u g h technically he did not o w n the land). A c c u l t u r a t i o n to p r i ­ vate property and the accumulation of goods led toward a patrilineal sys­ t e m of inheritance just as i t did toward a nuclear, self-sufficient f a m i l y life. To encourage the Indians to divide up their land i n severalty, the fed­ eral agents constantly pushed t h e m to sell their " u n u s e d " land. Once the Indians saw the benefits of self-subsistent yeoman f a r m i n g , the federal government believed, they w o u l d have no more use for tribal ownership of the land. They w o u l d have become i n d i v i d u a l commercial farmers, speculators, and entrepreneurs, eager to b u y and sell land as they did their cash crops, livestock, or slaves to increase their incomes. D u r i n g these transitional years, however, the Cherokees feared the loss of their h u n t i n g land, for i t was a fundamental tie to their traditional pattern of life. ' T h e y have a long t i m e since resolved not to part w i t h any more l a n d , " Meigs told the W a r Department i n 1803; "there is not a m a n i n the nation w h o dares advocate i t ; i t is said that i t w o u l d endanger his l i f e . " Their status as a people depended upon their being a landholding n a t i o n ; land was the o n l y real source of wealth and power they had left. U n i t e d on their land, they could bargain as a nation for the assistance of the federal government against the unfriendly frontiersmen; w i t h o u t their land, each Cherokee w o u l d find himself i n an unequal contest w i t h the w h i t e man. Those of m i x e d ancestry and wealth m i g h t fend for t h e m ­ selves, b u t the great b u l k of the nation could not. Meigs deplored the fact that "the real Indians . . . have the ascendancy i n public transactions" because b y the sheer weight of numbers they were able to prevent the " m o r e progressive" chiefs f r o m acting out of their o w n private or class interests. Meigs saw the reluctance of the full bloods to embrace the sale of their lands as " t i m i d i t y . " They did not trust i n d i v i d u a l competition or 2 8

29

28 2 9

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 4,1803, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 27,1805, M-208.

71

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

self-interest to benefit the whole. Progress, Meigs believed, offered t h e m prosperity, individual freedom, and economic m o b i l i t y , but most Chero­ kees felt that progress, as he defined i t , w o u l d add to their insecurity, de­ tract f r o m their freedom, and obliterate their ethnic i d e n t i t y . Cherokee " t i m i d i t y , " as Meigs described i t , was like that of children who

were fearful of assuming the responsibilities of adulthood. I t was

necessary, he believed, " t o wean t h e m from their savage w a y s , " w h i c h constituted the childhood of the h u m a n race. " I w o u l d hope," he said i n 1806, ...

" t o do away [ w i t h ] every custom inconsistent w i t h civilized life. I hope that t i m e w i l l come w h e n they w i l l look back w i t h wonder that

they had so long continued [ i n their irrational, backward w a y s ] . "

3 0

Una­

ble to interest t h e m i n ceding land for the m o m e n t , Meigs concentrated upon encouraging t h e m to admit skilled w h i t e artisans, mechanics, f a r m ­ ers, traders, and m i l l w r i g h t s into the nation to show t h e m h o w to develop their land and its resources; he encouraged t h e m to establish schools and to b u i l d roads and utilize waterways i n order to promote trade. A l t h o u g h the Trade and Intercourse Acts empowered the federal agents to license w h i t e traders, i t left up to the Indians themselves the extent to w h i c h they w o u l d encourage w h i t e artisans to enter their na­ t i o n . Meigs found that the "progressive" chiefs were ready to take ad­ vantage of the skills these w h i t e men w o u l d b r i n g but that the full bloods saw whites as potential sources of friction. They were quite aware that the profits a w h i t e man could make from the Indians were so small that o n l y some k i n d of speculation w o u l d attract t h e m . M o s t of the artisans, black­ smiths, school teachers, and sharecroppers w h o came to live among the Cherokees were men too incompetent or unreliable to make a l i v i n g i n w h i t e society. M a n y others were debtors and renegades seeking refuge f r o m state law enforcement agencies. The Cherokees were equally suspicious of missionaries, as the M o r a ­ vians found. Prior to 1794 the Cherokees had had no use for missionaries or for schools. Occasionally itinerant preachers had come t h r o u g h , but their theology was incomprehensible. I n 1758-1759 a Presbyterian m i n ­ ister named John M a r t i n began coming from N o r t h Carolina to preach to certain villages, but after patiently hearing h i m out for several weeks the Cherokees asked h i m to leave because "he had so long plagued t h e m w i t h that t h e y no ways understood" or cared to understand.

31

Their decision

to a d m i t the Moravians i n 1800 stemmed f r o m the desire of certain mixed-blood chiefs to have schools for their children and because i t seemed that the w h i t e man m i g h t at last be prepared to share w i t h t h e m 30

31

Return J. Meigs to Valentine Geiger, June 6, 1806, M-208. Malone, Cherokees of the Old South, p. 96.

72

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

some of the complex knowledge that he had learned f r o m "the Great B o o k . " The Cherokees t h o u g h t of the Bible as the source of all the w h i t e man's w i s d o m and skills. W h e n the Moravians had promised to teach t h e m all that was i n "the Great Book," one old chief, Arcowee of Chota, said " I believe that y o u have been inspired by the Great Spirit to be w i l l ­ ing to come and to teach u s " f r o m "the great book f r o m w h i c h they [the Cherokees] can learn all t h i n g s . " The Cherokees were also impressed that the missionaries did not appear to share the h o s t i l i t y and contempt for Indians that most frontier whites did. Kulsatahee of Hiwassee T o w n talked to the M o r a v i a n agents i n 1799 and explained modestly that the Cherokees "are indeed v e r y stupid [dull] and c l u m s y " w h e n i t came to learning the new ideas of the whites. However, they were w i l l i n g to learn, he said, provided the Moravians did not share the view that " w e Indians are too evil and bad to become good people and that we are too unclean and b r o w n [red-skinned]." He was pleased w h e n the Moravians answered, " w e love all people, no matter what their color," and he was delighted w h e n they added that the Great Spirit also made no distinctions because of c o l o r . From what Arcowee and Kulsatahee said, i t appeared that Cherokee full bloods were ready to learn f r o m the whites as l o n g as whites treated t h e m as equals and were prepared to share their knowledge as brothers. Moreover, the Moravians were pacifists and they had never taken part i n any m i l i t a r y activities against Indians. The Moravians had got off to a bad start, however, as noted above. The council admitted t h e m " o n t r i a l " i n 1800 and gave t h e m t w o years to start a boarding school. James V a n n , an Upper T o w n chief, gave t h e m his p r o ­ tection and helped t h e m purchase the buildings of a farmer near Vann's home i n Springplace, Georgia. Vann was the son of a well-to-do w h i t e trader w h o had established a store at D i a m o n d H i l l i n northwestern Geor­ gia. He married a Cherokee and left his fortune to his mixed-blood son. James V a n n proved a shrewd trader and i n the 1790s rapidly expanded his father's holdings, b u i l d i n g a g r i s t m i l l , operating a ferry over the Connesauga River, purchasing black slaves to expand his f a r m , and opening a second trading post near H u n t s v i l l e , Alabama. B y 1800 V a n n was per­ haps the wealthiest man i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , and under his protection the M o r a v i a n mission at Springplace was secure. However, as an Upper T o w n chief, Vann was not one of the inner group w h o directed the na­ tion's affairs. His protection w o u l d have been adequate, nevertheless, had 32

33

The conversation of the two Moravian missionaries, Abraham Steiner and Frederic de Schweinitz, with Chiefs Arcowee and Kulsatahee are in their account of their trip to the Cherokee Nation in October, 1799. See the Moravian Missionary records in the Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (hereafter abbreviated M A B ) . Ibid. 32

33

73

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

the Moravians done what the Cherokees expected t h e m to do. Difficulties arose because the missionaries believed that Christianization m u s t pre­ cede civilization; that is, they believed there could be no school u n t i l the parents of Cherokee children had become Christians and were c o m m i t t e d to g i v i n g t h e m a Christian education. Agents Meigs and Lovely t h o u g h t the Moravians had got things backwards, and so did the Cherokees. The Moravians began preaching at Springplace i n the early summer of 1801.

H a v i n g no interpreter, they preached i n English; among t h e m ­

selves they spoke German. A t first a few Cherokees came to hear t h e m , but these soon gave up and their principal auditors on Sunday m o r n i n g s t u r n e d out to be Vann's black slaves, most of w h o m understood some English. Three years went by. The Moravians made no converts (black or red),

formed no church, and of course started no school. The Cherokee

council had kept a careful eye on t h e m and concluded that they had failed to keep their promise. The council w i t h d r e w its permission for the m i s ­ sion and instructed Meigs to tell the Moravians to leave.

34

Meigs had already decided that the M o r a v i a n approach was w r o n g headed and inadequate. I n December 1802, he had proposed a different plan for Cherokee education to the Secretary of W a r : "There is reason to fear that w i t h o u t the diffusion amongst t h e m of knowledge of letters, the object to save t h e m from extinction w i l l not be obtained." He was, he said, "sensible that to establish and support schools amongst these people w o u l d be expensive," and that "the present expense i n supplying t h e m w i t h the implements of husbandry and manufactures and domestics and supporting Agents and Interpreters is a great expense[; ] more cannot be expected f r o m the United States." His solution was to persuade the Cher­ okees to develop their o w n endowment to support a school system. " L e t t h e m sell land to the amount of 200,000 dollars, the simple interest w i l l be 12,000 dollars. This w i l l support 30 school masters at 400 dollars each. . . . I k n o w they w i l l object to i t " — b u t he felt that i t was necessary for their o w n good and that the government must persist i n the effort to make the Indians transform their excessive landholdings into funds for capital and public i m p r o v e m e n t s .

35

Meigs's plan depended upon persuad­

ing the Cherokees to part w i t h their h u n t i n g ground, but i t was doomed to failure. Few Cherokees were prepared to sell their land to teach t h e i r children to become like w h i t e men. Then, i n the summer of 1803, an enterprising Presbyterian minister i n eastern Tennessee, Gideon Blackburn, came to the council w i t h a t h i r d educational proposal. Blackburn had come to M a r y v i l le, Tennessee, just 34 35

Schwarze, History of the Moravian Missions, pp. 75-79. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 28, 1802, M-208.

74

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

n o r t h of the Cherokee border, as a y o u n g m a n and had served as chaplain w i t h the Tennessee m i l i t i a d u r i n g the last bloody days of the g u e r r i l l a war i n the early 1790s. After the Cherokee defeat, Blackburn felt moved to extend to t h e m the blessings of civilization and to restore good feelings between the w h i t e and red m a n . His small frontier congregation was too poor to support a missionary effort and his denomination could give h i m o n l y a few hundred dollars. Blackburn therefore w e n t directly to Presi­ dent Jefferson and persuaded h i m to provide $300 i n supplies (to be de­ ducted f r o m the budget of the Cherokee agency). T h e n , w i t h the Presi­ dent's endorsement, he toured eastern Presbyterian churches, raising m o n e y for his philanthropic enterprise u n t i l he t h o u g h t he had enough to b e g i n .

36

W h e n he explained his plan to the council i n October 1803, the chiefs were i n i t i a l l y cool. Their experiment w i t h the Moravians had miscarried. Blackburn explained that his plan was totally different. He believed that civilization should precede (or at least be concomitant w i t h ) C h r i s t i a n i zation. He did not w a n t to preach or build churches. He w o u l d s i m p l y provide free schooling taught b y secular school teachers. A l l he asked was permission to construct some schoolhouses. He promised to send "three or four school masters each of w h o m w i l l take 25 to 30 C h i l d r e n to be fed and cloathed at the expense of their [the Presbyterian missionary] soci­ e t y . " Blackburn's role w o u l d be s i m p l y that of supervisor; he w o u l d re­ m a i n pastor of his congregation i n nearby M a r y v i l l e . Meigs gave Black­ b u r n his f u l l support, as did most of the w h i t e c o u n t r y m e n and m i x e d blood leaders w h o lived i n the Upper Towns of eastern Tennessee where Blackburn planned to start his schools. He received particular help f r o m the M c D o n a l d , Ross, Fields, Hicks, Adair, B r o w n , Bell, and Riley families who lived between Hiwassee T o w n and Chickamauga to the east of the Tennessee River. After considerable debate, the council decided to let Blackburn go ahead. The first school opened on the Hiwassee River i n February 1804, after Meigs provided carpenters to b u i l d a d o r m i t o r y and blankets for the children. Because m a n y of the students already spoke some English (coming f r o m homes i n w h i c h their fathers spoke i t ) , t h e y proved apt p u ­ pils. A b o u t t w e n t y - f i v e could be accommodated at the Hiwassee School, and its success led Blackburn to open a second school i n M a r c h 1806, eighteen miles to the south, on Sale Creek, o n the plantation of Richard Fields.

37

The first was a boarding school; the second, a day school. Funds

were never sufficient to open the other schools Blackburn had planned, 36 37

On Blackburn's mission see McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 54-81. Gideon Blackburn to Henry Dearborn, October 31,1806, M-222, roll 2, #0757.

75

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

but his enthusiasm was great and he lost no o p p o r t u n i t y to publicize his w o r k . I t has been claimed that over the seven years d u r i n g w h i c h his schools operated, Blackburn taught 300-400 Cherokees to speak English. The figure is inflated, t h o u g h he doubtless improved the English of the children f r o m mixed-blood families. The Cherokees soon discovered that the Presbyterian c u r r i c u l u m i n ­ cluded considerable Christian t r a i n i n g ; the children were taught to read f r o m the Bible and catechism, to say Christian prayers daily, and to sing Christian h y m n s . They were forbidden to speak Cherokee. The school­ masters and their wives were ardent Christians; they also did their best to teach the children h o w to dress, eat, and behave according to the m a n ­ ners of whites. Mixed-blood parents had no objection to any of this, but full-blood parents were less pleased. Few full bloods attended; the school­ masters spoke no Cherokee and had to rely on their students to translate. Blackburn was convinced that the sooner the Cherokees abandoned their language, the better. M e a n w h i l e the Moravians, faced w i t h ejection and w i t h Blackburn's competition, finally g r u d g i n g l y consented to open a small boarding school for seven students i n 1804 (even though none of their parents was Christian). They l i m i t e d the school to males and hoped to t r a i n first the children of influential chiefs, w h o w o u l d set an example for others. U n ­ able to speak Cherokee or to afford interpreters, they too ended up teach­ i n g m o s t l y the children of mixed-blood parents. Neither the Moravians nor the Presbyterians had any i n i t i a l success i n converting Cherokee adults to C h r i s t i a n i t y ; no mission church existed i n the nation u n t i l 1818. The decision to admit the Moravians and Presbyterians as school teachers was neither as i m p o r t a n t as the agent hoped nor as pernicious as the con­ servative Cherokees feared. The instruction was chiefly of use to those mixed-blood parents already committed to rapid acculturation, but even these were reluctant to have their children stay too long at the schools. As a rule they wished their offspring simply to learn enough to assist their parents i n correspondence or business dealings w i t h whites. Black­ b u r n was so angry at the readiness of the parents to remove their children before they had become t r u l y proficient i n English that he persuaded the council to rule that parents w h o w i t h d r e w their children before their pro­ g r a m was completed w o u l d have to forfeit the clothes, books, blankets, and other items given to t h e m b y the school. A l t h o u g h most Cherokees came to accept the missionaries as "good m e n " — m e a n i n g that they were not t r y i n g to take their land or to cheat t h e m — t h e fact that they were so few, so moralistic, and essentially apo­ litical meant that they were not particularly i m p o r t a n t figures i n Chero­ kee acculturation prior to 1819. Faced w i t h difficult problems of political 76

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

and economic adjustment, the Cherokee leaders gave p r i m a r y attention to the levers of power w i t h i n the U n i t e d States. I n the early years of the century the Cherokees p r i m a r y controversy w i t h the federal authorities arose over the constant demands that rights of w a y be granted t h r o u g h the nation for roads, turnpikes, and waterways to connect the w h i t e set­ tlements. I n 1798 the nation had been forced to allow the Cumberland Road to be b u i l t t h r o u g h its n o r t h e r n section, and a year later President Adams made plans to construct a federal turnpike f r o m A t h e n s , Georgia, northwest to Knoxville and Nashville. This road w o u l d r u n t h r o u g h the v e r y center of the nation, i n t r o d u c i n g a constant flow of w h i t e traffic i n b o t h directions and consequently increasing the chances for conflict, theft, violence, and murder between Indians and whites. I n their deter­ m i n e d effort to prevent the b u i l d i n g of "the Georgia Road," the Chero­ kees learned h o w difficult i t was to say no to requests b y their Father i n Washington. 7

John Adams left office before he could press the Cherokees for this r i g h t of w a y , but Thomas Jefferson at once took i t up. N o t o n l y did Jef­ ferson believe roads were necessary i n the region to promote settlement and trade, but he considered t h e m of prime m i l i t a r y importance. The con­ spiracies of W i l l i a m A . Bowles, A a r o n Burr, and James W i l k i n s o n i n these years pointed to the threat f r o m adventurers w i l l i n g to make ar­ rangements w i t h the B r i t i s h , Spanish, or French. Even after the L o u i s i ­ ana Purchase i n 1803, the Mississippi Valley was not at all securely i n the hands of the U n i t e d States. Jefferson and his Secretary of War, H e n r y Dearborn, ably assisted b y Return J. Meigs, left no stone u n t u r n e d be­ tween 1801 and 1803 to cajole and, u l t i m a t e l y , to compel the Cherokees to grant the roadway the government wanted. I t took the government three years and four separate treaty negotiations (as w e l l as numerous bribes or "inducements") before the matter received serious considera­ t i o n . So intense did the antagonisms w i t h i n the Cherokee N a t i o n become that w h e n James V a n n purchased a wagon i n anticipation of the road, the council assumed he had been bribed to support the measure and expelled (or " b r o k e " ) h i m f r o m his place as a chief. 38

The government's efforts to obtain a right of w a y for the Georgia Road started i n 1799 as part of a m u c h larger project. Congress appropriated $25,000 that year to hold treaty negotiations w i t h a number of southern tribes i n order to obtain land and road rights f r o m t h e m . Adams said the sum was too small to be effective and i n 1800 Congress added another $15,000. W h e n Jefferson came into office i n M a r c h 1801, he instructed his Secretary of W a r to pursue the project. From the Cherokees the gov3 8

Brainerd Journal, November 9,1819,

ABCFM.

77

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

ernment n o w sought not o n l y a road from Augusta (or Athens), Georgia, to Nashville ( w i t h a fork going to Knoxville) t h r o u g h the eastern half of their nation (the Upper T o w n region) but also a road f r o m Nashville to Natchez (along the "Natchez Trace") t h r o u g h the western area of the na­ t i o n (the Lower T o w n region). I n addition, the people of Tennessee and K e n t u c k y wanted the Cherokees to cede the n o r t h e r n half of their h u n t ­ i n g g r o u n d , consisting of 1,100 square miles i n Kentucky and 7,000 square miles i n Tennessee. For this land the federal government offered t h e m $5,000 i n cash or trade goods plus an addition of $1,000 per year to their perpetual a n n u i t y (which n o w stood at $5,000). I n June 1801, Jef­ ferson commissioned three men to carry out this w o r k : General James W i l k i n s o n , Benjamin H a w k i n s , and A n d r e w Pickens (later changed to W i l l i a m R. Davie). He instructed t h e m that i f they could not obtain all of the land desired, they should get as m u c h as they could at a commensu­ rate reduction i n price. They were to stress the need for the roads.

39

The Cherokees, t h o u g h not yet as adept as they w o u l d soon become at m o n i t o r i n g the debates i n Congress or reading the newspapers to foresee w h a t was i n store for t h e m , nevertheless were w e l l aware b y 1801 that negotiations for a land cession were about to start. They knew because whenever this happened, a flock of land speculators began to travel t h r o u g h the area to be ceded seeking the best spots for future purchase; i n addition, swarms of frontier whites invaded these areas i n order to ob­ tain preemption rights b y squatting on the land before i t was sold. W h i l e Jefferson and Dearborn were still w o r k i n g out the details of the proposed negotiations, the chiefs of t w e n t y - s i x of the Upper Towns met at a re­ gional council at Ustanali to make demands of their o w n upon the gov­ ernment i n M a r c h 1801. They were particularly concerned over a group of Georgians, k n o w n as Wafford's settlers, w h o had moved i n t o an area between the Oconee River and Currahee M o u n t a i n (in n o r t h e r n Geor­ gia). Colonel James D . Wafford had encouraged this settlement, believing that this land had been ceded b y the Cherokees i n 1785, t h o u g h i n fact i t was w i t h i n the boundaries guaranteed to the Cherokees i n the Treaty of Hopewell. The government had delayed surveying that boundary u n t i l 1798, b y w h i c h t i m e Wafford's settlers had already b u i l t cabins and started farms. Jefferson agreed w i t h the Governor of Georgia to request a cession of this tract but mistakenly started negotiations w i t h the Creeks to obtain i t . The Creeks said the land belonged to the Cherokees, so JefOn the origin of the conflict over Wafford's Tract see Royce, Cherokee Nation of In­ dians, pp. 55-65, and ASP I , 650-51. On Governor Tatnall's actions on behalf of Wafford's settlers, see Josiah Tatnall to President Jefferson, July 20,1802, M-208. For the Cherokees' reaction see Cherokee Council at Oostenali (Ustanali) to Return J. Meigs, March 20, 1801, M-208. 3 9

78

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

ferson added its acquisition to the tasks of his treaty commissioners. The government felt responsible for the error made b y W a f f o r d and his friends because of its failure to r u n the survey quickly. The Cherokees, however, had been complaining for years about these intruders. B y 1801 there were over fifty families at Wafford's settlement. T h e y occupied an area of 100 square miles and were determined to keep i t ( w i t h the full sup­ port of the politicians of G e o r g i a ) . 40

41

The council at Ustanali sent a strongly worded message to Colonel Thomas Butler, commander of the U n i t e d States A r m y garrison at Tellico Blockhouse, " t o keep the w h i t e people of[f] their encroachments o n our lands." The settlers "near the Currahee M o u n t a i n " had first attempted " t o offer goods for our l a n d , " the council said, and w h e n these were re­ fused, t h e y " t h r e a t e n " n o w that " t h e y w i l l make war w i t h us." " T h e m o t h e r earth has been D i v i d e d " i n this area b y treaties, "one part [to the] whites and the other to the red people where those present [at Ustanali] have been raised f r o m their infancy to the years of manhood and that g r o u n d m u s t ever be dear to they [the] Chiefs." B y treaty the govern­ m e n t had the d u t y " t o suppress all bad doings on b o t h sides." I t appeared that " t h e w h i t e people w i l l not m i n d the Talks of the U n i t e d States, but the red people minds the language of the chiefs of the Cherokee n a t i o n . " The chiefs noted that the federal agent, Thomas Lewis, had promised to look i n t o this matter, b u t n o t h i n g had been done about i t ; "had the Transgression been C o m m i t t e d b y [one of] our people, y o u w o u l d have taken h i m long before this t i m e . The beloved m e n [the President and Sec­ retary of W a r ] of the u n i t e d States Calls the red people their C h i l d r e n ; the father ought to protect their Childrens r i g h t s . " " W e w i s h y o u w i l l send a body of soldiers to remove the I n h a b i t a n t s ] on the Currahee m o u n t a i n . " I n addition, the chiefs at Ustanali mentioned the question of roads t h r o u g h their nation—a matter that Colonel Wafford and his set­ tlers were v e r y m u c h interested i n because they hoped to market their produce i n K n o x v i l l e or at the United States garrison and agency along the proposed road to Nashville. " W e have no disposition to encourage t h e y [that] Travellers should pass t h r o u g h our lands as there is roads enough among the w h i t e settlements to go a r o u n d " our t e r r i t o r y . 42

Because M a j o r Lewis was " m o r e attentive to his bottle and his w o m a n " t h a n to his official duties and because Colonel Butler refused to remove Wafford's settlers w i t h o u t express orders f r o m W a s h i n g t o n , the Chero­ kees sent a delegation to W a s h i n g t o n headed b y The Glass (a p r o m i n e n t chief of the Lower Towns) to speak directly w i t h Dearborn about this and 40

41 42

ASP I, 648-49, 656-57; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 55-65. ASP i , 650-51; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 55-65. Cherokee Council to Colonel Thomas Butler, March 20,1801, M-208.

79

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

about other Cherokee problems (especially several unpunished murders of Cherokees b y whites passing t h r o u g h the n a t i o n ) . This delegation met w i t h Dearborn on June 3 0 , 1 8 0 1 . He parried their request to remove Wafford's settlers b y p o i n t i n g out that the government felt responsible for the settlers' mistake and hoped to w o r k out something i n the coming treaty negotiations w i t h the Cherokees. Dearborn then suggested that the Cherokees sell some of their h u n t i n g land and also allow the rights of w a y for the Natchez and Augusta roads to Nashville. The Glass re­ sponded that the Cherokees had no interest whatsoever i n selling any land because " o u r c o u n t r y is now s m a l l " and needed all that i t had left. Glass expressed astonishment and anger that such a request should be made and commissioners appointed w h e n the government had promised i n its treaty of October 1798 that i t w o u l d make no further demands upon t h e m ; i n its treaty of 1791 the government had solemnly agreed to guar­ antee their present borders " f o r e v e r . " As for roads t h r o u g h their na­ t i o n , Glass said these were also out of the question; they " w o u l d occasion m a n y difficulties" between the Cherokees and the whites w h o traveled them. 43

44

Dearborn, struck by the vehemence of Glass's reaction, spoke to Jeffer­ son, w h o agreed to alter his priorities. He wrote to the treaty commis­ sioners telling t h e m to make no "demands" for cessions of land f r o m the Cherokees but merely to " m e n t i o n " such a sale as a desirable "proposi­ t i o n . " The roads, however, were to be pressed as the chief objective. The commissioners were told to do n o t h i n g , while among the Cherokees, that w o u l d raise " i n t h e m unfriendly and inimical dispositions." They still had recourse to Spanish, British, or French assistance i f they became u p ­ set. 4 5

The treaty commissioners finally arrived for negotiations i n the Cher­ okee N a t i o n i n September 1801. B y then some " f r o n t i e r citizens" had i n ­ creased "the pressure for l a n d " and were causing the Cherokees consid­ erable anxiety by saying that the President w o u l d insist upon a sale " t o extinguish the indian claims to the lands on the right side of the Tennes­ see" River (the area that remained as their h u n t i n g g r o u n d ) . This caused some Cherokees to consult w i t h Benjamin Hawkins about "the propriety of looking out West of the Mississippi for an eventual residence where this nation already have a settlement of nearly one hundred g u n 46

ASP i , 677. Lewis was removed for malfeasance on June 30,1801; see also Henry Dear­ born to Thomas Lewis, March 24,1801, M-15, reel 1, p. 35. Conference with a Cherokee delegation in Washington, D.C., June 30, 1801, M-15, reel 1, p. 72. A S P i , 656. James Wilkinson et al., "Report of a Treaty Council at Southwest Point, Tennessee," September 4-6, 1801, M-271, reel 1, #0024-0028. 4 3

44

4 5

4 6

80

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

m e n [about six hundred persons]" on the St. Francis River. These west­ ern Cherokees had settled there ( i n what is n o w Arkansas) i n the 1790s i n order to get away f r o m w h i t e settlers. The threat of more angry Cher­ okees across the Mississippi (still i n Spanish hands) was bound to w o r r y Jefferson. H a w k i n s tried to calm the Cherokees b y insisting o n the "be­ nevolent care manifest towards the Indians" by the A m e r i c a n govern­ m e n t t h r o u g h "the plan for their c i v i l i z a t i o n . " 47

The commissioners discovered that the Cherokees were u n w i l l i n g to negotiate about either land or roads. The commissioners pointed out that " y o u r w h i t e brethren w h o live at Natchez, at Nashville, and i n South Carolina [and Georgia] are v e r y far removed f r o m each other and have complained to y o u r father, the President, that the roads by w h i c h t h e y travel are n a r r o w and obstructed . . . y o u r father is desirous to open wide these roads, but as they pass over the lands of his red children, he first asks their consent." T h e y w e n t on to say that the travelers on these roads w o u l d need places " f o r rest or accommodation" and " y o u r father is de­ sirous that his red children w o u l d consent to establish houses of enter­ t a i n m e n t and ferries on these roads to be kept b y persons appointed b y h i m s e l f " (presumably w h i t e men). D e n y i n g that the government was t r y i n g to d i m i n i s h the possibilities for the Cherokees future prosperity, the commissioners said that i t "intended not to extinguish y o u r rights but to give value to y o u r land values and make i t i m m e d i a t e l y productive to y o u . " Roads w o u l d increase land and w o u l d give t h e m better access to markets for their livestock and corn. The commissioners admitted that nevertheless, i f the Cherokees were disposed to sell any land, such as Wafford's settlement, they were ready to b u y i t . 7

Doublehead and Chulio, as Speakers for the council, responded b l u n t l y . Doublehead said that "a number of land speculators" had m i s ­ takenly said " w e want to sell lands." B u t the t r u t h was " t h e Chiefs [ i . e . , w h i t e politicians], the head-men of these frontiers, are themselves i n t e r ­ ested i n these speculations, and they w i l l give y o u fine talks w h i c h are meant to deceive [the President], as they are for their o w n interest. W e t h i n k i t a shame that the land sellers should impose o n the G o v e r n m e n t and say that we w a n t to dispose of our lands w h e n we do n o t . " This an­ swer adroitly bypassed the fact that the federal government was i n fact but the tool of its frontier people i n such matters and was as eager to ob­ tain Indian land as any frontier speculator. The Cherokees preferred to avoid embarrassing the commissioner b y suggesting instead that the President had probably been m i s i n f o r m e d about their i n t e n t i o n s . 48

4 7

4 8

Ibid. i, 657.

ASP

81

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

As for "the roads y o u propose," Doublehead continued, " w h e n y o u first made these settlements" of frontier people on the Cherokee borders, "there were paths w h i c h answered for t h e m , " and these paths were still available. " W e do not wish to have t h e m [wagon roads] made t h r o u g h our country. O u r objections to these roads are these: a great m a n y people of all descriptions w o u l d pass [along] t h e m , and that w o u l d happen w h i c h has recently happened [violence, thefts, and murders of Cherokees], and you w o u l d labor under the same difficulties y o u do n o w [being unable to find and prosecute the perpetrators]." Roads, i n short, w o u l d cause as m u c h trouble to their Father, the President, as i t w o u l d to the Cherokees. The Cherokees "mean to hold fast to the peace" and w o u l d cause no t r o u ­ ble, but this w o u l d be possible o n l y i f unwanted whites were kept out of their country. " W e hope y o u w i l l not make roads t h r o u g h our c o u n t r y , but use those w h i c h y o u have made yourselves . . . w i t h i n y o u r o w n l i m ­ i t s " and travel around the n a t i o n . Realizing that the treaty commission­ ers and the President w o u l d be offended by this refusal, Doublehead added, " I expect y o u w i l l t h i n k [agree] we have a right to say yes or no as answer, and we hope y o u w i l l say no more on this subject; i f y o u do, i t w o u l d seem as i f we had no r i g h t to refuse." The statement was an expression of the Cherokees' belief i n their sovereign power over their own land. 49

I n sum, the Cherokees felt that the government was asking t h e m to make further concessions w h e n i t had failed to live up to its o w n obliga­ tions. The Cherokees expected, Doublehead said, " t o see our rights m a i n ­ tained," especially "that we m a y not be plagued b y those people w h o want our l a n d " and by those w h o intruded upon i t . C h u l i o then rose to describe again the government's failure to deal w i t h Wafford's intruders : " W e w i s h to remove those people." Doublehead concluded b y r e m i n d i n g the government that i t had not brought to justice any of the w h i t e men g u i l t y of recent murders of Cherokees t h o u g h the Cherokees had re­ strained their relatives from blood revenge. "There are t w o [lives] w h i c h the whites owe us . . . and these debts seem to increase." He hoped "these gentlemen of Tennessee w i l l listen w e l l , " for "the State of Ten­ nessee," like the State of Georgia, "had not kept the talks of the G o v e r n ­ ment." 50

The commissioners left the nation empty-handed and angry. T h e y re­ ported that the Cherokees were stubborn; " t h e i r determination was to yield to no accommodation.'' To get around this, General W i l k i n s o n 51

Ibid. Ibid. James Wilkinson et al., "Report of a Treaty Council at Southwest Point, Tennessee," September 4-6, 1801, M-271, reel 1, #0024-0028. 49

50 51

82

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

proposed that the government ignore the Cherokee claim to the area be­ tween Nashville and Natchez n o r t h of the Tennessee River and deal u n i ­ laterally w i t h the Chickasaws: " I f the Chickasaw should consent to the opening of the [Natchez] Road, i t is m y i n t e n t i o n , " W i l k i n s o n w r o t e on September 10, " n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the contumacy of the Cherokees, to or­ der the Troops to proceed i n that operation [building the road t h r o u g h the disputed t e r r i t o r y ] u n t i l the W i n t e r stops t h e m , w h i l e I leave the Red people to adjust their respective pretensions to the s o i l . "

52

The Cherokees

were powerless to prevent this. The Chickasaws did negotiate a r i g h t of way

w i t h W i l k i n s o n ; the Natchez Trace Turnpike was b u i l t w i t h o u t

Cherokee consent. Over the next five years, the Cherokees held several 53

meetings w i t h the Chickasaws and w i t h the Creeks about their j o i n t claims to the area around the Tennessee River near Muscle Shoals, but t h e y were unable to reach f i r m agreements to act i n u n i o n . The next step toward acquiring the right of way for the Augusta-Nash­ ville Road (later k n o w n as the Federal Turnpike) occurred i n A p r i l 1802, w h e n Colonel Meigs, w h o had replaced Thomas Lewis i n June 1801, for­ warded a request f r o m the Cherokees that the government provide t h e m w i t h more technical assistance ( " t w o Blacksmith, t w o Strikers [ i r o n w o r k ­ ers], t w o wheel makers and t w o Card makers and to have t h e m placed i n different parts of their C o u n t r y for the convenience of their p e o p l e " ) .

54

The promise of aid t o w a r d Cherokee acculturation, i t n o w t u r n e d out, was contingent on Cherokee cooperation. "The Cherokees have no reason to expect any more liberality on our part," said Secretary Dearborn, " u n t i l a more friendly disposition shall be discovered on their p a r t . " He i n ­ structed M e i g s : " I t may not be improper to i n f o r m the Chiefs that f r o m their conduct at the late treat they must not expect any particular favors f r o m the U n i t e d States."

55

Some Cherokees were ready to see this as a breach of treaty promises. W i l l i a m T h o r p , a former T o r y f r o m South Carolina w h o had m a r r i e d a Cherokee and, according to Meigs, had "played the Savage" b y d o n n i n g Cherokee dress and fighting w i t h t h e m i n guerrilla wars, sent a letter to the principal chiefs suggesting that they threaten Jefferson b y starting overtures w i t h the French. " T h e French have n o w landed i n N e w O r l e ­ ans," T h o r p said, "and our Father knows they w i l l make offers of Friend­ ship towards [us] and sooner [than] that we should become their friends, he w i l l give us strong proofs of Friendship, as i t is [in] the interests of the 52 53 54 55

James Wilkinson to Henry Dearborn, September 8,1801, M-271, reel 1, #0113. W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, February 18,1802, M-208. Cherokee Council to Return J. Meigs, April 12,1802, M-208. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, April 7 and April 30, 1802, M-208.

83

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

w h i t e m e n to make the Cherokees their f r i e n d s / ' B u t the other chiefs did not care for this k i n d of intrigue. Some Cherokees did consider m o v ­ ing across the Mississippi where they w o u l d be free of this continual pres­ sure f r o m the g o v e r n m e n t , but most Cherokees still believed t h e y w o u l d , w i t h patience, persuade the President to see their position and treat t h e m fairly. 56

57

Several chiefs, however, w h o had committed themselves to f a r m i n g and trade and w h o wished to remain on good terms w i t h the government i n order to advance their private ends, began i n 1802 to h i n t to the agent that t h e y were w i l l i n g to make a deal. Doublehead, the most powerful chief i n the nation, was one of these. He had concluded by 1800 that the days of h u n t i n g and fur trading were over for the Cherokees. He was de­ termined to enter wholeheartedly into the life of frontier enterprise and cotton production and had come to believe that rapid acculturation was best for the nation as well as for himself. I n July 1802 Doublehead dis­ played his shrewdness as what Meigs called a "progressive" chief. He wrote to the assistant agent, Lovely, u r g i n g the establishment of more gristmills, sawmills, and cotton gins and the need for more w h i t e me­ chanics to manage them. He was h i n t i n g that he w o u l d like these placed i n his area of the nation i n exchange for his support of the Georgia Road. He had purchased a number of black slaves and had set the w o m e n i n his f a m i l y to spinning and weaving cotton. Lovely sent this letter on to Meigs, w h o replied that he was " m u c h pleased" w i t h this proposal " f r o m our Friend Double Head. . . . He talks like a man of Sense and reflection on the subject of mechanics and of mills being erected, etc. I n the present situation of things I can not say a n y t h i n g more than has been said, that our Government w i l l continue to do t h e m Justice, 'that w h e n they be­ come liberal, t h e y m a y expect liberality of the Government.' . . . " I n short, a subtle promise had been made. Doublehead understood this and decided to push his o w n advantage a bit farther. I n November he w r o t e to Meigs and made some more immediate personal requests to assist h i m i n his business interests. 58

M y intention is to come and trade with you, But I am so Engaged in Gathering my Beef Cattle that I expect it will be a moone or two before I can come [to the agency]. I . . . have now one Request to ask of you, that is, to have me a boat Built. I want a good Keal Boat some 30 to 35 feet in length and 7 feet wide. I want her for the purpose of Descending the River to Orlians & back by Water. . . . I Enolee (William Tharp or Thorp) to Cherokee Council, November 20, 1803, M-208. James Wilkinson et al., "Report of a Treaty Council," September 6, 1801, M-271, reel 1, #0027. Return J. Meigs to William S. Lovely, July 20,1802, M-208. 56

57

58

84

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

am Determined for to see up the White and Red Rivers in my Route & oppen a trade with the western wild Indians. 59

Meigs probably obliged Doublehead i n this because he could do so out of agency funds. I n any case, he told Lovely that he w o u l d explain to Dear­ b o r n the desire of the Cherokees to have more "mechanics and m i l l s " and that there was n o w a more "liberal disposition" among the chiefs. " I w i l l make every exertion to obtain what they request" for their i m p r o v e m e n t , Meigs w r o t e . Doublehead's t o w n at Muscle Shoals was b o u n d to obtain a major share of this assistance i f the negotiations w e n t w e l l . I n his letter to Dearborn, Meigs explained that g r a n t i n g such requests for economic aid w o u l d w i n over some of the influential and " l i b e r a l " chiefs, and t h e n t h e y m i g h t broach the subject of the Georgia Road or Federal Turnpike again at the council i n September so that the initiative m i g h t seem to come f r o m w i t h i n the nation. These chiefs " w i l l expect a G r a t u i t y , " he said, but they were aware that the government had planned to make gifts to the nation had the treaty gone t h r o u g h ; " t h e y lost, b y their imprudence" some advantages w h i c h t h e y m i g h t have h a d . Meigs suspected, after this, that chiefs like Doublehead were not really opposed to the road but had o n l y pretended to be. This pretense was motivated p a r t l y to sustain their influence among the conservatives w h o opposed the road and p a r t l y to compel the government to recognize their power and to increase the gratuities t h e y expected. A m o n g the "friends of gov­ e r n m e n t , " Meigs n o w numbered Doublehead, The Glass, and Dick Justice at the t o p — a l l Lower T o w n chiefs. 60

Doublehead was fast becoming a w e a l t h y man. N o t o n l y did he o w n m a n y slaves, cultivate large tracts of good soil, and raise cattle for sale i n w h i t e markets, he had also established a lucrative business b y charging whites for pilot fees t h r o u g h the rapids on the Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals. I n addition he assumed salvage rights over vessels wrecked o n the shoals. His efforts to trade produce, cotton, and livestock i n N e w Orleans for manufactured goods that he could sell to the western " w i l d " Indians i n Arkansas indicated his grasp of the mechanics of the market economy. Meigs described h i m as one of the most exceptional full bloods he knew, a m a n " o f u n c o m m o n powers of m i n d " : This man, it is true, from the force of his discernment estimates usefull improve­ ments and is exerting himself to live in a stile of some degree of taste; at the same time he is a vindictive, bloody minded Savage and his exertions to raise himself do not appear to arise from any refinement of disposition but to place himself in such a situation as that he may set his foot on the neck of anything that may op59 60

Doublehead to Return J. Meigs, November 20, 1802, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 21,1802, M-208.

85

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

pose itself to his ill founded pride. He is a man of small stature, compact and well formed, very dark skin, small piercing black eyes, the fixture of which when en­ gaged in conversation are as immoveable as diamonds set in metal and seem to indicate clearly that he comprehends the subject and in his reply to an address will omit nothing that has been said. He is occasionally guilty of intemperance and then off his guard, and if he considers himself insulted the explosion of his passion resembles that of gunpowder. 61

Impressed by Meigs's assessment of the shift i n Cherokee attitudes t o ­ ward the Nashville Road, Dearborn authorized h i m to negotiate for the r i g h t of w a y at the September council meeting and also to propose to the chiefs the purchase of Wafford's Tract. Meigs planned to do so, but a number of recent assaults, robberies, and murders of Cherokees by f r o n ­ tier whites had so angered both "progressive" and conservative chiefs just p r i o r to the meeting that he felt the m o m e n t inopportune for nego­ tiations. Jefferson and Dearborn became more importunate. I n February 1803, Dearborn wrote to Meigs: "The opening of the road t h r o u g h the Chero­ kee C o u n t r y to Georgia has become h i g h l y necessary, and y o u w i l l please to take the earliest o p p o r t u n i t y of holding a conference w i t h the principal Chiefs of the Cherokees" to obtain i t . " Y o u are authorized to make t h e m some presents [another code w o r d for secret bribes] not exceeding 500 dollars for their consent." He also told Meigs to negotiate " f o r four public houses at proper distances f r o m each o t h e r " along the proposed route w i t h good farmland around t h e m to support the landlord and to provide grain for horses and food to travelers and post riders. " A d d i t i o n a l presents m a y be made for the purpose, but at all events, we must have a r o a d . " Meigs was to tell the chiefs b l u n t l y that " w e shall not consider the Cherokees as good neighbors unless they w i l l allow their best friends, who are taking every means i n their power to make t h e m happy, to make a r o a d . " Dearborn allowed the question of purchasing Wafford's Tract to be dropped t e m p o r a r i l y . 62

Meigs arranged a treaty conference at Ustanali on A p r i l 20, 1803, but four days of angry confrontation o n l y hardened the Cherokees' demand for the r i g h t to say no. The conservative m a j o r i t y prevailed again. " W e love our land . . . we therefore conclude not to grant our father the Pres­ ident the road t h r o u g h our c o u n t r y . " Once again they stressed the failure of the government to b r i n g those w h o had murdered Cherokees to t r i a l and the demoralizing effect this was having on their people, w h o m they had to restrain f r o m exercising the clan tradition of retaliation. "Some of 61 62

Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13, 1805, M-208. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, February 19, 1803, M-208.

86

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

our people were laid i n the g r o u n d [murdered and then buried b y whites] and the matter was so hidden amongst the w h i t e people that no satisfac­ t i o n was g i v e n . " The other murders had occurred since the bodies were found b u t " w e cannot find that any satisfaction is g i v e n " for t h e m e i t h e r . Yet w h e n " o u r people have c o m m i t t e d the same t h i n g , " t h e y had been quickly apprehended and hanged: " O n e was hanged agreeable to the w h i t e people's laws; the other t w o were killed b y us." Justice was all t h e y asked: " I f satisfaction had been given, we should not have hesitated i n g r a n t i n g the request" for the r o a d . 63

64

A p p a r e n t l y Doublehead and his friends had been q u i e t l y at w o r k con­ v i n c i n g other chiefs that i t was fruitless to oppose the President of the U n i t e d States. Still the chiefs wanted to obtain some concessions before y i e l d i n g , especially w i t h regard to apprehending the whites w h o had murdered Cherokees. Meigs could o n l y answer lamely that these una­ venged murders were " m u c h to be regretted" and that the Secretary of W a r had done " e v e r y t h i n g i n his power to have the murder[er]s b r o u g h t to justice," including the offer of "large rewards" for their apprehension. He also noted that pursuant to their earlier request, the President had n o w ordered the a r m y to drive some of the intruders out of their t e r r i t o r y i n Georgia; these troops had not o n l y expelled the i n t r u d i n g whites b u t " b u r n e d their Houses and their fences, destroyed their corn, carried t h e m before the courts of justice and fined t h e m , etc." However, he had to ad­ m i t that at the special request of Governor Josiah Tatnall of Georgia, n o t h i n g had been done about the intruders on Wafford's Tract. Dearborn was irate at the continued "obstinacy of the Cherokees." A g a i n he suggested presents and inducements to influential chiefs. T w o i n t e r m a r r i e d w h i t e traders, John M c D o n a l d and Daniel Ross, volunteered to Meigs the names of some Lower T o w n chiefs w h o m i g h t be induced to change their votes, " i f the road business should be again b r o u g h t o n the carpet"—namely "Katekiska and the O l d Cabbin, b o t h of the [Muscle] Shoals, and the Black Fox. . . . These hints to yourself m a y be of u s e . " Black Fox had o n l y recently been chosen Principal Chief of the nation to replace the deceased Little T u r k e y . I t was not the last t i m e his name was to arise i n such a context. 65

It was at this stage i n the bargaining that the Secretary of W a r finally suggested that i f justice could not be obtained against whites w h o m u r ­ dered Cherokees, the government w o u l d be w i l l i n g to provide "pecuniary satisfaction." I t was embarrassing for the federal government to have to admit that i t had no control over justice i n its frontier states. W h o , the 6 3 64 6 5

Record of a Council at Eustenalee (Ustanali), April 20-24,1803, M-208. Ibid. John McDonald and Daniel Ross to Return J. Meigs, October 10,1803, M-208.

87

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

Cherokees asked themselves, was r u n n i n g the brave new w o r l d they were being asked to enter? The " u n i t e d states" seemed as divided i n their au­ t h o r i t y as the Cherokees. The Cherokees faced not one harasser but five—the federal government and the four states that surrounded t h e m . Meigs went about the nation offering his secret inducements to w e l l disposed chiefs and w a r n i n g those w h o objected of dire consequences. He and his assistant discovered that "the w h i t e people of p r o p e r t y " — " M r . M c D o n a l d , Ross, Rogers, M e l t o n , Woodward and Ratliff, are clear for the road and civilization i n its full extent," and o n l y the full bloods seemed opposed. Yet they were the majority. Lovely reported that the conser­ vative chiefs were telling the people "that all the long-haired people are not friends—meaning the halfbreeds—merely because [from Lovely's perspective] t h e y have sense e n o u g h " to favor the road. Lovely also sug­ gested that i t m i g h t give further incentive to allow the road i f the Cher­ okees could "have a t o l l " on i t that w o u l d add to their regular income. 66

I n October 1803, the final negotiation over the road f r o m Augusta to Nashville and Knoxville took place. The debate was long and heated, but i n the end the so-called progressive chiefs finally had their way. I t was significant, however, that o n l y fourteen chiefs dared to sign their names to the agreement out of more than one hundred w h o were present. A m o n g the signers were Black Fox, Kittagiskee (Katagiska), James V a n n , Chulio, Pathkiller, T u r t l e at H o m e , Toluntuskee, Tuskeegatehee, and W i l l Elders. T h e y added a clause to the agreement that tried to quiet r u ­ mors of b r i b e r y by saying " w e are not influenced b y pecuniary m o t i v e s " i n signing. The government attempted to make the treaty more palatable by p a y i n g the nation $500 for the r i g h t to build the r o a d . 67

Crucial to m a n y w h o were engaged i n trade was whether the road w o u l d pass close to their store, farm, or plantation. Critical to others was who w o u l d obtain the profits from the public "stands" or taverns along the road. James V a n n was eager to have the franchise for the government post riders, supplying horses and providing lodging. Others wanted the income f r o m critical ferries over the rivers along the route. The treaty agreement itself specified that "the ferry at Southwest Point shall be put i n the hand of our beloved chief Doublehead and the other t w o shall be rented b y our agent to citizens of the United States to the highest bidders; the preference i n Renting these Ferries shall be i n favour of persons hav­ ing connections w i t h the Cherokee N a t i o n " ; that is, they were to go to whites w h o had married Cherokees. A n o t h e r clause stipulated that after the road was open "the Cherokee N a t i o n w i t h their connections [again, 66 67

W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, May 17,1803, M-208. W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, June 1, 1803, M-208.

88

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

i n t e r m a r r i e d whites] w i l l f o r m a Turnpike Company for keeping the said Road i n constant and good repair"—a service presumably to be paid f r o m the tolls. The emphasis on w h i t e c o u n t r y m e n indicated that a l t h o u g h Meigs wished to have Cherokee citizens profit f r o m the road, he d i d not trust the full-blood chiefs to manage these i m p o r t a n t concerns. To appease those w h o feared that the road w o u l d produce conflict and crime, the chiefs had tried to convince Meigs to establish a t w e n t y - m a n Cherokee lighthorse patrol to m a i n t a i n order along the road, half of its pay to be sustained b y the Cherokees and half b y the W a r Department. Meigs instead proposed "a small m i l i t a r y c o m m a n d " at the Georgia bor­ der and the use of the m i l i t a r y garrison at the n o r t h e r n border. The Sec­ retary of W a r vetoed the article on the m i l i t a r y command, a decision he was to regret. He agreed, however, to a subsidiary request f r o m the coun­ cil to supply additional agricultural implements and government-paid mechanics " f o r us to accelerate c i v i l i z a t i o n . " W h o was to have the use of these was nowhere specified, but the Lower Towns got most of the bene­ fits. 68

James V a n n , an Upper T o w n chief heartily i n favor of the road, had played a significant but inconspicuous role i n the negotiations. W h e n Dearborn later suggested to Meigs that he m i g h t "offer an inducement to V a n n " to help t h e m settle the controversy over Wafford's Tract, Meigs replied that Vann was too rich for bribes. Nevertheless there were other ways that Vann's interests could be served. " M r . V a n n has done m u c h i n b r i n g i n g the minds of the Indians to the measure of agreement to the opening of the road," Meigs i n f o r m e d Dearborn afterward; " a n d yet t h e y do not k n o w i t and he wishes i t to remain s o . " The road was laid to pass by Vann's trading post; he obtained the ferry rights over the Chattahoo­ chee; he asked that his good friend, John M c i n t o s h (a c o u n t r y m a n ) be awarded the franchise for another ferry, and he requested the contract for " t h e M a i l business." 69

70

71

Daniel Ross, son-in-law of John M c D o n a l d , reminded Meigs afterward that Meigs had made promises to John L o w r e y , another c o u n t r y m a n , about his reward: " M r . L o w r e y wishes me to r e m i n d y o u of the promise (he says) y o u made to each other; that is, y o u requested h i m to assist y o u i n getting a grant of the road; he has done so; n o w he wishes the C o l . [Meigs] to assist h i m by directing the Tellico Road [a branch of the Geor­ gia Road] to pass Highwassee at the m o u t h of the A m m o y e where he p r o The Glass to Return J. Meigs and Henry Dearborn, October 21, 1803, and Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, October 25, 1803, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 28,1804, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, October 25,1803, M-208. Ibid. See also W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, November 4,1803, M-208. 6 8

6 9

7 0 7 1

89

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

poses to settle" and do business. Doublehead appears to have been given the r i g h t to contract out some of the public houses both along the Georgia Road and the Cumberland Road; more important, a spur of the road was later b u i l t to his t o w n and trading post i n Muscle Shoals. The direct benefit to other chiefs came i n the f o r m of trade goods, guns, sheep, and mechanics for their towns. 72

73

N o t everyone was satisfied. Lovely reported that some of the Upper T o w n chiefs "take umbrage at the Indulgence of D o u b l e h e a d . " Charles Hicks, son of a w h i t e trader and the official interpreter for the agent, re­ ported " t h a t there is some people i n the upper towns w h o are dissatisfied of g r a n t i n g this road as the upper towns [they say] was not present w h e n g r a n t e d . " W h e t h e r they resented the dominance of the Lower T o w n chiefs or felt slighted b y Meigs i n the division of the spoils is not clear. The conservatives i n the O v e r h i l l Towns of N o r t h Carolina do not appear to have played any part i n the whole business; the agent saw no need to consult t h e m because the road did not come near t h e m . 74

75

The politicians i n the nearby states also had to be given their share of the booty. Governor Tatnall told Meigs that he expected " t o have the n o m i n a t i o n of the Commissioners for the Road" as his political patron­ age. W h e n the Cherokees heard about this, they were fearful that sur­ veyors f r o m nearby states w o u l d be let loose i n the nation. " A l l the River T o w n " chiefs (the Lower Towns) held a council at W i l l s t o w n to protest. This council resolved that "the roads w o u l d not have been granted i f they had k n o w n that the States had the management" of t h e m . The Chero­ kees w o u l d do business o n l y w i t h the federal government. To allay their fears, Meigs said he w o u l d appoint some Cherokee leaders to accompany the Georgia surveyors i n order to see that they followed the Cherokees', not Georgia's, interests. 76

7 7

The negotiations over this road were eye-opening for those Cherokees w h o understood all of the machinations involved. They n o w saw the dan­ gers of their divided regional councils and the real limits on their so-called free consent to such actions. I t was clear how dependent they were be­ coming upon federal aid and h o w vulnerable they were to threats to w i t h ­ draw i t . I n addition, the negotiations made evident that rival claims to land on their borders by the Chickasaws or other neighboring tribes could Daniel Ross to Return J. Meigs, December 17,1803, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, November 11, 1803; January 15, 1805; January 31,1805, M-208. W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, October 27,1803, M-208. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, December 26, 1803, M-208. W. S. Lovely refers to Tatnall's expectations in his letter to Return J. Meigs, October 27,1803, M-208. W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, December 21, 1803, and March 7,1804, M-208. 7 2 73

74

75

76

7 7

90

S T A R T I N G

F A R M S

easily be used to play one nation off against another. The chiefs could see h o w the combined and persistent power of the agent, the factor, and the Secretary of W a r became irresistible and h o w susceptible some chiefs were to m a n i p u l a t i o n t h r o u g h greed or ambition. S t i l l , changes i n the Cherokee political structure were not easy to make. I n 1804 the council agreed to cede Wafford's Tract to the govern­ m e n t for $5,000 i n cash and an additional $1,000 a n n u i t y in perpetuum (it was t w e n t y years before they received this m o n e y due to a bureau­ cratic error that failed to b r i n g the treaty before the Senate for ratifica­ t i o n ) . The government, i t appeared, not o n l y refused to survey land p r o m p t l y w h e n i t was ceded but declined to rectify i n t r u d e r problems re­ s u l t i n g f r o m such delays. Under such a system, every cession inevitably led to another cession. 7 8

Soon after the negotiations for Wafford's Tract were completed, D o u ­ blehead and his Lower T o w n friends decided to accede to Meigs's insist­ ence that i t was t i m e for the Cherokees to sell their old h u n t i n g g r o u n d n o r t h of the Tennessee River. The o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y of the Cher­ okees i n 1804 were opposed to this, but the council seemed to be falling i n t o the hands of a m i n o r i t y . B y cooperating w i t h Meigs, the Lower T o w n chiefs had become the dominant force i n the nation. Nevertheless, their determination to sell the h u n t i n g g r o u n d eventually destroyed their leadership. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 58-59. Wafford's Tract, ceded in 1804, had expanded by 1812 to an area 34 by 4 square miles; originally it had been only 24 by 4 square miles. See Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, August 26,1812, M-221, reel 45, #2045. 78

91

F O U R

T H E S A L E OF T H E H U N T I N G GROUNDS, 1805-1806 The President of the United States presents to Doublehead the sum of one hundred dollars in consideration of his active influence in forward­ ing the views of Government in the introduction of the arts of civiliza­ tion among the Cherokee Nation of Indians and for his friendly dispo­ sition towards the United States and for the purpose of enabling him to extend his useful example among the Red People. —Thomas Jefferson, January 8,1806

T

he decision of the old chiefs i n the Lower Towns to sell the last of the Cherokee h u n t i n g grounds i n a series of treaties i n 1805-1806 came as a shock to most Cherokees and precipitated a rebellion against these chiefs that led to their overthrow. The crisis nearly destroyed the nation. It became clear, once these treaties were completed, that a handful of chiefs had made a great profit from them. However, i t was not s i m p l y the fraud, bribery, and secret treaty clauses that led to the repudiation of the Lower T o w n chiefs. Popular resentment grew from the manner i n w h i c h the decision was made and from the fact that the sale of ten m i l l i o n acres of h u n t i n g land closed out forever an economic and cultural activity of profound social and psychological significance. The agent and the Secre­ t a r y of W a r argued that the fur trade was no longer viable i n the old h u n t ­ i n g grounds, but whether or not the Cherokee hunters had made a good l i v i n g from the fur trade i n the preceding ten years was not really the point to most Cherokees. Everyone realized that fur trading alone was no longer sufficient for a man to support his family. Yet the option of h u n t ­ ing—the claim that one was a hunter—-was there; the tradition remained intact. To lose the h u n t i n g ground was to a Cherokee like losing the Latin mass to a conservative Roman Catholic. A sacred, ancient, and apparently timeless tradition—something that God or the Great Spirit had w r i t t e n into the fundamental structure of things—was gone forever. Equally dis­ tressing, the decision to end this basic vocation was not made b y adequate tribal deliberation and consensus. As i n the case of the Augusta-Nashville 92

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

Road, the decision was made b y a handful of ambitious chiefs w o r k i n g i n secret collaboration w i t h the federal agent. Realizing that most Cherokees were not yet ready to accept such a de­ cision, the agent began i n 1804 to h o l d out rich " i n d u c e m e n t s " to the o l d chiefs to take matters into their o w n hands. These chiefs convinced t h e m ­ selves that the agent was r i g h t to suggest the sale of the depleted h u n t i n g grounds i n r e t u r n for m o n e y that could be used for the purchase of agri­ cultural equipment, sawmills, and gristmills, to improve the life of their people. T h e y told themselves that the m a j o r i t y was too b l i n d to k n o w its o w n best interest. However, b y acting w i t h o u t obtaining a tribal consen­ sus, these chiefs betrayed their trust. I t became evident that the Lower T o w n chiefs, w h o took the lead i n the matter, had become a paternalistic oligarchy rather than spokesmen for the people. Some of the chiefs, like Doublehead, had become frankly contemptuous of those w h o were upset b y the treaties; t h e y were "people w i t h o u t any holes i n their head" to let i n the l i g h t of progress, as he put i t . Other chiefs felt that t h e y had s i m ­ p l y yielded to the inevitable on the best available terms. 1

R e t u r n J. Meigs felt that the decision was long overdue. He praised the chiefs w h o had taken matters into their o w n hands and tried to make a v i r t u e of the large personal rewards they received for cooperating w i t h their Great Father i n Washington. For years Meigs t o l d the Cherokees to give up h u n t i n g , w h i c h "is o n l y a nursery of savage h a b i t s . " He had noted w i t h pleasure early i n 1805 that "raising C o t t o n , spinning and weaving is carried o n the domestic w a y i n almost every part of the na­ t i o n . " Yet, he said, " t h i s is totally done b y females w h o are not held i n any degree of reputable estimation b y the real Indian and therefore nei­ ther t h e m nor their occupation have any charms to tame the savage." As long as Cherokee husbands insisted that h u n t i n g was the o n l y acceptable role for "a real I n d i a n , " the path of civilization w o u l d be blocked. To Meigs, the sale of the h u n t i n g grounds was the removal of the greatest s t u m b l i n g block i n the path of Cherokee progress. He had no qualms about b r i b i n g the chiefs to do what was right. 2

3

A l t h o u g h Henderson's Purchase i n 1775 had cut the original Cherokee h u n t i n g g r o u n d i n half b y lopping off the n o r t h e r n part of i t i n K e n t u c k y and subsequent cessions had cut off another quarter of their land i n northeastern Tennessee and western N o r t h Carolina where h u n t i n g had been good, the Cherokees i n 1805 still owned over 15,000 square miles of h u n t i n g g r o u n d i n M i d d l e Tennessee and n o r t h e r n Alabama. The most i m p o r t a n t part of this was the heavily wooded area between the Tennes1 2 3

W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, June 13,1803, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13,1805, M-208. Ibid.

93

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

see and Cumberland rivers. Tennessee had been admitted to statehood i n 1796; its rapidly expanding population was p u t t i n g tremendous pressure upon the federal government to free that land f r o m Cherokee ownership. Prior to 1805, despite constant efforts, Meigs and the W a r Department had failed to convince t h e m to sell any of it. Probably no Cherokee f a m i l y expected after 1800 to live completely on the proceeds of trapping beaver and selling deerskins; almost all Cherokees kept some horses, cattle, hogs, and p o u l t r y and, w i t h the use of axes, hoes, and mattocks, the Cher­ okees' gardening was more productive even for those w h o did not have plows. But i f a m a n could not b r i n g back a large catch, at least he could retain his status as a hunter; his wife, the elderly males, and the children i n his f a m i l y could supplement the income he made b y selling livestock and garden food. For white easterners like Meigs, h u n t i n g was a pastime, but for the Cherokees i t had always been a necessity. W i t h o u t war and h u n t i n g a Cherokee man was left o n l y w i t h women's w o r k . The most persuasive argument Meigs offered for p u t t i n g an end to the annual w i n t e r h u n t was that more and more h u n t i n g parties, unable to find sufficient furs and hides i n the old h u n t i n g grounds, were going across the Mississippi to h u n t . There they became involved i n increas­ i n g l y bloody battles w i t h the Osages and Quapaws for invading their h u n t i n g grounds. After Jefferson purchased the Louisiana T e r r i t o r y i n 1803, Meigs suggested several times that Cherokees w h o were seriously committed to m a i n t a i n i n g the fur trade system should consider m o v i n g as a body to the west. " T h e y have been expecting," he wrote to Dearborn i n M a y 1804, "propositions for an Exchange of C o u n t r y for land i n L o u ­ isiana," but, he added, "there is at present a v e r y great aversion i n part of the n a t i o n — I believe the greatest part," to such a proposal. Nonetheless, "some ambitious chiefs" m i g h t " f a l l i n w i t h such a measure . . . i n f l u ­ enced b y motives of personal Interest." For the t i m e being, Indian re­ m o v a l to the west seemed u n l i k e l y . 4

I n January 1805, Meigs received reports f r o m John (Jack) Thompson, a w h i t e man married to a Cherokee, that several Cherokees were killed b y the Osages w h i l e h u n t i n g i n the west. Thompson had been i n touch w i t h " o u r Chiefs over the other side of Mississippi on this subject." M a n y Cherokees combined h u n t i n g i n Arkansas w i t h visiting old friends and relatives w h o were n o w l i v i n g there permanently. Five months later Meigs heard that a Cherokee war party, led b y clan relatives of those slain b y the Osages, was leaving for Arkansas to seek retaliation (and to enjoy a l i t t l e warfare i n the hope of taking some scalps, horses, and prisoners). 5

4 5

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 31, 1804, M-208. John Thompson to Return J. Meigs, January 2,1805, M-208.

94

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

He tried i n v a i n to stop t h e m , but he could n o t . The U n i t e d States was not happy about Indian wars breaking out across the Mississippi. T h e y produced m u d d y waters for the B r i t i s h to fish i n . This m a y have been a factor goading Meigs to w o r k w i t h the ambitious chiefs to put an end to h u n t i n g e n t i r e l y b y selling the h u n t i n g grounds. I n addition, Meigs knew that " t h e Cherokees fall so m u c h i n debt" at the government factory and w i t h other traders (white and Cherokee) that they lacked the m o n e y to pay t h e m . Those most heavily i n debt were the " a m b i t i o u s , " " f o r w a r d l o o k i n g " chiefs eager to become b i g planters or traders and to o w n m a n y slaves. (Slave-owning Cherokees did not have to w o r k i n their fields.) The sale of land was the quickest w a y to pay off these debts; there is some evidence that the government factors were told to grant extensive credit to the chiefs for just this reason. Sharing the disapproval of the " f o r ­ w a r d - l o o k i n g " chiefs t o w a r d the " b a c k w a r d - l o o k i n g " traditionalists, Meigs pushed hard for the sale of the h u n t i n g grounds. 6

7

A l t h o u g h most Cherokees t h o u g h t conservatively about change and wished to proceed slowly w i t h acculturation, Meigs t h o u g h t i n grandiose terms. I n 1801 he had proposed the establishment of a giant "manufac­ t o r y " i n the Cherokee nation where all kinds of mechanics w o u l d be as­ sembled to t r a i n apprentices and provide the tools for their t r a n s i t i o n to h u s b a n d r y . He was the original Connecticut Yankee i n the p r i m i t i v e Cherokee court. He wanted t h e m to establish a great endowment fund for a nationwide system of public schools; he wanted t h e m to b u i l d more roads and plant more cotton and erect more mills and construct more cot­ t o n gins and b u i l d more river boats and exploit their m i n e r a l resources. Meigs was an empire builder; he had visions of m a k i n g the Cherokee N a ­ t i o n a t h r i v i n g image of N e w England. If o n l y they could capture his v i ­ sion of their future, he w o u l d help t h e m inspire red men everywhere to become civilized. 8

He seems to have instilled some of this entrepreneurial Yankee zeal i n t o the chiefs of the Lower Towns w i t h w h o m he worked so closely— Doublehead, The Glass, Tolluntuskee, Dick Justice, John L o w r e y , and John D . C h i s h o l m . Doublehead, as Speaker for the N a t i o n a l Council, saw himself as the chief architect of a revitalized Cherokee N a t i o n and strove to set an example as an entrepreneur. I n 1805 he issued a statement of his Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 31,1805, M-208. Prucha, American Indian Policy, p. 88; see also Henry Dearborn to Silas Dinsmoor, March 20, 1805, M-15, reel 2, p. 47, regarding the Creeks' desire to sell land to pay their debts, and the copy of the Chickasaw Treaty of July 23, 1805 (M-208) in which the Chick­ asaws say they have sold land to pay their debts. See W. G. McLoughlin, "Thomas Jefferson and the Beginning of Cherokee Nationalism," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 32 (October 1975) :562. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, November 30,1802, M-208. 6 7

8

95

S A L E

O F

T H E

H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

public-spirited enterprise: " I , Doublehead, a principal Cherokee Chief, w i s h i n g to accelerate useful improvements i n m y Nations, and finding that M i l l s are m u c h w a n t i n g i n the Cherokee C o u n t r y for the purpose aforesaid, determine to erect a sawmill and G r i s t m i l l on a stream on the South side of the River Tennessee." This statement undoubtedly pro­ ceeded f r o m his knowledge that cooperation w i t h Meigs i n ceding the h u n t i n g grounds w o u l d provide h i m w i t h the rewards that w o u l d enable h i m to undertake this construction. 9

The p r i m a r y source of Cherokee credit for capital expansion was the tribal a n n u i t y , a sum that varied f r o m $6,000 to $11,000 a year after 1800, depending upon w h i c h land cessions were still being paid for i n i n ­ stallments. The "perpetual a n n u i t y " was slightly over $6,000. I n addi­ t i o n , the Cherokee treasury received an income f r o m "stands" along the Cumberland and Georgia turnpikes, from ferry and t u r n p i k e tolls, and f r o m the lease of saltpeter caves to entrepreneurs like Samuel Riley, the official interpreter. I n addition, private trade generated individual income that was used for developing farms; occasional gifts of $300 to $500 per year i n trade goods from the government fund for Indian development assisted t h e m . However, few of the Cherokees were good credit risks and the nation as a whole had a tendency to purchase tools and equipment be­ y o n d the scope of the tribal a n n u i t y . Meigs saw to i t that the nation's credit remained sound by persuading the chiefs each year to pay debts to private traders from the national income; this resulted i n enriching the ambitious (heavily indebted) chiefs at public expense. Meigs i n f o r m e d the chiefs that what mattered most was the increase i n private enterprise f r o m w h i c h , eventually, everyone i n the nation w o u l d benefit. The pros­ perous chiefs w o u l d set good examples for indolent warriors. Each year the chiefs decided i n council what p r o p o r t i o n of their a n n u i t y should come to t h e m i n cash to pay debts and what p r o p o r t i o n should be delivered i n trade goods (plows, looms, spinning wheels, hoes, axes) to be distributed among their people. Some chiefs tended to take f r o m the trade goods those items they needed for their o w n plantations and to leave the rest to be divided among the ordinary Cherokees. A n y chief w h o came to t h i n k as Meigs did about the virtues of capital investment for i n t e r n a l i m ­ provement was bound to conclude that the p r i m a r y source of Cherokee income lay i n the sale of their unused land. Land they had plenty of and the government always stood ready to b u y it. The job of the chiefs was to see that this source of public endowment was used to the best advantage. Under the individualistic ethic of private enterprise and private property Doublehead's statement: November 16,1805, M-208. Doublehead could not write Eng­ lish and it is highly probable that Meigs wrote this for him. 9

96

S A L E

O F

T H E

H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

that Meigs and the civilization policy held up as the answer to Cherokee development, the sale of the h u n t i n g land made some sense. A l t h o u g h the price obtained for the land was t i n y i n comparison to its market value, i n principle the sale of public land to raise funds for private investment was compatible w i t h the best economic theory of the day; i t was, i n a s l i g h t l y different f o r m , the policy followed b y the federal government i n its disposal of the public land. Using the public resources ( i n land or credit) to subsidize private enterprise was the A m e r i c a n w a y , b u t i t was not, i n 1805, the Cherokee w a y . A n o t h e r factor provided a spur to the sale of the h u n t i n g grounds i n 1805-1806. Some of this land was claimed by the Chickasaws on the west and b y the Creeks to the south. The government was aware of these over­ lapping claims. After investigation, i t concluded that no one nation had clear title and the President decided to b u y out the claims of all three tribes. However, this created a situation bound to reduce the value of the land—or at least the price the government w o u l d pay for i t . The jealous regard of each tribe for its o w n rights enabled the government to play one off against the other. The three Indian nations did not trust each other because each t h o u g h t the other exaggerated its o w n claims. The Chero­ kees met several times after 1803 w i t h the Creeks and Chickasaws on this subject. I n June 1805, the Secretary of War wrote to Meigs (as he had w r i t t e n to the federal agents i n the other tribes), w a r n i n g that "a c o m b i ­ nation of Indian nations" was being formed i n the south—"a general confederacy for preventing any particular nation f r o m disposing of their lands w i t h o u t the consent of the whole of the nations c o m b i n e d . " Dear­ b o r n instructed Meigs to "use every prudent measure i n y o u r power to prevent i t . " 10

B y 1805 all the Indian tribes i n the Southeast were aware of the i n ­ creasing value of their land and of the determination of the federal gov­ ernment to obtain large tracts of i t at very l o w prices. W h e n the W a r De­ partment approached the Chickasaws i n January 1805 about selling their claim to the southwest corner of the Cherokee h u n t i n g ground, their chiefs, Chinnubbee K i n g , George Colbert, and Charles's Son, refused, saying: " I f we was disposed to sell that land, we w i l l have i t surveyed and ask so m u c h an acre for i t , the same as the w h i t e people does to one an­ o t h e r . " The t h o u g h t that the Indians m i g h t survey and sell their land b y the acre rather than i n huge tracts for l u m p sums sent a chill d o w n the spine of the federal officials. The cost of extinguishing Indian title b y this 11

Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, Silas Dinsmoor, et al., M-15, June 20, 1805, reel 2, p. 85. Chinnubbee, King of the Chickasaws, George Colbert, et al. to General James Robert­ son, January 25,1805, M-208. 10

11

97

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

means w o u l d become prohibitive; Indian tribes could not be allowed to act as w h i t e land companies and ask the market price for small areas sold piecemeal w h i l e holding onto other areas u n t i l settlements on what had been previously sold raised the price of what remained. Indians were not entitled to play the great A m e r i c a n game of western land speculation. W h e n Meigs heard of the Chickasaw plan, he told Dearborn that the idea did not originate w i t h t h e m but w i t h Doublehead and the Cherokees. They "have probably suggested to t h e m [the Chickasaws] the Idea of sell­ i n g lands i n small quantities at a h i g h price." T w o whites, Loyalists i n 1776 and n o w married into the Cherokee N a t i o n , John Rogers and Jack Thompson, were the persons Meigs held originally responsible for the idea. " I t h i n k i t is probable that we shall find i t necessary to tell t h e m i n strong language that the United States is not to be trifled w i t h b y Cher­ okees and Chickasaws." Such a policy w o u l d alter the whole structure of established Indian policy. The best way to prevent i t was to play upon the jealousies of each tribe and to bribe their influential chiefs. 12

Meigs was so upset by the t h o u g h t that the Indians m i g h t sabotage the government's benevolent policy that he began to take the same view of the Indians that the frontiersmen had, namely that Indian nations had no real sovereignty over their land and no r i g h t to say no to the imperial de­ mands of their conquerors. " I f neither [the Cherokee nor the Chickasaw] have the r i g h t to sell, the Right lies i n the United States w h o have the most indisputable title, a title acquired i n a Just and necessary W a r . " O n l y "the benevolence of the United States after the w a r " enabled the Indians to have boundaries protected against i n t r u s i o n . These boundaries were never meant to give t h e m "absolute right to the soil," he told Dear­ born. " I t cannot be admitted that they have such tenure i n the best tracts of wilderness they pretend to hold—so vastly exceeding their present and future population—that they m a y refuse at pleasure such reasonable ces­ sion as the United States r e q u i r e s . " Dearborn and Jefferson h e a r t i l y agreed. The land i n the west belonged to those w h o w o u l d cultivate i t . 13

Declaring that the Indians were being " u n g r a t e f u l " t o w a r d their guardians, Dearborn had determined what he t h o u g h t a fair price for the unused h u n t i n g lands that were so harmful to Indian "progress." I n deal­ ing w i t h Indian affairs the Secretary of War t h o u g h t like a land specula­ tor. There could h a r d l y be "a more equitable mode of calculating the value of Indian t i t l e , " Dearborn w r o t e , than on the basis of the "profits t h e y annually derive from h u n t i n g " on t h e m . This sum m i g h t then be projected to include " w h a t w i l l be the probable profits say for fifty or 12 13

Return J. Meigs to General Daniel Smith, March 7, 1805, M-208. Ibid.

98

S A L E

O F

T H E

H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

more years to come." A s s u m i n g that a tribe was m a k i n g about $3,000 per year f r o m furs and hides taken on this land, Dearborn w e n t o n , the gov­ ernment should pay for the land either a sum sufficient to y i e l d " a n i n ­ terest of $3000 a year" or else " a n a n n u i t y " of $3,000 a year i n cash or trade goods. He had used this method i n calculating the payment for the Choctaw h u n t i n g grounds and n o w proposed $3,000 i n annuities as the sum Congress should offer the Cherokees for their h u n t i n g grounds. To demonstrate the generosity of his calculations, Dearborn noted that i f he had been strictly practical, i t w o u l d be " v e r y fair and proper to make v e r y considerable deductions f r o m their h u n t i n g profits on account of the de­ crease of the game" that w o u l d occur from year to year. Moreover, w h e n the land was sold and put to productive use by whites, " t h e labor and trouble of producing peltries and fur h u n t i n g w i l l be saved"; the Indians could then more profitably put their energies into developing profits f r o m their o w n farms or p l a n t a t i o n s . So went the self-serving t h e o r y of w h i t e 14

benevolence. This buyer's mode of calculating the value of Indian land was h a r d l y consistent w i t h prevailing real estate procedures i n the U n i t e d States or i n any other Western nation. For the w h i t e speculator the value of land was based on what i t was w o r t h to the next customer; i n this case that w o u l d be the frontier farmer, the cotton planter, the cattle herder, the l u m b e r m a n . B u t bargaining w i t h Indians was never a n o r m a l process. G r o w n m e n did not bargain w i t h their children; landlords need not con­ sider the property rights of "tenants at w i l l . " O n the other hand, Cher­ okee c o u n t r y m e n like John Rogers, Jack Thompson, and John C h i s h o l m (all of w h o m were closely allied w i t h Doublehead, The Glass, T o l l u n t u s kee, Toochelar, Black Fox, Pathkiller, and Dick Justice) were t h i n k i n g p r i ­ m a r i l y of enriching themselves and o n l y indirectly, i f at all, of helping the Cherokee N a t i o n . T h e y realized that the government was p l a y i n g one tribe off against another i n bargaining for their overlapping claims. B y suggesting that they w o u l d survey their land and sell i t i n small quan­ tities at market value, they were simply i m p r o v i n g their bargaining po­ sition. Meigs no doubt explained to Doublehead, as he did to Dearborn, that i n m a k i n g treaties w i t h the government, an Indian nation was m a k i n g o n l y "such compacts as a m i n o r makes w i t h his G u a r d i a n . " U l t i m a t e l y " t h e U n i t e d States are their protectors [and] have a just r i g h t to deter­ m i n e , and are the best judges of, what lands they can spare." 14 15

15

I t was nec-

Henry Dearborn to Silas Dinsmoor, October 25, 1804, M-15, reel 2, p. 19. Return J. Meigs to General Daniel Smith, March 7,1805, M-208.

99

SALE OF T H E H U N T I N G

GROUNDS

essary f r o m t i m e to t i m e to show the Cherokees the i r o n hand inside the velvet glove. Doublehead and his friends accepted the fact that the federal govern­ ment had the power to force a sale. Under the rules of the game, they decided to play out the hand and make (at least for themselves) the best profit they could. Their behavior resembled that of i m m i g r a n t w a r d bosses later i n the century: they took their elective power from the people but sold i t to the influential power brokers w h o ran the U n i t e d States. I n October 1805, Dearborn told Meigs precisely what could be offered to the Cherokees for their h u n t i n g grounds: " T h e average price paid for Indian lands w i t h i n the last four years does not amount to one cent per acre" and "the highest price we pay for cession of Indian claims to lands w e l l situated and of good quality is t w o cents per acre." The outside l i m i t that the government w o u l d pay for the first tract of ten m i l l i o n acres of the Cherokee-Chickasaw h u n t i n g ground was to be $14,000 cash and a $3,000 a n n u i t y i n perpetuity (perpetuity meaning u n t i l these Indians were civilized and admitted to c i t i z e n s h i p ) . 16

17

M e a n t i m e suspicion grew among the ordinary Cherokees and Upper T o w n chiefs that private bargains were being struck w i t h o u t council ap­ proval. Rumors became so rife that several of the Lower T o w n chiefs close to Doublehead wrote to Meigs i n M a r c h 1805, asking h i m to clear their names. " W e should be glad for y o u to w r i t e us that we sold no land to y o u . " Such a letter from h i m was needed " t o satisfied the y o u n g men that we sold no land. . . . the y o u n g warriors is t r | y j i n g all they can to put us out of place, but we hope to do everything for the good of our C o u n t r y . " W h o these " y o u n g w a r r i o r s " or y o u n g chiefs were, the writers did not say, but from later events i t is fair to guess that they included men like James Vann, Charles Hicks, and The Ridge. The old chiefs w h o signed this letter were The Glass, Dick Justice, Turtle at H o m e , Black Fox, and Pathkiller. The reaction of the y o u n g chiefs that began i n 1805 against the old chiefs was complex. I n its early stage i t probably represented a factional dispute over h o w to manage the sale rather than o u t r i g h t opposition to i t . Meigs heard i n A p r i l 1805 that "there has been a difference between 1 8

Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, October 8, 1805, M-15, reel 2, p. 117. For the federal government's method of setting prices for Indian land prior to treaty negotiations see Henry Dearborn to Silas Dinsmoor, October 25, 1804, M-15, reel 2, p. .19, and Henry Dearborn to Silas Dinsmoor, March 20, 1805, M - 1 5 , reel 2, p. 47. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 59. The Glass and other chiefs to Return J. Meigs, March 23, 1805, M-208. These chiefs told Meigs that they were willing to sell Holston Island in the Tennessee River for $2,000 and, although it was not part of the hunting ground, it was included in the treaty for the hunting grounds (The Glass et ai. to Return J. Meigs, June 11, 1802, M-208). 16

17

18

100

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N

G

G R O U N D S

V a n n and the Glass" but later he wrote that Vann, The Glass, and T o l l u n tuskee (Doublehead's brother) were w o r k i n g together " t o compose the jealousies between the old and y o u n g c h i e f s . " A p a r t f r o m the dispute over the sale of land there were quarrels over the excessive numbers of whites being admitted into the nation and over the reestablishment of the lighthorse patrol to put down the horse thieves. Land sales alone did not cause the b r e w i n g rebellion. Meigs first discussed the sale of the h u n t i n g lands openly at a council meeting attended b y hundreds of Cherokees i n July 1805. He had paved the w a y for a cession b y offering a new k i n d of " i n d u c e m e n t " to the co­ operative chiefs. He told t h e m that certain strategic plots of land i n the h u n t i n g grounds along the right or n o r t h bank of the Tennessee River w o u l d be reserved as private gifts to t h e m and w o u l d not be included i n the cession. These "reserves" w o u l d become, under the treaty, fee-sim­ ple grants of land to those w h o cooperated; they could then retain that land and live on i t or they could sell i t at market value to whites and pocket the income. They could also lease i t , i f they wished. The tribe as a whole w o u l d get the price that Congress had allocated under Dearborn's calculations, so no one w o u l d be the loser. As i t t u r n e d out, some of these reserves w o u l d be publicly acknowledged as compensation to those Cher­ okees w h o n o w lived on the right bank of the river and w h o w o u l d other­ wise have lost their farms; other reserve tracts w o u l d be kept secret as rewards for those w h o had used their influence to persuade reluctant chiefs to vote for the sale. Legally there were serious questions about g r a n t i n g such private reserves to individual chiefs. The opponents of the sale w o u l d claim that tribal land could not be allotted to individuals w i t h ­ out full tribal approval; the State of Tennessee w o u l d claim that the fed­ eral government had no right to make gifts to Indians of Tennessee land, paid for w i t h public tax money, w h i c h could be then offered for sale to w h i t e citizens of that state by the Indians w h o received i t . I n addition, m a n y Cherokees w h o i n previous cessions had been forced to move off their farms w i t h o u t any compensation questioned w h y the government was n o w so concerned to compensate these particular Cherokees. The an­ swer was that i n the past Cherokee houses and farms were so small and crude t h e y were almost worthless, but i n recent years farms had become larger and more valuable; several of those for w h o m reserves were planned i n the area n o r t h of the Tennessee River were v e r y successful, well-to-do planters and traders (and several were w h i t e c o u n t r y m e n or of m i x e d ancestry whose knowledge of federal machinations gave t h e m great influence). Meigs was also to say later that the g r a n t i n g of fee-sim19

19

Return J. Meigs to General James Robertson, April 26,1805, M-208.

101

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

pie reserves to acculturated Cherokees was the first step i n the govern­ ment's general program for granting citizenship to those Cherokees w h o were capable of managing their o w n affairs. Technically these reserves w o u l d lie outside the Cherokee N a t i o n and t h o u g h contiguous to i t , the land was taxable b y Tennessee; therefore, those w h o lived on these re­ serves w o u l d be citizens of Tennessee. A l l of this was not f u l l y clarified to the Cherokees u n t i l after the treaty. Three days before the scheduled negotiations at Hiwassee i n July 1805, Doublehead w r o t e to Meigs, stating that he and his friends were n o w pre­ pared to give full support to the sale of the h u n t i n g grounds provided Meigs carried t h r o u g h " w i t h such Reservations as y o u have i n y o u r pro­ posals o f f e r e d . " From the treaties that finally emerged we k n o w that re­ serves were offered to Doublehead, Tolluntuskee, Tahlootiskee, John R i ­ ley, Charles Hicks, Miles M e l t o n , John D . C h i s h o l m , A u t o w e , Chechou, and C h e t o w e . However, even w i t h the strong support of these Lower T o w n chiefs, the negotiations on July 20 failed. Opposition f r o m the y o u n g chiefs and the conservative Cherokees was too strong. Meigs told Dearborn afterward that "those of M i x e d b l o o d " supported the cession because they were " i n favor of i m p r o v e m e n t and have v e r y m u c h t h r o w n off the savage manners." But "the real Indians still h u g the manners and habits of their ancestors" and refused to give up their h u n t i n g g r o u n d s . 20

21

22

Despite this i n i t i a l defeat, Meigs remained confident. Doublehead said that w h e n the regular council meeting was held i n October he w o u l d have the necessary votes. However, i t came as a blow to all the Cherokees to learn that f o l l o w i n g the fruitless negotiations at Hiwassee, the Presi­ dent's treaty commissioners went west to meet w i t h the Chickasaws on July 23 and persuaded t h e m to sell their claim to a large part of this h u n t ­ ing g r o u n d . The Cherokee leaders t h o u g h t they had w o r k e d out an agree­ m e n t w i t h the Chickasaws and Creeks to support o n l y j o i n t action. N o w the Chickasaws had double-crossed t h e m . Meigs told Dearborn that some of the Cherokees were so angry that " i t has been w i t h some diffi­ c u l t y that they [the chiefs] could restrain some of their people f r o m com­ m i t t i n g hostilities on the Chickasaw on account of that cession." H e did not say whether these angry Cherokees were traditionalists w h o wanted to retain the h u n t i n g g r o u n d or whether they were f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g Cherokees w h o feared that the Chickasaw action w o u l d lower the price 2 3

24

Doublehead to Return J. Meigs, July 17, 1805, M-208. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 62-68. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 27, 1805, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 4,1805, M-208; Doublehead to Return J. Meigs, August 9, 1805, M-208; Nicholas Byers to Return J. Meigs, August 19, 1805, M 208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, September 22, 1805, M-208. 20

21 22

23

24

102

S A L E

O F

T H E

H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

the Cherokees expected. Because the Chickasaws claimed o n l y the west­ ernmost part of the h u n t i n g ground, i t was still necessary for the govern­ ment to bargain w i t h the Cherokees, but the case for retaining the h u n t ­ ing g r o u n d was n o w considerably weaker. Meigs continued to w o r k on the " i n f l u e n t i a l " Cherokee chiefs between July and October, perhaps at that t i m e increasing the number or size of promised reserves. He also arranged w i t h the government factor, N i c h ­ olas Byers, to give Doublehead $500 w o r t h of credit at the government trading post. Byers reminded Meigs that " D . H . w i l l expect a debt [ar­ ranged] i n this w a y [to be] cancel'd by g o v e r n m e n t " w h e n the treaty is concluded. "Doublehead m a y be bought, but i t w i l l be a hard matter to sell h i m . " A m o n t h after the Hiwassee negotiations Doublehead and his friends at Muscle Shoals sent a letter to Black Fox and other Lower T o w n chiefs stating: " W e have w i t h m u c h care and attention considered the re­ sult of the late Conference [in July] w i t h the Commissioners on the H i g h wassee, and we t h i n k t h a t . . . we shall agree to the request of our Father, at least i n p a r t . " T h e y had been persuaded because "the A g e n t had i n ­ formed us that he could not be Justified i n c o n t i n u i n g the presents of wheels, cards, and implements of husbandry and i n g i v i n g corn and pro­ visions [ i n times of famine] as he had done before" unless there was co­ operation f r o m the Cherokees. W h e t h e r Meigs was serious about cur­ t a i l i n g aid or whether he merely suggested to Doublehead that this w o u l d be a good argument to persuade the hesitant is hard to say. The crucial part of this letter, however, was a new plan of Doublehead's to divide the h u n t i n g g r o u n d i n t o t w o parts and to sell o n l y the n o r t h e r n part (5.2 m i l ­ l i o n acres) to the government i n October. The southern part, containing the acres claimed by the Chickasaws and Creeks, needed further consid­ eration. 2 5

26

Soon after Meigs received a copy of this letter, he wrote to his fellow treaty commissioner, Daniel S m i t h , saying that he n o w had assurance f r o m Doublehead, Pathkiller and other chiefs that a treaty w o u l d be f o r t h c o m i n g at the October council: " T h e y appear convinced that i t w i l l not do to put off the business. They are assured f r o m every quarter that the w h i t e people are irritated at their refusal to c o m p l y . " W h e n the chiefs met the commissioners i n late October at Tellico, Meigs stressed to the council the importance of abiding by a m a j o r i t y decision rather t h a n 27

Nocholas Byers to Return J. Meigs, August 4,1805, and August 16, 1805, M-208. Doublehead et al. to Black Fox et al., August 9,1805, M-208. This letter was signed by Doublehead, Tolluntuskee, Katigiskee, the Seed, Sequeechee, Skiuka, the Redbird, and it was addressed to Black Fox, Dick Justice, Turtle at Home, Chinowe, Slave Body, Eusanalee, Toochelar, Parched Corn Flour, and Taugustuska. Return J. Meigs to General Daniel Smith, August 19,1807, M-208. 25

26

27

103

SALE O F THE H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

s t r i v i n g for consensus: "Brothers, i n transacting any i m p o r t a n t publick business where there is [aJ number of persons [acting], i t cannot be ex­ pected that every one w i l l t h i n k alike; but where the greatest number agree i n their opinion on any point to be determined, such determination is i n all well-regulated Society deemed the expression of that Society and [is] c o n c l u s i v e . " This renewed effort to persuade the Cherokees to alter 28

their traditional manner of m a k i n g tribal decisions was i n part an effort to force acquiescence f r o m those w h o m Doublehead and his friends had not yet convinced of the necessity of the sale. Meigs m a y have feared se­ rious opposition from some of the y o u n g chiefs. A system of m a j o r i t y rule was bound to make dealings w i t h the Cherokees easier for the gov­ ernment, but i t was a decided departure from the traditional rule of con­ sensual decision m a k i n g . As i t t u r n e d out, the treaty signed by 33 chiefs at Tellico on October 25, 1805, was hardly a m a j o r i t y decision t h o u g h i t m a y have been a ma­ j o r i t y of those present and v o t i n g at that council. The total n u m b e r of headmen i n the fifty or more towns of the nation was between 100 and 125. The government agreed to pay "three thousand dollars i n valuable merchandise and eleven thousand dollars w i t h i n n i n e t y days after the ratification of this treaty and also an a n n u i t y of three thousand dollars [ i n p e r p e t u i t y ] " for the 5.2 m i l l i o n acres constituting the n o r t h e r n half of the h u n t i n g g r o u n d . The treaty also granted the r i g h t of w a y for t w o more roads, one of t h e m to r u n from Doublehead's t o w n at Muscle Shoals to the T o m Bigbee River leading to the Gulf. B y the treaty, three re­ serves, each one mile square, were set aside " t o the use of the Cherokees" w i t h o u t specifying to w h o m they belonged; a tract three miles square op­ posite the m o u t h of the Hiwassee River was also set aside, ostensibly for the use of the United States. (Two of the one-mile-square reserves w e n t to Tolluntuskee and one to Doublehead; the three-mile-square tract was designed i n a secret codicil for Doublehead. The large tract opposite the m o u t h of the Hiwassee was an area that Tennessee was considering as the site of its new capital and as such w o u l d net Doublehead a v e r y large sum w h e n sold; he had agreed to give o n e - t h i r d interest i n this tract to John D . C h i s h o l m and o n e - t h i r d to John Riley, the son of Meigs's interpreter, Samuel R i l e y . )

29

The treaty at Tellico was o n l y the first part of a more complex and farMinutes of a Treaty Conference at Tellico, October 22,1805, M-208. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 62-68. The treaty mentions "Talootiskie," not "Tolluntuskee," but they are assumed to be the same person. John D. Chisholm, a white man, is reported to have married Doublehead's sister. He also acted as Doublehead's clerk, scribe, and business partner and was heavily involved as a secret negotiator between Dou­ blehead and Meigs from 1801 to 1807. 28

29

104

S A L E

O F

T H E H U N T I N G

G R O U N D S

reaching transaction. A m o n t h before the Tellico council, f o r t y - f o u r headmen f r o m t w e n t y - f o u r towns (most of t h e m f r o m the Lower Towns) met at W i l l s t o w n and requested that Meigs arrange for t h e m to send a delegation to meet w i t h President Jefferson f o l l o w i n g the Tellico negoti­ ations.

30

They wished to see Jefferson, Meigs t o l d Dearborn, to ask h i m

to settle " t h e dispute between t h e m and the Chickasaws" over the o w n ­ ership of the southwestern part of the h u n t i n g grounds. W h i l e there, outside the eyes of the conservatives who always attended negotiating councils i n large numbers, they planned to negotiate for the sale of this area. I n December 1805, fourteen Cherokee chiefs, led b y Doublehead, w e n t to W a s h i n g t o n w i t h Meigs and i n January 1806 made a second treaty ceding the other half of the h u n t i n g g r o u n d for $10,000; i n addi­ t i o n , the government agreed to b u i l d a g r i s t m i l l for the Cherokees and to provide t h e m w i t h "a machine for cleaning c o t t o n . " The treaty also p r o ­ vided a private a n n u i t y of one hundred dollars for the Principal Chief, Black Fox, " d u r i n g his l i f e . " B u t the most remarkable feature of the Treaty of W a s h i n g t o n was the decision to exclude f r o m the cession an area ten miles l o n g and ten miles wide on the n o r t h e r n or r i g h t bank of the Tennessee River at Muscle Shoals, where Doublehead lived. The treaty also granted a reserve t w o miles b y three miles to John D . Chish o l m , Moses M e l t o n , Charles Hicks, Chetowe, and Cheh C h u h , w h o had large farms i n this area that they did not wish to give u p .

3 1

G r a n t i n g a tract of one hundred square miles to Indians i n a ceded area was a new idea i n A m e r i c a n Indian policy, particularly since i t seemed to be i n the name of one m a n (it was always k n o w n as

"Doublehead's

T r a c t " ) ; i t was to be his private property to live o n , lease, or sell as he chose. The tract became i n effect an independent township under the laws of Mississippi T e r r i t o r y ; i t appears that Jefferson and Dearborn chose to regard i t as an experiment i n Indian citizenship and self-government. Doublehead was a shrewd and able leader, w h o l l y c o m m i t t e d to " t h e civ­ ilization p r o g r a m . " The village he was to establish on this tract m i g h t be­ come, Meigs hoped, a model of w h a t an enlightened, full-blood chief could do ( w i t h a little government aid) to lift his people o u t of savagery. As i t t u r n e d out, the tract was n o t h i n g but a problem f r o m its conception u n t i l i t was finally re-ceded to the U n i t e d States i n a treaty i n 1817. D o u ­ blehead found i t more remunerative to lease the land to whites rather than to make i t a model Cherokee village. The Cherokee N a t i o n consid­ ered the grant a betrayal of tribal r i g h t . M o s t full bloods and y o u n g chiefs 3 0

31

Black Fox and other chiefs to Return J. Meigs, September 16, 1805, M-208. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 62-68.

105

S A L E

O F

T H E

H U N T I NG

G R O U N D S

assumed i t was a bribe paid to Doublehead by the government i n order to acquire their h u n t i n g ground. Before the Cherokee delegation that negotiated the second phase of the sale of the h u n t i n g grounds left Washington i n January 1806, President Jefferson made a special gift of $1,000 to Doublehead " i n consideration of his active influence i n forwarding the views of Government, i n the i n t r o ­ duction of the arts of civilization among the Cherokee N a t i o n of Indians, and for his friendly disposition towards the United States and for the pur­ pose of enabling h i m to extend his useful example among the Red Peo­ p l e . " The final note i n this carefully orchestrated cession was an address by President Jefferson to the departing delegation on January 10. I n i t he outlined his hopes for the Cherokee people and offered t h e m some con­ siderations for their future. First, he praised their progress i n "becoming farmers, learning the use of the plough and hoe, enclosing y o u r grounds and e m p l o y i n g that labor i n their cultivation w h i c h y o u f o r m e r l y e m ­ ployed i n h u n t i n g and w a r . " Then he praised the Cherokee w o m e n for their "handsome specimens of cotton cloth raised, spun, and w o v e " by t h e m and presented to h i m by the delegation. He praised their herdsmen for " r a i s i n g cattle and hogs for y o u r food and horses to assist y o u r la­ bors." Your " n e x t w a n t , " he continued, w o u l d be " m i l l s to g r i n d y o u r corn w h i c h , b y relieving y o u r w o m e n from the loss of t i m e i n beating i t into meal, w i l l enable t h e m to spin and weave" more cloth. U l t i m a t e l y , Jefferson said, their progress w o u l d depend upon changing their laws of inheritance from tribal ownership and a p r i m i t i v e matrilineal system to fee-simple ownership and the patrilineal model of the w h i t e man. N o w that t h e y lived on single-family farms, their property should descend f r o m the husband to the wife and children, not to the clan relatives—the husband's brothers and the mother's brothers. A man should love his wife and children " m o r e than he does his other relations." Finally, as p r i ­ vate property and contractual relationships increased, the Cherokees w o u l d need a judicial system to regulate "contests between man and m a n " over private property and inheritance. This was the path of prog­ ress. 32

33

However, for those not ready to take this path, Jefferson suggested an alternative: " T h e Mississippi [Valley] now belongs to us, and i t m i g h t be that some Cherokees w o u l d prefer to move across the Mississippi" to live w i t h the Cherokees on the other side. There they w o u l d find more game, fewer w h i t e men, less pressure to abandon the h u n t and adopt new ways. " T h a t c o u n t r y is ours. We w i l l p e r m i t t h e m to live i n i t . " Jefferson did 32 33

Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, January 8, 1806, M-15, reel 2, p. 153. Thomas Jefferson to the Cherokee Delegates, January 10,1806, M-15, reel 2, p. 169.

106

S A L E OF T H E H U N T I N G

GROUNDS

TABLE 4 Cherokee Income from Land Cessions, 1791-1835 Square Miles of Cession Location of Cession

Year

Tennessee N.C.

1791

Tennessee N.C. Georgia "Wafford's Tract" Kentucky Tennessee

1798 1804 1805

Per State 3,435 \ 722

J

952 ) 587 135

J

1,086 \

Tennessee

r/

1806 (Oct. 27)

Tennessee Alabama S.C. Alabama Mississippi Georgia Tennessee Georgia

5,269 \

Alabama Tennessee N.C. Alabama Georgia Tennessee N.C.

1,154 2,408 1,542 2,518

1817

1819

1835 (final sale of all land in the East)

4,157

1,539 135 8,118

7,032 J

1806 (Oct. 25)

1816 (Nov. 22) 1816 (Sept. 14)

Money Paid by U.S. for Total Cession

T o t a l

4

1,602 J 148 3,129 \

6,871

3,133

$5,000 in cash from South Carolina. $65,000 from the U.S. in 6 installments.

1,855

No payment; land exchanged in Arkansas for western Cherokees.

5,104

No payment; land exchanged in Arkansas for western Cherokees.

148

4f 583 \ 435 J 837 / \ | * \

7,202 1 1,484 j 1,112 '

$1,000 annuity in perpetuity plus trade goods valued at $1,000; in 1792 $500 was added to the annuity: in 1794 the annuity was raised to $2,500 and $2,000 ifi trade goods was paid to Cherokees. $1,000 added to the perpetual annuity; and $5,000 in cash. $1,000 added to the annuity plus $5,000 in cash (not started till 1824). $3,000 added to the annuity plus $14,000 i n cash and trade goods, plus $1,600 for an island in the Tennessee River. $10,000 in cash plus another $2,000 in cash in 1807 for "adjusting" the demarcation line.

12,316

$5,000,000 plus $300,000 for spoliation and $300,000 to cover the costs for removal of the nation to Indian Territory plus a guarantee to 7 million acres in Indian Territory.

SOURCE: Compiled from Charles Royce, The Cherokee Nation of îndianê (reprint, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975),

not press the p o i n t , but he was preparing the w a y for those discontented w i t h the loss of t h e i r h u n t i n g grounds to emigrate and exchange t h e i r h o m e l a n d i n the East for land across the Mississippi. As the Upper T o w n rebellion led by the y o u n g chiefs erupted i n 1807, M e i g s t r i e d h a r d to persuade the Cherokees to adopt this alternative.

107

SALE OF T H E H U N T I N G

GROUNDS

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this ill-fated Cherokee dele­ gation to Washington had n o t h i n g to do w i t h the treaty but w i t h the de­ cision i t made regarding the use of the m o n e y obtained by the treaty. Just prior to leaving the city, the fourteen chiefs voted to dispose of the $10,000 Congress had paid for the southern half of the h u n t i n g g r o u n d by d i v i d i n g $2,000 of i t among themselves (for their o w n use) and au­ t h o r i z i n g Meigs to use the remaining $8,000 to pay off debts that they and other principal chiefs owed to the government factory and to various private traders, Cherokee and w h i t e . 34

Resolution of the Cherokee Delegates in Washington City, January 4,1806, M-208. In the resolution the delegates write that they "wish to receive" $2,000 out of the $10,000 cash paid for this cession, to pay their hotel bills in Washington "and the ballance of the money they appropriate to Discharge the debts due to their Traders in the Nation." 34

108

FIVE

T H E R E V O L T OF T H E Y O U N G CHIEFS,1806-1807 The Young chifes, and indede some of them no chief es atole [are] trying to Break that Law. —Chief John Lowrey, October 23,1806

T

he Cherokee Rebellion of 1806-1810 occurred i n t w o parts. The first, i n 1806-1807, arose over the abuse of the t r e a t y - m a k i n g power. It led to the official execution of Doublehead i n 1807 and the violent repu­ diation of a treaty that year granting iron-ore rights w i t h i n the nation to Colonel Elias W . Earle of South Carolina. The second phase of the rebel­ l i o n took place i n 1808-1810, when the Lower T o w n or " R i v e r chiefs" tried to negotiate an exchange of land and the removal of their half of the tribe to Arkansas. I n this period a rebellious council representing f o r t y t w o towns deposed Black Fox as Principal Chief and installed Pathkiller to replace h i m . D u r i n g the first phase, the rebellion was described b y D o u blehead's friends as a revolt of the y o u n g chiefs ; i t was led by James V a n n of the Upper Towns. D u r i n g the second phase, w h e n V a n n himself was killed, the revolt centered around resistance to Meigs's efforts to force the whole tribe to remove to Arkansas. The leaders of the latter phase were Charles Hicks and The Ridge; Meigs called their supporters "the rebel p a r t y " or "the insurgents." He believed that the rebels t h r o u g h o u t were self-appointed, self-interested men, jealous of the power and influence of the old chiefs, and to some extent he was correct. The great mass of Cher­ okees, t h o u g h angry enough to give tacit support to the rebellion, were at first too confused to understand precisely what was at stake. After the se­ cret plan of removal and exchange between Meigs and the Lower T o w n chiefs was exposed i n 1808, however, the rebellion became m u c h more than a factional quarrel between y o u n g and old chiefs. I t became a strug­ gle to provide clearer definition of Cherokee i d e n t i t y , political structure, and national purpose. I n the years 1808-1810, the Cherokees took a ma­ jor step f r o m being an ethnic nation toward being a nation-state. The tra­ ditional definition of being a Cherokee rested upon kinship, clan m e m ­ bership, and adherence to ancient customs, beliefs, and responsibilities.

109

R E V O L T

O F

T H E

Y O U N G

C H I E F S

B y 1810, t w o new tests of Cherokee i d e n t i t y had been added. These de­ fined a Cherokee b y residence w i t h i n specific boundaries (the land where their ancestors had always lived) and by l o y a l t y to the decisions of a rep­ resentative national council whose policies were arrived at b y consensus. Decisions reached by ad hoc councils were not valid; emigration west of the Mississippi was treasonous expatriation. Patriotism required political c o m m i t m e n t : lack of political l o y a l t y was grounds, after 1810, for exclu­ sion f r o m the tribe. The U n i t e d States never acknowledged these i m p o r ­ tant changes, nor did those w h o emigrated west, but the great body of Cherokees did. Yet the rebellion of 1808-1810 did not resolve the crucial questions of h o w fast and how far the Cherokees should move toward ac­ culturation and assimilation; these continued to plague t h e m u n t i l W h i t e Path's Rebellion i n 1827. I n addition to the resentment over the loss of the h u n t i n g grounds and the secret favors granted to certain chiefs i n the treaties of 1805-1806, the y o u n g chiefs were concerned about a plan contrived i n 1806 b y the Lower T o w n chiefs to survey part of their remaining land on the r i g h t bank of the Tennessee River, parceling out that land i n pieces for speculative pur­ poses and establishing the principle of granting private reserves (to be owned i n fee simple) to the more "advanced" or "acculturated" families. This Lower T o w n proposal, t h o u g h i n line w i t h Jefferson's message i n 1806, was never accepted b y the national council and i t was strongly op­ posed b y most Cherokees, especially since the Lower Towns assumed that the land to be divided belonged to their region and therefore could be a l ­ located to their people. The various schemes by the Lower T o w n chiefs to dispose of tribal land convinced the great mass of Cherokees that tribal security and survival rested upon the maintenance of tribal ownership and control of their land. This, i n t u r n , required an end to the division between the Lower and Upper Towns, As long as certain chiefs assumed the r i g h t to control their o w n area of the nation and to manipulate decisions over the disposal of land i n collusion w i t h federal authorities, there could be no national se­ c u r i t y . The Lower T o w n chiefs had to be o v e r t h r o w n because t h e y usurped the power to speak for the nation w h e n they had i n fact lost touch w i t h the feelings and traditions of the m a j o r i t y . I t was too easy for the agent and the W a r Department to play upon this division to suit their o w n purposes. The " y o u n g chiefs" w h o led the rebellion are not easy to identify ex­ cept to the extent that their names appear on letters or manifestos issued f r o m t i m e to t i m e . I n earlier days, a m a n became a " w a r r i o r " at about age t w e n t y - f o u r w h e n he first was allowed to go out w i t h war parties. As he distinguished himself i n battle he was given a chance to lead war parties, 110

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

and at that t i m e he became a " y o u n g chief." Y o u n g chiefs, t h o u g h t h e y had a voice i n council, were not actually members of the council. T h e y seldom became " o l d chiefs" u n t i l they were past middle age. Cherokee government was essentially a gerontocracy i n peacetime; respect and au­ t h o r i t y came w i t h age, experience, and w i s d o m . To become an old chief was to become a leading voice i n council affairs. This status was usually accorded by a formal vote of the council and could also be w i t h d r a w n b y its decision to " b r e a k " a chief. After 1794 the distinction between y o u n g chiefs and old chiefs became increasingly fuzzy because there was no w a r ­ fare i n w h i c h y o u n g chiefs could distinguish themselves, and other t a l ­ ents became more valuable, such as the power to deal effectively w i t h w h i t e officials. Power became factional; i n the confusion and disorgani­ zation between 1794 and 1810, the clash between y o u n g chiefs and o l d chiefs centered more upon differences i n policy than i n age or distinction. N o doubt the old chiefs remained those w h o were elected to that rank by the council, but the criteria for such decisions were no longer clearly understood. I n this situation, y o u n g chiefs became, i n essence, "the opposition," or those out of power. The t e r m " y o u n g chiefs" d i d not apply s i m p l y to those i n the Upper Towns, although that region was a center of opposition to Lower T o w n hegemony. A f t e r 1805 there were opponents of Doublehead and his clique even i n the Lower Towns. N o r was a " y o u n g chief" necessarily y o u n g i n years; he was y o u n g i n that he had not yet earned status as a major chief. I t is also not accurate to char­ acterize the rebels or y o u n g chiefs as " f u l l bloods" or " t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s " i n opposition to " m i x e d bloods" or "progressives" (i.e., those i n favor of acculturation). James V a n n was not a full blood or an enemy of accultu­ r a t i o n ; neither were Charles Hicks and The Ridge. M o s t of those w h o joined V a n n as leaders i n the early phase of the rebellion were of m i x e d ancestry. M i x e d bloods dominated the Executive C o m m i t t e e of T h i r t e e n that emerged to lead the reunited nation i n 1809. N o r w o u l d i t be fair to say that i n t e r m a r r i e d whites (countrymen) had a d o m i n a n t role o n either side. John L o w r e y , John Walker, John M c i n t o s h , and John M c D o n a l d were w h i t e " c o u n t r y m e n " w h o came to side w i t h the rebels; John D . C h i s h o l m , John Ratliffe, Moses M e l t o n , and Samuel Riley were whites w h o w o r k e d as fervently for the old chiefs. I n the years 1805-1810 the leadership was i n constant flux; some chiefs changed camps several times. Eventually some w h o were close to Doublehead, like Black Fox and Pathkiller, joined the rebels, w h i l e some, w h o disliked Doublehead, later joined (after his death) w i t h those Lower T o w n chiefs w h o favored re­ m o v a l to the west. A g e n t Meigs contributed significantly to the rebellion i n several ways, m u c h as he deplored i t . He had certainly pushed the old chiefs i n 1 8 0 5 111

R E V O L T

OF

THE

Y O U N G

CHIEFS

1806 to act against what he and they knew was the w i l l of the vast major­ i t y ; that was the principal reason for all the inducements and bribery. He also contributed to the g r o w i n g gap between the so-called forward- and backward-looking members of the nation, encouraging those chiefs he considered "advanced" or " e n l i g h t e n e d " to treat l i g h t l y or even scorn­ f u l l y the opinion and values of the " r e a l " or conservative Indians. I r o n i ­ cally, however, his major mistake m a y have been his continued effort to develop among the Cherokees a sense of national pride. He lost no op­ p o r t u n i t y to tell t h e m how much they had achieved and h o w far i n ad­ vance they were of all other tribes. Upon r e t u r n i n g f r o m Washington early i n 1806 w i t h the delegation that had sold the last of the h u n t i n g g r o u n d , he spoke of this nationalistic spirit to a council at W i l l s t o w n : Brothers, the visit of your deputation to the seat of Government has done more good to your nation than was ever done to any Indian nation. It has opened the eyes of thousands who were in the dark in regard to your improvements. It has indeed laid the foundation of your future prosperity, and I may say, of your ex­ istence to futurity. And it has also been of great advantage to all the red men of America who will now be induced to imitate your people in improvements. 1

W h e t h e r or not a Cherokee agreed w i t h what Doublehead had done, he could take pride, Meigs argued, that his nation as a whole was setting an example of Indian knowledge and ability. U n w i t t i n g l y Meigs m a y have suggested to some Cherokees that Doublehead was not indispensable. Recognizing that m a n y Cherokees disliked the decision to sell the h u n t i n g ground, Meigs stressed the success of their rapid acculturation more strongly than he should have at W i l l s t o w n . He particularly empha­ sized Jefferson's suggestion that they divide up their remaining land i n severalty, m a k i n g each Cherokee man and his f a m i l y responsible for their own farm and future by private initiative, hard w o r k , self-reliance, and self-discipline. By p u t t i n g each Cherokee on his o w n land, he said, " y o u w i l l secure y o u r land to y o u r people forever," by w h i c h he meant that private property was sacred i n America and that Cherokees l i v i n g on p r i ­ vate plots w o u l d not have to fear that some faction of chiefs m i g h t sell t h e m o u t : " T h i s proves p l a i n l y to y o u that he [the President] wishes y o u to live on the land forever." W h e n land is owned i n fee simple, the whites "cannot b u y y o u r land as has before been done." I t w i l l " n o t be i n the power of any council to sell y o u r farms." Meigs had printed and distrib­ uted Jefferson's message to their delegates so that " y o u m a y be assured that this is the o n l y way to save y o u r C o u n t r y for yourselves and y o u r children to live i n . " 2

1 2

Return J. Meigs to Cherokee Council at Willstown, April 2,1806, M-208. Ibid.

112

R E V O L T

O F

T H E

Y O U N G

C H I E F S

Meigs believed that i f he persuaded the Cherokees to divide up their land i n t o farms of about 640 acres per family, perhaps t w o - t h i r d s of their area w o u l d remain e m p t y — t h a t is, i t w o u l d have no farms on i t and w o u l d thus become available for cession. W h e n he spoke of saving " y o u r C o u n t r y " he meant o n l y saving the tracts they farmed as individuals. He spoke i n fact for detribalization and denationalization of the Cherokees. The Cherokees had somethng else i n m i n d w h e n they spoke of their c o u n t r y and its future; they meant their national and ethnic i d e n t i t y ; they meant h o l d i n g on to all the lands of their ancestors. The chiefs at W i l l s t o w n responded to Meigs's statement of M a r c h 1806 b y saying " y o u have recommended to this council the division of our lands to i n ­ dividual p r o p e r t y , " but, they asked, " h o w m u c h land w i l l we have left to u s " — w h a t w o u l d happen to the remainder? Some of the chiefs at the council were f r o m the upper parts of the Upper Towns (the N o r t h Caro­ lina or O v e r h i l l towns) and they said that "these Upper Parts of the upper towns are not w e l l supplied" w i t h the tools necessary to become farmers. Could d i v i d i n g their land i n t o individual property protect t h e m f r o m whites u n t i l such t i m e as they became good farmers? T h e y m a y have understood Meigs to mean that the total area of the nation w o u l d be d i ­ vided equally among the total number of families, thus securing all of their t e r r i t o r y . Meigs reported to Dearborn after this council that there was "satisfac­ t i o n w i t h the doings of the deputation" i n Washington, but he misread the evidence. The council, for example, had specifically told h i m not to carry out the final action of the Washington delegation. " Y o u are not to pay any m o n e y belonging to the nation to any persons or merchants that has debts i n this c o u n t r y because the y o u n g chiefs says that they have pass[ed] a law at the Fox's t o w n last fall [which] was [to allow] a twelve months for every m a n to pay their [own] debts." The council delegates 3

i n W a s h i n g t o n had usurped a u t h o r i t y i n designating that m o n e y f r o m a land sale, w h i c h should be for national use, should instead be used to pay the personal debts of a few individuals. Meigs had tried to explain at W i l l s t o w n h o w this happened. The delegates, considering " t h a t numbers of their brethren were i n embarrassed circumstances and considering that these people look to the Heads of the nation as their fathers . . . t h o u g h t it proper w h i l e i t was i n our power for the relief of that description of peo­ ple, to appropriate the money f r o m the sale . . . to pay their debts." A p 4

Black Fox and other chiefs to Return J. Meigs, August 7,1806, M-208. Undated statement by Return J. Meigs in M-208 at the end of records for the year 1806, but probably delivered at Willstown in April, 1806, and at other councils to explain the treaty i n Washington. 3

4

113

R E V O L T

O F

T H E

Y O U N G

C H I E F S

parently the delegates hoped to disarm criticism b y this effort to wipe out all debts, but all they did was arouse suspicion. Meigs scheduled a second council to hear the results of the Washington Treaty at Ustanali on A p r i l 24,1806. This council expressed opposition to the part of the treaty that allowed "the reservation at Musle Shoals and Spring Creek on the N o r t h side of the Tennessee, w h i c h lands and reser­ vations shall belong to the whole nation and not to i n d i v i d u a l s . " Meigs explained that the President was pleased by the creation of these fee-sim­ ple reserves for individuals "because he saw by these things that y o u were beginning to encourage y o u r people to have individual property and hav­ i n g a tendency to make y o u r people industrious and to feel like freemen acting entirely for the comfort and benefit of their f a m i l i e s . " However, the m a j o r i t y of Cherokees were still loyal to their clans and believed i n matrilineal inheritance. Meigs, Jefferson, and the delegation had pushed too far ahead i n rewarding the h i g h l y acculturated (some of t h e m w h i t e countrymen) w i t h property that i n the opinion of m a n y should have re­ mained part of the tribal land. 5

6

One of the leading chiefs of the Upper Towns, Chulio (The Boot) told Meigs that his region wanted "the m i l l and cotton machine" promised i n the treaty to be erected i n Ustanali and not i n Doublehead's reserve. He also took umbrage at Meigs's reference to Doublehead as a "beloved m a n " (the Cherokee t e r m for a Principal Chief) w h e n " y o u k n o w that Doulehead is not a beloved man but o n l y a speaker" of the council. A n ­ other p r o m i n e n t Upper T o w n chief, Katahee (Badger's Son) wrote to Meigs after the council explaining that as their agent Meigs had an o b l i ­ gation to assist all the Cherokees, not just a favored few: " t h e Chiefs ex­ pect that y o u have regard [to] the welfare of the upper towns as w e l l as [to] the lower t o w n s . " 7

To allay these objections, Meigs attended a t h i r d council, at Sawtey (Sautee) i n July 1806, to discuss the h u n t i n g grounds treaty made i n W a s h i n g t o n ; here he thought he had finally smoothed over all opposi­ t i o n , but further signs of rebellion appeared i n August. A t that t i m e some Upper T o w n chiefs made threatening remarks to Doublehead and his friends for betraying the nation. Doublehead b l u n t l y responded that he had no fear of their threats. He was alleged to have claimed that "the U n i t e d States is to furnish h i m t w o or three thousand men to uphold his a u t h o r i t y " i f any chiefs tried to overthrow h i m . Other critics accused Meigs of engaging i n " l a n d j o b b e r y " because he had approved of DoubleNepheu, Kalawaskee, and other "Chiefs of the Upper Towns" met in council at Oostenali [Ustanali], April 24,1806, M-208. Meigs's statement at Willstown, April 2,1806, M-208. This was undoubtedly repeated at the Ustanali council and other councils that year to fend off criticism. Katahee to Return J. Meigs, July 23,1806, M-208. 5

6

7

114

REVOLT OF THEYOUNG

CHIEFS

head's r e n t i n g some of the land on his reserve opposite the m o u t h of H i ­ wassee to w h i t e m e n . I t was c o m m o n knowledge b y then that most of those w h o had been awarded reserves under the treaty were m a k i n g m o n e y b y r e n t i n g all or parts of t h e m to w h i t e s . 8

9

The controversy over the sale of the h u n t i n g g r o u n d appeared again at another council held at W i l l s t o w n i n September 1806. Doublehead was i l l and did not attend, but most of his friends were there. The t w o chief crit­ ics of Doublehead at this council were w h i t e c o u n t r y m e n , John Rogers and John Walker, but there were other y o u n g chiefs present w h o voiced discontent: John M c i n t o s h (Quotequskey), W i l l Shorey, John Ross, George Fields, Dick Fields, John Spears, Charles Hicks, and James B r o w n . A f t e r bitter recriminations, the council began to break up; Black Fox got discouraged and drank too m u c h . The Glass and Dick Justice w e n t home v e r y upset. A group of the dissidents, assuming themselves to represent the consensus of the council, remained to w r i t e an angry letter to the old chiefs. To give the letter weight, they got Black Fox to sign i t (or, accord­ ing to the old chiefs, they forged his signature). W h e n the old chiefs read the letter they were convinced that the y o u n g chiefs were t r y i n g to put t h e m out of office. The letter contained a l o n g list of complaints against Meigs, some of w h i c h w e n t back before the h u n t i n g g r o u n d was sold and grew out of the effort of the Upper Towns to retain control of the tavern franchises o n the Cumberland and Georgia turnpikes. Once again the y o u n g chiefs said that Meigs should not use any of the purchase price for the h u n t i n g g r o u n d to settle the t r a d i n g debts of individuals because " t h e y owned the debts and w o u l d [should?] pay i t themselves." They objected to " a n y i n ­ dividuals r e n t i n g land belonging to the n a t i o n " — b y w h i c h t h e y meant the reserves. T h e y said t h e y no longer trusted the old chiefs and had therefore appointed a committee to manage all of the nation's funds and that Meigs should t u r n the treaty m o n e y over to that committee. M o s t of the committee members were f r o m the Upper Towns, but i t included a few f r o m the Valley Towns and f r o m the Lower Towns w h o apparently agreed w i t h the rebels. The commitee members were Charles Hicks, John Walker, John Ross, George Glaslin, Kalawaskee, Chatloe, Terrapin, N e t ­ tle Carrier, Sequeechee, Tesaiskee, W i l l Shorey, Y o u n g John Watts, James Davis, and The B i g Bear. They were not all y o u n g chiefs, but the younger ones seem to have seized the initiative. The conclusion of t h e i r letter held Meigs responsible for the Treaty of W a s h i n g t o n : " W h y d i d y o u have these things [reserves] done for individuals w h e n y o u k n o w i t was not done b y the consent of the n a t i o n ? " They demanded a revision Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, August 19,1806, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Charles Hicks, September 5,1806, M-208. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 62-68. 8

9

115

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

of the treaty: " W h a t has been done i n private manner we desire i t m i g h t be broke [ a n n u l l e d ] . " W h e n Doublehead heard what had happened at this council, he w r o t e angrily to Meigs, placing the blame upon John Rogers "and his p a r t y " of " h a l f breeds," w h o " t h i n k s he and his party can outdo the United States." As Doublehead interpreted the letter, the y o u n g chiefs wished to persuade the nation that he and Meigs were t r y i n g " t o press on the minds of the people to agree to divide the l a n d " i n severalty so that once divided, individual farmers could be cheated out of i t by speculators " w i t h w h i s k e y . " As for his applying the treaty m o n e y to pay personal debts, Doublehead considered this a h o l l o w complaint: " y o u k n o w and so do the marchants that I can pay m y debts myeself," but some w h o were i n debt "are poor people and the best h u n t i n g ground n o w belongs to the U n i t e d States and I can't see h o w the poor Indians is to pay their debts" i f the nation w o u l d not use its tribal resources to do i t . " I t seems hard to Take away f r o m a f a m i l y that has but t w o or three cowes to pay the Trader w i t h i t . " Doublehead was arguing that m a n y families w i t h small debts to trad­ ers (who m i g h t seize cows or other effects to pay the debt) w o u l d benefit f r o m the decision i n Washington. Still, it is obvious that those w i t h the largest debts w o u l d be the greatest beneficiaries. Doublehead went on to note that the permanent a n n u i t y of $6,000 was insufficient capital for the nation's economic transformation to intensive yeoman f a r m i n g : " Y o u k n o w v e r y well that this a n n u i t y could not support the nation i n clothing or houseall f u r n i t u r e ; i t is the Traders that Brings these things to us and it is the same w i t h the w h i t e people; we cannot live w i t h o u t Trade, for the Traders brings his hoes, axes, hatchets, and Brass and T i n Kettles, powder, etc. amongst us and our people has got indebted to t h e m . " Doublehead was convinced that he was p r i m a r i l y helping the poor, not the rich, by using the treaty money to pay off private debts. " I t seems that m y people thinks hard of me, and i f y o u k n o w of a n y t h i n g that I have done that is not Right, Tell i t to the people." He had no respect for the complaints of the y o u n g chiefs : "Such great and Good m e n as t h e y pre­ tend to be ought to be ashamed." Their behavior had hardly been unsel­ fish i n the past: " w h e n the a n n u i t y was give out [ i n past years] did they not keep some of the Best goods and say they w o u l d give i n m o n e y to the nation, and where is that m o n e y ? " He was so disgusted w i t h the hypoc­ risy of these insolent y o u n g troublemakers and their supporters that he threatened to " q u i t m y nation['sj Concearns" and "goe horn and m i n d m y o w n Business." 10

11

1 2

Doublehead's anger was fully shared by his friend John L o w r e y . 10 11 12

Council at Willstown to Return J. Meigs, September 19, 1806, M-208. Doublehead to Return J. Meigs, October 3,1806, M-208. Ibid.

116

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

L o w r e y t h o u g h t that the nation had confirmed the W a s h i n g t o n Treaty at the previous councils that spring. He expressed astonishment that " t h e y o n g chifes and indede some of t h e m no chiefes atole [are] t r y i n g to Break that l a w . " " I f that be the case, what is our c u n t r y to cum to, i f the y o u n g , simple, d r u n k e n , idel people is to breake laws that all the Chifes and the k i n g makes." The bad faith of these dissidents was proven b y their forg­ i n g of the names of Black Fox ("The K i n g " or Principal Chief), John T h o m p s o n , and probably Pathkiller to their resolutions. " M y feelings was m u c h H u r t e to t h i n k these y o n g people was h o l d i n g ther T a [ l ] k e " i n order to demonstrate " t h a t we old chiefs and K i n g shold be made as i f they was N o t h i n g . " Like Doublehead, he felt that he had done no w r o n g and charged the rebellion to the i l l w i l l of " M r . Van and M r . Macdannel [ M c D o n a l d ] " w h o , t h o u g h " t h e y were not t h a r e " nonetheless " g i v e their orders to thies m e n . " 1 3

The reaction of Doublehead, L o w r e y , and other old chiefs to the W i l l s t o w n resolves indicates their conviction that rapid assimilation was the proper solution to the nation's dilemma. L o w r e y spoke of his conversion to the " c i v i l i z a t i o n " program a short while before as t h o u g h i t were a k i n d of religious awakening: "There is m a n y of t h e m pore simple Créa­ teurs [who oppose us] as I was some years ago—co[u]ld see n o t h i n g be­ fore t h e m ; but, dear father, i t appearse that few years back that m y eise hase B i n opend and I can have nolldge of things that is to c o m e . " N a t ­ u r a l l y those w h o opposed the " n e w knowledge" of Cherokee renascence t h r o u g h acculturation were, as Doublehead put i t , " D e s i n [ i n ] g and fool­ ish persons that are Enemies to the improvement and Civeli[s]ation of their People, Enemies to all Improvement, Enemies to all that w i s h to i m ­ prove the Blessing that the great and good all-being has Blessed t h e m w i t h ; their Eyes and Ears are shut to such things as they ought to k n o w . " Black Fox, w h o m L o w r e y described as "the K i n g of the Chero­ kees," took a similar view. He w r o t e to Dearborn i n December 1806, ex­ plaining that the Secretary should pay no attention to the dissident voices i n the nation. Meigs, he said, was a good and faithful agent and " w e Shall always Look up to h i m for advise and his assistance; i f he had d u n Rong, we D o n ' t k n o w i t . " A l t h o u g h "the upper towns has found fort [fault] w i t h [ h i m ] for our grants [reserves], we have n o t . " Black Fox urged Dear­ b o r n not to rescind the treaty just because of a few m a l c o n t e n t s . 14

1 5

16

Meigs seems to have considered the opposition to the sale of the h u n t ­ i n g g r o u n d to be a tempest i n a teapot—-the w o r k of a few envious m i n o r John Lowery [Lowrey] to Return J. Meigs, October 23,1806, M-208. Ibid. Doublehead to Return J. Meigs, January 14,1807, M-208. Black Fox to Henry Dearborn, December 18, 1806, included in letter from Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, January 11,1807, M-221, reel 10, #3074. 13

14 15

16

117

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

chiefs, jealous of Doublehead and angry that they had not made any profit for themselves out of the sale. H e told Dearborn that the opposition con­ stituted no more than "one i n t e n " of the 100 to 125 chiefs i n the n a t i o n . But he underestimated the strength of the opposition among the c o m m o n people f r o m w h o m these rebellious chiefs drew their support. I n A p r i l 1807, Dearborn discovered that there was a discrepancy be­ tween the eastern boundary of the treaty w i t h the Chickasaws of July 23, 1805, ceding their part of the h u n t i n g ground and the western boundary of the treaty w i t h the Cherokees, on January 7,1806, ceding their larger p o r t i o n to the east. Dearborn did not want another negotiation. H e sug­ gested that Meigs q u i e t l y persuade those appointed to accompany the surveyors to agree to "an adjustment" of the line: " I f the Cherokee Chiefs, w h e n at the place, w i l l consent, for any moderate compensation, to a d m i t the line being d r a w n i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the Chickasaw Treaty so as to include all the waters of the Elk River," Meigs was authorized to provide such gifts as he t h o u g h t appropriate. " Y o u w i l l please select 2 or 3 suitabel Chiefs of w h o m Double Head should be o n e " w h o " w i l l con­ sent to i t for some handsome present to the Chiefs w h o m a y accompany y o u on the l i n e . " The assumption that Meigs, and not the council, could select the chiefs to r u n the survey indicates h o w m u c h political power Meigs had assumed over Cherokee affairs. 17

1 8

Meigs talked to Doublehead, w h o agreed to Dearborn's request; Meigs chose Black Fox, The Glass, T u r t l e at H o m e , Richard B r o w n , and Towalotoh to j o i n h i m and Doublehead on the surveying party that was to de­ part i n September 1807. He warned Dearborn that the presents these chiefs w o u l d demand m i g h t be more costly than he expected. M e a n ­ w h i l e , i n June 1807, Doublehead and his friends came forward w i t h a new proposition for a land sale. The treaty of 1806 had left the nation w i t h about 1.5 m i l l i o n acres on the r i g h t side of the Tennessee River between the Hiwassee River and Chickasaw O l d Fields; the tract along the river was 50 to 60 miles wide and 150 miles long, about half of i t i n Tennessee and half i n w h a t became Alabama. Doublehead "consulted a n u m b e r of Chiefs" i n his region and they agreed to "a substitute" proposal for Dear­ born's plan to alter the treaty line of 1806. " W e have agreed to let our y o u n g people take the land that lies on the N o r t h Side of Tennessee; t h e y are to do what t h e y please w i t h i t , to Lease or sell i t to the w h i t e people, every one to make his choice, and then to dispose of i t as they please." 19

20

Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 67-68. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, April 1, 1807, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 1, 1807, M-208. Doublehead to Return J. Meigs, enclosed in letter from Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 20, 1807, M-221, reel 10, #3132-3134. 17

18

19

20

118

R E V O L T

O F

T H E

Y O U N G

C H I E F S

W h a t he seems to have meant was that this 1.5-million-acre tract should be surveyed and divided i n t o reserves for the y o u n g chiefs of the Lower Towns ; each was to have his pick of the plots i n the survey and then each either could f a r m the plot or could lease or sell i t to the whites. Before this could be allowed, the whole tract w o u l d have to be sold to the U n i t e d States. A p p a r e n t l y Doublehead considered this a w a y to b u y off the re­ bellious y o u n g chiefs i n his region as w e l l as a major step t o w a r d accul­ t u r a t i o n as Jefferson had described i t . T h o u g h Meigs was eager to acquire this land, he was not ready to have i t all placed i n the hands of individual Cherokee chiefs. H e promised to consider g i v i n g some of that area to some individual chiefs as reserves, b u t he had already w r i t t e n to Dearborn about a more elaborate scheme to obtain the land still owned b y the Cherokees on the r i g h t bank of the Ten­ nessee River. " I t h i n k the whole m i g h t be obtained at the rate of one cent per a c r e . " A l t h o u g h the land on the r i g h t bank below the Hiwassee River m i g h t ( i n Meigs's view) belong to the Lower Towns, he wished to give the Upper Towns an incentive to cede land i n Tennessee b y offering to b u y f r o m t h e m a tract of one m i l l i o n acres n o r t h of the Hiwassee. The people i n the Upper and Valley Towns, he told Dearborn, "are poorer people than the lower T o w n s " and the money they w o u l d make f r o m sell­ i n g that land " w o u l d be of great assistance to t h e m i n procuring stocks [cattle]" and f a r m i n g tools. Some of the m o n e y he hoped could be used as an endowment " f o r the support of schools." 21

W h i l e these plans were i n the formative stage, a t h i r d issue arose that complicated the matter and finally brought the rebellion to violence. Colonel Elias W . Earle, a w e a l t h y trader f r o m Greenville, S o u t h Carolina, w h o had traveled extensively t h r o u g h the Cherokee N a t i o n , discovered that the nation possessed rich deposits of i r o n ore on the southern side of the Tennessee River near the m o u t h of Chickamauga Creek. He w r o t e to Dearborn early i n 1807, proposing that the U n i t e d States purchase f r o m the Cherokee a region six miles square that w o u l d include the i r o n ore deposits and then commission h i m to develop an i r o n w o r k s and erect a government arsenal there. Dearborn t h o u g h t this an admirable idea, for there was no telling w h e n war i n the west w o u l d necessitate h a v i n g can­ n o n and other m i l i t a r y hardware at hand i n that region. Dearborn con­ vinced himself further that "such an establishment w o u l d be of great use to their n a t i o n , " and instructed Meigs to "endeavour to ascertain the o p i n i o n of the Chiefs on the subject." As usual, Meigs consulted the chiefs of the Lower Towns because t h e y 22

2 1 2 2

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 1,1807, M-208. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, February 28,1807, M-208.

119

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

were more cooperative; moreover, the i r o n ore was i n their region. B y June 1807 he was able to report that "a large majority of Chiefs" were "apparently well pleased w i t h the design." " I have no doubt t h e y w i l l embrace an object that holds f o r t h such great advantages for their peo­ p l e . " The advantages presumably were that Earle's f o u n d r y w o u l d p r o ­ vide cheaper i r o n goods near at hand and the Indians w o u l d benefit f r o m seeing h o w w h i t e men developed nature's mineral resources. T h e y w o u l d also profit from the sale. The w o r k at the f o u n d r y , however, w o u l d be performed by w h i t e artisans and black slaves ; there was no t h o u g h t to hire Cherokees. 23

Meigs's refusal to pay any attention to the various demands of the dis­ contented chiefs and their supporters and his continual effort to play off the Lower and the Upper Towns against each other led the y o u n g chiefs to take more drastic action. I n July they held a secret gathering and agreed that the chief enemies to the nation were Doublehead and his part­ ner, John C h i s h o l m . One w h o attended this meeting, George Sanders (Saunders), explained later " t h a t the Indians was m u c h displeased w i t h Double Head and C h i s h o l m and that he [Sanders] Expected t h e y w o l d be killed as i t had been concluded on by a number of the leading characters of the N a t i o n . " He also had heard that "Doublehead w o u l d be called to account at the Bawl P l a y " scheduled at Hiwassee T o w n i n A u g u s t . " A m a n called the Ridge was appointed to Execute the Business." James V a n n was also involved i n the p l o t . 24

The ball play took place on A u g u s t 7-8. As usual i t was accompanied b y great excitement, betting, and d r i n k i n g among the hundreds i n at­ tendance. S h o r t l y after the game, a Cherokee named Bone Polisher saw Doublehead among the spectators and accused h i m to his face of being an enemy of the people for selling " o u r h u n t i n g grounds." He made some gesture t o w a r d Doublehead that Doublehead took to be threatening. Doublehead pulled out his gun, Bone Polisher swung a hatchet, and Bone Polisher was killed on the spot. Doublehead then rode his horse to a nearby tavern at Walker's Ferry kept by Quotaquskee (John M c i n t o s h ) . W h i l e he was d r i n k i n g inside, someone blew out the candle at his table and a shot wounded h i m i n the jaw. Everyone scattered. Doublehead, t h o u g h left for dead, was o n l y wounded. His friends carried h i m to a nearby house but kept his location a secret. The assassins, discovering t h e y had not killed Doublehead, returned. The three persons later ac­ cused were The Ridge, John Rogers, and either George or Alexander Sanders (or Saunders). Ridge had f o r m e r l y fought w i t h Doublehead i n Return J. Meigs to Elias Earle, June 20, 1807, M-208. Statement of Colonel Joseph Phillips regarding the murder of Doublehead, August 15, 1807, M-208. 2 3 24

120

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

the guerrilla war but i n the 1790s had moved to Oochegelogy i n the Geor­ gia area of the Upper Towns and become a farmer. The three m e n discov­ ered where Doublehead was hidden, broke i n t o his r o o m , and finished their w o r k w i t h guns, knives, and hatchets. Later, w h e n George Sanders was asked w h y t h e y had killed Doublehead rather than complaining to Meigs about h i m , he said "he believed Col. Meigs to be as bad as t h e m , meaning Doublehead and C h i s h o l m . " C h i s h o l m was not at the ball play and the assassins took no action against h i m at this t i m e . There were no witnesses to the m u r d e r and despite investigations b y Captain A . B. A r m i s t e a d of the U n i t e d States A r m y garrison at Hiwassee, no one was b r o u g h t to t r i a l for i t . M o r e i m p o r t a n t , t h o u g h Doublehead had several brothers and m a n y clan k i n w h o should have taken revenge for his death, none ever did so. A p p a r e n t l y his clan accepted the assassination as a semi­ official political act taken b y responsible chiefs for the good of the tribe and therefore outside the area of clan revenge. 25

26

Meigs was t e r r i b l y upset. He had lost his closest and most p o w e r f u l ally i n the civilization program. He told Dearborn this was "a precon­ ceived plan . . . by a factious party w h o have always been his enemies, principally f r o m envy of his prosperity and his attachment to the w h i t e p e o p l e . " Later that same m o n t h action was taken against C h i s h o l m . He had gone to Georgia to meet Colonel James Phillips, w h o had made an arrangement w i t h Doublehead to lease and develop some land o n D o u blehead's tract at Muscle Shoals. C h i s h o l m was conducting a party of Phillips's m e n , i n c l u d i n g a group of black slaves, to Muscle Shoals along the Georgia Road w h e n a group of Cherokees "stopped the p a r t y , took the negroes, and some other property and tyed up a w h i t e m a n [apparently C h i s h o l m ] w h o had charge" of the party; they "kept h i m t y e d up about ten h o u r s . " For some reason they did not execute h i m , probably because he was w h i t e . N o one ever discovered w h o had done this, but Meigs was convinced that " V a n n is at the head or principal of all these discords." For a t i m e Meigs t h o u g h t civil war m i g h t take place i n the n a t i o n ; he w r o t e to Governor Sevier of Tennessee to ask h i m to be prepared to send the state m i l i t i a to suppress i t . Sevier agreed, but the crisis passed. 27

28

29

30

See Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 36-39; Captain A . B. Armistead to Return J. Meigs, August 9, 1807, M-208; Sam C. H i l l to Return J. Meigs, August 12, 1807, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 30,1807, M-221, reel 10, #3197. Some reported that Vann was in part motivated against Doublehead because Doublehead had so severely beaten his pregnant wife, who was the sister of Vann's wife, that she had died. See Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 36. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 30,1807, M-221, reel 10, #3197. Ibid. Ibid. The slaves belonged to Doublehead and were apparently in payment to h i m for land that he had leased to a white man on his tract above Muscle Shoals. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, September 30,1808, M-208. 2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8 2 9

3 0

121

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

Despite these signs of m o u n t i n g discontent, Meigs took his handpicked group of old chiefs (minus Doublehead) to the h u n t i n g g r o u n d early i n September to "adjust" the boundary for the treaty of 1806. Black Fox, The Glass, and the other chiefs involved i n this " s i l e n t " cession drove a hard bargain, for they n o w feared that their o w n lives were i n danger. Meigs explained i t to Dearborn: " T h e Cherokees being i n debt to the U n i t e d States $1803 [at the factory], I offered to cancel that debt as compensation to the nation for the attention to the l i n e " ; however, " t h e y requested to have i t made up to $2000, and $1000 and t w o Rifles as pre­ sents to the Chiefs transacting the business." Meigs agreed; i t was "a great acquisition to Tennessee," to w h o m the government t u r n e d over the land, as w e l l as to t w o hundred families of w h i t e squatters w h o were already settled i n the area. The chiefs deserved h i g h pay for this action, he told Dearborn, because " t h e y w i l l have their hands full to satisfy the ignorant and the obstinate and the cunning of their o w n people, for w h i c h they deserve this silent consideration." 31

U p o n his r e t u r n f r o m this t r i p , Meigs received a letter f r o m Benjamin H a w k i n s , federal agent among the Creeks, saying that he had recently talked to a group of Cherokee chiefs w h o were negotiating w i t h the Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws to t r y to reestablish the old Muskogee Confederation to prevent further land sales. The Cherokee delegates at this meeting told H a w k i n s that their problems all stemmed f r o m "the u n ­ just conduct of Doublehead and C h i s h o l m countenanced b y the agent [ M e i g s ] . " T h e y said " t h e y had executed the first for his crimes against this nation and w o u l d have done the same w i t h the second [Chisholm] b u t for his accidential escape." 32

Meigs's hope of purchasing the 1.5-million-acre strip along the n o r t h bank of the Tennessee River from the Lower Towns and the 1 - m i l l i o n acre tract n o r t h of the Hiwassee River from the Upper Towns was post­ poned because of m o u n t i n g tensions after Doublehead's death. Neverthe­ less, Meigs plunged on w i t h the plan to grant Earle t h i r t y - s i x square miles at Chickamauga for an i r o n w o r k s i n the heart of the Cherokee N a ­ t i o n . O n December 2, 1807, Meigs called together t w e n t y - t h r e e chiefs, m o s t l y f r o m the Lower Towns, to meet at Hiwassee T o w n " f o r an estab­ l i s h m e n t of an I r o n works to be carried on under the direction of G o v e r n ­ m e n t " under "the immediate superintendence" of Colonel Earle. H e had selected a tract near the m o u t h of Chickamauga Creek. The meeting at Hiwassee was not a full or regular council. Meigs had handpicked those who had expressed an interest i n i t and he was surprised to find considReturn J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, September 28, 1807, M-208; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 68-69. Benjamin Hawkins to Return J. Meigs, September 16,1807, M-221, reel 8, #2565. 31

32

122

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

erable opposition. Earle was present; he told the chiefs that as soon as the treaty was made he intended to move i n a large contingent of whites to live there, clear the tract of timber, erect the i r o n f o u n d r y , and start d i g ­ ging and refining the ore. A p a r t f r o m the purchase price ($5,000 and 1,000 bushels of much-needed corn) no income w o u l d come to the tribe. Earle w o u l d invest his o w n funds (or those of the partners i n his enter­ prise) and expected to make his profit f r o m government contracts for war matériel.

33

The Cherokees had long been aware that they had valuable m i n e r a l de­ posits i n their nation. T h e i r silversmiths had found p l e n t y of silver; t h e y had rented out their salines and saltpeter caves to members of their tribe but never given up ownership; rumors circulated of valuable gold depos­ its. The Cherokees were not eager to have private speculators m a k i n g m o n e y f r o m their resources, nor did they w a n t scores of Earle's w h i t e employees and their families l i v i n g i n their midst b u t outside their con­ t r o l . Meigs assured the chiefs at Hiwassee that this was a government, not a private, project and that the government w o u l d assume responsi­ b i l i t y for its proper functioning. But the treaty the chiefs were asked to sign allowed the President to cede the land to Earle at some future date; it also stated that i f Earle found he had not chosen the best spot for i r o n ore, he had the r i g h t to r e t u r n this tract and exchange i t for another t h i r t y - s i x square miles at some other place of his choosing i n the n a t i o n . A n n o y e d b y resistance to this cession, Meigs began to threaten the chiefs. T h e y w o u l d receive no more tools for their farms i f they did n o t sign; t h e y were reminded that there had been a poor harvest that fall and by the f o l l o w i n g spring they w o u l d r u n short of food and come to the agent to provide corn for their starving people. Meigs boasted to Dear­ b o r n afterward that the chiefs reluctantly yielded to these threats. " W h e n the land for I r o n w o r k s was ceded, i t was foreseen that t h e y m u s t famish w i t h o u t corn, and i t was one strong i n d u c e m e n t " for t h e m to sign that he added a gift of 1,000 bushels of corn to the sale p r i c e . H e warned 34

Dearborn, however, that he had promised on " t h e honor of the G o v e r n ­ m e n t , that t h e y [the U n i t e d States] w i l l never let this tract go o u t of their hands" because i f i t " s h o u l d be suffered to go i n t o the hands of private Individuals, there w i l l be no government respectable enough to keep good order between the people employed and the Indians." The reason for this was that " t h e character of the persons employed i n such business is genReturn J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 4,1807, M-221, reel 10, #3246; treaty with Elias Earle, December 2,1807, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 3,1807, M-222, reel 2, #0883; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 71-72. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, March 24,1808, M-208. 33

34

123

R E V O L T

OF T H E Y O U N G

CHIEFS

erally t u r b u l e n t and dissipated/' The land was " w o r t h $5 per acre" and if the President ceded i t to Earle, Earle w o u l d certainly sell some of i t to speculators. One or t w o of the twenty-three signers of Earle's treaty were persons w h o at one point had been among the rebels (like Quotaquskee), but the leading figures were f r o m Doublehead's faction, led b y The Glass, John Lowrey, Terrapin, and Big Cabbin. As soon as the treaty was signed on December 3, Earle left Hiwassee w i t h his copy of i t . He returned to South Carolina and began to hire workers and purchase equipment. I n addition to ironworkers, carpenters to b u i l d housing, and mechanics for the machinery, he needed farmers and slaves to plant and harvest food for the company and its horses. Meigs was correct that James Vann was behind the opposition to the treaty. " T h e opposition of V a n n " and his party had led t h e m to "threaten the lives of those w h o are i n favor of the Government's view. . . . This threatening the friends of good order is intolerable and requires strong measures of an examplary k i n d on the part of the United States to deter such hardy villains and their abettors and for the relief of the w e l l af­ fected." V a n n , w h o had a t u r b u l e n t temper, especially w h e n he drank too m u c h , had had several bloody fights w i t h whites i n his home and Meigs was already contemplating ways to have h i m arrested and taken out of the nation for trial. 35

36

W h e n the manner of g r a n t i n g Earle's treaty and its terms became gen­ erally k n o w n , the rebel faction were furious. Chulio and Sour M u s h wrote to John L o w r e y i n February 1808, holding h i m to blame and threat­ ening h i m w i t h r e t r i b u t i o n for betraying the nation. Lowrey w r o t e to Meigs asking for protection : " V a n n has confused the nation so m u c h that Chulioa sent w o r d to me to get ready for war because I was the head of selling that bit of land. . . . They have threatened to come and rob me and steal all m y horses because I sold their l a n d . " He had heard that V a n n "said some t i m e ago that he intended to t u r n Bonaparte and n o w he has t u r n e d Bonaparte." But " i f that quarter of the N a t i o n is earnest to go to war, I and m y quarter is ready to j o i n the w h i t e people" to put t h e m d o w n . He obviously expected Meigs and the a r m y garrison to help the Lower Towns i n this process. Lowrey closed his complaint b y u r g i n g Meigs to arrest Vann for his recent assaults on t w o w h i t e m e n : " T h i s quarter of the nation does give up Vann to y o u to do w h a t y o u see cause to do w i t h h i m . . . . I hope y o u w i l l have h i m taken and put to death, for he has reigned long e n o u g h . " There were a number of reasons w h y Vann became a leading figure i n 37

3 5 3 6 3 7

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 4, 1807, M-221, reel 10, #3246. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 3,1807, M-222, reel 2, #0883. Jon Lower y [Lowrey] to Return J. Meigs, February 8,1808, M-222, reel 3, #1311.

124

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

the rebellion. T h o u g h comparatively y o u n g (about t h i r t y - e i g h t ) , he was v e r y influential and wealthy. He was also shrewd and determined. He felt that Meigs had failed to live up to promises made to h i m over Wafford's Tract and at the t i m e of negotiations over the Georgia Road. He was among the delegation that went to Washington to sell the h u n t i n g g r o u n d , b u t he got i n t o a knife fight w i t h Doublehead i n their hotel r o o m d u r i n g the course of the negotiations. The details were hushed up; V a n n received no part of the reserves and probably had argued against t h e m . Vann was most likely envious of Doublehead's influence and power, as Meigs suggested. They were the t w o most powerful m e n i n the n a t i o n . But they were separated b y ideology as m u c h as b y envy. V a n n hated w h i t e m e n and believed that they were taking advantage of his people; Doublehead got along w e l l w i t h whites and t h o u g h t they were helping the Cherokees. V a n n was a m i x e d blood and Doublehead was a full blood; Doublehead had been a b l o o d - t h i r s t y w a r r i o r and had taken m a n y scalps; V a n n had been a trader and was never involved i n war. T h o r o u g h l y acculturated. Vann had no objection to the government's civilization policy, but he realized sooner than most that whites i n the frontier w o u l d never treat Indians as equals; his o w n wealth and position did not protect h i m f r o m insults as a "halfbreed." His patriotism sprang less f r o m any con­ cern to protect t r i b a l traditions or to w i n approval f r o m the conservative full bloods than i t did f r o m his determination to keep the Cherokee N a ­ t i o n strong enough to t h w a r t the efforts of whites to take its land and its sovereignty. He was f i r m l y opposed to a policy that w o u l d lead to d e t r i balization. A m o n t h after Earle obtained his i r o n ore tract, the dissident faction met i n council at Ustanali, the capital of the Upper Towns. That council sent letters of protest to President Jefferson, to Dearborn, and to the Pres­ ident of the U n i t e d States Senate, George C l i n t o n . Meigs dismissed the protest as the w o r k of "a pretended c o u n c i l " that did not speak for the nation (Black Fox, The Glass, and other old chiefs f r o m the Lower T o w n were not present). However, Pathkiller, the Second Principal Chief, was there and signed the letters. They were signed by f o r t y - s i x chiefs, a larger n u m b e r than the Lower Towns had ever mustered. The letter to C l i n t o n s i m p l y asked h i m to persuade the Senate not to ratify Earle's treaty be­ cause i t " m a y tend to the I n j u r y of our N a t i o n and y o u r s . " Enclosed was a copy of the more detailed letter to Jefferson, w h i c h was v e r y specific i n its complaints. The y o u n g chiefs said they had tried i n vain to obtain jus­ tice f r o m Meigs and Dearborn but had been ignored. T h e y had then " r e ­ quested our Friend, Colonel Hawkins of the Creeks" to pass on letters of complaint to Jefferson, but they had received no replies. Ever since the treaty of January 1806, "affairs are still going badly w i t h us." The treaty 125

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

i n W a s h i n g t o n was conducted i m p r o p e r l y and rtow " w e complain of a Sham Treaty lately held w i t h a few of our people" to sell land to Colonel Earle; such action " o u g h t not to be permitted to an Individual not of our nation for his o w n benefit." That treaty had been granted under duress: some w h o signed "were deceived and some of t h e m threatened b y the H a n d of Power." Others "were induced to s i g n " because " t h e y were told by y o u r A g e n t that i f . . . they refused i t , y o u w o u l d be angry w i t h t h e m and that their annual stipend w o u l d i n future be w i t h h e l d . " Such h i g h ­ handed action by the agent was contrary to the h a r m o n y he should be p r o m o t i n g among the Cherokees and was "calculated to produce discon­ t e n t . " Meigs, they noted, lived far from the center of the nation at S o u t h ­ west Point, Tennessee. He was "surrounded b y y o u r Merchants and Land Speculators" and he " m a y be imposed u p o n " b y their arts and bribes. The commander of the a r m y garrison had also threatened some of the dissident chiefs w i t h w a r . 38

The heart of the letter was a political manifesto—an effort to assert w h a t the y o u n g chiefs considered the right of the Cherokee people to be f u l l y and freely consulted on all treaties. " W e , as a free People, have a Right to claim for ourselves and our c h i l d r e n " the r i g h t of " r a t i f y i n g or rejecting treaties after they are concluded." Neither the treaty of 1806 nor the treaty w i t h Earle was ever ratified b y a full council; t h e y were b o t h the w o r k of o n l y a small m i n o r i t y of chiefs. The Cherokees "can never consider any future Treaty binding upon us u n t i l i t is reviewed and approved by a M a j o r i t y of all our beloved M e n , Chiefs and W a r r i o r s . " Meigs, they said, was subverting the idea of Cherokee self-government i n his efforts to w o r k w i t h a small number of friendly chiefs and b y con­ sidering a m a j o r i t y of t h e m to constitute the w i l l of the nation. The Cher­ okee rebels demanded the r i g h t to self-government by their full council i n open debate before the whole nation. The letter was signed b y those who m a y be considered the leaders of the rebellious p a r t y : Pathkiller, The Ridge, Chulio, Sour M u s h , Tuskegetihee, Kelachula, Katihee, Chattloe, Dreadful Water, James David, Nawwayooteaheh, George Sanders, A l e x ­ ander Sanders, Young Wolf, Currahee Dick, John D o h e r t y , Sharp A r r o w , George Parris (or Pearis), and George Fields. O n l y Vann's name was ab­ sent, although he probably wrote the letters. The y o u n g chiefs never received any answers to these letters and t h e y proceeded to take the law into their o w n hands. I f the U n i t e d States w o u l d not repudiate the treaty w i t h Earle, they w o u l d see that i t was not put i n t o effect. Early i n February 1808, Earle sent an advance caravan of wagons Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, January 24, 1808, M-222, reel 3, #1152-1154; Cherokee Chiefs to George Clinton, February 16, 1808, M-222, reel 3, #1154-1156. 38

126

R E V O L T

O F

T H E Y O U N G

C H I E F S

containing supplies, workers, and slaves f r o m Tougaloo, South Carolina, to prepare the w a y for the one hundred families he had signed up for his enterprise. Earle was aware that trouble was b r e w i n g ; the families he had recruited also knew because C h u l i o had sent t h e m a letter stating the tribe's opposition. These families refused to start i n t o the Cherokee N a ­ t i o n u n t i l t h e y received assurance of their safety. W i l l i a m B r o w n , Earle's wagoner, was sent ahead to test the situation and prepare the w a y . W h e n the Upper T o w n chiefs learned that several of Earle's wagons w o u l d pass t h r o u g h their region on the w a y to Chickamauga, t h e y held a meeting and planned to stop t h e m . The group chosen to do this included James V a n n , Charles Hicks, The Ridge, Dreadful Water, Kelachula, Chulioa, the Halfbreed, George Parris, Tuskegatehee, Necuteou, and N a w w a y o u t i e h , plus "a number of y o u n g fellows" like George Sanders, A l e x Sanders, and W i l l Crittenden. They were prepared to use violence if necessary to t u r n back the wagons. Brandishing guns and tomahawks, this armed p a r t y (minus Vann) descended on horseback and surrounded the wagons of B r o w n and H a r r i s o n just as they were about to start o n the Georgia Road t h r o u g h the nation. One Cherokee, Calestowee, h i t B r o w n w i t h the side of his tomahawk but did not draw blood. The wagons stopped w h i l e B r o w n visited V a n n to appeal for his h e l p — V a n n being the headman i n the area. B u t V a n n refused it. Vann's sister, M r s . Peggy Fall­ i n g , warned H a r r i s o n that there w o u l d be bloodshed i f he persisted. A f t e r w a i t i n g t w o days, B r o w n and H a r r i s o n t u r n e d their wagons around and w e n t back to T o u g a l o o . 39

O n February 15, The Ridge, Charles Hicks, Chulio, and the others w h o had participated i n this action wrote to Black Fox, saying that " t h e late treaty was a cheat put upon the Chiefs" and that t h e y had determined that " t h e said Earle should not pass t h r o u g h our part of the nation. A c ­ cordingly he has been stopped and we desired h i m to r e t u r n home, and he has done s o . " The next day Meigs received a note f r o m Earle describing " h o w V a n n and his p a r t y " stopped his wagons saying that this "does not i n the least deter m e . " He n o w requested a m i l i t a r y escort, however, and he warned Meigs to "be carefull of Vann's party w h o , I am w e l l con­ vinced, is Determined to K i l l y o u i f possible." The rebellion of the y o u n g chiefs n o w entered its most critical phase. 40

41

See affidavit of William Brown, February 15, 1808, M-208. See also letter of John H . Harrison to Return J. Meigs, February 23,1808, M-208. Kattahee [Katahee] and Necuteou to Return J. Meigs, February 15,1808, M-208. Elias Earle to Return J. Meigs, February 18,1808, M-208. 3 9

4 0 4 1

127

SIX

EFFORTS TO D I V I D E T H E N A T I O N , 1808-1809 I understand some years ago that the Government had in contempla­ tion an exchange of land with the Indians South of the Ohio. It is my opinion that if specific propositions were made to the Cherokees . . . that it would in a short time produce a general sentiment amongst them in favor of exchange. —Return J. Meigs, February 1808

A

fter 1808, the critical issue facing the rebellious y o u n g chiefs was the effort of the federal agent to persuade the Lower Towns to sell their part of the nation and move to Arkansas. Even before the y o u n g chiefs turned against Doublehead, Meigs was convinced that George Washing­ ton's original policy of Indian integration was probably unworkable. I n part this resulted f r o m his inability to keep white intruders from con­ stantly squatting on land inside the Cherokee borders; i t also resulted f r o m the Cherokee's persistent refusal to divide their land among t h e m ­ selves i n severalty. "The Cherokees complain," Meigs wrote to Dearborn on February 9, 1808, " t h a t intrusions on their land on the frontier of Georgia by the w h i t e people are still continued and are increasing"; there was as w e l l a "settlement of w h i t e people on the N . E . side of Chickasaw Creek" i n the Alabama region of the nation, and "the Indians want t h e m moved o f f . " That same day he wrote to Governor Jared I r w i n of Georgia to i n f o r m h i m of the intruders and to say that " i t is out of all dispute t h a t . . . all of those on the waters of the Chattahoochee are really agressors [intruders] i n open v i o l a t i o n of the laws, w h i c h justifies the complaints of the Indians and disturbs their quiet." Consequently, he told I r w i n , he had sent orders to the commanding officers of the United States A r m y post at Ocmulgee to take his troops and forcibly remove these white Georgians. However, he had little hope that this w o u l d do any good. He had tried these tactics over and over to no avail. " A l l attempts to remove these peo­ ple," he told Dearborn, "has hitherto been ineffectual." The troops m i g h t 1

2

1 2

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, February 9, 1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Jared Irwin, February 9,1808, M-208.

128

EFFORTS

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

drive the squatters off, m i g h t even b u r n their log cabins and their crops, b u t no sooner had the soldiers marched off than the intruders returned, rebuilt their cabins, replanted their crops, and continued as they had be­ fore, to live on tax-free Indian land u n t i l the government forced the I n ­ dians to sell i t ; then the squatters bought their farms at the preemption price of t w o dollars per acre regardless of what i t was really w o r t h . Meigs believed that o n l y a perpetual m i l i t a r y guard marching endlessly r o u n d the six-hundred-mile Cherokee border could have kept the squatters out, and the U n i t e d States could not afford such expenditure. By c o n t i n u a l l y y i e l d i n g to the intruders' demands and forcing the Cherokees to cede the land squatters were on, the War Department had encouraged further i n ­ trusions. Meigs went on to tell Dearborn i n this long, r a m b l i n g letter, " i t is m y opinion that there never w i l l be quietness on any of these frontiers u n t i l the Indians are removed over the Mississippi." So far as Meigs was con­ cerned, the fault lay as m u c h w i t h the Indians as w i t h the lawless whites. The Indians had too m u c h land. They refused to sell i t off and keep o n l y what they needed for their o w n farms. They declined to become citizens. " I understand some years ago that the Government had i n contemplation an exchange of land w i t h the Indians South of the O h i o . I t is m y o p i n i o n that i f specific propositions were made to the Cherokees, h o l d i n g out suit­ able encouragements and protection, that i t w o u l d i n a short t i m e produce a general sentiment amongst t h e m i n favor of exchange." Meigs admit­ 3

ted that "some, w h o are well situated as farmers, w o u l d probably require reservations of competent tracts for their use, but even these w o u l d finally sell out and follow the nation [westward]." W h a t reason Meigs had to be­ lieve that the poorer Cherokees, like those i n the Valley Towns or the Eto­ w a h district, w o u l d want to emigrate, he did not say. They were to dem­ onstrate precisely the opposite tendency. Dearborn w r o t e back immediately to endorse and encourage Meigs's suggestion. " I f y o u t h i n k i t practicable to induce the Cherokees as a na­ t i o n generally to consent to exchange of their present c o u n t r y for a suit­ able tract of c o u n t r y on the other side of the Mississippi, y o u w i l l please to embrace every favorable occasion for sounding the Chiefs on the sub­ ject, and let the subject be generally talked about [among] the natives u n ­ t i l y o u shall be satisfied of the prevailing o p i n i o n . " For the government, 4

this was the ideal solution to "the Indian question." Jefferson had firstsuggested the plan i n 1803 after the purchase of the Louisiana T e r r i t o r y , 3 4

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, February 9,1808, M-208. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, March 25,1808, M-208.

129

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

but w h e n Meigs proposed i t to the Cherokees i n 1804 he had found no interest i n i t . N o w he t h o u g h t the climate m i g h t be different. As usual, Meigs began b y discussing the matter w i t h the Lower T o w n chiefs. Suffering f r o m the challenge to their a u t h o r i t y f r o m the y o u n g chiefs and upset b y the accusations of national betrayal, some of t h e m seemed to find the plan attractive, but they first wanted to sell the 1.5 m i l ­ l i o n acres on the n o r t h side of the Tennessee River and divide i t up as re­ serves for their y o u n g chiefs. Meigs t h r e w cold water on this i n a letter to Black Fox i n A p r i l 1808, n o t i n g that i t w o u l d be difficult to divide that area i n t o reserves because m u c h of i t had already been preempted b y war­ rants to Revolutionary veterans. As soon as the Cherokees sold i t , these areas w o u l d revert to the veterans, their heirs, or assigns. Besides, the Cherokees "have abundance of land on the South side of the River for all y o u r people w h o w i s h to live there and become farmers." Meigs was no longer interested i n encouraging land speculation that m i g h t enrich a few Cherokees. He went on to press for exchange and removal. " I t seems as t h o u g h a great part of y o u r people are not inclined to become farmers; they prefer the h u n t i n g l i f e . " Even those w h o had become farmers, he t h o u g h t , w o u l d prefer to be hunters if i t were possible. " N u m b e r s , I am i n f o r m e d are already gone over the Mississippi and [ I believe] that m a n y others t h i n k of going over to that C o u n t r y where there is good h u n t i n g g r o u n d . " If this were so, then " t o divide the land [here] w o u l d be of no use." " I f they w o u l d w i s h to go over to that C o u n t r y [Arkansas], y o u r N a t i o n can make an exchange w i t h the U . States, but i f y o u dispose of i t [the land y o u have left i n the East] b y small parcels, y o u cannot make an exchange." Meigs had almost t o t a l l y reversed his position of the previous year w h e n he had praised the Cherokees as a nation of farmers. " T h i n k seriously," he told Black Fox, "and weigh carefully the state of y o u r peo­ ple." 5

6

The Lower T o w n chiefs did t h i n k seriously about i t ; b y M a y they were ready to enter discussions about the details. They wished to negotiate the matter i n Washington, out of sight of the rest of the nation. Meigs w r o t e to Dearborn on M a y 17, w i t h plans "relating to a visit of some Cherokee Chiefs to see the Executive and p o i n t i n g to an exchange of c o u n t r y w i t h the Cherokees." Meigs appears to have kept the Upper T o w n chiefs i n 7

For early discussion of moving the Cherokees to west of the Mississippi see W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, October 27, 1803, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 31,1804, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 28,1804, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 5,1804, M-208. Most of the Cherokees who moved vol­ untarily to Arkansas Territory in the years 1800 to 1808 did so because of harassment by white intruders. Return J. Meigs to Black Fox, April 6,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, May 17,1808, M-221, reel 26, #8601. 5

6

7

130

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

the dark about his efforts. B y a strange coincidence, a group of chiefs i n the upper part of the Upper Towns on the Little Tennessee River took a n o t i o n at this m o m e n t to visit President Jefferson on their o w n initiative to tell h i m they wanted to become citizens of the U n i t e d States. Their t r i p indicated lack of trust both i n Meigs and i n their national chiefs. T h e y d i d not bother to tell Meigs they were going. Led by Stone Carrier, W o m a n Holder, John of Chilhowee, the C r a w l i n g Boy, Chilcohatah, and the Deer Biter, t h i r t y - t w o Cherokees, including t w o w o m e n , left the nation i n M a r c h and reached Washington i n A p r i l . After discussing their problems w i t h Dearborn, this delegation had an audience w i t h Jefferson on M a y 4, 1808. Their complaints were simple. They were not part of the rebellious fac­ t i o n led by James V a n n . I n fact, they told Dearborn they had no use for V a n n , w h o m they called "a t u r b u l e n t and dangerous m a n . " B u t t h e y complained strongly about Meigs's favoritism toward the Lower Towns. "For several years," they said, " t h e i r part of the nation [the Upper Towns] had received scarcely a n y t h i n g from the U n i t e d States either as annuities [trade goods for improvement,] or as pay for the land s o l d . " This they attributed to the fact that "the Great chiefs generally live i n the lower parts of the n a t i o n " and took most of the national income for their o w n people. Meigs had permitted this to happen; thus they were i n great w a n t of plows, spinning wheels, looms, and hoes for their people. T h e y had no g r i s t m i l l or sawmill i n their part of the nation. T h e y said t h e y re­ alized that the h u n t i n g days were over; they were ready to become f a r m ­ ers. Their second complaint was of the frequent harassment they suffered f r o m whites w h o came across their borders to graze livestock and even to live i n cabins and plant crops on the Cherokee side of the Little Tennessee River. T h e y reminded Dearborn that Jefferson had told the Cherokee del­ egation that sold the h u n t i n g g r o u n d i n 1806 that the o n l y w a y to secure their land to themselves forever was to divide i t among t h e m . T h e y therefore wished " t o propose a division of the lands of the N a t i o n be­ tween the upper and lower Cherokees by a fixed line and to have certain tracts for farms laid off for each f a m i l y inclined to be farmers [and] to be under the jurisdiction and laws of the U n i t e d States and become actual citizens." I n effect, they wanted the Upper Towns to become a separate Cherokee N a t i o n under the laws of the U n i t e d States, somewhat like a western t e r r i t o r y p r i o r to statehood. Because few of t h e m knew h o w to read or w r i t e English, they could not become individual citizens of Ten­ nessee; they still expected to be under the protection and care of the fed­ eral government. Somehow they t h o u g h t that i f they had the status of 8

8

Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, May 5,1808, M-208.

131

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

citizens of the United States they could obtain more respect for t h e m ­ selves and more protection for their land f r o m the whites around t h e m . Jefferson asked Stone Carrier and his delegation whether they under­ stood what their responsibilities w o u l d be as citizens. " A r e y o u prepared for t h i s ? " He advised t h e m to r e t u r n home and consult w i t h the Lower Towns about such a division of the nation. I f that could be agreed upon, perhaps Congress w o u l d agree to establish some k i n d of t e r r i t o r i a l f o r m of government for the Upper Towns under regulations suited to their state of advance and prepare t h e m for full citizenship later. O n the other hand, Jefferson t h o u g h t they m i g h t want to consider a different alterna­ tive. Those w h o " s t i l l choose to continue the hunter's l i f e " m i g h t w i s h to "settle on our lands beyond the M i s s i s s i p p i . " The President hoped to merge the discontented i n the Upper Towns w i t h the discontented i n the Lower Towns i n order to strengthen Meigs's proposal for the total ex­ change of the Cherokee land and the removal of the whole tribe to A r ­ kansas. 9

Jefferson was convinced that the grievances of these Cherokees were real; he told Dearborn to have Meigs redress t h e m by seeing that their people received sufficient plows, wheels, hoes, and a g r i s t m i l l as w e l l as their fair share of the a n n u i t y . Meigs had his o w n interpretation of the various discontents sweeping the Cherokee N a t i o n . " A crisis i n their na­ tional existence is taking place," he explained to Dearborn i n June 1808. Those i n the Lower Towns "ostensibly hold up the Idea of becoming farmers," but their real object was to sell their excess land to the w h i t e people. Those of the Upper Towns " w i l l t r y e v e r y t h i n g before they con­ quer indolence. . . . They can no more hold their property as citizens than a seive can hold water." A l t h o u g h both the Lower Towns and the upper part of the Upper Towns were talking about dividing their land, Meigs was convinced that neither group really understood what was at stake. Furthermore, he warned Dearborn, " i f their land is divided out here to individuals, i t w i l l deprive the government of m a n y m i l l i o n s of dollars by the sales of i t and the Indians w i l l become more wretched than t h e y n o w are." I n short, he no longer wanted to encourage t h e m to be­ come fee-simple yeoman farmers i n the East on their ancestral grounds; he was convinced that they were not ready for it. "There are perhaps t w o or three hundred families that m i g h t hold land as individuals and w o u l d make useful citizens," but "the principal mass" of Cherokees w o u l d soon be cheated out of what they had by unscrupulous whites. He predicted that at the national council to be held at B r o o m s t o w n i n A u g u s t , " i t is 10

9 10

Thomas Jefferson to Cherokee Delegation, May 4,1808, M-15, reel 2, p. 374. Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, May 5, 1808, M-208.

132

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

probable that a D i v i s i o n of the Cherokees i n t o upper and lower towns w i l l be agreed o n / ' However, he t h o u g h t this w o u l d be pointless, for " t h e re­ sult of all these alterations w i l l finally eventuate i n an exchange of C o u n ­ t r y . " The Cherokees had reached the end of their rope i n their present location. " T o preserve their national existence" they must emigrate west. 11

In order to prepare the chiefs for serious discussion of the removal and exchange of the whole nation, Meigs had sent the Lower Towns a mes­ sage early i n June explaining his ideas (and what he took to be Jefferson's) in more detail. T h o u g h some Cherokees "have become good farmers," he told t h e m , nevertheless "great numbers w h o have been b r o ' t up to the h u n t i n g life w i l l not, nor can i t be expected that they w i l l , change habits too l o n g i n use for habits of agriculture and manufacture." C u l t u r a l per­ sistence, he recognized, was m u c h stronger than the framers of the o r i g ­ inal Indian policy i n 1789 had realized. I t was t i m e to alter that program. " I n order to place the Cherokees i n a situation where all m a y have objects of pursuit agreeable to t h e m , i t is proposed to place the Cherokees on good h u n t i n g grounds" to the west. A l t h o u g h " f a r m i n g and domestic manufacturers m a y still be pursued [there] b y those w h o shall chuse those pursuits i n preference to h u n t i n g , " the great benefit of exchange w o u l d be that those w h o preferred a h u n t i n g economy could be assured of a good enough catch each year to support their families. "Protection [ f r o m other Indians or European nations] and the fostering hand of Gov­ ernment w i l l go along w i t h y o u " — t h e factory, the agent, their a n n u i t y , technical assistance, and undoubtedly the missionaries and their schools. 12

This message bore immediate fruit. " T h e Glass has proposed," Meigs wrote to Dearborn i n July, " t o have some of their people sent out to ex­ plore the c o u n t r y on the West Side of the Mississippi" to find a suitable tract to exchange for their land i n the east. Meigs asked that a govern­ m e n t m i l i t a r y officer be sent w i t h t h e m to see that they found a good l o ­ cation and brought back a favorable r e p o r t . 13

Fortunately Meigs was relieved of the problem of Earle's i r o n w o r k s at this t i m e , w h e n the State of Tennessee claimed that the land granted to Earle i n the treaty at Hiwassee T o w n was located w i t h i n its state b o u n d ­ ary and not, as had been t h o u g h t , i n Mississippi T e r r i t o r y . Tennessee did not w a n t its property to be given to Earle b y the U n i t e d States and the Senate therefore refused to ratify Earle's treaty u n t i l the President settled Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 11,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs included that "Talk" to the Cherokee Council i n a letter to Henry Dearborn, June 3, 1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 3,1808, M-208. 11

12

13

133

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

THE

N A T I O N

the matter w i t h Tennessee. Earle continued to push his claim for another five or six years, but u l t i m a t e l y the whole scheme fell t h r o u g h . The idea of the arsenal was dropped and i n 1814 Earle was reimbursed $985 f r o m the Cherokee a n n u i t y for the damage he sustained w h e n the Cherokees stopped h i m f r o m entering the nation i n February 1 8 0 8 . This t i m e luck was on the side of the Cherokees. 14

M e a n w h i l e , the dissident y o u n g chiefs, still led b y James V a n n , Charles Hicks, The Ridge, and Chulio, seemed unaware of the serious­ ness of Meigs's efforts to promote removal and exchange i n the Lower Towns. I n June 1808 they wrote to Jefferson that " f o r some t i m e past we have reason to believe that y o u r agent has not that good disposition t o ­ wards us that he ought to have." They suspected that he was negotiating secretly for further cessions and wanted the President to be aware that " i n a full Council last A p r i l i t was determined that no act of any Chief or Chiefs should be considered b i n d i n g on the nation unless t h e y were first appointed i n a council [to act for the nation] and then [their actions] to be ratified b y a f u l l council of the N a t i o n before w h o m their proceedings is to be l a i d . " I n short, henceforth treaties should take place i n t w o distinct steps : a negotiating council (presumably w i t h a small number of chiefs appointed for the purpose) w o u l d first w o r k out a treaty w i t h commis­ sioners f r o m the federal government, but before that treaty could be con­ sidered b i n d i n g , i t w o u l d have to be f u l l y discussed and approved b y a f u l l national council of all the chiefs and warriors, similar to the U n i t e d States Senate's ratification of all treaties made by its commissioners. Meigs had never acknowledged such a procedure; for h i m the action of the negoti­ ating council was final even w h e n he picked those w h o negotiated or w h e n he knew they represented o n l y a small fraction of the chiefs. Part of the problem was that the Cherokees had never fixed any number or propor­ t i o n of chiefs to constitute an official council and preferred to live under a decentralized t o w n government. The y o u n g chiefs went on to tell Jeffer­ son that t h e y had learned that " C o l . Meigs is n o w about to get The Glass and 2 or 3 other Chiefs to proceed to the Federal C i t y " for some k i n d of negotiations. W h a t i t was for they did not k n o w ; "he has kept the object of their j o u r n e y a profound secret nor can a m a n amongst us, except t w o or three favorites [like The Glass], obtain one title of i n f o r m a t i o n respect­ i n g i t . " They wished Jefferson to k n o w that The Glass's delegation was " u n a u t h o r i z e d " to speak for the whole nation, and that a n y t h i n g t h e y negotiated i n Washington w o u l d be invalid unless the whole nation r a t i ­ fied i t a f t e r w a r d . The letter was signed b y Pathkiller, Sour M u s h , Job15

Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 71-73. Pathkiller and other Cherokee chiefs to Thomas Jefferson, June 4,1808, M-222, roll 3, #1342-1345. 14

15

134

EFFORTS

TO DIVIDE THE NATION

bers Son, C h u l i o , W a r r i o r ' s Nephew, Nicojack, L y i n g Fawn, O o t u t e t a h , The Ridge, Kalatahee, Sawanooku, Five Killer, Cautaugatahee, Cawsocoshee, Thomas Pettit, George Parris, Oosaoku, and Ball Catcher. Jefferson did not k n o w w h a t to make of the letter except that i t was f r o m " V a n n ' s p a r t y " ; Meigs knew n o t h i n g about i t . A p p a r e n t l y the chiefs w h o w r o t e the letter were unaware of Jefferson's earlier meeting w i t h the group led by Stone Carrier and their proposal to divide the na­ t i o n . As of June, the Cherokee N a t i o n appeared to be divided i n t o at least three distinct political factions, each w i t h its o w n p r o g r a m and strategy : the Lower Towns were leaning toward removal and exchange; the upper part of the Upper Towns o n the Little Tennessee River favored some for­ mal division f r o m the Lower Towns and t e r r i t o r i a l status; the rebellious y o u n g chiefs (most of t h e m l i v i n g between the Hiwassee River i n Ten­ nessee and the Etowah River i n Georgia) favored a unified nation, a more h i g h l y centralized government, tribal ownership of the land, and a f i r m stand against removal, division, or any further land cessions, Meigs favored the first group, w h o m he still considered the true leaders of the nation, and continued to be sanguine about his removal plan, t e l l ­ ing Dearborn i n July that "there is a good number w h o w i s h to go over the M i s s i s s i p p i . " He also explained that although "the general idea of an exchange is that they shall have an equal extent of land [ i n Arkansas to that] w h i c h they n o w hold here," he did not t h i n k p a r i t y was neces­ sary. " I t h i n k they w i l l t h i n k i t better to have a less extent of land [ i n Arkansas], say one half, and that they have the difference i n value i n cash or goods and payable b y installments i n ten or perhaps t w e n t y years and w i t h o u t interest." Concerned that Jefferson m i g h t continue to h o l d out the fatal promise of citizenship i n the east, Meigs preyed on the g o v e r n ­ ment's fear of a war i n the west. He reminded Dearborn that the Chero­ kees, i f " w e l l - a r m e d " i n Arkansas, w o u l d provide "a formidable barrier against the savages or people of any other character" w h o m i g h t threaten the Valley f r o m "the west or n o r t h w e s t . " Relations w i t h Great B r i t a i n were v e r y tense at this t i m e and Meigs had already broached to Dearborn i n M a r c h the possibility that James V a n n and his rebels " m a y have been tampered w i t h b y the English Emissaries." He also whetted Dearborn's appetite for the total removal of the Cherokees b y a speculative estimate of h o w m u c h land w o u l d be gained and h o w little i t w o u l d cost. 16

17

18

The land now held by the Cherokees on the South side of the River Tennessee [the Lower Town region] is at least equal to an oblong 100 by 200 miles . . . there is 16 17 18

Return J. Meigs Henry Dearborn, July 11,1808, M-208. Ibid. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, March 24,1808, M-208.

135

EFFORTS

T O

D I V I D E

THE

N A T I O N

at least 14,000,000 acres. Suppose the U. States should give them land equal to one half by estimation [in Arkansas] having some natural boundaries, and by the other half at one and one-half cents per acre, say total 105,000 dollars. . . . When this sum is considered separated from the object it appears great, but when com­ pared with the result of the whole exchange, it shrinks to nothing, for in a very few years only a partial sale of the lands acquired will bring millions into the Treasury. 19

As i n all speculation, i t took m o n e y to make money. Meigs admitted i n the same letter that some of the Cherokees were re­ luctant to leave the home of their forefathers : " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g they are Indians, they have strong local prejudices [sentiments] and to induce t h e m to migrate, they must have strong excitements to leave the place of their n a t i v i t y and the graves of their fathers." Still, i f they could o n l y be made to see that " t h e i r existence as a distinct people depends on their m i ­ g r a t i o n " and i f "solid advantages" were held out, then the plan w o u l d w o r k . He hoped to persuade t h e m that a nation w i t h "at least 1600 good, active, g u n m e n , " l i v i n g i n Arkansas, could shoot and trap "skins and pel­ t r y to the amount of $150,000 annually while the old men, w o m e n and Children were raising corn and m a k i n g c l o t h . " A few months ago he had been praising their progress as farmers. N o w he was encouraging t h e m to be hunters and to leave farming to the w o m e n . Meigs was p l a y i n g a risky game and by late summer he was v e r y ap­ prehensive. I t looked as t h o u g h he m i g h t yet face open rebellion f r o m the Upper Towns. He had antagonized some chiefs b y firing Charles Hicks, one of the rebels, f r o m his post as interpreter. The incident that led h i m to demand that the national council t u r n over Charles Hicks and James Vann for prosecution i n white courts was almost a comic opera. O n A u ­ gust 3 1 , Charles Hicks, acting i n the name of the council, arrested Samuel Riley at knifepoint at Chickamauga Creek. Riley, w h o was n o w Meigs's chief interpreter, was carrying an important message f r o m Meigs to the Lower Towns. Hicks told Riley that he was wanted at once for question­ i n g by a council of Upper T o w n chiefs at Ustanali. Riley said he was on urgent government business and declined to accompany Hicks. Hicks brandished the knife as t h o u g h to force h i m , but finally agreed to allow Riley to post $500 bond and promise to appear later at the council to de­ fend himself against unspecific charges. Riley assumed that the rebels w o u l d accuse h i m at Ustanali of betraying the nation and force h i m to re­ veal Meigs's secret machinations for removal and exchange. As soon as Hicks had gone, Riley wrote anxiously to Meigs asserting that "the i n ­ surgent p a r t y " was out to get h i m and that he feared for his life. Meigs 19

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, June 3, 1808, M-208.

136

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

was outraged that a m i n o r Cherokee chief w o u l d arrest "one of the offi­ cers of the Cherokee A g e n c y " and insult h i m w h i l e i n the execution of his d u t y . He w r o t e to Black Fox to say that Hicks must be punished. " T h e U n i t e d States," he told the Principal Chief, "are b y this conduct insulted by an insurgent party of Cherokees" and "the Government of the U n i t e d States w i l l not suffer one of their officers to be i n s u l t e d . " " I demand that y o u punish Charles Hicks or deliver h i m up to be dealt w i t h as the case may require." 20

Riley's inordinate fear of Hicks's faction and Meigs's overreaction to this incident resulted f r o m their o w n bad consciences. Meigs w r o t e to D a v i d Campbell: "Ever since m y r e t u r n from the seat of government [ i n January] 1806, Charles Hicks has joined the party against Doublehead, of w h i c h party Vann is the head." " H i c k s had become so insolent" b y June 1807, " t h a t I had been obliged to dismiss h i m as an Interpreter b y w h i c h the [Lower T o w n ] Cherokee Chiefs were m u c h pleased." This "rebellious p a r t y , " he said, must be taught a lesson for their arrogance. " I f these peo­ ple are suffered to escape w i t h i m p u n i t y , they w i l l g r o w more refractory and oppose every reasonable proposition f r o m the U n i t e d States and f r o m Tennessee." 21

Meigs was not placated w h e n he discovered, upon further investiga­ t i o n , that Hicks had arrested Riley over a problem i n v o l v i n g the owner­ ship of a slave w h o had f o r m e r l y belonged to Doublehead. Since this was entirely a civil matter w i t h i n the nation, Black Fox did not arrest Hicks nor did Meigs pursue the incident. He decided instead to carry out his old i n t e n t i o n to arrest James Vann. I n the same letter i n w h i c h he or­ dered Black Fox to punish Hicks, he also demanded that the council t u r n over Vann to h i m to stand trial for his assaults upon t w o w h i t e m e n . O n January 2 0 , 1 8 0 8 , V a n n had shot a Georgian named Leonard Rice d u r i n g a d r u n k e n party at Vann's home; on A p r i l 20, he had stabbed a Tennessee wagoner, Samuel M o o r e , i n another b r a w l at Vann's Ferry on the Chat­ tahoochee. Meigs had received letters from General Buckner Harris of Georgia and Governor Sevier of Tennessee demanding Vann's prosecu­ t i o n for these crimes. W r i t i n g to Black Fox and the council about this, Meigs said: " Y o u all k n o w that James Vann is a dangerous man and that he has committed these crimes and others. If y o u do not check these acts 22

2 3

24

Return J. Meigs to Black Fox, September 4,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to David Campbell, September 30,1808, M-208. David Campbell to Return J. Meigs, September 23,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Black Fox, September 4,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, February 22, 1808, M-208; Henry Dearborn to Return J. Meigs, May 7,1808, M-208; General Buckner Harris to Return J. Meigs, June 4, 1808, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 14,1808, M-221, reel 26, #8667. 20 21

22

23

24

137

EFFORTS

T O

D I V I D E

THE

N A T I O N

of bad m e n , they m a y b r i n g distress on the nation, and i n such case the good m a y suffer for the conduct of their bad m e n / '

2 5

V a n n , however, had taken care to obtain medical care for b o t h the w h i t e m e n he had assaulted and he paid t h e m w e l l to compensate for their wounds. T h e y had b r o u g h t no charges. Black Fox and the national council that met at B r o o m s t o w n i n September refused to deliver V a n n to Meigs, who then wrote to Dearborn accusing the chiefs of cowardice. " T h e w e l l disposed Chiefs w h o are ten to one of the refractory, dare not even make a proposition to have V a n n delivered up for fear of assassination w h e n at the same t i m e they w o u l d rejoice to see h i m punished w i t h the u t m o s t severity."

26

Meigs asked Dearborn's permission to have the a r m y arrest

Vann and t u r n h i m over to Sevier for prosecution i n Tennessee. I f V a n n were convicted, he said, " i t w o u l d have a good effect and

would

strengthen the hands of the friends of Government w h o ought b y every reasonable means [to] be supported. Their o w n Government is n o t h i n g , and i n the last resort m u r d e r and assassination follows as i n the case of Doublehead." Meigs displayed his usual contempt for the Cherokee po­ litical system: " I f a man m a n i f e s t s ] a decided predilection i n favor of c o m p l y i n g w i t h the propositions of Government at treaties, his life is threatened and t h e y dare not act." I t did not seem to occur to Meigs that the " w e l l disposed chiefs" m i g h t be i n the m i n o r i t y or had placed their own self-interest before that of the tribe. Meigs once again considered ob­ t a i n i n g soldiers f r o m Governor Sevier " t o punish the aggressors."

27

Meigs's resolve to prosecute Vann stiffened w h e n he received a letter f r o m General Harris on October 11 describing how, i n June, "James V a n n placed himself and the Indian Catahee" at the head of a Cherokee group to accompany the surveyors of Wafford's Tract (which w h i t e intruders had tried to expand d u r i n g the four-year delay between the cession and the survey). Harris's object i n the survey was to include as large an area as possible w i t h i n the grant. V a n n believed that Harris's line was de­ signed to exceed the true l i m i t s of the cession; his assumption proved cor­ rect.

28

Dearborn gave permission to Meigs to use the troops at the garrison to arrest V a n n . Dearborn was hoping to obtain a cession of land for Tennes­ see at a council i n November. Meigs wrote to Sevier: " I f V a n n is properly b r o u g h t to Justice, i t w i l l have a v e r y good effect, w i l l silence his p a r t i Return J. Meigs to Black Fox, September 4,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, September 30, 1808, M-208. Ibid. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 58-60; General Buckner Harris to Return J. Meigs, October 11,1808, M-208. 25

26

27

28

138

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

zans—négociations w i t h the Cherokees w i l l be conducted w i t h ease." Vann was arrested o n October 22 and taken to Nashville for arraignment. M u c h to Meigs's chagrin, Vann was released five days later and he re­ t u r n e d home a m a r t y r . " I t w o u l d appear," Meigs explained sheepishly to Dearborn, " i f the opinion of Messrs. Tremble and Dardes [the lawyers hired to prosecute Vann] is correct, that the law as i t n o w stands w i l l not reach the case of V a n n . " O n l y those assaulted could b r i n g a complaint, and t h e y refused. 29

3 0

W h i l e Meigs's futile efforts to prosecute Hicks and V a n n were i n proc­ ess, the national council at B r o o m s t o w n i n September 1808 was t a k i n g some of the most i m p o r t a n t actions i n Cherokee revitalization. I t was a tense meeting because so m a n y critical matters were before the council: Earle was still hoping to start his ironworks somewhere soon; Meigs had sent the council a long address u r g i n g the nation to emigrate west; the Lower T o w n chiefs were planning their t r i p to W a s h i n g t o n and wanted the council to give t h e m power to act for themselves i f not for the n a t i o n ; Stone Carrier and the upper part of the Upper Towns wanted to divide the nation into t w o parts; Tennessee was asking for another cession; r u m o r s were circulating about an exchange of land ; the number of w h i t e i n t r u d ­ ers pressing onto the Cherokee land all around their borders was i n the hundreds; m a n y chiefs feared that too m a n y whites had been given per­ mission to enter the nation as mechanics and sharecroppers; Meigs was requesting the prosecution of V a n n and Hicks; and critical new proposals had been offered to establish a national police force that w o u l d require further adjustments i n the tradition of clan revenge. I t took the council almost a m o n t h to consider all of these matters. Black Fox served as P r i n ­ cipal Chief and Pathkiller as Second Principal chief, but they were on op­ posite sides i n the rebellion; so were Toochelar, the Speaker for the coun­ cil, and Charles Hicks, Secretary for the council. A t one p o i n t the Lower T o w n chiefs w i t h d r e w for a secret caucus at w h i c h decisions were made about an exchange of land and removal that the council as a whole did not learn about u n t i l weeks l a t e r . 31

The B r o o m s t o w n council refused to take any action on Earle's i r o n ­ works or on delivering up Hicks and Vann. N o r could i t decide w h a t to do about regulating permits to admit whites to w o r k i n the nation. The council members easily agreed, however, to protest strongly to Meigs for not r e m o v i n g the hundreds of intruders on their land. After some diffi­ culty, the chiefs also passed a law establishing a national police force. The resolution of September 11 stated that " r e g u l a t i n g parties" were "hereby 29 30 31

Return J. Meigs to John Sevier, October 23,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, October 28,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Black"Fox, September 4,1808, M-208.

139

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D

E T H E

N A T I O N

authorized . . . to suppress horse stealing and robbery of other prop­ e r t y . " Groups of lighthorse regulators under local headmen were to be established i n different (but unspecified) parts of the nation. T h e y were to "be paid out of the National a n n u i t y at the rates of fifty dollars to each Captain, f o r t y to the Lieutenant and t h i r t y dollars to each of the p r i ­ v a t e s / ' Charges against thieves required "one or t w o witnesses" and upon conviction, horse thieves "shall be punished w i t h one hundred stripes on the bare back, and the punishment to be i n p r o p o r t i o n for steal­ ing property of less value." Considering the long-standing opposition of the Cherokees to central law enforcement and corporal punishment, this was a drastic revision i n political thought, t h o u g h not w i t h o u t precedent. Later reports indicate that the law was passed at the u r g i n g of the y o u n g chiefs and that the Lower Towns had little i n t e n t i o n of enforcing i t i n their area. A f t e r the first lighthorse patrols instituted under M a j o r Lewis i n 1798 lapsed i n 1801, there had been sporadic attempts to revive t h e m i n 1802,1804, and earlier i n 1 8 0 8 . M u c h of the tension d i v i d i n g the old and y o u n g chiefs involved the former's p r i m a r y concern for i n d i v i d u a l self-aggrandizement and the profits to be made f r o m land sales and the latter's desire for closer attention to c o m m u n i t y problems, orderly accul­ t u r a t i o n , and national survival. 32

That the clans were still an i m p o r t a n t element i n Cherokee life seems evident f r o m an i m p o r t a n t clause i n the law regarding clan revenge i n connection w i t h deaths that m i g h t result f r o m resistance to arrest by the lighthorse regulators: " . . . and should the accused person or persons raise up w i t h arms i n his or their hands, as guns, axes, spears and knives, in opposition to the regulating company, or should they k i l l h i m or t h e m , the blood of h i m or t h e m shall not be required of any of the persons be­ l o n g i n g to the regulators from the clan the persons so killed belonged t o . " Evidently the similar decision made by the council i n 1797 had not been s t r i c t l y observed. 3 3

A n equally complex issue over w h i c h the clans may have been upset was a clause that ordered the lighthorse regulators " t o give their protec­ t i o n to children as heirs to their father's property and to the w i d o w ' s share w h o m he m a y have had children by or cohabited w i t h as his wife at For discussion of the reinstitution of the Cherokee lighthorse patrol and for some at­ tempts to do this in various parts of the nation after 1801, see The Glass to Henry Dearborn, June 30, 1801, M-15, reel 1, p. 27; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 3,1802, M-208; W. S. Lovely to Cherokee chiefs, June [no day] 1804, M-208; Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, July 25,1804, M-208; Quotequsky (James Mcintosh) to Return J. Meigs, August 28, 1804, M-208; Tutequskee (probably James Mcintosh) to Return J. Meigs, July 8, 1808, M-208. The Laws of the Cherokee Nation (Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, 1852), pp. 3-4. Here­ after abbreviated as Cherokee Laws. 32

33

140

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

the t i m e of his decease." This was, i n effect, a repudiation of m a t r i l i n e a l inheritance. The lack of records about the debate i n the council leaves i t uncertain whether this resulted f r o m a decline i n clan ties or the i n a b i l i t y of poor clan relatives to take care of a m o u n t i n g number of fatherless c h i l ­ dren and husbandless wives or whether this is another example of m o d ­ ernization—the development of middle-class w h i t e attitudes (especially among i n t e r m a r r i e d whites and Cherokees and among m i x e d bloods). Meigs had reported to Dearborn as early as 1805 that more and more of the w e a l t h y Cherokees were coming to h i m to have w i l l s made so that upon their deaths their property w o u l d go to their widows and children and not to their b r o t h e r s . He and Jefferson had regularly advised the Cherokees to adopt a patrilineal system, as had the missionaries. The new law read: " . . . i n case a father shall leave or w i l l any property to a child at the t i m e of his decease w h i c h he m a y have had by another w o m a n , t h e n his present wife shall be entitled to receive any such property as m a y be left b y h i m or t h e m w h e n substantiated by t w o or one disinterested w i t ­ ness." 34

35

T r a d i t i o n a l l y , a man's older brothers or maternal uncles had p r i m a r y claim on his property, just as a w i d o w ' s property and children w e n t to her brothers or maternal uncles. Perhaps the w o m e n of the nation had c o m ­ plained to the council that wealthy husbands (perhaps w h i t e c o u n t r y m e n , perhaps m i x e d bloods) were abandoning t h e m and leaving their children w i t h o u t support. The Cherokees' marriage and kinship systems were cer­ t a i n l y suffering under the strain of their new w a y of life. Divorce was still easy, b u t the power of a Cherokee wife to m a i n t a i n control of her prop­ e r t y , her home, and her children was difficult as wealth increased and w h i t e manners were adopted. As the conjugal f a m i l y , l i v i n g alone o n its f a r m , became the standard pattern of f a m i l y life, the husband's rights and duties superseded those of the clan. The lighthorse regulators, i t ap­ peared, were to be not o n l y a police force, judge, j u r y , and executioner b u t a probate court as w e l l . This first major law i n the revitalization m o v e ­ m e n t thus instituted a crude i n s t r u m e n t for a far-reaching cultural trans­ f o r m a t i o n . T h o u g h its early enforcement was doubtless weak, i t t r i e d to face up to certain basic issues of readjustment and, u l t i m a t e l y , patrilineal inheritance became the n o r m . Extant records do not m e n t i o n any other i n t e r n a l laws passed b y this council, but the Reverend Gideon Blackburn, w h o attended, summarized its activities i n a letter to a missionary j o u r n a l : Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 4,1805, M-208. Meigs explained here the growing preference among some of the mixed-blood Cherokees for patrilineal inheritance as opposed to traditional matrilineal inheritance. Cherokee Laws, pp. 3-4. 3 4

35

141

EFFORTS TO D I V I D E THE N ATIO N

A few days ago, in full council, they adopted a constitution which embraces sim­ ple principles of government. The legislative and judicial powers are vested in a general council and lesser ones subordinate. A l l criminal accusations must be es­ tablished by testimony, and no more executions must be made by the avenger of blood. . . . One law is that no murderer shall be punished until he has been proved guilty before the council. Another, that all Indians who have [live]stock to a certain number specified, shall pay two dollars annually to support their na­ tional government; that every white man in the nation . . . shall pay one dollar per annum for the same purpose, and some, whose names are mentioned, are rated as high as five. That all Indians shall be obliged to pay for crossing at ferries in the nation, as the whites do; that all ferries are to be taxed for the same pur­ pose, some as high as fifty dollars, some thirty, some twenty, etc. 36

If such laws were actually passed, they constituted a major effort to re­ structure the Cherokee political and legal system. Blackburn's details are so explicit that i t seems likely that the matters were at least discussed; he m a y have seen a draft of proposals brought forward b y the y o u n g chiefs. However, Meigs makes no m e n t i o n of such laws, nor are there any rec­ ords of their i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . Blackburn was t r y i n g to impress the churchgoing public w i t h the success of missionary w o r k . He continued: " I suspect their next step w i l l be the p a r t i t i o n i n g out of their lands [ i n severalty] and entering into regular habits of husbandry. Thus far are the Cherokees advanced—further, I believe, than any other nation of Indians i n A m e r i c a . " N e x t he expected t h e m to f o r m Christian churches. B u t Blackburn's o p t i m i s m tended to r u n beyond the evidence. Three years earlier he had predicted that "marriage w i l l be soon introduced w i t h some significant c e r e m o n y " and w r i t t e n laws w o u l d be required " t o ascertain the r i g h t of property as i t increases." T h o u g h he mentioned no law on the subject of infanticide, he reported a sharp decline i n " p r o c u r i n g abor­ t i o n s , " w h i c h he attributed to the decline of h u n t i n g . A b o r t i o n s , he said, were undertaken " i n order to prepare the females for accompanying their husbands i n their h u n t i n g expeditions." Blackburn himself took credit for persuading the Cherokees to adopt w r i t t e n laws, but i t seems u n l i k e l y that he or any missionary was the principal force behind the laws passed at B r o o m s t o w n . They were the result of the experiential needs of ac­ culturation and adapted w h i t e practices to Cherokee needs on Cherokee terms. I t is w o r t h n o t i n g that Blackburn considered Doublehead's assas­ sination "a serious loss to the n a t i o n " for "he entered more f u l l y i n t o the real interest of the nation than any Indian i n i t , and i t was because his 37

38

See Gideon Blackburn's letter in the Panoplist (Boston), December 1808, pp. 325-26. Panoplist, July 22,1805, p. 408. Gideon Blackburn to Return J. Meigs, November 4,1807, M-208; for a general picture of Blackburn's missionary work see Dorothy C. Bass, "Gideon Blackburn's Mission to the Cherokee Indians," Journal of Presbyterian History 52 (1974) :203-226. 36

37

38

142

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

plans interfered w i t h the selfish designs of V a n n and his party that he lost his l i f e . " Meigs was far more interested i n the effort of the council to deal w i t h the request of the upper part of the Upper Towns to divide the n a t i o n ; such a division w o u l d make i t easier for the Lower Towns to remove and exchange their part of the nation for land i n Arkansas. But the council decided not to vote on this matter u n t i l after further consultation w i t h Jefferson about its ramifications. This decision allowed Meigs to combine the delegation he had planned to take from the Lower Towns to see Jef­ ferson about removal w i t h a delegation from the Upper Towns to consult about a division line. He hoped to play t h e m off against each other and u l t i m a t e l y to persuade the whole nation to remove to Arkansas. Meigs did not attend the council, but he sent a message that played upon Cherokee discontents i n the east and the rosy future w a i t i n g i n the west. " Y o u have y o u r choice to stay here and become industrious, like w h i t e people, so that the w o m e n and children shall not cry any more for bread, or go over the Mississippi, where meat is p l e n t y and where corn m a y be raised as well as here." " Y o u r Father, the President" wanted w h a t was best for t h e m , but i n the East that w o u l d be difficult. This was w h y f r o m t i m e to t i m e " y o u r people Straggle one or t w o at a t i m e " to the West " o r i n small parties." I f they wanted to go west, they should "go i n large parties" and get something i n exchange for what they leave. He appealed to their national pride on this score: 3 9

Brothers, it is well known everywhere that the Cherokees stand on the highest ground of reputation as a Nation of Red men. The Cherokees have more knowl­ edge as farmers, as manufacturers, and have more knowledge of literature than any nation of Red men in America, I may safely say, than all the Red men in America put together. . . . You have more money, more cattle, more horses, more and better cloathing than any other nation of Red men of equal numbers in America . . . I wish to excite in yourselves a just pride, that is, to have you value yourselves as Cherokees; the word "Cherokee" or "Cherokees" should always convey an Idea of Respectability to your people. But the o n l y w a y to retain this respectability, he said, was to hold t o ­ gether as a people. The departure of small groups of disgruntled Chero­ kees was w h i t t l i n g away their strength and u n i t y . " L e t t h e m go i n large parties" to the West and " l e t some Respectable Chiefs go w i t h t h e m to keep up good order, that they may be everywhere esteemed as respectable people." Removal was the best w a y to preserve the nation and to slow 3 9

Gideon Blackburn to Return J. Meigs, November 7,1807, M-221, reel 4, #1144.

143

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

d o w n the uncomfortable pace of change that l i v i n g i n the East was forcing upon t h e m . Meigs did not expect the B r o o m s t o w n council to make a final decision about removal; he wanted the chiefs to authorize a delegation to go to W a s h i n g t o n to consult w i t h the President about i t . The council did do this, and i t chose three chiefs from the Upper Towns (The Ridge, John Walker, and John M c i n t o s h , whose Cherokee name was Quotaquskee) and three f r o m the Lower Towns (Toochelar, Skiuka, and The Seed). Walker and M c i n t o s h (Quotaquskee) were i n t e r m a r r i e d whites; Ridge was a m i x e d blood w h o spoke no English; the rest were full bloods. There was considerable debate over h o w m u c h a u t h o r i t y to give these delegates and h o w to instruct t h e m . The Lower Towns, following their secret cau­ cus, were determined to pursue the issue of exchange and removal (at least for their part of the nation) and gave their representatives full power to negotiate for t h e m . The Upper Towns seem to have been concerned m o s t l y w i t h exploring the significance of Stone Carrier's proposal about d i v i d i n g the nation and m o v i n g toward citizenship but gave its repre­ sentatives no power to negotiate. Meigs covered the general confusion by stating that the official purpose of the visit to Washington was to say fare­ well to Jefferson and to thank h i m for his help over the preceding eight years. Yet he wrote privately to Dearborn on November 15 that he and the delegates were on their way to Washington " t o converse w i t h h i m on the subject of an exchange of C o u n t r y . " I le also said, t h o u g h on what evidence is not clear, that " m o r e than one half [of the N a t i o n ] are i n favor of going over the Mississippi." The council had taken no vote on this. Meigs apparently wanted to prejudice Dearborn and Jefferson i n favor of his friends i n the Lower Towns. He had already appointed an exploration party of Lower T o w n chiefs to go west; his purpose i n coming to Wash­ i n g t o n was to find out " o n what part of the C o u n t r y [ i n Arkansas] the U.S. w o u l d chuse to place t h e m " i f an exchange took place. 4 0

4 1

A t the conclusion of the B r o o m s t o w n council, The Glass wrote a per­ sonal letter to Jefferson expressing the position of the Lower Towns : " O u r people expect that Exchange of Land w i l l take place w i t h the U n i t e d States." He went on, i n the style of Doublehead, to say that i f a treaty of exchange took place i n Washington, he wished to have a reserve set aside for himself and l i k e w i s e one Ileland at the mussel shoals" as a reward for his cooperation; these he w o u l d sell after the cession. Somehow the Upper T o w n chiefs got w i n d of what Meigs and Glass were up to; shortly after the delegation had started for Washington on 42

40 41 42

Return J. Meigs to the Cherokee Council at Broomstown, August 29,1808, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, November 15, 1808, M-221, reel 27, #8971. The Glass to Henry Dearborn, November 2, 1808, M-222, reel 3, #1206.

144

E F F O R T S

T O

D I V I D E

T H E

N A T I O N

November 15, 1808, they hastily called a council at Hiwassee T o w n . Chiefs f r o m various parts of the nation were present and accusations were h u r l e d back and f o r t h w i t h considerable passion. The m a j o r i t y then voted to depose (or "break") the Principal Chief, Black Fox, for his part i n the secret instructions to the Lower T o w n delegates; they also deposed three other Lower T o w n chiefs—Tolluntuskee, The Glass, and John D . Chis­ h o l m — f r o m their places as old or principal chiefs. They chose Pathkiller as the new Principal Chief and also chose t w o additional delegates to rep­ resent the nation, John Rogers (a countryman) and Thomas W i l s o n (a nephew of Charles Hicks w h o had been educated among the whites). These t w o were instructed to take fast horses and t r y to catch up to the delegation before i t reached Washington. They carried letters f r o m Path­ killer appointing t h e m as official delegates, thereby g i v i n g preponderance i n the delegation to the Upper Towns. To satisfy the Lower Towns, the council also sent Cabbin S m i t h (Big Cabbin) as an additional delegate to speak for his region, t h o u g h he seems to have been cool t o w a r d removal. V a n n and the insurgents were certain that Meigs and his Lower T o w n friends w o u l d attempt to make an agreement i n Washington for an ex­ change of land i n Arkansas that w o u l d leave the Upper Towns l i t t l e choice b u t to follow t h e m westward or become U n i t e d States citizens i n the east. If the effort succeeded, there w o u l d soon be no Cherokee N a t i o n east of the Mississippi. 4 3

W. S. Lovely in a letter to Meigs, November 23, 1808, says this " r u m p " council met on November 22 (M-222, reel 3, #1314). For a general discussion of this removal effort see McLoughlin, "Thomas Jefferson and the Beginning of Cherokee Nationalism." 4 3

145

SEVEN

THE

FIRST STEP

N A T I O N A L I S M ,

T O W A R D 1808-1810

It has now been a long time that we have been much confused and di­ vided in our opinions, but now toe have settled our affairs to the satis­ faction of both parties and become as one. You will now hear from us not from the lower towns nor the upper towns but from the whole Cherokee Nation. —Cherokee council to Return ] . Meigs, September 27,1809

T

he three new delegates caught up w i t h Meigs and his party just be­ fore they reached Washington, D . C . , but Meigs's assistant agent, M a j o r Lovely, had sent a message b y an even faster rider to w a r n Meigs of w h a t had happened. Lovely's account was designed to t h r o w doubt on the v a l i d i t y of the Hiwassee council and thereby allow Meigs to ignore the new delegates and proceed w i t h his original plan, excluding t h e m f r o m the negotiations. Lovely heaped sarcasm on the entire proceedings of November 22, 1808: " I hope this may meet y o u i n t i m e and previous to the arrival of John Rogers, appointed Ambassador Extraordinary f r o m the Cherokee N a t i o n to the Government of the United States; i t appears from the i n f o r m a t i o n of his friends that he goes b y order of the n o w greatChief, the Path Killer, D a m n his brains, that he could not foresee the con­ sequences that w o u l d result by sending one of the greatest Rascalls t h e y ever cherished amongst t h e m / ' 1

Lovely w e n t on to describe Rogers as " a V i l l a i n " w h o was " g u i l t y of every crime that h u m a n nature can be g u i l t y o f . " Rogers had been a T o r y i n 1776, "one of M r . [Simonj Girts Corps of cut-throats i n the State of Georgia d u r i n g the r e v o l u t i o n a r y W a r . " (Lovely had fought on the pa­ t r i o t side w i t h Morgan's Raiders i n Virginia. ) After the war Rogers fled to the Creeks and then to the Cherokees where, according to Lovely, he had engaged i n cattle stealing i n 1798-1799. As for Thomas W i l s o n , " t h a t disafected, o w l - l o o k i n g fellow," Lovely said he was "taken to P h i l ­ adelphia by Dinsmore and received a tolerable education at a Quaker school" w h e n he was " a poor, half-starved, i l l - l o o k i n g bouger." W i l s o n 1

W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, November 23,1808, M-222, reel 3, #1314.

146

FI R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

was " N e p h e w to Charly [ H i c k s ] " and had "partaken of his m i x t u r e of the most poisonous s t u f f " against Meigs. Lovely concluded b y r e m i n d i n g Meigs that Rogers had participated i n the assassination of Doublehead and that the new delegates were part of the "deceitful conspiracy" of V a n n and Hicks against the United States government and the old chiefs. M e a n w h i l e the Lower T o w n chiefs met i n a hasty council on November 26 and sent their o w n messengers after Meigs w i t h a letter to Jefferson g i v i n g their view of what had occurred on November 22. Fifteen Lower T o w n chiefs, led b y The Glass, Dick Justice, T u r t l e at H o m e , Parched C o r n Flour, and John Boggs, signed the account: It is only 4 days since the upper Division of the Nation met in Council and had very contrary talks and very distant from our wishes; they there [Hiwassee] with a usurped authority, attempted to stop the mouths of four of our old and beloved chiefs and leaders. The Lower T o w n chiefs refused to acknowledge the a u t h o r i t y of that council and said they still adhered to Black Fox and the other deposed old Chiefs: " T h e y are true friends to y o u and y o u r Government. These m e n had done n o t h i n g that could be laid to their charge except holding fast to our father the Présidentes] and G o v e r n m e n t ' s ] advice and w i s h i n g the true happiness of the N a t i o n and the Interest of the U n i t e d States." These chiefs claimed to represent "13 Towns composing nearly one half of the Cherokee N a t i o n " i n their population, "and taking into view our people that are already crossed the Mississippi, we are a m a j o r i t y . " (There are no statistics that support this claim.) Their letter said t h e y were still i n favor of " R e m o v i n g " and wanted to k n o w whether the land t h e y w o u l d be given i n Arkansas was "the property of the United States" or outside its boundaries, for they wished to remain under the protection of the U n i t e d States. After expressing their continued confidence i n Meigs, t h e y asked the President to pay each of their three delegates $120 for his serv­ ices and to pay Samuel Riley, w h o w o u l d serve as interpreter i n W a s h ­ i n g t o n , $1,000 " w h i c h the nation owes h i m " as a trader. The three o r i g ­ inal Lower T o w n delegates added their signatures later and presented i t to Jefferson after they reached W a s h i n g t o n .

2

Tolluntuskee, angry over his impeachment, sent his o w n note to the President, explaining, " I have tried to make our people sensible of our o w n good but they w o u l d not l i s t e n " (an indication that the Lower Towns represented a m i n o r i t y position). " I and m y party are determined to cross "Headmen of the River Division of the Cherokee Nation" to Thomas Jefferson, no date (probably November 26,1808), M-222, reel 3, #1157. 2

147

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

the river towards the West. O u r bad brothers may dispute, but w i t h me 12 towns g o . " Lovely's message caught up w i t h Meigs i n Alexandria, V i r g i n i a , and on December 13, Meigs sent Riley ahead w i t h a note to w a r n Dearborn about the n e w l y appointed delegates w h o w o u l d t r y to participate i n the discussions. He told Dearborn that the new delegates were not properly authorized and represented o n l y the dissident faction: " V a n n and Hicks having a jealousy that these that were regularly appointed w o u l d not transact the business agreeably to their factious v i e w s . " To p e r m i t the " i n f a m o u s " Rogers to participate w o u l d have "a pernicious effect and strengthen the factious party under Vann w h o are o n l y supported b y threats of assassination against those w h o are friendly to the G o v e r n ­ m e n t . " Meigs wanted no interference i n the plan he had w o r k e d on for so long. 3

4

Dearborn and Jefferson accepted Meigs's negative assessment of the Hiwassee council; the extra delegates took no official part i n the deliber­ ations that followed. They did, however, stay at the same hotel as the other delegates and they did participate i n i n f o r m a l discussions w i t h t h e m . They signed some of the memoranda to Jefferson f r o m the dele­ gates, but someone, evidently Meigs, crossed off their names. Meigs carefully managed the entire transaction and arranged for the Lower T o w n delegates to meet separately w i t h Dearborn to present their re­ moval proposals w i t h o u t the knowledge of the Upper T o w n delegates. W h e n the Upper T o w n delegates discovered this and realized that i f they acquiesced i n any division of the nation according to Stone Carrier's plan they w o u l d simply facilitate the removal plans that Meigs and the Lower Towns were negotiating, they protested vigorously. Their effort to argue that Black Fox had been deposed and that Pathkiller and the Hiwassee council represented the official view of the nation i n opposition to re­ moval was rebutted by Meigs. Meigs believed that i f the Lower Towns wished to negotiate a removal i n r e t u r n for an exchange of their part of the nation, they had a perfect right to do so. He argued that the Brooms­ t o w n council had i n effect agreed to a division of the nation w h e n i t sent t w o sets of delegates to discuss their problems w i t h Jefferson. Dearborn was w i l l i n g to accept Meigs's version; Jefferson was more cautious. The Upper T o w n delegates told Jefferson : " W e did not t h i n k that we were b r i n g i n g the talks of our old chief that we have dismissed. We t h o u g h t we were b r i n g i n g the talks of our beloved man, the Path Killer, our present principle Chief and the talk of 42 towns that are also of his m i n d . " The Turtle at Home, Tolluntuskee, and The Glass to Thomas Jefferson, November 25,1808, M-222, reel 3, #1151. Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, December 13, 1808, M-222, reel 3, #1306. 3

4

148

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

decision of the Hiwassee council on November 22, these delegates said, was " t o hold fast to our c o u n t r y " and " t o h o l d our c o u n t r y as far as the present boundary lines between us, the Cherokees and the w h i t e s . " T h e y were n o w opposed to Stone Carrier's plan to divide the nation i n t w o be­ cause this w o u l d play into Meigs's hands. They explained to the President that the Hiwassee council was justified i n deposing Black Fox and sending new delegates because they had o n l y recently discovered that the Lower Towns " h a d already made up their minds to move us out of our houses [and off to Arkansas] before we knew a n y t h i n g of i t . " 5

The Upper T o w n delegates admitted that at B r o o m s t o w n there was a general feeling that separation of the t w o regions m i g h t be useful, b u t the council favored this o n l y because the Upper Towns considered the Lower Towns to be backward, lazy, and opposed to new laws to i m p r o v e social order. The old chiefs were against the civilization policy; " v e r y few of the old chiefs has given their children l e a r n i n g " i n the mission schools. M o s t of the old chiefs had opposed the laws i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g the lighthorse regulators. Their children grew up unfit " f o r any business . . . they w a n t clothing . . . they w i l l steal horses to get t h e m instead of w o r k i n g for t h e m . " The Upper T o w n delegates portrayed the Lower Towns as the most backward part of the nation. As for a dividing line between the U p ­ per and Lower Towns, they were w i l l i n g to discuss i t , but i f i t were made, it " w o u l d be made for no other purpose than to suppress theft and secure our land and keep our chiefs f r o m selling our l a n d . " I t w o u l d not be de­ signed to facilitate removal and exchange of the Lower T o w n region. 6

Five days later the Lower Towns, t h r o u g h Toochelar, gave Jefferson their version of w h y they were there: " M y part of the N a t i o n , the Lower towns, is d e t u r m [ i n ] e d to move over the missippa i f they like the C u n t r y w h e n they exploar i t , pervided there father w i l l assist t h e m i n their persute." T h e y asked Jefferson to provide t h e m w i t h "Boates to move i n " and " G o o d guns to k i l l meet to l i v on and to Gard our w i m m e n and C h i l ­ d r e n " f r o m other tribes. T h e y wanted h i m to put these matters " o n paper that we m a y Carrey i t home for our peopel to hear." I n short, t h e y wanted a detailed w o r k i n g agreement to emerge f r o m their talk w i t h Jef­ ferson. 7

The Upper T o w n delegates said that removal was contrary to all that t h e y had heard for years f r o m the President and their agent. " Y o u r advise has Been to us to lay by our guns and go to f a r m i n g . G i t hoes, plowes and axes. The y o u n g peopel [ y o u n g chiefs] holds y o u r talk fast respecting The Ridge, John Walker, and John Mcintosh to Henry Dearborn, Parker Papers, box 2, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia. Ibid. Toochaiee [Toochelar] to Thomas Jefferson, Parker Papers, box 2. 5

6 7

149

F I R S T

S T E P

T O VV A R I ) N A T I O N A L I S M

f a r m i n g and I n d u s t r e y " ; the old chiefs were fickle, " t h e y t h r o w away the plow and pick up the G u n and also t h r o w away the w i m m e n ' s Spining wheles." Jefferson should take no action on removal or division of the na­ t i o n at this t i m e . These questions " w e Leave to be Settled between our present prinsable Cheef [Pathkiller] and our father the President" at some later t i m e .

8

Jefferson found himself i n a quandary. There was no simple w a y to reconcile the desires of the t w o sets of delegates nor to negotiate a n y t h i n g resembling a treaty. After t w o weeks of further discussion he said good­ bye to t h e m on January 9, 1809, giving t w o farewell messages—one to the combined delegation and one to the Upper T o w n group. He told the former that i f the Lower Towns wished to remove across the Mississippi, he w o u l d approve of "an exploring p a r t y " to find a tract " n o t claimed by other Indians." W h e n they found a good location, the government " w i l l arrange w i t h t h e m and y o u the exchange of that for a just p o r t i o n of the c o u n t r y they leave and to a part of w h i c h , proportioned to their numbers, they have a r i g h t . " To this extent Jefferson was acknowledging i n p r i n ­ ciple the r i g h t of exchange and removal by a section of the nation. B u t to the Upper Towns the essential point i n his message was that any such ex­ change w o u l d be arranged later " w i t h t h e m and y o u " (i.e., those w h o w o u l d emigrate and those w h o w o u l d not)—p r e s u m a b 1 y i n a national council. The Lower Towns, however, took the essence of Jefferson's mes­ sage to be his promise to give "every aid towards their r e m o v a l " and to provide t h e m w i t h a trading factory and agency once they got settled i n the west (i.e., whether the Upper Towns wished to emigrate or n o t ) . The most astonishing t h i n g i n what Jefferson said was his claim that every emigrant to the west was entitled to take w i t h h i m "a just p o r t i o n of the c o u n t r y they leave." I f that were literally true, then the one t h o u ­ sand Cherokees already i n the West should be able to negotiate an ex­ change of their portion of the old nation i n the east. It w o u l d mean that the land of the Cherokee N a t i o n was i n effect already apportioned among its twelve thousand inhabitants and that whenever anyone left, he or she diminished the existing boundaries by his or her "just p o r t i o n . " I t left the nation like a barrel w i t h a hole i n the b o t t o m constantly leaking people and land. I f this were implemented, the national domain w o u l d steadily be eroded; i t could never hope for any stability or order. Jefferson prob­ ably o n l y had i n m i n d a large and concerted m i g r a t i o n that w o u l d take place at one t i m e by a general agreement w i t h the Cherokee N a t i o n . Meigs, however, had a very different view of the matter and so, i t turned 8

The Ridge et al. to Thomas Jefferson, Parker Papers, box 2.

150

FIRST STEP T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

out, did future Presidents and Secretaries of War. Jefferson's message was to have far-reaching consequences i n future years. In his separate farewell to the Upper Towns, Jefferson was equally vague about the proposed line of division. He said he could not w o r k this out except " o n the j o i n t consent of b o t h parties." I f a divisional line were w o r k e d out, Jefferson suggested that the Upper Towns than h o l d a k i n d of constitutional convention i n w h i c h representatives f r o m each t o w n i n the Upper T o w n region w o u l d divide the land i n severalty and draw up a set of laws designed to prepare the Cherokees for future citizenship. W h a t w o u l d happen to the land not assigned to any particular f a m i l y he did not say.

9

The delegates returned to the nation i n June 1809, each w i t h his o w n interpretation of what had happened. Meigs was sure that an agreement t a n t a m o u n t to a treaty had been reached—"an agreement to exchange land here for lands on the Arkansas and W h i t e Rivers," as he put i t .

1 0

He

was surprised to find that not all of those i n the Lower Towns were n o w certain they wanted to emigrate. Nevertheless he continued to make plans as t h o u g h most of t h e m w o u l d eventually go. The Upper Towns received a shock w h e n James V a n n was m y s t e r i o u s l y shot to death on February 9,1809, at Buffington's Tavern on the Georgia Road. Vann had been out w i t h the lighthorse regulators for a week or more, catching and p u n i s h i n g horse thieves i n his district. H i s p u n i s h ­ ments had been so severe that some of his m e n had remonstrated w i t h him.

Vann never took criticism w e l l ; he insulted and h u m i l i a t e d George

Sanders, one of his m e n , for such a rebuke. I t was r u m o r e d that Sanders had shot Vann f r o m behind a tree as he stood i n the tavern door at n i g h t , his back to the l i g h t . N o one saw the killer and few seemed to care.

11

De­

spite all he had done to expose the unfair behavior of Meigs, Doublehead, H a r r i s , and others, V a n n had never been a popular leader and had m a n y enemies. I n 1806 he had killed his sister's husband, John Falling, i n a duel over stolen m o n e y and the ownership of a slave.

12

He seems to have been

reckless, a m a n g r o w n rich and cynical and tired of l i v i n g , but nevertheFor Jefferson's messages to the Cherokee delegation in January 1809 see M-15, reel 2, #0414-0416. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, August 7, 1809, M-222, reel 4, #1574. John Gambold to Benzien, February 23, 1809, Moravian Archives, Winston-Salem, North Carolina (hereafter abbreviated as M A S ) . For a sketch of Vann's life see William G. McLoughlin, The Cherokee Ghost Dance and Other Essays on the Southeastern Indians (Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1984), chap. 2. John Gambold to Benzien, May 30, 1806, M A S . See also Nicholas Byers to Return J. Meigs, May 24, 1806, M-208, and Return J. Meigs to Valentine Geiger, June 6, 1806, M 208. 9

10 11

12

151

FIRST STEP T O W A R D

N AT I O N A L I S M

less a critically i m p o r t a n t figure at this t u r n i n g point i n the Cherokee re­ nascence. I n M a r c h 1809, a m o n t h after Vann's death, Meigs received a letter f r o m John C h i s h o l m at Muscle Shoals: " I am preparing to move over the massisipi this s u m m e r / ' he w r o t e ; " a l l the Indians are preparing i n this qarter for the same p u r p a s . " Chisholm may have been w a i t i n g for some action b y a council to ratify removal, for i n reply Meigs told h i m that "the exchange does not depend on the consent of the nation because emigra­ t i o n cannot be restrained. Individuals w i l l go where they please." He also noted that the mass m i g r a t i o n being planned required that the Lower Towns " r e l i n q u i s h to the United States land here i n q u a n t u m p r o p o r t i o n to the number they carry over that river, having regard to the whole number of the Cherokee N a t i o n . " Carried out literally, this meant that for every Cherokee w h o emigrated, the land of the eastern part of the na­ t i o n w o u l d be reduced by r o u g h l y 1,250 acres; i f an average Cherokee family included five persons, then 6,000 acres was to be relinquished or exchanged for every family that went west. Meigs also told C h i s h o l m that "Tollonteskee [Tolluntuskee] says he does not want to explore" i n the west "because he has already the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n and that he w i l l take over a large number of people" very soon. Evidently the idea of an advance party was given up because the Cherokees w h o wished to e m ­ igrate w o u l d simply j o i n those already established four hundred miles up the Arkansas River, near Dardanelles Rock. Meigs hoped that the groups led b y Tolluntuskee, C h i s h o l m , and other chiefs from their respective towns w o u l d go together i n one large body. " T h e President w i l l , w h e n the m i g r a t i o n [date] is determined, give all the facility and aid that m a y be necessary to carry that establishment into effect." 13

14

Tolluntuskee and ten other chiefs came to Meigs on July 20 to say that they had engaged 386 men and 637 w o m e n to emigrate w i t h t h e m . S h o r t l y afterward, another 107 names were added to the l i s t . B y A u g u s t 17 Meigs believed i t was t i m e for the government to make good on its promises to provide boats, guns, and other necessary aids to those ready to remove to Arkansas. Jefferson had n o w been succeeded b y James M a d ­ ison and Dearborn b y W i l l i a m Eustis; Meigs w r o t e to Eustis explaining the previous winter's talks w i t h Jefferson and Dearborn. Removal and ex­ change had been "a subject of negotiation w i t h the President," he said, and "the result was an agreement to exchange lands here for lands on the 15

John Chisholm to Return J. Meigs, March 18,1809, M-208. Return J. Meigs to John Chisholm, March 28, 1809, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, September 16, 1809, M-208. See also Return J. Meigs to Cherokee Council, November 2, 1809, M-208. 13

14

15

152

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

Arkansas and W h i t e R i v e r s / '

16

N A T I O N A L I S M

A c t i n g on his assurances of government

help, he told Eustis, m a n y chiefs had gathered their people together and now " t h e y expect the aid of G o v e r n m e n t " for their five-hundred-mile j o u r n e y d o w n the Tennessee, d o w n the O h i o , d o w n the Mississippi, and then up the Arkansas River to Dardanelles Rock. N o tract had yet been surveyed for t h e m there because i t was not yet k n o w n h o w m a n y w o u l d go and h o w large a tract they w o u l d be entitled to. However, Meigs wanted to get the boats, guns, and supplies ready. T h e y were "preparing to move as soon as their crops shall be gathered i n . " He assured Eustis that "the disposition is so strong for m o v i n g that i t seems to require the attention of the Government to give i t direction and order, or positively to discountenance and repress i t . " Believing the latter out of the question, he w e n t o n to suggest the k i n d of assistance that the government should now make available: a keel-bottom boat, 200 rifles, 400 lbs. of powder, 800 lbs. of lead, 1,000 flints, 200 beaver traps, 100 axes, 100 corn hoes, 50 grubbing hoes, 200 pairs cotton cards, 50 w o o l cards, 50 small plows. He estimated the total cost to be $4,100. To make this expense palatable, Meigs calculated h o w m u c h land the U n i t e d States w o u l d obtain i n the east. There were about twelve thousand Cherokees, and they owned about fifteen m i l l i o n acres; therefore "each m a n , w o m a n and child are entitled to 1250 acres" i n the west. He esti­ mated that there w o u l d be "2000 emigrants before next s p r i n g " and this " w i l l entitle the United States to 2.5 m i l l i o n acres" f r o m the Cherokee homeland. But this was o n l y the beginning. Once the government had demonstrated its full support of emigration, once thousands had gone ahead and started new settlements between the Arkansas and W h i t e r i v ­ ers, Meigs expected another t w o thousand emigrants to leave " w i t h i n two years," and thus another 2.5 m i l l i o n acres w o u l d be deducted f r o m the Cherokee homeland for the expanding w h i t e populations of Tennes­ see, Georgia, N o r t h Carolina, and what w o u l d become A l a b a m a .

17

Ulti­

mately, Meigs was convinced, all the Cherokees w o u l d go west. But w h i l e Meigs was doing all he could do stimulate removal, the dis­ sident chiefs were doing all they could to prevent i t . This they planned to accomplish by restoring h a r m o n y w i t h i n the nation and reconciling the divisions among themselves. I n July 1809, representatives f r o m t h i r t y Upper Towns had met i n council at Ustanali and " u n a n i m o u s l y " rejected Stone Carrier's plan to divide the n a t i o n .

18

The council also w r o t e to

Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, August 17,1809, M-222, reel 4, #1574. Ibid. Cherokee Council to Return J. Meigs, June 30,1818, M-221, reel 79, #0060. This ret­ rospective account speaks of a council of " t h i r t y Towns" in July 1809, but a contemporary 16

17

18

153

FIRST STEP T O W A R D

NATIONALISM

Meigs, r e m i n d i n g h i m that i n Washington their delegates had told Jeffer­ son " t h a t the path killer and 42 towns held to their c o u n t r y " and did not want i t divided i n any way. They also reminded h i m that " o u r father told us that our whole nation w o u l d be present i n the sales of our lands." They expected some k i n d of deliberation by a national council before any e m i ­ gration or any exchange of land was formalized. The letter was signed b y The Ridge, Oosooke, Kelachulee, and Katahee. Meigs, of course, did not w a n t any such council to take place for fear that the m a j o r i t y w o u l d op­ pose removal; he therefore ignored the letter and continued his plans. As rumors spread t h r o u g h o u t the w h i t e frontier that the Cherokees were m o v i n g west and that Tennessee and Georgia w o u l d soon obtain m i l l i o n s of acres of their land, thousands of whites began to move onto the Cherokee land i n Tennessee and Georgia, expecting to squat there and establish preemption r i g h t s . Meigs received numerous complaints f r o m chiefs all over the nation d u r i n g 1809-1810 about these intruders. O n t w o occasions he sent out United States troops to drive t h e m off, but his attitude was ambivalent. A t one point i n 1809 he described the intruders to the Secretary of War as shiftless desperadoes w h o were imposing on the government for selfish and dishonest ends: 19

Should this disposition to make intrusions on Indian land increase, they w i l l per­ haps at last p u t the few troops here at defiance. These i n t r u d e r s are always w e l l armed, some of t h e m shrewd and desperate characters, h a v i n g n o t h i n g to lose and h o l d barbarous sentiments towards Indians. . . . W i t h these people remonstrance has no effect; n o t h i n g b u t force can prevent their v i o l a t i o n of Indian r i g h t s .

20

O n another occasion that same year, he painted a different picture for General James Robertson, a Tennessee land speculator and political leader: I removed 201 families off the Chickasaw lands and 83 off the Cherokee lands— n o t less t h a n 1700 or 1800 souls. These people bear the appelation of i n t r u d e r s , b u t t h e y are A m e r i c a n s — o u r riches and our strength are derived f r o m our C i t i ­ zens; i n our new c o u n t r y every m a n is an acquisition. We o u g h t n o t to lose a s i n ­ gle m a n for w a n t of land to w o r k on. A disposition to m i g r a t e seems to pervade the w h o l e Eastern part of the U . States. It acts as u n i f o r m l y as the laws of g r a v i 1 et ter from The Ridge and other chiefs to Meigs, speaks of a council of fifteen towns; see August 2,1809, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, October 26, 1809, M-208. There are dozens of let­ ters in Meigs's files regarding intruders on Cherokee lands and the fruitless efforts to drive them off. See, e.g., John Strothers to Return J. Meigs, November 16,1809; Turtle at Home to Return J. Meigs, October 1,1809; Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, April 13,1810. A l l in M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, October 26, 1809, M-208. 19

20

154

FIRST STEP T O W A R D

NATIONALISM

tation and can no more be restrained untill the shores of the pacific ocean make it impossible to go farther. 21

As always, the efforts of the troops against the intruders were useless. T u r t l e at H o m e wrote to Meigs on October 1, 1809, t h a n k i n g h i m for sending soldiers to remove squatters near his t o w n of Nickajack, Tennes­ see, yet r e m a r k i n g sadly: "Since the spring that y o u was d o w n here to drive off the w h i t e people w h o had settled on our lands, t h e y have re­ t u r n e d as thick as ever, the same as crows that are startled f r o m their food b y a person passing on the road, but as soon as he is passed, t h e y r e t u r n again. . . . I t is v e r y unpleasant to see our lands occupied i n this m a n ­ ner." 22

Meigs was caught between m a n y demands. The state politicians wanted h i m to go easy on the intruders; he himself knew that the aggra­ vations t h e y caused the Cherokees was a goad to land cessions and e m i ­ gration. O n the other hand, he had to persuade the Cherokees that he was attentive to their rights and to protect the honor of the government so that the Cherokees did not make too m a n y complaints. Generally he erred on the side of lenience t o w a r d the squatters because he t h o u g h t the Cherokees had more land than they needed and acted t o w a r d i t like dogs i n the manger. He w o u l d instruct the troops, for example, that t h e y should not force the intruders off their land u n t i l t h e y had had t i m e to harvest their crops. General Wade H a m p t o n regarded such orders as counterproductive : " H i s l e n i t y can but lead to new aggressions." 23

I n 1809 Meigs had good reasons for avoiding trouble w i t h squatters w h o m i g h t i n t u r n complain to their political leaders. He wanted the frontier politicians to help h i m put pressure on Madison and Eustis for removal. W r i t i n g to James T r i m b l e , a p r o m i n e n t Tennessee lawyer, i n September 1809, Meigs predicted that " i f the U n i t e d States w o u l d be at the expense of t h i r t y , f o r t y or fifty thousand dollars to encourage a m i ­ gration over the Mississippi" i t was probable that "one half at least of the Cherokees w o u l d remove to that C o u n t r y , perhaps nearly a l l . " " W h a t w o u l d one h u n d r e d thousand dollars be considered [ i n order] to b r i n g about an exchange of fifteen m i l l i o n s of acres of land and g i v i n g us a boundary to near to mobile b a y . " To effect this end, westerners m u s t lobby the President and Congress. " N o w , sir, w o u l d i t not be strengthReturn J. Meigs to James Robertson, Robertson Papers, Tennessee State Archives. In June 1810, Meigs had a map on which he had located over 1,000 intruders on Cherokee land; see Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, June 27,1810, M-208. For a good general account of the intruder problem see Prucha, American Indian Policy, chap. 7. Turtle at Home to Return J. Meigs, October 1,1809, M-208. General Wade Hampton to William Eustis, November 22, 1809, M-221, reel 23, #7673. 21

22

23

155

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

ening the hands of the President i f y o u r legislature should address h i m on a subject so interesting to y o u r State and to the U n i t e d States also?" He w o u l d not, Meigs said, urge removal of the Cherokees i f he were not convinced that i t is i n "the interest of the Cherokees" as w e l l ; "a gradual but certain e x t i n c t i o n " w o u l d be theirs i f they remained where they were, surrounded " b y intelligent and some mischievously cunning people w h o still keep alive ancient prejudices" and w h o regularly intruded upon and harassed t h e m . T r i m b l e took the h i n t and carried the message to Gover­ nor W i l l i e B l o u n t , w h o i n t u r n took it to the legislature. It passed a res­ o l u t i o n u r g i n g support of removal of the Cherokees and sent i t to the President. 24

Meigs's persistent efforts to promote removal seem to have caused m a n y Cherokees to side w i t h the Upper Towns to save their homeland. A t a critical national council at W i l l s t o w n i n September 1809, attended by m a n y chiefs f r o m the Lower and Upper Towns, t w o i m p o r t a n t steps were taken t o w a r d restoring tribal h a r m o n y . First, the council agreed to give no support to the exchange and removal plan, and second, i t agreed to re­ store Black Fox and The Glass to positions as Principal Chiefs. This coun­ cil w r o t e Meigs to tell h i m that the major part of the nation, after m a n y years of division, had finally concluded that their survival depended upon obliterating the old division of Upper and Lower Towns, each w i t h their own regional councils, each w i t h their o w n self-interests: " I t has n o w been a long time that we have been much confused and divided i n our opinions, but n o w we have settled our affair[s| to the satisfaction of b o t h parties and become as one. You w i l l now hear f r o m us not f r o m the lower towns nor the upper towns but f r o m the whole Cherokee n a t i o n . " 25

To show that they were i n earnest, this council voted to significantly restructure their governing system. They had suffered m u c h f r o m the cumbersome process of calling ad hoc councils. Councils were n o w meet­ ing six to eight times a year i n various parts of the nation, sometimes even more frequently. N o t o n l y did they consume a great deal of t i m e , but attendance fluctuated. Some were regional, some claimed to be na­ tional, some were dominated by one faction or another. M o r e i m p o r t a n t , they were easy for Meigs to manipulate when he wanted something and easy for h i m to ignore as unrepresentative w h e n he did not like their de­ cisions. The system had no order or direction. To solve this, the W i l l s Return J. Meigs to James Trimble, September 21, 1809, M-221, reel 34, #1751-1752, and Acts of the Tennessee Legislature with respect to Cherokee lands, M-221, reel 34, #1746-1748. Result of a Council at Willstown, Path Killer and other chiefs to Return J. Meigs, Sep­ tember 27, 1809, M-208; for Meigs's response see Meigs to the Council at W i l l is town, No­ vember 2,1809, M-208. 24

25

156

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

t o w n council created "the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e , " an executive committee composed of t h i r t e e n representative and experienced chiefs w h o had the respect of the nation. Slowly a consensus for patriotic u n i t y and mainte­ nance of the homeland was emerging, contrary to the efforts of the fed­ eral government. The role of the n e w l y formed N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e was to guide the nation between national councils, p e r f o r m its m i n o r a d m i n ­ istrative tasks, manage its treasury, deal w i t h the agent on a day-to-day basis, and, w h e n necessary, to call a national council to deal w i t h emer­ gency issues. I t went a step beyond the proposal sent b y James V a n n to the U n i t e d States Senate i n 1806. A l l the actions of the N a t i o n a l C o m ­ mittee were to be subject to ratification at the annual meeting of the N a ­ tional Council i n September or October, but the i m p o r t a n t p o i n t was that there was n o w a permanent, representative a u t h o r i t y responsible and available at all times to oversee the general welfare. I f this plan w o r k e d , it w o u l d no longer be possible for the agent to maneuver behind the scenes w i t h a few favored chiefs or to select those w h o m he considered "well-disposed t o w a r d g o v e r n m e n t " w h e n he wanted a treaty line ad­ justed or needed advance persuasion for a land cession. Hereafter o n l y one group, whose actions were subject to review, was authorized to act for the nation. " W e have this day [September 27, 1809] appointed t h i r t e e n m e n to manage our national affairs," the council told Meigs, " f o r we found i t to be v e r y troublesome to b r i n g a n y t h i n g to bear where there were as m a n y as we f o r m a l l y [ f o r m e r l y ] had i n our c o u n c i l . " F r o m this i t appears that the National Committee was also to refine and focus issues for debate i n the annual Council, to set policies and priorities, and to set­ tle, on its o w n initiative, certain m i n o r issues (subject to appeal) that took up a great deal of the Council's t i m e (such as personal disputes and busi­ ness matters). Those appointed to the first National Committee included p r o m i n e n t leaders among the old chiefs, like John L o w r e y , T u r t l e at H o m e , and Richard B r o w n , and i m p o r t a n t members of the insurgent party, like The Ridge, Charles Hicks, John M c i n t o s h , and John Walker. O t h e r members included George M . Waters (Dreadful Water), Thomas Pettit, George L o w r e y (son of John L o w r e y ) , Tuscock, and Sower John (Sour M u s h ) . The reinstatement of Black Fox as Principal Chief returned Pathkiller to Second Principal Chief, so that one leader f r o m each faction held the top posts. Toochelar seems to have agreed to support r e u n i o n rather t h a n re­ moval and became Speaker for the nation. This i m p o r t a n t council also i n f o r m e d Meigs that i t rejected his i n t e r ­ pretation of the so-called "agreement" w i t h Jefferson. " C o n c e r n i n g the people that want to move over the Mississippi, we have read and under­ stood the late president's speech, and we understand b y i t that n o t h i n g 157

FIRST STEP T O W A R D

NATIONALISM

could be done [toward removal, exchange, or division of the nation i n any w a y ] w i t h o u t a national council and by the m a j o r i t y of the n a t i o n . " A t the beginning of this council, a message from Meigs had been read i n w h i c h he said that Tolluntuskee and other chiefs were about to depart w i t h 1,130 persons for Arkansas. He had enclosed a copy of his letter to Eustis requesting boats, guns, and other supplies for t h e m , no doubt to encourage others to join the group. " W e have read the copy of the letter y o u sent to the Secretary of W a r , " the council said; " y o u ought not to have w r o t e so soon on that subject, for i t never was brought before a na­ tional c o u n c i l . " As far as the nation was concerned, Meigs was acting u n ­ l a w f u l l y . This was signed by Pathkiller, Chulio, The Glass, Dick Justice, Toochelar, Sower (Sour) M u s h , Big Half Breed, Keuchesteasky, "and the rest of the Chiefs." The list reveals a remarkable shift i n opinion among m a n y of the old chiefs of the Lower Towns and also indicated a concilia­ t o r y attitude on the part of the rebels who had so recently had such angry feelings toward the others. 26

A few weeks later, a group of the chiefs of the reunited nation wrote to Meigs and asked h i m to put a stop to a new k i n d of illegal action that stemmed f r o m his interpretation that every emigrant carried w i t h h i m as his b i r t h r i g h t a certain amount of Cherokee land. This letter noted that Richard Fields and others w h o had enrolled to emigrate had concluded that they had the right to dispose of the farms and plantations they lived on i n the Cherokee Nation to w h i t e men, as though their farms were their private property. The Ridge, James Foster, Katehee, Kilachulee, Dreadful Water, James B r o w n , Bush y head, and Suakee (apparently acting for the National Committee) told Meigs that such acts must be stopped: Tell " y o u r people that scl. Rich'd Fields is not empowered to sell or alienate any Place whatever to any of y o u r people." Emigrants had no right to sell tribal land to whites w h e n they moved west; all the land i n the nation belonged to the n a t i o n . 27

I n his reply to the resolutions of the W i l l s t o w n council, Meigs equiv­ ocated, not sure what the new political system w o u l d mean for his w o r k and plans. He expressed pleasure at the new u n i t y of the nation and said he knew v e r y w e l l all but t w o of the thirteen chiefs w h o had been ap­ pointed to the National Committee " t o transact your national business" and t h o u g h t w e l l of t h e m . But regarding the views of the council on "the exchange of lands," he demurred. He questioned its right to undermine or stop the removal process he had inaugurated. He tried to argue that a large-scale emigration was superior to the old practice of p e r m i t t i n g 2 6 2 7

Path Killer et al. to Return J. Meigs, September 27, 1809, M-208. The Ridge and other chiefs to Return J. Meigs, October 23,1809, M-208.

158

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

Cherokee families to straggle west at w i l l w i t h o u t any authorized place to settle. " I t is n o w plainly t i m e that something should be done to regulate these movements or discourage t h e m . " Tolluntuskee had heeded Jeffer­ son's wise offer and had gathered a large party to go west under able chiefs. Jefferson had agreed to provide t h e m w i t h a tract of land t h e y could call their o w n i n Arkansas. " N a t i o n a l pride," Meigs told the Cher­ okee chiefs on November 2, required that Cherokee people should not be left to wander around homeless i n the West subject to attack b y other tribes. " I f the exchange is made, i t w i l l be i n p r o p o r t i o n to the number who make the choice and they w i l l be on Cherokee lands" i n Arkansas w i t h fixed boundaries guaranteed to t h e m by the federal government, whose care and protection they w o u l d be under. 2 8

Meigs was t r y i n g to make i t clear that short of violence, there was no way the new N a t i o n a l Council could prevent mass emigration. But i f v o l ­ u n t a r y emigration could not be prevented, the Council believed that i t had the r i g h t to prevent any land being taken from its eastern t e r r i t o r y i n order to provide a space for those w h o emigrated. The Council insisted that under the terms of Jefferson's message i n January 1809, any decision regarding exchange of land rested w i t h a council made up j o i n t l y of the prospective emigrants and those w h o remained. Such a council w o u l d de­ cide whether and h o w a division of land should take place for an ex­ change. Neither Meigs nor the emigrants shared this interpretation, however, and therefore no productive discussion of the problem between the t w o groups was likely. Tolluntuskee and his party harvested their crops i n October and waited for the boats and supplies Meigs had promised. The B o w l , Saulowee, and other chiefs gradually assembled their parties. But November and De­ cember passed w i t h o u t any w o r d f r o m the W a r Department. People were becoming impatient, and finally Meigs decided that he w o u l d have to risk acting on his o w n initiative. I n January 1810 he w r o t e to Eustis, saying that since he had heard n o t h i n g f r o m h i m , " I furnished this p a r t y w i t h provisions" out of agency funds and sent t h e m off lest they conclude that the government wanted " t o discourage the m i g r a t i o n . " The first con­ tingent of emigrants left on January 14, 1810, consisting of sixty-three men, w o m e n , and children led b y Saulowee and The B o w l . T h e y traveled i n twelve canoes and a flatboat; their cattle and horses were sent on ahead w i t h twelve drivers. Meigs noted that this group did not come f r o m the Lower Towns. Saulowee was f r o m Tellico on the Little Tennessee River, an area greatly troubled b y intruders. 29

Return J. Meigs to Council at Willstown, November 2,1809, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, January 22, 1810, M-221, reel 38, #5071; Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, January 10 and 22,1810, M-208. 28 29

159

F I R S T

STEP

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

A few days after this, "a large p a r t y " of about one hundred left. They came " f r o m t w o Towns situated about 100 miles below this place" near Muscle Shoals; this contingent was probably led by John Chisholm. A b o u t February 26, "Tolluntuskee left this place [Hiwassee) w i t h a con­ siderable party [including] wives and c h i d r e n . " Meigs had done his best to outfit all three groups, but he had o n l y l i m i t e d funds and supplies at the agency and factory. He feared that some " i m p r o p e r means w o u l d be used" b y the opponents of removal to prevent these emigrations, but al­ t h o u g h the members of the National Committee had come to Hiwassee to watch Tolluntuskee's group leave, Meigs did not see t h e m "use any arguments to dissuade the e m i g r a t i o n . " 30

31

W h i l e at Hiwassee, the National Committee told Meigs that they had been given a u t h o r i t y to take charge of the nation's a n n u i t y and wished to have i t provided i n specie rather than i n trade goods. They probably wanted to make sure that none of it was deducted to pay for the costs of the removal. They also inquired whether the President w o u l d continue to supply farm implements and spinning wheels for those w h o were not m i ­ grating. W h e n Meigs wrote Eustis about this, he replied that the Presi­ dent had approved a grant of $450 for farming utensils and also m o n e y for the mission schools. 32

A l l of this w o r r i e d Meigs. N o t o n l y had the people in the Lower Towns failed to respond as heartily to his removal plan as he predicted but also the new administration seemed reluctant to provide the support he ex­ pected. N o w Madison said he w o u l d continue the gifts of farm tools; the Cherokees could o n l y take that to mean that the new President intended to follow the old policy of helping them, to become " c i v i l i z e d " where they were. Meigs wrote to Eustis suggesting that the gifts for economic i m ­ provement be " d i s c o n t i n u e d . " 33

W h e n the reunited National Council met at Ustanali i n A p r i l 1810, i t was determined to act as though the Cherokees and not Meigs had w o n the battle of removal and exchange. Its first action was to demonstrate its solidarity by adding a number of "beloved old w a r r i o r s " f r o m the Lower and Upper Towns to the National Committee. These were The Glass, The Seed, John McLemore, The Duck, Sour M u s h , Bark, Bark of Chota, Big Half Breed, Katahee, George Par ris, The Chip, John Bogg, Parched Corn Flour, Opchata, Nettle Carrier, and Big C a b b i n . 34

Return J. Meigs to Willie Blount, February 16, 1810, M-208, and Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, February 14, 1810, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Willie Blount, February 16, 1810, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, January 22, 1810, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, March 9, 1910, M-208. Council at Oostenalee [Ustanali] to Return J. Meigs, April 9, 1810, M-208. 3 0

3 1 32

33 34

160

FIRST STEP T O W AR D

N A T I O N A L I S M

W i t h the express approval of the seven clans, this council again tried to come to grips w i t h the law of clan revenge. Perhaps because of the t e n ­ sions of the rebellion and the new pressures f r o m w h i t e intruders, the Cherokees had seen much anger, bloodshed, and death i n recent m o n t h s . M a n y incidents were the result of drunkenness or disputes over property. As people moved out of villages to isolated farms, administering the clan system became more difficult. Families tended to become nuclear and pa­ triarchal and the clan system lost m u c h of its relevance. The new law made at Ustanali i n 1810 did not abolish clan revenge, b u t i t seriously modified i t . The law began b y stating that "the various clans or tribes w h i c h compose the Cherokee N a t i o n " had agreed to " a n act of o b l i v i o n for all lives for w h i c h they m a y have been indebted, one to the other." The act was to be " b i n d i n g upon every c l a n " and wiped out the d u t y to avenge murders that m a y have h u n g heavily upon some Cherokees. The key p o r t i o n of the act concerned retaliation for accidental or unpremed­ itated deaths. The first part of the law reaffirmed the decision made i n 1797 about unpremeditated m u r d e r : " I f , i n future, any life should be lost w i t h o u t malice intended, the innocent agressor shall not be counted g u i l t y . " The second part was more puzzling. A t t e m p t i n g to deal w i t h the question of deaths w i t h i n a clan (where all were brothers and sisters) re­ sulting f r o m anger, i t made a strange distinction between the angry slay­ ing of a person i n a private quarrel (say, a drunken brawl) and the angry slaying of a thief w h o had stolen a horse : . . . should it happen that a brother forgetting his natural affection, should raise his hand in anger and kill his brother, he shall be accounted guilty of murder and suffer accordingly, but if a man has a horse stolen and overtakes the thief, and should his anger be so great as to cause him to kill him, let his blood remain on his own conscience, but no satisfaction shall be demanded for his life from his rel­ atives or the clan he may belong t o . 35

A t first glance this seems to make a life taken over stolen p r o p e r t y more justifiable than a life taken i n an angry personal quarrel; the former is excusable, the latter is not. B u t looked at i n another w a y , i t seems to say that although horse thieves have become outlaws and their m u r d e r therefore falls on their o w n heads, k i l l i n g another m a n for no reason other than a personal quarrel still merits execution. The law is p u z z l i n g because i t is open to the interpretation that the lighthorse patrol and not the clan is responsible for justice i n b o t h cases, t h o u g h i t does not specif­ ically say this; the lighthorse regulators are not mentioned. The phrase "suffer accordingly" is ambiguous, perhaps purposely so. The law of clan revenge was so basic to the Cherokee sense of order and justice that i t had 35

Cherokee Laws, p. 4.

161

FIRST STEP T O W A R D

NATIONALISM

to be dealt w i t h very carefully. Those at the Council probably understood clearly what was at issue here: a basic modification of clan power was being stated; its duties were being altered by the a u t h o r i t y of the com­ m u n i t y as a whole. Blood revenge applied to settling a debt between t w o clans. A murder w i t h i n a clan (a brother k i l l i n g a brother) did not tradi­ t i o n a l l y create such a debt; the acceptance of the concept of personal re­ sponsibility for " m u r d e r " even w i t h i n a clan was another m a r k of accul­ t u r a t i o n . This is the last reference to clan a u t h o r i t y i n the published laws of the Cherokee N a t i o n . This does not mean that clan revenge ceased; there were instances of i t for m a n y years thereafter. But after 1810 i t was not, strictly speaking, legal. This council also reasserted its opposition to treaties that were not con­ firmed by national councils, and again i t rejected any proposal for ex­ change of lands to provide a tract for emigrants to Arkansas. Moreover, the Council specifically condemned those Cherokees so lacking i n patri­ otism that they emigrated west at the expense of those w h o chose to sus­ tain the homeland. This resolution went a long way toward defining what it meant to be a Cherokee after 1810. It was a major manifestation of Cherokee nationalism : "The country left to us by our ancestors has been diminished by repeated sales to a tract barely sufficient for us to stand on and not more than adequate to the purpose of supporting our posterity. . . . Some of our people have gone across the Mississippi w i t h o u t the consent of the nation, although by our father, the President, i n his speech, required that they should obtain i t previous to their r e m o v i n g . " By leaving the nation and endangering the i n t e g r i t y of the ancestral land, these emigrants were not only acting against President Jefferson's speech but were c o m m i t t i n g treason against the motherland. " W e rest assured that the General Government [ i n Washington] w i l l not attend to or be influenced by any straggling part of the Nation to accede to any arrange­ ment of our country that may be proposed contrary to the w i l l and con­ sent of the main body of the N a t i o n . " 3 6

Obviously the Council feared that those henceforth to be k n o w n as "the Western Cherokees" w o u l d call upon the government to survey and guarantee a tract of land for them in Arkansas. They knew that Meigs w o u l d support this request by demanding (or seizing) a " q u a n t u m por­ t i o n " of the homeland determined by the number of Cherokees i n the west multiplied by 1,250 acres. They also knew that Meigs w o u l d not t h i n k i t necessary to call a treaty council to do this, because i n his eyes the "agreement" w i t h Jefferson i n January 1809 constituted sufficient basis to require the cession. The " N a t i o n " therefore announced i n advance 36

Council at Oostenally [Ustanali] to Return J. Meigs, April 11,1810, M-208.

162

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

that its " s t r a g g l i n g " emigrants had no such claim upon their land. Cher­ okee citizenship was no longer to be based simply upon kinship, language, or adherence to the traditional ethnic heritage. Henceforth i t was defined i n terms of l i v i n g w i t h i n the boundaries of the homeland and acceding to its laws and treaty obligations as defined by the nation's Council. The Cherokee N a t i o n was not simply a people; i t was a place. To leave that place " w i t h o u t the consent of the n a t i o n , " k n o w i n g that the federal gov­ ernment m i g h t unilaterally use that action to expropriate land f r o m the nation, was traitorous, a betrayal of one's duties as a citizen and patriot and an act that merited deprivation of citizenship. "Stragglers" were "ex­ patriates." Like the law redefining clan revenge, this resolution expressed ambig­ uously an i m p o r t a n t but as yet barely acknowledged shift i n cultural selfdefinition. Probably most Cherokees did not fully share all that was i m ­ plied by i t . Ties of clan, family, language, and culture were m u c h too strong for such legalistic redefinition of w h o was or was not a Cherokee. Yet the danger to national survival was so great at this m o m e n t that some statement seemed necessary to clarify the c o m m i t m e n t to national sur­ vival on the land of their ancestors. A political and ideological statement was being made. I t w o u l d take another removal crisis and another decade of experience to make the concept of a Cherokee nation-state e x p l i c i t . 37

One other significant act of national self-assertion was taken at the council i n A p r i l 1810. The Secretary of War had requested that the Cher­ okees grant a public right of way t h r o u g h their nation for whites " t o carry on trade to the M o b i l e b y water down the Coose [Coosa] river and the waters that lead to the m o b i l e . " The people of Tennessee wanted a more rapid, direct water outlet to the Gulf of Mexico than the Tennessee and the Mississippi rivers provided. The Council declined to grant i t . I t did so "because the right of navigating this river does not rest w i t h us alone." I t w o u l d require the combined consent of the Cherokees, the 38

In 1809 there were perhaps one thousand Cherokees living in Arkansas Territory on the St. Francis and Arkansas rivers; they had moved there in small groups since the 1790s. By 1816, this number had reached almost two thousand. But they had never been given any official recognition. They had no tract of land they could legally call their own and they did not share in any of the annuities that came to the tribe. In March 1816, Secretary of War William Crawford asked a delegation of Cherokees from the eastern part of the nation whether they would not be willing to share their annuities with these westerners and per­ haps even exchange a tract of land in the east for land that the government would then set aside for the Cherokees in Arkansas to guarantee their rights. But the eastern Cherokees were totally unsympathetic toward the plight of those expatriates who had deserted the motherland. They told Crawford that these stragglers "should be compelled to return to live with the nation" if they wanted to be considered Cherokees. Crawford to Governor William Clarke, September 17, 1816, M-15, reel 3, p. 423. Meigs transmitted the letter from William Eustis to the Cherokee Council, March 27, 1810, M-208. 3 7

3 8

163

FIRST STEP T O W AR D N AT I O N A L I S M

Creeks and perhaps the Choctaws. The United States C o n s t i t u t i o n said that navigable waters w i t h i n the United States could not be restricted i n use, but the Cherokee N a t i o n seemed to be saying that it must be treated as a foreign nation and waterways w i t h i n its boundaries were subject to its regulation (and so for the other Indian nations). 39

W i t h the r e u n i o n of the Lower and Upper Towns and the departure of r o u g h l y eight hundred Cherokees for Arkansas i n the early part of 1810, this removal crisis came to an e n d . To Meigs's chagrin, the federal gov­ ernment had provided no assistance for his plan beyond w h a t he himself had appropriated. The W a r Department made no effort to negotiate a western tract for the emigrants. W i t h i n six months the emigrants were w r i t i n g back to Meigs asking for help against the Osages, w h o resented Cherokee i n t r u s i o n into Osage h u n t i n g ground. Part of the difficulty was that the Lower Towns had not really carried t h r o u g h on their promise to move en masse; at least half of the emigrants had been f r o m the upper part of the Upper Towns. There was no single evacuated block of land available for an exchange. I n March 1811, Eustis suggested that perhaps " a n exchange so far as to cover the lands of the Cherokees l y i n g w i t h [in] the l i m i t s of Tennessee and a small tract l y i n g i n the N . W . corner of So. C a r o l i n a " m i g h t be negotiated. But Meigs t h o u g h t this was the w r o n g w a y to go about i t . He wanted to hold out for much more. O n M a y 30, he wrote : " A t present i t appears to me that an exchange m a y be effected that w i l l remove the [whole] Cherokee nation to the Arkansa or W h i t e r i v e r . " I f the government w o u l d s i m p l y help h i m to spur more Cherokees to emigrate b y providing h i m w i t h money for boats, guns, hoes, and sup­ plies, i t w o u l d demonstrate that the President and W a r Department took the enterprise seriously. " I f the Government can b y one convention [treaty] put an end to treaties w i t h these people, I presume i t w o u l d be d e s i r a b l e / ' But the government had ceased to be interested; Madison and Eustis were preoccupied w i t h the possibility of war w i t h England. 40

41

42

Frustrated, Meigs decided to suggest a totally different approach to do away w i t h the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the east quickly and easily and make its land available to the w h i t e poulation. His long letter to Eustis of A p r i l 5 , 1 8 1 1 , set f o r t h his new proposal. Since 1791, Meigs began, the federal government had spent " n o t less than one m i l l i o n dollars" to civilize the Cherokees and protect t h e m from w h i t e intruders. "The t i m e has n o w arrived . . . for a change of measures." Reversing his previous claims that Council at Oostenaly [Ustanali] to Return J. Meigs, April 11, 1810, M-208. See also Return J. Meigs to Council at Willstown, November 2, 1809, M-208. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 87. William Eustis to Return J. Meigs, March 27, 1811, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, May 30, 1811, M-208. 39

4 0

41

42

164

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

the Cherokees were i n h e r e n t l y lazy and preferred to be hunters rather t h a n farmers, Meigs n o w maintained that the Cherokees were ready for citizenship. " I f they can n o w be placed i n a c o m m u n i t y governed b y good laws, t h e y m a y rise to as h i g h a state of refinement as any other people of agricultural pursuits. . . . It is m y opinion that their bodily and m e n t a l powers are by no means inferior to those of the w h i t e People." W h y not "have the civil jurisdiction of the States of Georgia and Tennessee ex­ tended over all the [Cherokee] land l y i n g w i t i n their acknowledged l i m i t s respectively." Let each Cherokee family head "have a competent farm designated as [his] individual p r o p e r t y , " grant h i m federal and state c i t i ­ zenship, and let each family fend for itself. This w o u l d "require about two m i l l i o n acres, leaving eleven millions of acres w i t h i n the l i m i t s of those t w o states," for w h i c h the federal government m i g h t offer the Cherokee $200,000 to extinguish their title, "payable b y small annual i n ­ stallments." T h e n , " h a v i n g blended w i t h the citizens under regular G o v ­ ernment, their i m p r o v e m e n t w o u l d be accellerated ten fold faster t h a n under the present measures, w h i l e they can ramble over 25,000 square miles of land capable of supporting more than 300,000 inhabitants & n o w l y i n g a dark, unoccupied wilderness." True, "there [were] strong preju­ dices against t h e m " among the whites because of past antagonisms, b u t as the Cherokees demonstrated that they were capable of being solid, re­ spectable citizens, this w o u l d vanish. They were not d w i n d l i n g b u t i n ­ creasing i n numbers: "Since these people have been a little more indus­ trious & live better, they have fast increased i n p o p u l a t i o n . "

43

I n the same letter Meigs pointed out t w o dangers ahead for the Cher­ okees i f t h e y were not either moved west or detribalized and made to fend for themselves as citizens. He was right about both. I f they did not e m i ­ grate, i t w o u l d be " v e r y difficult for the Government to protect t h e m o n the immense tract of land they n o w claim. I f any exigency should require that the m i l i t a r y [protection of Cherokee borders by the federal govern­ ment] be w i t h d r a w n , there is danger that i n t r u s i o n w i l l take such a strong hold of their c o u n t r y as to be w i t h o u t r e m e d y . " The whites w o u l d over­ run, dispossess, scatter, and pauperize t h e m . O n the other hand, i f the present movement inaugurated b y the y o u n g chiefs continued to t h r i v e , the Cherokees w o u l d create "a Government w i t h i n a g o v e r n m e n t . " A l ­ ready t h e y were developing "erroneous ideas of their distinct sovereignty & independence; as their numbers increase, those ideas w i l l be f o r t i f i e d " and the U n i t e d States w i l l be faced w i t h the claim that t h e y are a sover­ eign nation. " I t is of importance that a change [of] measures should take 43

Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, April 5,1811, M-208.

165

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

place early to put this out of all d o u b t . " They must not be allowed to per­ sist i n " t h e i r false ideas of their national independence." 44

Eustis finally conferred w i t h Madison about the floundering exchange and removal venture that Meigs had been pushing so hard for three years. O n M a r c h 27, 1811, he told Meigs to drop the project. " T h e re­ moval of the Cherokees and Choctaws to the West Side of the Mississippi as contemplated by M r . Jefferson has been considered by the present President" and he had concluded against i t . Madison found no c o m m i t ­ ment i n Jefferson's message either to support those w h o unilaterally de­ cided to go west or to negotiate a tract of land for t h e m i n exchange for the land they had vacated. As Meigs expressed i t i n a message to the Cherokee chiefs, " M r . Madison, the new president, did not t h i n k proper to encourage i t ; i.e., he said that i f families chose to remove at their o w n expense, they m i g h t do i t , " but that the government w o u l d not pay for their r e m o v a l . I t was a serious b l o w to Meigs and even harder on T o l ­ luntuskee, C h i s h o l m , Saulowee, O o l o n i , Utsook, Komotawha, Jacket, The B o w l , and the other chiefs w h o had led their people to the promised land i n Arkansas. Meigs had proved to be their Pied Piper. T h e y were n o w scattered around a vast region, frequently at war, w i t h no govern­ ment protection and no fixed boundaries. The project had been a fiasco of major proportions, one that w o u l d later r e t u r n to haunt t h e m w h e n A n d r e w Jackson found reasons to revive i t i n 1817. 45

46

47

Governor W i l l i e Blount and the people of Tennessee were v e r y dis­ pleased. B l o u n t tried to frighten Eustis i n 1811 w i t h the specter of an I n ­ dian war i f the Southeastern tribes were not removed. " M y o p i n i o n is that a great number of the most wealthy and influential Indians, etc. among the Southern tribes are not friendly to the interest of the U n i t e d States, and u n t i l their ascendancy over the strolling, h u n t i n g Indians, Ibid. William Eustis to Return J. Meigs, March 27,1811, M-208; see also William Eustis to Silas Dinsmoor, April 20, 1811, M-15, reel 3, #0077. Return J. Meigs, "Some thoughts on the contemplated exchange of land," addressed to a Cherokee council, undated (inserted at October 18,1811 letter), M-208. See also William Eustis to Return J. Meigs, March 27,1811, M-208, and Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 76. When precisely Madison made up his mind not to follow through on the plan for a removal and exchange of Cherokee lands is not clear, but Eustis implies that it was August 17, 1809. If so, Meigs seemed unaware of this and persisted in trying to promote removal and exchange until April 1 8 1 1 . Connetue to Return J. Meigs from Arkansas Territory, June 17, 1811, M-208. Con­ netue said that some Cherokees had been settled at the St. Francis River, Arkansas, since 1790, when land was given to them there by the Spanish. "As they all inclined to farming and raising stock, our stock has become very large. . . . Our women spin and weave almost all the clothing we wear, blankets excepted." Connetue also went by the name John Hill and may have been white or of mixed ancestry. He heartily acceded, he said, to the idea of an exchange of land in Arkansas Territory for the land his people had left behind in the East. 44

4 5

4 6

4 7

166

F I R S T

S T E P

T O W A R D

N A T I O N A L I S M

w h o never m a y change their habits, is checked/' t h e y never w o u l d be. " A separation between t h e m [ the wealthy Indians] and the h u n t e r s " could be effected b y u r g i n g " t h e hunters to settle west of the Mississippi i n the neighbourhood of certain Garrisons and Factories to be b u i l t over t h e r e " and encouraging the w e l l - t o - d o Indians to remain i n the East b y g i v i n g t h e m reserves. The poor hunters w o u l d thus "become attached to the U n i t e d States" because i t w o u l d protect t h e m i n their old w a y of life i n the west, w h i l e the rich Indians w o u l d become attached because t h e y w o u l d be citizens. 48

But the fear of a war w i t h the British and the western Indians was pre­ cisely w h a t had motivated Madison and Eustis not to stir up the south­ eastern Indians by pressing the policy of removal, exchange, and reserve citizenship upon t h e m . A coercive, large-scale removal w o u l d create more, not less, danger; i t w o u l d certainly arouse the western Indians onto whose lands these thousands of emigrants w o u l d be thrust. The result w o u l d be more allies for the B r i t i s h and more trouble for w h i t e frontier settlers. Thus the first Cherokee removal crisis ended not w i t h a bang but w i t h a w h i m p e r i n 1811. The Cherokee patriots had w o n . Meigs's oversell, the unforeseen expense, the complexity of negotiating the exchange, the an­ tagonism of the western tribes, the new tensions w i t h the B r i t i s h and their Shawnee ally, Tecumseh, and above all the resistance of the Cher­ okees themselves had brought one of the first victories i n the Cherokee fight for survival. N o t o n l y did they stop removal, but t h e y refused to cede any more land to Tennessee, Georgia, or the U n i t e d States. A l l of the land cessions that had been planned b y Doublehead, Meigs, W i l l i e B l o u n t , and Sevier since 1806 were aborted. The initiative for Cherokee revitalization had, for the m o m e n t , passed f r o m the federal government and its agent to the Cherokees themselves. After having come to the b r i n k of self-destruction, the Cherokees had managed to p u l l themselves together. The o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y was n o w convinced that security lay i n holding on to the homeland and o w n i n g i t i n c o m m o n , not i n sev­ eralty. A f t e r t w e n t y years of confusion, conflict, and despair, the Chero­ kees had reached a m o m e n t of stability. 4 8

Willie Blount to William Eustis, April 24,1811, M-221, reel 34, #2132.

167

EIGHT

THE GHOST DANCE M O V E M E N T , 1811-1812 You yourselves can see that the white people are entirely different beings from us; we are made from red clay; they, out of white sand. You may keep good neighborly relations with them, just see to it that you get back from them your old Beloved Towns. —Ancestral ghost vision of three Cherokees, January, 1811

A

s the Cherokees faced the possibility that they m i g h t once again ex­ ert some control over their destiny, they had to ask themselves what f o r m they wished it to take. I f a true Cherokee lived on the land of his forefathers, did he also live i n their spiritual w o r l d ? O r did the Cherokee future require adapting to the white man's w o r l d ? To control their des­ t i n y they needed economic security; to give i t shape they needed to i n s t i l l it w i t h religious meaning. I n the years 1811-1812 the Cherokee tried to envision a new way of life that w o u l d l i n k their past to their future. Be­ fore going forward, they had to look back and ask the spirits of their ancesters for guidance. This was the meaning of their first ghost dance movement i n 1811-1812.

I n M a r c h 1809 Meigs published the results of a tabulation he had hired George Barber Davis to make of the Cherokee N a t i o n . Davis had been w o r k i n g on the survey, which was designed to obtain statistics on a wide range of Cherokee affairs, for over t w o years. Meigs described i t as a "Statistical Table," meant to measure the progress of the nation toward a civilized, agricultural style of life. He found the results so significant that he printed copies and distributed t h e m widely among the Cherokees, mis­ sionaries, and state and federal officials. I t provided, he said, "a view of their population and of their improvements i n the useful arts and of their property acquired under the fostering hand of Government, w h i c h has principally been done since the year 1796." Some years later Meigs used 1

Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, December 1, 1809, M-208. Meigs arranged to have the census printed in January 1810 (see Meigs to Eustis, January 30, 1810, M-208). For a general discussion of Cherokee economic development, see William G. McLoughlin and Walter H . Conser, Jr., "The Cherokees in Transition," Journal of American History 64 (1977): 678-703. 1

168

G H O S T

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

similar statistics to show that the Cherokees had reached a level of c i v i l i ­ zation and subsistence at w h i c h they no longer needed government as­ sistance. I n 1811 the government closed its trading post i n the Cherokee N a t i o n . The Cherokees could take pride i n their economic g r o w t h , as t h e y did i n the political reorganization, but Meigs's figures also demonstrated that there was a g r o w i n g gap between the three hundred or so families w h o were prospering most t h r o u g h acculturation and the t w o thousand or more families who were still struggling to make ends meet each year. The remarkable revival of traditional religion i n the years 1811-1812 re­ sulted i n part f r o m these social tensions. There are no accurate statistics for Cherokee population and economic wealth prior to 1809. I n 1794, according to all accounts, the nation was i n a state of confusion and devastation after eighteen years of i n t e r m i t t e n t war and demographic drift. Estimates then placed the population at about ten thousand persons l i v i n g i n sixty to seventy different communities or towns, m a n y of w h i c h were palisaded forts enclosing one hundred to three hundred people. B y 1809, Davis found that the t o w n system had broken d o w n everywhere. As they adopted the w h i t e man's system of f a m i l y f a r m i n g , the Cherokees had moved out of their towns, spreading up and d o w n the river valleys wherever they could find good land. H o w ­ ever, t h e y continued to define a t o w n i n terms of the population that u t i ­ lized the same t o w n or council house, shared a c o m m o n set of " h e a d m e n " or t o w n chiefs, and celebrated their feast days, religious festivals, dances, and ball plays together i n the same t o w n square or stomp g r o u n d . Davis evidently gave names to these scattered centers of population ac­ cording to his o w n perspective. Some he called " t o w n s , " some "villages," some " - v i l l e s , " and some "plantations." Vannsville had 3 people i n i t ; Chillhoweeville had 130. The population of " v i l l a g e s " on Davis's table ranged f r o m 12 i n Cheowee Village to 326 i n Taloney Village. T h i r t y - s i x places he designated as " t o w n s , " ranging f r o m 10 persons i n George D o w n e y ' s T o w n to 857 i n Etowah T o w n (the largest t o w n i n the n a t i o n , scattered over t w e n t y square miles). There were fifteen localities to w h i c h he gave the names of rivers or valleys, such as " E t o w a h River," w i t h 15 persons, and " H i c k o r y L o g , " w i t h 6 1 1 . O u t of a total of one h u n d r e d communities or neighborhoods that Davis visited, he listed t h i r t y - t h r e e w i t h 10 persons or fewer. M o s t of these he called " p l a n t a t i o n s " ; t h e y were probably family farms i n w h i c h grandparents, aunts, and uncles lived together as extended families. O n l y forty-one places had a popula­ t i o n of over 100. O f these, t w e n t y - t w o had a population of over 200; ten had more t h a n 250 (about fifty families). The average Cherokee f a m i l y consisted of five persons. B y 1809 the Cherokee N a t i o n , like the w h i t e frontier region around i t , 169

GHOST DANCE

MOVEMENT

consisted of groups w h o had settled haphazardly wherever soil was fertile and water sufficient. W h a t were called towns had no fixed boundaries, usually extending for miles along a river bank or t u r n p i k e . The tradi­ tional k i n d of compact c o m m u n i t y , centered around a single council house and ceremonial ground, was v i r t u a l l y gone. Davis found the pop­ u l a t i o n almost equally divided between 6,116 males and 6,279 females (totaling 12,395). He found 341 whites i n the nation, of w h o m 113 were w h i t e men married to Cherokee wives. He did not list the number of w h i t e w o m e n married to Cherokees. There were 583 black slaves owned by Cherokees, b r i n g i n g the total population to 13,319. Concerning the whites, Davis noted that m a n y of t h e m were "employed as croppers" (i.e., sharecroppers) on Cherokee plantations—-another means by w h i c h Cherokee males too poor to o w n slaves were able to overcome their lack of skill at cultivating fields. Davis did not take a census of those Cherokees w h o had already moved to Arkansas, but he estimated that "there are over the Mississippi uperwards of 1000 Cherokees." This did not include the eight hundred w h o m Meigs had persuaded to emigrate i n 1809—1810. Davis made no attempt to distinguish among the descendants of Catawbas, Uchees, Creeks, and other nations w h o lived i n Cherokee t e r r i t o r y , some of w h o m had been captured i n war and some of w h o m had v o l u n t a r i l y moved among t h e m w h e n their o w n nations dispersed. He also did not m e n t i o n the existence of offspring of mixed Cherokee and African heritage, nor did he identify the number of those descended from white-Cherokee cohabitation or marriage (the mixed bloods). Whites had been l i v i n g among the Chero­ kees for almost a century. The best estimate of mixed bloods as of 1809 w o u l d be about 15 percent (by 1830 a judicious estimate by a knowledge­ able missionary placed the mixed bloods at no more than 25 percent; a more careful census i n 1835 designed to count those of " h a l f blood," " q u a d r o o n , " and " o c t o r o o n , " found only 23.4 percent w h o were not full bloods). M a n y of mixed ancestry could not speak or w r i t e English; i t was English-speaking, h i g h l y acculturated Cherokees w h o were identified as a distinct class by the full bloods, the o v e r w h e l m i n g majority. Davis did not organize the census figures by region, so there is no w a y to distinguish between the Upper and Lower Towns. N o map accom­ panied the survey and today the locations of m a n y of the towns and v i l ­ lages mentioned are difficult to identify. The Cherokees had a habit of carrying a t o w n name w i t h them when they moved (or were forced to move) and maps of the period locate towns of the same name at different spots i n different eras. However, Davis did make a special trip to the N o r t h Carolina or " O v e r h i l l area" to gather data; his letter describing this particular region has survived. L i v i n g i n the Valley Towns of the 170

G H O S T

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

Great S m o k y M o u n t a i n s Davis found 1,750 males and 1,898 females for a total of 3,648, or about 30 percent of the national population. There were seventy-two whites i n this area but only five black slaves, an i n d i ­ cation that the region was poor and not conducive to large-scale f a r m i n g . Davis also noted that the people there were the most conservative or " b a c k w a r d " he had met anywhere, b y his estimate at least a generation behind the rest of the nation. From the best guess that can be made, itappears that there were about 2,000 persons i n the Lower Towns, 3,500 i n the eastern Tennessee region ( n o r t h of Chickamauga), and 3,500 i n the region w i t h i n the boundaries of Georgia. 2

If the eastern Cherokee population increased f r o m ten thousand to t h i r t e e n thousand between 1794 and 1809 (in addition to a western Cher­ okee body of about one thousand) as the data seem to indicate, i t is most remarkable that despite all the difficulties they had faced i n these years, the predictions of their i m m i n e n t disappearance were greatly exagger­ ated. Moreover, the statistics demonstrated a rapid g r o w t h i n the n u m b e r and value of their livestock, tools, and mills, including : 6,519 horses at $30 each 19,165 black cattle at $8 1,037 sheep at $2 19,778 swine at $2 13 gristmills at $260 3 sawmills at $500 30 wagons at $40 583 Negro slaves at $300

$195,570 153,320 2,074 39,356 3,380 1,500 1,200 174,900

The net w o r t h of these assets was $571,300, w h i c h did not include the cul­ tivated land, houses, barns, and miscellaneous farm buildings. I n addi­ t i o n , Davis counted 1,572 spinning wheels, 429 looms, and 567 plows. F i ­ n a l l y , he noted that there were three saltpeter works, t w o powder m i l l s , and five schools i n the nation (two conducted b y the Presbyterians, one b y the Moravians, and t w o privately supported by w e l l - t o - d o m i x e d blood and w h i t e parents). Davis also listed f o r t y - n i n e Cherokees w h o still practiced the traditional arts of the silversmith. He did not list other ar­ tisans or mechanics, but there were also blacksmiths, w h e e l w r i g h t s , t i n ­ smiths, carpenters, and armorers i n the nation. The saltpeter m i n e and powder mills at Nickajack were r u n at that t i m e b y Colonel James Ore, w h o leased t h e m from the Cherokees. W i t h i n five years Ore m i n e d " u p ­ ward of 60,000 lbs. of Salt Pet r e . " A n o t h e r saltpeter m i n e and powder 3

George Barber Davis to Return J. Meigs, October 17,1808, M-208. Just as the Cherokees objected to whites like Colonel James Ore coming into their coun­ try to extract their mineral resources, so they objected to Meigs's leasing saltpeter caves to white entrepreneurs. See John Walker to Return J. Meigs, January 14,1813, M-208. 2 3

171

GHOST

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

m i l l was r u n b y Samuel Riley, a w h i t e man married to a Cherokee. Riley also served as Meigs's official interpreter. Meigs added to the chart the fact that although i n 1796 there was not a single wagon road i n the nation, i n 1809 there were "hundreds of miles of roads." W h e n Meigs transmitted this "General Statistical Table" to the Secretary of W a r i n December 1809, he noted that w h e n he had first broached the idea for it i n 1806, the Cherokees had been v i g o r o u s l y op­ posed to i t , but i n 1808 they had acquiesced. Somewhere i n those t w o years a sense of accomplishment had developed. Meigs was particularly interested i n the great increase i n wagon roads i n order to promote a mar­ ket economy. "Since finding the advantages arising f r o m roads, they have at their o w n expense open'd upwards of 300 miles of wagon road for communication. . . . One road of 100 miles i n length [was] opened b y Doublehead, commencing at Franklin C o u n t y , Tennessee, and runs to the muscle Shoals, and i t is contemplated to be continued to the navigable waters of M o b i l e . " The Augusta-Nashville Road had added t w o hundred miles of federal turnpike that was kept i n good enough condition " f o r Carriages." As Meigs saw i t , "thus far . . . have the Cherokees prospered by the pastoral life and by domestic manufactures." However, he added, "the greater number are extremely poor for want of i n d u s t r y ; the h u n t ­ i n g life here is at an end but a predilection for the hunters state pervades a great part of the Cherokees." He was convinced that " m a n y " w o u l d go west w i t h encouragement from the government; " n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g this, they have strong local attachments to the place of their b i r t h and the sep­ ulchres of their fathers" and w o u l d need inducements to move. 4

Meigs m i g h t have asked Davis to list the number of boats, ferries, inns, taverns, and trading stores to fill out this picture of prosperity and indus­ t r y , but he did not. N o r did he make any attempt to estimate the amounts of corn, beans, cotton, potatoes, wheat, melons, peaches, or other crops g r o w n by the Cherokees and sold, along w i t h livestock, to w h i t e settle­ ments for extra income. A l t h o u g h Meigs implied that most of the capital investment i n tools for domestic manufactures and agriculture had come as gifts f r o m the federal government, i n fact the great bulk of this came f r o m purchases made by individual Cherokees from traders or purchased by the tribe as part of their yearly a n n u i t y . The a n n u i t y i n these years varied f r o m $6,000 to $11,000. I t was not a government gift but the tribal endowment f r o m the sale of its land. The Cherokees had regularly i n ­ vested i t i n farm tools and other equipment. They had also obtained m o n e y for their national treasury by leasing to whites their salines and their saltpeter caves. A d d i t i o n a l income came f r o m ferry and tavern 4

Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, December 1, 1809, M-208.

172

G H O S T D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

leases. W h i t e sharecroppers increased the productive wealth of the nation b y clearing, c u l t i v a t i n g , and fencing land, t h o u g h there were m a n y com­ plaints that they often cheated the Cherokees w h o employed t h e m . One area i n w h i c h the civilization program had not succeeded was ed­ ucation. O f a potential 3,000 to 3,500 school-age children i n the nation, o n l y n i n e t y - f o u r were attending school i n 1809. S i x t y of these were at Blackburn's t w o Presbyterian schools i n the Tennessee area, according to Davis ; eight were at the M o r a v i a n school at Springplace, Georgia; t w o other private schools r u n by parents educated another t w e n t y - f o u r (see table 5). B u t there were no schools at all i n the O v e r h i l l or Valley T o w n area i n N o r t h Carolina. W i t h i n a year after the census was published both of Blackburn's schools closed, leaving o n l y t h i r t y - f o u r students i n the en­ tire nation w h o were obtaining any formal schooling. Meigs had several times spoken of creating a Cherokee school fund, but o n l y i n connection w i t h sales of large tracts of land that the Cherokees did not w a n t to part w i t h . This meant that m u c h of the leadership i n the nation's continual struggle w i t h the whites had to come from the three hundred families fa­ m i l i a r w i t h English. Davis's census provides o n l y a r o u g h index of this rising middle class—based on what he spoke of as plantations or " - v i l l e s , " w h i c h can be identified as single-family units. The figures i n table 6 p r o ­ vide some indication of w h a t a w e l l - t o - d o , English-speaking mixed-blood f a m i l y m i g h t o w n . Because Davis was not keeping records b y name, this list is p u r e l y random. There were m a n y others w h o fit i n t o this category w h o are s i m p l y not identifiable on the census because i t provided o n l y t o w n totals. Below the 10 percent of the population w h o were comparatively w e l l off came the great mass of Cherokees w h o owned little more than a plow, a horse or t w o , a spinning wheel, t w o or three cattle, half a dozen hogs. These families often had to supplement their food supply b y h u n t i n g , fishing, and gathering. M a n y did not o w n even a spinning wheel, a plow, or a l o o m . Meigs admitted that despite the great progress the nation had made, "the greatest number are extremely poor." These were the people w h o suffered w h e n their small plots of corn, beans, and melons, tilled b y the hoe and mattock, failed i n times of drought, pestilence, or frost; for t h e m the hospitality ethic was essential to survival. Davis found o n l y 40 plows among the 3,649 people l i v i n g i n the O v e r h i l l or Valley Towns and no wagons, gristmills or sawmills. These Cherokees had 271 spinning wheels and 70 looms for r o u g h l y seven hundred families; they had o n l y four blacksmiths and four silversmiths. These were the nation's poorest but most stubborn survivors. A l t h o u g h , generally speaking, the poorer Cherokees i n the more iso­ lated parts of the nation were more traditionalist and continued to prac173

GHOST

DANCE

MOVEMENT

TABLE 5 Schools and Pupils i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , 1809 Location

Number of Pupils

Near Quotaquskee's, Tenn. Brownsville, Ala. Southwest Point, Tenn. Springplace, Ga. At William Harlin's, Tenn. Total

Auspices

40 18 20 8 8 94

Presbyterian (Gideon Blackburn) Private tutor Presbyterian (Gideon Blackburn) Moravian (John Gambold) Private tutor

SOURCE: From statistical table compiled in 1809 by George Barber Davis for his census for Return J. Meigs (Moravian Archives, Salem [Winston-Salem], North Carolina).

TABLE 6 Prosperous Cherokees i n 1809 (partial list)

Name Richard Brown (white) Robt. Brown [?] Carter Dick Fields [?] Graves [?] Hammond Chas. Hicks [?] Love John Lowrey (white) John McDonald (white) Geo. Pettit Quotaquskee [John Mcintosh] (white) Daniel Ross (white) Dick Taylor Joseph Vann (son of James Vann) John Walker (white) Thos. Wilson Wm. Woodward (white)

Horses 62 70 10 127

Black Cattle 110 70 72 150

—

—

10 20 14 100 55 20 58

140 50 55 200 110 104 150

Swine 215 50 9 130

—

40

90

60

—

—

1,000

150

—

—

—.

—

—

6 5 8 3 3 3 3 4 2 2

20 20 58 100 80 20 50

— 250

Plows

Whites Employed 9 19 6 8 6 12 6 1 4 1 7 3

14 21 22 5 5 1 11 10 17 16 5 7

1 1

13 4 115

2

_10

Black Slaves

[3]

— —

—

—

—

5 5 4

SOURCE: These figures are taken from the statistical table made by George Barber Davis in 1809 for his census for Return J. Meigs (Moravian Archives, Salem [Winston-Salem], North Carolina). N O T E : This is a partial list.' Davis recorded statistics by towns or villages and only in the few cases listed here did he give figures for individual plantations. Other wealthy Cherokees were lumped into town and village totals. Generally speaking, the best indicator of wealth is the number of slaves owned; in 1835, only 7.4 percent of the Cherokee families owned any slaves.

174

G H O S T D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

tice most regularly their ancient rituals and festivals, they were not op­ posed to change. As Stone Carrier's delegation representing t h i r t y - t w o chiefs f r o m the Upper Towns had told Jefferson, they wanted to become farmers but had not been given the tools. They also wanted to make laws to govern a social order that no longer had the stability of the old t o w n government w i t h its communal consensus to regulate behavior. T w o chiefs on the upper reaches of the Little Tennessee River w r o t e to Meigs i n February 1811 that they had met w i t h the other headmen i n the valley at the t o w n of Cowee to t r y to pass laws to punish stealing. " A s we are B l i n d as to h o w to make laws," said B i g Bear and The Sharp Fellow, t h e y wanted Meigs's advice on their first efforts to b r i n g order to the new w a y of life i n their part of the nation. They had been inspired b y the regulator law of the N a t i o n a l Council i n 1808 but as yet had organized no l i g h t horse patrol i n their district. A bilingual Cherokee had w r i t t e n out their laws for Meigs's approval. The first dealt w i t h the theft of livestock: " A n y person stealing a horse shall Receive one hundred lashes o n there Bere [bare] Back; a Cow, fifty, or a hog, t w e n t y - f i v e ; A C o r n [hoe?] 5; any small artickel, 1 0 . " The poor had not m u c h to steal f r o m each other, but w h a t little they had was all the more i m p o r t a n t . The second law 5

passed b y these N o r t h Carolina towns dealt w i t h their contractual ar­ rangements w i t h and debts owed to traders, blacksmiths, or neighbors. " A n y person Refusing to pay according to a Contract, his property to be taken at the validation of t w o m e n ; the Debtor to be brought before the head m a n of his t o w n ; a Debt over t w e n t y dollars: stay A c i c u t i o n [exe­ cution] six months; f r o m t w e n t y to Tenn, three m o n t h s ; under Tenn, Too m o n t h s . " Its purpose was to see that creditors did not take more f r o m a poor m a n than he could afford, to give debtors specific t i m e periods i n w h i c h to make good their debts, and to make debtors realize that contrac­ tual arrangements must be fulfilled. Their t h i r d law was passed to accommodate the religion of the w h i t e m e n w h o lived or w o r k e d among t h e m (there were no missionaries i n that region at the t i m e ) . This was the first Sabbath law i n the Cherokee N a ­ t i o n , yet i t came f r o m its most traditionalist section. I t sought to explain to the Cherokees that w h i t e people did not w o r k on the Sabbath and ought not to be expected to do so. " A n y w h i t e m a n l i v i n g on our land and workes o n Sunday except the w o r k of Neadsity or gambels o n the D a y or huntes for game, shall pay one dollar to every such Afence." The law m a y additionally have been intended to keep the whites i n order, but the chiefs explained to Meigs that " t h i s is to let us [ k ] n o w w h e n Sunday is c o m m 5

Big Bear and Sharp Fellow to Return J. Meigs, February 1,1811, M-208.

175

GHOST DANCE M O VEM EN T

so as we m a y lern from t h e m . " Whether this had any religious signifi­ cance to the chiefs is not clear. Meigs kept no copy of his observations on these laws, but i t is apparent f r o m t h e m that old patterns of life and w o r k were changing as rapidly i n the poorest and most remote areas of the nation as i n the most acculturated areas. However, there was resistance to the new ways and particu­ l a r l y to the regimentation of life under the market economy. Indians re­ peatedly told whites that God had not meant the red m a n to live b y the same rules as the w h i t e . God had made specifically different ways for dif­ ferent kinds of men, just as he had given t h e m different colors and placed t h e m on different continents—the w h i t e i n Europe, the black i n Africa, the red i n America. A chief named The Elk told one of these separatist m y t h s to the Moravians i n 1815: " A t the beginning there was o n l y one man and one w o m a n on earth," but they had t w o sons. The sons "at­ tempted to take the mother's l i f e , " believing "she was a sorceress since she provided as much food as they wanted w i t h o u t their being able to find out where she got t h i s . " She was Selu, the Earth M o t h e r , goddess of corn. The mother discovered the plot against her and "she left her sons and flew up i n t o the heights." W h e n the father, who had been away, came home and found out what had happened, "he showed the sons his displeasure" and told t h e m they must "do better." Then he gave t h e m "a book f r o m w h i c h they were to learn h o w one should act and l i v e . " B u t "one son seized the book to himself, forcibly and h u r r i e d w i t h it away f r o m his fa­ ther's d w e l l i n g . " Later, when the father was d y i n g , he " d r e w a line be­ tween the t w o brothers and their dwellings. This line is the sea [the A t ­ lantic Ocean]." The son w h o stayed on this side made small canoes able to go on lakes and rivers, but the son w h o had the book and w h o lived on the far side of the sea "made bigger boats." " F i n a l l y , " m a n y years later, K i n g George made such big boats that his people were able " t o land on this side" of the dividing line. " I n these large boats, K i n g George sent presents to his brothers [the red m e n | . These brothers were quite naked." N o w "the first b r o t h e r " w h o stayed here, "was still l i v i n g , but he was old and no longer i n condition to walk as fast as the y o u n g people." As a re­ sult, w h e n the people rushed d o w n to get the presents f r o m K i n g George, the y o u n g people "seized all the gifts and kept t h e m for themselves." The Elk said that he was " r e a l l y a descendant of the family of the first inhab­ itants on this side of the sea" and that "the brothers on this side were o r i g i n a l l y w h i t e like those over the sea, but did not exercise the same care to protect themselves against the s u n " and that is w h y they became r e d . 6

The Moravian missionaries recorded this in the Springplace Diary, October 13, 1815, MAS. For the m y t h of Selu, the Earth Mother, and Kanati, the Hunter-Father, see Mooney, "Myths of the Cherokees," pp. 2 4 2 - 2 4 9 . 6

176

G HOST

DANCE

MOVEMENT

The Elk's account was a combination of other stories, perhaps even i n ­ cluding the A d a m and Eve, Cain and A b e l story, picked up f r o m a m i s ­ sionary. I t is similar to the cargo cult stories of t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y people i n Melanesia and resembles creation m y t h s t o l d b y Africans and other I n ­ dians. Its message is simple: there is a fundamental separation between the red and w h i t e people that goes back to a p r i m a l crime between t h e m that led to the division of the w o r l d . The Europeans had broken that d i ­ vision and were perpetuating the crime b y i m p o s i n g European trade goods upon t h e m and causing t h e m to quarrel among themselves, partic­ u l a r l y causing friction between the old and the y o u n g Indians. 7

There were other Cherokee m y t h s that stated that the Great Spirit had o r i g i n a l l y created red, black, and w h i t e men. To the red he gave the b o w and a r r o w and set h i m amidst the game i n A m e r i c a ; to the w h i t e he gave a book i n w h i c h he could learn m a n y secrets and set h i m i n Europe; to the black he gave a hoe and axe to w o r k i n the fields and set h i m i n Africa. A l l such m y t h s concerned the problems that arose w h e n the separate peoples and t h e i r ways of life became m i x e d up. The Elk's understanding of cultural pluralism was at odds w i t h that of the y o u n g chiefs w h o dominated the nation after 1811 and directed its ac­ c u l t u r a t i o n . Y o u n g chiefs like The Ridge, Charles Hicks, George L o w r e y , and John Ross believed they should accept the gifts that had been b r o u g h t by the b i g canoes f r o m Europe and that were n o w distributed among t h e m b y the Great Father i n W a s h i n g t o n . T h e y thanked President Jeffer­ son i n 1808 for establishing schools among t h e m to teach t h e m to read the w h i t e man's books and to w r i t e his words and for g i v i n g t h e m the i m ­ plements to become farmers because " b y means of all these acquisitions the w o r k of civilization advances and w i l l be accellerated." T h e y wished to show the w h i t e man that they were his equal, made b y the same Great Spirit, and entitled to be called " b r o t h e r s . " " W e w a n t to do the best we can for ourselves and our N a t i o n , " they told Jefferson i n 1808. T h e y re­ gretted that t h e i r " o l d people" did not "understand w h a t is for the benefit of [the] N a t i o n . " " I f we follow the old customs of our old people, we w i l l never do w e l l . " B u t they insisted that their Father protect t h e m b y keep­ ing whites off of their land and leaving t h e m alone to govern themselves. T h e y wished to learn h o w to be independent and self-reliant—a people able to manage its o w n affairs. Their elders wished to make o n l y m i n i m a l concessing to acculturation and to live as they had always lived, adopting o n l y the changes that made t h e i r lives a l i t t l e easier. 8

See William G. McLoughlin, " A Note on African Sources of American Indian Racial M y t h s / ' Journal of American Folklore 89 (1976):331-35 and A. W. Loomis, Scenes in the Indian Country (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Presbyterian Board, 1859), pp. 52-54. Cherokee delegation to Thomas Jefferson, December 21,1808, M-208. 7

8

177

GHOST DANCE

MOVEMENT

Both programs for the future were patriotic and dedicated to the w e l ­ fare of their people, but i t was difficult to see h o w they could fit together. O u t of this clash of ideas came the Ghost Dance movement of 1811-1812. It was not directed against the missionaries or even against the y o u n g chiefs. I t was a spiritual struggle to reconcile the old m y t h s and the new ways. The well-to-do were becoming secularists w h o relied on their o w n wits and skills; the poor relied upon the supernatural powers of the spirit w o r l d . I n the calm following the removal crisis, the Cherokees tried to come to terms w i t h the gap that had developed between the intellectual worlds of the y o u n g and the old. H a v i n g determined that they must re­ m a i n united on their ancestral homeland, they had to learn h o w to live together. The Ghost Dance movement cannot be defined simply as a reactionary effort to r e t u r n to the past. O n l y a few looked for a miracle to r i d t h e m of the w h i t e m a n and b r i n g back the game. Even the poorest Cherokee shared somewhat i n the pride over his nation's survival and g r o w t h . The problem was to survive i n a w a y that w o u l d retain the essence of the Cherokee i d e n t i t y ; they did not want to w o r k and t h i n k like w h i t e men. The Cherokee felt that they had some special link to the spirit w o r l d that the w h i t e m a n did not share, which made them a different and a special people, the favorites of the Great Spirit. One m y t h said that the Great Spirit had shaped man out of clay and baked h i m into life over a hot fire : the first clay image baked too long and turned black; the second did not bake long enough and remained pasty white ; but the t h i r d baked just right and i t came out a dusky red. The Cherokees were the color God pre­ ferred. The y o u n g chiefs had told Jefferson i n 1808 that they hoped "the m a g n a n i m i t y of the United States w i l l not suffer 10,000 h u m a n beings [to] be lost between w h o m and the w h i t e people the Great Spirit has made no difference except i n the t i n t of their s k i n . " Those w h o joined the re­ ligious revival of 1811-1812 believed deeply that there was, and always must be, something more than "the t i n t of their s k i n " that distinguished t h e m f r o m the w h i t e man. They were t r y i n g to learn from their spirit w o r l d what that quintessential difference was. 9

I n addition to this ethnic identity, almost all of the visions, dreams, and prophecies d u r i n g the revival contained a search for order. They looked forward or backward to a period of peace and h a r m o n y ; some prophets t h o u g h t this perfect order w o u l d emerge peacefully; others t h o u g h t i t could o n l y come apocalyptically. I n an unstable w o r l d they sought sta­ b i l i t y . They knew too little of C h r i s t i a n i t y to find i t any source of help. Their visions were b u i l t f r o m their o w n traditions and were expressed i n 9

Ibid.

178

G H O S T

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

terms of their daily experience. As they wavered between hope and fear the visions fluctuated between o p t i m i s m and pessimism. N o major crisis but a series of small and continual crises provided the general context of anxiety f r o m w h i c h the religious revival grew. I n 1811 the Secretary of War announced that the war i n Europe had destroyed the market for skins and pelts; the government w o u l d have to reduce the prices i t paid for furs and pelts i n its factories. Private traders did the same. Rumors spread that the government w o u l d soon close the factory i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , w h i c h i t did later that year; for those w h o eked out a small l i v i n g f r o m the fur trade, this was unsettling. I n the summer a severe famine spread t h r o u g h large parts of the nation, b r i n g i n g great hardship to the p o o r . Black Fox, the old Principal Chief, died; i t was u n ­ clear w h o w o u l d succeed h i m . The intruder problem continued to m o u n t and five times i n 1811 Meigs sent out troops i n fruitless efforts to beat back the w h i t e frontiersmen. Rumors of war i n the Mississippi Valley i n ­ creased, given strength by the efforts of Tecumseh and his brother Tenkswatawa (The Prophet) to f o r m a confederacy against further w h i t e expan­ sion among all the Indians. Some Cherokees had heard of the inspired visions of The Prophet that set the Shawnees dancing a strange new dance and singing new songs to their spirits. Later i n 1811 Tecumseh visited the Creek N a t i o n (his mother was a Creek) to the south; t h i r t y Cherokees went to the Creek t o w n of Tuckabatchee to hear h i m and see the dances of his prophets. Some said the Creeks w o u l d j o i n w i t h Tecumseh and the Shawnees i f war broke out. Perhaps the Cherokees should do the same. 10

11

The W a r Department had warned all western federal agents i n A p r i l 1811 to be alert for foreign spies s t i r r i n g up the Indians w i t h "hostile dis­ positions towards the United States"; therefore "be on y o u r g u a r d . " I n November, General W i l l i a m H a r r i s o n led an a r m y that killed m a n y Shawnees at Tippecanoe i n Indiana because he suspected that they were about to raid the w h i t e settlements i n O h i o . The a r m y garrisons near the Cherokee N a t i o n were warned to be ready to move against the B r i t i s h at any t i m e ; w h e n they went, everyone knew that there w o u l d be no one to h o l d back the local A m e r i c a n intruders. 12

The first religious incident of the revival preceded most of these prob­ lems, but i t created a background for the burgeoning of prophetic visions. A Cherokee man and t w o w o m e n were w a l k i n g at dusk near a h i l l called Rocky M o u n t a i n , apparently i n northwest Georgia, i n January 1811. Tired after a long day's j o u r n e y , they entered an abandoned cabin to spend the n i g h t . N o sooner had they entered i t than they heard a loud 10 11 12

William Eustis to Return J. Meigs, June 21, 1811, M-221, reel 39, #5528. Turtle at Home and John Boggs to Return J. Meigs, June 15,1811, M-208. William Eustis to all Indian agents, April 15,1811, M - 1 5 , reel 3, p. 75.

179

G H O S T

DANCE

M O V E M E N T

noise like thunder i n the sky and rushed out to see what i t was. To their amazement they saw a band of Indians coming d o w n out of the sky, r i d ­ i n g black horses and beating a d r u m . The apparitions came to earth and rode up to the three Cherokees, saying they had been sent by the Great Spirit w i t h a special message to their people. The Great Spirit was upset w i t h the Cherokees for a l l o w i n g so m a n y w h i t e people i n t o their c o u n t r y " w i t h o u t any d i s t i n c t i o n " between good and bad whites. The Spirit also did not like their p l a n t i n g the w h i t e man's variety of corn instead of the traditional Indian maize. N o r did he want t h e m to have corn ground by the large stone wheels i n the w h i t e man's m i l l s ; their w o m e n should g r i n d i t b y hand i n mortars," i n the manner of y o u r forefathers." " T h e M o t h e r of the N a t i o n " had forsaken t h e m and allowed their game to dis­ appear because she did not like these large millstones that "broke her bones." However, she w o u l d r e t u r n to t h e m and b r i n g back the lost game if t h e y w o u l d get r i d of the bad whites and r e t u r n to their old ways. The leader of the spirits reminded t h e m that "the w h i t e people are e n t i r e l y different beings f r o m us; we are made from red clay, they, out of w h i t e sand." So l o n g as the whites stayed outside the nation's boundaries, the Cherokees m i g h t "keep good and neighborly relations w i t h t h e m , " but the whites must r e t u r n the land on w h i c h sacred Cherokee towns had stood, like Tougaloo, Chota, and K i t u w h a , for they had been given to the Cherokees forever. The messenger also told the three travelers that the Cherokees must stop punishing each other so severely, w h i p p i n g people " t i l l the blood came," under their new laws. Then the messenger pointed to the sky where there suddenly appeared a beautiful l i g h t . W i t h i n it were four w h i t e houses. The messenger said they were to b u i l d houses like these i n their beloved or sacred towns for those w h i t e men to live i n w h o were good to t h e m and for others " w h o can be useful to t h e m w i t h w r i t i n g . " The astonished Cherokees w h o w i t ­ nessed this vision were then instructed to report all they had heard and seen to their chiefs and also to Colonel Meigs. They were also warned that i t w o u l d " n o t be w e l l " for those w h o refused to believe i t ; h a r m w o u l d surely come to those w h o refused to accept this message f r o m the Great Spirit and the M o t h e r of the N a t i o n . 1 3

The three Cherokees gave up their j o u r n e y , returned home, and told their chiefs about the vision. The chiefs asked t h e m to repeat the message at a special council held at Ustanali early i n February. M a n y of the y o u n g chiefs were present and one of t h e m , The Ridge, openly scoffed at their story. So angry were the others at this lack of respect to spiritual things, Moravian missionaries, Springplace Diary, February 11,1811, MAS. This and other ac­ counts by the Moravians are appended to William G. McLoughlin, "New Angles of Vision on the Cherokee Ghost Dance Movement/' American Indian Quarterly 5 (1979) :317-45. 13

180

G H O S T

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

however, that they attacked Ridge and almost killed h i m before friends intervened. The Rocky M o u n t a i n vision typified m u c h i n the Ghost Dance move­ ment. I n some ways i t looked backward to a better age w h e n m u c h game was present, old ways were followed, and the Cherokees practiced their dances and rituals i n the sacred towns. But essentially the vision spoke of a new modus vivendi w i t h the whites and a synthetic blending of the old and the new. The vision told t h e m they did not need gristmills, but that they did need to read and write. They did not need renegade or crooked w h i t e men among t h e m , but they needed those w h o were good to t h e m and w h o w o u l d help t h e m . The spirit messenger mentioned one such w h i t e man for w h o m they should build a w h i t e house i n their sacred city, Captain James Blair of Georgia, a good friend of James V a n n , w h o had assisted t h e m i n d r i v i n g intruders out of their land. Because the o n l y per­ sons teaching t h e m to w r i t e at that t i m e were the Moravians, the vision seemed to indicate that these missionaries were good w h i t e people. The extreme harshness of the lighthorse regulators was to be rejected but not some k i n d of law to deal w i t h thieves. Essentially the Great Spirit or "the M o t h e r of the N a t i o n " was asserting the distinctiveness of the Cherokee people w h o were made from red clay and not w h i t e sand. They could be neighborly w i t h the whites w h o respected t h e m and their w a y of life, but t h e y must keep a distance between t h e m . This was u n l i k e the angry, vindictive Ghost Dance visions of the Shawnees, w h i c h called for the de­ struction of all whites, for d r i v i n g t h e m back across the ocean, and for t o ­ tal restoration of the old ways to be brought about w i t h miraculous pow­ ers that the Great Spirit w o u l d give t h e m to defeat the w h i t e m a n i n a final b a t t l e . I n the later phases of the Cherokee revival some dreams and visions did contain elements of apocalyptic m i l l e n n i a l i s m , but this first vision was, i n one sense, reasonable, believable. I t w o n the respect of the great m a j o r i t y of chiefs at the council i n February and others w h o heard i t later. 14

This vision m a y have played a significant part i n a decision taken b y the National Council i n M a y 1811 that instructed Meigs to eject every w h i t e person f r o m the nation. Meigs protested that this was madness, but he had no choice. He ordered Captain James M c D o n a l d and Colonel A l e x ­ ander S m y t h of the a r m y garrison to do as the Council wished; they were to remove not o n l y intruders and renegades but all sharecroppers, me­ chanics and "those that have indian concubines." I f this order had been 15

For the Shawnee prophesy see " A Talk delivered at Le Maiouitinong" on Lake Michi­ gan by The Trout, May 4,1807, M-222, reel 2, #0859-0860. Captain James McDonald and Colonel Alexander Smyth to Return J. Meigs, July 18, 1811, M-208. However, the Cherokee Council at Oostenaleh wrote to Meigs (April 5,1811, 14

15

181

GHOST DANCE

MOVEMENT'

followed literally, even some of the most dedicated leaders of the rebel­ l i o n against Doublehead and the old chiefs w o u l d have been removed, i n ­ cluding John M c D o n a l d , Daniel Ross, John M c i n t o s h , and John Walker. But the Council later modified its r u l i n g and allowed i n t e r m a r r i e d whites to remain, as w e l l as a few useful whites w h o were teaching schools and b u i l d i n g gristmills. There is no extant record of any other religious vision u n t i l late i n De­ cember 1811. However, i n A u g u s t a blazing comet appeared i n the sky that was so large its path could be traced for several weeks. O n December 26, the N e w M a d r i d earthquake occurred along the Mississippi River be­ tween M i s s o u r i and Illinois. I t shook the entire southeastern part of the U n i t e d States. Houses i n the Cherokee N a t i o n were knocked off their foundations and large sinkholes, t h i r t y yards wide, suddenly appeared and then filled slowly w i t h m u r k y , green water. People were shaken out of bed, and b o t h w i l d and domestic animals ran about i n terror. Subse­ quent tremors continued i n the Cherokee region for another four months. The Moravians recorded at least twelve tremors that shook their houses at Springplace between December 1811 and A p r i l 1812. The earthquake seemed to unleash the fears of m a n y Cherokees about the anger of the Great Spirit and a wave of religious fervor swept t h r o u g h the nation. Some held that the earthquake was caused by a gigantic snake that had crawled under their towns and shaken their buildings as i t moved. Some said "the earth is probably very o l d " and was about to " c o l ­ lapse." Some w h o had heard missionary sermons talked about a day of j u d g m e n t or "the end of the w o r l d . " The Ridge, w h o had been skeptical of the ghost riders i n the sky, n o w came to the M o r a v i a n mission and asked h o w they explained the earthquakes. Charles Hicks, w h o had been s t u d y i n g the Bible, said that the quakes foretold "the last d a y . " W h e n the Moravians were asked what they thought, they confessed that God m i g h t w e l l send earthquakes to w a r n his children to repent of their sins and t u r n to H i m , for sooner or later there w o u l d be an end to the w o r l d . The predictions from Christian and pagan sources seemed so similar that Chief Big Bear concluded that although "the w h i t e people k n o w God f r o m the B o o k / ' the Cherokees knew h i m " f r o m other t h i n g s . " 16

In February 1812 a Cherokee father, caring for t w o sick children, was sitting i n front of his cabin fire late at night. Suddenly a tall man "clothed entirely i n the foliage of the trees, w i t h a wreath of the same foliage on M-208) that the chiefs wanted exceptions made for useful whites living in the nation such as blacksmiths, teachers, missionaries, and "other mechanics." Moravian missionaries, Springplace Diary, March 1, 1812, MAS. Hicks, however, was already a convert to Christianity and in June 1812 presented himself for baptism at the Springplace mission. 16

182

G H O S T

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

his h e a d / ' appeared i n the cabin. He was " c a r r y i n g a small child and had a larger child b y the h a n d . " The visitor said that the child i n his a r m was the Great Spirit and that the Great Spirit m i g h t soon destroy the e a r t h . The Spirit was displeased that the Cherokees had sold so m u c h of their land to the whites and especially that they had sold, i n 1777, the sacred t o w n of Tougaloo i n South Carolina. Tougaloo was " t h e first place w h i c h God created" and where he had placed "the first f i r e " for m a n . N o w the whites had desecrated the sacred h i l l by b u i l d i n g a house on i t . That house must be destroyed and the h i l l returned to its natural state. The Great Spirit was angry that the Cherokees were neglecting their religious dances, rituals, and festivals, particularly the festival i n w h i c h t h e y gave thanks for their harvests. Then the visitor explained to the Cherokee fa­ ther that his children were sick because the Cherokee had forgotten t h e i r Indian herbal remedies; he gave the father " t w o small pieces of bark f r o m a certain tree" and said i f he brewed a d r i n k f r o m the bark and gave i t to his children, they w o u l d soon be w e l l . He told h i m about other remedies for sickness and finally said he must take the small child i n his arms home, and disappeared. 17

The w h i t e men knew a great m a n y things, but t h e y could not always cure illness. The Cherokees believed that i n nature there was a natural remedy for every sickness. These cures were being forgotten. The m e d i ­ cine m e n knew things that whites did not; the Great Spirit had come to r e m i n d this father that he must have more faith i n his o w n Indian under­ standing of the spirit w o r l d and the health-giving remedies of the Cher­ okee religion. The religious revival reached its peak that spring and summer, w h i l e other pressures mounted. C i v i l strife broke out among the Creeks, and the Cherokees feared that they m i g h t be dragged into i t . I n June, the U n i t e d States declared war on the B r i t i s h and the Cherokees had to decide whether to j o i n the war and, i f they d i d , on w h i c h side. The y o u n g chiefs favored supporting the United States. M o s t Cherokees preferred n e u t r a l ­ i t y , however, and that was h o w the Council voted. Meigs became aware of the Ghost Dance movement i n M a r c h 1812 w h e n he reported that great efforts were being made i n the nation " t o appease the A n g e r of the Great Spirit w h i c h they conceive is manifest by the late shocks of the e a r t h . " As a result, " t h e y have revived their r e l i ­ gious dances of ancient o r i g i n , " w h i c h they practiced w i t h great " s o l e m n ­ i t y . " A f t e r these dances they "repair to the Water, go i n and w a s h " i n the old r i t u a l of purification. "These ablutions," Meigs said, "are intended to Moravian missionaries., Springplace Diary, February 17, 1812, MAS. The Germanspeaking missionaries translated the term "Great Spirit" as "God" but the informant was not Christian and would not have used the term "God." 17

183

G H O S T

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

show that their sins are washed away and that they are cleansed f r o m all defilements/' H e was not alarmed by the revival. There were "some fa­ natics" w h o tried to play upon the fears of the more ignorant, b u t the accul t u rated chiefs were opposed to the entire movement. The prophets and visionaries were saying that "the Great Spirit is angry w i t h t h e m for adopting the manners, customs and habits of the w h i t e people w h o they t h i n k are v e r y w i c k e d . " I n Meigs's view, the old people were annoyed at the y o u n g m i x e d bloods w h o had learned to play fiddles and dance V i r ­ ginia reels and c o u n t r y dances i n the manner of the whites. He did not find any anger expressed toward whites or missionaries. B u t on some oc­ casions, after dancing for a long t i m e around the fire, some Cherokees "have t h r o w n their clothing i n t o the fire" to show their rejection of " c i v ­ i l i z a t i o n . " Even some w h o were wealthy enough to wear "fine m u s l i n dresses" were b u r n i n g t h e m . 1 8

One prophet had a vision that " o n a certain d a y " hailstones the size of half bushels w o u l d fall and destroy all those w h o did not repair to a cer­ tain spot i n the hills. The people i n his village had fled to that spot on the day he predicted and hidden i n caves to escape the destruction. A n o t h e r prophecy said that there w o u l d soon be an eclipse of the m o o n and w h e n the w o r l d was all dark, the nonbelievers w o u l d be destroyed. One Cher­ okee heard that there w o u l d be an eclipse of the sun for three days " d u r ­ i n g w h i c h all the w h i t e people w o u l d be snatched away as w e l l as Indians w h o had any clothing or household articles of the whiteman's k i n d , t o ­ gether w i t h all their cattle." One more positive prophecy spoke not of de­ struction but of the creation of "a new e a r t h " of beauty and h a r m o n y . Had the more immediate problem of war on their borders not forced attention to more mundane matters toward the end of 1812, this religious m o v e m e n t m i g h t eventually have produced a single charismatic prophet w h o , like Tenkswatawa among the Shawnees or Handsome Lake among the Senecas, could have correlated all the feelings and half-articulated hopes and fears of the believers i n t o a single, coherent, and compelling message around which the nation m i g h t have rallied. But no such prophet appeared. M a n y m i n o r prophets rose and fell as their prophecies failed to materialize. Eventually leadership returned to the secular y o u n g chiefs w h o were m a k i n g Cherokee political nationalism the central aspect of revitalization. These chiefs were able to play upon the emotions aroused i n 19

Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, March 19, 1812, M-208. Thomas L. McKenney, in his account of the movement received from The Ridge in the early 1830s, maintains that it was all centered in a single prophet named "Charles" (or Tsali), but none of the contemporary accounts substantiates this. See Thomas L. McKenney and James Hall, Biographical Sketches and Anecdotes of Ninety-five of 120 Principal Chiefs from the Indian Tribes of North America (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Interior, 1967) pp. 191-92. 18

19

184

GHOST

D A N C E

M O V E M E N T

the revival b y directing t h e m t o w a r d the old ideal of the w a r r i o r w h o w o n the approval of his people and of the Great Spirit b y v i c t o r y i n battle, thus c o m b i n i n g religious fervor and nationalism. The plan of the y o u n g chiefs was to convince the average Cherokee, w h o was m u c h impressed b y the revival, that his enemy was not the w h i t e A m e r i c a n or his ways but the Creek Indians and the B r i t i s h . Some old chiefs like C h u l i o believed that "the w h i t e people are responsible" for all the troubles the nation faced; he even blamed t h e m for the earth­ quakes, "because they had already taken possession of so m u c h of the I n ­ dians' land and wanted still m o r e . " The land was heaving i n distress at the w h i t e A m e r i c a n land hunger and dispossession of the Indians. B u t y o u n g chiefs, like The Ridge, said the earthquake came f r o m the wicked­ ness of the Cherokees themselves, their drunkenness, brawls, and k i l l i n g of each other i n petty quarrels. There were those w h o saw at the heart of their troubles and emotional malaise a basic m o r a l question regarding personal honesty. One Cherokee w o m a n , for example, w h o was asked to t h r o w her European clothes into a campfire after a dance, remarked that this "was n o t h i n g , " that " t h e y ought to become good people and leave off stealing horses and d r i n k i n g w h i s k e y " i f they wished to make the Great Spirit happy. A n o t h e r Cherokee, told to put off his w h i t e man's clothes, said: " I t is no matter w h a t cloathes I wear while m y heart is s t r a i g h t . " 20

U n d e r l y i n g the Ghost Dance movement was a basic t u r m o i l between the behavior of the inner and the outer m a n , between the spiritual har­ m o n y that should be and the m o r a l confusion that was. A t this stage i n their renascence the Cherokees were not able to reconcile the old ways and the new. I n the end, the spiritual fervor of the revival was t u r n e d aside b y the excitement of war; m o r a l concern was shunted i n t o national concern. I n 1813 the Ghost Dance gave w a y to war chants. 20

Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, March 19,1812, M-208.

185

N I N E

THE

CREEK W A R ,

1812-1814

Father, your officers treated us as friends embarked in a common cause with them, acting against a common enemy, and we felt honored and felt an emulation not to be outdone in all the offices of friendly com­ munication. . . . --Cherokee chiefs to President Madison after the Creek War

F

earful that the Ghost Dance movement w o u l d , as Meigs said, have a "retrograde" effect upon the nation's revitalization, the y o u n g chiefs opposed i t . They hoped that Cherokee participation i n the W a r of 1 8 1 2 on the side of the U n i t e d States w o u l d unify their nation and advance its popularity w i t h w h i t e Americans. But the Creek W a r proved to be a trag­ edy for the Cherokees as well as for the Creeks. The Creek N a t i o n , like the Cherokee, had fought w i t h the British against the colonists d u r i n g the Revolution and had joined w i t h the Cher­ okees i n c o n t i n u i n g their guerrilla warfare along the southeastern f r o n ­ tier u n t i l 1794. W h e n the Creeks finally capitulated i n 1794, Benjamin H a w k i n s was sent to reside among t h e m as their agent. The Creeks, like the Cherokees, were a loose confederation of some sixty towns divided i n t o t w o regions, the Lower Creek Towns i n southern Georgia near Flor­ ida and the Upper Creek Towns i n central Alabama just to the south of the Cherokee Lower Towns. Hawkins, i g n o r i n g their decentralized t o w n system, divided the nation into districts and instructed each district to send from one to five chiefs to represent i t at a national council. He al­ lowed the Lower Creeks to elect a chief (or speaker) and the Upper Creeks to elect a chief (or speaker). The council then elected the chief of the whole nation. W h e n the council was not i n session, a group of chiefs led b y the national chief and the t w o regional speakers served as an executive committee to consult w i t h Hawkins about all decisions. Thus rather than the l o n g process t h r o u g h w h i c h the Cherokees worked out their o w n cen­ tralized system i n 1810, the Creeks had centralization imposed upon t h e m b y their agent i n 1796. Under Hawkins's forceful management, they too began the transformation from a h u n t i n g to an agricultural economy. Those chiefs w h o worked closely w i t h Hawkins received the lion's share of the annuities and utensils for f a r m i n g and domestic manufactur-

186

THE

CREEK

W A R

ing, as was the case w i t h Doublehead's clique among the Cherokees. H a w k i n s also persuaded the Creeks to adopt a system of centralized police a u t h o r i t y m a n y years before the Cherokees, but unlike the Cherokee Lighthorse, the Creek police had power to execute those w h o m the exec­ utive committee of their nation considered to m e r i t i t . As among the Cherokees, clan retaliation was declared invalid under this Creek policing system. W h e n the police were reluctant to act, H a w k i n s threatened to w i t h h o l d annuities and technical assistance u n t i l the chiefs forced the po­ lice to punish those w h o m Hawkins designated. H a w k i n s also forced the chiefs i n t o major land cessions including most of their h u n t i n g ground i n southeastern Georgia. By 1810, as i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , there was g r o w i n g resentment against this autocratic system. Under these circum­ stances, one m i g h t have expected the Cherokees to have sided w i t h the Creeks w h o led the civil war i n 1813. They were fighting against an overly rapid and coercive program of acculturation under chiefs, similar to Doublehead, whose views were not representative of their people. Moreover, the Creeks underwent i n 1811 m u c h the same k i n d of religious revival that stirred the Cherokees, although the Creek revival was appar­ e n t l y augmented and shaped from the outside b y visits from Tecumseh and the Shawnee prophets. The Cherokees also remembered that a gen­ eration earlier the Creeks had befriended those Cherokees w h o , under Dragging Canoe, refused to yield to the A m e r i c a n revolutionists and moved west to found the Lower Towns. The displaced Cherokees had been allowed to found these new towns i n 1781 on land i n n o r t h e r n A l a ­ bama that was i n part under Creek control. In October 1811, Tecumseh and his prophets came to the Creek capital at Tuckabatchee and asked the Creeks to j o i n his confederacy of western tribes. Underneath his request was the distinct possibility that w i t h B r i t ­ ish help there m i g h t soon be a general Indian uprising to t h r o w the w h i t e Americans back across the Appalachians. A delegation of Cherokees, led by The Ridge, w e n t to hear Tecumseh talk and was dismayed to hear the message that his prophets had received from the Great Spirit: Kill the old chiefs, friends to peace; kill the cattle, the hogs and fowls; do not work, destroy the wheels and looms, throw away your ploughs and everything used by the Americans. Sing the song of the Indians of the Northern lakes and dance their dance. Shake your war clubs, shake yourselves, you will frighten the Americans; their arms will drop from their hands, the ground will become a bog and mire them, and you may knock them on the head with your war clubs. I will be with you my Shawanees as soon as our friends the British, are ready for us. Lift up the war club with your right hand; be strong and I will come and shew you how to use i t . 1

ASP i , 845. Whether Ridge and the Cherokees at Tuckabatchee heard exactly this ver­ sion of the Shawnee prophecy is uncertain, but they heard something similar to it. 1

187

THE CREEK W A R

Tecumseh's appeal to reject acculturation and prepare for war on the whites made no impression on the Cherokee visitors, but i t did receive a w a r m response from some of the younger Creek chiefs of the Upper Creek Towns w h o were chafing under the rule of H a w k i n s and the Lower Creeks. T h e y had never before rebelled against their old chiefs as the Cherokees had, but they had developed strong resentment against t h e m . These y o u n g Creek chiefs, led by Opothle M i ceo, Little W a r r i o r , Peter M c Q u e e n , and W i l l i a m Weather ford, secretly accepted the offer to j o i n Tecumseh. They learned the songs and dances of the Shawnee prophets and began to behave more aggressively toward their old chiefs, B i g W a r ­ rior, W i l l i a m M c i n t o s h , Tustenugee Thlocco, and Tustenugee H o p p o i e .

2

Hawkins refused to take this ghost dance movement seriously. Big W a r r i o r assured h i m that the Creek people w o u l d never accede to the mad ideas of Tecumseh and his prophets. The Cherokees, however, were con­ vinced that there soon w o u l d be a British and Indian war against the Americans and that the Creeks (or some of them) w o u l d participate i n i t . Y o u n g Cherokee chiefs like The Ridge favored aiding the Americans; some of the ghost dancers probably sided w i t h Tecumseh. The great m a ­ j o r i t y was undecided. Meigs w r o t e to the Secretary of War i n December 1811 to say he was convinced that the Cherokees " w i s h to live i n peace and be governed b y the treaties existing between their nation and the United States." He had 3

warned the Cherokees to ignore Tecumseh. I n M a y 1812, a m o n t h before war broke out between Britain and America, Meigs reported to Eustis that "three y o u n g chiefs, men of property and considerable i n f o r m a t i o n , came i n t o the Council and observed that there w o u l d be war between the United States and the English and that they t h o u g h t i t w o u l d be for the advantage of the nation to offer their aid to our Government, and that t h e y wished each to raise a number of y o u n g warriors and offer their service on the terms of pay and emolument of our m i l i t a r y corps." The 4

three chiefs were The Ridge, John Walker, and John Lowrey. Meigs t h o u g h t the W a r Department should take up their offer. The volunteers w h o m the y o u n g chiefs could muster w o u l d be of "great service i n any For the origin and military aspects of the Creek War see Michael D. Green, The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis (Lincoln: University of Ne­ braska Press, 1982), pp. 37-45; Angie De bo, The Road to Disappearance (Norman: Uni­ versity of Oklahoma Press, 1971), chap. 3; Cotterill, Southern Indians, chaps. 8-9; Michael P. Rogin, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American In­ dians (New York: Knopf, 1975), chap. 5; and Pound, Benjamin Hawkins, chaps. 12-13. For Meigs's version of the origin of the war see his letter to John Armstrong, August 23,1813, M-221, reel 55, #9217. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, December 4,1811, M-221, reel 47, #1650. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, May 8, 1812, reel 47, #1813. 2

3 4

188

T H E

C R E E K

W A R

active campaign;" he said, especially as cavalry units "because t h e y are real h o r s e m e n " and " t h e y love war; i t has no terrors for t h e m . " Meigs had o n l y one q u a l m about the plan; he wondered whether the Cherokee w a r r i o r s " m i g h t be restrained f r o m acts of barbarity"—such as scalping B r i t i s h soldiers w h o fell i n combat. " I k n o w that the h u m a n i t y of our G o v e r n m e n t w o u l d revolt at the idea of Indian A u x i l l i a r i e s " f i g h t i n g against w h i t e m e n , but " t o employ t h e m against B r i t i s h Indians w o u l d not be considered inconsistent w i t h the principles of self defense."

5

He

assumed that the Cherokees w o u l d be fighting Tecumseh's Shawnees. Meigs and H a w k i n s did not expect that the Creeks w o u l d become allies of the B r i t i s h .

6

O n the other hand, the frontier whites of Alabama and Tennessee not o n l y were fearful of the Shawnees and the Creeks but were even appre­ hensive about the Cherokees. Governor W i l l i e B l o u n t w r o t e to the Sec­ retary of W a r frequently d u r i n g 1812, telling h i m the Cherokees were not to be t r u s t e d .

7

The general anti-Indian hysteria among

Western

whites w o r r i e d Meigs. He believed the frontiersmen were i t c h i n g for an excuse to start a war w i t h the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Creeks because " t h e y w i s h for a pretext to drive t h e m off their lands, and i t is w i t h some difficulty that they have h i t h e r t o been restrained."

8

The whites w o u l d

seize upon any incident to accuse the Cherokees of being allied w i t h the B r i t i s h and immediately launch an invasion to wipe t h e m out. The frontier tension was not w h o l l y unjustified, t h o u g h i t was m i s d i ­ rected. The Shawnees had joined w i t h the B r i t i s h , w h o had commissioned Tecumseh as a colonel i n their a r m y . M e a n w h i l e the y o u n g Creeks i n the Upper Creek Towns were beginning to flout the a u t h o r i t y of t h e i r old chiefs. A f t e r p e r f o r m i n g their ghost dances t h e y were destroying their plows, manufactured clothing, cattle, and other property associated w i t h w h i t e civilization. The Upper Creek chief, Little W a r r i o r , w e n t n o r t h i n February 1813 to visit Tecumseh. His purpose was to obtain arms f r o m h i m and to learn Tecumseh's war plans. O n his w a y home, several m e m ­ bers of Little W a r r i o r ' s party attacked a w h i t e settlement near the m o u t h of the O h i o River and took seven or eight scalps. U p o n his r e t u r n Little W a r r i o r asked the Creek Council to declare war on the Americans. The 5

Ibid.

Cotterill, Southern Indians, pp. 176-78; Pound, Benjamin Hawkins, pp. 221-28. See for example, Willie Blount to William Eustis, July 26,1812, M-221, reel 42, #8025, and Willie Blount to James Monroe, January 28,1813, reel 50, #4827. See also John Finley to William Eustis, April 26, 1.813, M-221, reel 52, #6637. Blount, like his constituents in Tennessee, was hoping for an excuse to send an army against the Cherokees and thus to acquire by force the land that the Cherokees refused to cede. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, January 11, M-221, reel 55, #8838. 6 7

8

189

THE CREEK W A R

council categorically refused.

9

W h e n Hawkins learned of the raid, he or­

dered Big W a r r i o r and the chiefs to send their lighthorse police to execute Little W a r r i o r and all the others w h o had participated i n i t . The chiefs f o l ­ lowed Hawkins's orders and their police killed ten of the thirteen i n the war party. Before they could k i l l Little W a r r i o r , however, he and the clan relatives of those executed struck back, taking blood revenge against the members of the police force. This action began the Creek C i v i l War. H a w k i n s and Big W a r r i o r were confident that they could easily put d o w n the rebels, for they were at the outset o n l y a small m i n o r i t y of the Creek N a t i o n . I n A p r i l 1813, some of the Shawnees and the Creek rebels (called Red Sticks) came to Pathkiller, Principal Chief of the Cherokees since Black Fox's death i n 1811. They asked h i m whether the Cherokees w o u l d assist t h e m i n their war against the Lower Creeks. Pathkiller de­ clined to get involved, p o i n t i n g out the danger this w o u l d b r i n g upon his nation.

I n A u g u s t the Lower Creeks asked the Cherokees to aid t h e m

10

against the Red Sticks; again the Cherokees refused to become em­ broiled.

11

O n July 30, The Ridge, John Walker and John L o w r e y had come to Meigs and renewed the offer they had made i n M a y 1.812 to raise a v o l ­ unteer a r m y to fight against the British and their Indian allies, i n c l u d i n g the Creeks.

12

Meigs wrote to John A r m s t r o n g , w h o had succeeded Eustis

i n the War Department: " T h e civil war amongst the Creeks has placed the Cherokees i n a disagreeable situation, and should the

insurgent

Creeks get the ascendancy, they w i l l , if possible, corrupt the kees."

13

Chero­

He said he had warned the Cherokees " n o t to let any of the i n ­

surgent party [the Creek Red Sticks] come into their C o u n t r y because it may subject t h e m to the suspicion of the w h i t e people on the f r o n t i e r . " Everyone knew that the British had supplied arms from Pensacola to the Red Sticks i n J u l y .

14

A p p a r e n t l y about seven thousand of the t w e n t y thousand Creeks had joined the Red Sticks of the Upper Creek Towns; those i n the Lower Creek Towns realized that it w o u l d not be easy to defeat t h e m .

1 3

Charles

Cotterill, Southern Indians, pp. 176-78. Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, April 2.2, 1813, M-221, reel 55, #8891, and Re­ turn J. Meigs to John Armstrong, August 6, 1813, M-221, reel 55, #911.2. Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, August 23,1813, M-221, reel 55, #9217. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, May 12, 1812, M-208; Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, July 30,1813, M-208; Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, July 31,1813, M-208; Thurman Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985), pp. 60, 63, 336-37. Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, August 6,1813, M-208. Cotterill, Southern Indians, pp. 179-81; Rogin, Fathers and Children, p. 148. John Braham to Andrew Jackson, August 29, 1813, M-221, reel 50, #5161. Bra ha m 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

190

THE CREEK WAR

Hicks and some other Cherokee chiefs expressed s y m p a t h y for the rebels, at least to the extent of b l a m i n g the old chiefs for being too subservient to H a w k i n s and too w i l l i n g to become " l a n d speculators" at the expense of t h e i r people. B u t on the whole, the Cherokees t h o u g h t the rebels were w r o n g to accept B r i t i s h arms and foment a rebellion at a t i m e w h e n it w o u l d clearly inflame the whole frontier, endangering all the other tribes. 16

I n addition to favoring the offer of Ridge, Walker, and L o w r e y to raise an a r m y against the Red Sticks ("the hostile Creeks"), Meigs had advised the Cherokees to declare their support for the Lower Creek Towns ("the friendly Creeks"). This w o u l d demonstrate to w h i t e Americans that the Cherokees were concerned for the safety of the U n i t e d States and w i l l i n g to lay d o w n their lives to protect i t . Then, on A u g u s t 28,1813, the rebel Creeks attacked a frontier stockade, k n o w n as Fort M i m s , at the juncture of the Tombigbee and Alabama rivers. They massacred not o n l y the armed garrison but m a n y unarmed farmers and their families w h o had gone to the fort for protection. Close to five hundred whites were killed and the w h i t e frontier was outraged. As the frontiersmen took to arms to retaliate, the Cherokees knew they had no choice but to demonstrate their support for the whites or they too w o u l d soon be attacked as potential, i f not yet open, enemies. 1 7

The W a r Department, after consulting the governors of Tennessee and Georgia and gaining their legislature's approval, accepted Meigs's sug­ gestion to enroll Cherokee volunteers. They were to be enlisted i n the frontier m i l i t i a and to be given the same rank, equipment, and s a l a r y . A l t h o u g h the Cherokee Council never officially voted to j o i n the war, the chiefs w h o had favored n e u t r a l i t y raised no objections to the volunteers. B y the end of October Meigs had enrolled about five h u n d r e d . 18

19

His plan was to enroll t h e m i n companies under their o w n officers: some were to be lieutenants, captains, and majors; above that rank, c o m ­ m a n d w o u l d go to whites. D u r i n g the course of the next year probably as m a n y as six hundred Cherokees were at one t i m e or another engaged i n the war against the Red Stick Creeks. Meigs supplied t h e m w i t h guns, power, lead, flints, and blankets out of the agency f u n d s . A t the outset those commissioned as lieutenants included Charles Hicks, John Ross, 20

said he thought the Cherokees would provide one thousand soldiers to fight with Jackson's troops. Hicks's letter to Meigs is included in Meigs's letter to John Armstrong, August 23, 1813, reel 55, #9217. Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, July 30,1813, M-208. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 63-65. Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, November 17, 1813, M-221, reel 55, #9287. Ibid. See also Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong June 4, 1814, reel 64, #7130. 16

17 18

19

2 0

191

THE

C R E E K

W A R

The Ridge, Richard B r o w n , and Big Cabbin; the captains included John L o w r e y , Alexander Sanders, C h u l i o , and David M c N a i r ; the majors i n ­ cluded Richard Taylor and Gideon M o r g a n . Pathkiller, as Principal Chief, t h o u g h too old to fight, was given the honorary rank of Colonel. D u r i n g the course of the war three Cherokees became colonels: Gideon M o r g a n , Richard B r o w n , and John Lowrey (all of w h o m were whites married to Cherokees); four advanced to major: The Ridge, Sanders, John Walker, and James B r o w n . A m o n g those w h o distinguished themselves i n battle were George Guess (Sequoyah), W h i t e Path, Charles Reece, C h u l i o , The W h a l e , Junaluska, and John T h o m p s o n . The Cherokees also aided the war effort by p r o v i d i n g saltpeter for powder. Richard Riley, son of the interpeter Samuel Riley, was manufacturing 1,000 pounds of powder a day i n his powder m i l l at Creek Path b y January 1 8 1 3 . 21

22

W h e n Meigs sent the Cherokees off to j o i n the various a r m y units commanded by Generals A n d r e w Jackson, John Cocke, John Coffee, and James W h i t e late i n October 1813, he gave t h e m an exhortatory speech about their roles as United States soldiers. " Y o u w i l l find the A r m y to be a school of instruction that w i l l elevate and raise up y o u r minds to senti­ ments u n k n o w n to barbarous nations, and here i t is proper to observe that even i n war, we [white Americans] never lose sight of h u m a n i t y . The U n i t e d States do not make war on w o m e n and children and the aged and helpless, and they always spare the unresisting prisoners." Meigs ap­ parently knew little of the behavior of the frontier m i l i t i a . They were to perform deeds of barbarity against the Creeks far worse than those of any Cherokee. I n any case, neither Cherokees nor w h i t e troops had any qualms about shooting unarmed Creek w o m e n , children, and aged. The Creek W a r t u r n e d out to be little more than a massacre f r o m beginning to end, a disaster f r o m w h i c h the Creek N a t i o n never recovered. 23

The Cherokees fought i n five different engagements i n t w o separate campaigns, one i n the fall and early w i n t e r of 1813 and the other i n M a r c h 1814. I n most of their engagements they constituted o n l y a small part of the fighting force. The generals permitted t h e m to take their o w n pris­ oners, to seize booty, and to take possession of black slaves belonging to Red Stick Creeks. The combination of scalps and booty made the war memorable for those Cherokees w h o fought. They also enjoyed the honor of fighting side by side w i t h their w h i t e brothers; i t gave t h e m a The best account of the Cherokees part in the Creek War is in Thurman, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 62-78. Sec also Cotterill, Southern Indians, pp. 185-88. For lists of Cherokee war heroes see October 31,1815, M-208, and May 4,1816, M-15, reel 3, p. 340. Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, January 11,1813, M-221, reel 55, #8838. Meigs's talk to the Cherokee volunteers is in the Tennessee State Archives, Nashville, Cherokee Collection, vi, C - l , box 3, folder 1. It is undated but probably was given in Sep­ tember 1813. 21

7

22

2 3

192

THE CREEK WAR

chance to prove t h e i r valor and gain self-respect. Afterwards t h e i r w h i t e commanders were w a r m i n praise of the Cherokees' courage and d a r i n g .

24

Their first engagement near T u r k e y t o w n , late i n October, routed the Creeks. Pursuing t h e m , the t w o groups fought again at Tallashatchee on November 3. The Creeks ran out of a m m u n i t i o n and the Cherokee and m i l i t i a killed 186 Creek warriors and even more w o m e n and children. O n l y five w h i t e soldiers were killed and no Cherokees. John W a l k e r w r o t e to Meigs after the battle that i t was a " d i s m a l " sight " t o see W o m e n and C h i l d r e n slaughtered w i t h their father's" b y General Cof­ fee's c a v a l r y . O n November 9, General Jackson w i t h t w o thousand m i ­ 25

l i t i a m e n , i n c l u d i n g some Cherokees, fought at Talladega T o w n against one thousand Creeks. Three hundred Creeks were killed, again i n c l u d i n g m a n y w o m e n and children. O n l y fifteen were killed on the A m e r i c a n side. O n November 19, General W h i t e w i t h one thousand m i l i t i a and four hundred Cheokees attacked a group of sixty Creek warriors at the Hillabee Towns w h o wanted to surrender.

26

The Creeks offered no resist­

ance and no one on the A m e r i c a n side was killed; nonetheless the sixty Creek warriors were wiped out along w i t h m a n y w o m e n and children. There were 250 prisoners. I n January 1814 a sharp engagement took place at Emukfaw Creek on the Tallapoosa River, i n which the Cherokees and " f r i e n d l y " Creek troops saved Jackson's d w i n d l i n g a r m y f r o m defeat. Jackson was wounded. T r y i n g to retreat, he was attacked again on Janu­ ary 24 at Enotochopco Creek. The Americans lost one hundred soldiers, but the Creeks lost more and w i t h d r e w .

27

Jackson's soldiers, t h e i r enlist­

m e n t t i m e over, refused to reenlist and went home. This campaign ended w i t h o u t v i c t o r y . Jackson was furious at his troops, calling t h e m "de­ serters." Jackson obtained new enlistments i n February and left Fort Struther i n M a r c h for a final battle w i t h the Red Sticks at Tohopeka (Horseshoe Bend). The Creeks, under Chief Menawa, were outnumbered t w o to one w i t h t h e i r backs to a horseshoe loop i n the Tallapoosa River. T h e y fought hard but, as so often i n this war, ran out of a m m u n i t i o n . W h e n t h e y tried to escape across the river, they discovered that some Cherokees had gone around behind t h e m , s w u m across the river, and taken all t h e i r canoes. Between t w o and three hundred Creeks were shot i n the river as t h e y t r i e d to s w i m across; o n l y fifty of the one thousand Creeks got out alive. For Jackson's praise of the Cherokee volunteers see M-222, August 14, 1814, reel 12, #4729. John Walker to Return J. Meigs, November 5,1813, M-208. Gideon Walker to Return J. Meigs, November 23, 1813, M-208. See Cotterill, Southern Indans, pp. 186-87; Mooney, " M y t h s of the Cherokees," pp. 80-84; Rogin, Fathers and Children, pp. 150-54. 24

2 5

2 6

2 7

193

THE CREEK W A R

The w h i t e m i l i t i a suffered 26 killed, 107 wounded; the Cherokees, 18 dead and 36 wounded; the friendly Creeks, 5 killed and 14 wounded. After the battle the w h i t e m i l i t i a flayed strips of skin from the dead Creeks and braided t h e m into belts and bridles; as they counted the dead Creeks, they cut the nose off each corpse.

28

A few of the Red Sticks con­

t i n u e d to fight sporadically u n t i l June but most fled to Florida and joined the Seminoles. Jackson chased t h e m there and then had to leave to fight the British at N e w Orleans. The Cherokees, however, returned home after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and played no part i n the other phases of the war. The total Cherokee losses d u r i n g the t w o campaigns were t h i r t y - s i x killed and fifty-one wounded. General Jackson praised t h e m and the friendly Creeks: " Y o u have shown yourselves w o r t h y of the friendship of y o u r Father, the Presi­ d e n t / ' M a d i s o n later gave special awards to about a dozen Cherokees for their b r a v e r y .

29

The Cherokee soldiers brought back fifty Creek warriors

as prisoners and over three hundred w o m e n and children. M o s t of these eventually were allowed to r e t u r n to the Creek N a t i o n , t h o u g h some of the children remained as slaves or were adopted into Cherokee f a m i l i e s .

30

N o record was kept of the number of black slaves taken from the Creeks by the Cherokees, but i t was considerable. Their service i n the war did not b r i n g the respect and fair treatment that the Cherokees expected, though i t put an end to the Ghost Dance movement. The federal government was reluctant to live up to its p r o m ­ ise to pay Indian soldiers on the same pay scale as white m i l i t i a m e n . The W a r Department did not w a n t to provide pensions for the Cherokee wounded or to the widows of the Cherokee dead. Even more dishearten­ i n g , Jackson's m i l i t i a m e n , who had crossed t h r o u g h Cherokee t e r r i t o r y to j o i n the troops i n the Creek N a t i o n and had then marched t h r o u g h i t again to go home, had taken out their hatred of all Indians b y c o m m i t t i n g tremendous depredations upon Cherokee livestock, crops, and dwellings. The most bitter blow of all came when Jackson made his p u n i t i v e peace treaty w i t h the Creeks at Fort Jackson i n July 1814 and included i n the cessions demanded 2.2 m i l l i o n acres of land i n n o r t h e r n Alabama that beMooney, "Myths of the Cherokees," pp. 83-84; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 7577; Cotterill, Southern Indians, p. 187. For Jackson's description of the Battle of Horsehoe Bend see M-221, April 2, 1814, reel 53, #8414-8418. For a list of those whom Madison honored see M-208, October 31, 1815. For Jackson's praise of his Indian soldiers see M-222, August 14,1814, reel 12, #4729. See Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 70, on Major Ridge's "adoption" of a Creek child as a slave; Return J. Meigs to Willie Blount, November 4, 1814, M-221, reel 59, #3338; Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, May 2, 1815, M-208. Most of the Red Stick Creek warriors having been killed, their wives and children became subject to slavery by Indian custom and their black slaves became the booty of war. 28

29

3 0

1.94

THE CREEK W A R

longed to the Cherokees. He did so i n order to open up a broad swath of Indian t e r r i t o r y to w h i t e settlement stretching all the w a y f r o m Tennes­ see to the G u l f . To his credit, Meigs risked the displeasure of General Jackson and did his best to rectify all of these injuries to the Cherokees. A f t e r the Battle of N e w Orleans, Jackson had become a national hero; i t was almost i m ­ possible for any politician to stand against h i m . He was particularly a hero to the frontiersmen of the southeast for ridding t h e m forever of any European threat to the Mississippi Valley and for ending the need to treat the southeastern Indians w i t h k i d gloves as W a s h i n g t o n , Adams, Jeffer­ son, and Madison had done. The Creek War and the W a r of 1812 had pro­ vided the frontier voters w i t h all the excuses they needed to dispossess the Indians at w i l l and they made no distinction between those w h o had fought against the United States and those w h o had fought w i t h t h e m . Meigs and the disheartened Cherokee leaders waged a desperate u p h i l l battle f r o m 1814 to 1816 to t r y to overcome the intense western prejudice that vented itself upon the Cherokees as well as their neighbors. 31

I n June 1814, Meigs w r o t e to the Secretary of W a r that he was t r u l y shocked at the amount of callous devastation of Cherokee property caused b y "the Rude part of our armies on their marches to and f r o m the Creek n a t i o n . " He placed the blame chiefly upon the rank-and-file m i l i t i a f r o m East Tennessee and attributed i t to "prejudice" against all Indians. Jackson's soldiers had shot Cherokee horses, cattle, and hogs for their o w n amusement and had pillaged and burned Cherokee houses. T h e y had destroyed crops across a wide swath of the Cherokee N a t i o n i n n o r t h e r n Alabama. I t w o u l d take years, Meigs said, for some parts of the nation to recover f r o m these senseless acts. Had the Creeks invaded the Cherokee N a t i o n , t h e y could hardly have caused more damage. The Cherokees de­ manded reparations and to that end Meigs obtained firsthand accounts f r o m m i l i t i a officers in Jackson's a r m y , some of w h o m had tried i n vain to prevent their undisciplined troops from such actions. "These depre­ dations m a y at first seem incredible," Meigs told Secretary of W a r A r m ­ strong, " b u t I have no doubt of the justness of the statements; these dis­ orders are well k n o w n to thousands. I received a letter f r o m an officer of h i g h rank i n the a r m y i n w h i c h he says, T h e r e t u r n of the Horse [cav­ alry] t h r o ' their C o u n t r y has been marked b y plunder and [by] prodigal, unnecessary and w a n t o n destruction of property; their stocks of Cattle and hogs have been shot and suffered to rot untouched, their horses i n some instances shared the same fate, their cloathing . . . has been stolen 32

3 1

3 2

ASP i , 826.

Return j . Meigs to John Armstrong, June 29,1814, reel 64, #7672.

195

THE CREEK W A R

and i n some instances, where they [Cherokees] remonstrated, their lives have been threatened/ " O n several occasions Cherokees had appealed to w h i t e m i l i t i a officers to assist t h e m , but they were told " i t was of no use, that their men felt themselves unfettered from the laws and that t h e y could not restrain t h e m . " Meigs reported that this " f e l l heavily on some families, having lost all their Cattle and hogs while their y o u n g warriors were i n the f i e l d . " Several years later the Governor of Tennessee, Jo­ seph M c M i n n , admitted the t r u t h of all Meigs said and told the Chero­ kees : "Jackson's a r m y took your property in. the late war. M a n y v e r y val­ uable houses were taken possession of by our a r m y and the inhabitants and property t h r o w n out of doors and i n some instances the houses r u ­ ined." 3 3

34

35

W h e n Meigs finally tabulated the full amount of the damage, the W a r Department was shocked. He had verified claims for $22,863.85 that could be proven beyond doubt by testimony of w h i t e officers and he said the true damage was at least twice that amount. Seven of the leading Cherokees w h o had fought w i t h Jackson wrote to President Madison to express their disappointment at the treatment their people received f r o m the m i l i t i a m e n and frankly blamed i t on racism. "Father, y o u r officers treated us as friends embarked i n a common cause w i t h t h e m , acting against a c o m m o n enemy, and we felt honored and felt an emulation not to be outdone i n all the offices of friendly communication; but we have n o w to state to our father that a great many w h i t e y o u n g W a r r i o r s , not feeling the ties that should bind t h e m and make t h e m strong by the p r i n ­ ciples of subordination [to their officers] and feeling liberty i n the ex­ treme, i t relaxed into licentiousness, and they destroyed our Cattle, sheep, and hogs, and i n some instances our horses, for mere sport or prej­ udice founded o n l y on the differences i n shades of c o m p l e x i o n . " 36

W h e n the Secretary of War asked Jackson for an explanation of this be­ havior by his troops, he denied everything. Meigs's verified list of claims he considered fraudulent: " N o confidence can be placed i n the honesty of an I n d i a n , " he said, assuming that the claims Meigs submitted were based upon Cherokee statements. The most Jackson w o u l d admit was that some of his soldiers, starving, m i g h t have shot a hog or taken a chicken simply to keep alive. The War Department sent this i n f o r m a t i o n to 37

Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, May 5,1814, M-221, reel 55, #9503. Ibid. See also Cherokee Council to James Madison, January 10, 1816, M-221, reel 1, #2814. Joseph McMinn stated this to the Cherokees on November 18,1818, ASP II, 484-86. "Outline of an address" by the Cherokee delegation to Washington, D.C., undated but probably in December 1815. It is included on M-208, at the end of reel 6. Andrew Jackson to William Crawford, July 24, 1816, M-221, reel 70, #2639. See also Jackson to Crawford, December 23, 1816, M-15, reel 3, pp. 449-50. 3 3

3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

196

THE

CREEK WAR

Meigs, w h o then conscientiously submitted supporting affidavits f r o m Jackson's officers. He explained to the War Department that the animals shot b y the m i l i t i a could not have been killed for food because " m u c h of the meat was suffered to rot i n the woods . . . untouched after being shot." Jackson's immense p o p u l a r i t y made i t difficult for A r m s t r o n g and Madison to refute h i m b y paying the claims. The matter therefore be­ came part of a larger negotiation over other Cherokee complaints at a meeting between the Cherokees and the Secretary of W a r i n W a s h i n g t o n i n 1816. The War Department proved as reluctant to admit that i t had promised to treat Cherokee volunteers on the same basis as w h i t e m i l i t i a as Jackson was to admit that his soldiers had done a n y t h i n g w r o n g . I t even declined to pay the $5,656 that Meigs had advanced to equip the Cherokee v o l ­ unteers w i t h a m m u n i t i o n and blankets. C l a i m i n g that Meigs had acted w i t h o u t express a u t h o r i t y , t h e y demanded that he pay the government back for the equipment out of the Cherokee a n n u i t y . Meigs again devoted considerable t i m e and effort to p r o v i n g that this was standard equipment given to all regular soldiers and that he was told that i f the governors of Tennessee and Georgia approved, the Cherokees w o u l d be admitted to the m i l i t i a at equal pay, rank, and pension. He had letters to prove i t . Over six hundred Cherokees, he said, had risked their lives, fought bravely, and i n the view of some "had saved the lives of 1000 m e n w h o must have been lost w i t h o u t their a i d . " N o w the government was d e n y i n g t h e m equal t r e a t m e n t . Meigs had insisted upon regular enlistment for the Cherokee volunteers because he t h o u g h t that o n l y i n this w a y could the savage be b r o u g h t under proper discipline and be subject to court m a r t i a l if he did not follow orders. Meigs had therefore kept careful records of enlistments, dates of service, killed, and wounded; w h e n he totaled i t up, he said that the W a r Department owed the Cherokees $55,423.84 i n sol­ dier's pay. He was particularly angry that widows and wounded were being denied b o t h pay and pensions. For three years the government quibbled about this u n t i l finally A n d r e w Jackson cut the k n o t i n July 1817 w i t h a letter to the Secretary of War. He explained that he had considered the Cherokees under his command to be of equal status w i t h the w h i t e m i l i t i a : " T h e y were to be considered i n every respect on the same footing w i t h the m i l i t i a and entitled to every benefit. . . . I made this promise. . . . I hope i t w i l l be complied w i t h . " I t is significant that at this t i m e Jackson was w o r k i n g desperately to persuade the Cherokees to cede more land or to exchange eastern land for western land. He could have ac38

3 9

3 8 3 9

Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, June 4,1.816, M-221, reel 64, #7130. Andrew Jackson to George Graham, July 9, 1817, M-221, reel 74, #5908.

197

THE CREEK WAR

knowledged the government's c o m m i t m e n t three years earlier, b u t he did so o n l y w h e n he wanted a quid pro quo from the Cherokees. I n the end the central issue i n this prolonged dispute over claims proved to be land, as always. The Cherokees wanted the President to prevent Jackson f r o m taking 2.2 m i l l i o n acres of their t e r r i t o r y i n his treaty w i t h the Creeks. To flout Jackson and the frontier voters of Tennessee and A l ­ abama was a decision neither the Secretary of W a r nor the President wished to make. Yet the Cherokees' claim that the land was theirs, backed by Meigs's t e s t i m o n y and irrefutable historical evidence, was too solid to ignore. Federal and state officials persuaded themselves that i f they did go so far as to accept their responsibility and treat the Cherokees honestly, then the least the Cherokees could do i n response was to express their gratitude b y ceding more land. The Treaty of Fort Jackson i n 1814 between Jackson and the Creeks had been extremely vague i n defining the boundary lines of the Creek cession i n Alabama that Jackson exacted for their " u n p r o v o k e d , i n h u m a n and sanguinary w a r " on the United States. I t had, however, defined an east­ ern and western boundary that Jackson clearly expected to extend n o r t h of the Tennessee River to the border of his home state. His view was that the Creeks had always owned the land up to the Tennessee River and that they had m e r e l y loaned a strip south of the river to D r a g g i n g Canoe and his Chickamauga warriors i n 1777. The Cherokees claimed that they had always owned the area extending fifty miles south of the Tennessee River as far west as the Chickasaw boundary at about the present border of the State of Mississippi. N o t o n l y had they had settlements there since 1777 w i t h o u t challenge from the Creeks, but i n the Treaty of W a s h i n g t o n i n 1806 the federal government had conceded their ownership of this south­ ern side of the Tennessee River below Muscle Shoals. Both Meigs and H a w k i n s agreed w i t h their claim. The Creeks, fearing that Jackson w o u l d take more land f r o m t h e m elsewhere i f they conceded that this area near the Tennessee River belonged to the Cherokees, refused to make any statement. 40

41

W h e n Secretary of W a r W i l l i a m Crawford agreed to discuss this mat­ ter as w e l l as their spoliation claims and the m i l i t a r y pay and pensions claims w i t h t h e m i n January 1816, the Cherokees sent some of their most experienced chiefs to W a s h i n g t o n ; Meigs accompanied t h e m w i t h the documentation for their positions on all three issues. The Cherokee N a ­ tional Council also asked the delegates to have the Secretary of W a r re­ move the intruders w h o were fast m o v i n g into this area on the assump4 0

ASP i , 826.

Return J. Meigs to Andrew Jackson, August 5,1815, M-208; September 17,1815, M 208; September 19, 1815, M-208; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 77-80. 4 1

198

THE

CREEK WAR

t i o n that i t w o u l d soon be surveyed and open for sale. I n addition, the Council stated that i t wished to make arrangements to develop the i r o n ore i n its t e r r i t o r y so that " w e m a y be supplied w i t h i r o n utensils and the repair of our a r m s . " The nation was preparing for the next step i n its economic development—the early stages of industrialization. K n o w i n g that the government w o u l d not grant all its requests, no matter h o w just, w i t h o u t asking for land i n r e t u r n , the Council agreed that the delegates m i g h t consider ceding a tract of 94,720 acres on its easternmost border i n western South Carolina. The legislature of South Carolina had twice called upon the federal government (in 1801 and 1814) to purchase this land f r o m the Cherokees so that the state could extinguish the last I n d i a n claims w i t h i n its borders. The Cherokees m u c h preferred y i e l d i n g this to losing the 2.2 m i l l o n acres i n the Lower T o w n area that the Treaty of Fort Jackson w o u l d take ; m u c h of the area Jackson wanted was rich blackbelt soil, suitable for g r o w i n g cotton. The delegation consisted of The Ridge, John Walker, John Ross, Richard Taylor, and Cheucunnessee (Young Dragging Canoe). 42

43

I n Washington, the public and press treated t h e m r o y a l l y as allies w h o had helped to defeat the Creeks w i t h Jackson. The National Intelligencer interviewed t h e m and noted that they were " m e n of c u l t i v a t i o n and u n ­ derstanding," w h o dressed as w h i t e men and whose "appearance and de­ p o r t m e n t are such as to entitled t h e m to respect and a t t e n t i o n . " T h e y were w i n e d and dined at several social gatherings and basked i n the g l o w of their acceptance as honored representatives of their people. 44

The meetings w i t h Madison and Crawford began on February 16,1816, and i t was apparent that the President and Secretary were impressed b y their a r g u m e n t s . Madison told t h e m on February 22 that he considered their claims for spoliation just and that he w o u l d see that pay and pen­ sions for their soldiers and soldiers' widows were provided. He did not t h i n k their plan for an i r o n w o r k s was adequately w o r k e d out, and this is­ sue was put aside. The whole question of h o w m u c h control Indians had over the m i n e r a l deposits o n their land was becoming more delicate as the various western states pushed the claim that Indians, as "tenants at w i l l , " 45

Cherokee Council's instructions to a delegation to Washington, D.C., January 10, 1816, M-221, reel 70, #2820. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 76-78. See also the resolution of the legisla­ ture of South Carolina, M-221, November 30, 1814, reel 60, #4149, and Governor David Williams of South Carolina to William Crawford, December 16, 1815, M-221, reel 72, #4325. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 88. John Lowery [Lowrey] to James Madison, February 19,1816, M-221, reel 70, # 2 8 1 4 2820; Cherokee delegation to William Crawford, March 12, 1816, M-271, reel 1, # 0 9 3 5 0939. Many of the documents relating to this treaty negotiation in Washington can be found in ASP II, 88-114. 42

43

44

45

199

THE CREEK W A R

had no r i g h t to exploit any of their natural resources.

46

W h e n they dis­

cussed their claim to the land south of the Tennessee River, the Cherokees were b l u n t i n p o i n t i n g out that Jackson, Coffee, and other Tennesseans had u l t e r i o r motives i n claiming that land : " T h e spirit of gain urges t h e m , the laurel of p o p u l a r i t y prompts t h e m " to "make crooked t a l k s " and " l i k e the serpent, speak w i t h a split t o n g u e . "

47

There was little doubt

that Jackson and his friends were heavily engaged i n speculation over the ceded land because i t was extremely valuable. " T h e Cherokee n a t i o n , " said the delegates, "expected n o t h i n g but justice" and hoped not " t o fall sacrifice to their [the speculators'] rapaciousness." Crawford was already annoyed that this area was filling up w i t h squatters, for i t was federal land ; he had expected the federal government to sell i t for a good price and recoup some of the war costs.

48

W h i l e the delegation was m a k i n g good headway i n Washington, Jack­ son and Coffee were stealing a march on t h e m back i n Alabama. Jackson persuaded Crawford i n November 1815 to make Coffee one of the com­ missioners for the Creek cessions. Coffee took i t upon himself ( w i t h Jack­ son's u r g i n g ) to survey ( w i t h some Creek advisors) the n o r t h e r n part of the cession even t h o u g h he well knew i t was being debated i n W a s h i n g ­ ton.

4 9

The line that Coffee ran i n January and February 1816 n a t u r a l l y

followed the wishes of Jackson, including w i t h i n the cession the 2.2 m i l ­ l i o n acres claimed by the Cherokees. Richard Riley, w h o lived near this area at Creek Path, wrote to the delegation on February 10,1816, i n f o r m ­ i n g t h e m that Coffee "insists very strongly that the line should strike the Tennessee at Deposit or D i t t o ' s Landing, taking a part of our nation that the Creeks never laid any colour of claim to whatever. 1 see V e r r y clearly that the w h i t e people i n this part of the country is not disposed to do jus­ tice to us." He also reported that "hundreds" of intruders had rushed i n t o this area as soon as they knew Coffee had surveyed i t , expecting to pick up land at the preemption price of $2 per acre that on the open marketw o u l d be w o r t h $20 per acre.

50

Coffee and Jackson had encouraged such

an invasion to make i t difficult for Madison and Crawford to sustain the Cherokees' claim to i t . To do this, the government w o u l d n o w have to remove these intruders at heavy costs i n a r m y action and voter reaction. Crawford sent orders to Coffee and the other commissioners to make no final decison on the n o r t h e r n line of the Creek cession u n t i l negotiatons Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 90-91. Ibid., p. 90. William Crawford to Benjamin Harrison, October 16, 1815, M-15, reel 3, p. 275. Michael Rogin, Fathers and Children, pp. 170-72; Cotterill, Southern Indians, p. 195. Richard Riley to Return J. Meigs, February 10, 1816, M-208; Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, April 20, 1816, M-208. 4 6

4 7 4 8

4 9

5 0

200

THE CREEK WAR

i n W a s h i n g t o n were completed, but this did not stop the squatters.

51

At

one p o i n t i n the negotiatons Crawford asked whether the Cherokees w o u l d be w i l l i n g to cede the land n o r t h of the Tennessee River that D o u ­ blehead was t r y i n g to sell w h e n he was assassinated, b u t the delegates said t h e y had no a u t h o r i t y to consider this. Finally, o n M a r c h 22, to the Cherokees' delight, the Secretary of W a r agreed to grant all of their demands (including their r i g h t to the 2.2 m i l ­ l i o n acres Jackson had expropriated) i n exchange for the 94,720 acres i n South Carolina (for w h i c h he paid t h e m $5,000) and for the rights of w a y for several roads and navigable streams t h r o u g h their n a t i o n .

52

The del­

egates said this treaty w o u l d have to be ratified by the N a t i o n a l Council, but t h e y had no doubt of its approval. Crawford then signed the treaty i n w h i c h the government acknowledged that Jackson had made a mistake; the Cherokee claim to the 2.2 m i l l i o n acres south of the Tennessee River was ceded back to t h e m . This treaty also agreed to pay the Cherokees $25,500 i n indemnities for "losses sustained b y t h e m i n consequences of the march of the [Tennessee] m i l i t i a " t h r o u g h their nation d u r i n g the war. Finally, M a d i s o n ordered full pay and pensions for their soldiers.

53

The negotiations were i n every respect a t r i u m p h for Meigs and for the Cherokee delegation. Crawford sent orders to the treaty commissioners to redraw the n o r t h e r n line of the Treaty of Fort Jackson.

54

The Cherokee t r i u m p h was short-lived. The w r a t h of the whole west­ ern region poured i n upon the President and Secretary of W a r once the contents of the treaty became k n o w n . General Jackson w r o t e i n exasper­ ation at the "retrocession" of land his troops had w o n w i t h their blood f r o m the Creeks. The Chickasaws said they were cheated out of some of their claims to the area. The citizens of Tennessee felt that the govern­ m e n t had been hoodwinked b y savages. The settlers i n the Alabama area (then part of Mississippi T e r r i t o r y ) were furious that this land w o u l d not be open for settlement, and of course the squatters fumed over their i m ­ m i n e n t ejection. I n additon, all the politicians and land speculators i n the area resented the loss of an immensely valuable piece of real estate that t h e y had t h o u g h t was i n their grasp. " T h e Government certainly has been imposed u p o n , " Jackson wrote to Crawford. He warned that i t w o u l d be impossible to remove the citizens w h o had already settled i n that area. T h e y are " m u c h enraged," Jackson said, and w o u l d fight rather than move out. " T h e m i l i t i a w i l l not answer for this service" because 51

52 53 5 4

William Crawford to John Coffee, March 14,1816, M-15, reel 3, p. 309. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 69-70. ASP II, 88-89, 109-110; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 69-70. William Crawford to John Coffee, April 16,1816, M-15, reel 3, p. 328.

201

THE CREEK W A R

" t h e i r feelings are the same as the settlers." Jackson also protested the insult to his troops implied i n the payment of indemnities to the Chero­ kees claims for spoliation and demanded that the whole issue be reopened before the Cherokees were paid a n y t h i n g . Memorials were sent to M a d ­ ison from citizens of Tennessee and Alabama: " W e cannot agree that i t is proper to sacrifice the convenience and welfare of so large a portion of the members of the c o m m u n i t y to gratify the cupidity of any t r i b e . " The "soil [is] fertile beyond description" and the Indians were wasting i t . " T h e Hero w h o has since immortalized h i m s e l f " at N e w Orleans had w o n this land for American settlement; the land was "propitious to the culture of C o t t o n " and was not only a matter of great "commercial ad­ vantage" but "identified w i t h our National G l o r y . " The westerners were convinced that short-sighted officials i n Washington were t r y i n g to negate the great v i c t o r y they had w o n for the commercial expansion of the U n i t e d States. They were not to be cheated out of the spoils of v i c t o r y by a few artful Cherokees w h o had imposed upon the gullible Madison and Crawford back east. 55

7

56

5 7

The President had miscalculated; the political repercussions were too strong. The Cherokees w o u l d have to make some concessions. T r y i n g to allay the anger of the westerners, Crawford wrote to Meigs on M a y 27 that he had authorized new negotiations w i t h the Cherokees. Then on July 5 Crawford wrote to Jackson: "The agent of the Cherokee nation [Meigs] has been directed to renew to that tribe the offer made to their deputation last w i n t e r to purchase their claim to the lands l y i n g west of the Chickasaw O l d Fields [near Creek Path], . . . He has also been d i ­ rected to effect the purchase of all the Cherokee lands l y i n g n o r t h of the Tennessee r i v e r . " This was the land that Madison and Crawford had just declared to be the legitimate property of the Cherokees. The treaty of 1816 was to be a Pyrrhic one. The Cherokees were n o w told that t h e y must yield all they had regained and more-—land n o r t h of the Tennessee as w e l l , t h o u g h this t i m e they w o u l d be paid for i t . The tract they had given up i n South Carolina i n M a y 1816 was a complete loss to t h e m . The government's position was that although i t had verified the Cherokee claim to the land Jackson took w i t h o u t recompense, it now wished to take it by paying for i t . The Cherokees did not want the money; they wanted their land. 58

Crawford told Meigs and the senators from Tennessee that the govern­ ment w o u l d offer "$6000 a year i n p e r p e t u i t y " for the tract south of the 55 5 6 5 7 5 8

ASP i i , 110-11, 114. ASP i i , 89-91. Petition of Leroy Pope et al., July 17, 1816, reel 71,#3678. ASP ii, 100-102, 112.

202

THE CREEK WAR

Tennessee and $20,000 for the 1.2 m i l l i o n Cherokee acres n o r t h of the Tennessee. He also provided Meigs w i t h extra funds " t o distribute pre­ sents among certain chiefs to the amount of $5000 and to John L o w r e y the value of his possessions n o r t h of the Tennessee [at Battle C r e e k ] . " L o w r e y indicated that i f he could be paid adequately for his h o l d i n g , he w o u l d not oppose a sale. Meigs, whose honor had been vindicated i n Washington, n o w felt free to put whatever pressure was needed on i n d i ­ vidual chiefs to secure more land for the U n i t e d States. He had good rea­ son to t h i n k that some of the chiefs i n this Lower T o w n area were ready to give i t up. N o t o n l y was i t heavily infested w i t h r o u g h and determined w h i t e intruders but this area had been the most heavily devastated b y the m i l i t i a depradations. The people there were discouraged. Clearly there w o u l d be no peace for t h e m even i f they tried to hang on. The war had unleashed raging hatred of the Indians and irresistible demands for I n ­ dian land—particularly land on w h i c h cotton could be g r o w n . N o Indian treaty could withstand this k i n d of public pressure. 59

Still the Cherokees tried. The National Council met on July 20, w h e n Meigs began d i s t r i b u t i n g the first installment of reparation payments for the m i l i t i a spoliations and the first part of their soldiers' pay for m i l i t a r y service. The Council heard the report of the delegation at W a s h i n g t o n and happily approved their treaty ( w i t h a proviso, later disallowed, that compensation be given to those Cherokees w h o had to move f r o m good farms i n South Carolina). Meigs and Crawford's treaty commissioners f r o m Tennessee then presented the requests of the President that the Council cede the 1.2 m i l l i o n acres the nation still owned n o r t h of the Ten­ nessee River as w e l l as the 2.2 m i l l i o n acres that had just been affirmed to it south of the Tennessee. As Meigs later w r o t e to C r a w f o r d : " I t was urged on t h e m that their d u t y to the Government, w h i c h had listened to t h e m w h i l e at the city b y their deputation, and b y the constant care of t h e m , required a compliance" w i t h these demands. Further, they were told that " t h e i r interest, perhaps their security, required i t (having ref­ erence to the agitation of the Citizens of West Tennesee)." Nevertheless, the council held f i r m . " A f t e r their slow and tedious deliberations," Meigs reported, " t h e y returned an answer i n the negative." Meigs considered this sheer ingratitude. " T h e i r insensibility to the advantage they received f r o m the l i b e r a l i t y of the g o v e r n m e n t " i n Washington was u n f o r g i v a ­ ble. 60

Meigs repeated i n a letter to Jackson on A u g u s t 6,1816, something he had said before the war: the Cherokees had developed " a n erroneous Idea 5 9 6 0

William Crawford to Return J. Meigs, May 27,1816, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, August 19,1816, ASP II, 113-14.

203

THE C R E E K WAR

of their Sovereignty and independence" but "this fictitious sovereignty was i n t i r e l y given up [by them] at the treaty of H o p e w e l l " i n 1785. I t was unfortunate, he added, that i n the treaty of 1791 at H o l s t o n "the words 'solemn guarantee' are used [for the borders] instead of the w o r d alotteà." The government had never meant to solemnly guarantee their bor­ der to t h e m , Meigs said. I t had o n l y meant to allot t h e m that land to live on as tenants at w i l l u n t i l the government had need of i t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , he said, the Cherokees had developed from this "guarantee" a n o t i o n that they could be "an empire w i t h i n an empire" i n w h i c h "each [nation, the Cherokees and the United States] having a veto on the other," there m i g h t never be any way to obtain their land or to remove t h e m . " T h e y were, at the close of the Revolution, a conquered people," Meigs went o n , " t h e i r lands were forfeited, and at the treaty of Hopewell they were con­ sidered as minors—and there is no way to save t h e m but by considering t h e m as i n a state of m i n o r i t y " and compelling t h e m to do what their guardians knew was best. As minors " t h e y are intitled to protection" by the federal government from invasion by frontier whites. As a so-called sovereign nation, they were not entitled to such protection; this " w o u l d soon seal their destruction." 61

From this viewpoint, n o w pervasive among western whites and close to approval i n the W a r Department, the old Indian policy of " c i v i l i z a t i o n " and integration in situ was almost over. It was now possible for the W a r Department to threaten the Cherokees or any other Indian nation w i t h the w i t h d r a w a l of federal protection—to leave t h e m to the mercy of the ruthless frontier citizens—in order to compel t h e m to agree to any treaty put before t h e m . Jefferson's statement that the Indian nations had the r i g h t to say yes or no to any treaty proposal was now to be described as a temporary expedient, adopted u n t i l potential European allies ceased to make the Indians a threat to the westward expansion of the w h i t e A m e r ­ ican population. "The United States have the r i g h t to make any arrange­ ments they t h i n k proper and just w i t h respect to their lands," Meigs n o w asserted, and " w h e n the United States propose to t h e m to make cession, they have not the r i g h t i n fact to put their veto on such propositions." 62

James Madison and his successor were not quite ready to accept this interpretation of Indian policy, but the various treaty commissioners (usually a r m y generals) from the western states w h o m the Executive branch invariably chose to negotiate w i t h the Indians fully believed i n i t and practiced i t . John Lowrey, John Walker, and the other chiefs i n the 61 62

Return J. Meigs to Andrew Jackson, August 6, 1816, M-208. Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, August 19,18.16, ASP II, 113-14.

204

THE CREEK WAR

Lower Towns saw this and were ready to break w i t h the nationalist fac­ t i o n that t h e y had t e m p o r a r i l y joined before the Creek W a r of 1813-1814. The second v i c t o r y of the U n i t e d States over the B r i t i s h had created a tremendous surge of self-confidence and nationalistic expansionism among w h i t e Americans. This received added force f r o m the cotton b o o m i n the southern states and the burgeoning n o r t h e r n textile i n d u s t r y . The Cherokees' desire to assert their o w n sovereignty (though, incon­ gruously, the result of the same shared v i c t o r y i n war) could h a r d l y stand long i n the face of the upsurge i n A m e r i c a n nationalism. This confron­ tation produced the second Cherokee removal crisis i n 1817. There seemed no way the Cherokees could hold their people together; too m a n y were ready to yield to the unrelenting pressure to drive t h e m across the Mississippi.

205

TEN

N A T I O N A L U N I T Y FALTERS, 1816-1817 Those [Cherokees] who choose to remain [in the east and become citi­ zens] where they now reside . . . [will] be considered as entitled to all the rights of a free citizen of color of the United States. -—Governor Joseph McMinn of Tennessee, October 25,1816 'he victory over the Creeks and the initial defeat of Jackson's plan to A cheat t h e m out of 2.2 m i l l i o n acres of their land i n 1816 should have given the Cherokees a renewed sense of self-assurance, but there were too m a n y negative contingencies. The War Department's reluctance to pay their soldiers and r e t u r n their land, coupled w i t h the obviously increasing animosity of westerners toward all Indians for Tecumseh's " b e t r a y a l " and the Creek War, indicated difficult times ahead. The depredations by Jackson's m i l i t i a and the tremendous number of w h i t e squatters on their land further weakened Cherokee confidence. M o s t devastating of all to their national spirit was the apparent willingness of m a n y Cherokees i n the Alabama area of the nation to emigrate west i n order to put as m u c h distance as possible between themselves and the aggressive w h i t e f r o n ­ tiersmen. The War Department did its best to aggravate this division w i t h i n the Cherokee people. There was little the more patriotic chiefs could do to allay the fears that, sooner or later, the whites w o u l d seize all of their land. The second Cherokee removal crisis arose from the determination of Jackson and the southeastern states to force further cessions of land f r o m all of the Indians i n the region. The expansionist mood of w h i t e America promoted the notion that the west should now be f u l l y open for w h i t e settlement. The failure of the Indians to keep the peace i n the Mississippi Valley ended what little support westerners had ever given to the policy of civilizing t h e m there and then incorporating t h e m as equal citizens. Clearly the Indians were not to be trusted; "once a savage always a sav­ age." Furthermore, i t seemed unlikely that the Indians w o u l d ever make the most of the rich soil and resources of the trans-Appalachian region. To wait for t h e m to develop it w o u l d be to hold back the manifest destiny 206

UNITY

FALTERS

of the U n i t e d States to become one of the most powerful nations i n the w o r l d . C o t t o n manufacturing was t h r i v i n g ; b o t h N e w and O l d England were eager to b u y more raw cotton. The price of cotton had doubled i n the years 1814—1816. The first land taken f r o m the Creeks i n these years was soon selling for t w e n t y to f o r t y dollars an acre and there were m i l ­ lions of acres of black-belt land still i n Indian possession. A n d r e w Jackson, himself a large speculator i n this land, was deter­ m i n e d to use the power and prestige of his victories to free the South of Indians. As a citizen of Tennessee, he was particularly concerned to r i d his home state of Cherokees and Chickasaws. I f Jackson could obtain the removal of these tribes, other westerners w o u l d then be able to remove the Creeks and Choctaws w h o held even more valuable cotton land to the south and west. W h i t e settlers n o r t h of the O h i o River felt the same about r e m o v i n g the Indians i n the N o r t h w e s t f r o m land that w o u l d soon make that region the corn, wheat, and hog center of the nation. To overcome the reluctance of some easterners w h o had accepted the sentimental view that Indians were the equal of whites and could be civ­ ilized and Christianized i n short order, the westerners, led b y m e n like Jackson and Joseph M c M i n n , Governor of Tennessee, proposed to r e i n vigorate Jefferson's alternative program of removal and exchange of lands. This plan was offered as a benevolent solution to a difficult prob­ lem. Regrettably, these westerners argued, the simple children of the for­ est were taking m u c h longer to acculturate than anyone had o r i g i n a l l y expected. The pressure of western settlements east of the Mississippi, ag­ gravated b y certain r o u g h and u n r u l y types of frontiersmen w h o har­ assed and cheated the Indians, was m a k i n g life intolerable for t h e m . M a n y of the "real Indians" still clung to the ways of their ancestors and preferred to be hunters. Missionaries were as yet too few and had not been able to educate and convert m a n y of t h e m . W o u l d i t not be best, then, to give t h e m land west of the Mississippi, rich i n game and as yet unsettled b y whites, i n exchange for the land that t h e y n o w made too l i t ­ tle use of? I f the government and missionaries promised to carry t h e i r fostering aid west and continue there the original policy of enlightenment under quieter circumstances, w o u l d not this be best for the Indians and best for the rapidly expanding population of w h i t e Americans eager to settle and exploit the riches of the Mississippi Valley? I m p l e m e n t a t i o n of this new removal and exchange p r o g r a m for the I n ­ dians east of the Mississippi w o u l d entail a certain amount of sophistry w i t h regard to promises made i n previous Indian treaties, particularly i f some tribes preferred to remain where they were. I t w o u l d also require strong efforts to overcome scruples concerning the rights of Indians and the assumption that t h e y should not be moved against their w i l l . Fur207

U N I T Y

FALTERS

thermore, generous appropriations w o u l d have to be made by Congress f r o m the taxpayers' money i n order to " i n d u c e " the Indians to cede their land and also to pay for their transportation west. Exactly where the I n ­ dians were to be placed w h e n they got to "the w e s t " was to be left to the W a r Department; the lands on which they w o u l d be settled w o u l d be fed­ eral land and, presumably, unoccupied—except by a few other w i l d tribes. I n some cases, treaties and payments m i g h t have to be made to these western tribes to induce t h e m to share their t e r r i t o r y w i t h the east­ ern i m m i g r a n t s . But few w h i t e westerners doubted that these obstacles could be overcome or that the plan was absolutely essential to the prog­ ress and welfare of the United States. W h i t e America seemed convinced that God and natural law had ordained from the beginning that European settlers i n the N e w W o r l d , especially those of Anglo-Saxon or Nordic stock, should extend their d o m i n i o n over the continent f r o m coast to coast. Jackson and M c M i n n , ably assisted by Meigs, were i n an excellent po­ sition to inaugurate this new program and the Cherokees were the logical group w i t h which to begin. Jackson was convinced that the W a r Depart­ ment had made a great mistake i n r e t u r n i n g to the Cherokees the land he had taken i n the Treaty of Fort Jackson. M o s t westerners agreed w i t h h i m . B y invading and b u i l d i n g cabins on this land, they were p r o v i d i n g Jackson w i t h the argument that o n l y by firing on w h i t e veterans of the war could the federal government force t h e m to leave an area for which they felt they had fought the Creeks. A t the same t i m e , Jackson was able to argue w i t h the Cherokees i n the area that they could no longer hold on to i t under any circumstances; thus it w o u l d be wiser for t h e m to sell i t at a good price and move to a new tract in Arkansas (where their brethren were already living) that the government w o u l d survey and cede to t h e m forever. Because the tract i n n o r t h e r n Alabama (which became a t e r r i t o r y i n 1817 and a state i n 1819) constituted about half of the area of the Cher­ okee Lower T o w n region, where m a n y chiefs had been discontented ever since Doublehead's assassination and the rise of the y o u n g chiefs to d o m ­ inance, Jackson found i t easier to make his argument here than else­ where. H e did his best to cajole, bribe, and threaten the Cherokees i n A l ­ abama to secede f r o m their nation and go west. M c M i n n , an ardent frontier governor, eager to free his state from all Indians, allied himself closely w i t h Jackson and Meigs to find arguments that w o u l d persuade Congress to allocate the money needed for the new program. Meigs knew the Cherokees better than anyone and had spent over fifteen years maneuvering w i t h federal officials on Indian affairs. For over a decade he had been convinced that removal and exchange was the best answer to "the Indian p r o b l e m " and he welcomed the o p p o r t u n i t y to 208

UNITY

FALTERS

have powerful allies i n the western Congressional delegations to help h i m i m p l e m e n t i t . W h i l e Jackson worked on the Lower T o w n chiefs to split the Cherokees f r o m w i t h i n , M c M i n n and Meigs began to u n i t e western policymakers i n Congress for another effort at massive removal of the I n ­ dians. One other i m p o r t a n t ingredient was part of the shift i n Indian policy i n the postwar years: the unsettled position of those Cherokees w h o had a l ­ ready gone west. M a n y of these had gone on the basis of Meigs's promise that Jefferson w o u l d grant t h e m a secure tract of land i n exchange for the areas t h e y left behind, a promise that had never been kept. M e a n w h i l e the n u m b e r of Cherokees settled along the upper Arkansas River had g r o w n to 1,500 or more. Jackson, M c M i n n , and Meigs planned to use these western Cherokees and Jefferson's message of January 1809 as the basis for their argument for removal i n three ways : first, t h e y could plead that the government should keep Jefferson's and Meigs's promises, real or i m p l i e d , w h i c h had so far not been kept w i t h those w h o had removed i n 1809-1810; second, t h e y could note that because both the whites i n Arkansas and the other Indian tribes there needed to k n o w precisely w h a t land the Cherokees had for their use, some survey and grant of Arkansas land was needed; and t h i r d , they explained to the eastern Cherokees that t h e y had some obligation to assist their struggling western brethren by ceding sufficient land to enable the government to grant an equivalent tract i n Arkansas. Thus a successful war, the rise of the C o t t o n K i n g d o m , the rapid g r o w t h of industrialization, and the sentiments of romantic (and racist) nationalism combined w i t h historical precedents and expediency to i n ­ augurate a major revision of A m e r i c a n Indian policy. I n this sense, Jack­ son was the right m a n i n the r i g h t place. He took full advantage of the circumstances that provided h i m w i t h the power and prestige to act. The first step i n the process of dividing the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the east took place i n September 1816 at the Chickasaw council house i n n o r t h ­ eastern Mississippi. Jackson had come to negotiate a land cession f r o m the Chickasaws and the Cherokees had sent a delegation to make certain that the Chickasaws did not cede any land claimed b y the Cherokees. M o s t of the Cherokee delegates were f r o m the Lower Towns because t h e y were best acquainted w i t h the area Jackson wanted. Jackson took advantage of the occasion to persuade the fifteen Cherokee delegates that t h e y should cede back to the United States (at a fair price) the area that M a d i s o n and Crawford had just returned to t h e m . Jackson had told M c M i n n i n M a y 1816 that the Cherokees "are inclined, and as I believe w i l l , s h o r t l y tender to the U n i t e d States their whole t e r r i t o r y where t h e y n o w live for lands

209

UNITY

FALTERS

west of the M i s s i s s i p p i . " He seems to have gained this impression f r o m 1

talking to some of the Lower T o w n chiefs (probably Toochelar, Richard B r o w n , The Glass, Dick Justice, John Lowrey, John Walker, and George Guess) w h o were convinced that the intruders i n their area w o u l d never be r e m o v e d . Jackson also seemed to t h i n k that Pathkiller and The Ridge 2

(now M a j o r Ridge) m i g h t be persuaded to support removal. However, he had little respect for most of these chiefs w h o m he characterized as " h a l f breeds." Jackson considered himself the friend of "the real Indians"—the c o m m o n people. He had told his friend Coffee to sound out Lowrey, B r o w n , Pathkiller, and Ridge d u r i n g the summer of 1816 regarding the retrocession of the 2.2 m i l l i o n acres i n n o r t h e r n Alabama: " T h e y knew they never had any rights [to that area] and they w i l l be glad, as I believe, to swindle the U . States out of a few thousand dollars to b u r y their claim, w h i c h t h e y know, i f persisted i n m i g h t b u r y t h e m and their n a t i o n .

3

B y a combination of threats and bribes, Jackson persuaded the fifteen delegates to the Chickasaw council to overstep their assignment and sign an agreement (Jackson called i t a treaty) to cede back the 2.2 m i l l i o n acres. Because the Cherokee Council had expressly forbidden these delegates to sign any treaty, the signers told Jackson that their signatures on the " t r e a t y " meant n o t h i n g unless the full council later ratified i t . " I n con­ cluding the treaty w i t h the Cherokees" (at the Chickasaw council), Jack­ son told the W a r Department on September 20, " i t was found b o t h wise and politic to make a few presents to the chiefs and interpreters." O f course, he added, "secrecy was enjoined as to the names [of those bribed]. Secrecy is necessary or the influence of the chiefs w o u l d be destroyed, w h i c h has been, and m a y be useful on a future occasion." I n this treaty 4

the government agreed to pay the Cherokees $60,000 (or less than 3 cents per acre) for the l a n d . The delegates w h o signed were Toochelar, O o h u 5

looke, Wasosey, Ganoa

(The Gourd), Spring Frog, Oowatata, John

Benge, John Baldrige, The Bark, George Guess (Sequoyah), A r c h Camp­ bell, The Spirit, Young Wolf, and Ooliteskee. T h e y later excused their ac­ tions to the Cherokee National Council at Turkey t o w n on September 28 b y saying that Jackson had told t h e m that the Cherokees w o u l d lose all 115. 110, 114. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 94. ASP II, 92,104-105; Cotterill, Southern Indians, pp. 199-202; Wilkins, Cherokee Trag­ edy, pp. 94-95. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 81-83; ASP II, 92. The Cherokee Nation noted that previously, in the spring of 1816, Crawford had offered them an annuity of $6,000 " i n perpetuity" for this tract; now Jackson had cut the offer to 160,000 in ten installments. See Going Snake and Cherokee delegation to John Calhoun, November 22,1817, M-271, reel 2, #0014. 1

2

ASP II, ASP i i ,

3

4

5

210

UNITY

FALTERS

their land n o r t h and south of the Tennessee River i f they did not cede this region to the south of it. T h e y also pleaded that t h e y had held out against Jackson's effort to obtain other large tracts i n Tennessee, N o r t h Carolina, and Georgia. I f the N a t i o n a l Council did not agree to ratify w h a t t h e y had signed, they said, i t had o n l y to take no action d u r i n g the negotiations that Jackson was to h o l d w i t h the Cherokees at T u r k e y t o w n i n October. The Council expressed intense anger toward its delegates for a l l o w i n g themselves to be browbeaten i n t o this agreement, w h i c h i t took no official action to ratify. However, Jackson was not to be denied w h e n he got to T u r k e y t o w n . Late i n the evening of October 4, after Jackson had made no headway w i t h the Cherokee Council and i t had adjourned for the day, he met w i t h eight of the old chiefs and persuaded t h e m to sign a statement saying that they, acting for the Council, had ratified w h a t its delegates had agreed to earlier on September 28 at the Chickasaw council house. Under their signatures (which were added below those of the fifteen del­ egates to the Chickasaw conference) Jackson wrote i n his o w n hand, "and ratified at T u r k e y T o w n b y the whole n a t i o n . " The eight w h o signed away these 2.2 m i l l i o n acres on October 4 were The Glass, Sour M u s h , C h u l i o , Dick Justice, Richard B r o w n , The Bark, The Boot, and P a t h k i l l e r . 6

7

W h e n the rest of the chiefs learned what had happened, they i m m e d i ­ ately w r o t e to the Secretary of W a r protesting that this treaty was not the w o r k of the whole nation but o n l y "the m i n o r i t y of our n a t i o n . " The War Department was i n no m o o d to repudiate Jackson a second t i m e . The Senate ratified the treaty and the westerners expressed great satisfaction that Jackson had preserved for t h e m this valuable tract of land that t h e y had w o n b y their guns and that Crawford and M a d i s o n had almost let go. Governor M c M i n n w r o t e : " T h e possession of that c o u n t r y w i l l enable not o n l y the citizens of Tennessee but also those of the western counties of V i r g i n i a to find a market for their surplus produce and domestic m a n ­ ufactures i n f i n i t e l y nearer home than any other w h i c h has been or ever w i l l be discovered." But M c M i n n was unhappy that Jackson had not ob­ tained i n this treaty a single acre of Cherokee land i n Tennessee. The treaty o n l y concerned land south of the Tennessee River, i n Alabama. Jackson, however, had n o w talked w i t h enough chiefs f r o m the Lower Towns to realize that some of t h e m were ready to move west and that t h e y w o u l d sell the land n o r t h of the Tennessee River (claimed to belong to the Lower Towns) i f t h e y could arrange i t . Jackson reported to Craw8

9

See the copy of the treaty, September 14,1816, M-668, reel 4, #0201. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 82. The original protest is missing but it is restated in a letter from Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, December 16,1818, M-208. ASP 11,115-16. 6

7

8

9

211

U N I T Y FALTERS

ford on October 18 that "a [Cherokee] council is to be held s h o r t l y at W i l l s t o w n , probably to select persons to explore" the area of Arkansas; "as soon as that is done, a delegation w i l l be sent to the President to effect the exchange" of eastern Cherokee land for a western t r a c t . The i m p l i ­ cation was that the Lower T o w n chiefs w o u l d carry out this plan regard­ less of the w i l l of the rest of the Cherokee N a t i o n . Jackson, M c M i n n , and Meigs seem to have convinced themselves that most of the " r e a l " Cher­ okees (the full-blood m a j o r i t y ) could be persuaded to move once the hold of "the halfbreds" over t h e m was broken. Nevertheless, all the evidence indicates that o n l y a very small part of the nation, located o n l y i n the Lower T o w n region, was ever i n favor of this action. 10

W i t h i n three weeks after Jackson had regained the tract i n n o r t h e r n A l ­ abama, M c M i n n and Meigs began their efforts to persuade Crawford to ask Congress for an appropriation to promote removal and exchange b y the Cherokees. M c M i n n wrote to Crawford on October 25, taking the l i b ­ erty of "suggesting to y o u r honor the propriety of renewing to the Cher­ okees a proposition made to t h e m d u r i n g the administration of M r . Jef­ f e r s o n . " That proposition, as M c M i n n chose to interpret i t , was to tell the Cherokees that they had t w o alternatives : removal or detribalization and state citizenship. He explained how he t h o u g h t this proposition should be made: 11

Each able-bodied Cherokee embracing the plan [of removal] shall be furnished at some suitable point west of the Mississippi with a good new rifle gun, some pow­ der, lead, &c., and allot to those who choose to remain where they now reside, say 640 or 1000 acres of land to each family, to them, their heirs, &c. during their continuance thereon, and each Cherokee Indian thus settled to be considered as entitled to all the rights of a free citizen of color of the United States, to be subject to the payment of taxes for their lands, polls, & c . 12

That is to say, a Cherokee w h o agreed to remove w o u l d s i m p l y be given a g u n and sent to Arkansas; a Cherokee w h o did not w o u l d obtain the tract on w h i c h he had his farm and become a second-class citizen of whichever state his farm happened to be located i n . Thereafter, there w o u l d be no Cherokee N a t i o n i n the east. The o n l y nation that w o u l d re­ m a i n w o u l d be those w h o had moved to Arkansas on a tract more or less proportionate i n size to the percentage of Cherokees w h o emigrated. In most southern states, "free people of color" had almost no rights beyond h o l d i n g the land they paid taxes on. They could not vote, hold office, serve i n the m i l i t i a , or testify i n court against a w h i t e m a n ; they 10

11

12

ASP i i , 107-108. ASP II, 115.

Ibid.

212

UNITY

FALTERS

could not m a r r y whites or send their children to public schools. T h e y were a separate and distinct caste. This was hardly the k i n d of citizenship for acculturated Indians that W a s h i n g t o n and K n o x had envisioned under the original Indian policy. Furthermore, to say that they could h o l d t h e i r homesteads o n l y as long as t h e y continued to live on i t implied that t h e y did not really have the right to sell i t and b u y other land. M c M i n n seemed to say that each Cherokee f a m i l y that declined to go west w o u l d be for­ ever rooted i n that spot; its o n l y other option w o u l d be to give up the land to the state and move to Cherokee land i n Arkansas. Meigs does not seem to have ever adopted M c M i n n ' s position that I n ­ dian citizens should be treated as "free persons of color." I n fact, i n A p r i l Meigs had congratulated Crawford on his report to Congress i n w h i c h he seemed to argue that Indians w o u l d make better citizens i n the long r u n t h a n most of the new i m m i g r a n t s f r o m Europe. Crawford had t o l d C o n ­ gress i n M a r c h 1816 that he intended to carry on the original Indian ac­ culturation policy, to provide "a judicious s u p p l y " of articles to make the Indians i n t o farmers, to " l e t intermarriages between t h e m and the whites be encouraged," and to look forward to their full " e n j o y m e n t of civil l i b ­ erty and social happiness" once they were incorporated into the republic as civilized men. " I t w i l l redound more to the national honor," Crawford t o l d Congress, " t o incorporate by a humane and benevolent policy, the natives of our forests i n the great A m e r i c a n f a m i l y of freemen t h a n to receive w i t h open arms the fugitives of the old w o r l d whether t h e i r flight has been the effect of their crimes or their v i r t u e s . " 13

W h e n Meigs read this he responded enthusiastically. He deplored the fact that "the great number of people w h o compose our population have, I t h i n k , illiberal, and m a n y of t h e m , v e r y contemptible and barbarous ideas i n relations to all Indians." Such people believe that " t h e y should never be m e n " and that " t h e y m a y be subjects but not citizens." Meigs disagreed. He applauded the policy of "intermarriage w i t h our citizens" and believed that " i n t i m e , by such a measure, the shades of complexion w i l l be obliterated and not a drop of h u m a n blood be l o s t . " Like Jefferson, he admired the Indians, "whose physical and intellectual power are equal to those of any other people i n the same l a t i t u d e . " He had no doubt that " w i t h i n a short t i m e we m a y incorporate t h e m and identify t h e m as A m e r i c a n citizens." " N a t u r e has been liberal towards t h e m i n their p h y s ­ ical and intellectual forms and capacities, and we have no r i g h t to conclude that she has been niggardly t o w a r d t h e m i n a n y t h i n g that can prevent their a r r i v i n g at the same elevation" as "other h u m a n b e i n g s . " 14

13 14

ASP i i , 26-28. Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, April 14,1816, M-221, reel 70, #3110.

213

UNITY FALTERS

But at the same t i m e Meigs could not help agreeing w i t h M c M i n n and Jackson that the task of " e l e v a t i n g " the Indians was taking longer than o r i g i n a l l y expected—-a situation he blamed on the " b a c k w a r d " full bloods. Consequently, late i n 1816, Meigs w i l l i n g l y t h r e w his w e i g h t be­ h i n d M c M i n n ' s plan for removal and exchange. He wrote a long letter to Crawford on November 8 p o i n t i n g out the importance of careful planning and adequate funding to transport thirteen thousand Cherokees six hundred miles to a new home i n Arkansas. " T h e y w i l l require a consid­ erable number of boats to move their families of old m e n and y o u n g c h i l ­ dren and such articles for housekeeping as are necessary for t h e m . The [able-bodied] m e n w i l l principally go w i t h their livestock by land. . . . The whole expense of m o v i n g " w o u l d require a large appropriation b y Congress. However, that sum "is o n l y a feather contrasted w i t h the great advantages to be derived to the United States by the exchange. . . . W e shall gain eleven or twelve m i l l i o n acres of land. . . . Georgia w i l l be made immensely rich. . . . Tennessee w i l l acquire a v e r y great addition to her wealth, and the United States w i l l have a valuable tract for sale" i n the Alabama r e g i o n . 15

I n this same letter he offered a model of the k i n d of treaty he hoped to see emerge f r o m negotiations. I t included the granting of special " r e ­ serves" and citizenship to those w h o did not want to move, but o n l y i f they seemed capable of managing their o w n affairs as citizens. He ex­ pected those on such reserves to be treated as full citizens and not as free people of color. Those w h o did choose to emigrate w o u l d want far more t h a n the gun and a m m u n i t i o n that M c M i n n offered. For example, they m i g h t want reimbursement for improvements left behind as w e l l as gov­ ernment assistance after they arrived i n Arkansas " f o r the encourage­ ment of agriculture, domestic manufactures" and so forth. Meigs sug­ gested that Congress appropriate at least $20,000 for such economic aid and also funds to supply t h e m w i t h blacksmiths, an armorer, an agent, a factor, an a r m y garrison, a trading post, and assistance for mission schools. He told Crawford he had talked w i t h M c M i n n about all this and had agreed that negotiations for a removal treaty could go more s m o o t h l y if the Council could be persuaded to send a delegation to Washington w i t h power to w o r k out the details. He was convinced that there w o u l d be strong opposition f r o m the " u n e n l i g h t e n e d " members of the tribe. As rumors began to circulate i n the Cherokee N a t i o n that some chiefs were contemplating removal and exchange, protests were sent to Meigs. A council held at Tuskquittee T o w n by the Valley T o w n chiefs of N o r t h Carolina early i n December sent Meigs a message saying that the people 15

Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, November 8, 1816, M-208.

214

UNITY

FALTERS

i n that area " w i s h still to live where they are [for] m a n y ages or genera­ tions. The Great Spirit is above us all. . . . We want the ancient lines yet to stand. . . . We do not want to go towards the setting sun. W e w a n t to remain t o w a r d the rising s u n . " O n December 18 he received a p e t i t i o n signed b y "the heads of all the up[p]er t o w n s " stating " w e are jealous [suspicious] that the lower towns wishes to sell all our land A w a y and we m i g h t k n o w n o t h i n g about i t . " They said they supported the position of the Valley T o w n chiefs and wished to be notified of any discussion t a k i n g place w i t h the Lower Towns concerning r e m o v a l . O t h e r chiefs of b o t h regions asked Meigs to i n f o r m the President that t h e y were determined to remain on their ancestral land. 16

17

Signs of opposition, however, did not bother M c M i n n and Meigs any more t h a n they did Jackson. O n December 25, the western Senators, i n ­ stigated b y politicians i n Tennessee, introduced i n the Senate a resolution requesting the Secretary of War " t o inquire i n t o the expediency of au­ t h o r i z i n g , b y law, an exchange of t e r r i t o r y w i t h any of the I n d i a n t r i b e s . " This was referred to the Committee on Public Lands for consid­ eration. That committee reported on January 9, 1817, that the treatym a k i n g power itself was not sufficient a u t h o r i t y for a President to ex­ change public land i n one area for federal land i n another area. However, the committee discovered that i n 1804 "a former Congress did b y law au­ thorize the President to stipulate w i t h the Indian tribes residing east of the Mississippi for an exchange of lands the property of the U n i t e d States on the west side of that r i v e r . " This had been done at Jefferson's request after the Louisiana Purchase, but n o t h i n g had come of i t . Even so, " t h a t law remains i n force"; hence there was no need to provide further legal authorization. A l l that was needed was a law to create " a n appropriation of such sum of m o n e y as w i l l enable the President to carry i n t o effect the provisions of the former law and f o r m treaties w i t h the other tribes for that purpose." The committee then recommended such an appropriation and the pursuance of such treaties. 18

19

The westerners were delighted. T w o weeks later M c M i n n w r o t e to tell Meigs that the western Congressmen had introduced a b i l l to " g i v e the President power and m o n e y to open and hold Treaties for an exchange of land w i t h any of the Southern t r i b e s . " M c M i n n thanked Meigs for his suggestions o n h o w best to draft such treaties and for his suggestions on p r o m o t i n g emigration. He did not discuss the status of those Cherokees 20

16 17 18 19 20

Valley Towns chiefs to Return J. Meigs, December 18,1816, M-208. Upper Town chiefs to Return J. Meigs, December 18,1816, M-208. ASP n, 123-24. Ibid. Joseph M c M i n n to Return J. Meigs, January 29,1817, M-208.

215

U N I T Y

F A L T E R S

who m i g h t choose citizenship; i n any case, that was a matter not for the federal government but for each state to decide. Early i n January 1817 Meigs met secretly at the agency at Hiwassee w i t h some of the Lower T o w n chiefs. Toochelar was there. He was Second Principal Chief of the nation now, under Pathkiller. He told Meigs that the Upper T o w n chiefs were well aware of his determination " t o go to A r ­ kansas." T h e y had told h i m also that i f he persisted i n this effort, they w o u l d remove h i m f r o m his office. Soon after this, a group of Cherokee w o m e n i n the Georgia area of the nation began circulating a petition to present to the Council, protesting that as mothers of the warriors and the chiefs they were "against an exchange of c o u n t r y " because of "the hard­ ships and sufferings to w h i c h i t is apprehended the w o m e n and children w i l l be exposed by a r e m o v a l . " W h i l e the appropriation bill was w o r k i n g its w a y t h r o u g h Congress i n January and February, Pathkiller called a National Council at Big Spring, Georgia, on February 18, to discuss a request from Madison that the Cherokees consider ceding all of their remaining land i n N o r t h Carolina. The Council wrote a m e m o r i a l stating that o n l y four months ago they had given up all their land south of the Tennessee River "and n o w the state of N o r t h Carolina wants to take all the land i n her charter l i m i t s and the states of Georgia and Tennessee w i l l want to take their l i m i t s too, and if they all get [their desires] we shall then have no lands for our people to live and raise their stocks o n " or " t o Raise our C h i l d r e n " on. The Cher­ okees wished to make their position v e r y clear: " [ W e ] do not w i s h to part w i t h any more lands." Someone, they said, must have been m i s i n f o r m ­ ing the President about this. Probably "designing m e n , " land speculators, and some " o f our w h i t e brothers on the frontiers." Perhaps there were some of " o u r Idle people w i s h i n g to go over the Mississippi, but the body of the Cherokee nation wishes to remain on the land on w h i c h t h e y were raised." The Council then expressed its strong objection to Meigs's effort i n January to meet w i t h a few handpicked chiefs at the agency to suggest to t h e m "the terms on which the United States w o u l d exchange w i t h us the lands here for that over the mississippi." Such a plan had "been given our people nine years [ago] i n Double Head's t i m e " ; i t was rejected then and i t was not wanted n o w . 21

22

23

A t this point the Arkansas Cherokees were brought into the picture by instructions from Meigs that they should send a delegation of those w h o owned land on Doublehead's reserve at Muscle Shoals so that General Toochelar to Return J. Meigs, January 9,1817, M-208. Brainerd Journal, February 13,1817, ABCFM. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs conveying the message of Pathkiller and the council at Big Spring, February 18,1817, M-208. 21

22 23

216

UNITY

FALTERS

Jackson could offer t h e m "a reasonable price" for i t , because the govern­ m e n t wished to extinguish all such reserves. W h e n this delegation ar­ rived at Hiwassee i n A p r i l i t was used to apply pressure on the eastern Cherokees. As Meigs knew they w o u l d , the western Cherokees t o l d the eastern members of the tribe of their desperate need for a tract of land i n Arkansas that w o u l d protect t h e m f r o m w h i t e intruders as w e l l as f r o m the warriors of the Osages and Quapaws, w h o considered t h e m wander­ ing intruders. Thomas N u t t a l l , an A m e r i c a n naturalist w h o visited the Cherokee set­ tlement on the Arkansas River i n 1819, provided a g l o w i n g account: 24

Both banks of the river, as we proceeded, were lined with the houses and farms of the Cherokee, and though their dress was a mixture of indigenous and European taste, yet in their houses, which are decently furnished, and in their farms, which are well fenced and stocked with cattle, we perceive a happy approach toward civ­ ilization. Their numerous families, also, well-fed and clothed, argue a propitious progress in their population. Their superior industry either as hunters or farmers proves the value of property among them, and they are no longer strangers to avarice and the distinctions created by wealth. Some of them are possessed of property to the amount of many thousands of dollars, have houses handsomely and conveniently furnished, and their tables spread with our dainties and luxu­ ries. 25

Tolluntuskee and other chiefs w h o had arrived i n Arkansas i n 1810 con­ sidered themselves far superior i n manners and life style to the "savage" and "barbarous" Osages and Quapaws w h o were indigenous to that re­ gion. T h e y spoke of t h e m as "rude, u n c u l t i v a t e d " and " c h i l d i s h , " " w i l d I n d i a n s . " I n part the difference was the progress the Cherokees had made i n acculturation; i n part i t was the i n t e r m a r r i e d whites (like John D . C h i s h o l m ) or those of m i x e d ancestry (like Walter Webber), w h o set the style for the Arkansas settlement. For the full bloods, however, the western settlements were a haven where they could b r i n g up their c h i l ­ dren i n a more stable, conservative t r a d i t i o n , teaching their sons the arts of h u n t i n g and of war. 26

Yet the life of the western Cherokees was far f r o m i d y l l i c , w h i c h was w h y more did not j o i n t h e m and m a n y returned east. W a r w i t h the Osages and Quapaws was a constant problem and often the western Cher­ okees called upon their eastern brothers to come and help t h e m fight, for Return J. Meigs to William S. Lovely, March 6, 1817, M-208. Lovely, who had been assistant to Meigs, was sent to Arkansas in 1813 to act as agent for the Cherokees who had emigrated to Arkansas Territory. Mooney, Historical Sketch, p. 133. Tolluntuskee to Return J. Meigs, June 28, 1812, M-211, reel 47, #2012. Tolluntuskee was one of the chiefs of the Western Cherokees. 24

25

26

217

UNITY

FALTERS

t h e y were outnumbered. Cherokee h u n t i n g parties were constantly u n ­ der threat of attack and large-scale warfare occurred i n 1 8 0 5 - 1 8 0 7 , 1 8 1 2 1813, and 1816-1818, i n which no quarter was given on either side. There were no a r m y garrisons to intervene and the Cherokees had no legitimate treaty boundaries to call their o w n . They were there o n l y as long as they could defend themselves. They also had no government factories to which they could sell their furs and skins or f r o m which they could obtain reliable guns, hoes, knives, a m m u n i t i o n , spinning wheels, or looms at fair prices. They were at the mercy of unscrupulous traders w h o paid t h e m far too little for their catch and overcharged t h e m for the manufactured goods they needed. Meigs always felt g u i l t y over his failure to carry out the promises he had made to t h e m w h e n they left after 1809. He tried i n 1811 and 1812 to send t h e m part of the Cherokee a n n u i t y so that they w o u l d have some capital to make a beginning as farmers. But after 1812 the eastern Cher­ okees prevented this. They wanted no assistance given to those w h o had deserted the motherland and n o t h i n g done to encourage others to make similar arrangements. W h e n the War of 1812 began, Meigs persuaded the federal government to send his assistant agent, Major Lovely, to live among the Arkansas Cherokees, but apart from his good advice, Lovely brought t h e m no other benefits. His job was to keep the War Department informed of their friendly or unfriendly disposition and happily for the Cherokees he reported that they had no desire to j o i n w i t h Tecumseh and the British. Lovely's reports, however, were a major source for the effort to revive Meigs's plan for removal and exchange. Like Meigs, Lovely believed the emigrants had been treated u n f a i r l y by their brethren and by the govern­ ment. W h e n the war was over, his pleas for assistance to these deserving Cherokees struck a responsive chord i n the minds of Jackson and his west­ ern friends. " T h e worst b a n d i t t i " from among the whites, Lovely w r o t e in 1813, "have made their escape to this C o u n t r y , g u i l t y of the most hor­ r i d crimes, and n o w depredating on the Osages and other tribes, taking often 30 horses at a t i m e . " The land was good, "the most valuable as to soil and valuable m i n e r a l s " i n the whole Louisiana Purchase, he t h o u g h t , and " I never saw such quantitys of the v e r y best k i n d of furs, dressed deer skins, bear skins etc." as the Cherokee hunters were able to obtain; " b u t these poor fellows get little or n o t h i n g for t h e m " from dishonest w h i t e itinerant traders. Three years later Lovely wrote : " T h e i r w o m e n spin and weave cotton cloth while the men are h u n t i n g and yet they cannot 2 7

28

2 7 2 8

W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, August 6, 1813, M-208. W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, July 10, 1813, M-208.

218

UNITY FALTERS

dispose of their furs and skins to any advantage—the t r a v e l l i n g traders impose on t h e m u n f a i r l y — i n the sale of goods and a m m u n i t i o n and b l a n ­ kets [the traders] charge at t w o or three prices, that is, of the v a l u e / ' The western Cherokee chiefs, Takatoka and Tolluntuskee, complained t h r o u g h o u t 1816 that "the Osages do frequently t h r o w some of m y peo­ ple to the g r o u n d [shoot t h e m ] , and I feel that I am under the painful ne­ cessity of resisting the w r o n g they do me . . . m y y o u n g m e n are n o w so exasperated from the Injuries and Insults offered t h e m that i t is n o w no longer i n m y power to restrain their f u r y . " Recently the Osages had en­ ticed a y o u n g man f r o m his h u n t i n g camp and then " t h e y most i n h u ­ m a n l y butchered the Inocent v i c t i m . Such insults we cannot bear as a na­ t i o n . " Claremont, the chief of the Osages, reported that similar murders of his warriors had been c o m m m i t t e d b y the Cherokees. 2 9

3 0

31

The chief problem for the Cherokees and for the other Indians i n A r ­ kansas was the rapid advance of the w h i t e frontier. Arkansas was then part of the M i s s o u r i T e r r i t o r y . The m a j o r i t y of w h i t e settlements i n the t e r r i t o r y were along the Mississippi River, especially near St. Louis. Fol­ l o w i n g Jefferson's advice, the Cherokees had gone four hundred miles up the Arkansas River to avoid the w h i t e settlements. A f t e r the war, h o w ­ ever, the same mad scramble for land occurred west of the Mississippi as east of i t . The legislators of the M i s s o u r i territorial legislature and the land speculators (often one and the same) decided i n 1813 to set off the region i n the southern part of the t e r r i t o r y as the county of Arkansas, w h i c h included at first the whole of what is n o w the State of Arkansas. As a county, the land came under the jurisdiction of the whites, l i v i n g i n i t and under the jurisdiction of the legislature of M i s s o u r i T e r r i t o r y . Sud­ denly the Indians (Osages, Quapaws, and Cherokees) found that they had no legal rights t h e r e . W h a t was more, land speculators i m m e d i a t e l y i n ­ corporated the M i s s o u r i Company i n St. Louis and purchased large tracts of the best land i n the new county. They sent out surveyors to survey i t and sheriffs to put off any persons, white or Indian, w h o were illegally " s q u a t t i n g " on i t . 32

Lovely was horrified, as were the Indians. He w r o t e to President M a d ­ ison i n September 1815 that the Cherokees "have been most extraordi­ n a r i l y dealt w i t h . The legislative a u t h o r i t y of this T e r r i t o r y , having i n Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, February 17, 1816, M-208. See also Return J. Meigs to William Eustis, August 12, 1812, M-221, reel 47, #2010. Tolluntuskee to Return J. Meigs, January 25,1817, M-208. Clermont, Chief of the Osages to W. S. Lovely to Meigs, June [30], 1814, M-208. There are many other letters from the Osages and Quapaws complaining that the Cherokees who had emigrated to Arkansas Territory were interfering with their hunting, settling on their land, and harassing their people. W. S. Lovely to James Madison, September [no day], 1815, M-221, reel 64, #7047. 2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

219

UNITY

FALTERS

eluded all that tract of c o u n t r y so settled by the Cherokees i n t o the county of Arkansas and so far West and South of t h e m that they cannot get out of i t w i t h o u t excluding themselves from the protection of the U n i t e d States" (i.e., they w o u l d have had to leave the U n i t e d States and enter Spanish t e r r i t o r y ) . "Indians are daily m o v i n g [here] f r o m the old nation . . . t h i n k i n g they are placing themselves on land for w h i c h t h e y have p a i d " b y r e l i n q u i s h i n g their rights i n the old country. B u t w h e n t h e y ar­ rive, they find " t h e i r [new] country is daily infested w i t h constables, sheriffs, etc." t e l l i n g t h e m to move on because they had no r i g h t to live there.

33

Meigs had already w r i t t e n to the Secretary of W a r i n June 1814:

" B y an act of the legislature of M i s s o u r i i n December last, i t is supposed that the Cherokee villages and all their h u n t i n g grounds are included i n the C o u n t y of Arkansas. This has alarmed the Cherokees. T h e y are afraid of losing their fine improvements on the l a n d . " He explained that there were n o w about 3,600 people i n the Cherokee c o m m u n i t y (probably ex­ aggerated b y at least half) and " t h e y have fine plantations enclosed w i t h good fences," all of which they w o u l d lose to the land speculators.

34

The

Arkansas Cherokees appointed John D . C h i s h o l m to h u r r y east and dis­ cuss the matter w i t h Meigs, w h o sent Chisholm on to W a s h i n g t o n , b u t the Secretary of W a r was not w i l l i n g to help. He referred the westerners to their eastern brethren, w h o were, he said, supposed to have exchanged land for t h e m i n 1810-1811 but did not. The eastern Cherokees t o l d the westerners to r e t u r n east and strengthen their homeland. The N a t i o n a l Council had no i n t e n t i o n of ceding any of their land to help expatriates. Governor W i l l i a m Clark of M i s s o u r i realized that something m u s t be done about Indian claims i n Arkansas C o u n t y . He received permission f r o m the Secretary of W a r to survey some land to be set aside for the Quapaws and the Osages. W h e n the survey was being conducted i n the summer of 1816, Clark wrote to Crawford to ask whether he should also set aside some land for the western Cherokees.

Crawford replied:

" S h o u l d the line of the Osage treaty prove that they [the Cherokees] are settled u p o n the Osage lands, n o t h i n g can be done for t h e m . " E m i g r a t i o n of the Cherokees to Arkansas, he said, had been permitted b y Jefferson on the condition of a proportional exchange of land, but " t h i s condition has never been complied w i t h on the part of the nation and of course all obligation o n the part of the United States to secure the emigrants i n their new possessions has ceased."

35

The W a r Department intended to make

Ibid. Return J. Meigs to John Armstrong, June 24,1814, M-208. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 88, n. 1; William Crawford to Return J. Meigs, September 18, 1816, M-208; ASP IT, 97-98. 33

34

35

220

UNITY

FALTERS

the eastern Cherokees bear the responsibility for the p l i g h t of their b r e t h ­ ren. Meigs, of course, felt that Crawford had missed the point. I t was not, i n Meigs's o p i n i o n , a matter of free choice for the Cherokees i n the east to accept or reject the conditions Jefferson had set for exchange i n 1809. The government had made an agreement or pledge to the Cherokee e m ­ igrants that could not be abridged b y the obstinacy of the eastern Cher­ okees; the Cherokee Council could and should n o w be forced to y i e l d a proportional amount of land so that a tract could be set aside i n Arkansas C o u n t y for their c o u n t r y m e n . I t was upon this point that M c M i n n and Jackson seized so avidly after 1816 i n their efforts to effect a massive Cherokee removal. Crawford, t h o u g h not averse to this, t h o u g h t he had done all that was necessary or proper for the western Cherokees w h e n , i n M a r c h 1816, he had urged the eastern Cherokee delegation i n W a s h i n g ­ t o n to take p i t y o n their brethren. He had asked t h e m to cede some of their land i n Georgia or Tennessee so that the government could provide an equivalent tract i n Arkansas. As Crawford later reminded Meigs, the Cherokee delegation flatly refused: " W h e n this subject was mentioned to the Cherokee deputation last w i n t e r , so far were they f r o m acknowledg­ i n g its force that they declared the emigrants should be compelled to re­ t u r n and live w i t h the n a t i o n . " Jackson too had urged the eastern Cher­ okees to cede land to help their brethren, b u t the delegation at the Chickasaw council house i n September 1816 refused to acknowledge any such obligation. 36

Nevertheless, the people of Tennessee persisted. As the t i m e ap­ proached for negotiations i n the summer of 1817, M c M i n n , Meigs, and Jackson were determined to use Jefferson's message of 1809 as the wedge to force the Cherokees to relinquish all or most of their eastern land. James M o n r o e succeeded Madison i n M a r c h 1817 and appointed George G r a h a m as Secretary of War. A n x i o u s to please the Western Congress­ m e n , Graham and M o n r o e designated M c M i n n , Jackson, and David M e r ­ iwether of Georgia as commissioners to negotiate w i t h the Cherokees. T h e y did this even before Congress had appropiated any m o n e y for re­ moval. To make sure that the western Cherokees were included i n these negotiations, the President placed o n the agenda the problem of settling the controversy over Doublehead's reserve. W h e n Graham discovered that Congress had adjourned w i t h o u t passing an appropriation for these negotiations and w h e n he read the strongly worded letter f r o m Pathkiller 37

William Crawford to William Clark, September 17,1816, M-15, reel 3, p. 423. Return J. Meigs to W. S. Lovely, March 6, 1817, M-208; George Graham to Andrew Jackson, January 13, 1817, M-15, reel 2, p. 2; George Graham to Andrew Jackson, March 22,1817, M-15, reel 4, p. 19. 3 6

3 7

221

UNITY

FALTERS

and the Council at Big Spring saying that the Cherokees were f i r m l y op­ posed to removal, he wrote to Jackson saying i t m i g h t be "inexpedient to enter into negotiations w i t h the Cherokee for an exchange of t e r r i t o r y at so early a p e r i o d " ; the President was of "the belief that the m i n d of the natives is not sufficiently made up to meet that q u e s t i o n . " Jackson said he saw no reason to postpone the negotiations. M o n r o e and Graham backed d o w n and the date was set for June 20, 1 8 1 7 . The western p o l i ­ ticians had the bit i n their teeth and were not to be stopped. They felt cer­ tain the Cherokees—especially those l i v i n g i n Alabama—could be started west b y the end of the summer. The Cherokees were n o w f u l l y aware of what was going on. The pres­ sure for removal was m o u n t i n g on all sides, yet their o w n ranks were badly split. Moreover, they were faced at that m o m e n t w i t h one of the worst famines they had had i n years. I n part this was the result of a bad drought t h r o u g h o u t the southeast i n 1816 that had ruined the crops of b o t h Indians and whites. But i t was also the result of the general discour­ agement of those i n the Lower Towns, so beset by intruders that m a n y had not planted enough corn i n 1817 to see themselves t h r o u g h the w i n ­ ter and summer. They were not sure whether they w o u l d be able to re­ m a i n where they were or to harvest what they planted. The impact of these intruders upon the Cherokees i n Tennessee and Alabama was de­ scribed i n a letter to Meigs i n M a r c h 1817 from the chiefs of Fort Deposit, near H u n t s v i l l e , Alabama: "Friend, there is at this place 93 [Cherokee] Family s i n all [that] is like to suffer this summer unless there is some pro­ vision could be made t h r o u g h yourself" to provide corn. Eighteen of these families had recently come into the t o w n because they were forced out of the Muscle Shoals area: " T h e corn they had down there was taken or stole by w h i t e people." These families had been told " t h e y was to be paid for their places [ f a r m s ] " but had received no payment. " W e all have divided [our supplies] w i t h t h e m as long as we had [any food] i n this place, and [now] we have all become alike [poor] for our crop of corn was but lite last year i n these parts and the Intruders, by d r i v i n g their stocks on the land, has destroyed all the cane Range" so that the Cherokees' hogs and cattle died or were o n l y skin and bones. Between February and A p r i l 1817, as the meager harvest of the previous fall was exhausted, Meigs received desperate requests from ten different towns i n the Lower T o w n region to send corn to feed their starving people. Meigs w r o t e to 38

39

40

Graham's letter to Jackson on March 25, 1817, is missing but Jackson quotes it in A n ­ drew Jackson to George Graham, April 22,1817, M-221, reel 74, #5883. Andrew Jackson to George Graham, April 22, 1817, M-221, reel 74, #5883; George Graham to Andrew Jackson, May 14, 1817, M-15, reel 4, p. 36. Chiefs Cunehestenaske, Spring Frog, et al. to Return J. Meigs, March 20,1817, M-208. 3 8

39

4 0

222

UNITY

FALTERS

the Secretary of W a r that "the shortness of crops w h i c h pervaded the greatest part of our c o u n t r y , greatly affected the Cherokee c o u n t r y . I have been obliged to draw orders . . . to prevent actual s u f f e r i n g . " The Cherokees had told h i m that "a father w i l l nor let his children perish w i t h h u n g e r " and he had " b o u g h t six hundred bushels of corn for t h e m . " I t was customary i n these situations for Meigs to draw an order against the Cherokee a n n u i t y and authorize some trader (Joseph V a n n , Samuel R i ­ ley, or John or Lewis Ross) to provide the corn w i t h the understanding that t h e y could collect on the draft from the Council at a n n u i t y t i m e . C o r n being scarce everywhere, i t sold for $1.00 to $1.50 per bushel. Over the course of several months this drained thousands of dollars f r o m the a n n u i t y as one t o w n after another requested t w o or three hundred bush­ els. 4 1

Theoretically, the N a t i o n a l Committee was supposed to have control of the a n n u i t y and any drafts upon the N a t i o n a l Treasury. B u t the requests were so frequent and so urgent that i t was not feasible for the C o m m i t t e e to meet every week, and i t permitted Meigs to manage these matters on his o w n . B y M a y , Meigs had given out so m u c h corn that he no longer dared charge i t against the a n n u i t y for fear of angering the N a t i o n a l Committee. He told the Secretary of War that he wished to take this ex­ pense out of the agency funds and noted that such generosity w o u l d pay off i n good w i l l at the t i m e of the negotiations. After all, he said, "one or two thousand bushels of corn w o u l d not be t h r o w n away upon these peo­ ple even i n an Interesting [self-interested] point of consideration, espe­ cially w h e n i m p o r t a n t negotiations are p e n d i n g . " He did not note that the i n a b i l i t y of the government to keep out intruders was i n part to blame; he preferred to blame the shortage upon the laziness of the Cher­ okees: " T h e y do not love labor." The demoralization that had struck the Lower Towns since 1814 was taking its t o l l . Fortunately for those w h o opposed removal, the war between the Osages and the western Cherokees had burst out w i t h such f u r y i n 1816-1817 that the Arkansas T e r r i t o r y did not look m u c h more i n v i t i n g than their o w n desolate region. 42

The crisis over the food shortage revealed another problem to some Cherokees. Meigs was n o w i n his seventies. The strain of his m a n y activ­ ities and the absence of his assistant led h i m to t u r n over some of his d u ­ ties to his son, T i m o t h y . T i m o t h y Meigs was not a competent adminis­ trator and i n addition he was either dishonest or easily manipulated b y others. Gideon M o r g a n complained i n 1816 that Meigs and his son were mismanaging the Cherokee a n n u i t y and illegally using i t to pay off the 41 42

Return J. Meigs to George Graham, May 6, 1817, M-221, reel 75, #6401. Ibid.

223

UNITY

FALTERS

private debts owed to traders b y individual Cherokees. M o r g a n said that Meigs had charged the a n n u i t y $10,000 for corn the previous year and that some Cherokee and w h i t e traders were m a k i n g inordinate profits f r o m this. He also said that T i m o t h y Meigs purchased debts at a discount f r o m traders and then w o u l d persuade his father to use the a n n u i t y to pay h i m for t h e m i n f u l l . I n the fall of 1816 Pathkiller as Principal Chief had ordered Meigs to make no more deductions from the a n n u i t y for corn, but Meigs nonetheless continued to do so. 4 3

44

Clearly the Cherokee needed to tighten up their system of administra­ t i o n . The establishment of the National Committee i n 1811 had been a start, but since then too m a n y new problems had come up for w h i c h pro­ vision had not been made. Inefficiency i n administering the N a t i o n a l Treasury and the danger of tribal division over the new removal and ex­ change threat caused the Council to pass i m p o r t a n t new legislation i n the Council at Amohee i n early M a y 1817. The new laws constituted a major reform i n the Cherokee political structure. Meigs was so busy over pend­ i n g negotiations that he seems to have been largely unaware of the changes and made no comments about t h e m i n his reports. Perhaps he t h o u g h t that after negotiations i n June such efforts b y the Cherokees to strengthen their "fictitious sovereignty" w o u l d be rendered obsolete. The political reform law of 1817 made i t clear i n its preamble that the fundamental purpose of the legislation was to prevent any fraction of the nation f r o m effecting an exchange of land: "Whereas fifty-four towns and villages have convened to deliberate and consider on the situation of the N a t i o n , i n the [matter of] disposition of our c o m m o n property of land w i t h o u t the consent of the members of the Council, i n order to obviate the evil consequences resulting i n such a course, we have u n a n i m o u s l y adopted the f o l l o w i n g f o r m of the future government of our n a t i o n . " The law then spelled out six major revisions i n the governmental system. The first redefined the role of the National Committee. I t was n o w specifically l i m i t e d to " t h i r t e e n members elected as a Standing Committee for the t e r m of t w o years"; before i t had apparently had no set tenure and m a y not even have been l i m i t e d to the number thirteen w i t h w h i c h i t had be­ g u n i n 1810. I f vacancies occurred i n this committee d u r i n g the two-year period, the "head chiefs" were to fill t h e m . 4 5

The second article defined the specific duties of the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t ­ tee: to take "care of . . . the affairs of the Cherokee N a t i o n " w h e n the National Council was not i n session by m a k i n g decisions for the nation. Such acts were not " b i n d i n g on the N a t i o n i n our c o m m o n property 4 3 44 45

Gideon Morgan to William Crawford, May 14, 1816, M-221, reel 70, #3041. Return J. Meigs to Ecacalan (Young Glass), July 17, 1817, M-208. Cherokee Laws, pp. 4-5.

224

UNITY F ALTERS

w i t h o u t the unanimous consent of the members and Chiefs of the C o u n ­ c i l . " A l l acts of the Committee had to be presented to the Council an­ n u a l l y " f o r their acceptance or dissent." Treaties were not to be made b y the N a t i o n a l Committee because they concerned l a n d — " o u r c o m m o n p r o p e r t y " ; o n l y the Council could make a treaty. This article also stated that the N a t i o n a l Committee was to elect a President and to have a clerk to keep w r i t t e n records, i n English, of all its resolutions or acts. The Council was to appoint its o w n Speaker, w h o could not be the same person as the President of the Committee. A l t h o u g h the law did not say so, i t was assumed that most of the N a t i o n a l Committee w o u l d be made up of those of m i x e d ancestry w h o could speak and write English; the Council w o u l d be dominated b y representatives of the three-quarters of the nation w h o were full bloods. I n effect this law created a bicameral legislative system i n w h i c h the N a t i o n a l Committee of thirteen initiated the laws and the N a t i o n a l Council of headmen f r o m the towns concurred i n or rejected t h e m . Subsequent laws of the nation were usually prefaced: "Resolved by the N a t i o n a l Committee and concurred i n b y the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l . " The t h i r d article dealt w i t h the anticipated emigration of some of their people to Arkansas and the alleged claim that such emigrants carried w i t h t h e m a proportional tract of the nation's total land: " T h e a u t h o r i t y and claim of our c o m m o n property shall cease w i t h the person or persons w h o shall t h i n k proper to remove themselves w i t h o u t the l i m i t s of the Cher­ okee N a t i o n . " I n a sense this was a reaffirmation of the decision an­ nounced i n 1810 that "stragglers" to the west were not to be considered part of the nation. Should any group of chiefs make a treaty of removal and exchange, this law was designed to neutralize i t . A western emigrant had no standing and neither the tribal land nor the tribal a n n u i t y funds were to be divided between those i n the homeland and those w h o deserted i t . The sovereignty of the nation was indivisible and rested w i t h the res­ ident citizens of the motherland. A r t i c l e four reasserted the traditional system of m a t r i l i n e a l property rights, at least to the extent that husbands could not dispose of their wives' property. This w o u l d become critical i f the government of the U n i t e d States were to reimburse emigrants for their improvements and if husbands and wives separated over emigration. W h i t e s defined "heads of f a m i l y " i n terms of males o n l y ; "the improvements and labors of our people b y the mother's side shall be inviolate d u r i n g the t i m e of their oc­ cupancy." W o m e n w h o emigrated were subject to the same loss of claim upon the c o m m o n land of the nation as m e n ; conversely, i f a husband left for Arkansas and his wife remained, the United States could not dispos­ sess her or claim the husband's proportionate share of the nation's land. A r t i c l e five reasserted the control of the N a t i o n a l Committee over the 225

UNITY

FALTERS

National Treasury, a n n u i t y , and all disbursement of funds. " T h i s C o m ­ mittee shall settle w i t h the Agency for our annual stipend and report their proceedings to the members of the C o u n c i l . " I t was to keep strict accounts and to be held responsible for those funds. To make i t clear that Meigs was not to have any part i n expenditures from the Treasury, an expla­ nation of this clause was passed t w o months later by the National C o m ­ mittee and sent to Meigs: "Agreeable to a Resolution passed b y the N a ­ tional Committee and Principal Chiefs of the nation, i t is resolved that there shall not be an order for any amount for i n d i v i d u a l accounts against the N a t i o n given on our agent for the t e r m of t w o years f r o m the 6 t h May, 1817."

46

Traders must now come to the Committee to settle their

debts. The final article of this law set out the method of amending this new structure and a pledge to uphold the act, w h i c h seems to substantiate a later claim that the six articles together consumed a constitutional frame­ w o r k or fundamental law that bound even the Council: " T h e above a r t i ­ cles for our government m a y be amended at our electional t e r m , and the Committee is hereby required to be governed by the above articles and the Chiefs and Warriors i n Council unanimously pledge themselves to observe strictly to the above articles." Whether "electional t e r m " meant the annual council to w h i c h each t o w n sent its headmen or whether it meant o n l y those councils at w h i c h the two-year terms of the National Committee expired, is not clear.

47

The political reform act of 1817 (or "the first Cherokee c o n s t i t u t i o n , " as some historians have called it) revealed that the Cherokees had come a long w a y f r o m their traditional reliance on u n w r i t t e n custom, oral law, ad hoc councils, and decentralized t o w n autonomy. They were ready n o w to institutionalize their sense of nationhood. The complex structure of their market economy, the danger of encroaching w h i t e settlements, and combined state and federal efforts to manipulate t h e m made w r i t t e n rec­ ords, administrative accountability, and stronger centralization of au­ t h o r i t y essential. Also required were clearly defined statements of na­ tional i d e n t i t y , citizenship, common ownership of property, and the rights of w o m e n . Cherokee re v i r i l i z a t i o n continued to be a secular move­ ment led by creative, collective statesmanship. The old religion was not dead nor were the roles of medicine men and priests b y any means de­ funct, but the adonisgi were not the persons responsible for coping w i t h the political and economic problems the nation n o w faced. I n a profound w a y , the Cherokee renascence was based upon a separation of church and 4 6

47

Cherokee National Committee to Return J. Meigs, July 14,1817, M-208. Cherokee Laws, p. 4; see also Strickland, Fire and the Spirits, pp. 61-62.

226

UNITY

FALTERS

state as i m p o r t a n t as that w h i c h the United States had effected i n its b i r t h as a nation. N o longer did all Cherokees share the same view of nature, the supernatural, or h u m a n nature, and certainly they did not agree on specific ethical or ritual behavior. The varieties of belief indicated a new religious pluralism. Separation of church and state was not complete (any more than i t was i n the United States) but neither could i t be said that there was a formal establishment of religion. Political centralization forced secularism and acknowledged religious p l u r a l i s m . M a n y Chero­ kees did not f u l l y realize this subtle shift i n their definition of the Cher­ okee N a t i o n . W h e n they did become aware a decade later, this spurred a major social rebellion. The law of 1817, agreed to b y fifty-four towns, was clearly the w i l l of the great m a j o r i t y as they faced their new confrontation w i t h w h i t e ne­ gotiators. But i t was not unanimous. The absence of Toochelar's name as a signer of the law indicates that he may already have been deposed as Second Principal Chief because of his determination to support removal and exchange. His formal impeachment was not long i n coming. O n the other hand, i t was significant that the first president elected b y the N a ­ tional Committee was Richard B r o w n , a man w h o had told Meigs he was f u l l y i n support of removal (though the nation m a y not have k n o w n this). The Cherokees felt that they were now prepared to meet w i t h Jackson, M c M i n n , and M e r i w e t h e r , but they had underestimated their foes and overestimated their u n i t y .

227

E L E V E N

T H E S T R U G G L E FOR S O V E R E I G N T Y , 1817-1819

We consider ourselves as a free and distinct nation and the Government of the United States have no police over us further than a friendly in­ tercourse in trade. —Cherokee memorial, June 1818

T

here was no way the Cherokee leaders could prevent a sizable n u m ­ ber of their people from m o v i n g to Arkansas i n 1817-1819 i f they chose to go. V o l u n t a r y emigration had started again i n 1814, and i t con­ t i n u e d after 1819. The western Cherokees desperately wanted a tract of their o w n to live on. The question was whether the N a t i o n a l Council could prevent the whole nation from being forced to remove (or forced to accept second-class citizenship i n the east). Or, to put i t another w a y , the Council had to insist that emigrants never carried w i t h t h e m a r i g h t to part of the soil of their homeland that could be exchanged, pro rata, for western land. For t w o years the eastern Cherokees engaged i n a desperate struggle to preserve their r i g h t , guaranteed by their treaties, to the land of their ancestors. A t one point i n this struggle, Joseph M c M i n n claimed that threats were made on his life and called i n the U n i t e d States A r m y to protect h i m . Several chiefs claimed i n t i m i d a t i o n by the patriots ; others were " b r o k e n " for their support of removal. Saving their c o u n t r y i n these years proved a hard, d i r t y business that bore most heavily upon the poorest Cherokees and particularly those i n the Lower Towns. I n the end, the whole nation had to make bitter sacrifices of land and kinship loyalties i n order to sustain their claim to sovereignty i n the east. Some Cherokees felt that o n l y the t i m e l y help i n 1817 of the n e w l y arrived Congregationalist missionaries from N e w England had turned the tide that was r u n ­ n i n g so strongly against t h e m as the sectional schisms began i n the U n i t e d States that culminated i n C i v i l War. But this was not w h o l l y t r u e ; there were also weaknesses i n the strategy of the westerners as w e l l as i n M c M i n n ' s management of the whole business that undermined this re­ moval plan. But u l t i m a t e l y the Cherokees could take pride i n their vic­ t o r y over M c M i n n , Jackson, and M e r i w e t h e r and i n the resourcefulness of their leaders—some of t h e m old hands at dealing w i t h the government

228

STRUGGLE

FOR

SOVEREIGNTY

(like Charles Hicks and M a j o r Ridge), others (like John Ross and George L o w r e y ) gaining new prominence. Jackson, M c M i n n , and M e r i w e t h e r , w i t h t w o of the fifteen delegates f r o m the Arkansas Cherokees (John D . C h i s h o l m and John Rogers), ar­ rived at the federal agency at Hiwassee on June 2 0 , 1 8 1 7 , to negotiate the plan for Cherokee removal. I n this plan they were f u l l y supported b y agent M e i g s . The instructions f r o m George Graham, the Secretary of 1

War, stated that a rifle, a blanket, and transportation to a specific area i n Arkansas (the first of a new k i n d of Indian reservation) were available for those Cherokees w h o wished to emigrate and that 640 acres of land and citizenship (according to "the laws of the particular state or t e r r i t o r y i n w h i c h t h e y m a y respectively reside") were available to those w h o did not emigrate. These were the t w o choices that the negotiators were to p u t be­ fore the Cherokees.

2

W h e n the Cherokee N a t i o n a l Council had assem­

bled, Jackson began b y reading Jefferson's message of January 9, 1809, arguing that i t constituted a b i n d i n g agreement for removal and exchange that the Cherokees had for too long neglected to fulfill. The Council re­ sponded that Jefferson's talk was not a treaty ; no council had ratified i t and the delegation to w h i c h he spoke had not signed i t ; they had had no a u t h o r i t y to make such a treaty. Furthermore, Jefferson had said i n his talk that any such exchange had to be agreed to b y b o t h the Lower and Upper Towns meeting i n council; no such council had ever met to discuss the removal of 1809-1810. I n fact, they said, on A p r i l 10,1809, a council 3

had specifically declined to authorize any division of the nation. Those who went west i n 1810 therefore went as individuals and had been offi­ cially designated b y the Council at that t i m e as "stragglers" and expa­ triates. I f the Cherokees i n Arkansas had encountered difficulties there, t h e y had no one to blame b u t themselves. A fruitless debate over the meaning of Jefferson's message continued for eight days u n t i l finally, on June 28, the Cherokees w i t h d r e w for four days and drew up a l o n g and detailed statement of their arguments, signed b y the sixty-seven most i m p o r t a n t chiefs i n the n a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g most of those f r o m the Lower Towns. This m e m o r i a l was presented to Jackson and the other commissioners on July 2. After flatly d e n y i n g any c o m m i t m e n t to exchange of lands i n 1809, the m e m o r i a l concluded: " W e feel assured that our father, the President, w i l l not compel us i n t o measThe other thirteen delegates from Arkansas had returned home. Most of the documents for these negotiations can be found in ASP I I , 140-47, 478-90; M-221, reel 79, #0053-0080; and M-15, reel 4, pp. 2-70. The treaty of July 8, 1817 is in ASP I I , 129-31; see also Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 84-91. George Graham to Andrew Jackson, May 16,1817, M-15, reel 4, p. 37. ASP I I , 142-43. 1

2

3

229

S T R U G G L E

F O R

S O V E R E I G N T Y

ures so diametrically against the w i l l and interest of a large m a j o r i t y of our n a t i o n . " There m i g h t be some chiefs and families w h o were ready to emigrate, but as a nation, " w e wish to remain on our land and hold i t fast. We appeal to our father, the President to do us j u s t i c e . " The statement also reproached the treaty commissioners for confronting t h e m w i t h an illegal choice: " W e are n o w distressed w i t h the alternative proposal to re­ move f r o m this c o u n t r y to the Arkansas or stay and become citizens of the U n i t e d States." They opposed both. " W e are not yet civilized enough to become citizens of the United States nor do we w i s h to be compelled to move to a c o u n t r y so m u c h against our inclination and w i l l . " To go west w o u l d mean to " r e t u r n to the same savage state of life that we were i n before" and start all over again. " Y o u tell us to speak freely and make our choice." There was a t h i r d choice and that was the one they wanted and believed they were entitled t o : " O u r choice is to remain on our lands and follow the pursuits of agriculture and c i v i l i z a t i o n . " 4

Jackson and his fellow commissioners were not w i l l i n g to allow the t h i r d o p t i o n . They demanded a decision on the t w o options o u t l i n e d and threatened that i f the Cherokees did not choose one of these, they w o u l d be deemed u n f r i e n d l y : the government w o u l d cease to use its power to protect t h e m f r o m frontier intruders and their annuities and all technical asisstance w o u l d be cut off. After considerable haggling, the commission­ ers found t h i r t y - o n e chiefs w i l l i n g to sign a treaty on July 8 that the com­ missioners considered compliant w i t h their either-or terms (i.e., citizen­ ship or removal) but that m a n y of the signers evidently considered a compromise allowing the t h i r d option of remaining as a nation i n the east. A l t h o u g h o n l y t h i r t y - o n e of the sixty-seven chiefs at the Council signed this treaty, by adding the t w o delegates f r o m Arkansas (who also signed, b y p r o x y , the names of the thirteen other western delegates w h o had gone home), the total signatories came to forty-six. Because the treaty commissioners considered the Cherokees (east and west) to be one people, they felt justified i n counting the fifteen signatures of the A r k a n ­ sas delegation. Meigs believed the treaty was valid because all t h i r t e e n members of the National Committee had signed; he felt that they were the official representatives of the nation by its o w n d e f i n i t i o n . 5

6

It is not hard to explain w h y chiefs like Toochelar, The Glass, Richard B r o w n , Cabbin S m i t h , and John Walker signed this treaty. I t is difficult to explain w h y Charles Hicks, John M c i n t o s h , Kelachulee, Katahee, and G o i n g Snake signed i t . The former were all f r o m the Lower Towns and m a n y of the signers were persons w h o had been supporters of Double4 5 6

Ibid. See Graham's instructions to the commissioners, May 16, 1817, M-15, reel 4, p. 37. For the signatures to the treaty, see M-668, reel 4, #0336.

230

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

head. B u t the latter group were all opponents of Doublehead and since 1810 had been staunch nationalists. The non-signers, led by M a j o r Ridge, John Ross, George L o w r e y , and Pathkiller, were considerably taken aback by this division i n their ranks. The non-signers clearly represented the m a j o r i t y of those i n the east; w i t h the staunch backing of the Valley T o w n chiefs and most of the Upper T o w n chiefs, they constituted t h i r t y six of the sixty-seven signers of the m e m o r i a l of July 2, opposing the ne­ gotiations. The treaty can best be explained i n terms of its vague w o r d i n g and the willingness of each side to believe what they wished to believe i t said. Per­ sons like Hicks, M c i n t o s h , and Kelachulee apparently t h o u g h t that t h e y had signed a compromise treaty that included the t h i r d alternative w i t h i n i t . T h e y based this on the fact that the treaty did not specifically say t h e y had o n l y t w o choices, to remove or to become citizens. B y this treaty the Cherokees agreed to give up t w o large tracts of land (one of 373,000 acres i n Georgia and one of 278,000 acres i n Tennessee), on the basis of w h i c h the government was to provide a tract of similar size for Cherokees w h o wished to live i n Arkansas. The treaty also said that the a n n u i t y of the nation w o u l d be "divided between the t w o parts of the n a t i o n " i n p r o ­ p o r t i o n to a census to be taken after all those w h o were considering e m i ­ gration had enrolled to do so. The census was to be taken on June 30, 1818, after w h i c h , presumably, the government w o u l d w i t h d r a w its offer to provide guns, blankets, transport, and supplies to emigrants. The treaty also said that those Cherokee heads of family " w h o m a y w i s h to become citizens" w o u l d be given a reserve of 640 acres, " t o include their i m p r o v e m e n t s " (i.e., the reserve w o u l d be centered on their present farms). The signers of the treaty w h o opposed b o t h removal and d e t r i balization assumed that the treaty left open a t h i r d alternative, t h o u g h i t was unspoken; they believed those w h o did not enroll to emigrate or re­ quest a reserve w o u l d remain as they were—they w o u l d constitute the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the east minus the emigrants and m i n u s those w h o chose to become citizens. Signers like Charles Hicks assumed that this w o u l d constitute the vast majority. The non-signers felt that the treaty was a trap. I t gave the government a year to put all the pressure i t could on every Cherokee to emigrate and, at the end of that t i m e , i t could s i m ­ ply grant reserves to the rest and detribalize the nation. H o w else could reserves w i t h citizenship be granted to individuals on their o w n farms scattered t h r o u g h o u t the nation? Those like Hicks, w h o signed b u t op­ posed the government's t w o options, assumed that the persons w h o re­ quested reserves w o u l d be located on the land that was specifically ceded i n the treaty. The unceded land w o u l d remain for the rest. T h e y signed a treaty including these specific land cessions because t h e y felt i t was the

231

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

o n l y w a y to solve the problem of the western Cherokees and still save something of the old nation. The treaty commissioners and Meigs, however, felt that the treaty had accomplished exactly what they wanted. They believed that almost total removal—except for three hundred or so réservées—would result and that so few w o u l d want reserves that i n effect n o t h i n g w o u l d be left of the nation i n the east. Their o n l y difficulty was that they had allowed t h e m ­ selves o n l y one year to accomplish total enrollment, because i n June 1818 they were c o m m i t t e d to taking a census and dividing the a n n u i t y between those w h o had enrolled and those w h o had not. The opponents of removal, however, were convinced they could suc­ ceed i n saving the nation i f they could prevent a sizable body of Chero­ kees f r o m m a k i n g one of the t w o choices offered i n the treaty. Hicks, M c i n t o s h , Kelachulee, and the other signers w h o were ardent nationalists realized this soon after signing the treaty and joined forces w i t h Ross, Ridge, and the other non-signers to achieve that goal. Their first step was to create obstacles to enrollment and to enforce the law of 1817 that disenfranchised or deprived of citizenship any Cherokee w h o emigrated (or, i n this case, enrolled to emigrate) from the nation. Enrollment thus became tantamount to treason. Toochelar and The Glass were the first to suffer under this r u l i n g . O n August 6 the National Council i n f o r m e d Meigs that these chiefs were no longer part of the n a t i o n ; as Pathkiller put i t , they "have let go of m y people and country and joined themselves to the Arkansaw Cherokees, and they have no business to speak for the people and c o u n t r y here, as y o u and the commissioners have divided m y warriors and made us t w o N a t i o n s . " M c M i n n , w r i t i n g to the Secretary of War, noted that Toochelar and The Glass "have enrolled themselves as emigrants . . . for w h i c h cause alone, as I am i n f o r m e d , they have b o t h been discarded and struck from the list of chiefs n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e y have become Gray i n the service of their C o u n t r y . " M c M i n n , of course, wished t h e m to remain part of the Council d u r i n g the next year i n order to promote the goal of total removal. 7

8

Charles Hicks, having repented of signing the treaty and made clear his determination to oppose removal, was named Second Principal Chief to replace Toochelar; John Ross became President of the National C o m m i t ­ tee to replace Richard B r o w n ; Going Snake (Ehnautaunnueah) became Speaker of the National C o u n c i l . Thus reconstituted, the Council and Committee were f i r m l y i n the hands of staunch nationalists w h o n o w prepared for a long, hard fight to retain as much as possible of their home9

7 8 9

Pathkiller et al. to Meigs, August 6, 1817, M-208. Joseph M c M i n n to George Graham, M-221, reel 15, November 13, 1817, #6626. Payne Papers, vu, part 1, 26-27; ASP I I , 145.

232

STRUGGLE

FOR SOVEREIGNTY

land and sovereignty. The fight created lasting divisions among the Cher­ okees. Those w h o went west felt they had been u n j u s t l y branded as t r a i ­ tors and did not easily forget the hatred vented against t h e m . Those w h o remained i n the east believed that they were the true patriots. I n the me­ m o r i a l of July 2 to the treaty commissioner, the sixty-seven chiefs had referred to the eastern area as " t h e i r native c o u n t r y " and " o u r beloved c o u n t r y . " A f t e r the treaty was signed, Pathkiller said they were n o w "two Nations." Return J. Meigs, the eternal pragmatist and "honest broker," preferred to avoid the issue of Cherokee nationalism except i n the abstract sense of ethnic pride. "Brother, y o u r nation is not divided," he replied to Path­ killer o n A u g u s t 9 : " T h e Cherokees here and on the arkansas are one peo­ ple . . . y o u are b o t h here and there o n l y one f a m i l y . " For Meigs i t was not i n the government's interest to recognize any sense of homeland, fatherland, or motherland where the Cherokees were concerned. He had always discouraged their sense of nationalism and sovereignty. A l t h o u g h Pathkiller d i d not sign the treaty of July 8, 1817, Meigs acted as t h o u g h he w o u l d and should support i t as the w i l l of the m a j o r i t y . " Y o u r best friends t h i n k that y o u have taken the o n l y method i n y o u r power to pre­ serve and perpetuate y o u r national existence" (i.e., removal). " Y o u r ex­ istence could not be effected here to remote t i m e . " To remain i n the East w o u l d mean certain extinction as a people. "Therefore to save y o u r peo­ ple, y o u have done r i g h t to place t h e m o n ground [ i n the West] w h i c h y o u can call y o u r o w n ; this w i l l keep y o u r national pride because they are not beggars [on the land of the Osages] ; they stand up and lye d o w n on their o w n s o i l . " He wished Pathkiller to be optimistic about his nation's future i n Arkansas: "Schools w i l l be continued and extended, agriculture and manufactures w i l l still be encouraged here and i n Arkansas. You must not suffer yourselves to believe that the U n i t e d States w i s h to aggrandize themselves on the r u i n of y o u r n a t i o n . " 10

Return J. Meigs to Pathkiller et al., August 9, 1817, M-208. Meigs's true sentiments toward Cherokee nationalism appeared in a letter to George Graham a few months later: "They still silently adhere to the wish to remain on their old ground as one people, subject only to their ancient laws and customs; this is perhaps a National sentiment in man, but i n the present case it is, I conceive, utterly inadmissible and impracticable; inadmissible be­ cause an independent Government placed within the center of another independent Gov­ ernment would be a phenomenon, if not a monster in politics. The Indian tribes have had, and many of them still have, erroneous ideas of their sovereignty and independence. We must keep them dependent. It will not be understood that I would deprive them of their natural right—-my mind would revolve at such a sentiment. Their political state in relation to the United States is that of minors. . . . By their local and moral condition [they] are appendages only to the United States . . . [they] refuse to saved by us . . . i t is of the first importance to the peace, even to the safety of the U . States, that we occupy and fill w i t h good citizens all the Country from the interior to the seashore, from New Orleans to the 10

233

STRUGGLE FOR

SOVEREIGNTY

Meigs lost no t i m e i n getting enrollment for removal under way. For obvious reasons those w h o planned to go west were eager to leave as soon as possible. They began applying to Meigs immediately for the rifle, a m ­ m u n i t i o n , traps, blankets, and kettles that had been promised. " T h e com­ missioners were of o p i n i o n , " Meigs wrote to Graham July 24, " t h a t the tide of emigration should not be retarded by w a i t i n g for the ratification of the t r e a t y " by the United States Senate. He had already placed orders for boats and supplies to transport the first emigrants even t h o u g h Con­ gress had not yet appropriated the money for i t . "Upwards of 700 Cher­ okees" had enrolled by July 24; he asked for an assistant to help h i m w i t h the complex arrangements. The first names on the first enrollment list, dated July 8 (the day the treaty was signed), were Toochelar, James Rog­ ers, The G o u r d , Spring Frog, John Jolly, Blackbird, N o Fire, Charles Rog­ ers, John W . Flowers, and Kulsatahee. Some signed as individuals, but most signed as headmen of their towns and indicated h o w m a n y men, w o m e n , and children they expected to take w i t h t h e m . I t was not to be an exodus by families but by whole communities. The first thirteen to enroll spoke for a total of 552 emigrants. 11

12

13

The logistics of removal and exchange were more complex than anyone had imagined they w o u l d be. The treaty required that government ap­ praisers should visit the farm of each enrollee and evaluate his " i m p r o v e ­ m e n t s " (houses, orchards, barns, fences, cultivated land) and provide a figure for his reimbursement. M o s t farms, i t was expected, w o u l d be v a l ­ ued at under $50 and therefore the guns, blankets, kettles, and other items w o u l d cover reimbursement. But some of the enrollees were wealthy m e n w i t h large establishments and they expected full compen­ sation. Surveyors also had to survey the tracts for those w h o chose c i t i ­ zenship and a 640-acre reserve around their farms or plantations. Graham authorized Meigs to proceed at once w i t h transporting those w h o were ready to go and said: " Y o u w i l l make use of all the means at y o u r disposal to induce the Indians generally to remove, and impress on the minds of those w h o are desirous of remaining, the advantages of se­ lecting a section of 640 acres and of becoming citizens of the U n i t e d States." The W a r Department w o u l d underwrite removal costs u n t i l Congress passed the appropriation. Typical of the confusion that was to m a r k the whole proceeding was Graham/s decision to order flatboats b u i l t 14

State of Georgia." Meigs wrote this to Graham on October 30, 1817 (M-208). It was de­ signed to help him persuade the Senate to ratify the treaty of 1817. Return J. Meigs to George Graham, July 24, 1817, M-221, reel 75, #6512. Return J. Meigs to George Graham, July 24, 1817, M-208. "Register of Cherokees who wish to Emigrate to Arkansas River," July 8,1817, M-208. George Graham to Return J. Meigs, August 9, 1817, M-208. 11

12

13

14

234

STRUGGLE

FOR SOVEREIGNTY

for transport w h e n Meigs, k n o w i n g the difficulty of beating upstream on the Arkansas River, had already placed orders for keelboats. To the western Congressmen's surprise, their removal b i l l met w i t h considerable resistance i n Congress. M a n y easterners were not yet ready to abandon the old Indian policy or to abandon the treaty c o m m i t m e n t s that supported it. The b i l l requested $50,000 to accomplish removal of the Cherokees (as i t turned out, a ridiculously l o w figure). The Senate had passed i t i n M a r c h 1817 but the House had t u r n e d i t d o w n . Even i n the Senate the b i l l received severe criticism, particularly f r o m northeastern Senators. Some of the negative votes, Graham said, came f r o m "opposi­ t i o n to the general policy of r e m o v i n g the Indians west of the Missis­ s i p p i " rather than adhering to the promise to civilize and incorporate t h e m where they were. " I t is also probable," he told Meigs, that w h e n the b i l l was reintroduced i n January 1818, "there w i l l be opposition founded on the assumption that the Treaty has not received the unbiassed sanction of the p o r t i o n of the nation residing east of the Mississippi, as evinced by the small number of chiefs w h o signed i t . " Others w o u l d object " t h a t no r i g h t to any p o r t i o n of the Cherokee land had accrued to the U n i t e d States i n consequence of the transaction w h i c h took place i n 1809." Further­ more, the debate on the treaty m i g h t reveal that "such a r i g h t had been assumed and too strongly enforced b y the C o m m i s s i o n e r s . " These were precisely the grounds on w h i c h the Cherokees hoped t h e y could defeat ratification of the treaty i n the Senate. 15

16

Meigs tried to provide Graham w i t h arguments to counter these objec­ tions. " I beg leave to observe that there never was any definite n u m b e r of Chiefs required to authenticate a treaty, the number depending on con­ tingent circumstances." I t was true, he said, that Pathkiller, the Princi­ pal Chief, and m a n y other chiefs did not sign, but " a l l of their N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e " had signed and " t h e i r C l e r k " and "Sower M u s h , one of the oldest and most respectable chiefs." I g n o r i n g the nation's law that ratifi­ cation of a treaty must be made by a full N a t i o n a l Council, he argued that "the N a t i o n a l Committee i n the act of signing were i n fact the n a t i o n . " He then went on to reveal his o w n contempt for Indian councils and to defend the necessity for threats, browbeating, bribes, and i n t i m i d a t i o n . The Cherokee government, he said, was " i n fact a Democracy" but a de­ mocracy that "has no t o n e . " The petition of sixty-seven chiefs opposing removal was of little consequence because the signers had been i n t i m i ­ dated b y the opponents of removal. "Some daring individual w i l l keep 17

15 16 17

George Graham to Return J. Meigs, August 13,1817, M-15, reel 4, p. 74. George Graham to Return J. Meigs, August 1,1817, M-208. Return J. Meigs to George Graham, October 30,1817, M-208.

235

S T R U C G L F, F O R S O V E R E I G N T Y

even the best Chiefs i n awe by the threatening w i t h death any m a n w h o w o u l d consent to sell l a n d . " The Cherokees' desire for h a r m o n y and consensus s i m p l y did not measure up to Meigs's concept of getting t h i n g done i n a democracy. Their democracy had " n o t o n e " because the chiefs, t h o u g h "ostensibly a m i l d A r i s t o c r a c y " were not the kind of "natural aristoi" to w h o m Jeffer­ son (and the Federalists of N e w England) t h o u g h t democracy ought to be entrusted. The chiefs were too m u c h i n awe of the masses. " T h e i r power and a u t h o r i t y is o n l y n o m i n a l . " They w o u l d not act u n t i l they felt their people were solidly behind them. Hence it was almost impossible to get decisions f r o m t h e m w i t h o u t countering the pressure of the Cherokee masses w i t h the belligerence of the treaty commissioners. There was no other w a y to do business w i t h Indians. I n fact, some chiefs w h o were fa­ vorably "disposed to comply w i t h the advice and wishes of G o v e r n m e n t " welcomed the pressure the treaty commissioners put on the Council; " t h e y are well pleased to be strongly urged to do that w h i c h they are per­ fectly w i l l i n g to do. This being done, they are safe from the Censure of their o w n people." They could say they had no choice but to y i e l d ; then the people w o u l d acquiesce. But i f Meigs was r i g h t , w h y was Doublehead executed i n 1807? W h y was Black Fox deposed as Principal Chief i n 1809? W h y was Toochelar deposed as Second Principal Chief i n 1817? Meigs blamed the continued opposition to the treaty upon a small but w e a l t h y group of chiefs w h o were fully capable of "becoming citizens" but w h o w o u l d not like to be "under the restraint of [the w h i t e man's] l a w s " and w h o , after detribalization, w o u l d "lose that decided and marked ascend­ ancy they n o w e n j o y " over their backward people. "The real Indians" w o u l d prefer to go west and retain their old ways, but the "halfbreeds" favored " r e t a i n i n g all their lands" i n order to enrich themselves at the expense of the p o o r . He made o n l y one concession to the legitimacy of opposition to Jackson's treaty; he acknowledged the sentimentalism of the full bloods w h o " w i s h to remain on their old ground as one people subject o n l y to their ancient laws and customs." 18

Some of the Cherokees m a y be destitute of local attachment, b u t these are few. The greater n u m b e r have strong local attachments—the rivers, the springs, and the m o u n t a i n s , t h e i r old h u n t i n g grounds, and m o r e t h a n a l l , the bones of several generations of t h e i r ancestors, lie b u r i e d i n their plantations and o n the battle­ grounds i n their wars w i t h the n o r t h e r n tribes. . . . A l t h o u g h t o l d that t h e y are g o i n g to a c o u n t r y w i t h the same m i l d climate and temperature as this, t h e i r p h i ­ losophy [state of knowledge] is not sufficient to silence local r e c o l l e c t i o n . 19

Ibid. Return J. Meigs to [John Calhoun], "Outline of Subject of Emigration," December 16, 1818, M-208. This is unsigned and may simply be a rough draft. 18

19

236

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

The government gathered its arguments and the Cherokees gathered theirs for the Senate debate on ratification and general removal. Because Pathkiller spoke no English, Charles Hicks played the major role i n co­ o r d i n a t i n g the Cherokee opposition. M c M i n n paid t r i b u t e to Hicks's au­ t h o r i t y and leadership a year later: " H i c k s m a y be j u s t l y ranked as the standard of opposition to the execution of the treaty; i n fact, he is their principal legislator and sole judge, and i n every measure commands the esteem and confidence of all that part of the n a t i o n . "

20

He was also u n ­

corruptible. Hicks had come a long w a y since he began at the t u r n of the century as an official government interpreter. He had g r o w n w e a l t h y as a trader and planter. He owned at least a dozen black slaves. He had m a n y times par­ ticipated i n treaties and trips to Washington to see the President and con­ front Secretaries of War. After sending his sons to the M o r a v i a n mission school he became interested i n C h r i s t i a n i t y and was one of the first to be converted (in 1813) by the Moravians. A l t h o u g h t h e y were pacifists, the Moravians had not objected w h e n he volunteered to fight i n the Creek War. A n ardent patriot and nationalist since he had first joined the effort to o v e r t h r o w Doublehead, Hicks had devoted himself to the civilization program and opposed what he considered the pagan fanaticism of the Ghost Dance movement. His influence stemmed f r o m his quiet, f i r m , pa­ tient determination to put his c o u n t r y first. I n order to protest against the ratification of the treaty, the Cherokee N a t i o n a l Council decided to send a delegation to Washington. Hicks did not go w i t h t h e m , but he probably drafted the v e r y explicit instructions t h e y were given. They were to tell the President that " w e have of late years been subject to the control of the m i n o r i t y of our n a t i o n " — a ref­ erence to Lower T o w n chiefs like Toochelar, The Glass, and Richard B r o w n w h o had made the treaty w i t h Jackson i n 1816 and promoted the removal treaty of 1817. The delegates were to present a m e m o r i a l to the Senate explaining w h y the treaty should not be ratified. T h e y were also to say that henceforth they wanted the agent to t u r n over their a n n u i t y to t h e m i n cash each year and to point out that the nation had never re­ ceived the m o n e y promised for Wafford's Tract i n 1804. As always, t h e y were to ask for the removal of intruders and point out that the intruders were extremely lawless, c o m m i t t i n g "unwarrantable m u r d e r s , " stealing property, and " d e s t r o y i n g " the range by d r i v i n g large herds of cattle onto their land. The delegation was to request more schools for their children and to say that they were m a k i n g progress as a people t o w a r d C h r i s t i a n 2 0

ASP

i i , 482.

237

STRUGGLE

FOR SOVEREIGNTY

i t y . Their reference to additional schools and C h r i s t i a n i t y m a y have been prompted b y the recent advent of N e w England missionaries into the nation i n the spring of 1817. The Cherokees knew that the N e w Englanders were opposed to removal and no friends of General Jackson. Their Senators could be counted upon to oppose the treaty. 2 1

The delegates were G o i n g Snake, George H a r l i n , James B r o w n , Roman Nose, Richard Taylor, and Richard Riley. They met w i t h Graham i n N o ­ vember and then, i n December, w i t h his successor, John C. Calhoun. T h e y said the nation was ready to make a treaty that w o u l d provide suf­ ficient land and a fair p r o p o r t i o n of their a n n u i t y to help the Cherokees i n Arkansas i f the government w o u l d retract the treaty of July 8 and cease all efforts to promote r e m o v a l . Graham declined this offer and told t h e m that the treaty " m u s t be strictly adhered t o . " 22

2 3

O n December 26 the delegates attended Congress and were at the Cap­ i t o l w h e n the Senate ratified the treaty despite their m e m o r i a l against i t . B u t t h e y had the satisfaction of finding that some Senators strongly op­ posed the measure. They returned to find their nation i n t u r m o i l . M c M i n n , having left the governorship of Tennessee, had been appointed b y the President as agent for the treaty commissioners. He came to live i n the nation at the garrison and to w o r k w i t h Meigs. His duties were to manage the enrollment and transportation of emigrants, to supervise the surveying of tracts for citizenship and the evaluation of improvements, and to take the census. He proved to be both energetic and ruthless i n his efforts to destabilize the nation i n order to increase enrollment. 24

One of M c M i n n ' s first acts was to w i t h h o l d the Cherokee a n n u i t y of 1817 o n the g r o u n d that b y the recent treaty i t was to be divided w i t h the western Cherokees and thus the proper division could not be ascertained u n t i l the census was taken i n June 1818. His real purpose was to increase the difficulty of the Council to pay its debts, to support deputations to W a s h i n g t o n , and to find corn for those still suffering f r o m the famine. Faced w i t h a shortage of cash, the Council struck back b y passing a law ordering the lighthorse regulators to collect any debts owed to the nation b y those w h o were departing for Arkansas. The Lighthorse were told that if emigrants refused to pay, they were to dispossess t h e m of any goods t h e y had (including the new rifles, blankets, traps, and kettles that the government was providing to enrollees) and sell these to pay the debts. M c M i n n denounced this as an effort to harass those w h o wanted to e m i 2 1

ASP

i i , 145.

2 2

ASP

I I , 146.

23

George Graham to Joseph McMinn, November 29, 1817, M-15, reel 4, p. 101 ; ASP I I ,

464. 2 4

ASP

I I , 478.

238

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

grate.

25

" I issued an order forbidding all such a t t e m p t s / he told G r a h a m 7

on December 29, "and declaring that I w o u l d view i t i n the l i g h t of hos­ t i l i t y against the United States and w o u l d punish its perpetrators accord­ i n g l y . " This was o n l y the first i n a series of confrontations between t r i b a l authorities and M c M i n n over the next year. For example, w h e n apprais­ ers were on their w a y to evaluate the property of an emigrant, nationalist Cherokees w o u l d b u r n d o w n the emigrant's houses and barns to prevent the " t r a i t o r s " f r o m receiving any r e m u n e r a t i o n .

26

To stop such actions

M c M i n n had to place armed guards around emigrants' farms and plan­ tations u n t i l the appraisers arrived. The angry confrontations o n l y contributed to the determination of the emigrants. O n February 15,1818, Chief John Jolly, brother of T o l l u n t u s ­ kee, departed i n a flotilla of fifteen boats carrying 331 persons f r o m his t o w n at the m o u t h of the Hiwassee R i v e r .

27

Soon after this, another

group left w i t h Chiefs Thunder, Te-esliskee, and N o F i r e .

28

Fortunately

for M c M i n n , Congress finally passed the appropriation b i l l for this re­ moval on A p r i l 20, 1818, allotting $80,000 to cover all expenses under Jackson's treaty. B y that t i m e M c M i n n had already spent $21,255 and the rest was going fast.

29

A f t e r M a r c h 1818 the number of emigrants began to decline for var­ ious reasons: rumors of renewed warfare w i t h the Osages were rampant; i n the summer the Arkansas River became too shallow for heavy trans­ port i n its upper reaches; those w h o were most eager to leave were a l ­ ready gone; and M c M i n n was having trouble w i t h emigrants w h o ac­ cused h i m of failing to reimburse t h e m properly. He, i n t u r n , claimed that m a n y emigrants, particularly those w i t h large plantations, were t r y i n g to obtain more f r o m the government than t h e y were entitled to. Some of these, like Major James B r o w n , used their slaves to clear new land after the treaty and then expected M c M i n n to pay for this " i m p r o v e ­ ment."

3 0

The Council accused M c M i n n of using devious methods to i n ­

crease enrollments: " W e have understood that there is numbers of our people that have d r a w n guns and other articles [as emigrants] that were made d r u n k to induce t h e m to take these things to go over to the A r k a n ­ sas. This ought not to be allowed w h e n d r u n k . "

3 1

A S P i i , 481. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, March 1,1818, M-221, reel 78, #9024. John Jolly to John Calhoun, January 28, 1818, M-208; Return J. Meigs to John Cal­ houn, February 19,1818, M-221, reel 78, #9043. Te-esliskee et al. to John Calhoun, February 21,1818, M-221, reel 77, #8078. John Calhoun to Joseph M c M i n n , May 11, 1818, M-15, reel 4, p. 161. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, March 1,1818, M-221, reel 78, #9024. Letter of twenty-two chiefs from Broomstown council to Return J. Meigs, May 10, 2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8 2 9

3 0

3 1

239

S T R U G G L E

F O R

S O V E R E I G N T Y

W h e n John Walker, a Cherokee w h o favored removal, suggested to Calhoun that i f enrollment was going too slowly, the wise course w o u l d be to postpone the census for another six months, Calhoun agreed: " T h e longer i t can be fairly postponed, the better for us," he wrote to M c ­ M i n n . M c M i n n announced that the census was being delayed because measures adopted by the Cherokees had i n t i m i d a t e d m a n y w h o wanted to enroll. The Council claimed that postponement was a breach of the treaty. M c M i n n instructed Meigs to call a council i n M a y so that he could upbraid the chiefs for their opposition, but they refused to come. I n June, M c M i n n told Calhoun that the intransigent chiefs had sent "runners w i t h orders to threaten the lives of those who w o u l d a t t e n d . " Nonethe­ less he claimed to have enrolled 223 families for emigration and 56 for reserves i n the m o n t h of M a y . To assist h i m i n this process, Calhoun ap­ pointed John Walker, w h o had already been to Arkansas and was consid­ ered valuable to the government because he could overcome the fears of those hesitant to go to a place they had never seen. 3 2

33

34

W h e n the chiefs became aware that M c M i n n had postponed the census indefinitely, thereby leaving the nation open to c o n t i n u i n g chaos as long as the government t h o u g h t i t had hope of enrolling more Cherokees, they called a council at Ustanali to protest this and other " i m p r o p e r " actions taken by M c M i n n . I t also seemed likely that M c M i n n w o u l d once again w i t h h o l d their a n n u i t y . The council was held from June 20 to July 3. Here the w o m e n of the nation presented their petition to "the headmen and w a r r i o r s . " They pointed out that "the land was given to us b y the Great S p i r i t " and urged the Council members, " o u r beloved children, . . . to hold out to the last i n support of our c o m m o n rights." Because the M o r a v i a n and the new missionaries from N e w England were present, the w o m e n also noted that "some of our children have become Christians; we have missionary schools among us; we have heard the gospel preached i n our n a t i o n . " They pointed out that removal w o u l d be particularly hard upon the w o m e n and children and said that they did not want to leave their homeland. 35

M c M i n n was not invited to this council. He told Calhoun : " M a n y at­ tempts were made to prevent [ m y ] attendance; some by threatening m y 1818, M-221, reel 79, #0070; see also enclosure from Arc! Itoyt to S. A. Worcester, July 25,

1818,

ABCFM.

ASP I I , 480; Calhoun had succeeded George Graham as Secretary of War early in 1818. See also John Calhoun to Joseph McMinn, April 11,1818, M-15, reel 4, p. 135. A S P i i , 481. John Calhoun to Joseph McMinn, April 11,1818, M-15, reel 4, p. 135. See enclosures of A r d Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, July 25, 1818, A B C F M . Details of this negotiating council at Ustanali are in M-221, reel 79, #0053-0080 and M-234, reel 71, #0284-0295. 32

3 3

3 4 3 5

240

STRUGGLE

FOR SOVEREIGNTY

l i f e . " Nevertheless, he came and found " u p w a r d of 2000 w a r r i o r s " pres­ ent. He seemed surprised to find their " h o s t i l i t y " t o w a r d the removal policy " m u c h stronger than I anticipated." B u t what shocked h i m most was the assertion i n the m e m o r i a l the Council presented to h i m , w h i c h said: " W e consider ourselves as a free and distinct nation and that the G o v e r n m e n t of the United States have no police over us further t h a n a friendly intercourse i n trade." The statement went o n to say that the cen­ sus should be taken no later than September of that year and that Elijah Hicks, the son of Charles Hicks, had been appointed to be their repre­ sentative for the census. I t concluded by expressing strong disapproval of " t h e practice of registering the names of people for reservations w h o do not live w i t h i n the tracts of land ceded i n the first and second articles of the t r e a t y . " M c M i n n was granting reserves t h r o u g h o u t the n a t i o n , as­ s u m i n g that no land w o u l d remain for the Cherokees i n the east. 36

I n response to the charges, M c M i n n told the Cherokees that the treaty w o u l d be executed as w r i t t e n . Those w h o wished to be citizens w o u l d get reserves wherever they n o w lived; " i t must be understood the r e m a i n i n g part of the nation must remove west of the Mississippi." For t h e m to con­ tinue to suppose otherwise was self-deceptive and a misreading of the treaty. T h e y had no other option but to remove or become citizens. Re­ sistance was futile. A p p a r e n t l y w i t h o u t prior consultation w i t h the W a r Department, M c M i n n also said he wanted to meet w i t h the Council again i n September, w h e n he hoped to propose to t h e m that the government pay " u p w a r d of $100,000" for " a n entire e x t i n g u i s h m e n t " of all their eastern land c l a i m s . W h e r e he expected to obtain this m o n e y he did not explain nor did he say w h y such a sum should suddenly be offered w h e n there was n o t h i n g i n the treaty about i t . A p p a r e n t l y , as i t t u r n e d out, the idea had simply occurred to M c M i n n on the spur of the m o m e n t as a fur­ ther means to confuse the nation and perhaps w i n over some of the re­ luctant chiefs. He assumed he could get the m o n e y f r o m the government if he needed i t . 37

The Council suspected that M c M i n n had received new instructions and was p l a n n i n g to negotiate a new treaty w i t h friendly chiefs. I t therefore passed a law on July 7 affirming that any Cherokee w h o agreed to sell any land of the nation w i t h o u t the approval of a full council w o u l d be subject to d e a t h . M c M i n n wrote a stark account of this Ustanali Council to Calhoun, de­ scribing the Cherokees' increasing " e n m i t y to G o v e r n m e n t , " stressing 38

Cherokee memorial to Joseph M c M i n n , June 30,1818, M-221, reel 79, #0060-0069. Talk by Joseph M c M i n n to Cherokee Council, M-221, July 1,1818, reel 79, #0067; ASP I I , 480-81. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, July 7,1818, M-234, reel 71, #0284. 3 6

3 7

3 8

241

STRUGGLE

F O R S O V E R E I G N TY

the threats made against his life and those of would-be emigrants, and characterizing the Council's statement about the Cherokees' being "a free and distinct n a t i o n " as an arrogant "declaration of Independence on the part of the Cherokees" that must be corrected before the w i l d idea spread to other tribes. " T h i s principle, once established, could be subversive of all order, peace and happiness, as well as to over t h r o w the present T r e a t y . " The Council's law threatening death to those w h o sold land w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y had, M c M i n n claimed, frightened m a n y well-disposed Cherokees: " W e r e i t not for these declarations, I should be able to enrol for Emigration nearly their whole N a t i o n . " l i e laid the chief blame for Cherokee opposition at the door of Charles Hicks. "So completely are they under the control of Hicks and others that those w h o have given me assurance of their going to the West dare not even look at me nor speak to m e . " The position of Hicks and " o f the opposing part is n o w p r e t t y clearly developed. . . . Their avowed object is to take the Enumeration [census] as soon as possible w i t h the expectation that the greater part of the people w i l l be found here, where, by the terms of the treaty, a tract w i l l be laid off for t h e m upon which they and their heirs w i l l live i n the full enjoyment of all their savage customs." M c M i n n was determined that such an interpretation of the treaty should not prevail. 39

40

To prevent this, he told Calhoun, " I have assumed a m u c h higher g r o u n d " i n dealing w i t h t h e m than previously. He had made i t clear that there was no alternative to removal or citizenship. I n order to make total removal more palatable, he had suggested that the government w o u l d be w i l l i n g to pay t h e m an additional $100,000. He requested that Calhoun now draft instructions to h i m authorizing h i m to offer such a sum for an o u t r i g h t cession of all Cherokee land i n the east. Five days after the Ustanali Council, Hicks protested to Meigs that "as to total exchange of lands, I never understood that was the meaning of the t r e a t y . " He believed that M c M i n n must have erred " t o [tell us to] be­ come citizens or [we] must go over the Mississippi." That " w o u l d be a [use of] force w h i c h y o u said we were free [ f r o m ] . " Hicks had not seen Meigs's correspondence over the last eight years i n w h i c h he had said that the Cherokees did not have the right to be free from compulsion w h e n the government acted i n their best interest. Hicks n o w implored Meigs to as­ sert that the Cherokees retained the right to say no to treaty requests and particularly to this cruel choice. Pathkiller also wrote to M c M i n n : " I t appears to me that y o u want to dispossess us of our habitation . . . but I w i l l hold m y c o u n t r y fast. . . . 41

ASP i i , 479-80, and Joseph McMinn to John Calhoun, M-234, July 7, 1818, reel 71, #0284. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, August 7, 1818, M-221, reel 79, #0053-0054. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, July 5, 1818, M-208. 39

40

41

242

S T RU G G LE F O R S O V E R E I G N T Y

I love m y country where I was raised. I never w i l l find such another C o u n t r y i f y o u was to dispossess [us] of our b o u n d a r y . " The genuine surprise i n these statements b y Hicks and Pathkiller at the " h i g h g r o u n d " taken b y M c M i n n i n July m a y reflect a sense of despair at the t h o u g h t that there m i g h t be no w a y to save their homeland. I t is hard to believe that t h e y had not recognized earlier that total removal was the i n t e n t i o n of the treaty commissioners. 42

W h e n Calhoun read M c M i n n ' s i n f l a m m a t o r y report of Cherokee ob­ stinacy, he decided to back M c M i n n ' s new plan. He w r o t e o n July 29: " T h e conduct o n the part of the Cherokee nation merits the severest cen­ sure. After ratification of the treaty, resistance to its fair execution can be considered little short of hostility. The menaces offered to those w h o choose to emigrate or to take reservations cannot be t o l e r a t e d . " He con­ sidered that the Cherokee actions were i n "open violation of the t r e a t y " and said " t h e U n i t e d States w i l l not permit the treaty to be defeated b y any such means." Calhoun also agreed to send new instructions to allow M c M i n n to offer the Cherokees $100,000 to confirm the plan for total ex­ t i n c t i o n of the eastern land claims. " I have examined w i t h care the project of an arrangement w h i c h y o u purpose to carry the treaty into effect. Such an arrangement accords entirely w i t h the views of the G o v e r n m e n t . " As for the sum proposed, "even that sum m i g h t be considerably enlarged" i f necessary to effect the purpose. He cautioned M c M i n n that "so bold a scheme" m i g h t alarm the Cherokees and "augment the violence of the opposition." However, he left this to M c M i n n ' s j u d g m e n t . 43

44

S h o r t l y after Calhoun w r o t e , Meigs sent h i m a letter saying that the Cherokees were n o w so heavily i n debt that i f they were offered $120,000 to move west t h e y w o u l d undoubtedly agree. M c M i n n postponed the Council meeting at w h i c h he was to present this new inducement u n t i l November 13. W h e n the Cherokees arrived at the agency, they found that M c M i n n had stationed a group of soldiers around it. The soldiers were ostensibly present to protect emigrants f r o m i n t i m i d a t i o n , but their real purpose was to intimidate the Council. F r o m the outset M c M i n n took a severe tone, reasserting the correctness of his interpretation of the treaty and reading the letter f r o m Calhoun saying 45

Pathkiller to Joseph M c M i n n , July 12,1818, M-208. ASP I I , 479-80. Calhoun's reasoning on Indian removal at this time can be seen in a letter he wrote to M c M i n n on July 29,1818: "Surrounded as the Cherokees are by the white population, they are i n danger of perpetual collisions with them, or, even if disputes can be avoided, to fall under the train of vice and misery to which a savage people are doomed when they come into contact with enlightened and civilized nations. It is vain for the Cherokees to hold the high tone which they do as to their independence as a nation; for daily proof is exhibited that, were it not for the protecting arm of the United States [against white frontier ruffians], they would become victims of fraud and violence" (ASP I I , 479). Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, August 7,1818, M-208. 42

43

44

45

243

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

that he agreed w i t h that interpretation. He also read Calhoun's statement that the Cherokees deserved severe censure for opposing the treaty b y ac­ tions hostile to the U n i t e d States. He said that by his calculation over half their nation had already relinquished their title to land i n the east t h r o u g h e n r o l l i n g or reserves (a w i l d exaggeration). He urged the C o u n ­ cil to end the whole matter quickly and easily by accepting the $100,000 that the government was n o w w i l l i n g to add as a codicil to the treaty. 46

The Council deliberated and then replied: " I f we were to accede to y o u r propositions to compel a whole nation of people, contrary to their free w i l l and choice, to leave the land of their n a t i v i t y . . . w h i c h all the so­ l e m n i t y of a t r e a t y " had guaranteed t h e m (in 1791), and to do this b y ac­ cepting a pittance not more than one-tenth its true w o r t h , they w o u l d be both dishonest and inhumane toward their people. Therefore, " w e have decisively rejected y o u r propositions for an entire extinguishment of all our claims to land east of the Mississippi r i v e r . " T h e y again insisted that the census be taken at once. The response was signed b y seventy-two chiefs. 47

M c M i n n answered that i n all his public life he had never received a re­ ply " m o r e unexpected or better calculated to w o u n d m y feelings." The Cherokees' ingratitude toward the government was unbelievable. H o w ­ ever, he was w i l l i n g to raise the offer for their land to $200,000 and give t h e m u n t i l 1822 to complete their removal. W h e n the Council also re­ jected this offer, M c M i n n lost his temper. He threatened to w i t h d r a w all protection of their borders and leave t h e m at the mercy of w h i t e i n t r u d ­ ers. Let t h e m see then how much their vaunted "independence" w o u l d do t h e m . He demanded a censure of those members of the Council and National Committee w h o had personally intimidated emigrants and threatened the life of his interpreter, Captain James Starr. He also de­ manded that the Council pass a resolution to punish anyone else w h o tried to prevent fulfillment of the treaty. O n l y by such actions could the Cherokees purge themselves of the contempt they had shown to the au­ t h o r i t y of the U n i t e d States. The Council declined to take any of these actions. M c M i n n then announced that he w o u l d f o r w i t h send all the gov­ ernment troops " o n f u r l o u g h " — t a n t a m o u n t to i n v i t i n g the frontiers­ m e n to enter the nation and plunder i t at w i l l . 48

W h e n the Council was just about to break up i n this confrontation w i t h M c M i n n , he narrowed his demands and made a concession. He said that he w o u l d have the census taken as soon as the Arkansas chiefs sent their commissioner for this purpose (as the treaty designated) and that he 46

4 7

4 8

ASP i i , 481-88. I I , 487. A S P I I , 482, 489.

ASP

244

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

w o u l d be satisfied of the Council's friendliness i f i t w o u l d remove f r o m office Thomas Foreman, a member of the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e and the m a n w h o allegedly threatened Starr's life. The Council decided to sacri­ fice Foreman for the sake of ending the c r i s i s . W h e n the census was taken, e n r o l l m e n t w o u l d end and the Cherokees w o u l d be allowed to keep w h a t was left of t h e i r land. 49

Once t h e y voted to expel Foreman f r o m the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e , M c M i n n accepted this as proof that he had broken the h o s t i l i t y of the Council and had w o n the contest of wills w i t h Hicks. H e w r o t e to Cal­ h o u n that he was n o w " m o s t sanguine" that the aims of the treaty w o u l d be completed " i n a m u c h shorter p e r i o d . " Evidently he assumed that emigrant e n r o l l m e n t w o u l d suddenly flourish. H e also i n f o r m e d C a l h o u n that he had persuaded Pathkiller to send a delegation to W a s h i n g t o n " t o settle e v e r y t h i n g according to his father's wishes." Calhoun, presum­ ably, w o u l d be able to persuade t h e m to accept the $200,000 for their land. " N o w is the auspicious m o m e n t ; the most violent opposition is si­ lenced and the friends of an exchange have at last assumed an air of i n ­ dependence." The Cherokees were n o w prepared, he said, to demonstrate a " s p i r i t of c o n f o r m i t y " to the benevolent aims of the government. 50

The Cherokees were indeed w o r r i e d , but they were b y no means as t o ­ t a l l y cowed as M c M i n n assumed. His claim that he had " o n e - h a l f the Cherokee population on our side" because he had a list of 864 families w h o had "relinquished their claim to land east of the M i s s i s s i p p i " was based on false statistics. He estimated that there were 2,900 Cherokees i n Arkansas prior to the treaty and insisted that there were o n l y 10,000 Cherokees i n the east. A s s u m i n g that each of the 864 families had "three or four m e m b e r s " ( t h o u g h probably m a n y of the 864 had enrolled as i n ­ dividuals), he claimed a total of 3,456 Cherokees i n the east and 2,900 i n the west w h o were " o n our side" (i.e., i n favor of removal and exchange), w h i c h was more than half of 10,000. But i f Meigs's census i n 1809 was correct, there were over 13,000 Cherokees i n the east i n 1809 and there were probably more b y 1818. I n 1818 there were perhaps 2,500 Chero­ kees i n the west. The Cherokees t h e n totaled close to 16,000 or 17,000 people. Moreover, m a n y i n the east w h o put t h e i r names o n the rolls to go west i n 1817-1819 never did g o . O f the 864 o n M c M i n n ' s list, 146 took reserves and planned to stay i n the east. 51

ASP i i , 482; Cherokee Council to Joseph McMinn, November 28,1818, M-208. I I , 482. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 100; Royce here states that 817 Cherokees who enrolled for Arkansas between 1817 and 1819 never left their homeland. See also ASP I I , 480-83. A census taken of the Cherokees in 1825 reported a total of 14,972 Cherokees living in the east and an estimate of 3,500-4,000 in the west. See McLoughlin and Conser, "The Cherokees in Transition," p. 681. 4 9

5 0

ASP

5 1

245

STRUGGLE FOR SOVEREIGNTY

But statistics were not the issue. The question at this stage was whether the Cherokees n o w had the initiative or whether Calhoun had i t . The Council met i n December and picked new delegates to go to Washington. Some of the missionaries from N e w England heard a r u m o r that these delegates had been given the a u t h o r i t y to take the best offer they could get for their land and sign a treaty of total removal. But others heard that the Cherokees expected to persuade Calhoun to let t h e m remain i n the east. Cherokee revitalization h u n g i n the balance.

246

TWELVE

"FRIENDS AT THE N O R T H / ' 1819 They have a strong desire to perpetuate their na­ tional existence and name, but this can only be done if they remove to the West. —Return J. Meigs to John C. Calhoun, February 10,1819

F

or several weeks after the Cherokee delegation left for W a s h i n g t o n to make a final effort to save their homeland, Meigs and M c M i n n con­ tinued to believe that their original plan had finally succeeded—that all of the Cherokees i n the East w o u l d either emigrate or become citizens. M c M i n n did not go to Washington because he wished to continue to en­ r o l l Cherokees to go west. He was confident that Calhoun w o u l d push the treaty t h r o u g h to this intended effect. O n January 26, he w r o t e to Cal­ h o u n : " S h o u l d a failure ensue i n the anticipated negotiations at the city (which we trust is not probable), I t h i n k I can venture to state that $300,000, including all former expenditures w i l l cover every necessary expense attending their removal . . . w h i c h w o u l d be a little more t h a n two cents per acre" for 14 m i l l i o n acres, "a great p r o p o r t i o n of w h i c h is rich land and well-watered and particularly i n the Alabama T e r r i t o r y . " M o s t of this was suitable for cotton g r o w i n g and therefore " c e r t a i n l y contains the most valuable part of the Cherokee c o u n t r y . " 1

But Calhoun had already decided not to push for total removal and detribalization. Cherokee resistance had succeeded better than t h e y knew. The m o u n t i n g cost of the effort put an end to i t . The Cherokees were saved b y the g r o w i n g economic crisis i n the U n i t e d States k n o w n as the Panic of 1819—caused i n large part b y overextended credit for specula­ t i o n i n western land. M c M i n n had, b y December 1818, spent the full $80,000 appropriated by Congress for removal. I t was not l i k e l y that Congress w o u l d n o w appropriate t w o or three hundred thousand dollars more, especially w h e n the Cherokees had made i t clear h o w strenuously t h e y opposed removal. O n December 29, Calhoun told M c M i n n that " t h e state of the Indian fund and particularly that for carrying the Cherokee 1

ASP

i i , 483.

247

" F R I E N D S

A T T I I E

N O R T H "

treaty i n t o effect w i l l not p e r m i t arrangements so extensive" as M c M i n n had o u t l i n e d for total removal. " I t is to be hoped that the effects of the measures w h i c h have been pursued w i l l , i n a few years, accomplish the object of G o v e r n m e n t , " but for now, the President was w i l l i n g to let the matter rest. 2

Because the Cherokees were unaware of this w h e n they arrived i n Washington, they were prepared to make further concessions; Calhoun was prepared to squeeze all the land out of t h e m he could. A m o n g other things, he hoped to persuade t h e m to yield all of their r e m a i n i n g land i n Georgia i n order to fulfill Jefferson's Compact of 1802. The Cherokees had o n l y one card left to play i n their negotiations: to enlist the political aid of the distinguished and well-connected mission board of the n e w l y arrived missionaries from N e w England. K n o w n as the A m e r i c a n Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, this missionary society i n Bos­ ton included among its members and former members some of the wealthiest businessmen and most influential political leaders i n N e w England and the M i d d l e Atlantic states. T h o u g h dominated by N e w Eng­ land Congregationalists, i t was also allied w i t h the D u t c h Reformed Churches of N e w York and N e w Jersey and the Presbyterians, w h o were powerful i n N e w York and N e w Jersey. The politicians for these states had been among the most strenuous opponents of the bill for appropria­ tions to remove the southeastern tribes both i n the Senate and i n the House. Their opposition was i n part political (they were no friends of Jackson and the westerners) and i n part philanthropic. They strongly pre­ ferred the original Indian policy of civilizing and incorporating the I n d i ­ ans and they f i r m l y believed that the United States must live up to its treaty pledges. The A m e r i c a n Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions had de­ cided i n 1816 to send missionaries to establish schools and churches among the Cherokees and other Southeastern tribes. The A m e r i c a n Board had been founded i n 1810 to undertake overseas missions i n the Far East, but after the War of 1812 m a n y churchgoers wanted to help the I n ­ dians to become good Christian citizens and to share i n the nation's m a n ­ ifest destiny. The Presbyterians on the Board, having lost Gideon Black­ burn's schools among the Cherokees i n 1810, m a y have suggested the appropriateness of concentrating their efforts on the Southeastern I n d i ­ ans. The Board sent the Reverend Cyrus K i n g s b u r y as its agent to travel t h r o u g h the south i n 1816 and determine the feasibility of starting Indian missions. W h e n K i n g s b u r y reported that the southeastern Indians were potentially ripe for mission activity because of their rapid acculturation, 2

ASP

i i , 480.

248

^FRIENDS

AT T H E N O R T H "

the Board corresponded w i t h President M a d i s o n and received his full ap­ proval. T h e y also asked the government to grant their agency a m o n o p ­ o l y of missionary w o r k among the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws and to c o m m i t itself to p r o v i d i n g funds and equipment to as­ sist their schools as i t had assisted those of Blackburn and, after 1808, the M o r a v i a n s . The President agreed to provide some financial aid, but he 3

could not grant the Board exclusive C h r i s t i a n i z i n g rights among the southeastern Indians. I n the course of his travel, K i n g s b u r y discovered that A n d r e w Jackson was doing his best to promote total removal and exchange of land among the Cherokees and other tribes. " I ought to observe," K i n g s b u r y w r o t e i n November 1816 to the Prudential Committee that managed the A m e r i c a n Board's affairs, " t h a t I expect an attempt w i l l be made at the c o m i n g ses­ sion of Congress to induce the Cherokees to remove over the M i s s i s ­ s i p p i . " Jackson's failure to obtain Cherokee acquiescence to removal i n 4

October 1816 evidently convinced the Board to go ahead. Jackson, i n fact, introduced K i n g s b u r y to the Cherokee chiefs at the Council i n T u r k e y t o w n that October. K i n g s b u r y reported that he " t o l d t h e m we w o u l d take their children, teach t h e m freely w i t h o u t m o n e y . That we w o u l d feed as m a n y as we could and furnish some clothes to those that are poor." I n addition, K i n g s b u r y said, his Board wanted a tract of land on w h i c h t h e y could start a farm to provide vocational t r a i n i n g for y o u n g Cherokee boys, teaching t h e m husbandry and the girls domestic manufactures.

5

The Council agreed; w i t h their approval K i n g s b u r y chose a tract near Chickamauga (later named Brainerd Mission) and purchased the i m ­ provements there of old " T o r y " John M c D o n a l d , n o w too old to manage a farm and about to move near his grandson, John Ross, a few miles away. K i n g s b u r y t o l d the Board he hoped to have the school started b y February 1817 b u t he warned t h e m that Jackson and the westerners had b y no means ended their efforts to remove the Indians to Arkansas. H e consid­ ered this policy contrary to all treaty guarantees and cruel to the Chero­ kees: " I f the attempt should succeed, I should blush for m y c o u n t r y . "

6

However, he admitted that he had found intense hatred of the Indians among the whites everywhere on the frontier. " I hope to remove some of the prejudices against t h e m , " K i n g s b u r y w r o t e , b y s h o w i n g that the I n ­ dians were capable of education and conversion to C h r i s t i a n i t y . " B u t y o u For a detailed study of the missionaries to the Cherokees, see McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries. On the effort of the A B C F M to attain a monopoly of missionary activity among the five southeastern Indian nations see ibid., p. 105. Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, November 28,1816, A B C F M . Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, October 15,1816, A B C F M . Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, November 28,1816, A B C F M . 3

4 5

6

249

" F R I E N D S

A T T Ii E

N O R T H "

cannot conceive the state [of J feeling (against t h e m ] even among profes­ sors [of r e l i g i o n ] / ' The Congregationalists of N e w England (descendants of the Puritans), who constituted the major part of the American Board, had never been shy about u n i t i n g the aims of church and state for the maintenance of m o r a l , orderly, Christian society. Unlike the Moravians, whose perse­ cution i n Europe led t h e m to keep as far from secular governments as pos­ sible, the Congregationalists were prepared to establish close cooperation w i t h the federal government. Their school at Chickamauga got under way i n February 1817 and the missionaries w h o were sent there soon found themselves caught up i n the problem of removal and exchange. A g e n t Meigs, eager to have the missionaries on his side, i n f o r m e d t h e m that "about o n e - t h i r d of the Cherokees" were l i v i n g i n Arkansas. " C o l . Meigs has more than once suggested," K i n g s b u r y reported i n June, "the importance of establishing a school i n that country and has said that Gov­ ernment w i l l furnish almost any aid we m i g h t w i s h , " i f the Board w o u l d do t h i s . K i n g s b u r y realized that the government was t r y i n g to use the Board for its o w n purposes: " T h e object of the Government w o u l d be to get as m a n y of these people over there [in Arkansas] as possible." I f the government could assure the Cherokees that there w o u l d be schools available i n Arkansas, this m i g h t be another inducement to emigrate. N o t w i s h i n g to offend the government, w h i c h had agreed to pay for the cost of their school buildings and provide t h e m w i t h tools for vocational t r a i n ­ ing on their farm, the Board agreed to establish such a school at once. This pleased Meigs and M c M i n n , but the Cherokees could not help v i e w i n g i t as inimical to their efforts to prevent removal. Missionaries w h o supped w i t h the Devil needed a long spoon. The American Board was soon en­ gaged i n a complicated game of t r y i n g to appear neutral and yet remain friendly w i t h both sides i n the struggle. " W e wait w i t h some solicitude to learn the probable effect of the new arrangement made by the G o v e r n ­ ment w i t h the Cherokees," wrote Dr. Samuel A . Worcester, one of the Board's leading members, to K i n g s b u r y i n A u g u s t . " W e hope i t w i l l not be inauspicious to our great design." 7

8

9

The Board's missionaries i n the field were personally sympathetic to the Cherokee desire to remain i n their homeland. The Reverend Elias Cornelius, the Secretary of the American Board, w h o traveled to Chick­ amauga i n October to meet the chiefs and report on the progress of the school, made little effort to hide his distaste for the policy of Jackson and the westerners. Like the eastern Congressmen w h o opposed the removal 7

Ibid.

8

Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, June 30, 1817, A B C F M . S. A. Worcester to Cyrus Kingsbury, August 22,1817, A B C F M .

9

250

" F R I E N D S

A T

T H E

N O R T H "

b i l l , Cornelius t h o u g h t Jackson and the other treaty commissioners of 1817 had distorted Jefferson's message of 1809 and had bullied the Cher­ okees i n t o signing the treaty of July 8. " T h e Commissioners w h o held the treaty i n July last acted entirely w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y f r o m the President of the U n i t e d States," Cornelius was alleged to have told the chiefs. He as­ sured the Cherokees that Congress w o u l d never approve of r e m o v i n g t h e m against their w i l l . 1 0

W h e n the pro-removal chiefs heard of this, they told Sam H o u s t o n of Tennessee, w h o had been appointed to assist M c M i n n w i t h the e n r o l l ­ ment of emigrants. H o u s t o n wrote to the Secretary of War, accusing Cor­ nelius and K i n g s b u r y of using their "influence to prevent the Cherokees f r o m r e m o v i n g . " U p o n discovering this accusation of political m e d ­ d l i n g , K i n g s b u r y rushed to M c M i n n to disavow any such i n t e n t i o n . He said that Cornelius had merely shown to a few Cherokees a letter f r o m the Secretary of War i n w h i c h Graham himself had said " t h a t i t was doubted whether the treaty w o u l d be ratified" because of the strong ar­ guments made i n the Senate by opponents of the removal b i l l . K i n g s b u r y then w r o t e to the Board i n Boston stating that neither he, Cornelius, nor any missionary was engaged i n political activity. He also remarked that H o u s t o n was an officious man " m u c h engaged to get the Indians away f r o m their c o u n t r y . " 11

12

Calhoun, replacing Graham i n December, took the w o r d of Dr. Worcester i n Boston that the missionaries were not opposing removal and the matter d r o p p e d . Still, the Cherokees, both pro- and anti-removal, could not help realizing that these n o r t h e r n missionaries disliked the ef­ forts being made to move t h e m . "Some of the emigrating p a r t y " said K i n g s b u r y , "circulated a report that i t was our object to f o r m a large set­ tlement of white people to get possession of their l a n d . " T h e y spread this report i n order to t u r n the Cherokees against the mission. " T h e w h i t e people" of Tennessee, w h o lived near the mission, also sensed the dislike of these northerners for the new removal policy. They " t h i n k i t of great importance that all the natives should be removed," A r d H o y t w r o t e ; the N e w Englanders had to be very careful "lest our good i n t e n ­ tions should be misconstrued." The anti-removal chiefs, however, were eager to make the most of 13

14

15

Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A . Worcester, December 11,1817, A B C F M . See ibid, and Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, November 25, 1817, M-221, reel 75, #6641. Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester in his "Post scriptum" dated December 15 in his letter of December 11, 1817, A B C F M . John Calhoun to Thomas McKenney, February 16,1819, M-15, reel 4, p. 119. Cyrus Kingsbury to S. A. Worcester, March 6,1818, A B C F M . Ard Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, July 25, 1818, A B C F M . 10

11

12

13

14 15

251

" F R I E N D S

A T T H E

N O R T H "

these new allies. They embarrassed the A m e r i c a n Board missionaries i n their m e m o r i a l to the treaty commissioners of July 1817 w h e n t h e y i m ­ plied that the start of its mission school at Brainerd (Chickamauga) was proof that the old Indian policy w o u l d prevail. W h y else w o u l d President Madison lend his support to the Board? " W e hope by the [aid of the] be­ nevolent societies of our w h i t e brothers from the n o r t h , that i n course of t i m e , i f we shall be allowed to keep our country, our w h i t e brothers w i l l not blush to o w n us as b r o t h e r s . " However neutral they tried to be i n their public statements after that, the Board's missionaries minced no words i n their private letters. " W e t h i n k , " wrote A r d H o y t , w h o took over Brainerd Mission w h e n Kings­ b u r y moved on to set up a school among the Choctaws, " w i t h the Chiefs of this people, that a general removal w o u l d greatly distress this people and i n a great degree retard, i f not u l t i m a t e l y defeat, the benevolent de­ sign of b r i n g i n g t h e m out of their state of darkness to the l i g h t of divine t r u t h and the privileges of c i v i l i z a t i o n . " The missionaries greatly ad­ m i r e d Charles Hicks, w h o m they called " B r o t h e r H i c k s " because he was a Christian and a supporter of missions. He is "an observing brother w h o is ever attentive to the best interest of his people," H o y t w r o t e to the Board i n July 1 8 1 8 . H o y t quickly understood w h y the Cherokees did not support the alternative of citizenship offered i n the treaty : " T h i s peo­ ple consider the offer of taking reserves and becoming citizens of the U n i t e d States as of no service to t h e m . They k n o w they are not to be ad­ m i t t e d to the rights of freemen or the privileges of their oath, and say no Cherokee or w h i t e m a n w i t h a Cherokee family, can possibly live among such w h i t e people as w i l l first settle their c o u n t r y " and surround the re­ serves. 16

17

18

19

By December 1818 the missionaries feared that the pressure on the Cherokees had become too strong to resist. "The great part of the Cher­ okee nation w i l l cross the Mississippi," wrote H o y t , as the Cherokee del­ egation prepared to depart for Washington. " T h e delegates have full power to negotiate an entire exchange of c o u n t r y i f they t h i n k best after a conference w i t h the President." A combination of sympathy and selfinterest led the Board to decide to intervene i n January 1819 and to offer its good offices to aid negotiations between the Cherokees and the federal government. One incident i n particular helped to t u r n the Board against 20

A S P i i , 143. Ard Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, July 25, 1818, A B C F M . Ibid. For other statements in praise of Charles Hicks see Brainerd Journal, April 12, 1819, and July 15, 1818, and Aid Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, March 18, 1818, A B C F M . Brainerd Journal, November 25, 1818, A B C F M . Ard Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, January 11, 1819, A B C F M . 1 6

17

18

19

20

252

" F R I E N D S

A T T H E

N O R T H "

M c M i n n and his high-handed efforts to dispossess the Cherokees: " H e opened an office/' one of the missionaries w r o t e to Boston i n January, "at the Cherokee Agency, for the sale of all improvements made by Arkansas emigrants to the highest bidders, thus to fill the c o u n t r y w i t h whites, and, as he m i g h t expect, w i t h whites of the most abandoned character." The treaty gave M c M i n n no a u t h o r i t y to lease or sell land i n the Cherokee N a t i o n to whites just because a Cherokee had enrolled to emigrate or even if he had departed for Arkansas. His purpose, he said, was to provide e m ­ igrants w i t h cash and to avoid the delay and trouble of h a v i n g the gov­ ernment appraise the land and remunerate the emigrant. M c M i n n en­ couraged the emigrants to arrange sales or leases on their o w n terms and he ignored protests by Pathkiller and the Council. However, he over­ reached himself w h e n he put up the American Board mission at Brainerd for sale and accepted an offer for i t f r o m a citizen of Tennessee. "Some say he was intoxicated w h e n he did t h i s , " the head of the mission w r o t e to the Board i n Boston, "and t h i n k he w i l l i n some w a y disannul this sale i n his sober moments—others t h i n k i t quite possible that this m a y i n a future day occasion some d i s p u t e . " " A l l these sales are contrary to the express language of the t r e a t y , " H o y t said, u r g i n g the Baord to take some action before the missionaries were dispossessed b y the purchaser. 21

22

W h e t h e r M c M i n n adopted this tactic out of a genuine belief that i t was good policy or as a last desperate effort to disrupt and demoralize the Cherokees b y filling their land w i t h w h i t e speculators cannot be said. However, the muddle over ownership that this was bound to produce m a y w e l l have been one of the reasons Calhoun decided to end the whole busi­ ness and send M c M i n n p a c k i n g . 23

John Ross, w h o was chosen a member of the delegation to visit W a s h ­ i n g t o n i n January 1819, realizing that the missionaries disliked M c M i n n and were sympathetic t o w a r d the effort to avoid removal, paid a visit to Brainerd M i s s i o n before he left. He wished to explain the strategy of the delegation and to enlist the missionaries' help. Ross began b y t e l l i n g t h e m confidentially that the Cherokees m i g h t have to give up all their land and go west. I f this were forced upon t h e m , he said the delegation w o u l d do its best to make some arrangement w i t h Calhoun to preserve the mission property f r o m w h i t e land speculators and reimburse the Board for its heavy investment there: " H e t h o u g h t the mission families m u s t have a reserve, at least equal to the Cherokees w h o choose to reDaniel Butrick to S. A. Worcester, January 1,1819, A B C F M . A r d Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, March 17,1819, A B C F M . Calhoun wrote to M c M i n n on September 7,1819, that " w i t h respect to the validity of the leases," he had talked to the President, "and after due consideration, the President, as well as myself, was of the opinion that they were not good" (M-15, reel 4, p. 321). 21

2 2 23

253

"FRIENDS

AT T H E N O R T I i "

m a i n , i.e., 640 acres to each f a m i l y — t h a t the grant for Chickamaugah [Brainerd] must be sufficient to include all our buildings and i m p r o v e ­ m e n t . " From the sale of such a reserve, the Board could recoup the m o n e y it had put i n t o the school or farm. O n the other hand, Ross said, i f the delegation was able to avoid removal, the nation planned to establish an endowment to support schools by selling a tract of its land that w o u l d fetch a good price. He asked H o y t ' s advice on h o w such a fund m i g h t be administered, suggesting that the American Board m i g h t participate i n that process to support its o w n schools. "The great object of his i n q u i r y , " H o y t wrote to Boston, "was h o w a large tract of good land at some place where i t w o u l d sell h i g h , could be secured i n the hands of some w h i t e peo­ ple (as they had no law by w h i c h i t could be secured among themselves) so that the nation should hereafter have the benefit of i t for the support of schools." H o y t t h o u g h t both suggestions were important. He told the Board: "Perhaps this m a y be the best time to secure the property of the Board here," and urged i t to send representatives to " v i s i t the dele­ gation at Washington and grant t h e m friendly aid i n their t i m e of t r o u ­ b l e . " The Board agreed and appointed Dr. Worcester to go to Washington at once to confer w i t h the Secretary of War regarding the future of the Cherokee N a t i o n . 24

The Cherokee delegation arrived on February 1. Its members were Charles Hicks, John Ross, Lewis Ross, John M a r t i n , James B r o w n , George Lowrey, Gideon M o r g a n , Jr., Cabbin S m i t h , Sleeping Rabbit, Small W o o d , John Walker, and Currahee Dick. I n their first meeting w i t h Calhoun, apparently unaware that he was prepared to give up total re­ moval, they asked h i m to take p i t y on them. Despite m a n y difficulties, " o u r manners and customs are rapidly assimilating to those of our w h i t e Brothers and Sisters who surround us, and we fondly look forward to the t i m e w h e n we shall see those dark clouds of superstition and ignorance vanish from among us." They took note of the argument that their slow progress was considered by some a sign of their innate i n f e r i o r i t y : " I t is to the want of education and not to a defect i n nature to w h i c h we must ascribe nearly all of our evils. N a t u r a l man is i n every country and i n every age nearly the same. I t is to the Lights of education to w h i c h every nation owes their distinction, excepting i n Colour. I t is a degradation to the A m e r i c a n character to say that her natural Sons are incapable of i m ­ p r o v e m e n t . " (Perhaps some of t h e m had read Jefferson's Notes on Vir­ ginia.) To demonstrate their advances i n civilization the delegates i n f o r m e d 25

Ard Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, January 11,1819, A B C F M . Cherokee delegation to John Calhoun, February 5, 1818 [misdated, should be 1819], M-271,reel2, #0576. 24

25

254

" F R I E N D S

A T T H E

N O R T H "

Calhoun that "the Laws of the Cherokee N a t i o n are n o w recorded i n a book and Communicated verbally to the people. . . . we propose estab­ lishing w i t h i n the nation a p r i n t i n g office and publishing a periodical magazine or newspaper [and] to give to each head of f a m i l y a copy gratis who has a member i n i t w h o could read the english language." Further­ more, " t o secure a proper management of this establishment," t h e y p r o ­ posed " t o place i t under the direction of the Society of Friends or the for­ eign missionary society [the A m e r i c a n Board] and solicit the citizens of the u n i t e d states to become subscribers to i t . " A n y profits f r o m the paper w o u l d go "exclusively to the education of Indian y o u t h s . " T h e y said t h e y wished to sell some of their land to establish a school fund to supplement the benevolence of the government and missionary societies. T h e n they complained about M c M i n n ' s "late conduct i n leasing out our lands [to whites] contrary to the spirit and meaning of the t r e a t y . " T h e y were w i l l i n g to deal liberally w i t h their brothers i n Arkansas i f t h e y could find some w a y to do so w i t h o u t giving up all their l a n d . Calhoun took a hard line w i t h the delegation. " Y o u see that the Great Spirit has made our f o r m of society stronger than yours and y o u m u s t submit to adopt ours i f y o u w i s h to be happy b y pleasing h i m . " I f the Cherokees wished to avoid total removal, they must be prepared to give up additional tracts of land: " I t is indispensable that the cession w h i c h they should make should be ample and the part reserved to themselves should not be larger than is necessary for their wants and conveniences." This was the first h i n t they had that perhaps some compromise could be w o r k e d out. The question then became h o w great a sacrifice w o u l d be re­ quired. 26

2 7

From February 5 to 27, Calhoun and the delegates huddled over a map of the Cherokees' lands, t r y i n g to decide just h o w m u c h they should cede and where i t should be sliced f r o m their country. Calhoun kept u r g i n g that i t should all be taken f r o m the part of their c o u n t r y l y i n g w i t h i n the Meigs, who had accompanied the Cherokee delegation to Washington, wrote to Cal­ houn on February 10: " I f they wish to remain here, I mean on the present ground, it appears to me indispensable that they should receive laws from Georgia and Tennessee, mild laws, adapted to their state of information. . . . It is time that their present customs . . . should be abolished. If this is done and complete enfranchisement accorded to all those whose merit and information will justify it, it will be making a benevolent experiment. . . . But it w i l l , in my opinion, be only a temporary expedient on their part to gain time; it will not stop the current emigration to the west of the Mississippi river. Their country on the east of that river will not support them without industrious habits of labour, and this they will not sub­ mit to. If it is desirable to perpetuate their national existence and name, and I think they strongly desire it, they must take new ground where the pressure of white population w i l l not be great for many years to come. . . . They have had erroneous ideas on subject of their relations with the Government. Their safety depends on their dependence, but it is difficult to make them comprehend this" (M-271, reel 2, #1351). A S P I I , 190. 26

2 7

255

" F R I E N D S

A T T I I E

N O R T H "

bounds of Georgia, but this was the seat of their government, Ustanali, and the site of m u c h of their best and most h i g h l y developed land. I t was also the location of the M o r a v i a n mission and of the major full-blood towns along the Etowah River. " I t was found impossible," Calhoun ex­ plained later to the angry Georgia politicians, to induce the delegation to yield to this demand; " t h e y were fixed i n their determination particularly not to be separated f r o m the Creek nation by any i n t e r v e n i n g w h i t e pop­ u l a t i o n and to cover their n o r t h e r n boundary to the Tennessee River, w h i c h necessarily t h r e w the cession made by the treaty i n t o Alabama, Tennessee and N o r t h Carolina" w i t h o n l y a small tract i n G e o r g i a .

28

In

the end the Cherokees ceded i n 1817 and 1819 a total of four m i l l i o n of their r e m a i n i n g fourteen m i l l i o n acres: 1,540,000 i n Tennessee ( n o r t h of the Hiwassee River); 986,880 i n N o r t h Carolina; 739,000 i n Alabama T e r r i t o r y ( n o r t h of the Tennessee River on its r i g h t bank) ; and 536,000 i n Georgia (making the Chattahootchee River the new b o u n d a r y ) .

29

These cessions w o u l d require almost two hundred Cherokee families or, more precisely, 870 persons to move from their homes and crowd i n t o w h a t was left of the n a t i o n .

30

The government agreed to grant an equiv­

alent area i n Arkansas to the western Cherokees. The delegates then faced the problem of d i v i d i n g their a n n u i t y w i t h the western Cherokees. For that purpose the census was supposed to be taken, but neither side wished to undergo the trouble and expense. Instead the delegates and Calhoun tried to estimate how m a n y Cherokees were i n A r ­ kansas or enrolled to go there and how m a n y w o u l d remain i n the east. The delegates claimed that three-fourths of the Cherokees (12,544 ac­ cording to a census ordered by Pathkiller i n 1818-1819) w o u l d remain i n the east and o n l y 3,500 w o u l d be i n Arkansas. Calhoun estimated that there w o u l d be 5,000 Cherokees i n Arkansas and that 10,000 w o u l d re­ m a i n i n the east. Reluctantly, the delegation accepted Calhoun's figures and agreed to give o n e - t h i r d of their a n n u i t y to the Arkansas kees.

31

Chero­

N o official census was taken.

As stipulated i n the treaty of July 8, 1817, and the treaty of February 27, 1819, those who wished reserves and citizenship w o u l d obtain t h e m if t h e y lived on ceded land; i n the 1819 treaty, anyone w h o lived on land ceded i n 1817 and w h o did not wish to emigrate could also obtain 640 acres around his farm and become a citizen. Over three hundred Cheroi i , 462, 500. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 91-100; ASP I I , 461-62. ASP I I , 495, 498; list of Cherokees forced to remove from land ceded 1817-1819 (un­ dated), M-221, reel 98, #2425. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 90, 98; Cherokee delegation to Calhoun, Feb­ ruary 17,1819, M-271, reel 2, #1111. 2 8

ASP

2 9 3 0

31

256

" F R I E N D S

A T T H E

N O R T H "

kees " t o o k reserves" under these treaties, b u t t h e y were to have great dif­ ficulty sustaining their claims on these tracts i n the ensuing y e a r s . The delegates also received a pledge f r o m Calhoun to remove any intruders f r o m w h a t was left of the n a t i o n , including those to w h o m M c M i n n had illegally leased or sold emigrants' land. 32

Finally the Cherokees raised the question of selling some of their land to establish a permanent Cherokee school fund. D r . Worcester did not reach W a s h i n g t o n u n t i l February 18 to speak for the A m e r i c a n Board. B y t h e n the negotiations were far along. W h e t h e r he exerted a major i n f l u ­ ence o n the final version or not is hard to t e l l , but the delegates gave h i m credit for helping. A tract of twelve square miles of good Cherokee land along the Tennessee River (not included i n any cession) was set aside i n this treaty to be surveyed and sold as soon as possible b y the government. The m o n e y f r o m the sale was to be invested b y the President i n trust for the education of the Cherokees' children. Worcester assumed that the b u l k of this fund w o u l d go annually to support the schools of the A m e r ­ ican B o a r d . 33

The Cherokees expected that the treaty they signed w i t h Calhoun on February 27 w o u l d at last secure for t h e m a permanent agreement w i t h the U n i t e d States and that there w o u l d be no further attempt to remove t h e m and no further effort to ask t h e m to cede more land. A l t h o u g h Cal­ h o u n refused to w r i t e any such guarantee i n t o the treaty, the Cherokees and D r . Worcester chose to believe that this treaty w o u l d be t h e i r last. W h e n t h e y b i d farewell to President M o n r o e , the delegation said t h e y f i r m l y hoped that " y o u w i l l not solicit us for more l a n d " i n the f u t u r e . T h e y were determined never to yield any more. M o n r o e made no p r o m ­ ises and w i t h i n four years the government, urged on b y the politicians of Georgia and the other states, was at t h e m again. Calhoun, of course, had no doubt that u l t i m a t e l y the southeastern Indians w o u l d all be removed. 34

T w o weeks after the delegates signed the treaty, the Senate ratified i t and the Cherokees' second removal crisis was over. W h e n the news reached the nation that they w o u l d not have to sell all of their c o u n t r y and go west, there was a tremendous sense of relief and elation. Somehow the n a t i o n had managed to survive another threat to its existence; per­ haps t h e y too had a peculiar manifest destiny. Perhaps the Great Spirit had singled t h e m out as a specially chosen people. See William G. McLoughlin, "Experiment in Cherokee Citizenship," American Quar­ terly 33 (1981):3-25, for a discussion of what happened to the Cherokees who were given reserves as a result of the treaties of 1817 and 1819. The Cherokee delegation first mentioned to Calhoun their desire to establish an en­ dowment for a school fund on February 12,1819 (M-271, reel 2, #1106); see also ASP I I 190, 232-33. Cherokee delegation to James Madison, March 5,1819, M-271, reel 2, #1123. 32

3 3

34

257

' F R I E N D S AT T H E N O R T H '

The A m e r i c a n Board's missionaries at Brainerd were as pleased by the outcome as the Cherokees. H o y t wrote to thank Dr. Worcester for "the j o y f u l i n f o r m a t i o n that God has heard the prayers of his people i n behalf of the poor, despised and afflicted Cherokees. . . . This deliverance, be­ y o n d expectation, has spread j o y and gladness t h r o u g h the nation, and we are happy to learn that some ascribe i t to the true cause [viz., God's will]." 3 5

John Ross had w r i t t e n to H o y t from Washington to thank h i m for the Board's help: " I have the pleasure and satisfaction of becoming ac­ quainted w i t h the Rev. Dr. Worcester w h o has been here several days and been v e r y active i n p r o m o t i n g m u c h good towards our welfare and future happinees. I cannot express m y feelings of gratitude i n behalf of the Cherokee N a t i o n to those religious societies w h o has so m u c h softened the hearts and influenced the minds of the gentlemen of Congress, as w e l l as the heads of department towards the interests of the poor red children of n a t u r e . " H o y t relayed this message to Boston and Dr. Worcester wrote to Charles Hicks i n M a r c h 1819 to congratulate h i m on the out­ come : 36

I rejoice with you and thank the Great and Good Spirit for his kindness to you and your nation. It was a day of darkness. . . . You feared that you would be com­ pelled to give up your houses, your cornfields, your rivers, plains and mountains. . . . The dark Cloud has passed away. . . . A good portion of your land is secured to you; the wicked men who seek your hurt are to be kept from troubling you. You are allowed to sit quickly around your own fires and under your own trees and all things are to be set before you and your children. 37

Worcester also told Hicks that the Cherokees were n o w becoming a w e l l - k n o w n people and an important benevolent cause among w h i t e Americans i n the northeast. "Hundreds of thousands of good m e n and w o m e n i n all parts of this c o u n t r y " were coming forward to aid t h e m . The Cherokees at last had found a source of political power w i t h i n the U n i t e d States i n the churchgoing, philanthropic voters. The Quakers of Philadelphia, for example, had sent petitions to the Secretary of War on their behalf i n 1818-1819, and the united forces of the Congregation­ alism Presbyterian, and Dutch Reformed denominations were w i t h t h e m t h r o u g h the A m e r i c a n Board. Indian reform had n o w joined the temper­ ance movement, African colonization, religious education, prison reform, w o r l d peace, and the moral improvement of the urban poor i n the great 38

3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8

A r d Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, April 10,1819, A B C F M . Quoted in Ard Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, April 10,1819, A B C F M . S. A. Worcester to Charles Hicks, March 4, 1819, A B C F M . For a typical Quaker petition on behalf of the Cherokees see M-221, reel 78, #9207.

258

" F R I E N D S

A T T H E

N O R T H "

religious revival sweeping across America to elevate and Christianize the republic. The heroic determination of the loyal Cherokees to preserve their homeland had given the philanthropic public a romantic new cause to champion. Charles Hicks, w h o had borne the great burden of the two-and-a-halfyear struggle, returned to the nation w i t h renewed vigor, said H o y t . He "is m u c h engaged for the instruction of his people" i n C h r i s t i a n i t y . " W h i l e an entire exchange of c o u n t r y was t h o u g h t of as a measure t h e y m i g h t be pressed to adopt, his spirit was often greatly borne d o w n w i t h discouragement; but since they have succeeded i n getting a part of their c o u n t r y guaranteed to t h e m anew and so m a n y christian people are en­ gaged for their i n s t r u c t i o n , " his spirit had been raised u p . The power of the Great Spirit was for h i m to be found most clearly n o w i n the teaching of the Christian faith. Over the next decade, m a n y Cherokees were to find a new hope i n the spiritual power of the w h i t e man's religion as t h e y understood i t . Serious divisions arose, however, over whether C h r i s t i ­ a n i t y w o u l d strengthen or weaken Cherokee nationalism. 3 9

3 9

Brainerd Journal, April 12,1819,

ABCFM.

259

THIRTEEN

THE CREEK P A T H C O N S P I R A C Y , 1819-1822, A N D THE EXPERIMENT I N CITIZENSHIP, 1818-1832

This is a precedent much wanted, that the absurdity in politics may cease of an independent sovereign nation holding treaties with people living within its territorial limits, acknowledging its sovereignty and laws who, although not citizens, cannot be viewed as aliens but as the real subjects of the United States. —Andrew Jackson, January 1821

A

l t h o u g h the mood of the Cherokee nationalist leaders i n 1819 was again hopeful, certain elements w i t h i n the nation were profoundly dissatisfied. Discontent was also rife among the frontier whites i n the re­ gion, w h o had hoped for the total removal of the Cherokees. A l t h o u g h these feelings did not prevent rapid improvement i n Cherokee life over the next decade, they did provide continual problems for the Council. A n ­ drew Jackson and his friends did their best to use the Cherokees' internal disagreements as wedges to divide the nation, the most extreme example being Jackson's aggressive encouragement of dissension among the chiefs i n what was left of the Lower Towns, especially i n the Creek Path area of northeastern Alabama. They had borne the b r u n t of spoliations i n 18131814, of land cessions from 1816 to 1819, and of intruders ever since. A l ­ most three-fifths of the Lower T o w n region was taken from the Chero­ kees between 1816 and 1819. Jackson maintained a regular correspond­ ence w i t h his Cherokee friends there, hoping to negotiate a cession of the whole area. I n the end, he succeeded in generating a conspiracy b y the chiefs i n and around the t o w n of Creek Path to sell their part of the nation w i t h o u t asking the permission of the National Council. W h e n the plot­ t i n g was discovered i n 1821, the Council impeached the conspirators for treason. Discontent after 1819 was also acute among three other groups of Cherokees : the 3,000 to 3,500 already i n Arkansas; a group of over 800 i n the Lower Towns w h o had lost their citizenship by enrolling to go west but then had changed their minds; and the 311 Cherokee heads of f a m i 260

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

lies (totalling 1,173 persons) w h o had taken out reserves as U n i t e d States citizens under the treaties of 1817 and 1819 o n l y to find i t impossible to sustain possession of t h e m . The strong antipathy among whites s u r r o u n d i n g the Cherokee N a t i o n was manifested i n m a n y quarters. The State of Georgia p r i n t e d a resolu­ t i o n that i t circulated far and wide, protesting that the treaty of 1819 i m ­ p l i c i t l y , i f not explicitly, broke the compact that Jefferson had made w i t h the state i n 1802 ; Georgia demanded immediate and total extinction of all Cherokee title to land w i t h i n its borders. The legislatures of Tennessee, N o r t h Carolina, and Georgia also protested that the federal government had no r i g h t to grant reserves and citizenship to Cherokees w i t h i n t h e i r states' borders. A group of whites to w h o m M c M i n n , d u r i n g his last des­ perate effort to promote total removal, had leased the improvements of Cherokee emigrants or Cherokees enrolled to emigrate was angry that these leases were n o w challenged b y the Cherokees; the Cherokee C o u n ­ cil claimed that any m o n e y paid for such leases, i f they were legal at a l l , should come to the national treasury and not to the U n i t e d States, be­ cause i t was Cherokee land that had been leased. 1

2

Finally, the Cherokee Council felt itself badly abused w h e n the surveys of the land ceded i n 1817 and 1819 were completed. The Council asserted that the surveyors had purposely or erroneously included areas that the Cherokees had not intended to cede. The most egregious example of fraudulent survey was " L u m p k i n ' s L i n e , " r u n b y W i l s o n L u m p k i n of Georgia. The Cherokees said this line i m p r o p e r l y took thousands of acres f r o m t h e m because L u m p k i n had misidentified the upper source of the Chestatee River; i f allowed to stand, this line w o u l d force a w h o l e t o w n of Cherokees to move that the Council had never intended to displace. The vague w o r d i n g of the treaties and the inaccurate maps u p o n w h i c h t h e y were based always produced such geographical misinterpretations, b u t the Cherokees claimed that the surveyors of these treaty bounds had been deliberately encouraged b y state politicians and land speculators to choose landmarks that maliciously included the largest possible areas for the state and federal governments at the expense of the Cherokees. 3

The western Cherokees had almost as m a n y complaints against the Memorial of the State of Georgia, December 11,1819, M-221, reel 92, #8105. See also Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 105-106. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 99. Ultimately all the leases made by M c M i n n were cancelled; see Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, March 17, 1821, M-221, reel 90, #6858. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 99-100; Hugh Montgomery to Cherokee Council, September 26,1826, M-208; Charles Hicks and Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, June 25,1820, M-271, reel 3, #0408; Cherokee Council to John Calhoun, January 26,1820, M-15, reel 4, p. 358. 1

2

3

261

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

eastern Cherokees and the government after 1819 as they had before 1817. I n fact, i n January 1818 they had become so upset at the behavior of t h e i r eastern brethren that they officially (but unsuccessfully) re­ quested the Secretary of War to constitute t h e m as a separate and distinct Cherokee N a t i o n . They were angry because they had not been asked to 4

participate i n the negotiations w i t h Calhoun i n W a s h i n g t o n i n 1819 that so i n t i m a t e l y concerned t h e m . As a result, they said, they had been cheated of their fair share of the a n n u i t y . Like M c M i n n , t h e y believed that at least half of the nation had gone west or was enrolled to go west. Furthermore, they said that since the first removal i n 1810 or really since Doublehead's cessions of 1805 and 1806, they had given up almost half of the original land of their nation (i.e., half of " a l l the lands watered b y the Tennessee River," as John Jolly put i t ) . Yet w h e n the government finally 5

estimated the land they were to receive i n Arkansas (between the A r k a n ­ sas and W h i t e rivers), i t came to o n l y 3,285,710 acres. This the western 6

Cherokees considered to be far short of what they deserved. Further­ more, the Arkansas River was designated as the southern boundary of their tract i n Arkansas, w h i c h meant that hundreds of Cherokees w h o had established farms on the south side (or r i g h t bank) of the river had to give up their farms and move to the n o r t h side w i t h o u t any compensation. Several hundred of these Cherokees simply moved west and settled on the banks of the Red River, which bordered Mexico at the outer t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s of the U n i t e d States. Others later moved south of the Red River i n t o the part of Mexico that became Texas. I f the government defined the 7

Cherokee N a t i o n ethnically, or i f i t considered the "Western Cherokees" to include all those west of the Mississippi, these Red River emigrants wanted to k n o w what help they w o u l d be provided. The government dis­ avowed any interest i n or responsibility for any Cherokees w h o refused to live w i t h i n either the new tract i n Arkansas or the old n a t i o n i n the east. Even the Cherokees i n Arkansas w h o were n o w guaranteed b y treaty the protection and assistance of the United States found m u c h to com­ plain about i n their treatment. They did not feel that they had been ade­ quately reimbursed for the improvements they had left behind; they were not protected f r o m the Osages; the w h i t e intruders on their new tract were not ejected; the government failed to provide t h e m w i t h a Tolluntuskee to John Calhoun, January 14,1818, M-271, reel 2, #0567. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, February 9, 1824, M-221, reel 98, #2244. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 115-21; John Calhoun to the western Cherokee chief, February 12,1823, reel 6, p. 384; Joseph McMinn to John Calhoun, February 9,1824, M-221, reel 98, #2244. Mooney, "Myths of the Cherokees/' pp. 99-103. 4

5

6

7

262

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

promised "western o u t l e t " to their tract (a belt of land to the west t h r o u g h w h i c h they could travel to obtain furs and pelts further west or to leave the U n i t e d States e n t i r e l y w i t h o u t crossing t h r o u g h any land owned b y whites) ; and finally, they complained that a n u m b e r of other Indian tribes had been moved b y the government i n t o western Arkansas and t h e i r settlements were i m p i n g i n g upon land that the Cherokees felt was theirs (these included Shawnees, Delawares, Oneidas, and some of their old enemies, the Upper Osages and the Quapaws). 8

The papers of the Cherokee Agency and the Secretary of War's office for the years 1819 to 1829 are crammed w i t h documents regarding ques­ tions of reimbursement for the improvements of emigrants and of per­ sons w h o were forced off ceded land. Neither the government nor the eastern or western part of the nation was ever able to resolve all of these claims. I n 1824, for example, the eastern part of the Cherokee N a t i o n presented a b i l l to the Secretary of W a r for $581,000 w o r t h of valuations and improvements i n t e r r i t o r y ceded between 1817 and 1819 for w h i c h the government had agreed to reimburse t h e m . S i m i l a r l y , the western Cherokees continued to claim that they were owed several h u n d r e d t h o u ­ sand dollars for improvements t h e y had given up w h e n t h e y moved west. Fraud and confusion abounded on b o t h sides; collecting claims f r o m the government became a major occupation of the Cherokees and of all other tribes f r o m this t i m e forward. I t t u r n e d t h e m all i n t o lawyers (or the clients of lawyers), creating a vast bureaucracy for record keeping that overwhelms the archives on Indian affairs to this day. I t became c o m m o n to sell such claims to w h i t e (or Indian) speculators w h o t h e n b r o u g h t t h e i r o w n suits against the government. Certain Cherokees, like M a j o r John Walker, w e n t bankrupt after, b u y i n g up m a n y such claims and finding themselves unable to persuade the courts to substantiate t h e m . The worst sufferers, as always, were the poorest Cherokees, w h o sold t h e i r claims cheaply and never received adequate recompense for the years of effort they had p u t i n t o i m p r o v i n g their farms. This meant t h e y had l i t ­ tle, i f any, capital to start over again i f they w e n t west or i f t h e y had to move f r o m some ceded area i n t o w h a t was left of the old nation. 9

To stop the war w i t h the Lower Osages that made life difficult i n A r ­ kansas the federal government had arranged a truce between the t w o na­ tions i n October 1818, but once the Osages saw the vast numbers of ad­ ditional Cherokees and other tribes m o v i n g i n t o t h e i r area, they w o u l d no longer honor the agreement. W a r broke out i n 1819 and continued spo­ radically u n t i l 1824. I t b r o u g h t death, loss of property, and a n u m b e r of Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 93-94; John Jolly to John Calhoun, March 17, 1821, M-271, reel 3, #0796. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, February 25,1823, M-221, reel 96, #0856. 8

9

263

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

o u t r i g h t massacres on both sides d u r i n g that period. I n M a r c h 1821, the Arkansas Cherokees sent a delegation to Washington to protest that " o u r people have been most i n h u m a n l y murdered, butchered and plundered" by the Osages. I n 1819-1820, the major complaint of the Arkansas Cherokees was that the government had not kept its promise to supply the new emigrants w i t h corn and other food for a year after their arrival i n A r k a n s a s — u n t i l their first crops could be harvested. They were also promised " t h a t we should have good millseats and plenty of game and not be surrounded b y w h i t e people." But these promises were not kept. Whites were i n t r u d i n g e v e r y w h e r e . Furthermore, "the greater part of the C o u n t r y we possess between Arkansas and W h i t e river is so encumbered w i t h barren m o u n ­ tains that scarce a deer inhabits i t . " President M o n r o e had ordered a survey i n 1818 to draw an eastern boundary for the Cherokee tract i n Arkansas between the W h i t e and A r ­ kansas rivers w i t h i n Arkansas C o u n t y , beyond w h i c h no whites were to emigrate. The land speculators and frontier whites i n Arkansas were f u ­ rious w h e n told that a large tract of their best land was to be reserved for Indians. This survey was not completed u n t i l A p r i l 1819 and b y then m a n y hundreds of whites had already moved into the area. D r a w i n g the western boundary of the Arkansas tract took even longer because the land ceded b y the Cherokees i n the east had first to be surveyed and its total ascertained. W h e n this western boundary i n Arkansas was completed i n 1824, the western Cherokees claimed that i t gave t h e m much too small a tract, not a fair exchange at all for what they had given up i n the east. 10

11

12

1 3

By 1824 some w h i t e settlers were already l i v i n g to the west of the western border of the Arkansas tract (about where the present state of Oklahoma borders on Arkansas). The Cherokees had long feared that even i n the west they w o u l d soon find themselves surrounded b y whites, w h i c h was w h y they had asked for a "western o u t l e t " f r o m their area as early as 1817. A t that t i m e President M o n r o e had agreed to i t i n principle. I n order to effect i t i n 1824, however, so m a n y whites w o u l d have had to be removed that the government preferred to ask the Arkansas Cherokees to move further west. Arkansas was now a t e r r i t o r y (set off f r o m M i s ­ souri i n 1819) and fast filling w i t h white settlers. The western Cherokees and other tribes placed i n that area were offered another exchange of land i n w h a t became k n o w n as " I n d i a n T e r r i t o r y , " west of Arkansas and M i s ­ souri i n the western part of Arkansas T e r r i t o r y (now Oklahoma). Once 10 11 12 13

John Jolly to John Calhoun, March 17, 1821, M-271, reel 3, #0796. Robert Lewis to John Calhoun, M-221, reel 82, #1438. Western Cherokee chiefs to John Calhoun, March 17, 1821, M-221, reel 73, #8894. Ibid.

264

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

again all of their farms and improvements w o u l d go to whites; for a sec­ ond t i m e they w o u l d have to start over again on new land, w i t h a new r o u n d of "claims for reimbursement" that the government w o u l d have to settle. W h e n this occurred i n 1828, the Cherokees i n the east felt that their western brethren got just what they deserved for t r u s t i n g the govern­ ment's e m p t y promises, but those i n the old nation had their o w n share of problems. The most serious of these after 1819 developed among Cher­ okees i n northeastern Alabama, i n what remained of the Lower Towns. A considerable number, more than eight hundred, had enrolled for emigra­ t i o n because they felt there was no chance of avoiding total r e m o v a l . A few had enrolled s i m p l y to obtain new guns, blankets, and kettles and had never intended to remove. B y placing their names on the r o l l of e m i ­ grants, however, they all became expatriates under the Council's law of M a y 6, 1817. W h e n they decided i n 1819 that they w o u l d not go west after a l l , they were considered aliens i n their o w n land; they had no rights as Cherokee citizens and their headmen could not represent t h e m i n the N a t i o n a l Council. The status of these alien Cherokees was further de­ graded b y a new law passed b y the Council on November 1,1819, w h i c h stated that " a n y citizens of the nation, not enrolled for the Arkansas c o u n t r y , w h o has or m a y take possession of . . . any i m p r o v e m e n t . . . where Arkansas emigrants had left . . . shall be entitled to an exclusive r i g h t to the same." This meant that i f a Cherokee had left his f a r m t h i n k i n g he was going to Arkansas or had actually departed and then re­ t u r n e d , he m i g h t find that some other Cherokee n o w occupied his house and f a r m and that he had no r i g h t to reclaim i t ; he must find some other unoccupied area and start over. These people were, as R e t u r n J. Meigs put i t , "a k i n d of A l i e n s " i n their o w n country, and he put their n u m b e r at "upwards of eight hundred . . . w h o had i m p r u d e n t l y declined going [west] after a l l . " The Cherokee Council had " p e r m i t t e d [them] to re­ m a i n i n this part of the nation [the Lower Towns] b u t under sundry m o r ­ t i f y i n g disabilities" w i t h regard to their role i n tribal affairs. Meigs, w h o had no use for the "barbarous A r i s t o c r a c y " w h o ruled the nation, s y m ­ pathized w i t h these people. He wrote of their "degradation" b y the Council and defended their "efforts to place themselves independent of a 14

15

1 6

Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 100, sets the number of who signed up to emi­ grate and did not go or returned at 817, Return J. Meigs sets it at 837; see Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, M-271, February 9, 1820, reel 3, #0472. Cherokee Laws, pp. 9-10. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, March 27, 1821, M-221, reel 90, #6836; Calhoun told Meigs in June 1820 that the government would no longer pay transportation or provide provisions and remuneration for improvements to any Cherokee who had enrolled to emi­ grate but had not yet done so (Calhoun to Meigs, June 15,1820, M-208). 14

15

16

265

CREEK

PATH

CONSPIRACY

v e r y barbarous Aristocracy w h o , v e r y impolitically, affect to look d o w n upon t h e m . " To Meigs, these former enrollees "are as respectable as any part of the Cherokees. M a n y of t h e m having acted w e l l under General Jackson i n the Creek W a r . " Eventually m a n y of t h e m became involved i n the Creek Path conspiracy. The leaders of this conspiracy lived i n or near the towns of Creek Path and Brownsville i n northeastern Alabama. W h e n General Coffee had drawn the line for the eastern boundary of the Creek cession i n 1814, he had generously excluded these towns because of Jackson's affection for Colonel Richard B r o w n , the Cherokee mixed blood w h o was the headman or t o w n chief i n B r o w n s v i l l e . But Jackson and Coffee could not prevent this area f r o m being o v e r r u n by w h i t e intruders. John B r o w n , the brother of Richard B r o w n , explained to a Congregational missionary i n 1818 w h y he had decided to move to Arkansas even t h o u g h he did not want to do so: " L i v i n g near the U n i t e d States line he has great trouble f r o m some of his w h i t e neighbors w h o steal his horses, hogs, etc. and on this account he does not k n o w but he shall be compelled to move over the Missis­ s i p p i . The chiefs i n this area w h o conspired to act as i f "independent" of the Council and sell the land were George Fields, Turtle Fields, The Speaker, Wasosey, Bear Meat, John B r o w n , The M i n k , Parched C o r n Flour, George Guess (Sequoyah), Young Wolf, A r c h Campbell, N i g h t Killer, James Spencer, and Captain John Thompson, w h o was also inter­ preter and scribe for the group. They were assisted i n the plot b y several western Cherokees, notably John Rogers and Walter Webber. B u t A n ­ drew Jackson was the prime instigator. 17

18

19

Jackson was deeply annoyed b y the failure of his effort i n 1817-1819 to remove the Cherokees or even to extinguish all their claims to land i n Tennessee. He kept i n close touch w i t h his Cherokee friends i n the Lower Towns, John B r o w n , George Fields, The Speaker, and John Thompson. They i n t u r n relied upon h i m to help t h e m out of their awkward position. H a v i n g enrolled but failing to take advantage of emigration before June 15, 1820, they were no longer eligible for government aid i f they wished to go to Arkansas. They could get no remuneration for their i m p r o v e ­ ments (some of w h i c h were substantial), no support i n transporting themselves and their families, or any assistance after they got t h e r e . 20

Rogin, Fathers and Children, pp. 170-71, and Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 78-79. Brainerd Journal, January 24, 1818, A B C F M . Richard Brown died in 1819. Wasasy et al. at Creek Path to John Calhoun, November 2, 1822, M-221, reel 95, #0196; John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, March 21, 1821, reel 93, #9070; John Calhoun to Return Meigs, June 15, 1820, M-208. Chiefs such as Two Killer and Clubfoot may also have been involved in this plot. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, June 15,1820, M-208. 17

18

19

2 0

266

Colonel Return J. Meigs (1740-1823). A Connecticut Revolutionary veteran and staunch Jeffersonian, Meigs played a double-edged role as federal agent to the Cherokees from 1801 to 1823. The Library of Congress

Cherokees of the early to mid-1800s adopted a wide range of dress. Some re­ tained traditional clothes, turbans, and ornaments, some wore garb similar to white frontiersmen of the time, and some wore the latest in European fashion. Sequoyah (George Guess), shown above in 1828, was a mixed blood who op­ posed acculturation. Famous for his invention of the Cherokee syllabary in 1821, he moved to Arkansas around that time and became a chief among the western Cherokees. Here he is wearing the ornament struck in his honor by the Cherokee National Council in 1824. A t the right, above, is Major George Low­ rey (c. 1844), Assistant Principal Chief of the Cherokee from 1828 to 1838. A mixed blood who favored acculturation and Cherokee nationalism, he is wearing traditional silver ornaments in his ears and a U.S. presidential medal around his neck. Sketch: The New-York Historical Society, New York; Sequoyah: National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian; Lowrey: Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art, Tulsa

Major Ridge (The Ridge), shown c. 1835 (top left), was a mixed-blood Upper Town chief and longtime member of the National Council. He participated in the plot against Doublehead, fought under Andrew Jackson in the Creek War, and though a major figure in the Cher­ okee renascence, was persuaded to sign the fraudulent Treaty of New Echota by his son John, who led the pro-removal wing of the nation after 1832. John Ridge (below left, in 1828) was educated with his cousin Elias Boudinot (Buck Watie) at Cornwall Seminary in Connecti­ cut, where both married whites. Boudinot (below right, c. 1835), was editor from 1828 to 1832 of the Cherokee Phoenix, the nation's official weekly newspaper and the first wholly Indian-published paper in the United States. He was de­ voted to the process of accultura­ tion and Christianization and fa­ vored removal to the west. A l l three men were assassinated on the same day in 1839. The newspaper (above right), which first appeared in 1828, was forced to suspend publication in 1834 but was later revived after removal. It contained articles both in English and in the syllabary invented by Sequoyah. The Ridges: National Anthropological Ar­ chives, Smithsonian; Boudinot: Western History Collections, Univ. of Oklahoma; newspaper: American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass.

This rough-hewn log cabin on the Qualla Reservation, North Carolina, although photographed in 1888, is also typical of the homes of ordinary Cherokees in the years 1810-1838. A woman is pounding corn in a treetrunk mortar. Ears of corn, a stick for ball play, a splint basket, and other objects can be seen between the chinks of the house, on the roof, and sus­ pended from the eaves. Walini', a Cherokee woman also from 1888, probably did not differ greatly in dress from some women of an earlier pe­ riod. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian

James Vann's tavern (above) and home at Diamond Hill, Cherokee Nation, near Springplace, Georgia, were built in 1803-1804. Vann, one of the nation's most prosperous and controversial chiefs, was murdered in 1809. These buildings were near his trading post on the Connasauga River, along the federal turnpike from Augusta to Nashville. Both still stand; the tavern has been moved to New Echota, Georgia. Georgia Department of History and Archives

John Ross (left, c. 1835) was President of the National Committee, 1817-1827, and Princi­ pal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, 18281866. One-eighth Cherokee, he was strongly in favor of acculturation and Cherokee na­ tionalism. His second home (above) in Rossville or "Head of Coosa," Cherokee Nation, was at the headwaters of the Coosa River. He moved here in 1827 from his first home at Ross's Landing, near present-day Chatta­ nooga. State of Tennessee Tourism Development Office

C R E E K PAT H

CONSPIRACY

The western Cherokees w o u l d have been happy to have t h e m , but w h e n t h e y arrived they w o u l d have had no capital w i t h w h i c h to reestablish themselves. C l i n g i n g to the attitudes prevalent i n Doublehead's day about Lower T o w n independence and estranged f r o m their brethren to the east, the chiefs decided that the land of the Lower T o w n area belonged to the people w h o lived there and not to the tribe as a w h o l e . T h e y felt no allegiance to a people w h o had ostracized t h e m . W h a t they needed was some w a y to obtain a good price for their region. A n d r e w Jackson was more t h a n w i l l i n g to help, but i t all had to be done w i t h great secrecy. I f the Council found out w h a t they were up to, some m i g h t pay w i t h their lives. As always i n such machinations, there were m a n y irons i n the fire. Jackson was determined that w h a t he called "the farce" of h o l d i n g treaties w i t h Indians should cease. He saw the Creek Path conspiracy as a w a y 21

to force Congress to act w i t h o u t a treaty and thereby set a precedent for unilateral removal actions. Certain whites w h o had moved i n t o the Lower T o w n area, like Captain James Reed, had made a contract w i t h the Creek Path chiefs to develop their lucrative saltpeter caves and wished to get r i d of Cherokee sovereignty i n order to assume private ownership of these resources. Some of the chiefs were out to make a good profit for t h e m ­ selves i n order to spite nationalist leaders like Charles Hicks and John Ross, w h o m t h e y accused of having enriched themselves by reserves t h e y took i n the treaties of 1817 and 1 8 1 9 .

22

O t h e r Lower T o w n chiefs, like

John Rogers, were friendly to Jackson and eager to enlist i n his cause and share i n his p o w e r .

23

Some, like George Guess, probably believed that

sooner or later the w h i t e man w o u l d get all the Cherokee land i n the east and considered the nationalists' policy unrealistic. Guess also opposed the extreme assimilationist outlook of some of the nationalists (like Hicks and Ross) and their support for Christian missions. He was at this t i m e close to completing his system for w r i t i n g the Cherokee language; once that was accomplished a major force for the preservation of Cherokee t r a ­ ditionalism w o u l d be available. He did not w a n t to see the disappearance of the Cherokees' ethnic i d e n t i t y and t h o u g h t the best place to n u r t u r e that heritage w o u l d be i n the west, as far away as possible f r o m the whites. The Creek Path conspiracy m a y have begun as early as October 18, Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, September 2, 1820, M-271, reel 3, #0360; see also Jackson to Calhoun, January 18,1821, M-221, reel 89, #6234. Some of the nationalists, such as John Ross and his brother, Lewis, did request and re­ ceive reserves because they thought they could make money from them. See Gary M o u l ton, John Ross, Cherokee Chief (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1978), p. 78. John Rogers to Andrew Jackson, August 17,1820, M-271, reel 3, #0363. 21

2 2

2 3

267

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

1819, w h e n , as Jackson later told Calhoun, a delegation of chiefs f r o m Creek Path came to visit h i m while he was m a k i n g a treaty w i t h the Choctaws. This delegation told h i m that for three years they had been ex­ cluded f r o m participation i n Council affairs and that t h e y had no confi­ dence i n Charles H i c k s . Hicks, they said, w o u l d "cheat t h e m out of their land"—probably by ceding i t i n order to preserve the rest of the home­ land. (In 1819 the nationalist leaders did i n fact cede some land that the Lower Towns considered part of their domain.) Therefore, they told Jack­ son, t h e y wished to have their farms set aside as reserves (so that the Cherokee Council could not sell t h e m out) and i n t u r n they w o u l d cede all the rest of the Lower T o w n area to the government. (Then, no doubt, t h e y w o u l d sell their reserves to whites at the market price and use the proceeds to move to Arkansas.) Jackson was convinced that this was a good o p p o r t u n i t y for the United States to obtain the area. 24

25

I n A u g u s t 1820, Jackson was told by John Rogers that various chiefs i n the Creek Path area had asked h i m to obtain boats and provisions for t h e m to go w e s t . From 1819 to 1821 Jackson tried i n vain to persuade Calhoun to reopen emigration : " I have n o w but little doubt that a large p o r t i o n of the real Indians wish to pass to Arkansas i f they had m e a n s . " The Panic of 1819 however, had left the government, like everyone else, severely strapped for cash; Calhoun declined to support the expenditure that Jackson's requests w o u l d have required. 26

27

Unable to obtain reserves or to persuade Calhoun to reopen emigration and provide transport for i t , the Creek Path chiefs next tried to persuade the political leaders of Tennessee to help t h e m negotiate an o u t r i g h t sale of t h e i r land. Explaining their inconsistent behavior over removal i n 1817-1819 to Governor W i l l i a m Carroll of Tennessee (in 1822), the Creek Path chiefs said: " T r u e i t is some of us did enrôle our name as A r kansaw Emmigrants, not k n o w i n g but our Lands were sold at the same t i m e [i.e., expecting t h e m to be ceded by the council], and finding s h o r t l y after t h e y were not, we set still on our farms that we had made t h i n k i n g no one else has a better r i g h t [to t h e m ] than we w h o made t h e m . Never­ theless, we plainly see [now, that] there is no peace for us on this side of the Mississippi—therefore we have sent our long t r y e d friend, Captain James Reed, to y o u for the purpose of g i t i n g y o u to use y o u r influence w i t h General government and y o u r state members i n Congress for us, the ASP i i , 502-506; Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, January 18, 1821, M-221, reel 89, #6234. This group had been excluded from participation in tribal affairs because once they had enrolled to emigrate they were, by Cherokee law, no longer citizens of the nation. Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, January 18, 1821, M-221, reel 89, #6234; Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, September 2, 1820, M-271, reel 3, #0360. John Rogers to Andrew Jackson, August 17, 1820, M-271, reel 3, #0363. Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, September 20, 1820, M-271, reel 3, #0360. 24

2 5

2 6 2 7

268

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

Creek Path people, to have [the] privalege to sell our o w n part of the C o u n t r y at a Reasonable price to the U n i t e d States and for us to reap the benefits of the proceeds of the sales to enable us to move away i n peace. . . . W e are not able to move w i t h o u t we can have that p r i v i l a g e / ' The land t h e y felt entitled to sell as their o w n included 1.25 m i l l i o n acres i n Tennessee and northeastern Alabama. The western Cherokees, whose t o ­ tal land area had not yet been surveyed i n Arkansas, w o u l d of course be able to claim this as an additional allotment to their area and thus enlarge their tract i n Arkansas. The Creek Path chiefs said they had over eight h u n d r e d persons ready to go west and that they had the r i g h t to carry w i t h t h e m to Arkansas one-eighth of the Cherokee a n n u i t y . 28

29

Jackson had no compunction about secret negotiations w i t h a faction of the Cherokee chiefs. " I t is h i g h t i m e to do away w i t h the farce of treating w i t h Indian tribes' as sovereign nations," he w r o t e i n September 1820. There was no need for the travesty of prolonged treaty negotiations w h e n the Indians had no r i g h t to refuse government requests. "There can be no question but congress has the right to legislate o n this subject." I t "has always appeared v e r y absurd to m e " to pretend that Indians were sover­ eign nations. " M o r e justice can be done the Indians b y legislation than b y t r e a t y , " for i n treaty m a k i n g the scheming halfbreeds always ended up enriching themselves at the expense of "the real I n d i a n s . " Jackson, the enemy of aristocratic privilege among the monopolists and bankers of w h i t e A m e r i c a , saw himself as equally the protector of the simple, " r e a l Indians," w h o wanted o n l y to be hunters and live by their old honest skills, against the half-breed aristocrats. 30

He was not above using a few wiles to do what was right. W h e n first approached b y the Creek Path chiefs i n 1819, he had told t h e m t h e y must put their plan i n w r i t i n g . He evidently implied that t h e y should obtain some support f r o m Pathkiller, the Principal C h i e f . B y some means t h e y were able to get Pathkiller to sign his " m a r k " to a document supporting their request (though the letter was i n English and Pathkiller could not read English). Later, w h e n the plot was uncovered, the N a t i o n a l Council insisted that Pathkiller's signature had been forged, w h i c h implies at least that he repudiated i t . W h e n Jackson received this Creek Path plan i n Jan­ u a r y , 1821, he w r o t e again to Calhoun. A g a i n he insisted that "Congress take up the subject and exercise its power under the H o p e w e l l treaty [of 31

Wasasy and the Creek Path chiefs to William Carroll, November 2, 1822, M-221, reel 95, #0196. Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, January 18, 1821, M-221, reel 89, #6234; see also Jackson to Calhoun, September 2,1820, M-271, reel 3, #0360. Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, September 2,1820, M-271, reel 3, #0360. Andrew Jackson to John Calhoun, January 18,1821, M-221, reel 89, #6234. 2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

269

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

1785] regulating all Indian concerns as i t please. This is a precedent m u c h wanted, that the absurdity i n politics m a y cease of an independent sov­ ereign nation h o l d i n g treaties w i t h people l i v i n g w i t h i n its t e r r i t o r i a l l i m ­ its, acknowledging its sovereignty and laws w h o , although not citizens, cannot be viewed as aliens but as the real subjects of the U n i t e d States."

32

To call the Cherokees "subjects" was to admit that the U n i t e d States had always been an empire, not a republic. I t was strangely inconsistent w i t h the image of Jackson as the great American democrat, but w h o l l y consis­ tent w i t h his image as a westerner w i t h little respect for Indians. Soon after this letter, Charles Hicks and the National Council became aware of h o w far the Creek Path conspiracy had progressed. Hicks a t t r i b ­ uted i t p r i m a r i l y to the speculating schemes of Jackson's friend and other Tennessee speculators. He also was convinced that " t h e y have u n f a i r l y obtained Path Killer's signature" to further their object of " a t t e m p t i n g to establish a distinct claim to lands here" i n the Lower T o w n s .

33

Suspecting

that Meigs had k n o w n of the plot and done n o t h i n g to w a r n t h e m of i t or to discourage i t , the Council decided to take matters i n t o its o w n hands. It convened at Fort ville, Hicks's t o w n , on M a r c h 2 1 , 1821, and proceeded to indict the leaders of the plot for treason. This Council voted to con­ demn " t h e Illegal proceedings of the emigrant Cherokees at the Creek Path." I t charged the plotters w i t h " a t t e m p t i n g to take off a piece of land l y i n g i n the neighbourhood of said t o w n as their separate p r o p e r t y " al­ t h o u g h i t was "reserved to the said N a t i o n i n a treaty of the 27th Feburary, 1819." Named i n the indictment were "Wasasey, Speaker, T u r t l e Fields, Young Wolf, James Spencer, Archibald Campbell, George Fields, and the N i g h t K i l l e r . " There m a y have been other charges as w e l l . I t or­ dered the conspirators to "be brought to trial before the N a t i o n a l C o m ­ mittee and Council to be held at N e w t o n [ N e w Echota]" and to suffer "such punishment and fine as shall be decreed by the committee and council for acting i n defiance and direct violation of the rights of the Cher­ okee N a t i o n . . . and for stealing the signature of our beloved head Chief i n a fraudulent manner to aid t h e m . "

3 4

If this t r i a l of the Creek Path conspirators ever took place, no records of i t exist. However, the oral t r a d i t i o n among the Cherokees recalls that it did occur and that the accused were severely punished, i n c l u d i n g George Guess (although he was not named i n the i n d i c t m e n t ) .

35

More

Ibid. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, January 31,1821, M-221, reel 90, #6769; Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, March 27, 1821, M-221, reel 90, #6836. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, March 21, 1821, M-221, reel 93, #9070. See Traveller Bird, Tell Them They Lie: The Sequoyah Myth (Los Angeles : Westernlore Publishers, 1971), pp. 105-107. 3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5

270

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

l i k e l y t h e y were all condemned i n absentia; had t h e y been punished, A n ­ drew Jackson w o u l d surely have come to their defense. The plotters' ac­ tions i n subsequent years are w e l l documented b y extant papers, but no­ where i n their w r i t i n g s do they m e n t i o n that they had been punished i n 1821. I n all likelihood Hicks and the nationalists wanted o n l y to make their treachery public and thus make i t harder for Jackson, C a r r o l l , and Reed to continue to support t h e m . Whatever happened, i t did not end the conspiracy. I n 1824, w h e n President M o n r o e sent commissioners to negotiate w i t h the N a t i o n a l Council for a cession of land, Calhoun provided t h e m w i t h copies of the correspondence between Jackson and the Creek Path chiefs i n w h i c h t h e y stated their desire to sell the land and remove west. Cal­ houn's purpose was to undermine the claim of the Council that " t h e i r people" were " u n a n i m o u s l y " opposed to any sale or e m i g r a t i o n . B u t since the Cherokee N a t i o n did not recognize these enrollees as " t h e i r peo­ ple," the Council simply reaffirmed that no true Cherokee favored re­ m o v a l . I t t o l d the treaty commissioners that n o t h i n g prevented the peo­ ple at Creek Path f r o m m o v i n g west at any t i m e . I n fact, the Council urged Calhoun to provide t h e m w i t h boats and provisions to make the t r i p . B u t having already once enrolled and having b y that act taken t h e i r t o l l of the nation's land and a n n u i t y , those people could h a r d l y expect the Council to repeat the process. I n the end, some, like George Guess, d i d go west o n their o w n initiative, but the b u l k of t h e m remained o n t h e i r farms i n the east. Meigs was probably r i g h t that the Council was not p o l ­ itic to deny t h e m a pardon and reinstate t h e m to equal status u p o n t a k i n g some oath of fidelity, but feelings ran h i g h at that t i m e and the Cherokees wished to make an example of those w h o infringed the nation's highest law. 36

The chiefs of Creek Path were b y no means i n t i m i d a t e d b y the expo­ sure of their conspiracy. They continued to correspond w i t h Jackson, Governor Carroll, and others for another t w o years. B u t w h e n t h e y found that the federal government w o u l d act o n l y t h r o u g h the N a t i o n a l Council, they finally gave up. Jackson's day had not yet come. N e x t to the Creek Path plot the most awkward issue facing the nation after 1819 was the experiment i n citizenship that grew out of the treaties of 1817 and 1819. I n order to induce some of the wealthier Cherokees to 37

ASP i i , 507-506. See Wasasy to John Calhoun, November 2, 1822, M-221, reel 95, #0196; John Cal­ houn to Return J. Meigs, December 30, 1822, M-208. Calhoun's letter names as among those Creek Path Chiefs interested in selling their part of the nation to the federal govern­ ment: Wasausa, George Fields, Turtle Fields, George Guess (Sequoyah), James Spencer, Young Wolf, and John Thompson. 3 6

3 7

271

C R E E K PATH

CONSPIRACY

support emigration, Jackson, M c M i n n , and M e r i w e t h e r wrote into the treaty of 1817 the system of granting reserves to those w h o said t h e y w o u l d accept citizenship. They did not t h i n k m a n y Cherokees w o u l d be able to sustain this status of citizenship and assumed that those w h o took the reserves w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y sell t h e m and move to rejoin the nation (east or west) ; those tracts w o u l d then revert to the United States. Yet the United States did not want the experiment to be a complete failure lest i t not be able to induce wealthy Indians i n other tribes to t r y the same tactic. A g e n t Meigs had estimated that there were perhaps three hundred Cher­ okees capable of sustaining the status of citizenship, most of t h e m inter­ married whites or mixed bloods. Their interest i n m a i n t a i n i n g their rich farms or plantations could have made t h e m formidable opponents to any removal project had they not been offered this alternative. To the federal government, the grant of 346 tracts of 640 acres each was a small concession to make i f i t w o u l d bring millions of acres to the states and their w h i t e citizens. But to the states, land speculators, and individual frontiersmen, every 640-acre plot reserved to an Indian was that m u c h fertile land taken from a deserving w h i t e farmer and f r o m land-sale rev­ enues. Moreover, the states resented the fact that the federal government was g r a n t i n g citizenship to an alien or "subject" people of color w i t h i n their sovereign boundaries. None of the southeastern states was prepared to grant equal citizenship to Indians. Furthermore, m u c h of the land i n Tennessee and western N o r t h Carolina that had been ceded i n 1817 and 1819 had Revolutionary b o u n t y warrants included on i t that Calhoun had failed to take into consideration when he permitted the granting of re­ serves. Georgia cited its compact w i t h Jefferson to oppose the reserves and insisted that all land extinguished from Indian claims must revert to the state. N o sooner was the treaty of 1819 signed than the government had to defend itself against claims by the states, while m a n y of the Cherokees found themselves battling desperately against w h i t e frontiersmen t r y i n g to oust t h e m f r o m their reserves by fair means or f o u l . A l t h o u g h the Cherokee Council insisted that the government honor the treaties of 1817 and 1819 and protect those w h o had been given reserves, i t said at the same t i m e that those Cherokees w h o had taken out reserves i n the ceded areas were no longer Cherokees. They were now United States citizens and must not look to the Cherokee Nation for help. For those p h i l a n t h r o ­ pists w h o hoped that this experiment would substantiate the original I n ­ dian integration policy of George Washington, the weak support given to the réservées proved a deep disappointment. For those Cherokees w h o 3 8

3 8

McLoughlin, "Experiment in Cherokee Citizenship."

272

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

suspected that the w h i t e m a n w o u l d never treat the Indians as equals, this first experiment i n Indian citizenship hardened their separatist and na­ tionalist ideology. I t took almost a decade for the reserve problem to play itself out, b u t u l t i m a t e l y i t appeared that not a single Cherokee réservée was able to sustain his hold upon citizenship. Their fate was not u n l i k e that of those w h o had been given the chance to f o r m a model c o m m u n i t y under Doublehead at Muscle Shoals i n 1806. Their land returned to the w h i t e man's government. The reserves i n Georgia were the first to go. The Governor of Georgia, George M . T r o u p , shared the view of M c M i n n of Tennessee o n the racial i n f e r i o r i t y of Indians. W h e n Calhoun wrote to h i m i n 1824 asking whether Georgia w o u l d consider integrating civilized Indians i n t o its cit­ izenry, T r o u p replied : " I f such a scheme were practicable at a l l , the u t ­ most of the rights and privileges w h i c h public o p i n i o n w o u l d concede to Indians w o u l d be to fix t h e m i n a middle station between the negro and the w h i t e m a n ; and that, as long as they survived this degradation, w i t h ­ out the possibility of attaining the elevation of the latter, they w o u l d gradually sink to the condition of the f o r m e r . "

39

T w o years before this,

Congressman George G i l m e r of Georgia persuaded Congress to appoint a special committee to investigate the status of Georgia's Indian land. As chairman of this committee, G i l m e r reported to Congress that the treaties w i t h the Cherokees i n 1817 and 1819 had done little to fulfill the compact that Jefferson had made to r i d that state of Indians. I n fact, the efforts to civilize the Cherokees and to give t h e m reserves was having a contrary effect: " I t appears f r o m the last treaty that the U n i t e d States are endeav­ o r i n g to fix Cherokee Indians upon the soil of Georgia" forever. " I t w i l l be necessary for the U n i t e d States to relinquish the policy w h i c h they seem to have adopted w i t h regard to civilizing the Indians and rendering t h e m permanent upon their [Georgians'] l a n d s . "

40

G i l m e r ' s committee

recommended further treaty negotiations to remove the Cherokees and an appropriation b y Congress to b u y out all of the reserves. President M o n r o e appointed t w o commissioners f r o m Georgia, Duncan Campbell and James M e r i w e t h e r , to travel t h r o u g h the state and purchase, for no more than t w o dollars an acre, all the Cherokee reserves granted i n 1817 and 1819. B y December 1823 the commissioners reported that t h e y had completed their task. T h e y had to pay an average of $1,627 for each 640acre reserve because some whites w h o had purchased t h e m f r o m Chero­ kees refused to sell for less. Some cost as m u c h as $4,000. The reserves 3 9

40

i i , 735. ASP I I , 259-60.

ASP

273

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

thus purchased were immediately turned over to the State of Georgia for distribution to its citizens. The State of Tennessee adopted a variety of measures to r i d itself of Cherokee reserves. First i t claimed that many of t h e m overlapped Revo­ l u t i o n a r y veterans' warrants and simply appropriated those that did. N e x t i t claimed that Calhoun had no right to extend the date for t a k i n g out a reserve past July 1,1818, under the terms of the treaty of 1817, and by an act of its legislature this was used to invalidate 184 reserves, w h i c h were immediately surveyed and sold. W i l l i a m W i r t , the A t t o r n e y Gen­ eral of the United States, stated that this was illegal because treaties were the supreme law of the land under the Constitution, but he had no effect. W h e n Tennessee placed on sale the areas ceded i n 1817 and 1819, i t took no cognizance of the reserves. Those w h o purchased land on w h i c h Cher­ okees were l i v i n g on reserves considered their rights superior. The Cher­ okee agent at the t i m e , H u g h M o n t g o m e r y , reported i n 1826 that "the purchasers i n some instance have by force and arms dispossessed the Cherokees." 41

42

The W a r Department hired lawyers to defend some of the réservées i n Tennessee against the various efforts by the state to dispossess t h e m , but the cases were tedious and expensive. Finally M o n t g o m e r y recom­ mended i n 1827 that the department evaluate the improvements of those few Cherokees still on reserves i n Tennessee, pay t h e m the appraised value, and persuade t h e m to move back into the Cherokee N a t i o n . The department agreed that this was the best solution and carried i t o u t . 4 3

N o r t h Carolina was equally determined to r i d itself of Cherokee re­ serves and used the decision of one of its judges i n a case i n w h i c h a Cher­ okee named Euchellah sued a w h i t e man named Welsh for ejecting h i m f r o m his farm as the basis for doing so. Euchellah had offered as proof of his claim to the reserve the certificate of a survey given to h i m by the fed­ eral agent. The judge ruled that the certificate was invalid because i t had not been signed by the President of the United States or by a surveyor commissioned by h i m . A g a i n the War Department hired attorneys at great expense to t r y to defend the Cherokee réservées. A l t h o u g h the at­ torneys w o n several cases, the War Department finally gave up the effort to help the Indian réservées i n 1829 w h e n Congress appropriated $20,000 and appointed t w o commissioners to buy out all of the reserves i n N o r t h Carolina. 4 4

45

Duncan Campbell to John Calhoun, December 24,1823, M-221, reel 97, #1680. Hugh Montgomery to James Barbour, May 10, 1826, M-208. Ibid. William Roane to James Barbour, July 8, 1827, M-234, reel 72, #0425. Thomas L. McKenney to Humphrey Posey and R. M . Saunders, June 5, 1829, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 466. 4 1

42

4 3 44

4 5

274

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

Alabama had been admitted as a state i n 1819; like Georgia i t appealed to Congress i n 1823 to appropriate money to b u y out the reserves w i t h i n its borders. W h e n Congress postponed a decision, Alabama used N o r t h Carolina's technicality of claiming that all surveys of reserves m u s t be signed b y the President or his authorized surveyor. I n those cases where a reserve could meet this criterion, the state tried other tactics, such as declaring that the Cherokee w h o owned the land had failed to occupy i t or had left i t vacant for some t i m e . I n 1828 Alabama again asked Congress to b u y out the reserves, but by then there were almost none left. M a n y Cherokees had themselves invalidated their claims because t h e y had not taken t h e m out on land they resided on as the treaty required. M o n t ­ g o m e r y reported i n 1826 that " t h e y have all, or w i t h few exceptions, been driven off their land. . . . I have been able to give t h e m no incouragement . . . a great number of t h e m are g i v i n g to a set of speculators use of the land . . . m a n y other are selling out for a S o n g / ' 4 6

The Cherokee agents and W a r Department lawyers reported numerous cases of fraud against réservées or violent and illegal dispossession b y whites. Peggy Shorey had a life estate i n M a r i o n C o u n t y , Tennessee. Fearing that she w o u l d be dispossessed, she signed a paper deeding i t to a w h i t e m a n w h o promised to defend her rights to i t . Once he had the deed, he put her off and took the land for h i m s e l f . Eight Killer, w h o had a re­ serve i n the same county, was driven out of his house b y whites and ap­ pealed to the captain of the garrison nearby. The captain talked to the i n ­ truders, w h o promised to leave i n a few days and gave their bond and security to h i m . W h e n the t i m e had elapsed, Eight K i l l e r w e n t back, but the intruders refused to honor their agreement; instead " t h e y beat and abused h i m very m u c h and drove h i m o f f " and the agent reported "he has been afraid ever since to go back." 47

48

Eight K i l l e r and Peggy Shorey were poor Cherokees w h o had no edu­ cation or influence. B u t although Templin Ross was w e l l off and w e l l ed­ ucated, he too was unable to defend his claim. He reported that he left his reserve on a short t r i p i n June 1819 to take his pregnant Cherokee wife to stay w i t h her family u n t i l their baby was born. W h e n he returned to his farmhouse, he found " m y doors were broken open and possession taken of the premises" b y several w h i t e men. They refused to let h i m i n the house, he reported i n 1827, "and out of w h i c h I am kept to this d a y . " Records show that a few Cherokees i n Tennessee and Alabama c o n t i n ­ ued to sue for their land u n t i l the 1830s, but the wisest réservées were 49

Hugh Montgomery to James Barbour, May 10,1826, M-208. 47 Peggy Shorey to Hugh Montgomery, October 24, 1825, M-208; Hugh Montgomery to James Barbour, December 31,1826, M-234, reel 72, #0201. John Ross to Hugh Montgomery, July 2,1825, M-234, reel 71, #0611. Templin Ross to Thomas McKenney, February 16,1827, M-234, reel 72, #0417. 4 6

4 8 4 9

275

CREEK PATH

CONSPIRACY

those w h o sold out to whites w h i l e they still had possession. Some of these managed to make as m u c h as $4,000 for their reserves; George H a r l i n received $5,120 for his reserve i n Alabama. Even so, H a r l i n ' s land was alleged to be w o r t h five times what he received for i t . This was the era of the great boom i n "black b e l t " cotton land. Speculators were getting t h i r t y dollars or more an acre i n some of the areas the Cherokees had ceded i n 1819. The Cherokees w h o hoped to become citizens and live as equals on this land were doomed to disappointment. They could not over­ come the prejudice against t h e m , even w h e n the Federal government be­ latedly tried to help. I t was an important lesson for those w h o had be­ lieved that someday the Cherokees should divide their land i n severalty and become citizens as Washington and every succeeding President had told t h e m to do. The reserve problem taught t h e m that as long as the hos­ tile attitude of southeastern whites remained unchanged, i t was essential to hold their land i n common. W i t h o u t national ownershp they w o u l d be completely at the mercy of the whites, as the 356 réservées of 1817 and 1819 discovered. 5 0

Nevertheless the hopes of the remaining Cherokees i n the East c o n t i n ­ ued h i g h . The réservées had taken a chance, against the advice of their leaders, and had paid the price. But the Cherokees w h o persisted i n the defense of their homeland had survived. I n the decade f o l l o w i n g the treaty of 1819, Cherokee renascence was to reach its peak. For all the Cherokees problems, this was a halcyon era full of national accomplish­ m e n t , confidence, and pride. A t last they seemed to have attained control of their o w n destiny. 7

50

Gideon Morgan to Thomas McKenney, August 1,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0589.

276

FOURTEEN

CHEROKEE RENASCENCE,

1819-1829:

POLITICS A N D ECONOMICS I can view my native country, rising from the ashes of her degradation, wearing her purified and beautiful garments, and taking her seat with the nations of the earth. . . . on her destiny hangs that of many [Indian] nations. —Elias Boudinot, Address to the Whites, 1826

T

he essence of Cherokee renascence was to establish a distinct national i d e n t i t y , f i r m l y grounded i n economic self-sufficiency and political self-determination. Prior to 1819 this was frequently asserted but not re­ alized. The Cherokee a n n u i t y was too small to support the nation's r e v i talization. Economic development depended upon financial assistance f r o m the federal government i n m a n y forms. Political development was directed assiduously by the federal agent. M u c h of the Cherokees' early progress was made b y learning f r o m their mistakes and discovering that the agents and the federal government were not always l o o k i n g after the Indians' best interests. They learned that i f they did not look out for their o w n economic advantage, there were plenty of whites w h o w o u l d enter their nation to enrich themselves. They found that political leaders w h o were not accountable to the National Council were easily manipulated b y the agent and by treaty commissioners. To be t r u l y self-governing, they had to learn the lessons behind what they were officially taught. T h e y had to become less t r u s t i n g , more careful, more hard-headed and more skeptical of those whites w h o claimed to be leading t h e m to become more civilized and democratic. They also had to devise means to guard against mismanagement, dishonesty, and betrayal f r o m w i t h i n their o w n ranks. They had to keep w r i t t e n records. They had to study the w h i t e man's laws—how they were made and h o w they were interpreted, h o w t h e y were enforced or not enforced. Then they had to appropriate these lessons to their o w n needs. I n the most critical areas of revitalization the Cherokees were self-taught. The w h i t e man's government and practices pro­ vided the tools for the Cherokee renascence, but the Cherokees had to learn h o w to use t h e m for themselves. I n 1819 the Cherokee N a t i o n numbered about twelve thousand m e n 277

POLITICS AND

ECONOMICS

and w o m e n i n the midst of over one m i l l i o n whites south of the O h i o River and west of the Appalachians. The p r i m a r y and persistent goal of the w h i t e people was to dispossess the Cherokees of a generation of hardw o n farms, plantations, roads, ferries, orchards, pastures, trading stores, m i l l s , cotton gins—all the features of a t h r i v i n g frontier c o m m u n i t y , not to m e n t i o n their still untapped timber and m i n e r a l resources i n the woods, hills, and mountains surrounding their settled towns and villages. Frontier politicians like A n d r e w Jackson, Joseph M c M i n n , George G i l ­ mer, W i l s o n L u m p k i n , John Eaton, and John Coffee w h o persisted i n de­ scribing the Cherokees as " h u n t e r s " and "savages" did so i n order to sus­ tain a stereotype i n the public m i n d that w o u l d excuse their seizure of the Cherokees' farms and towns. The frontier whites complained that these "savages" were not m a k i n g the most of the tremendous resources of their region, yet the more rapidly the Cherokees succeeded i n doing so, the more eager the whites became to take i t f r o m t h e m . I t was the achieve­ ments, not the failures, of the Cherokees that had continued to haunt w h i t e Americans all these years. The essence of equality is the ability to act and speak as equals, as one person to another and not as pupils to teachers, wards to guardians, or children to fathers. By 1819 the Cherokees had learned this difficult les­ son; i f they wished to be treated as equals, they must be as determined, united, and aggressive as whites. They were at last ready to take charge of their o w n affairs and assert their o w n forms of pressure upon the fed­ eral and state governments. Self-assertion had replaced self-doubt; they w o u l d no longer be deferential or easily intimidated. This resulted not s i m p l y f r o m drastic changes i n the structure of their governance and w a y of life, but f r o m hard experience and profound inner transformations i n their patterns of thought, behavior, and belief. This was a crucial aspect of their acculturation. They had learned that their old ethic of h a r m o n y , cooperation, and slow popular consideration of issues to reach consensus was not effective i n dealing w i t h w h i t e officials and frontier politicians. T h e y had to learn to deal w i t h whites as adversaries, to confront w h i t e self-interest w i t h their o w n self-interest, to combat power w i t h power. The Cherokees' sources of political power were woefully l i m i t e d , but as long as the U n i t e d States claimed to be a government of law and of ad­ herence to contractual agreements, as long as the states of the U n i o n agreed that under the C o n s t i t u t i o n treaties were the supreme law of the land, and as long as the American public felt some m o r a l obligation to help the Indian lift himself by his o w n bootstraps, the Cherokees were able to use these aspects of legitimizing power u n d e r l y i n g the w h i t e man's system to their advantage. I n the years 1817-1819 they discovered another source of power: they learned how to mobilize and use public 278

POLITICS AND

ECONOMICS

opinion ( t h r o u g h the missionaries, t h r o u g h w h i t e churchgoers, t h r o u g h philanthropists) to support their demands for Christian p h i l a n t h r o p y , A m e r i c a n justice, and fair play. Increasing Cherokee self-assurance and self-sufficiency can be meas­ ured i n m a n y ways besides the increasing complexity and sophistication of their legal and political system. Statistical measurements of economic g r o w t h are available by comparing the censuses of 1809,1826, and 1835. The censuses reveal an astonishing t h o u g h incomplete picture of ad­ vances i n numerous aspects of Cherokee l i f e — i n population, productiv­ i t y , resources, educational skills, and enterprise. I n addition, the codified laws of the nation f r o m 1808 to 1827 reveal the rapid elaboration of their executive, legislative, judicial, and administrative structure, especially after 1819, c u l m i n a t i n g i n their constitution of 1827. The number of schools and churches i n the nation grew rapidly after 1819 and so did en­ rollments; literacy increased. I n addition, less precise but more dramatic indices are available f r o m the development of i m p o r t a n t new i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as the capital t o w n of N e w Echota, the first printed Cherokee book of laws, and their b i l i n g u a l newspaper. Visitors to the nation i n the 1820s w r o t e a d m i r i n g l y of their prosperity and good order, m a k i n g the Chero­ kees the p r i m e example i n the public m i n d of Indian progress—"the most civilized tribe i n A m e r i c a . " There were also less obvious measures of change. As the self-suffi­ ciency of the Cherokee people increased, the assistance of the federal gov­ ernment gradually decreased (or was transformed at the Cherokees' re­ quest f r o m goods and services to cash). The federal government had closed its factory i n 1811 because i t was losing money. Located at first i n the northwest corner of the nation at Southwest Point, Tennessee, and after 1807 at Hiwassee T o w n , i t had not provided a v e r y good yardstick to determine fair trade. The great distance i t had to transport goods to stock the factory forced the government to charge h i g h prices. Some Cherokees complained that government trade goods were not the best q u a l i t y , ap­ parently because the government did not t h i n k Indians could afford su­ perior products. B y 1811 the Cherokees had enough private traders among their o w n people to provide effective competition w i t h w h i t e t r a d ­ ers and sufficient skill to make their o w n bargains. The Cherokees did not miss the factory w h e n i t was gone; Cherokee traders like Joseph V a n n , Samuel Riley, John and Lewis Ross, John M a r t i n , and D a v i d M c N a i r were easily available to take over its business. I n fact, some were pleased to see i t go because they had always suspected that i t was used b y the agent to grant favors ( t h r o u g h extending credit) to well-disposed chiefs. Moreover, excessive amounts of the Cherokee a n n u i t y were taken each year b y the agent to pay off debts at the factory—especially tribal debts 279

POLITICS AND

ECONOMICS

such as emergency grants of wheat and corn i n times of famine or repairs for gristmills. The government had removed its a r m y garrison f r o m Hiwassee T o w n i n 1812 because the troops were needed elsewhere d u r i n g the war. A f t e r 1815 regular a r m y soldiers were o n l y i n t e r m i t t e n t l y located i n the v i c i n ­ i t y of the Cherokees. As the w h i t e frontier moved farther west, new forts were opened across the Mississippi, where Indian wars were still a daily occurrence. The absence of troops near the Cherokee N a t i o n made i t v e r y difficult for the agent to remove intruders. I n 1819 the regular troops closest to the Cherokees were sent to Florida to fight against the Seminoles and the garrison was never reopened. This was harder on the Cher­ okees than on the government, except w h e n the government was about to negotiate a treaty and wanted to impress t h e m w i t h its concern, effi­ ciency, and protection of their rights. I n the 1820s the agent several times authorized the Cherokee Lighthorse to remove w h i t e intruders; i n one respect this was a striking sign of their m a t u r i t y , i n another a v e r y risky assignment that could easily lead to a bloody skirmish. I n 1819 Meigs suggested to Calhoun, Secretary of War, that i t was t i m e for the government to end its civilization program and phase out its gifts of technical and economic assistance to the Cherokees. Calhoun, facing government austerity due to the financial panic, agreed. " M y o w n o p i n ­ i o n , " he wrote i n A p r i l 1820, "is that so long as the United States con­ tinue [s] to furnish t h e m " w i t h "articles for manufacturing and agricul­ t u r a l purposes, the Indians w i l l make no effort to procure t h e m t h e m ­ selves. . . . they w i l l do n o t h i n g for their o w n accommodation and sup­ p o r t . " Meigs replied: "The Cherokees are now better provided w i t h utensils for agricultural and manufacturing purposes than ever they were before and . . . there cannot perhaps be a better t i m e to commence a re­ trenchment of these expenses and to let t h e m k n o w that i t was not to be expected that these gratuities should alwayfs] be continued." He shared Calhoun's view that continued gifts from the government w o u l d o n l y undermine the development of individual self-reliance: " T w e n t y - f o u r years have elapsed since the commencement of these bounties and the measures have had a good effect, but to continue t h e m longer w o u l d really h u r t t h e m and o n l y be t h r o w i n g cold water on their personal ex­ ertions and n u r s i n g indolence. They actually want some stronger excite­ ments to i n d u s t r y than they have now. I f they were m y o w n Children I w o u l d say the same." A l t h o u g h these arguments were obviously selfserving, they were also a left-handed compliment to Cherokee self-suf­ ficiency. H a v i n g rationalized w i t h typical inconsistency the n o t i o n that 1

1

John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, April 30,1820, M-208.

280

P O L I T I C S

A N D E C O N O M I C S

the w a y to reward Indian effort was to punish Indian indolence, the gov­ ernment had no compunction about taking unilateral action to abridge this treaty promise. N o r did Meigs t r y to ascertain h o w m a n y Cherokees i n the remote districts still needed hoes, plows, spinning wheels, or looms. The impression left by this bit of correspondence is that the gov­ ernment sulkily resented the success of its o w n program because i t u n ­ dercut Cherokee dependence. " I t is t i m e , " Meigs said, " t h a t t h e y should, like w h i t e people, depend on their o w n exertions. T h e y have good land, a m i l d climate; they have n o w attained a competent knowledge of agricul­ ture, of household manufactures b y the aid of Government; as herdsmen, t h e y raise large stocks of all the valuable kinds of domestic animals and w i t h o u t labor." This was a grudging recognition of Cherokee economic m a t u r i t y : " T h e y n o w ought no longer to be kept i n leading strings, b u t to stand up like men on their o w n feet." W h e n they did begin to stand up against their "Great Father" however, they were told that they were i n ­ solent, ungrateful m i n o r s w h o did not k n o w w h a t was best for t h e m . 2

O n M a y 3,1820, Meigs proposed " t o issue no more orders for utensils for agricultural [purposes] and for the purposes of domestic manufac­ t u r e s " to be distributed gratis among the Cherokees "except i n extraor­ dinary cases." So ended the long federal effort to help the Cherokees t h r o u g h their t r a n s i t i o n f r o m the h u n t i n g to the agricultural stage of their " c i v i l i z a t i o n . " The Cherokees made no official complaint, t h o u g h f r o m t i m e to t i m e some of the poorer Cherokees continued to send re­ quests for help. I t is doubtful that the N a t i o n a l Council was even i n ­ formed of this decision. 3

I n 1819 the Cherokees had initiated a significant change i n g o v e r n m e n ­ tal practice w h e n i t negotiated w i t h Meigs for a flat cash grant of $1,280 i n exchange for the expense incurred by the government each year to p r o ­ vide a council at the agency at the t i m e the annuities and economic aid were awarded. For various reasons the agent had found i t useful to call a large gathering of the chiefs and their people every year i n the late s u m ­ mer or early fall. He liked to pose as a benevolent dispenser of gifts f r o m the government; he wanted to show that he was doing this openly and honestly; he wanted to see that the chiefs distributed the trade goods f a i r l y ; and frequently he wished to create a friendly atmosphere to con­ duct negotiations for land or a r i g h t of way. These were usually festive Return J.Meigs to John Calhoun, May 3,1820, M-208. Ibid. For an example of a request for help from the Cherokee town of Etowah, one of the poorest parts of the nation, and Calhoun's refusal to honor i t , see Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, May 25, 1822, M-208, and John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, August 12, 1822, M-208. To Meigs's credit, he supported the request for more technical assistance to Etowah on the grounds that its people had not received their fair share of economic aid over the years. 2

3

281

POLITICS A N D

ECONOMICS

social occasions, sometimes coordinated w i t h the Green Corn Dance or a ball play. As m a n y as 2,500 to 3,500 Cherokees w o u l d attend f r o m all over the nation. The government provided the food for such gatherings; rations for three to five days could be very expensive. A f t e r 1810 the N a ­ tional Committee began to ask that the a n n u i t y be turned over to i t i n cash, but nonetheless the agent continued to call annual gatherings be­ cause the chiefs had to agree to deductions from the a n n u i t y to pay tribal debts. B y 1819 fewer people attended the distribution of annuities be­ cause t h e y trusted the National Committee to handle the nation's funds. There were enough other occasions for festivals. That year the National Committee, t h r o u g h Charles Hicks, asked Meigs precisely h o w m u c h m o n e y , on the average, the government spent each year to provide ra­ tions for this a n n u i t y meeting. Hicks suggested that this amount instead be paid to the tribe i n cash as part of the a n n u i t y . Meigs and Hicks settled on the sum of $1,280 and Thomas L. McKenney, the Director of Indian Affairs under Calhoun, agreed to grant i t " i n p e r p e t u i t y " f r o m the agency funds i n lieu of the older arrangement. This prevailed for the next three years u n t i l Calhoun questioned the grant. Meigs said that i t i n fact saved the department at least 50 percent over the previous system and that he had pledged his w o r d to the nation to sustain the agreement. The War Department allowed the arrangement to continue u n t i l 1827 and then arbitrarily refused to pay i t any longer. Meigs had died four years earlier and the agent at that t i m e , H u g h M o n t g o m e r y of Georgia, was not inclined to defend the agreement. 4

5

A n o t h e r f o r m of government assistance cut off after 1819 was the prac­ tice of paying sums of money to Cherokee relatives for an unpunished murder by a w h i t e . I n 1819 Meigs wrote to Calhoun to tell h i m h o w an insane soldier at the garrison, w h o had killed a Cherokee w i t h a knife sev­ eral years before, had been brought to trial but escaped and had since eluded capture. " A considerable number of Indians have been killed (gen­ erally speaking, murdered) since I have been i n this A g e n c y . " He re­ minded Calhoun of the long-established policy of " m a k i n g presents to the relatives of those killed on their solemnly p r o m i s i n g to cease all thoughts of taking satisfaction, as they call i t . " I n some cases he gave as l i t t l e as $100 or $130, he said, but i n this case he thought $160 w o u l d be more appropriate. To his surprise, Calhoun refused to authorize i t : " Y o u w i l l i n f o r m the chiefs that the practice w i l l not be continued i n future as it is repugnant to those principles b y which we govern ourselves." Cal6

7

4 5 6 7

Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, October 8, 1822, M-221, reel 96, #0797. Thomas L. McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, March 24,1827, M-21, reel 3, p. 467. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, November 14,1819, M-271, reel 2, #1391. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, January 6, 1820, M-15, p. 354.

282

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

h o u n had evidently forgotten that the frontier governed itself by refusing to accept Indian testimony i n state courts and that frontier whites never convicted one of their o w n people for m u r d e r i n g an Indian. I t is also w o r t h n o t i n g that the value of a Cherokee life had declined considerably over the years. Earlier i n the century Meigs had regularly given $200 to $300 i n such cases. I t is also ironic that w h e n a Cherokee killed a black slave and was acquitted, Meigs nevertheless accepted a claim b y the slave's master of $500 for the loss of his " p r o p e r t y . " I n that case, the m o n e y was taken f r o m the Cherokee a n n u i t y . 8

W h e n Joseph M c M i n n succeeded Meigs as the Cherokee agent i n 1823, he phased out another i m p o r t a n t aspect of government aid relating to the complications of w h i t e jurisprudence on the frontier. To protect Cherokee civil rights i n cases where they became embroiled i n a civil quarrel w i t h a w h i t e m a n , the agent had always hired w h i t e lawyers to argue the Cher­ okee case. I n 1823 a Cherokee asked M c M i n n to " i n s t i t u t e suit i n the Fed­ eral Court against a w h i t e man charged w i t h having robbed or stolen t w o slaves f r o m a native." M c M i n n said he w o u l d first have to ask the Sec­ retary of War. The Cherokees "remonstrated b y saying Colonel Meigs never waited for y o u r instructions on such occasions; I replyed to t h e m that they were i n quite solvent circumstances and able to support the s u i t . " He also told t h e m that " d u r i n g their m i n o r i t y they had a just claim upon the resources of the Government of the U n i t e d States, but that this claim w o u l d d i m i n i s h i n the precise ratio that their N a t i o n w o u l d approximate towards a state of civilized l i f e . " Besides, he said, the gov­ ernment was t r y i n g to curtail expenses i n Indian affairs and could no longer bear this burden. I n his letter to the W a r Department M c M i n n also mentioned that the Cherokees had been v e r y truculent t o w a r d gov­ ernment treaty commissioners that year, refusing to cede any more land. It seems l i k e l y that as former Governor of Tennessee he did not w a n t to be put i n the position of using his a u t h o r i t y as a federal agent to prosecute citizens of his state w h o had voted, or m i g h t yet vote, for h i m . " I f the Cherokees are h i g h l y indulged i n having their suits brought for t h e m , " he warned Calhoun, the suits " w i l l become very n u m e r o u s " because of the increasing friction between whites and Indians on their borders and the willingness of the Cherokees to take the disputes to court. He seems to have feared that because the Cherokees were "advancing w i t h great ra­ p i d i t y " toward the status of civilized people, they m i g h t soon be given the r i g h t to testify i n court, particularly those w h o m the missionaries were converting to C h r i s t i a n i t y . I n that case, the states m i g h t find the "courts 9

See Jenkins Whiteside to Return J. Meigs, March 24,1810, M-208, and Return J. Meigs to Jenkins Whiteside, April 20, 1810, M-208. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, June 24,1823, M-221, reel 98, #2126-2127. 8

9

283

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

of justice open to every class of people/' This boggled the m i n d of a m a n w h o t h o u g h t Indians should have no more rights than "free people of color." I n short, i t became increasingly difficult after 1819 for government of­ ficials to assert on the one hand that the Cherokees were " m i n o r s " and on the other that they were old enough to manage their o w n affairs. W h a t the nation saw as the reluctance of the government to provide t h e m w i t h customary protection and assistance also constituted an increasing governmental awareness that the Cherokees were approaching the point at w h i c h they w o u l d have to be treated as equals. This was w h y Calhoun asked Governor Troup i n 1824 whether he w o u l d accept the Cherokees as citizens. The refusal of Georgia and the other states to consider this made it awkward for the government to continue aid to the Indians. Every act to assist i n civilizing the Indians and granting t h e m equal protection be­ fore the law was an offense to the states, which wanted t h e m removed to the west as feckless, irresponsible savages. Every step t o w a r d the Indians' integration or incorporation was an affront to those w h o believed t h e m to be racially inferior. A n o t h e r s t r i k i n g aspect of the Cherokee renascence to m e n like Meigs, M c M i n n , and Calhoun was a series of eleven laws passed between 1820 and 1823 that together constituted a political revolution i n the structure of Cherokee government. Under these laws the National Council created a bicameral legislature, a district and superior court system, an elective system of representation by geographical district rather than b y t o w n , and a salaried government bureaucracy. These laws completely replaced the traditional decentralized t o w n government system under locally cho­ sen " h e a d m e n " and t o w n councils. They represented a definite move by the nationalist leaders toward a replication of the A m e r i c a n political sys­ t e m , including overlaying m a n y aspects of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence on Cherokee customs. A l t h o u g h there was no o u t r i g h t attack upon Cher­ okee traditionalism b y the Council (and could not be, because the major­ i t y of the Council were traditionalists), there was a clear effort b y strong, mixed-blood leaders to adjust tradition to current circumstances. I t was no easy matter to convince a Council that had a m a j o r i t y of full bloods w h o spoke no English to graft all of these innovations onto traditional practices. The leaders i n these innovations—Charles Hicks, John Ross, M a j o r Ridge, W i l l i a m S. Coody, and John M a r t i n — r i s k e d alienating their conservative people i n order to prove to the w h i t e man that the Cherokees could understand and manage a republican f o r m of govern­ ment. N o t all of the Cherokees approved of these laws or followed t h e m i n detail, but most acquiesced. They did so i n the hope of i m p r o v i n g their standing w i t h the whites w h o kept calling t h e m savages. The new laws 284

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

had considerable appeal to the missionaries w h o m the Cherokees were ea­ ger to have on their side; t h e y were w i d e l y publicized i n missionary and other philanthropic journals as proofs of Cherokee civilization. The first basic step i n this new political structure was the j u d i c i a r y act passed on October 2 0 , 1 8 2 0 . The N a t i o n a l Council concurred i n d i v i d i n g the n a t i o n i n t o eight i r r e g u l a r l y shaped but equally populated " d i s t r i c t s " and established a district court i n each.

10

A m o n t h later a second law de­

fined the boundaries of these districts and decreed fixed salaries for all state officers. This law also specified that henceforth the Council w o u l d no longer consist of seventy to one hundred headmen representing each of the so-called towns or villages i n the nation (the boundaries of these towns no longer h a v i n g m u c h meaning or definition except the adherence to a particular t o w n council house), but w o u l d consist of t h i r t y - t w o " r e p ­ resentatives," four elected annually from each of the new judicial dis­ tricts.

11

I n addition, local administration was no longer to center i n the

fifty to s i x t y t o w n council houses but i n a district " c o u n c i l house," really a county courthouse, to be b u i l t " f o r the purpose of h o l d i n g councils to administer justice i n all causes and complaints." The t e r m " c o u n c i l " was used to m o l l i f y opposition; although Cherokee t o w n councils had some­ times functioned as courts to adjudicate local problems, t h e y o r i g i n a l l y functioned as t o w n governments, deciding e v e r y t h i n g f r o m whether to go to war or make peace to w h e n to hold religious festivals or ball plays. M a n y of the functions of the t o w n councils had w i t h e r e d away since 1794. The most c o m m o n aspects of conflict among Cherokee citizens n o w involved issues of private credit and debt, contracts, inheritance, and property ownership that were difficult to adjudicate i n t o w n councils where everyone could speak. Prior to 1822 private controversies

fre­

q u e n t l y came to the N a t i o n a l Council for resolution. B y 1820 the N a ­ t i o n a l Council felt overburdened w i t h these private quarrels and estab­ lished district courts to be staffed b y those competent to handle t h e m . One " j u d g e " was appointed for each of the eight district courts and i n ad­ d i t i o n four circuit judges were appointed, each " t o have jurisdiction over two

districts"; the circuit judges were to "associate w i t h the district

judges i n d e t e r m i n i n g all causes agreeable to the N a t i o n a l l a w s . " This left o n l y a few local matters to the old t o w n councils, particularly ceremonial issues, marriages, and clan matters. But the complexity of the new na­ tional laws, most of t h e m concerned w i t h the economics of a free enterThese laws and those cited below are all quoted in Cherokee Laws (Tahlequah, C . N . , 1852) in order of their date of passage by the National Council. See also Rennard Strick­ land's discussion of Cherokee law and government in Fire and the Spirits. Cherokee Laws, pip. 11-12, 15-18. See also Elias Boudinot, An Address Delivered to the Whites (Philadelphia, 1826), p. 11. 10

11

285

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

prise system, required a different k i n d of law and justice. Traditional t o w n councils ceased to function w e l l when the population became w i d e l y dispersed on individual farms. The new laws instituted officials called "marshals" (in effect lighthorse regulators) to execute the decisions of the district courts. The first judges were chosen b y the National Committee, but i n 1828 this law was amended to have t h e m chosen b y j o i n t vote of the National C o m m i t t e e and National Council (when acting together they were k n o w n as "the General C o u n c i l " of the nation). The law did not specify h o w judges were to conduct their cases; the w o r d i n g of the original judiciary law indicates that the district judges may have met i n conjunction w i t h local headmen and acted as moderators. I n 1824, a new law specified that legal matters were to be heard before juries; jurors were to be "disinterested m e n of good character and j u d g m e n t , " impaneled b y the marshal i n each district. The marshal was also given the power to subpoena witnesses at the court's request and " t o collect all debts" of the nation (deducting 8 per­ cent for his pay as collector). Eventually the marshals ceased to be leaders of the Lighthorse, and i n 1825 the lighthorse units were disbanded. The laws i n each district were thereafter enforced by the marshal, a sheriff, a deputy sheriff, and t w o constables. The Cherokee N a t i o n did not erect any jails. Punishments set b y the courts for criminal cases (whipping or execution) were administered b y the marshal, sheriffs, or deputies upon conviction. Fines and other penalties or court orders were executed by the marshals, w h o had the power to distrain or confiscate the property of those convicted and auction i t off to pay the fines i f the person convicted did not have the cash. A t first, appeals from the district or circuit courts could be made to the National Council, but i n 1821 a new law established a Superior or Su­ preme Court for the nation. I t consisted of the district judges and circuit judges meeting together at the national capital once a year for this pur­ pose. Eventually a handsome t w o - s t o r y clapboard b u i l d i n g was erected i n New Echota to house the Supreme Court. By 1822 the nation had a threetiered judicial system: the district courts heard criminal cases, except for murder, and civil cases i n v o l v i n g less than $100; the circuit courts heard m u r d e r cases and civil cases i n v o l v i n g more than $100; the Supreme Court heard appeals f r o m the lower courts. Each court had its o w n sala­ ried clerk, w h o was required to keep w r i t t e n records of all cases and to issue subpoenas for witnesses. I n 1825 the judiciary was declared " i n d e ­ pendent" of the Council. The same law that i n 1820 provided for elected representatives f r o m each of the eight districts also provided for the payment of salaries to all national officers. Pathkiller, n o w seventy-five years old, received $150 as

286

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

Principal Chief; Charles Hicks, the Second Principal Chief, w h o handled most of the official correspondence of the nation, received $200; and the clerk and the Speaker of the Council each received $2.50 per day d u r i n g Council sessions. The President of the National Committee (which was henceforth the upper house of the bicameral legislature) received $3.50 per day. F r o m 1817 to 1827 John Ross served as President. The clerk of the N a t i o n a l Committee (at first Thomas W i l s o n , later Elijah Hicks) re­ ceived $2.50 per day w h e n the National Council was i n session. The Council's interpreter received $.50 per day. Council sessions were con­ ducted i n Cherokee and English depending upon the preference of the speakers, but all official documents had to be w r i t t e n i n English. Council members received $1.00 per day; members of the N a t i o n a l Committee, $2.00 per day. It appears that legislation m i g h t originate i n either the Council or the Committee, but the Council generally asked the C o m m i t ­ tee to draft any legislation i t wanted. B o t h houses had to concur for a law to pass. The Principal and Second Principal Chiefs had to sign all laws and usually the Speaker of the Council signed as w e l l . There was probably no veto power because t r a d i t i o n still assumed that consensus preceded pas­ sage. The purpose of this republican system of government, clearly modeled on that of the surrounding states (though not specifically copied f r o m any one of them) was to increase the efficiency and centralize the a u t h o r i t y of the Council. The laws were Cherokee versions of w h i t e political struc­ tures. They created a professional bureaucracy for administration and record keeping. The General Council tried hard to reconcile old com­ m u n a l patterns and nomenclature (chiefs, council, speaker) w i t h new structures. Behind the restructured system lay a new individualistic, competitive, acquisitive system of values that was almost impossible to reconcile w i t h the t r a d i t i o n of h a r m o n y and cooperation. The Cherokees wished to demonstrate that they could govern themselves i n an orderly, democratic, efficient manner while p r o v i d i n g civil liberty for the i n d i v i d ­ ual. I n the new market economy that generated the nation's prosperity, the political structure was designed to protect property and contractual rights w i t h w h i c h the older generation and t o w n councils were not f a m i l ­ iar and could not deal adequately. A centralized, tripartite republican government constituted a major transformation f r o m the older decen­ tralized t o w n council system. The Cherokees had clearly moved, i n Fer­ dinand Tonnies's terms, f r o m gemeinschaft to gesellschaft, and f r o m an oral to a w r i t t e n system of order. This new respect for w r i t t e n law was evident i n the Cherokees' request that their agent should have all new laws p r i n t e d annually and distributed t h r o u g h o u t the nation. Laws were changing and being created too quickly for an oral t r a d i t i o n to have coped 287

P O LITIC S A N D ECONOMICS

w i t h t h e m . I n addition, the Cherokees wanted the whites to be aware of their progress. I n 1826, John Ridge, the son of M a j o r Ridge and one of the new gen­ eration b o r n i n t o a different political w o r l d , educated b y missionaries, and readily adapting to the new ways, wrote a letter to A l b e r t Gallatin (Jefferson's former Secretary of the Treasury, n o w retired and dabbling i n a n t h r o p o l o g y ) , explaining to h i m the significance of the political re­ s t r u c t u r i n g that had taken place i n the early 1820s. Formerly, Ridge said (describing his people i n the t h i r d person), their chiefs were numerous and their responsibility was a trifling [one]. Lands then could be obtained of them at a price most convenient to the United States as their commissioners, with the assistance of their agent, could always procure a majority for a cession, and when this was done, all yielded to secure their share for the trifling equivalent. A t length the eyes of our Nation were opened to see their folly. Their existence was in danger and the Remedy was within themselves, and this could only be effected by the amendment of their Government. Useless members were stricken off—a Treasurer was appointed and a National seat for their future Government was selected. In short, these Chiefs organized them­ selves into a Standing body of Legislators. 12

Charles Hicks took the same view of this political transformation. W r i t ­ ing to Meigs a few days after the first laws that replaced t o w n government by district government were enacted, he said this new measure had been passed ' T o r the interest of perpetuating the n a t i o n / ' Elias Boudinot, the nephew of Major Ridge, educated at mission schools and s h o r t l y to become editor of the nation's bilingual newspaper, described the economic and governmental changes to a w h i t e audience i n Philadelphia i n 1826 and concluded w i t h these fulsome remarks : 1 3

The Cherokee authorities had adopted the measures already stated with a sincere desire to make their nation an intelligent and virtuous people, and with a full hope that those who have already pointed out to them the road to happiness will now assist them to pursue it. . . . I can view my native country, rising from the ashes of her degradation, wearing her purified and beautiful garments, and taking her seat with the nations of the earth. . . . on her destiny hangs that of many [Indian] nations. If the General Government continues its protection and the American people assist them in their humble efforts, they will, they must, rise. 14

The dynamic nature of Cherokee society, its fluid and rapidly e v o l v i n g political order, reflected an equally dynamic economic and social order. The claims of John Ridge and Charles Hicks that the purpose of the p o l i t 12 13 14

John Ridge to Albert Gallatin, Payne Papers, vm: 106. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, November 27, 1820, M-208. Boudinot, Address, p. 14.

288

P O L I T I C S

A N D E C O N O M I C S

ical r e v o l u t i o n of 1820-1823 was to save and perpetuate the nation i n its struggle w i t h the U n i t e d States was o n l y half of the story. Centralization and efficiency also made i t easier to expand the economic development and prosperity of the nation—raising the standard of l i v i n g for all. O f the 115 recorded laws passed between 1817 and 1828, forty-eight or 42 per­ cent were concerned v e r y specifically w i t h economic issues such as trade, transport, labor, land use, credit, loans, development of resources, regu­ lation of livestock, fencing of property, regulation of t u r n p i k e and ferry tolls, business franchises, and similar aspects of a market economy. A n ­ other 20 percent of the laws were concerned w i t h social and cultural change, such as the role of w o m e n , marriage, inheritance, education, the sale of liquor, gambling, schooling, Sabbath observance, and the status and rights (or l i m i t s on rights) of slaves and of i n t e r m a r r i e d whites. The Cherokee people were told that all of the restructuring—political, eco­ nomic, and social—was necessary " t o preserve the c o u n t r y , " but some began to ask h o w the c o u n t r y was being preserved w h e n i t was daily changed to conform to w h i t e patterns. This was the Cherokee d i l e m m a , the d i l e m m a of all Native Americans : i n order to survive as red m e n , they were t o l d t h e y must become more and more like w h i t e m e n . The f o r t y - e i g h t laws dealing w i t h economic questions indicate the h i g h state of acculturation that some parts of the Cherokee nation—or at least the three hundred Cherokee families at the center of the nation's devel­ opment—had reached. A l t h o u g h the nation still retained c o m m o n o w n ­ ership of its land, the use i t made of its land and its resources differed l i t t l e f r o m that of s u r r o u n d i n g w h i t e settlements. Those w i t h h i g h ambitions and entreprenuerial skills w o r k e d p r i m a r i l y for their o w n aggrandize­ ment. A t best the nation made a n o m i n a l income f r o m leasing a franchise for a t u r n p i k e , ferry, tavern, or a saline or saltpeter cave. Private initiative and private profit were the chief spurs to the expansion of the economy. D i v i d i n g these forty-eight laws into rough categories indicates that eleven dealt w i t h transportation, ten w i t h the labor force (including black slaves), seven concerned stray livestock, six regulated land use, three were concerned w i t h forest and m i n e r a l resources, eight dealt w i t h public monies and credit, one each dealt w i t h debtors, vagabonds, and w i l l s . M o s t of the transportation statutes were concerned w i t h turnpikes or roads, the basic arteries for the market economy. C o t t o n , corn, wheat, barley, melons, beans, and salted pork or beef traveled b y wagon out of the nation and manufactured goods returned the same w a y . Livestock and p o u l t r y were walked to market i n the neighboring communities. Traders or m i d d l e m e n usually bought up most of the produce of the i n ­ dividual farmers and herders and disposed of i t i n bulk, although some Cherokees took their o w n livestock and produce to market. A smaller 289

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

amount of agricultural produce and livestock was carried by flatboats or keelboats (and eventually by steamboats) on the local rivers, w h i c h p r o ­ vided good arteries as far south as Natchez, M o b i l e , and N e w Orleans and as far west as the Arkansas Cherokees. The chief eastern markets were Savannah, Augusta, and Charleston. The bulk of Cherokee trade w e n t to K n o x v i l l e , Nashville, Athens, or H u n t s v i l l e on the periphery of the na­ t i o n . B y 1824 the federal government was sending negotiators on behalf of the states to ask the Council for rights of w a y t h r o u g h the nation to dig canals and build railways (for horsedrawn cars). The Council refused such requests i n 1826,1827, and 1828, m u c h to the annoyance of whites seek­ i n g easier access to m a r k e t s . Had the Cherokees remained long enough i n the east they w o u l d undoubtedly have had to grant such rights; some of their o w n traders favored t h e m i n the 1820s. 15

M o s t of the t u r n p i k e laws were concerned w i t h proper upkeep b y the various t u r n p i k e companies that had b u i l t spurs or connecting links to the federal turnpikes. The nation incorporated some of its o w n traders i n or­ der to b u i l d t u r n p i k e s . Some of the laws concerned regulating the t o l l rates at the gates of the various turnpikes. One law forbade any person to cut a road w i t h o u t approval of the Council, w h i c h indicates that Cherokee farmers were apt to do just what w h i t e farmers did and cut the shortest path from their farms or plantations to the nearest h i g h w a y or market. The Council also had to settle the disputes between competing t u r n p i k e companies that complained of new roads being b u i l t " i n opposition to the interest o f " the existing "proprietors of a privileged t u r n p i k e . " The Council set standards for the construction of roads, w h i c h were " t o be cut and opened t w e n t y - f o u r feet wide, clear of trees, and the causewaying to be covered w i t h d i r t . . . and the banks of all water courses to be put i n complete o r d e r . " Turnpike companies either paid an annual rental fee or deposited a fixed portion of their revenue into the Cherokee N a t i o n a l Treasury. I n short, every aspect of h i g h w a y construction, upkeep, and regulation was controlled by the Council. I t similarly regulated ferries, inns, taverns, and trading posts located along the highways. 16

1 7

18

As i n every frontier c o m m u n i t y , there was always a shortage of skilled labor. The Cherokee Council licensed all w h i t e craftsmen, mechanics, ar­ tisans, traders, teachers, clerks, and sharecroppers w h o entered the nation to take up residence. This had originally been done by the federal agent, but the Council took this task under its o w n control after 1811. The prob15

The documents regarding these treaties may be found in M-208, M-15, M-221, and M -

271. 16 1 7 18

Cherokee Laws, pp. 20-21. Ibid., p. 7 Ibid., p. 35.

290

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

l e m was complex because of the touchy nature of I n d i a n - w h i t e relations. The Cherokees needed honest, competent w h i t e labor. Sharecroppers, for example, sought the advantage of a tax-free farm on rich v i r g i n land and agreed to w o r k a tract for Cherokee landholders; often t h e y failed to pay their share of the crop to the Cherokee they w o r k e d for and after several good crops simply absconded w i t h their profits to b u y their o w n farms outside the nation. I n 1819 the National Council u n a n i m o u s l y agreed " t h a t schoolmasters, blacksmiths, millers, salt petre and g u n powder manufactures, forgemen, t u r n p i k e keepers, and mechanics" w h o were " p r i v i l e g e d to reside i n the Cherokee N a t i o n " must acquire permits f r o m the Council t h r o u g h their Cherokee employers, w h o must stand " r e ­ sponsible for their good conduct and b e h a v i o r . " A similar law applied to 19

"single w h i t e m e n . . . admitted to be employed as clerks" and all w h i t e traders and storekeepers were required to obtain permits f r o m the C o u n ­ cil.

2 0

N o r were free blacks or slaves allowed to labor i n the n a t i o n w i t h o u t

a permit.

2 1

However, the Council tried hard to encourage mechanics " o f

good character and sobriety and well-skilled i n their respective profes­ sions" to come to the nation, provided they w o u l d agree to stay for four or five years and "take under their care for instruction as m a n y appren­ tices as practicable."

22

By 1827 the Council was regulating mission

schools and preparing to start public schools. The Cherokees were eager to t r a i n their o w n mechanics. Charles Hicks reported i n 1820 that " t h e art of m a k i n g the spinning wheel and l o o m has been acquired b y five or six Cherokees" and some had learned enough coopering so that t h e y were " m a k i n g water vessies out of w o o d . " " B e ­ sides, there are six or seven others w h o w o r k at the blacksmith's trade . . . repairing the plough, the axe, the g u n , and shoeing of horses." There were some even w h o "make the p l o u g h . " The n u m b e r of Cherokee m e ­ 2 3

chanics grew steadily i n the 1820s. Laws governing the control of livestock were c o m m o n on every f r o n ­ tier. Their purpose was to hold owners responsible i f their hogs, goats, sheep, cattle, or horses entered the land of another person and destroyed his crops. These laws also concerned the retrieval of stray animals. Part of the responsibility lay i n proper fencing; Cherokee laws prescribed the height and q u a l i t y of "legal fences" to establish the blame for destruction of crops. One law created "rangers," whose job was to i m p o u n d stray Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., pp. 34, 37. Ibid., pp. 6 1 , 6 , 1 1 . See appendix to Jedidiah Morse, A Report to the Secretary of War (New Haven, Conn., 1822), p. 169. 1 9

2 0 2 1 2 2

2 3

291

P O L I T I C S

A N D E C O N O M I C S

livestock, to advertise t h e m , and to care for t h e m u n t i l their owners claimed t h e m and reimbursed the ranger according to fixed fees. The most difficult aspect of this problem was on the edge of the nation, where whites failed to observe the boundary line. " M u c h i n j u r y is sustained," the Council said, " b y the inhabitants l i v i n g on the boundary lines, f r o m citizens of the United States feeding and keeping their stock of property on Cherokee lands whereby horses, cattle, hogs, etc. belonging to the cit­ izens of this nation are exposed to be taken off by such person or persons trespassing." To prevent this, a law required the judges of each district to "appoint an assistant ranger . . . whose d u t y i t shall be solely to pay strict attention to such trespassers . . . and to forwarn the frontier inhabitants of the United States" to keep off Cherokee land. The strays of whites that were caught i n the nation were to be i m p o u n d e d . 24

25

The Cherokee laws regarding land usage were unlike those of w h i t e settlements because of the tribal ownership of all land. The law forbade the sale of any Cherokee land or improvements on i t (such as houses, barns, or stables) to whites, although Cherokees could sell any i m p r o v e ­ ments to each o t h e r . The law said that no Cherokee could take up or set­ tle upon land f o r m e r l y used by another Cherokee unless i t had been abandoned for three years. A n o t h e r law stated that no Cherokee could take up land for a farm or plantation closer than a quarter-mile to another Cherokee w i t h o u t his p e r m i s s i o n . M o s t of the land tenure problems arose f r o m the emigration or enrollment for emigration of Cherokees d u r i n g the removal crisis of 1817-1819. I f an emigrant moved west, he i m m e d i a t e l y lost all r i g h t to his land and improvements. I f he later changed his m i n d , he had to come back and start over somewhere else (unless no one had moved onto his f a r m ) . A n y o n e w h o wanted to move west after 1821 was not allowed to sell his improvements to another Cherokee to subsidize his removal; the nation did all i t could do to dis­ courage emigration. The land of an Arkansas emigrant was declared abandoned after one year. 26

27

28

29

30

A major unresolved problem for the Cherokees and for all Indians was whether t h e y had the right to develop their o w n m i n e r a l resources. They were damned i f they did (because they were considered o n l y tenants on the w h i t e man's land) and damned i f they d i d n ' t (because w h i t e A m e r 31

24 25 26 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 31

Cherokee Laws, pp. 34—35. Ibid., p. 54. Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., p. 59. Ibid., pp. 40-41. Ibid., pp. 9-10. Ibid., p. 80. The governor of Georgia said in 1830 they lacked this right (M-221, reel 110, #8773).

292

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

icans believed that God required m a n to exploit H i s natural bounties). The federal agents always encouraged the Cherokees to lease their re­ sources to whites b u t did not object to leases to competent Cherokees ( i n ­ t e r m a r r i e d whites or m i x e d bloods). Salines and saltpeter caves were the first resources to be developed i n this way. The Cherokees never doubted their r i g h t to use all their resources. They had made turpentine, pitch, tar, potash, and maple sugar from their trees long before 1794. T h e y had also become excellent silversmiths and they knew places where gold was to be found, t h o u g h they kept these secret. Cherokee laws protected the rights of those w h o were given concessions to mine salt, thereby t a k i n g w h a t had previously been a public resource and m a k i n g i t a private, m o n e y - m a k i n g enterprise. Those given a franchise to m i n e salt or salt­ peter paid a fee to the state. A l t h o u g h they had opposed the effort to allow Colonel Earle to develop their i r o n ore resources for his o w n profit, the Cherokees were eager to find some w a y to develop i t themselves; t h e y were disappointed w h e n President Madison declined to assist t h e m i n this project i n 1816. Formerly, the Cherokees, like most woodland Indians, had periodically burned off the underbrush i n their woods to i m p r o v e the g r o w t h of new forage for deer and to increase the y i e l d of berries for h u m a n and animal (particularly bears) use. B u t w i t h the advent of elaborate private farms t h r o u g h o u t the nation, this had to be abandoned. I n 1825 the Council forbade anyone to set fires even i n the most remote regions "before the m o n t h of M a r c h " i n order to protect timber that was n o w more i m p o r t a n t t h a n deer or bears. The Council asserted the nation's r i g h t to its ferrous minerals i n 1825 stating that " a l l gold, silver, lead, copper or brass mines w h i c h m a y be found w i t h i n the l i m i t s of the Cherokee N a t i o n shall be the property of the Cherokee N a t i o n . " The law allowed o n e - f o u r t h of the proceeds f r o m any m i n e to accrue to the person w h o discovered i t . De­ velopment of the nation's rich m i n e r a l resources was slow because the Cherokees still lacked the skills and the capital for large-scale manufac­ turing. 32

33

3 4

3 5

M o s t of the laws regulating monies were designed to increase the effi­ cient management of the National Treasury, w h i c h provided the principal source of capital for those w h o lacked the credit to b o r r o w f r o m traders. Despite their claims to sovereignty, the Cherokees never tried to exercise the r i g h t to coin money. The Treasury did accept promissory notes at 6 percent for debts owed to the nation and allowed these to circulate as cur3 2

See Goodwin, Cherokees in Transition, pp. 63-64.

33

Cherokee Laws, p. 41.

34

Ibid., p. 50. Ibid., p. 50.

3 5

293

P O L I T I C S

A N D E C O N O M I C S

rency. I n 1825 the Council encouraged local enterprise by p e r m i t t i n g the Treasurer " t o loan out at interest, at six percent per a n n u m , such surplus public monies as m a y be i n the treasury." Surety and bonds were re­ quired f r o m those taking such loans and no loan was to exceed $500. The Treasurer evidently made some bad investments i n this and after some defaults the Council ordered the process stopped i n 1827. Perhaps the most obvious signs that the Cherokees were developing an entrepreneurial bourgeoisie were the laws passed regarding those w h o died intestate. The law did not broach the delicate question of whether maternal clan relatives of a w i d o w or divorced w o m a n or the elder b r o t h ­ ers of a deceased m a n had the first claim upon the property of the deceased w h o died w i t h o u t a w i l l . I t simply said that "the nearest relatives of the deceased" had a r i g h t to apply to the district court to have an administra­ tor of the estate chosen. H o w the administrator was to decide between the claims of wives (or ex-wives) and children (of various wives) and the claims of clan relations, the law did not say, t h o u g h presumably under the inheritance law of 1808 b o t h categories of claimants were to be given a share. I n the old days w h e n a Cherokee man died, he m i g h t at the most o w n a g u n , a horse or t w o , and perhaps a slave, w h i c h went to his older brothers as his clan protectors; an unmarried or widowed Cherokee w o m a n m i g h t o w n a cabin, several knives, blankets, and kettles, a horse, and perhaps also a slave (and i f she had f o r m e r l y had children b y a hus­ band or t w o , these children were i n her care), w h i c h at her death went to her older brothers as the protectors of her and her children. B u t n o w that some families owned m a n y horses, cattle, and hogs, valuable black slaves, and perhaps an extensive farm or plantation w i t h all the requisite out­ buildings and a well-constructed house, "the legal h e i r s " (as the law termed them) m i g h t come from all directions to claim a share of i t . I n most cases, the well-to-do took pains to make wills and the Council h o n ­ ored these even t h o u g h most of t h e m followed patrilineal rather than matrilineal practice. As early as 1805, Meigs had noted that the more well-to-do Cherokees like James Vann and Doublehead were concerned that their estates should pass to their children and not to their brothers: Several have spoken to me on the descent of p r o p e r t y . A t present the p r o p e r t y left by the decease of the head of a f a m i l y descends to the male w h o is nearest a k i n , w h i c h b y t h e i r custom is the oldest brother of the deceased. H e takes all the p r o p e r t y and the w i d o w and her C h i l d r e n are left destitute unless she had some p r o p e r t y w h i c h she b r o u g h t to the f a m i l y or acquired b y her i n d u s t r y afterwards. T w o persons of the half Breeds have requested me to w r i t e t h e i r w i l l s h o p i n g that m i g h t be a means of breaking t h r o the o l d custom. . . . T h e y n o w see the great i m p r o p r i e t y of estates g o i n g out of the f a m i l y i n this side w a y m a n n e r as i t is a

294

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

TABLE 7

Cherokee Economic Growth, 1809-1835

Cherokees males females Whites intermarried males females Black slaves Black cattle Horses Swine Sheep Looms Spinning wheels Wagons Plows Grist Mills Sawmills Powder Mills Ferries Silversmiths Blacksmiths Cotton Gins Salt Petre works Schools Pupils

1809

1826

1828

1835

12,395 6,116 6,279 341

13,963*

14,972

16,542

211 147 73 1,277 22,000 7,600 46,000 2,500 762 2,488 172 2,943 31 10

— 583 19,165 6,519 19,778 1,037 429 1,572 30 567 13 3 1

__

___

18

49

—

— —

62 8

—

2 5 94

18

—

— —

205 144 61 1,038 22,405 7,628 38,517 2,912 769 2,428 130 2,792 20 14 6 10 55

—

9 19 292

— —

201

—

1,592

—

—

—

_ — —

—

—

SOURCES: Return J. Meigs, Census, Moravian Archives (Winston-Salem, N.C.); Elias Boudinot, An Address Delivered to the Whites (Philadelphia, 1826); The Cherokee Phoenix, June 18, 1828. Plus 3,500-4,000 living in the west.

a

great discouragement to industry as well as cruel to the Children of the de­ ceased. 36

This practice grew steadily among the more w e l l - t o - d o . The g r o w t h of private property (see table 7) on private farms and the concomitant de­ velopment of the nuclear f a m i l y as the basic kinship l o y a l t y clearly placed a strain o n traditional patterns. Tensions w i t h i n the developing legal sys­ t e m s l o w l y generated fears and resentments among conservative Chero­ kee. The most basic r i g h t and necessity of a nation-state is its r i g h t to levy taxes for the support of its institutions. The Cherokees had been given the 36

Return J. Meigs to Henry Dearborn, August 4,1805, M-208.

295

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

r i g h t to local self-government b y their treaties and they assumed the r i g h t to tax their inhabitants. The administration of their system was g r o w i n g more expensive and their annuities were not always sufficient to meet t h e i r annual expenses. I n 1819 the Council laid a tax of $25 per year upon " a l l citizens of the Cherokee N a t i o n establishing a store or stores for the purpose of vending merchandize" and a tax of $80 per year on all noncitizens " p e r m i t t e d to vend merchandise i n the N a t i o n " either as i t i n ­ erant or fixed traders. This law had three purposes: to raise revenue, to equalize the position of Cherokee traders i n competition w i t h whites, and to regulate the number of w h i t e traders i n the nation. Enforcement of this law created considerable trouble w i t h the federal government. Some of the w h i t e traders protested against i t , declined to pay their tax, and had their goods seized and sold b y Cherokee sheriffs to force payment. I n ad­ d i t i o n , a year later, the Council required "each head of f a m i l y " to pay "a poll tax of fifty cents and each single man under the age of sixty years also shall pay fifty cents" per year to the government. M o s t Cherokees, es­ pecially i n the o u t l y i n g districts, refused or failed to pay, and this tax was suspended i n 1 8 2 5 . 37

38

W i t h the power to tax came the power to regulate internal trade, a bone of considerable contention among the thirteen British colonies of N o r t h America after 1763. The same law that laid a tax upon Cherokee and w h i t e traders i n the Cherokee N a t i o n also prohibited the i m p o r t or sale of alcoholic beverages b y non-Cherokee citizens, and those w h o did i m p o r t or sell i t risked a $100 fine ; "neverthless," the law continued, " n o t h i n g shall be so construed i n this decree to tax any person or persons b r i n g i n g sugar, coffee, salt, i r o n and steel into the Cherokee N a t i o n for sale; but no permanent establishment for the disposal of such articles can be ad­ m i t t e d to any persons not citizens of the N a t i o n . " The federal agent granted licenses to alien w h i t e traders (another bone of contention); the Cherokee Council ( t h r o u g h its clerk) issued licenses to traders w h o were Cherokee citizens. These tax laws of 1819-1820 were approved b y Meigs and Calhoun before they were printed and published, but m a n y frontier whites did not like to see the Cherokee N a t i o n exercise the sovereign power to tax. Meigs said of the new laws, " I t h i n k y o u have made some good r e g u l a t i o n s . " Calhoun wrote i n A p r i l 1820: " T h e Cherokee N a ­ t i o n has a r i g h t to adopt any rules and regulations i t pleases for its o w n policy n o t inconsistent w i t h existing treaties and the laws regulating i n ­ tercourse w i t h the Indian tribes." Few saw at the t i m e where all this was leading w i t h respect to Cherokee claims of national sovereignty. 39

37

Cherokee Laws, p. 6.

3 8

Ibid., p. 48. Return J. Meigs to Charles Hicks, January 20, 1823, M-208.

3 9

296

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

Taxation and income f r o m public loans and franchises granted b y the nation were never a major source of income for the Cherokee N a t i o n a l Treasury. The principal source of income (outside land sales) always re­ mained the a n n u i t y . O f course, had the Cherokees ever succeeded i n per­ suading the government to pay the claims of $581,000 sustained b y d a m ­ ages f r o m the inadequate evaluation of Cherokee improvements on land ceded i n 1817 and 1819 (as w e l l as f r o m the misdeeds of M c M i n n i n leas­ i n g Cherokee property i n 1818-1819 and f r o m the failure of the reserve system), i t w o u l d have had m u c h less difficulty i n p a y i n g expenses and s t i m u l a t i n g economic g r o w t h . The federal government denied the v a l i d ­ i t y of the figure and the negotiations over the claims dragged o n year after year w i t h no resolution. The major part of the Cherokee revenue came f r o m $4,000 granted " i n p e r p e t u i t y " b y the federal government for land ceded between 1791 and 1806 and various l u m p sums for land ceded i n 1816-1819 that were divided i n t o annual increments ranging i n total f r o m $10,000 to $11,000. The federal government's payments were fre­ q u e n t l y slipshod. This was revealed i n the long delay over the payment of $4,000 for Wafford's Tract agreed upon i n 1804. Somehow the govern­ m e n t failed to have this treaty ratified by the Senate, t h o u g h w h i t e set­ tlers i m m e d i a t e l y took over all the land. I n 1811 w h e n , at the request of the Council, Meigs asked w h e n this money w o u l d be f o r t h c o m i n g , he re­ ceived no reply. The Cherokees b r o u g h t the matter up again i n 1824, b u t after a diligent search t h r o u g h its files the W a r Department said i t had no record of such a t r e a t y . The Cherokee Council t h e n w e n t i n t o its files and produced a certified copy. After h e m m i n g and h a w i n g over the v a l i d ­ i t y of the copy, the government finally conceded that i t was genuine and proceeded to present the treaty for ratification. W h e n the Cherokees re­ quested that they receive interest that had accrued o n the sum for the i n ­ t e r v e n i n g years, the government refused. The Cherokees received t h e i r $4,000 i n a l u m p sum i n 1825. The annual income f r o m annuities i n the 1820s, including the $1,280 that Meigs had negotiated i n place of the gov­ ernment's a n n u i t y festival, came to between $14,000 and $16,000 per year. Because the Cherokees used i t wisely and honestly, i t provided the basis for their new system of government and their remarkable economic development f r o m 1819 to 1829. 40

A l t h o u g h there had been a N a t i o n a l Treasury ever since annuities be­ gan i n 1791, the income had at first been distributed b y the agent to the t o w n chiefs i n the f o r m of trade goods. Meigs usually tried to keep several thousand dollars of i t at the agency d u r i n g the year to cover contingencies (usually claims b y whites for theft or destruction of property). Every year 4 0

Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 58-60.

297

P O L I T I C S

A N I.) E C O N O M I C S

before the a n n u i t y was paid, he tallied up all claims against i t by whites, b y the factory, and by the government (for special gifts) and deducted that f r o m the total before he distributed what was left. N o t u n t i l 1817 did the N a t i o n a l Committee successfully take control of the a n n u i t y away f r o m the agent, though on several occasions i t had requested that the an­ n u i t y be paid i n cash rather than i n trade goods. The Committee's clerk did not keep records of these funds prior to 1817. Charles Hicks seems to have done so, however, as unofficial treasurer, and his home i n Fort ville, Tennessee, became the site of the National Treasury after 1817. He re­ minded Meigs's successor, Joseph M c M i n n , i n 1.823 that "a N a t i o n a l Treasury was established at this place" by the C o u n c i l . After 1823, Hicks sometimes referred to himself as "treasurer of the N a t i o n " as w e l l as Second Principal Chief. Though Hicks was careful and honest, he does not seem to have been able to balance the nation's budget. N o records of the national income and expenditures have survived. N o r is there any adequate w a y to measure the gross national income of the nation i n these years. The closest we can come to measuring economic g r o w t h is t h r o u g h statistical tables compiled i n 1809 b y Meigs, i n 1825 by act of the Council, and i n 1835 by commissioners of the U n i t e d States. O n l y i n the last census were figures taken concerning the estimated val­ ues of farm produce, and there were important omissions f r o m these (particularly w i t h regard to such i m p o r t a n t products as cotton produc­ t i o n , truck gardening, p o u l t r y , orchards, manufactured goods, and silvers m i t h i n g ) . Nevertheless these statistical tables deserve to be cited as at least a m i n i m a l statement of Cherokee develoment u n t i l a means is found to extrapolate more complete estimates of family or farm income and the wealth generated f r o m trade, timber, minerals, water power, and other resources (see table 8 ) . 41

42

4 3

Beyond these bare statistics there are m a n y eyewitness accounts b y persons w h o lived i n or traveled t h r o u g h the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the 1820s, w h e n i t became a showpiece for foreign and domestic visitors w h o wanted to discover h o w the Indians were faring under the benevolent pol­ icies of the new republic and the missionary societies. One of the more interesting of these comments was w r i t t e n b y a M o r a v i a n missionary, A b r a h a m Steiner, w h o had visited the nation i n 1801 and then returned i n 1820: " I cannot express the astonishment and delight I felt," he w r o t e to the Secretary of W a r after his r e t u r n visit, " i n observing the progress of civilization i n that country. . . . The well-cultivated plantations here Meigs addressed a letter to Hicks on June 20, 1820, to "the Treasurer of the Nation," June 20, 1820, M-208. Charles Hicks to Joseph McMinn, May 17, 1823, M-208. McLoughlin and Conser, "Cherokees in Transition." 4 1

42

4 3

298

P O L I T I C S

A N D

E C O N O M I C S

TABLE 8

Cherokee Agricultural Production, 1835 A. Acreage and Farms by State Average Number of Acres i n Total Tillable

Acres i n

Number

Cultivation

Acreage

Cultivation

of Farms

per Farm

251,005 292,480 35,000 614,400 1,192,480

10,692 7,256 6,906 19,216 44,070

412 259 714 1,735 3,120

25.92 28.01 9.67 11.07 14.12

State

Tennessee Alabama North Carolina Georgia Total [True total: 1,192,885]

B. Grain Production and Land Value by State Total

State

Total

Estimated

Bushels

Average

Bushels

Average

Worth of

of Wheat

Bushels

of Corn

Bushels

Tillable

Grown

per Farm

Grown

per Farm

Land

(at $2 per acre) $443,290 (at $2 per acre) $594,640 (at $5 per acre) $175,000 (at $2 per acre) $1,228,800 $2,441,730

Tennessee

976

2.37

129,179

313.54

Alabama

240

.92

88J76

342.76

65

.09

78.392

109.79

Georgia

1,221

.70

267,664

154.26

Total

2,502

.80

563,991

180.76

North Carolina

S O U R C E : Federal Census of 1835, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

and there do credit to their i n d u s t r y , judgment and arrangements. . . . A l l seem i n t e n t to have among t h e m more and more of the benefits of civilization. . . . The English language is also beginning to prevail and w i l l soon predominate. . . . The Cherokees are the most advanced i n civ­ ilization of any of the Indian tribes w i t h o u t exception. . . . The U n i t e d States are n o w i n a fair w a y of successful experiment that Indians can be c i v i l i z e d . B y 1822 Steiner had no doubt that the Cherokees were n o w ready to "become w o r t h y citizens . . . and useful members of the U n i o n , " and he was surprised and dismayed that there was still talk of forcing t h e m to remove to Arkansas. 44

4 5

John Ridge, w r i t i n g i n 1826, explained to Gallatin that there were no longer any Cherokees w h o tried to make a l i v i n g b y h u n t i n g ; those Cher4 4 4 5

Abraham Steiner to John Calhoun, April 26,1820, M-221, reel 87, #4606. Abraham Steiner to John Calhoun, January 25,1822, M-221, reel 94, #9527.

299

P O L I T I C S A N D EC O N O M IC S

okees had gone west. I n the east the Cherokees "prefer to clear the forest and govern their o w n individual plantations . . . they are farmers and herdsmen." He admitted that there were great variations " i n value of property possessed b y i n d i v i d u a l s " and "increasingly so," but " t h i s o n l y answers a good purpose, as a stimulus to those i n the rear to equal their neighbors." For all Cherokees, " t h e i r principal dependence for subsist­ ence is on the Production of their o w n farms. Indian corn is a staple pro­ duction. . . . Wheat, rye and oats g r o w very well. . . . Cotton is gener­ ally raised for domestic consumption and we have g r o w n i t for market and have realized v e r y good profits." M e n w o r k behind the plow and w o m e n "sew, . . . weave, . . . spin, . . . cook." The African slaves are generally mostly held by Half breeds and full Indians of distinguished talents. In this class the principal value of property is retained and their farms are conducted in the same style as the southern white farms of equal ability in point of property. Their houses are usually of hewed logs, with brick chimnies, and shingled roofs; there are also a few excellent brick and frame houses. Their furniture is better than the exterior appearance of their houses would incline a stranger to suppose; they have their regular meals as the whites [with] servants to attend them in their repasts, and the tables are usually covered with a clean cloth and furnished with the usual plates, knives and forks, etc. Every family more or less possess hogs, cattle and horses, and a number pay attention to the introduction of sheep. . . . Domestic manufactures are still confined to women. . . . These consist of white or striped homespun, coarse woolen blankets and in many instances very valuable and comfortable twilled and figured cover­ lets. Woolen and cotton stockings arc mostly manufactured for domestic use within the Nation. . . . calicoes, silks, cambrics, etc. . . . are introduced by Native merchants who generally trade in Augusta. . . . Cherokees on the Tennessee river have already commenced to trade in cotton and grow the article in large plantations and they have realized a very handsome profit. A l l those who have it in their power are making preparations to grow it for market and it will soon be the staple commodity for the Nation. 46

He noted that schools were flourishing and " A National Academy of a h i g h order is to be soon established. . . . The edifice w i l l be of Brick and w i l l be supported b y the N a t i o n . I t is also i n contemplation to establish . . . a p r i n t i n g press and a paper. . . . at our last session $1500 was ap­ propriated to purchase the press. . . . We also have a Society organized called T h e M o r a l and Literary Society of the Cherokee N a t i o n / A l i b r a r y is attached to this I n s t i t u t i o n . " That same year, David B r o w n , another y o u n g Cherokee educated by missionaries wrote a similar description of the nation's progress that was included by the Secretary of W a r i n his re­ port to Congress: 46

John Ridge to Albert Gallatin, February 27, 1826, Payne Papers, vm: 103-115.

300

P O L I T I C S

A N D E C O N O M I C S

In the plains and valleys the soil is generally rich, producing Indian corn, cotton, tobacco, wheat, oats, indigo, and sweet and Irish potatoes. The natives carry on considerable trade with the adjoining States and some of them export cotton in boats down the Tennessee to the Mississippi and down that river to New Orleans. Apple and peach orchards are quite common, and gardens are cultivated . . . but­ ter and cheese are on Cherokee tables. There are many public roads in the nation and houses of entertainment kept by natives. Numerous and flourishing villages are seen in every section of the country. Cotton and woolen cloths manufactured here [by hand]; blankets of various dimensions, manufactured by Cherokee hands, are very common; almost every family in the nation grows cotton for its own consumption. Industry and commercial enterprise are extending themselves in every part. 47

Such statements by the rising generation of Cherokees were of course de­ signed to impress sympathetic whites and tended to overemphasize the situation i n the middle region of the nation (from Augusta to Knoxville) and to neglect the poor areas along the Creek border and i n the N o r t h Carolina mountains. Nevertheless, their importance as descriptions lies essentially i n their tone of o p t i m i s m , self-confidence, and hope. The na­ t i o n had passed t h r o u g h its t i m e of t r i a l , its wandering i n the wilderness, and had n o w entered into the Canaan of contentment. O n the other hand, m a n y Cherokees were not ambitious for w e a l t h and did not seek out the best land. A l t h o u g h most full bloods mastered the art of p l o w i n g , t h e y did not really understand h o w to get the best y i e l d f r o m the land. The N e w England missionaries believed that the government had failed to provide the Cherokees w i t h adequate knowledge of the sci­ entific aspects of farming. The gap between the few rich and the m a n y poor that Ridge noted marked not o n l y a difference i n knowledge or i n ­ dustry b u t also a fundamental clash i n social ethic. Something like a landed, entrepreneurial class and a poor, peasant class had evolved b y 1825, and t h e y did not always get along. I t was not u n l i k e the friction between the rising cotton capitalists and the poor w h i t e d i r t farmers i n the s u r r o u n d i n g southern states. 4 7

ASP i i , 6 5 1 - 5 2 .

301

F I F T E E N

T E S T I N G T H E L I M I T S OF S O V E R E I G N T Y , 1819-1826

Their declaration not to meet with the [treaty] Commissioners is little short of a declaration of independence, which they never lose sight of. —Return ] . Meigs to the Secretary of War. 1822

I

f the Cherokees t h o u g h t that the treaty of 1819 had guaranteed that they could remain permanently on what was left of their original soil, they were soon disappointed. Neither acculturation, prosperity, political u n i t y , nor their obvious determination to sell no more of their land was sufficient to keep the federal and state governments from t r y i n g to obtain further cessions. A t the request of the people of Georgia, Congress ap­ propriated $30,000 i n June 1822 to negotiate for the extinction of the Cherokee title to 7,200 square miles of land w i t h i n the boundaries of that state. As soon as the Cherokee National Council learned of this, i t " r e ­ quested the [district] Judges to ascertain the sentiments and disposition of the citizens [of the Cherokee nation] of their respective Districts on the subject." The judges reported to the Council i n October that " u n a n i ­ m o u s l y , w i t h one voice and d e t e r m i n a t i o n " their districts had decided " t o hold no treaties w i t h any Commissioners of the United States to make any cessions of land, being resolved not to dispose of even one foot of g r o u n d . " N o tabulation of votes or other evidence was recorded of this sentiment and, given the feelings of m a n y Cherokees i n Creek Path and other Lower Towns, the claim of u n a n i m i t y was somewhat exaggerated. 1

Nevertheless, the Council sent w o r d to the Secretary of W a r that i t was not w i l l i n g to meet w i t h any treaty commissioners on this subject. Their letter was signed by the members of the National Committee: John Ross, George Lowrey, Richard Taylor, Thomas Foreman, John Beamer, Thomas Pettit, John D o w n i n g , John Baldrige, Cabbin S m i t h , Sleeping Rabbit, Kelachulee, Currahee Dick, Roman Nose, and Comanahee. I t was also signed by the f o l l o w i n g members of the Council: Pathkiller, Charles Hicks, O l l a y e h , Big Rattling Gourd, A h n e y a l y , Samuel Gunter, Terrapin 1

Cherokee Laws, pp. 23-24.

302

T E S T I N G

T H E

L I M I T S

Head, Rising Fawn, W i l l i a m Hicks, Tunnittehee, W a l k i n g Stick, O l d T u r ­ key, The Feather, G o i n g Snake, Tusquieh, Oowanekee, Chunayahee, S l i m Fellow, Gone Up To, M a j o r Ridge, and A l e x M c C o y . These were n o w the leaders of the nation and they spoke w i t h a new sense of n a t i o n ­ alistic self-confidence. The skill w i t h w h i c h they handled treaty negotia­ tions w i t h the federal government f r o m 1822 to 1828 provides the best evidence of the nation's political m a t u r i t y . Meigs was shocked. H e told C a l h o u n : " T h e i r declaration not to meet w i t h the Commissioners is little short of a declaration of independence w h i c h t h e y never lose sight o f . " I n his o p i n i o n "such a declaration" was "disrespectful to the U n i t e d States Commissioners and to the G o v e r n ­ m e n t . " H e blamed a few artful Cherokees for the impasse. " T h e i r gov­ ernment is an aristocracy consisting of about 100 m e n called Chiefs and those Chiefs are controlled by perhaps t w e n t y speculating i n d i v i d u a l s . " Forgetting h o w often i n the past he had praised such chiefs for p r o m o t i n g civilization and the good order of their people, he n o w concluded that " t h e conduct of these individuals is to perpetuate barbarism b y encour­ aging indolence." I f they persisted i n their intransigence, " t h e citizens of Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama w o u l d probably hardly be restrained long f r o m t a k i n g possession of their respective claims" to Cherokee soil. A n d Meigs i m p l i e d that he t h o u g h t these citizens w o u l d be f u l l y justified i n d o i n g so. 2

Thus began six more years of w r a n g l i n g between the Cherokees and the government. T h r o u g h o u t this period, however, the Cherokees held f i r m ; one set of commissioners after another w e n t away empty-handed, frustrated, and angry. Several aspects of the negotiations i n 1823-1824 revealed h o w adept the Cherokees had become i n dealing w i t h w h i t e of­ ficials. W h e n the treaty commissioners, Duncan Campbell and James M e r i w e t h e r , arrived i n the nation on January 15,1823, despite the C o u n ­ cil's assertion that i t did not w a n t to negotiate, they f o u n d no chiefs or warriors at the agency, the place they had appointed for the meeting. After w a i t i n g a week, the commissioners had to r e t u r n w i t h o u t even pre­ senting their arguments, m u c h less using the bribes t h e y had b r o u g h t or the rations for the subsistence of the hundreds of chiefs and w a r r i o r s w h o m they had expected to attend. The Council said i t was sorry for the inconvenience, b u t i t had tried to save the commissioners the trouble of m a k i n g the t r i p . The Council also "protested against being told w h e n and where t h e y should meet" the commissioners: " W e k n o w of no instance of M i n i s t e r s or commissioners to a foreign court persisting i n selecting a Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, November 22,1822, M-208. For a general discussion of these treaty negotiations see Annie H . Abel, "The Cherokee Negotiations of 1822-1823," Smith College Studies in History 1 (July 1916). 2

303

TESTING THE LIMITS

spot remote f r o m the Seat of Government to w h i c h their embassy were directed for negotiation and of taking i t entirely upon themselves to fix the t i m e for a c o n v e n t i o n . " W h e n the Secretary of W a r complained of the grossly impolite behavior of the Cherokees, the Council said that i n its o p i n i o n "the 'failure, exposure, expense, and trouble' w h i c h y o u com­ plain of . . . may be attributed . . . to the v e r y little confidence and re­ spect y o u had for the proceedings of our C o u n c i l . " Thereafter, to show that they m u s t be taken seriously and w i t h respect, the Council said treaty commissioners w o u l d be welcome o n l y at the national capital of the n a t i o n , N e w Echota, at a time m u t u a l l y agreed upon i n advance. 3

Nevertheless, the commissioners tried to schedule a meeting for ne­ gotiations i n the Cherokee t o w n of Taloney, i n the Georgia part of the nation, on A u g u s t 9 , 1 8 2 3 . W h e n the Council reiterated its stand that i t w o u l d meet nowhere but N e w Echota, Campbell and M e r i w e t h e r were forced to yield. They appeared at the Cherokee capital on October 4 and brought w i t h t h e m Johnson W e l l b o r n and James Blair, commissioned b y the State of Georgia to negotiate its claims against the Cherokee N a t i o n . W e l l b o r n and Blair i n f o r m e d the Council that the Cherokees owed Geor­ gia over $100,000 for spoliations that had occurred between 1775 and 1794. Georgia, having recently browbeaten the Creek N a t i o n ( w i t h the help of the duplicitous Creek chief, W i l l i a m M c i n t o s h ) i n t o ceding five m i l l i o n acres to pay for $200,000 w o r t h of similar Revolutionary claims, t h o u g h t i t could do the same w i t h the Cherokees. A m o n g other things the Georgians demanded "the immediate restoration of all negroes and their increase which had r u n away or been taken from the citizens of Georgia at any t i m e previous to the 20th day of June, 1794" and, " i n m o n e y , a reasonable hire for all such Negroes" for the years since 1794. The Cherokee leaders considered this ridiculous and illegal. They pointed out that under A r t i c l e 9 of the Treaty of Tellico i n 1798, the United States had agreed that " a l l animosities, thefts, plundering, prior to that day, shall cease and be no longer remembered or demanded on either side." Georgia's claims were therefore no longer valid and the Council refused to consider t h e m . W e l l b o r n and Blair left empty-handed. 4

5

6

W h e n the Secretary of War had first mentioned these negotiations i n October 1822, Meigs had w r i t t e n to suggest that the commissioners The Chiefs in Council to Duncan Campbell and James Meriwether, April 25, 1823, M 208. For the commissioner's account of the failure of the negotiations of January 1822, see Duncan Campbell and James Meriwether, reports to John Calhoun, January 18, 1823, M 208 and January 22, 1823, M-221, reel 95, #0219; and the commissioners' journal, Febru­ ary 21,1823, M-221, reel 95, #0237 and #0427. See Angie Debo, The Road to Disappearance, p. 86. The Georgia Commissioners to the Cherokee Cuncil, October 27,1823, M-208. 3

4

5 6

304

T E S T I N G

T H E

L I M I T S

should be prepared by b r i n g i n g " t a n g i b l e " funds w i t h t h e m , up to $20,000 w i t h w h i c h to bribe susceptible chiefs. Campbell and M e r i ­ wether did this, but instead of passing this m o n e y out themselves, t h e y arranged for Chief W i l l i a m M c i n t o s h of the Creeks to come to the ne­ gotiations and do so. M c i n t o s h had a Cherokee wife and as a Cherokee c o u n t r y m a n of some status, he was welcome to attend. Secretly he of­ fered thousands of dollars each to Charles Hicks, John Ross, and A l e x M c C o y o n October 24, 1823. They i n t u r n asked h i m to put his offer i n w r i t i n g . W h e n he did so, they took his letter to the Council and read i t out loud i n his presence. T h o r o u g h l y embarrassed b y this exposure, M c i n t o s h beat a hasty retreat to his o w n n a t i o n . (Two years later M c ­ i n t o s h was executed b y his people for betraying t h e m . ) Campbell and M e r i w e t h e r claimed to have no knowledge of M c i n t o s h ' s actions, b u t his exposure severely u n d e r m i n e d their position. 7

8

The negotiations proceeded nonetheless. The commissioners offered the Cherokees the perennial choice of an exchange of lands i n the west or fee-simple reserves and citizenship i n the east. The Council reminded t h e m that i t had already twice declined the first alternative ( i n 1809 and 1819) and that i t considered the second one specious : " W h a t has been the course pursued by the States of Tennessee and Georgia and some of t h e i r citizens" t o w a r d the 311 Cherokee families w h o were granted reserves i n 1817 and 1819, they asked. " W e find opposition, fraud, and every species of injustice were raised against the interests" of those w h o had honestly accepted the offer of citizenship i n those states. M o s t of t h e m , the Council noted, had suffered " a n entire r u i n and loss of properties" before the fed­ eral government provided lawyers for a few of t h e m and then decided to b u y t h e m all out. W h e n the commissioners, angry and frustrated, said that the land the Cherokees occupied belonged to the United States b y " d i s c o v e r y " and " b y conquest," the Council answered calmly: " O u r title has emanated f r o m a Supreme source w h i c h cannot be impaired b y conquest or b y t r e a t y " and i f the U n i t e d States had title to i t , " w h y should [it] purchase, t i m e after t i m e , b y treaties, lands to w h i c h y o u w o u l d w i s h to convince us we have no t i t l e ? " D i d the treaty commissoners' threat of w i t h d r a w i n g protection for Cherokee boundaries mean that the government " w i l l trample justice under f o o t ? " 9

Return J. Meigs to General John Floyd, October 24, 1822, M-208; Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, November 22, 28,1822, M-208. For William Mcintosh's effort to bribe the Cherokee chiefs on behalf of the commis­ sioners see Duncan Campbell to John Calhoun, October 27, 1823, M-208, and Brainerd Journal, November 11,1823, A B C F M . ASP i i , 464, 472-73 and Abel, "Cherokee Negotiations." 7

8

9

305

TESTING THE

LIMITS

The commissioners had no answer and the negotiations ended w i t h no concessions b y the Council. Campbell and M e r i w e t h e r admitted to the Secretary of W a r that they had been bested: ' T h e Cherokees are far i n advance of any other tribe i n civilization," they told Calhoun, and their h o s t i l i t y to any further cession of their land " m a y be ascribed i n a great degree to the fondness w i t h which they cherish the feeling of N a t i o n a l pride and to a determination to perpetuate their National Character." People w i t h such pride could not be easily browbeaten. Furthermore, the commissoners correctly observed, " t h e y have a great abhorrence to the idea of being merged [incorporated as citizens] i n the general government [or state governmntsj and having foreign laws extended over t h e m . " W h a t the commissioners did not note was that the Cherokees had i n d i ­ cated that the policy of integration was doomed by the inveterate racist hatred and contempt that the frontier whites felt toward Indians no mat­ ter h o w civilized or Christianized they m i g h t become. The commission­ ers also noted that the Cherokees were determined to preserve their au­ t o n o m y : " T h e y plume themselves upon the fact of having organized a government of their o w n and consider a further sale of land as endanger­ i n g its p e r p e t u i t y . " The commissioners had to admit : "There is too m u c h t r u t h i n their arguments to be easily combatted, and so long as t h e y are recognized as having equal share i n the contractual arrangements [i.e., the r i g h t to say n o ] , negotiations w i l l be d i f f i c u l t . " 10

H a v i n g stood off the federal negotiators seeking their land and their removal, the Cherokees countered by sending their o w n negotiators to Washington i n 1824 to demand attention to some of their claims against the government. They did not ask permission of the agent to go, as t h e y had i n years past w h e n the War Department had paid their expenses. N o w they paid their o w n w a y and made their o w n appointment w i t h the Secretary of War. A g e n t M c M i n n , w h o had succeeded Meigs i n M a r c h 1823, told Calhoun: " T h e y are entitled at least to the m e r i t of consis­ tency," but he t h o u g h t they needed to be taught "better m a n n e r s . " 11

The members of the deputation that went to Washington i n January 1824 were John Ross, Major Ridge, Elijah Hicks (son of Charles Hicks), and George Lowrey. They had a number of issues they wanted settled. T h e y wanted to k n o w w h y the government had not yet paid t h e m for Wafford's Tract, w h i c h they had ceded i n 1804; w h y i t had not remuner­ ated those Cherokees forced to move from the land ceded i n 1817 and 1819; w h y i t had not removed the hundreds of intruders on their land; and w h y i t had refused to accept the fact that "the Cherokee N a t i o n have 10 11

Duncan Campbell to John Calhoun, February 28,1823, M-221, reel 95, #0237. ASP i i , 473-74.

306

TESTING THE LIMITS

n o w come to a decisive and unalterable conclusion not to cede away any more l a n d . "

1 2

The Cherokees also had an interesting proposal to make i n

order to solve the t h o r n y problem arising f r o m Jefferson's compact w i t h Georgia i n 1802. The Cherokees had always considered this pact an i n ­ justice to t h e m . Jefferson, they believed, had no r i g h t to promise to ex­ t i n g u i s h their title to all land i n Georgia w h e n Congress had already sol­ e m n l y guaranteed their land to t h e m i n the treaties of 1791 and 1798. T h e y t o l d the Secretary that this matter should be reopened b y Congress and proposed a s o l u t i o n : " W h y not extend the l i m i t s of Georgia" i n t o the "extensive t e r r i t o r y i n the Floridas" that bordered on Georgia and n o w belonged to the U n i t e d States. Florida was still a t e r r i t o r y under Congres­ sional jurisdiction and i t had little w h i t e population. The Seminoles had been defeated there and were i n the process of being removed to the west. Florida's land was more suitable for cultivation than the red clay areas and rocky mountains of n o r t h e r n Georgia where the Cherokees lived. This proposal struck the Cherokees as a logical and constitutionally sound w a y around a d i l e m m a difficult for t h e m and for the federal government. Cal­ h o u n , however, refused even to consider i t . W h o were the Cherokees to tell the U n i t e d States how to solve its problems? " Y o u m u s t be sensible," he said coolly, " t h a t i t w i l l be impossible for y o u to remain for any l e n g t h of t i m e i n y o u r present situation as a distinct society or nation w i t h i n the l i m i t s of Georgia or any other States. Such a c o m m u n i t y is incompatible w i t h our s y s t e m . "

13

The Cherokees replied that they were located o n

their land before the C o n s t i t u t i o n was w r i t t e n or any Englishmen had settled i n Georgia. " T h e Cherokees are not foreigners but original inhab­ itants of A m e r i c a . " The A m e r i c a n states were the intruders; the Chero­ kees "cannot recognize the sovereignty of any State w i t h i n the l i m i t s of their t e r r i t o r y . " M e r i w e t h e r and Campbell had told t h e m i n October 1823 that w h e n the President "qualifies y o u as citizens y o u m u s t become so," b u t they believed they had the right to apply for citizenship w h e n t h e y were ready and meanwhile to " r e m a i n as a separate c o m m u n i t y " as long as they chose. The Cherokees, seeing the Creeks, Choctaws, Chick­ asaws, and Seminoles being deprived of their rights and sent west (along w i t h m a n y other tribes f r o m n o r t h of the O h i o River), were determined not to follow that path. The Cherokee applied the m y t h of the Garden of John Ross and Cherokee delegation to James Monroe, January 19, 1824, M-221, reel 98, #2432; also see John Ross to John Calhoun, February 11, 1824, M-234, reel 71, # 0 0 5 0013; and ASP I I , 473-74. See also Moulton, John Ross, pp. 26-28. ASP i i , 473. Calhoun cites the clause in the Constitution forbidding Congress to create any new states from the boundaries or within the boundaries of already existing states w i t h ­ out the permission of that state. 12

13

307

TESTING THE

LIMITS

Eden to the Cherokee situation i n their address to Calhoun on February 11,1824, to explain w h y they were no longer interested i n integration: The happiness which the Indians once enjoyed . . . in their primitive situation . . . was now poisoned by bad fruits of the civilized tree which was planted around them . . . overshadowed by the expanded branches of this tree [many tribes] dropped, withered and are no more. . . . [Victims of the] ambition, pride and avariciousness of the civilized man . . . the untutored sons of nature became a prey. Defrauded of their lands; treated as inferior beings. . . . They became associated with the lowest grade of society . . . [and] considering themselves degraded [lost incentive, and became drunkards and criminals], and such must be the fate of those tribes now in existence should they be merged into the white population before they became civilized. 14

As for the plan of ultimate incorporation i n t o the U n i t e d States, the del­ egation, p l a y i n g the w h i t e man's tune of "someday," answered: " W h e n ­ ever the whole nation shall have been completely and f u l l y civilized," they w o u l d give serious consideration to the notion of incorporation or integration as citizens. M e a n w h i l e their o n l y hope for survival was t h r o u g h a separate national existence under their o w n laws and leaders. The conduct of these Cherokee nationalists i n the treaty negotiations f r o m 1822 to 1828 struck w h i t e officials as arrogant and improper. But this was o n l y one aspect of their search for self-respect and their efforts to define the outermost limits of their sovereignty under the treaty rights. Cherokee sovereignty was tested to the l i m i t i n four other areas i n the early 1820s. I n each of these confrontations the Cherokees demon­ strated remarkable skill. They defined their positions carefully; they pro­ vided specific historic precedents and legal documentation for t h e m ; they persisted i n their efforts to obtain clear and definitive answers; and they offered patient and astute responses to the indignant reactions b y w h i t e officials. One of these issues was their right to police their o w n borders w h e n the government a r m y garrisons were not w i l l i n g or able to do so. A n o t h e r was their disclosure of the government's failures to carry out its obligation to establish a Cherokee school fund under the treaty of 1819. A t h i r d was their protest against the government's effort to cheat t h e m of part of their a n n u i t y b y paying i t i n depreciated paper money. A n d , f i ­ nally, they displayed remarkable tenacity i n carrying to the A t t o r n e y General and then to Congress their claim that they had the r i g h t to lay internal taxes on w h i t e traders (or anyone else) w i t h i n their borders. O f all the daily problems i n Indian affairs, the most difficult was always that of preventing w h i t e intrusions across treaty lines. By the Treaty of Philadelphia i n 1791, the government had agreed that " i f any citizens of 1 4

ASP

i i , 474.

308

TESTING THE LIMITS

the U n i t e d States, or other person not being an Indian, shall settle o n any of the Cherokees' lands, such person shall forfeit the protection of the U n i t e d States and the Cherokees please/'

15

may punish h i m or not as t h e y

However, the danger faced b y an Indian force that tried to re­

move a frontier f a m i l y f r o m its land was so great that i n practice this was always done b y soldiers of the U n i t e d States A r m y . I n later treaties the U n i t e d States accepted this responsibility. The treaty of 1819, for exam­ ple, said that " a l l w h i t e people w h o have i n t r u d e d or m a y hereafter i n ­ trude on the lands reserved for the Cherokees shall be removed b y the U n i t e d States."

16

The departure of the regular a r m y garrison at Hiwassee

after 1819 made i t difficult to police the Cherokee borders o n a regular basis. The question arose whether the Cherokee Lighthorse m i g h t take on the task. I f they d i d , the Cherokees expected t h e m to be paid at the same rate as the U n i t e d States A r m y ' s soldiers whose w o r k t h e y were t a k i n g over. Meigs had told the W a r Department i n 1819 that he could not possibly eject each i n t r u d e r at the m o m e n t he settled. He waited u n t i l large n u m ­ bers of t h e m had moved i n t o an area before he w e n t to the trouble of get­ t i n g out the troops w h o sometimes had to travel 150 miles each w a y to eject t h e m . I n September 1819, Meigs reported that there were 1,500 i n ­ truders i n the nation, doing a tremendous " a m o u n t of damage" and con­ stantly harassing the Cherokees.

17

The Cherokees were n o t e n t i r e l y i n ­

nocent and sometimes stole horses f r o m the intruders or otherwise tried to make life unpleasant for t h e m . Nevertheless, as Meigs w r o t e i n this letter, the intruders "always outdo the indians i n the a m o u n t of damage" inflicted. A t this t i m e all the troops i n the southeastern part of the U n i t e d States had been sent to Florida to fight the Seminoles and General Jackson w o u l d not allow any of t h e m to be relieved for this police w o r k .

1 8

Calhoun

w r o t e to Jackson about this, and he suggested that perhaps i t was t i m e to let the Cherokee Lighthorse take over this task. Calhoun t o l d Meigs i n A p r i l 1820 that he approved of Jackson's proposal for " t h e e m p l o y m e n t of the Indian Light Horse company, as he suggested, instead of a detach­ m e n t of the U n i t e d States troops for the purpose of r e m o v i n g refractory i n t r u d e r s . " Calhoun t h o u g h t this w o u l d "operate advantageously b y pre­ v e n t i n g the r e t u r n of the intruders (as they w i l l k n o w that this [Chero­ kee] force is always at hand to execute y o u r order . . . ) . " H e also favored the plan because i t w o u l d be "saving the government the inconvenience The texts of Cherokee treaties can be found in Richard Peters, The Case of the Chero­ kee Nation against the State of Georgia (Philadelphia, 1831), p. 252. Ibid., p. 271. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, September 19,1819, M-271, reel 2, #1373. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, May 17,1822, M-208. 15

1 6

17

18

309

TESTING THE LIMITS

and expense of marching t r o o p s / ' President M o n r o e approved the plan w t h the provision that the Cherokees must consult the agent before send­ i n g the Lighthorse on such missions, and they were to be accompanied by some " w h i t e m a n for their p r o t e c t i o n . " This last provision was not car­ ried out. Accepting the task, the Cherokee Council i n June 1820 commissioned John Ross, Elijah Hicks, and Daniel Griffin to lead picked members of the Lighthorse o n a t o u r of the six-hundred-mile Cherokee f r o n t i e r . They were first to w a r n the intruders i n each state to leave and then, i f they refused, to p u t t h e m off w i t h their livestock and their slaves at gunpoint. I t was not an easy task. Meigs reported that the intruders were armed and dangerous and not apt to take orders from Indians. M c K e n n e y later de­ scribed the activity : 19

20

21

Col. Meigs ordered the [light]horsemen to simply warn the settlers to leave. Ross protested against a powerless attempt of the kind, and they were reluctantly granted authority to remove those who refused to go. The first settlement to be purged of intruders was near the agency [in Eastern Tennessee] and these, at the approach of Ross with his troopers, fled. . . . A t Crow Island, they found a hundred armed men who, upon being approached by messengers with peaceful propositions, yielded to the claims of Government and disbanded. 22

B y acting judiciously, Ross cleared all the intruders from the Tennessee and Alabama borders of the nation, but expecting m o r e violent resistance i n Georgia, he w r o t e to Meigs that he thought i t unwise to take the Cher­ okee Lighthorse i n t o that area. Meigs finally persuaded Jackson to send w h i t e troops to clear out the Georgia i n t r u d e r s . Hicks later told Meigs that Ross had "encountered some risk from the uncivilized intruders on our borders," but that he did his job well. The United States A r m y t e m ­ p o r a r i l y cleared the Georgia frontier, but no one removed the numerous intruders i n N o r t h Carolina at Standing Peach Tree and Valley T o w n s . The mountainous areas of N o r t h Carolina were always the most neg­ lected area of the nation both b y the agents and b y the Cherokee leaders. 23

24

Afterwards Meigs asked Calhoun that the Lighthorse be paid for their services at the same rate as regular m i l i t i a . T h e y deserved this, he said, not o n l y because of the risk they took but because they had to leave their o w n farms and other w o r k to attend to this d u t y . Calhoun, w h o had ex­ pected to save m o n e y on the plan, expressed considerable surprise that 2 5

19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25

John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, April 20, 1820, M-15, reel 4, p. 403. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, October 14,1820, M-208. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, June 10, 1820, M-208. McKenny and Hall, Biographical Sketches (1967), p. 443. Captain R. C. Call to Return J. Meigs, June 28, 1820, M-208. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, September 12,1820, M-208. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, October 20, 1820, M-208.

310

T E S T I N G

T H E

L I M I T S

the Cherokees wanted to be paid. " W h e n the Department authorized the e m p l o y m e n t of the Indian Lighthorse for the removal of intruders, i t was done under an impression that the service, being exclusively for their o w n benefit, no pay w o u l d be expected for i t f r o m the G o v e r n m e n t . " Far f r o m conceding that the Cherokees had i n fact taken over the w o r k that the government should have done, Calhoun argued that " t h e Department considered i n directing the e m p l o y m e n t of the Cherokee L i g h t horse that i t was conferring upon the nation an essential favor" because i t i m p l i e d that t h e y were no longer "dependent on the Troops of the U n i t e d States" to protect t h e m . He reluctantly agreed that "under the circumstances . . . of the present case as y o u have stated t h e m (although i t is one i n w h i c h there is no obligation on the Government to make compensation) it w o u l d perhaps be proper to make the individuals composing the detach­ m e n t a g r a t u i t y proportioned to the damage w h i c h each m a y be consid­ ered to have sustained by being engaged w i t h i t . " Meigs w o u l d have to provide Calhoun w i t h estimated damages to the crops of each Lighthorse soldier and officer i n order to obtain the compensation; that w a y the gov­ ernment could avoid a d m i t t i n g that i t had actually paid the Indians a sal­ ary for this service. I t had o n l y compensated t h e m for specific damages. " I t is to be understood," Calhoun concluded, " t h a t this case is not to f o r m a precedent." 26

Meigs t r i e d to persuade the Cherokees to pay the Lighthorse out of their o w n Treasury. The Council refused. I t declined " t o undertake solely on ourselves the protection of our land f r o m its aggression b y law­ less w h i t e m e n . " N o t being "a national act" but a service to the U n i t e d States, this could not be paid out of the nation's f u n d s . Embarrassed, because he had i n fact kept muster roles of the Lighthorse and the Cher­ okees knew i t , Meigs wrote to Calhoun that he t h o u g h t the " g r a t u i t y " ought to amount to the same rate as regular m i l i t i a pay. Calhoun i n an­ noyance offered half p a y . Meigs paid i t , but the Cherokees refused to accept this as full payment and continued to press for the other half. To strengthen their case, they obtained a letter f r o m Jackson saying t h e y de­ served full pay and presented this to Calhoun w h e n they were i n Wash­ i n g t o n i n 1824. I n his letter Jackson had said that i t was his distinct impression " t h a t the Light Horse pay w o u l d be regulated b y the pay a l ­ lowed to the U n i t e d States m i l i t i a as m o u n t e d g u n m e n for similar serv­ ices." W h i l e this dispute over paying the lighthorse regulators was still drag27

28

29

John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, November 14, 1820, M-15, reel 5, p. 30. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, November 27, 1820, M-208. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, August 4,1821, M-15, reel 6, p. 140. Cherokee delegation to John Calhoun, May 3,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0085 (Jackson's letter is included with this). 26 27

28 29

311

TESTING THE

LIMITS

ging on, the intruders were r e t u r n i n g . O n M a r c h 6, 1822, Meigs again requested troops to remove t h e m . Hicks wrote h i m that horses and cat­ tle were being stolen f r o m the Cherokees and those robbed had no re­ course because i n a w h i t e court of law the Cherokee owner was " n o t al­ lowed to prove his property by his o a t h . " " T h e Chief says," Meigs told Calhoun i n M a y , "that the intruders had added to i n t r u s i o n the k i l l i n g [of] their domestic live stocks and i n one instance they had t u r n e d one of their best men off his plantation and n o w occupy i t themselves." Cal­ h o u n still seemed unaware of the fact that state courts w o u l d not allow an Indian to testify on his o w n behalf. He had said earlier: " T h e Indian upon w h o m the fraud was committed has his remedy against the citizens w h o committed i t b y suit i n any of the courts of the state or t e r r i t o r y i n w h i c h he m a y be f o u n d . " 30

31

32

3 3

A n g r y over the lawless behavior of the intruders and the reluctance of Meigs to do a n y t h i n g about i t , the Council met i n M a y 1822 and said that i t was w i l l i n g to use its Lighthorse once again even t h o u g h i t had not yet f u l l y been paid for its w o r k i n 1819. Meigs advised against i t "because I t h i n k there w o u l d be bloodshed." He admitted that under the treaties " y o u have a r i g h t " to take such action, but " i t must be at y o u r o w n ex­ pense." Explaining to Calhoun w h y he had advised against the use of the Lighthorse, he said that the anti-Indian feelings of the intruders, par­ ticularly i n Georgia, were so intense that they w o u l d simply engage i n a shoot-out. He also advised that the use of state m i l i t i a was " n o t desira­ b l e " because its members were likely to be the friends and neighbors of the intruders and share their views. The o n l y answer was the U n i t e d States A r m y . " T w e n t y regular troops having orders and commanded by a Good subaltern officer w o u l d be respected b y the intruders w h e n t w o hundred indians w o u l d be driven home w i t h loss. Blood w o u l d probably be shed on both sides and the attempt w o u l d be a b o r t i v e . " Calhoun re­ plied i n June that i t was too late i n the year to take any action against i n ­ truders and that i t w o u l d be better to let t h e m harvest the crops t h e y had planted before t r y i n g to remove t h e m . 34

35

3 6

I n A p r i l 1823, the Council appealed to Meigs's successor, Joseph M c M i n n , for help w i t h this problem. " I t is a grievous t r u t h that the i n ­ terest of this N a t i o n has been for a long time trampled upon b y the f r o n ­ tier W h i t e people w i t h i m p u n i t y i n defiance of existing Treaties and t h r o ' Return J. Meigs to Charles Hicks, March 6,1822, M-208. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, March 1, 1822, M-208. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, May 17, 1822, M-221, reel 96, #0755; see also Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, March 1, 1822, M-208. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, April 20,1820, M-15, reel 4, p. 405. Return J. Meigs to Charles Hicks, May 13,1822, M-208. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, May 17, 1822, M-208. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, June 26, 1822, M-208. 3 0

3 1

32

3 3

3 4

3 5 3 6

312

TESTING THE

LIMITS

disrespect for [due to] the drowsy relaxation and w a n t of energy f r o m sources best k n o w n to the Department y o u occupy." The Council de­ scribed the intruders as "whites of the lowest cast[e]." K n o w i n g that treaty commissioners were on the way, M c M i n n decided to call upon the state m i l i t i a and sent orders to Captains Archibald R. T u r k of Tennessee to prepare his troops. He warned Calhoun, however, that this w o u l d cer­ t a i n l y i r r i t a t e the politicians of Georgia. " T h e present appears to be a pre­ carious crisis i n the state of affairs between the People of Georgia and the Cherokees i n relation to the Pending treaty as w e l l as to other claims against the Cherokees b y the State." M c M i n n ' s sympathies were w i t h the Georgians: " I labour under the impression that a suspension [of i n ­ truder removal] u n t i l the latter part of the next fall season w o u l d be pref­ erable." Calhoun t h o u g h t treaty negotiations w o u l d go better i f the intruders were removed and ordered T u r k to proceed to this task w i t h sixty of the Tennessee m i l i t i a . He suggested that the Cherokee Lighthorse m i g h t ac­ company T u r k , but i f so " n o t to be paid by the U n i t e d States but v o l u n ­ teers for the benefit of their o w n nation, i n order that they m a y become accustomed to prevent such intrusions by their o w n force w i t h little or no aid f r o m the government i n the f u t u r e . " I n this case he was w i l l i n g to encourage Cherokee independence; " t h e y assume to be an independent people, they ought to act up to its S p i r i t . " The Cherokees declined to participate, r e m i n d i n g the government that this was a treaty obligation of the U n i t e d States. Captain T u r k found his job extremely difficult. W i t h sixty m i l i t i a m e n he started his six-hundred-mile journey i n October 1823 and did not complete i t u n t i l July 1 8 2 4 . The intruders proved stubborn and t r u c u ­ lent. Some were prepared to fire on the troops. One of these was James Dickson of Georgia, b y all accounts a rough and u n r u l y character. W h e n Dickson aimed his g u n , threatening to shoot Lieutenant Benjamin H a m b r i g h t , one of Turk's officers, H a m b r i g h t shot first i n self-defense. D i c k ­ son died three days later. The State of Georgia arrested H a m b r i g h t for m u r d e r and p u t h i m on t r i a l before a frontier j u r y i n September 1824. The j u r y heard the evidence and pronounced H a m b r i g h t g u i l t y as charged. T u r k was incensed. " T h e prejudice the state of Georgia has, b o t h 37

38

39

40

41

42

Cherokee Council to Joseph McMinn, April 26,1823, M-208. Joseph M c M i n n to Cherokee Council, April 28,1823, M-208. John Calhoun to Joseph M c M i n n , April 22, 1823, M-15, reel 6, p. 491. Emphasis i n original. Cherokee Council to Joseph M c M i n n (quoting Calhoun), October 11,1823, M-208. Joseph M c M i n n to John Calhoun, September 24, 1823, M-208; Joseph M c M i n n to Thomas McKenney, July 23,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0302. Captain Archibald Turk to John Calhoun, September 29,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0425. 3 7 3 8 3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

313

T E S T I N G T I I E 1.1 M I T S

against the Cherokees and the United States, about the Cherokee lands," he w r o t e to Calhoun, "induces me to believe that we cannot b y any means have justice done u s " i n such cases. Later i t was discovered that friends of Dickson had threatened government witnesses w h o were to ap­ pear to support H a m b r i g h t ' s testimony of self-defense. These friendly witnesses never appeared. Dickson's friends then took the stand and lied about the incident, m a k i n g H a m b r i g h t the aggressor. O n l y w h e n the fed­ eral government obtained a new trial i n a federal court was he exonerated. The lawyers' fees cost the government $1,500. 43

44

The Cherokees' success i n forcing the government to acknowledge that policing Indian borders was difficult w o r k that even the a r m y could scarcely manage was not matched i n their long effort to discover w h a t had happened to their plan to sell twelve square miles of their best land south of the Tennessee River i n order to create a permanent endowment for schools. According to the treaty of 1819, the government agreed to sur­ vey the designated land and sell i t at the same t i m e i t sold the other land i n Alabama ceded i n that treaty. The proceeds from this school tract were to be placed i n a trust fund; successive Presidents were to be its trustees. The income f r o m the fund was to go annually to the Cherokee N a t i o n . W h e n o r i g i n a l l y considered, the Cherokees planned to use this m o n e y for g r a m m a r schools, perhaps supplementing the missionary school funds and perhaps locating public schools i n areas that the missionaries did not serve. However, as t i m e w e n t by and missionary schools increased, the Council debated whether to use the fund instead for a national academy or secondary school. I n October 1825, the Council decided on an academy that w o u l d prepare the better mission school students for college. 45

Six years after the treaty of 1819, the government still had not sent the nation any i n f o r m a t i o n about the school fund. The Council asked one of its deputations to Washington to look into the matter and to i n f o r m the President that "there are m a n y settlers on those reserved lands w h o are destroying the t i m b e r and t i l l i n g the soil free of rent and the n u m b e r of Cherokee children under t u i t i o n [instruction] is curtailed for want of the means anticipated from the sale of the l a n d s . " The delegates were to urge the President to "take measure to have the [designated] lands sold as soon as practicable and the proceeds applied as stipulated i n the T r e a t y . " 46

Ibid. Archibald Turk to John Calhoun, September 29, 1824, M-234, reel 71, #0425. For the trial of Turk's men see Archibald Turk to John Calhoun, January 6, 1825, M-234, reel 71,#0683; Archibald Turk to James G. Williams, January 7, 1825, M-234, reel 71, #0703; James G. Williams to John Calhoun, October 14,1824, M-234, reel 4, #0452. Cherokee Laws, p. 47. Instructions of Cherokee Council to its delegation, February 17, 1825, M-234, reel 71, #0488. 4 3 4 4

45

46

314

TESTING THE LIMITS

John Ross, Charles Hicks, and George L o w r e y arrived i n W a s h i n g t o n o n February 17, 1825, and w e n t to see Thomas L . M c K e n n e y , the Director of the new Office of Indian Affairs that Calhoun had created w i t h i n the War Department. M c K e n n e y was unable to explain the delay and the Cherokees were fearful that the government had not yet surveyed the tract. M c K e n n e y reassured t h e m : " T h e lands have all been surveyed, etc. leaving therefore n o t h i n g to be done but to dispose of t h e m " and transfer the m o n e y i n t o the trust fund. Several days later, Ross w e n t to the Gen­ eral Land Office to look up the records. He discovered that M c K e n n e y was w r o n g ; the land set aside had not been surveyed. W h e n the delegation i n f o r m e d M c K e n n e y of this, he expressed great surprise and said that he w o u l d attend to the matter at once. I t t u r n e d out that the land had i n ­ advertently been sold to w h i t e citizens and the m o n e y deposited i n the U n i t e d States Treasury. The embarrassed M c K e n n e y agreed to find an­ other tract of land of equal quality to make up for the mistake. 47

A n o t h e r year w e n t b y . I n December 1826 the Council again i n q u i r e d i n t o this matter, expessing its hope " t h a t an arrangement w i l l be made as soon as practicable to b r i n g those lands into the market so that the y o u t h s of this n a t i o n m a y enjoy the priviledge and benefit of education f r o m the funds w h i c h w i l l arise t h e r e f r o m . " N o t h i n g happened. I n October 1828 the Council delegated John Ross and W i l l i a m Hicks to go to W a s h i n g t o n to ask w h y the government had for so long failed to live up to the t r e a t y . Before leaving, t h e y culled over their treaty records and discovered that back i n the Treaty of Tellico, i n 1805, a similar reservation of land i n Ten­ nessee had been "set apart for school purposes" and had never been acted u p o n b y the g o v e r n m e n t . B y this t i m e the Cherokees had become v e r y good at checking up on government negligence. The W a r Department conceded the obligation and asked the agent to look i n t o the matter of the 1805 reserve and to " r e n t said reservation for the most y o u can obtain and collect the same and pay over the amount of the Cherokees." B u t n o t h i n g was done about the land set aside i n Alabama i n 1819 and i t be­ came evident to the Cherokees that n o t h i n g w o u l d ever be done about i t . Nor, i n fact, did the agent ever find and sell (or rent) the educational re­ serve i n Tennessee designated b y the Treaty of Tellico. 48

49

50

51

Probably the W a r Department decided to neglect this matter because of the report of the select committee established b y Congress i n 1822 under Thomas McKenney to John Ross and Cherokee delegates, March 1, 1825, M - 2 1 , reel l , p . 380. Charles Hicks and John Ross to Hugh Montgomery, December 11, 1826, M-234, reel 72, #0042. Cherokee Phoenix, October 22,1828. Thomas McKenney to Cherokee delegation, April 25, 1829, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 422. Ibid. 47

48

49

50

51

315

TESTING THE LIMITS

George G i l m e r of Georgia. That committee specifically objected to the clause i n the treaty of 1819 establishing a permanent school fund for the Cherokees. The matter was " t o o objectionable to pass over i n silence," the committee said. Such an action "does not accord w i t h the general p o l ­ icy of this G o v e r n m e n t , " w h i c h was bound by the Jefferson Compact of 1802 to remove the Indians and not to secure a permanent fund for t h e m . Furthermore, this clause i n the treaty infringed "the power of Congress over the public property of the U n i t e d States"; the t r e a t y - m a k i n g power of the Executive could not take public land for any other purpose than to sell i t to the p u b l i c .

52

A p p a r e n t l y the W a r Department decided not to risk

a confrontation w i t h Georgia and Alabama over this issue and proceeded to ignore this requirement of the treaty, despite the fact that neither John C. Calhoun nor the United States Senate had seen a n y t h i n g u n c o n s t i t u ­ tional i n that clause w h e n the treaty was ratified i n 1819. The effort of the W a r Department to pay the Cherokee annuities i n de­ preciated paper m o n e y from state banks began d u r i n g the Panic of 1819, w h i c h i n other ways had worked to the Cherokees' advantage b y curtail­ i n g funds for their removal. The a n n u i t y came to the agent each year i n the f o r m of drafts d r a w n against the United States Treasury by the Sec­ retary of War. I t was the agent's job to convert these to specie or bank notes t h r o u g h the receivers of public monies and the banks i n the i m ­ mediate v i c i n i t y . I n earlier days he could convert the drafts i n t o trade goods, b u t after 1813 the Cherokees preferred to be paid i n cash. W h e n the Cherokees officially created the post of National Treasurer i n 1825, i t provided h i m w i t h a salary of $300 a year, made h i m post a bond for $50,000, and demanded strict accounting for all the m o n e y he received and spent.

53

The law also stated that "the annuities arising f r o m treaties

w i t h the U n i t e d States and the revenue arising out of the tax law shall be funded i n the National Treasury and be the public property of the N a ­ t i o n . " B u t even before this, Charles Hicks had long been carefully w a t c h ­ i n g over the m o n e y due the Cherokee N a t i o n . I n 1819 there was no branch of the Bank of the U n i t e d States i n Ten­ nessee upon w h i c h Meigs could draw to convert his drafts i n t o specie. The nearest branch was i n N e w Orleans. Consequently he began that year to accept paper m o n e y from the state banks of Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia. State bank notes varied w i d e l y i n value, depreciated rapidly, and often were not acceptable outside the state i n which the bank was char­ tered. W h e n Charles Hicks first received this depreciated currency i n 1819, he found that he was short i n his accounts to the nation because he 5 2

53

ASP

i i , 260.

Cherokee Laws, pp. 45, 58, 59.

316

TESTING THE

LIMITS

could not convert i t at face value. He complained to the agent, stating that the banks i n Georgia w o u l d not accept paper m o n e y f r o m banks i n Ten­ nessee, and therefore requested i n 1820 that the a n n u i t y be paid either i n gold, silver, or notes of the Bank of the United States. Meigs did not do so. I n 1821 Meigs, w h o was n o w eighty-one years o l d , suffered "a stroke of palsy" and t e m p o r a r i l y lost his power of speech. The nation had al­ ready begun to complain that i n recent years Meigs had become v e r y slip­ shod i n financial affairs. To make matters worse, his subagent, James G. W i l l i a m s , was an alcoholic. Hicks wrote to Meigs i n June 1821 saying, " I w i l l again complain to y o u r s e l f " about " t h e k i n d of m o n e y y o u have paid the N a t i o n these t w o years a n n u i t y , w h i c h I am confident the G o v ­ ernment do not w i s h the N a t i o n should be paid i n bad m o n e y . " H e h i m ­ self w o u l d not have accepted the m o n e y i n 1820, but John Ross, as Pres­ ident of the N a t i o n a l Council, had accepted i t for the nation and foolishly signed for payment i n f u l l . " I am confident," Hicks continued, that the " g o v e r n m e n t could as easily convey the U n i t e d States bank bills as the checks [drafts] w h i c h I understand is exchanged for Tennessee bills w h i c h bills are no more account i n Georgia or [other] southern states than blank bills for our annual stipenfd] and the N a t i o n can act as they t h i n k proper." 54

55

56

57

Meigs assigned the d u t y of converting the drafts i n t o cash i n 1821 to Thomas C. H i n d m a n , w h o had been appointed to assist h i m d u r i n g his illness. H i n d m a n , a partner of Lewis Ross and b r o t h e r - i n - l a w of John Ross, took drafts totaling $18,926 to H u n t s v i l l e , Alabama, and to N e w Orleans to have t h e m converted. B u t according to Meigs he converted these " p u b l i c funds i n t o depreciated currency" and pocketed a " p r e ­ m i u m " (or discount) of over $2,800. " T h e damage sustained b y the G o v ­ ernment b y M r . H i n d m a n ' s conversion" of "sound currency i n t o u n c u r rent bank notes" also meant damage to the Cherokee t r e a s u r y . W h e n Meigs recovered his speech and health i n the fall of 1821, he confronted H i n d m a n w i t h this embezzlement. H i n d m a n " d i d not consider himself any further accountable" and Meigs was not sure whether to prosecute h i m or not. " I never knew," he said, " i n what point of l i g h t the govern­ m e n t views these transactions [discounts], wheher t h e y are admissible or h o n o r a b l e . " Calhoun replied that i n his opinion such actions were 58

59

Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, November 27,1820, M-208. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, June 28,1821, M-208. John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, November 3,1821, M-15, reel 6, p. 180. Charles Hicks to Return J. Meigs, June 28,1821, M-208. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, November 27,1821, reel 93, #9067; Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, December 2,1821, M-221, reel 93, #9069. Apparently this sum included both the agency funds and the Cherokee annuity. Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, November 27,1821, reel 93, #9067. 54 55

56

57

58

59

317

TESTING THE LIMITS

" h i g h l y i m p r o p e r " and told Meigs to hire a lawyer and b r i n g suit against H i n d m a n for the r e t u r n of the $2,800. Meigs then w r o t e to Hicks i n M a r c h 1822 and apologized for the trans­ action, n o t i n g that he had himself been very i l l and had "been deceived by m e n I confided i n . " He promised not to pay the a n n u i t y i n depreciated Tennessee bank notes again and was as good as his w o r d . The a n n u i t y i n 1822 was paid " i n s i l v e r . " After Meigs's death M c M i n n proved u n ­ able to continue p a y i n g the a n n u i t y i n specie. He told Obadiah Jones, the Receiver of Public Monies i n H u n t s v i l l e , that John Ross, as President of the N a t i o n a l Committee, had been instructed b y Hicks " t o receive n o t h ­ ing but specie or notes of the Bank of the United States of some of its branches" for the a n n u i t y . As "there is a treaty pending," he told Jones, "he hoped this could be possible. Yet despite their best efforts, Jones and M c M i n n were unable to obtain more than o n e - t h i r d of the a n n u i t y (about $3,000) i n specie. The r e m a i n i n g t w o - t h i r d s came " i n Southern Paper" on Georgia banks. M c M i n n used the specie to pay off the na­ tion's debts to w h i t e citizens; by the t i m e he had deducted this sum, there were o n l y paper bills left for the nation's Treasury. Hicks protested again. " I deem i t necessary as Treasurer of the n a t i o n , to apprize y o u on this subject that o n l y silver or gold or the United States bank bills w i l l be received for the current year's a n n u i t y and succeeding annuities there­ after." This was necessary, he said, because " I find the Southern bank bills are already begun to depreciate their n o m i n a l standured f r o m 4, 5, 6, & 7 per cent below par, and I make no doubt y o u w i l l do every t h i n g to accommodate the nation on this subject." I n support of Hicks, the Council resolved " t h a t the Treasurer" was " n o t to receive i n t o the Treas­ u r y . . . on account of the annual stipends . . . any other description of m o n e y than Specie, Treasury [notes] or Notes of the United States Bank." 60

6 1

62

63

64

65

66

M c M i n n died i n 1825. W h e n the new agent, H u g h M o n t g o m e r y , again offered paper m o n e y from state banks i n 1826, Hicks returned i t . The m o n e y was f r o m the banks of N e w b o u r n and Cape Fear, N o r t h Car­ olina, and Hicks said the Council had refused to accept i t . These paper bills were, he said, "five percent under par both i n Georgia and South C a r o l i n a . " M o n t g o m e r y told James Barbour, John Q u i n c y Adams's 67

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

John Calhoun to Return J. Meigs, January 4, "1822, M-15, reel 6, p. 210. Return J. Meigs to Charles Hicks, March 6, 1822, M-208. Charles Hicks to Joseph McMinn, May 4, 1823, M-208. Joseph McMinn to Obadiah Jones, May 2, 1823, M-208. Joseph McMinn to Charles Hicks, May 16, 1823, M-208. Charles Hicks to Joseph McMinn, May 4, 1823, M-208. Cherokee Laws, p. 83. Charles Hicks to Hugh Montgomery, December 13, 1826, M-208.

318

TESTING THE

LIMITS

Secretary of War, that the nearest bank f r o m w h i c h he could get the k i n d of m o n e y the Cherokees w o u l d accept was i n Savannah, Georgia, over t w o h u n d r e d miles f r o m his agency i n Tennesee. N o w h e r e i n Tennes­ see could he obtain specie or U n i t e d States bank notes. However, he said he hoped to be able to persuade the Cherokees to accept Carolina and Georgia paper that he could obtain f r o m certain Tennessee merchants. He explained that he had been forced to take bills f r o m the Cape Fear and N e w b o u r n banks because n o t h i n g else was available w h e n the a n n u i t y came due. He knew they were " n o t as current i n Georgia as their o w n or South Carolina paper," but he t h o u g h t the Cherokees were being too de­ m a n d i n g . " I suppose they have been asked a small percent [discount] on t h e m i n A u g u s t " but he did not t h i n k that a cause for complaint. " U n t i l the U n i t e d States Bank establishes] a branch i n Tennessee, we shall never be able to exchange large drafts w i t h any degree of facility as there are not [in Tennessee] monied Capit[al]ist[s] and their Banks deal chiefly i n Trash w h i c h w i l l not pass current out of sight of their Banking houses." M o n t g o m e r y got to the crux of the matter w h e n he spoke of "the degree of f a c i l i t y " involved. I t was not w o r t h his w h i l e to travel to Savannah or w o r t h the government's effort to find some w a y to pay the Cherokees w h a t was due t h e m . This issue was never fairly solved. As i n similar I n ­ dian affairs, the problem was allowed to linger w h i l e the government waited for some w a y to remove the Indians to the west. 68

The Cherokee problem over the r i g h t of internal taxation did not arise u n t i l w h i t e traders challenged it. I n the tax law passed i n 1819 i t was spec­ ified that a tax of $80 on "pedlars not citizens of the N a t i o n " must be paid w h e n they obtained a license f r o m the Council; a $200 fine was prescribed for all violations. W h e n several traders declined to pay i t , the Cherokee courts fined t h e m accordingly. W h e n they refused to pay the fine, the Cherokee marshals seized and sold enough of their goods to pay the fines. These merchants complained to the agent and to the Secretary of War. The nation was soon embroiled i n the t h o r n y question of whether the law conflicted w i t h the Treaty of Hopewell or w i t h the Trade and Intercourse Acts or not. Technically the issue was whether the Cherokee courts had the r i g h t to t r y and fine w h i t e traders under the law of their Council. The w h i t e traders argued that under the Treaty of H o p e w e l l and the Trade and Intercourse Acts they were subject o n l y to the laws of the U n i t e d States, because o n l y the United States controlled trade w i t h the Indians. T h e y said they w i l l i n g l y complied w i t h the law r e q u i r i n g t h e m to obtain a license f r o m the federal agent but that the Cherokees had no r i g h t to establish other regulations for t h e m . The power to tax was the 6 8

Hugh Montgomery to John Calhoun, January 6,1826, M-234, reel 72, #0322.

319

TESTING T H E LIMITS

power to destroy, or at least to discriminate and i n this case the Cherokees had discriminated by charging native traders o n l y $25 for a license. The Cherokees said that w h e n they said that the United States could regulate their trade i n the Treaty of Hopewell, they had merely yielded their r i g h t to conduct trade w i t h other foreign nations. As for the Trade and Intercourse Acts, they had been passed to protect t h e m f r o m unscru­ pulous and dishonest w h i t e traders and to l i m i t the number of such trad­ ers w h o m i g h t enter their nation. These laws did not prohibit t h e m f r o m taxing persons w h o lived i n the nation, did business there, and made prof­ its under the protection of their laws. I n 1820 there were fourteen A m e r i c a n citizens engaged i n trade i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , some of t h e m i n partnerships.

69

N i n e of these w i l l i n g l y

paid the tax; five refused and took their cases to the government. The five were Jacob Scudder, the partnership of Gideon M o r g a n and Michael Huffacre (or Huffaker), and the partnership of John S. M c C a r t y and John McGhee. (Apparently some of the Cherokee traders also refused to pay their tax and their property was also distrained, but they did not appeal to the government for h e l p . ) The Cherokees, expecting trouble over this 70

action, had obtained a legal opinion from a p r o m i n e n t A m e r i c a n jurist, the Honorable H u g h L. W h i t e , before they enforced the law against the noncompliant w h i t e traders. W h i t e , a Tennessee judge, was a b r o t h e r - i n law of Governor W i l l i e Blount and, at that t i m e , a close friend of A n d r e w Jackson (though he later quarreled w i t h and opposed h i m ) . W h i t e was probably paid a fee for his services. " I n m y o p i n i o n , " he wrote, "the N a ­ t i o n have the right to impose this tax. By treaty the United States have the power to regulate trade and intercourse w i t h the Cherokee Indians," and to license w h i t e traders, but such a license merely certified that "the individual m a y be trusted i n the N a t i o n " ; i t was " n o t intended to take f r o m this N a t i o n the right of judging whether their people should trade w i t h h i m or not nor the right of fixing the terms and conditions upon w h i c h such trade should be conducted."

71

A r m e d w i t h this support, the Cherokees had proceeded to fine and dis­ t r a i n the five delinquent traders. B y the t i m e they took this action, i n 1824, several years of back taxes were outstanding and thus a sizable a m o u n t of the traders' goods had to be seized and sold at auction. A n For the list of Cherokee traders in 1823-1824, see Joseph McMinn to John Calhoun, August 31, 1825, M-234, reel 71, #0363; see also letter of Joseph McMinn sent to Thomas McKenney by J. G. Williams, December 16,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0467. Cherokee delegation to John Calhoun, February 25, 1824, reel 71, #0073. Hugh White's letter, dated May 27, 1823, is contained in the letter of the Cherokee delegates to John Calhoun, February 25, 1824, M-234, reel 71, #0073. 6 9

7 0 71

320

TESTING THE

LIMITS

t h o n y Foreman was the marshal w h o carried out the p e n a l t y . The five traders later claimed their losses totaled over $1500 w o r t h of goods. T h e y had appealed to the agent even before some of t h e m were dis­ trained. M c C a r t y told M c M i n n that "the Principle of E q u a l i t y " was at stake, because w h i t e traders had to pay higher taxes than Cherokee trad­ ers. M c M i n n advised the Cherokees to be cautious. " I beg leave to pro­ pose to y o u as a friend to both parties that y o u suspend the collection of this debt u n t i l l y o u can forward a m e m o r i a l to [the] next Congress . . . and let the m e m o r i a l exhibit y o u r true situation (namely) that y o u have a government to support w h i c h cannot be carried on w i t h o u t actual re­ sources, that m a n y of y o u r people are unable to contribute any consid­ erable amount w i t h o u t great embarrassment and hence the necessity of resorting to a tax on merchants, etc. and ask Congress to pass a law vest­ i n g the Cherokee N a t i o n w i t h Power to levy taxes and raise revenue u n ­ der such limitations as they m a y prescribe." I n his opinion, however, t h e y were probably " i n f r i n g i n g either upon the C o n s t i t u t i o n or the Laws of the U n i t e d States." 72

73

74

Hicks replied that w h i t e citizens were asked to pay more than Cherokee traders because the w h i t e trader had more m o n e y and more credit and therefore had a decided advantage over his Cherokee competitors. The Council had worded the law to take account of "the different advantage enjoyed b y the partys i n their capitals and opportunityes of l a y i n g i n their goods i n the U n i t e d States, as one has ample resources to lay i n fresh goods should his old stock remain on hand at the end of the year and the others are obliged to sell out his old stock before he is enabled to make remittance to his creditors i n order to obtain fresh supplies of goods to enable h i m to continue i n his mercantile p u r s u i t . " The Cherokees saw the power to tax as the power to equalize. 75

I n A u g u s t 1823 Hicks went on to assert the nation's r i g h t to govern its o w n i n t e r n a l affairs and to lay i n t e r n a l taxes. He said the nation had en­ joyed the r i g h t of managing its o w n affairs by law for "upwards of t h i r t y years to m y knowledge." The Cherokees believed the tax law was e n t i r e l y w i t h i n their powers of self-government; "the treaties and intercourse law does not forbid of the internal regulation of our G o v e r n m e n t " and the Trade and Intercourse A c t "never was intended to take f r o m the nation the r i g h t of j u d g i n g whether their people should trade" w i t h certain perJoseph M c M i n n to Charles Hicks, July 19,1823, M-208; Return J. Meigs to John Cal­ houn, February 12,1824, M-221, reel 3, #9083; Gideon Morgan to John Calhoun, February 12,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0075. Gideon Morgan to John Calhoun, February 12,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0075. Joseph M c M i n n to Charles Hicks, July 19,1823, M-208. Charles Hicks to Joseph McMinn, August 8,1823, M-208. 72

7 3

7 4

75

321

TESTING THE

LIMITS

sons " n o r the r i g h t of fixing the terms and conditions upon w h i c h such trade should be conducted." Hicks said that M c M i n n was the lawbreaker, for he had broken a long-standing agreement between Meigs and the Council. Meigs had said that he w o u l d never license a trader w i t h o u t first obtaining the consent of the Council. M c M i n n , however, had "failed to do this i n the cases of Jacob Scudder and Simon W h i t e , " w h o m he per­ m i t t e d to keep houses of entertainment as t h o u g h this were a licensed trade. Meigs had said that tavern keepers were not licensed traders; M c M i n n had violated that agreement. " I solemnly protest against such libertys being taken," Hicks said. A l l franchises for inns, taverns, or stands were to be granted by the nation and the nation was entitled to charge rent or obtain a share of the profit from t h e m . M c M i n n was i n ­ f r i n g i n g on the nation's rights to regulate its internal affairs and m i g h t well be g u i l t y of doing favors for his friends. Huffacre and M o r g a n entered a claim against the nation for "spoliation [sic] on our Merchandize by the Cherokees" and for i n f r i n g i n g the Trade and Intercourse A c t . They argued that because they had a license to trade f r o m M c M i n n they should be subject to no other regulation f r o m the nation. Because Gideon M o r g a n was a Cherokee c o u n t r y m a n , the other merchants gave h i m their power of attorney to plead their case and collect their claims. M c C a r t y and McGhee claimed $557 damages; M o r ­ gan and Huffacre, $474; Jacob M . Scudder, $507. W i l l i a m T h r o p , another i n t e r m a r r i e d w h i t e w h o had paid a tax as a Cherokee trader, n o w decided to oppose the law and gave M o r g a n the power to act for h i m . M o r g a n had already brought his case before the Council and been t u r n e d d o w n ; the Council had ruled that the nation had "the r i g h t to tax traders i n their nation whether licensed or n o t . " 7 6

7 7

M c M i n n sent the problem to the War Department and Calhoun dis­ cussed the matter w i t h the Cherokee delegation i n February 1824. They told h i m : " W e cannot see that the Cherokees conceded [ i n any treaty] their o w n right of m a k i n g municipal regulations for themselves," and they declined his request to repeal the l a w . To do so w o u l d undermine the whole principle of their right to self-government. Calhoun submitted the case to the A t t o r n e y General, W i l l i a m W i r t . W i r t , i n a long and la­ bored response on A p r i l 2,1824, stated that i n his opinion the Cherokees had acted unconstitutionally. He added i n an i m p o r t a n t obiter d i c t u m , however, that this was not their fault so m u c h as i t was the fault of C o n ­ gress for failing to take into consideration the changing nature of the 78

Gideon Morgan to John Calhoun, February 12,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0175-0176; see also J. G. Williams's copy of a letter from Joseph McMinn to John Calhoun, December 16, 1824, M-234, reel 71, #0467. Ibid. Cherokee delegation to Joseph McMinn, February 25, 1824, M-234, reel 71, #0073. 76

7 7

7 8

322

T ESTIN G THE

LIMITS

Cherokee N a t i o n as i t had advanced i n wealth, economic stability, p o l i t i ­ cal order, and civilization. He based his opinion on the argument that w h e n the Treaty of Hopewell was "entered into, there was no such things as municipal regulations i n the Cherokee N a t i o n " and hence the Chero­ kees had i n fact handed over "the whole system of regulation on both sides [internal and external] under w h i c h trade should be carried o n . " He also cited John Marshall's decision i n McCullough v. Maryland that the power to tax was the power to destroy. I n his obiter d i c t u m , however, W i r t suggested that Congress should consider changing its paternalistic relationship w i t h the Cherokees. Could not Congress "have respect to the altered condition of the Cherokees, to the stage of civilization to w h i c h have been n o w carried b y the measures adopted b y the U n i t e d States to produce this v e r y effect," and "adopt their further regulations to their al­ tered condition so as to enable that nation to raise a revenue for the sup­ port of their government b y an equal tax upon our traders as w e l l as their o w n " ? I n his opinion "the t i m e has passed away i n w h i c h i t could be t o l ­ erated to treat these people as we please because we are christians and they are h e a t h e n . " I t was the nicest possible w a y to let the Cherokees down. Calhoun forwarded W i r t ' s opinion to M c M i n n on June 1 8 , 1 8 2 4 , w i t h instructions to tell the Cherokee Council to repeal its tax law on traders and to refund the money taken from t h e m . M c M i n n did so, and that Oc­ tober Huffacre and M c C a r t y appeared at the Council expecting to receive their r e f u n d . The Council, rejecting Calhoun's order, refused to pay t h e m . I t told M c M i n n that i t had already "appealed f r o m the opinion of the attorney General" to the Congress of the United States. I t had done this b y sending a m e m o r i a l to Congress, "and as the subject has not been acted upon and is n o w pending i n Congress, the law imposing the taxes still remains i n force." They had sent their message i n A p r i l , three days after W i r t released his opinion. The m e m o r i a l had the full support of M c K e n n e y of the W a r D e p a r t m e n t . Nevertheless, M c M i n n deducted f r o m their a n n u i t y i n November 1824 the amount claimed b y Huffacre and M c C a r t y and paid i t to t h e m (in specie). W h e n the other traders 79

80

81

82

83

William Wirt's opinion for John Calhoun, April 2,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0441-1450. Emphasis in original. Joseph M c M i n n to Cherokee Council, October 20, 1824, M-234, reel 71, #0471, and J. G. Williams to John Calhoun (enclosing letter of McMinn), December 16,1824, reel 71, #0471. Cherokee Council to Joseph McMinn, November 5, 1824, reel 71, #0474. Thomas McKenney to Cherokee delegation, April 7, 1824, M - 2 1 , reel 1, p. 27, and Thomas McKenney to Cherokee delegation, April 15,1824, M - 2 1 , reel 1, p. 52. John Calhoun to Hugh Montgomery, June 10, 1825, M-208; for John Ross's protest against this see John Ross to John Calhoun, February 28, 1825, M-234, reel 71, #0497. 7 9

8 0

8 1 8 2

8 3

323

TESTING THE I I M IT S

learned of this, they also asked M c M i n n for reimbursement; he then de­ ducted their claims as w e l l from the a n n u i t y .

84

I n 1825, agent M o n t g o m e r y continued to press the Cherokees to repeal the law. Instead, they merely voted on November 10, 1825, to suspend that part of i t applying to Cherokee traders (the whites were no longer paying) for t w o years. W h e n Congress declined to act on their m e m o r i a l , Charles Hicks and John Ross wrote a detailed rebuttal to W i r t ' s o p i n i o n , based upon the position of the American colonists against Parliament i n 1775 ( w i t h M c M i n n i n the role of a royal governor). Since the A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n forbade their representation i n Congress, they had the r i g h t to lay taxes for their o w n support and Congress had no r i g h t to interfere w i t h this. They claimed that the w o r d i n g of the C o n s t i t u t i o n v i r t u a l l y ac­ knowledged their sovereignty because Section 8 of A r t i c l e One said Con­ gress had the power to regulate commerce " w i t h foreign nations and among the several states and w i t h the Indian tribes." As Hicks and Ross read this, " w e are placed precisely on the same footing w i t h Foreign N a ­ tions and the several states . . . and have not the several states ever ex­ ercised the r i g h t of taxing merchants, pedlars, etc?" Could Congress reg­ ulate Great Britain's or France's internal trade? " I n the name of c o m m o n sense and equal justice, w h y is the r i g h t of the Cherokee N a t i o n i n this respect disputed?"

85

Moreover, "the A m e r i c a n government, we believe,

never has advocated the doctrine that taxes can be imposed where the people taxed are unrepresented." H o w could Congress regulate the Cher­ okees' trade w h e n they were "unrepresented i n Congress"? The thrust of the argument was clear. The t i m e had come for the U n i t e d States to recognize the Cherokee N a t i o n as either an independent, sovereign state ( w i t h the same state's rights as other states i n the U n i o n ) or an Indian t e r r i t o r y . H a v i n g never ratified the A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n , the Cherokees believed they were like the thirteen original states prior to 1789 or like Rhode Island from 1789 to 1791. Considering the dilemma they were i n , i t is h a r d l y surprising that a number of Cherokees were be­ g i n n i n g to t h i n k i n such terms. I n 1823, one y o u n g Cherokee w h o had recently been graduated f r o m the missionary schools and was considered a rising star of the younger generation suggested i n a letter to the public published i n a V i r g i n i a newspaper: " I n a few years . . . y o u shall see an aborigine i n congress w h o w i l l act i n the capacity of a representative f r o m Thomas McKenney to Cherokee delegation, February 22, "1825, M - 2 1 , reel 1, p. 364; John Calhoun to Robert Houston, January 24, 1825, M-21, reel 1, p. 321; John Calhoun to Hugh Montgomery, June 10, 1825, M-208. John Ross and Charles Hicks to Hugh Montgomery, December 11, 1826, M-234, reel 72, #0042-0046. On October 18, 1827, the Council made the tax on white and Cherokee traders equal [Cherokee Laws, pp. 88-89). 84

8 5

324

TESTING THE

LIMITS

the Cherokee N a t i o n . " Such y o u n g nationalists f u l l y believed that their nation was m o v i n g t h r o u g h the n o r m a l phases of any western area of the U n i t e d States—it w o u l d soon have t e r r i t o r i a l status and t h e n statehood. O n those terms, w i t h i n those limits of sovereignty, the Cherokees were still w i l l i n g to consider the possibility of fulfilling George Washington's original policy of incorporating w i t h the people and destiny of the U n i t e d States. They w o u l d come i n as equals or not at all. Yet the Cherokee nationalists had not really t h o u g h t t h r o u g h their po­ sition. T h e y had rejected t e r r i t o r i a l status i n 1824, yet i n 1827 they adopted a constitution. They preferred i n fact to negotiate w i t h the U n i t e d States by treaties and remain a foreign nation for as l o n g as pos­ sible. To be a t e r r i t o r y w o u l d mean opening their land to all w h i t e citizens w h o wished to enter i t . I t w o u l d probably also mean that they m u s t give up c o m m u n a l ownership of their land. Congress w o u l d hardly approve a t e r r i t o r i a l constitution advocating c o m m u n i s m . I n the years 1825 to 1833 the Cherokees and the U n i t e d States debated what k i n d of sovereignty or self-government was viable for Indian peoples. 8 6

8 6

David Brown to Thomas McKenney, February 28,1823, M-221, reel 95, #0003.

325

SIXTEEN

CLASS, GENDER, A N D RACE IN THE N E W CHEROKEE STATE, 1819-1827

Resolved by the National Committee and Council, That intermarriages between negro slaves and Indians or whites shall not be lawful. . . Re­ solved . . . That all free negroes coming into the Cherokee Nation . , . shall not be allowed to reside in the Cherokee Nation without a permit. —Laws passed November 11,1824

T

he political acumen and economic enterprise that enabled the Cher­ okees to achieve a sense of self-determination and national destiny i n the 1820s came at a heavy cost to those Cherokees w h o adhered to the old ways. B y 1825, Cherokee society was politically centralized but socially diverse. I t had always been divided regionally; now i t was also divided b y class and race. There was also a new k i n d of generational division and ed­ ucational division. I n the past there had been an unbroken h a r m o n y among grandparents, parents, and the rising generation. T h r o u g h the clan system of matrilineal kinship responsibilities and inheritance, the Cherokees had reenforced each others' identities, values, and sense of timeless c o n t i n u i t y w i t h i n a single c o m m u n i t y . N o w the three l i v i n g generations seemed unable to comprehend each other; they lived i n dif­ ferent worlds. The members of the youngest generation, born after 1789, especially those w h o had attended school and had come of age b y 1820, t h r i v e d on the changes that had revitalized a fallen people and were w i l l ­ i n g to accept more acculturation. Their parents, born i n the R e v o l u t i o n ­ ary Era and having waged the hard, struggle for survival after 1789, were convinced that they must protect what they had attained at all costs but were not eager for more change. The generation of the grandparents (and beyond them) understood i n a general way the necessity for some of the changes that had come about, but e m o t i o n a l l y — i n their hearts and m i n d s — m a n y of t h e m found the new ways unsettling and strange as w e l l as destructive to tribal coherence; i n their confusion, these older people clung to whatever they could of their traditional way of life and resisted change. The greatest source of division among the Cherokees, one that cut 326

C L A S S ,

G E N D E R ,

A N D

R A C E

across generational lines, was between those w h o held to the ideal of a c o m m u n a l ethic and m a t r i l i n e a l kinship and those w h o were adopting an individualistic ethic and the patrilineal family. The adoption of horseand-plow agriculture and the placing of w o m e n i n the house were not the great difference between generations. The basic difference concerned the values of a commercial, market economy and a subsistence economy of sharing. Leadership at the top of the new commercial order was provided b y a small group of well-to-do, influential merchant-traders, large plant­ ers, slave-owning farmers, and entrepreneurs, w h o understood and found satisfaction i n the capitalistic system of trade, profit, and manufac­ ture. T h e y had accepted the individualistic values of the acquisitive soci­ ety, t h o u g h most retained some feeling for the older ethic. Below this f i ­ nancially successful elite was a somewhat larger group of farmers and herdsmen w h o mixed small-scale farming w i t h another enterprise—run­ n i n g a tavern or ferry, o w n i n g a g r i s t m i l l or sawmill, acting as m i d d l e m a n for large traders and plantation owners. N e x t , and b y far the largest class, were the small farmers w h o barely made enough to live on, w h o engaged perhaps i n a l i t t l e barter, sold a few cattle or hogs, and clothed themselves f r o m the homespun made b y the w o m e n of the family f r o m small patches of cotton. Some of these m i g h t have a couple of horses, a plow, and a m i l k cow f r o m w h i c h their wives could make butter and cheese, but m a n y had to supplement heir farming by h u n t i n g and their wives still planted a truck garden using a hoe. A l t h o u g h most Cherokees lived i n some k i n d of log cabin, these ranged f r o m the barest one-room, dirt-floored, and stick-chimneyed style to elaborate double-houses w i t h brick chimneys and large porches. The wealthier families had brick or frame-and-clapboard dwellings, orchards of peach and apple trees, large barns and stables w i t h neatly fenced pastures and fields; the poorest still gathered w i l d ber­ ries and nuts i n the woods to eke out a l i v i n g . 1

The Cherokees were also developing a small class of artisans and me­ chanics, encouraged by the Council to supplement and u l t i m a t e l y to re­ place the hard-to-get and expensive w h i t e artisans. S p i n n i n g , sewing, and weaving as practised b y most w o m e n was of course one f o r m of this, t h o u g h home i n d u s t r y seldom provided a surplus of cloth for the mar­ ketplace. M o r e significant were the Cherokees w h o learned to be carpen­ ters and blacksmiths, able to repair wagons, plows, and farm tools and to make spinning wheels and looms. A g e n t Meigs had made note of this as early as 1816 i n a letter to the Secretary of War. I n 1801, he said, there was o n l y one blacksmith i n the Cherokee N a t i o n and he was a w h i t e m a n For an effort to define social classes in the Cherokee Nation see McLoughlin and Conser, "The Cherokees in Transition." 1

327

C L A S S ,

G E N D E R ,

A N D

R A C E

paid b y the agency; i n November 1816 there were fifteen blacksmiths i n the n a t i o n , "five of t h e m . . . Cherokees self-taught." " M a n y of the I n ­ dians'' were n o w able to "pay for their o w n S m i t h w o r k " and were eager to hire Cherokee smiths. "There are t w o w h i t e men and t w o real Cher­ okees [full bloods] w h o make spinning wheels" and w h o " c o m p l y w i t h m y orders for w o r k for others. . . . The looms for weaving are nearly all made b y Indians for which the price is eight dollars o n l y apiece." " M a n y of t h e m n o w tan their o w n leather; they make shoes, and there is one good saddler, a Cherokee. They have too m a n y Silver Smiths. T h e y make rich Hatbands, a r m bands and other ornaments of dress, and silver Spurrs equal to any I ever saw." Meigs urged the Secretary to provide m o n e y to hire a t i n s m i t h to t r a i n Cherokees to repair pots and pans for farmers' w i v e s . I n the 1820s the Council passed several laws to encourage Cher­ 2

okees to apprentice their sons to artisans and p r o m i s i n g free tools to those w h o mastered a craft. It w o u l d be difficult to provide precise figures for each of these eco­ nomic groups. I f one uses slave ownership as an indication of wealth (be­ cause all land was still owned i n common), there were slightly over 200 or so Cherokee families out of 3,500 w h o owned one or more slaves. O n l y t h i r t y to f o r t y families owned more than ten; another t h i r t y owned three to nine. Over 90 percent owned no slaves. I f one estimated wealth b y the 3

size of f a m i l y farms, the wealthiest families cultivated one hundred acres or more, g r o w i n g cotton, corn, and wheat; the poorest cultivated three or four acres, m o s t l y i n corn and beans; the average f a m i l y w o r k e d about ten or twelve acres, often on scattered plots. W h e n the N e w England m i s ­ sionaries arrived i n 1818, they were surprised to find h o w l i t t l e the Cher­ okees knew about the science of intensive farming. For example, they had never heard of the three-field system and they did n o t h i n g to replenish their soil. " T h e Natives already understand the art of raising corn and keeping cattle," wrote A r d H o y t of Brainerd Mission, " b u t they have never experienced the advantages of [rotating] pasture, field and meadow. W h e n they have exhausted a field by planting i t w i t h corn, t h e y k n o w n o t h i n g of r e c r u i t i n g i t b y sowing other grains and l a y i n g i t d o w n to grass, and for lack of this knowledge, they are either w o r k i n g their fields to v e r y l i t t l e profit or forsaking t h e m to open new ones." Charles Hicks, 4

Return J. Meigs to William Crawford, November 4,1816, M-271, reel 1, #1259. See Perdue, Slavery and Cherokee Society, p. 60. Ard Hoyt to S. A . Worcester, March 18,1818, A B C F M . Of course, "forsaking" old fields to "open new ones" was a form of "recruiting" old land, but as the total area of Cherokee land decreased and their population increased, it became difficult to abandon old soil and cultivate other soil. 2 3 4

328

CLASS,

G E N D E R ,

A N D

R A C E

the Second Principal Chief, was equally critical of the methods of the av­ erage Cherokee farmer. I n 1820 he w r o t e : Most families cultivate from ten, twenty, thirty to forty acres of land without the assistance of black people: The greatest number of whom might raise plentiful crops of corn were they to get into the habit of plucking out one or two stalks in a hill in old ground. It is believed that there is not more than one-eighth or ninth part of the families but has either horses or cattle, and perhaps there is none with­ out a stock of hogs. 5

M a n y farmers let their horses, hogs, and cattle range t h r o u g h the canebrakes and woods to forage for themselves. Livestock that survived was generally scrawny and small. Measurement of economic status could also be made i n terms of the families that owned plows, wagons, spinning wheels, and looms, but the statistics are imprecise. M o s t Cherokee families had a p l o w and a spin­ n i n g wheel; comparatively few owned wagons and looms. Over threequarters of the Cherokees were full bloods w h o spoke no English. M o s t of these kept to themselves and did not seek to accumulate wealth. T h e y preferred the steady routine of life and the extended kinship system of the clans. T h o u g h farmers, the m e n taught their sons to h u n t , trap, and fish; the w o m e n taught their daughters to f a r m , sew, and spin. T h e y still en­ joyed t h e i r old holidays, rituals, and ball plays and w e n t to their medicine m e n w h e n t h e y were sick, confused, or wanted a love charm. Jacob Scudder, a w h i t e trader w h o lived among the full bloods i n Etowah f r o m 1817 to 1831, said that the vast m a j o r i t y of the Cherokees he knew cultivated o n l y four to five acres and that " t h e i r principal dependence for support is f r o m w h a t g r o u n d they cultivate i n corn, pumpkins, potatoes and beans." The larger portion are very poor and to persons unaccustomed to Indians, they would seem miserably so. But to me, who has resided among them fourteen years, they appear the most contented and happy people on earth. They reflect but little on the future or the past. If their wants are supplied, they are contented; if not, they exhibit but little uneasiness or regret. 6

Scudder m a y have seen o n l y the stoical side that these people wanted to present to the w h i t e man, but he was probably correct i n n o t i n g the easy­ going, quiet q u a l i t y of their lives. Part of their simple style of life resulted f r o m their h o l d i n g on to the older values of Cherokee c u l t u r e — c o m m u ­ n i t y , sharing, h a r m o n y . T h e y resisted the h a r d - d r i v i n g , aggressive, ac­ quisitive values of the w e a l t h y Cherokees, w h o were t r y i n g to prove that Charles Hicks to Jedidiah Morse in Morse, Report to the Secretary of War, p. 169. Jacob Scudder to George Gilmer, September 17, 1831, WPA Project, "Cherokee Indi­ ans," ed. Mrs. E. J. Hays, part 2, p. 316, Georgia Archives, Atlanta. Scudder was writing from the predominantly full-blood town of Etowah. 5 6

329

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

they could do e v e r y t h i n g the w h i t e man could do. As Meigs had said, these Cherokees did not have a h i g h estimate of "the advantages of being c i v i l i z e d " ; as far as money, goods, power were concerned, " t h e y t h i n k our enjoyments cost more than they are w o r t h . " This did not mean that 7

they rejected the advantages of i r o n pots, brass kettles, steel traps, or guns; nor were they averse to teaching their children to read and w r i t e i n order to learn to cope w i t h the whites w i t h w h o m they had to trade. T h e y simply preferred the leisurely friendship of life among their k i n and neighbors to the bustle and anxiety of getting rich. The rapid acculturation of the more well-off Cherokees, w h i c h w o n such praise from the whites and brought self-respect to those tribal lead­ ers w h o had to deal regularly w i t h the whites i n order to uphold the na­ tion's rights, brought w i t h i t internal social conflicts w h e n new values be­ came embodied i n new laws and were enforced by a national police system. Because the full bloods were still the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y i n the Council, those w h o favored new ways had to convince t h e m that change was necessary and to w o r k hard to graft new ways to old habits. The stability and cohesion of the Cherokee N a t i o n depended upon blend­ i n g the t w o . I t probably also required a temporizing approach to the l i t ­ eral enforcement of the new laws, most of w h i c h were t o t a l l y alien to the experience of the average Cherokee. The new order had a major impact upon the role of w o m e n , the struc­ ture of the f a m i l y , and the kinship system of the clans. The first i m p o r ­ tant break i n Cherokee t r a d i t i o n had been the gradual erosion of clan re­ venge between 1797 and 1808 (although i t did not die o u t ) ; then the law of 1808 i n s t i t u t e d a patriarchal concept of " c h i l d r e n as heirs to their fa­ ther's p r o p e r t y " and the protection of "the widow's share" of her hus­ band's estate. The new economy of the self-subsistent farm f a m i l y led to the v i e w of the husband, dominant as producer and protector, and the wife as manager of the home and children; i t left little place for the tra­ ditional role of the wife's brothers as her protectors and as her u l t i m a t e source of security. Her brothers had their o w n wives and children as their p r i m a r y responsibility. Clan relationships and responsibilities remained a shadowy f o r m of order but i n a secondary role. The most resistant as­ pect of f a m i l y life to the w h i t e man's system was the i m p o r t a n t Cherokee t r a d i t i o n of women's rights to their o w n property and control of children. I n 1819 the Council put this t r a d i t i o n into w r i t t e n f o r m : " T h e i m p r o v e ­ ments and labor of our people by the mother's side shall be inviolate dur­ i n g the t i m e of their occupancy" of any homestead.

8

7

Return J. Meigs to Benjamin Hawkins, February 13,1805, M-208.

8

Cherokee Laws, p. 5.

330

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

This law came about i n part to meet a major difficulty resulting f r o m the removal crisis. Emigrants of Arkansas were enrolled as male "heads of f a m i l y . " The enrollment of a husband was sufficient under the treaty to evict his wife and children from their home even i f the wife did not chose to go west. The Council's law sustained her ownership of the home. T r a d i t i o n and the clan probably also sustained her r i g h t to keep her c h i l ­ dren w i t h her, unless she had married a w h i t e m a n ; i n this case there m i g h t be a clash of interests. W h i t e husbands assumed that they had the r i g h t to their wive's property and w o u l d sell the horses, cattle, or slaves that a Cherokee wife brought w i t h her at marriage. I n 1819 the Council voted that " a n y w h i t e man w h o shall hereafter take a Cherokee w o m a n to w i f e " shall be "required to m a r r y her legally by a minister of the gos­ pel or other authorized person after producing a license f r o m the N a t i o n a l Clerk . . . before he shall be entitled and admitted to the privilege of cit­ izenship and i n order to avoid imposition [on a Cherokee w o m a n ] on the part of the w h i t e m a n . " This protected the nation f r o m whites w h o used cohabitation as a means of obtaining " c o u n t r y m a n " or " c i t i z e n s h i p " sta­ tus; i t protected the Cherokee wife by making the w h i t e m a n responsible under his contractual concept of legal marriage. ( A w h i t e m a n w h o had a wife somewhere else w o u l d be g u i l t y of bigamy under this law.) The law further protected women's property b y stating that " a n y w h i t e m a n w h o shall m a r r y a Cherokee w o m a n , the property of the w o m a n so married shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband contrary to her consent, and any w h i t e man parting f r o m his wife w i t h o u t just provocation shall forfeit and pay to his wife such sum or sums as may be adjudged to her by the N a t i o n a l Committee and Council for said breach of marriage." I t was no longer her brothers but the a u t h o r i t y of the nation that protected a Cherokee w o m a n w h o married a w h i t e . This law m a y reflect the problem of the w i d o w of Moses M e l t o n . M e l ­ t o n , a w h i t e trader, moved i n t o the nation near Muscle Shoals i n 1780 and married a Cherokee. T h r o u g h his friendship w i t h Doublehead, M e l t o n became v e r y rich. But his marriage was not according to w h i t e law and upon his death i n 1815, his brother i n Tennessee came i n t o the nation and took all his cattle, horses, slaves, and other valuable property. M r s . M e l ­ t o n complained to the agent, w h o hired a lawyer to protect her interest i n the estate, but legally she was no more than a concubine. M e l t o n ' s brother and A m e r i c a n common law did not consider a pagan w o m a n as a common-law wife. 9

A l t h o u g h laws of this k i n d were designed to protect the traditional sta­ tus of w o m e n , they i n effect sanctioned the changing status of w o m e n . 9

Mrs. Moses Melton to Return J. Meigs, June 30,1815, M-208.

331

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

Conservative Cherokees found the laws bureaucratic and alien. T h e y had never been required to get a marriage license f r o m the Council before. H i r i n g a l a w y e r to support a woman's r i g h t to her husband's property was d o u b l y strange. Laws governing inheritance, t h o u g h they too tried to blend the old cus­ toms w i t h new circumstances, were complex for Cherokees w h o did not speak or read Cherokee. T h o u g h the laws were w r i t t e n w i t h good i n t e n ­ tions, t h e y altered traditional matrilineal concepts of inheritance. A law passed i n 1825 stated that "where a person possessing property and dies inteste [sic], and having a wife and children, the property of the deceased shall be equally divided among his lawful and acknowledged children, al­ l o w i n g the w i d o w an equal share w i t h the c h i l d r e n . " I f there were no 10

children, the w i d o w was to get one-fourth of his estate and " T h e residue of the estate [was] to go to his nearest k i n . " The phrase "nearest k i n " was clearly designed to p e r m i t the man's brother, or brothers, to share i n the inheritance according to custom, but the complexity of g i v i n g these brothers three-fourths of the estate m i g h t be troublesome. The o n l y w a y to measure three-fourths of a slave, a horse, or a large farm was to con­ vert i t i n t o cash. A n d w o u l d the w i d o w of a w e a l t h y planter w a n t her hus­ band's brothers to leave her w i t h o n l y one-fourth of the estate? To the poor, the law mattered very little and was probably ignored. I n the case of a w o m a n of property d y i n g intestate, the law said that "her property shall revert to her childen and husband i n the same m a n n e r " as w h e n the husband died intestate. A woman's brothers had lost the reward for t h e i r role as the ones responsible for their sister and her children; because the husband had assumed that role, he took her estate and her children. W h a t seemed designed to protect certain i m p o r t a n t traditions was i n fact subtly destroying t h e m . The breakdown had begun as early as 1805 w h e n w e a l t h y Cherokee men began to ask the agent to w r i t e and witness pat­ rilineal wills for t h e m . I t was assumed that b y this act an individual could unilaterally destroy an ancient tradition. A n even more drastic revision i n marriage custom took place after 1819. Cherokee custom allowed t w o or more wives. U n t i l the law of 1819, w h i t e m e n could and did follow the same practice. Samuel Riley, the w h i t e interpreter for the agent f r o m 1796 to 1820, had t w o Cherokee wives.

11

Perhaps because of missionary pressure, the Council voted i n

1819 that " i t shall not be lawful for any w h i t e m a n to have more t h a n one w i f e . " That same year another law stated that after that date, the Council " r e c o m m e n d e d " that Cherokee men have o n l y one wife. Finally, i n 1825, 10

Cherokee Laws, p. 53.

11

Return J. Meigs to John Calhoun, April 6, 1820, M-271, reel 3, #0481.

332

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

the Council prohibited any Cherokee f r o m having more than one wife thereafter. The monogamous standard of whites had become the law of the Cherokee nation. Those i n the rising generation m i g h t n o w feel e m ­ barrassed i f a parent or grandparent did not conform to the new standard. 12

The case of a w h i t e w o m a n married to a Cherokee (of w h i c h there were at least seventy-three i n 1826) was equally awkward. A law of 1825 re­ quired that the children of such w o m e n were "equally entitled to all the i m m u n i t i e s and privileges enjoyed by the citizens descending f r o m the Cherokee race by the mother's s i d e . " B u t what was "the Cherokee race"? This law could not give a w h i t e w o m a n clan membership. I f her husband left her, w h o took care of her children? The law gave her children citizenship i n an abstract legal sense, but citizenship t r a d i t i o n a l l y meant belonging to a clan and all the privileges, protections, and responsibilities that accompanied this. N o r did the law give her citizenship. I f her Cher­ okee husband left her, what was her status? I n 1829 a law denied citizen­ ship to childless w h i t e widows of Cherokees. The more the law meddled w i t h t r a d i t i o n , t r y i n g to reconcile old and new, the more p u z z l i n g life be­ came. Rules and regulations governing social life often produced more confusion than clarity. 13

Cherokee w o m e n had always had the r i g h t to practice abortion or i n ­ fanticide. L i m i t a t i o n of f a m i l y size m a y have been necessary to stabilize population i n relation to food supply or i t m a y have been a woman's r i g h t (and necessity) to keep her workload manageable. W o m e n sometimes w e n t w i t h the m e n on their s i x - m o n t h h u n t i n g trips i n w i n t e r to cook for t h e m and prepare their pelts and skins for market. The Cherokees m a y have practiced infanticide chiefly on malformed children or i t m a y have represented an effort to balance male and female children. A t any rate, i t shocked the missionaries. I n 1826 the Council made infanticide illegal. A n y w o m a n found g u i l t y " o f c o m m i t t i n g infanticide d u r i n g her . . . state of pregnancy" was to be given " f i f t y lashes." The same p u n i s h m e n t was given to any person w h o was "accesary to such an a c t . " There is no record that this was ever enforced. I t may have been passed to please the missionaries and those educated b y t h e m . S t i l l , i t set new standards of behavior and new patterns of n o n c o n f o r m i t y . H o w the older generation wrestled w i t h these we do not know, but i t must have caused t h e m some uneasiness. W h a t was f o r m e r l y acceptable was n o w c r i m i n a l . 14

T w o laws were passed i n the 1820s for the crime of rape, a crime u n ­ k n o w n i n Cherokee h i s t o r y . They were probably passed to protect Cher­ okee w o m e n against w h i t e men l i v i n g i n or passing t h r o u g h the nation. 12

Cherokee Laws, pp. 10, 57.

13

Ibid., p. 57. Ibid., p. 79.

14

333

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

The law of 1825 said that " a n y person or persons w h o shall lay violent hands upon any female by forcibly attempting to ravish her chastity" should receive fifty lashes and the left ear cropped for the first offense, one hundred lashes and the other ear cropped for the second, and death for the t h i r d . False accusations of rape were punishable w i t h twenty-five stripes. The concept of female " c h a s t i t y " as the supreme v i r t u e of w o m ­ anhood was new to the Cherokees but fundamental for obtaining the re­ spect of the w h i t e man, w h o both created the crime and set the standard. Once again, i n protecting their w o m e n , the Cherokees were c o n f o r m i n g to the w h i t e s ' code of values. 15

W i t h the benefits of civilization came its vices ; w i t h the Protestant ethic came disdain for idle pastimes. The combined but opposing i n f l u ­ ences of w h i t e renegades on the one hand, and w h i t e missionaries on the other led the Council to pass a series of laws i n the 1820s dealing w i t h the prevention of gambling, card playing, roulette, dice t h r o w i n g , and the­ atrical performances. Renegades gave these activities a bad name; m i s ­ sionaries preached their i m m o r a l i t y . The Council also discouraged b i l ­ liards by r e q u i r i n g a license for billiard parlors and l a y i n g a tax upon such establishments. The missionaries also wished the Cherokees to outlaw ball plays and all-night heathen dances, but the Council refused to stop t h e m , t h o u g h extensive d r i n k i n g and gambling took place on these occa­ sions. Instead, the upper class tried to set social taboos against attendance, m a k i n g i t clear that respectable people did not attend such r o w d y affairs. W h a t had once been a source of tribal solidarity n o w became a source of social division. 16

17

It was not e n t i r e l y due to the temperance efforts of the missionaries that l i m i t s were placed upon the use of alcohol. M o s t missionaries then had no objection to moderate use of alcohol, but m a n y poor and discour­ aged Cherokees abused its use and some became addicted. The real prob­ lems were the arguments and violence that resulted. I n 1822 the Council prohibited selling or b r i n g i n g "ardent spirits" w i t h i n three miles of the General Council House w h e n the Council was sitting or w i t h i n the dis­ trict courthouses w h e n the courts were s i t t i n g . A Congressional Trade and Intercourse A c t had prohibited whites from i m p o r t i n g liquor i n t o I n ­ dian nations since 1802, but i n 1824 the Council reenforced this w i t h a law of its o w n against the i m p o r t a t i o n of liquor by w h i t e s . However, the Cherokees did not prohibit their o w n people f r o m i m p o r t i n g , selling, and 18

19

15 16 17 18 19

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

pp. 54, 104. pp. 26, 36, 54, 89, 96. pp. 84, 89. p. 26. p. 38.

334

C L A S S ,

G E N D E R ,

A N D

R A C E

d r i n k i n g liquor. They expected Cherokees to develop the same self-con­ t r o l that whites had i n using i t . The official lawbooks do not contain any law specifically banning the practice of witchcraft, but apparently the Council did pass a law prevent­ i n g the m u r d e r of witches i n the 1820s. Like the laws against i n f a n t i ­ cide, there is no record of its enforcement, and there are records of the continued practice of witchcraft. Laws could not change beliefs deeply rooted i n the old religion, especially i n remote parts of the nation. 20

The missionaries were undoubtedly behind the law that prevented the Council f r o m h o l d i n g meetings on the Sabbath and r e q u i r i n g all stores and businesses at the capital city of N e w Echota to close on that d a y . I t m a y also have been passed out of deference to Charles Hicks and a few other chiefs w h o were converted to C h r i s t i a n i t y . Religious p l u r a l i s m was a new fact of Cherokee life, but they tried to respect i t . 21

The Cherokee Council wished to encourage schools. Because Cherokee parents were indulgent toward their children and did not comprehend the k i n d of discipline that required s i t t i n g behind a desk for l o n g hours m e m ­ o r i z i n g words i n the w h i t e man's book, attendance at mission schools was irregular u n t i l the Council passed a law i n 1820 m a k i n g attendance c o m ­ pulsory once a child had e n r o l l e d . I f a parent w i t h d r e w a child or per­ m i t t e d h i m or her long absences, the school m i g h t expel the child and the parents w o u l d be required " t o pay all expenses incurred b y their c h i l ­ d r e n " d u r i n g the t i m e of enrollment. The law was justified o n the g r o u n d that " m u c h inconvenience and expense have devolved o n the Missionar­ ies f r o m their scholars r u n n i n g a w a y " and this was due to " t h e n e g l i ­ gence on the part of the parents to take such children back to school." The schools taught the children self-discipline and the Council imposed i t on the parents. 22

Behind the new rules lay new views of man's relationship to his e n v i ­ r o n m e n t , to his ways of m a k i n g a l i v i n g , and to the spiritual laws that controlled and guided h u m a n life. I f nature was to be exploited i n order to i m p r o v e the standard of l i v i n g , then hard, persistent, regular w o r k m u s t be taught and encouraged and private property respected. I f selfinterest was the chief m o t i v a t i o n for hard w o r k and i f the rewards of p r i ­ vate acquisition promoted the general welfare, then a competitive system Elias Boudinot, Address to the Whites (1826), p. 11. Boudinot wrote that "the practice of putting aged persons to death for witchcraft is abolished," but he did not say when or how. The New England missionaries reported that in 1812 a Cherokee woman saw "all her near relatives . . . slain for the supposed crime of witchcraft" and that she herself was saved only because she was pregnant (Brainerd Journal, May 28, 1822, A B C F M ) . Sequoyah was suspected of practicing witchcraft when he was creating the Cherokee syllabary. Cherokee Laws, p. 30. Ibid., p. 14. 20

21

22

335

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

was best for all. The values for the social system the w h i t e m a n b r o u g h t the Cherokees were diligence, persistence, i n d u s t r y , frugality, fidelity to contractual obligations, and specialization. There had to be a different d i ­ vision of labor between man, w o m a n and child than had f o r m e r l y pre­ vailed i n the c o m m u n a l ethic of sharing. The r h y t h m of daily life had to be altered. Even the w a y people " t o l d t i m e " had to change; their diet changed; the way they cooked and dressed changed. Long before 1820, p l o w i n g a straight f u r r o w was more i m p o r t a n t than shooting a straight arrow. Spinning and weaving were more i m p o r t a n t than cleaning and dressing deerhides. C h u r n i n g butter and m a k i n g cheese were more v a l ­ uable skills than k n o w i n g where to find nuts and berries. K n o w i n g h o w to b i r t h calves was more important than k n o w i n g h o w to track deer. K n o w i n g w h e n to plant corn, wheat, barley, cotton, and Irish potatoes was more valuable than k n o w i n g w h e n the fish spawned or the bear h i ­ bernated. K n o w i n g where the nearest g r i s t m i l l was and h o w m u c h the m i l l e r should charge y o u to grind a bushel of corn was more i m p o r t a n t than k n o w i n g h o w to track an enemy and take his scalp. K n o w i n g h o w the trader should weigh y o u r cotton and the correct amount of m o n e y or credit he should give y o u for i t was more important than k n o w i n g h o w to sing the t r i b a l songs and do the old dances. I t was all of a piece—knowing y o u r duties and y o u r nation's rights, k n o w i n g the w h i t e man's values and rules and p u t t i n g t h e m i n t o y o u r laws. Yet all these new duties, values, and rules had to be accepted and learned. Decisions had to be made about the w o r t h of the t w o sets of standards. Was there n o t h i n g good i n the old ways that should be preserved? Were the w h i t e man's answers to all questions r i g h t and true? The Cherokee people became v e r y divided i n their response. H o w w e l l the Cherokees lived up to their new laws is not easily meas­ ured. The district courts were busy adjudicating these problems locally after 1820, but there are no records of their proceedings or decisions. Rec­ ords do exist of the Cherokee Supreme Court's cases. Basically the courts served those w h o engaged i n accumulating property, and A n g l o - S a x o n forms of adjudication were used because i t was essentially the w h i t e man's value system they were adjudicating. They had no such procedures and precedents, contracts and torts, i n their o w n t r a d i t i o n or h i s t o r y .

23

A l m o s t all recorded cases involve crimes of civil law—disputed owner­ ship, inheritance, damages, broken contractual obligations, or debts u n ­ paid. Proper behavior i n the accumulation and transference of property was the major business of the new legal system, but i t affected o n l y those See Strickland, Fire and the Spirits, for a discussion of how the Cherokees combined older traditions into the new written laws. 2 3

336

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

w i t h sufficient w e a l t h to quarrel over what they had. A p p a r e n t l y clans and t o w n councils still functioned at a different level of jurisdiction, pro­ v i d i n g t r a d i t i o n a l answers to traditional questions for those w h o pre­ ferred to live b y the old norms and relationships. Little is k n o w n of the actions of these t o w n councils except that they set the times of local fes­ tivals and dances, tried to resolve local quarrels, took stands on t r i b a l is­ sues, and presided over marriages. B u t i t was an oral and r i t u a l system. Older people and those i n remote areas probably found all the regulation t h e y needed among their local headmen, doctor/priests, and t o w n coun­ cils. S t i l l , they were uneasy about the implications of the m a n y regula­ tions established b y the N a t i o n a l Council and the new law courts. Defining w h a t i t meant to be a Cherokee had become v e r y difficult, just as i t was n o w difficult to define w h o was a Cherokee. The removal crisis had settled the fact that a true Cherokee remained loyal to t r i b a l owner­ ship of the ancestral land and resided on i t . But there were more subtle forms of definition w i t h w h i c h the Council continued to wrestle. For ex­ ample, the Cherokee N a t i o n , like the United States, was multiracial. There were different kinds of Indians l i v i n g among them—Catawba, Creek, Uchee, Osage; various Europeans—British, Spanish, French, A m e r i c a n ; and there was a g r o w i n g body of Africans (some freedmen, some slaves). Prior to 1819 these variations were of m i n o r importance. Thereafter, as the Cherokees sought to measure themselves b y w h i t e standards, t h e y began to make distinctions. Concerning the w h i t e man, the problem was essentially to distinguish between the good and the bad. This could be done b y laws defining be­ havior and b y distinguishing friendly whites (usually f r o m the east and n o r t h ) f r o m u n f r i e n d l y whites (usually f r o m the frontier around t h e m ) . A few full bloods maintained that the Great Spirit meant red and w h i t e people to be separate but equal. Full bloods tended to m a r r y full bloods. Acculturationists preferred to assert the equality of red and w h i t e b y ad­ vocating intermarriage. M i x e d bloods tended to m a r r y m i x e d bloods or whites. A racial division arose between the full bloods and those of m i x e d ancestry, but i t was due more to wealth, social behavior, and value differ­ ences t h a n to p u r i t y of race. The Cherokee attitude t o w a r d Africans underwent the most serious shift i n the 1820s. Social and economic factors weighed as heavily as racial ones. According to prevailing scientific t h o u g h t , the black m a n was b i o ­ logically and intellectually the equal of red and w h i t e , all descendants of the same original m a n , created b y the same hand, brothers under the skin. C o m p l e x i o n , as the Cherokees said, was an accident of climate, t o ­ t a l l y irrelevant to equal membership i n the h u m a n species. B u t the rising cotton k i n g d o m i n the south and the g r o w i n g number of slaves among the 337

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

Cherokees forced a reassessment of this judgment. The i n s t i t u t i o n of slavery was not the sole issue for the Cherokees. They had enslaved cap­ tured red enemies for centuries; however, these red slaves were more often than not adopted i n t o the tribe after some years and treated as full members.

24

I n the early eighteenth century the Cherokees had captured

other Indians and sold t h e m to the English as slaves, but they had given this up b y 1730. The few Africans w h o came to live among t h e m before 1794 were given the same status as the remnants of the Catawbas and Uchees among t h e m . They were eligible for adoption, intermarriage, and equal citizenship. Some English-speaking blacks were v e r y useful as " l i n k s t e r s " or interpreters once they had learned Cherokee; others were useful for the skilled crafts they brought w i t h t h e m . But the Cherokees had no economic need for slave labor prior to 1794. However, as the Cherokees gradually accepted the w h i t e man's style of plantation agriculture and realized how whites felt about "people of color," their attitude toward Africans changed. M o s t of the Presidents, Secretaries of War, federal agents, governors, generals, a r m y officers, traders, and even missionaries w h o m they had to impress w i t h their progress toward " c i v i l i z a t i o n " were slaveholders. A t first reluctantly and later w i t h o u t compunction, the Cherokees concluded that their survival as a nation depended upon their clearly distinguishing themselves f r o m Africans. To treat blacks as equals w o u l d not raise the blacks i n w h i t e eyes but w o u l d s i m p l y lower the red man. " C i v i l i z a t i o n " for the Cherokee be­ came the adoption of the southern w h i t e attitude toward black labor. To o w n slaves became both a source of wealth and a source of respect. A l l the land that a Cherokee could cultivate or enclose was his to profit f r o m . Since slaves were transferable as private property and large farms and plantations could be passed on from father to son, there was no reason w h y Cherokees could not adopt the same life style as southern w h i t e cot­ ton planters. Slaves were also a good investment, c o n t i n u a l l y rising i n value and increasing i n number by natural process. The Cherokee renas­ cence was consequently a g r i m i m i t a t i o n of the worst as w e l l as the best i n w h i t e culture. Evidence of the equality of blacks i n the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the early part of the century can be seen i n the career of Jack Civills (or Sevells), a free black w h o lived among t h e m f r o m the 1780s u n t i l his death i n 1805. Civills had become a Cherokee c o u n t r y m a n by m a r r y i n g a Cherokee. She evidently died or left h i m , and he then married a w h i t e w o m a n . Assistant agent Lovely, a V i r g i n i a n , found Civills too arrogant. " H e is like all peoSee Perdue, Slavery and Cherokee Society, pp. 1-69, for a discussion of changing Cherokee attitudes toward red and black slavery. 24

338

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

pie of his colour, too f o r w a r d , " Lovely wrote i n 1803; he "can't observe a due distance nor bear preferment [of others] i n Society w i t h decency; the fellow has obtained property by dint of his I n d u s t r y , this w i t h his equal­ i t y w i t h these people, appear too m u c h for h i m to bear [ h u m b l y ] , his I n ­ dian connection creates an Idea of Indian independence and not subject to the Laws of the U . States." Civills ran a tavern and trading post and b o t h Indians and whites were sometimes i n his debt. I n 1804 he threat­ ened to use force to collect a debt against a w h i t e m a n named Gasper Taught: " C i v i l l s was going to play the I n d i a n , " said Lovely. " I w r o t e to Jack i n f o r m i n g h i m to take care, his complection w o u l d not do so far—of w h i c h I suppose the fellow has taken umbrage. He is certainly a spoiled N e g r o . " B u t there was no w a y that Lovely could act against Civills, w h o was protected by tribal law like any other Cherokee citizen. W h e n he died i n 1805, his wife took all his m o n e y . 25

26

27

D u r i n g the 1820s the Cherokee Council began to develop a special code of laws to regulate black slaves i n the nation, a practice that parallleled the development of black codes i n most of the surrounding states. B u t racial prejudice against blacks had ben g r o w i n g for some t i m e . One of the ear­ liest recorded examples of racial consciousness among the Cherokees was i n 1793 w h e n Chief Little T u r k e y was explaining d u r i n g the guerrilla wars w h y he w o u l d never ally his nation w i t h the Spanish. He found Spaniards closer to blacks i n appearance and behavior than to "real w h i t e people," he said. Spaniards were swarthy i n complexion "and what few I have seen of t h e m looked like mulattoes, and I w o u l d never have any­ t h i n g to say to t h e m . " 2 8

B y 1825 the younger generation of mission-educated Cherokee lead­ ers, w h o had never k n o w n a t i m e w h e n blacks were treated as equals, were happy to be able to say to whites that i n their nation, u n l i k e their Seminole and Creek neighbors, "there is hardly any i n t e r m i x t u r e of Cherokee and African b l o o d . " Or, as John Ridge put i t i n 1826, "there is a scanty instance of African m i x t u r e w i t h the Cherokee blood, b u t that of the w h i t e m a y be as 1 to 4, occasioned b y i n t e r m a r r i a g e s . " Y o u n g Ridge wanted to indicate that Cherokees and whites were allied i n the na­ t i o n i n the honorable status of m a t r i m o n y , w h i l e whatever m i x t u r e there was of African blood had occurred i l l i c i t l y between scandalous Cherokee slaveowners and their female slaves. T h o u g h Ridge and his father and 29

30

W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, May 17, 1803, M-208. W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, April 19,1804, M-208. James Minor to William S. Lovely, January 23, 1805, and James Minor to Return J. Meigs, January 31,1805, M-208. A S P I I , 461. A S P I I , 651. John Ridge to Albert Gallatin, Payne Papers, vni: 103-104. 25

2 6

2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

339

CLASS, G E N D E R , A ND RACE

brothers owned slaves, they w o u l d never t h i n k to engage i n such behav­ ior. Furthermore, since the number of black slaves owned b y Cherokees had increased between 1809 and 1826 from 583 to 1,277, Ridge wished the self-restraint of the Cherokee slaveowner to be respected. W h a t little i n t e r m i x t u r e there was of red and black, he implied, had occurred l o n g ago, before the Cherokees were an enlightened, civilized people. To cement this state of affairs, the Cherokee Council i n 1824 passed a law p r o h i b i t i n g "intermarriage between negro slaves and indians or w h i t e s " and setting fines for slaveowners w h o permitted such alliances. A n y male Indian or w h i t e w h o married "a negro w o m a n slave" was to be punished w i t h 59 stripes and " a n y Indian [woman] or w h i t e w o m a n mar­ r y i n g a negro m a n slave" was to be punished w i t h 25 stripes. M a r r y i n g i n these cases need not mean, certainly did not mean, Christian marriage. N o t h i n g was said i n the law about marriages w i t h freed blacks, probably because there were so few of t h e m . The Cherokees made every effort to l i m i t the number of freed blacks i n the nation. " A l l free negroes c o m i n g i n t o the Cherokee N a t i o n " after 1824 were declared to be " i n t r u d e r s and shall not be allowed to reside" unless they had "a p e r m i t f r o m the N a ­ tional C o m m i t t e e and C o u n c i l . " (Some freed blacks m a y have been granted a p e r m i t on a temporary basis i f they came to provide useful serv­ ices as a skilled worker.) 31

32

Prior to 1819 slaves i n the nation had been permitted to engage i n trade or barter, but after that year this was prohibited. A Cherokee named O t ­ ter Lifter had claimed that he had bought a horse f r o m a slave, o n l y to find that the slave had r u n away f r o m his owner, W i l l i a m Thompson, and the horse was Thompson's. W h e n Thompson reclaimed the horse, he refused to refund the m o n e y Otter Lifter had paid. O t t e r Lifter complained to the Council, w h i c h declined to hold Thompson responsible for his slave's ac­ t i o n and said that O t t e r Lifter was at fault for doing business directly w i t h a slave instead of dealing w i t h the slave's master. To prevent similar sit­ uations, the Council passed a law i n November 1819, saying that i n future " n o contract or bargain entered i n t o w i t h any slave or slaves w i t h o u t the approbation of their masters shall be b i n d i n g on t h e m . " 3 3

A year later the Council elaborated upon this law b y stating that any­ one " w h o shall trade w i t h any negro slave w i t h o u t permission f r o m the proper o w n e r " and w h o later found that he had bought stolen p r o p e r t y was himself responsible to r e t u r n that property or to pay the owner its v a l u e . I n addition, this law required any master w h o permitted his slave 34

31 32 33 34

Cherokee Laws, p. 38. Cherokee Laws, p. 37. Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., pp. 24-25.

340

CLASS, G E N D E R , A N D RACE

to purchase or sell "spirituous l i q u o r s " to pay a fine of fifteen dollars " t o be collected b y the Marshalls w i t h i n their respective D i s t r i c t s . " Further, " a n y n e g r o " found selling liquor w i t h o u t his master's permission was to "receive fifteen cobbs or paddles for every such offense." This p u n i s h ­ m e n t was to be inflicted b y " t h e patrolers of the settlement or neighbor­ hood i n w h i c h the offense was c o m m i t t e d . " This was the first m e n t i o n i n the law of neighborhood slave patrols, distinct f r o m the lighthorse police. The law w e n t on to encourage the creation of such patrols: " E v e r y settle­ m e n t or neighborhood shall be privileged to organize a p a t r o l i n g com­ p a n y " to assert control over the slaves i n that c o m m u n i t y . The Cherokee Supreme C o u r t ruled that any persons w h o aided or harbored r u n a w a y slaves were to be fined or severely w h i p p e d . 35

The next step was to deprive slaves of the r i g h t to h o l d property. A law i n 1824 made i t illegal for "negro slaves to possess p r o p e r t y i n horses, cattle or hogs." T h e y were given one year to dispose of such livestock and thereafter i t was confiscated and sold " f o r the benefit of the Cherokee N a ­ tion." 3 6

N o law was ever passed regulating the manumission of slaves b y Cher­ okee owners. Some slaves were freed i n w i l l s . I n 1805 a slave named Paul t o l d Meigs that he had earned $400 and bought his f r e e d o m . I n 1822 a Cherokee named Oowanahtekiskee bought and set free an eleven-yearold slave, stating i n an affidavit, " [ I ] hereby claim and acknowledge the aforesaid boy to be m y true begotten s o n . " Oowanahtekiskee presented this affidavit to the Council for approval; i t recorded that " w e do hereby receive and admit the emancipation of said Boy and w i l l acknowledge h i m to be free hereafter." Several years later, a Cherokee w o m a n , Caty Rich­ m o n d , set one of her slaves free upon his paying her $150. She gave h i m a letter attesting to the transaction that he registered w i t h the Supreme C o u r t : " T o all and singular to w h o m i t m a y concern, K n o w ye that for an i n the consideration of the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars received f r o m Prince, a black m a n slave, we do b y these presents set h i m free and against the claim or claims of any other person or persons." H o w Prince had earned $150 is not revealed. I n neither of the above cases was the owner required to post bond for the support or good behavior of the 37

38

39

Malone, Cherokees of the Old South, p. 83, and Cherokee Supreme Court Docket, 1823-1835, November 1,1824, Tennessee State Archives, Nashville. Cherokee Laws, p. 39. Paul Smith to Return J. Meigs, July 29,1805, M-208, and Paul Smith to Henry Dear­ born, August 18, 1805, M-271, reel 1, #0370. Smith claimed that he was seized and sold back into slavery by Doublehead despite his manumission. Payne Papers, v u , part 1, 48-49. Cherokee Supreme Court Docket, 1823-1835, January 20, 1834, Tennessee Archives, Nashville. 3 5

36

3 7

3 8

3 9

341

CLASS, G E N D E R , AN D RACE

freedman and each was allowed to remain i n the nation. W h e t h e r they were considered full or equal citizens is doubtful. The amount of litigation i n the Cherokee Council and courts over the ownership of slaves, as w e l l as the large amount of correspondence i n the agency files on the subject of slaves, indicates their economic importance. Slaves were squabbled over i n inheritance disputes; they were seized b y creditors; and they were loaned or rented out on contracts. I t was a com­ m o n practice i n w e a l t h y Cherokee families for a mother or father to give or lend a slave to a daughter w h e n she got married, perhaps as a k i n d of d o w r y or perhaps to prevent her becoming a household drudge. Several court cases arose w h e n husbands tried to sell such slaves; the wives suc­ cessfully claimed i n most cases that under Cherokee law these slaves were their personal property and not subject to the husband's disposal. L i t i ­ gation also occurred w h e n a parent wanted the slave loaned to a daughter to be returned and the daughter claimed i t had been a gift; s i m i l a r l y w h e n such a slave (usually they were female) had children and both the parents and their married daughter claimed them. Cherokee law, like w h i t e slave law, gave "the natural increase" of slaves to the owner of the mother. The Cherokee Supreme Court also tried cases of fraud i n w h i c h slaves of " u n ­ s o u n d " physical or mental health had been k n o w i n g l y sold at the price of a healthy slave.

40

A l t h o u g h agents like Meigs accused the " b a c k w a r d " full bloods of la­ ziness because they preferred h u n t i n g to farming, i t could have as readily been argued that w e a l t h y slaveowning Cherokees i m i t a t e d w h i t e south­ erners w h o believed that fieldwork was for blacks. One version of the Cherokee creation m y t h affirmed that when the Great Spirit created three kinds of m a n , he allotted the plow and the hoe to the black m a n . One w e a l t h y Cherokee was upset w h e n a missionary school required his son to learn the vocation of f a r m i n g and made h i m w o r k on the mission farm. The father accused the missionaries of m a k i n g his son do "nigger's w o r k " and offered to provide a slave to the mission to do the w o r k allotted to his son.

41

It was often said that Cherokees treated their slaves better than whites did. The Cherokees claimed this themselves. David B r o w n , one of the younger generation of educated Cherokees, wrote to the Family

Visitor

in R i c h m o n d , V i r g i n i a , i n 1825: " Y o u perceive that there are some A f r i ­ can slaves among us. They have been from t i m e to t i m e bought and sold by w h i t e men. They are, however, generally well treated and they m u c h Ibid., October 21, 1830. Robert S. Walker, Torchlights to the Cherokees (New York: Macmillan, 1931), p. 140, and Brainerd Journal, July 20, 1819, A B C F M . 40

41

342

CLASS,

GENDER,

AND

RACE

prefer l i v i n g i n the n a t i o n to residence i n the U n i t e d States." However, substantial evidence exists of Cherokee harshness t o w a r d slaves. Chero­ kee masters certainly did not hesitate to " c o b b " or " w h i p " t h e m . Runa­ ways were cruelly punished and James V a n n once t o r t u r e d and t h e n burned to death a slave w h o had helped a w h i t e m a n to rob h i m . Several Cherokees w h o w e n t west to help their brethren there fight against the Osages b r o u g h t home three y o u n g Osage children as captives i n 1818 and sold t h e m to w h i t e slave traders, w h o treated t h e m as blacks. The Cher­ okees as a whole did not approve of selling other Indians as slaves and tried to prevent i t . To equate red and black people i n slavery was h a r d l y i n t h e i r best interest. Pathkiller told Meigs that he t h o u g h t i t w r o n g " t o sell a free person for a slave . . . all nations w h o are free ought to enjoy the freedom w h i c h they are endowed w i t h . " Nevertheless, m a n y Cher­ okees, including Major Ridge, b r o u g h t back Creek children captured i n the Creek W a r and kept t h e m as slaves. W h e n Gideon M o r g a n wanted to encourage Cherokees to j o i n i n helping Jackson fight against the Semi­ noles i n 1818, he reminded t h e m that the Seminoles had m a n y blacks f i g h t i n g w i t h t h e m w h o could be b r o u g h t home as the booty of w a r . 42

4 3

44

4 5

46

W h e n the Cherokees founded a newspaper, its columns were used to advertise for runaway slaves; David B r o w n was w r o n g to i m p l y that o n l y whites bought and sold slaves i n the Cherokee N a t i o n . There were Cher­ okee slave dealers w h o w e n t to N e w Orleans, Savannah, and Charleston to b u y slaves at auctions and b r i n g t h e m back for sale i n the Cherokee N a t i o n . James V a n n bought m a n y slaves for himself and others; i n 1805 he bought one for the M o r a v i a n missionaries at Springplace. 47

The c o m p l e x i t y of racial relationships w i t h i n t h e Cherokee N a t i o n d u r i n g the years of cultural transformation can be seen most v i v i d l y i n three specific cases involved the a m b i g u i t y of being red, w h i t e , or black: the first concerned the famous Cherokee chief and w a r r i o r C h u l i o (Tusk i n g o , Shoe Boot, or The Boot); the second, the career and f a m i l y of Y o u n g Wolfe; the t h i r d , the slave Chickaune. C h u l i o started his career as a full-blood w a r r i o r i n the guerrilla forces of D r a g g i n g Canoe; later he sided w i t h the Upper Towns against Doublehead. He fought bravely i n the Creek W a r and became one of the most respected chiefs i n the n a t i o n . 4 2

ASP i i , 651.

Mrs. Jacob Wohlfahrt to Return J. Meigs, undated but included at the end of the file for 1805. Walker, Torchlights, pp. 74-78. Pathkiller to Return J. Meigs, September 7,1819, M-208. Letter of Gideon Morgan's enclosed in a letter from Sam Houston to John Calhoun, July 20,1818, M-221, reel 78, #8486. "Minutes of the Mission Conference Held in Springplace," trans, and ed. Kenneth Hamilton, The Atlanta Historical Bulletin (Winter 1970), p. 36. 4 3

4 4 4 5

4 6

4 7

343

CLASS,

GENDER, AND

RACE

D u r i n g the course of his eventful life he had three wives, the first a Cher­ okee, the second a w h i t e w o m a n , the t h i r d a black slave. D u r i n g one of the last of the raids against the Kentucky frontier i n the early 1790s, C h u lio was i n a party of Cherokees and Shawnees w h o raided a w h i t e settle­ ment and captured a y o u n g w h i t e g i r l . Chulio bought the g i r l f r o m the Shawnees and brought her home as his slave. She was about eleven years old i n 1792 and her name was Clarinda Ellington. Some years later, after his Cherokee wife died, Chulio persuaded Clarinda to m a r r y h i m . I n 1797 some of her relatives i n Kentucky, having discovered her whereabouts, came to take her back to civilization. Silas Dinsmoor, the federal agent, asked her to come to the agency to discuss the matter. Dinsmoor reported that "she refused to r e t u r n to her people." Six years later t w o relatives again appeared i n the nation to "obtain her l i b e r a t i o n / ' Meigs arranged an i n t e r v i e w at the agency and asked whether she wished to r e t u r n to her friends i n Kentucky. By this time she had three children. Chulio was a k i n d husband and a wealthy one and they lived w e l l . She agreed to re­ t u r n , " i f I can carry m y Children [ w i t h m e ] . " Chulio w o u l d not consent to this; " i f m y children are taken away, I shall look on i t the same as i f they were dead." Clarinda then declined " g o i n g to see her friends as she cannot leave her C h i l d r e n . " Chulio explained to Meigs "that he saved her life at the time she was taken and therefore thinks he has a r i g h t to keep her as his w i f e . " I t appeared, Meigs wrote, "that Tuskingo is a man of v e r y considerable p r o p e r t y . " A year later Clarinda decided that she w o u l d at least like to pay a visit to her relatives. Chulio was reluctant but, t r u s t i n g his wife, he agreed. He bought fine new clothes for her and the children and gave t h e m good horses and a slave to attend them. They went to Kentucky i n 1804 and never returned. Clarinda died i n 1807. W h e t h e r she had intended to r e t u r n is doubtful. Her relatives kept her children. Chulio was distraught and felt cheated. " B e i n g i n possession of some Black people and being cross i n m y affections," he wrote later, " I debased myself and took one of m y Black W o m e n by the name of D a u l l " as his wife. " B y her I have had three C h i l d r e n . " 48

49

50

I n 1824 the oldest of Chulio's children by Daull was seventeen. As a member of the National Council, Chulio realized that the status of blacks i n the nation was changing and feared that his children m i g h t not be ac­ ceptable as Cherokee citizens. He worried that at his death, his three chil­ dren b y Daull m i g h t be sold as slaves. He wrote a m e m o r i a l to the Council explaining h o w he had lost his first three children (by Clarinda). He was n o w old "and as the time I may be called on to die is ansertain, m y desire 4 8 4 9 5 0

W. S. Lovely to Return J. Meigs, June 27, 1803, M-208. Return J. Meigs interview with Shoe Boot, October 19, 1803, M-208. Payne Papers, n: 32-37.

344

CLASS, GENDER, AND

RACE

is to have t h e m [his children] as free Sitizens of this N a t i o n . H o w can I t h i n k of t h e m , having boan of m y bone and flesh of m y flesh, to be called [mere] property, and this b y m y i m p r u d e n t Conduck. A n d for t h e m and their offspring to suffer for Generations yet u n b o r n is a t h o u g h t of to[o] great M a g n i t u d e for me to remain Silent longer." The Council took p i t y on the old chief and on November 6,1824, voted that i t had " n o objection to recognize their freedom, as w e l l as their inheritance to the Cherokee c o u n t r y ; but i t is ordered that Shoe Boots cease begetting any more c h i l ­ dren b y this said slave w o m a n . " Chulio lived five more years and his black wife claimed later that i n that t i m e they had had t w o more children, t w i n sons, i n 1825. Chulio's sisters, w h o inherited his large property, also inherited (as slaves) his t w i n children by D a u l l ; they petitioned the Council i n November 1829 to grant freedom and citizenship to the t w o four-year-old t w i n s (they said n o t h i n g about the t w i n s ' m o t h e r ) . The National Council, or lower house, was w i l l i n g to allow this, but the N a ­ tional Committee refused to concur. The boys remained the slaves of Chulio's sisters. S h o r t l y after this, a w h i t e m a n appeared i n the nation and claimed that Chulio had given h i m a deed for all his property. He took the three oldest children b y D a u l l away w i t h h i m , saying that b y state law their black ancestry made t h e m slaves for life no matter w h a t the Council had voted. One boy, John Shoeboot, escaped and returned to the nation. Chulio's sisters brought suit for the r e t u r n of the other t w o , but there is no evidence that their release was ever obtained. 5 1

52

Young W o l f belonged i n outlook, at least, to the new generation of selfmade men. A full blood f r o m the Lower Towns, he m a y have attended a mission school. I n 1814, w h e n he made his w i l l , he wished to be v e r y spe­ cific about w h a t w o u l d become of the property he had accumulated. The w i l l provides a good insight i n t o the new ethic of the rising generation and its attitude t o w a r d slave property: In the name of God, in men [amen], I , Young Wolf, being in real good sense at this present time, do make my last W i l l and Testimony, and bequeath and leave [to my] loving daughter, Ann, that Negro Woman nammed Tabb and also, to my loving Son, Dennis, a Negro man named Caesar; also I levé a yearly income for Dennis in the Turnpike Company to get equal shear [share] with the rest of the company and also leave to my loving wife, one year-old heifer and her increase . . . also one mare I let her have. . . . I leave to my son Dennis, my house and plantation and all the farming tools. If any contest should arise after my decease about m y property, I leave Charles Hicks, Rattling Gourd, and the Hair to be my Executors . . . and through friendship to Elijah Hicks, I do give my brace of pis5 1 5 2

Ibid. Payne Papers, vu, part 1, 46-49.

345

CLASS, GENDER, A N D R A C E

tols to h i m . . . . A l s o to m y m o t h e r that raised me, I leave a Black horse, a three year o l d , w h i c h the Crawler has i n the A r m y .

5 3

H a v i n g disposed of his w o r l d l y goods, Young W o l f then offered a h o m i l y on success for the edification of his heirs. By being careful and by [ m y ] o w n i n d u s t r y , I have gathered a smart chance of p r o p e r t y , and m y first start was f r o m m y herding m y brother's cattle. I received one calf w h i c h I took m y start f r o m , except m y o w n i n d u s t r y and w i t h [the] cow and calf, w h i c h I sold, I bought t w o sows and t h i r t e e n pigs. Some t i m e after, I was able to purchase three mares, and the increase of t h e m is a m o u n t e d to t h i r t y , m o r e or less, and f r o m that start I gathered m o n e y enough to purchase a negro w o m a n named Tabb, also a negro named Caesar. A l s o I leave m y l o v i n g daughter, Neecotia, one good sorrel mare and colt. Young

X

Wolf

His Mark

H o r a t i o A l g e r or John D . Rockfeller could not have said i t better. H a r d w o r k and self-reliance brought a man "a smart chance of p r o p e r t y . " This w i l l survived because i t was contested b y Young W o l f ' s daughter, A n n . She petitioned the National Council i n 1824 to compel her mother, Jenny, to deliver bills of sale to her and her sister that w o u l d give legal ownership to t h e m of t w o slave w o m e n that Jenny had permitted to w o r k for her daughters. The Council noted that after Young W o l f ' s death, his w i d o w managed his farm " w i t h economy and p r o p r i e t y " and b y m a k i n g i t "a house of entertainment for travellers" was able to accumulate " c o n ­ siderable m o n e y . " Young W o l f evidently owed something to the abilities of his wife. Jenny W o l f ' s profits as an innkeeper and farmer "enabled her to purchase some negroes"; when her t w o oldest daughters married "and settled off to themselves," she "put i n t o the hands of each of those daugh­ ters, a negro w o m a n w h i c h she had b o u g h t . " She intended to give these slaves to her daughters eventually, but o n l y "after getting some of their increase for the benefit of her t w o youngest daughters w h i c h are not yet of age." B u t the older daughters, w h o apparently had inherited some of the business acumen of their mother, wanted "bills of sale for those negro w o m e n " i n order that they m i g h t , i n the words of the Council, "embrace all their increase." H a v i n g paid for the support of the slave, they t h o u g h t they were entitled to some r e t u r n . Furthermore, their mother had n o w remarried and her daughters felt she had less need of the slaves. H o w ­ ever, the mother refused to give t h e m up and the Council sided w i t h the mother. I t believed that the slaves had been a loan made out of " t h a t ma53

Payne Papers, vu, part 1, 59-61.

346

CLASS,

GENDER,

AND

RACE

ternal regard w h i c h is peculiar to the trait of a fond m o t h e r " and that the daughters were n o w t r y i n g to take unfair advantage of i t . The t h i r d i l l u s t r a t i o n of racial diversity indicates the l i n g e r i n g com­ m i t m e n t to the older ethic of racial equality. Some t i m e before the Rev­ o l u t i o n , a black slave named M o l l y was adopted i n t o the Deer Clan and given the name Chickaune. The adoption occurred because a w h i t e trader named Samuel Dent had married a Cherokee w o m a n and, b y his i l l "usage of her i n beating and otherwise mistreating of her w h e n i n a state of pregnancy," caused her death. " T h e Clan or tribe to w h o m she be­ longed determined to k i l l the said w h i t e man . . . w h o to appease t h e m and satisfy said tribe [clan! did then purchase a female slave b y the name of m o l l e y and brought [said] female u n t o the Cherokee N a t i o n and did offer her to the Clan's remuneration for the wrongs he had done. A t o w n council and talk was then had at Chota O l d T o w n o n Tennessee River and the said female was then and there received by [the] Deer Clan and b y the authorities agreeable to the Indian Law and usage i n the place of the m u r ­ dered wife of the said Sam Dent, and has by herself and descendants been ever since recognized by said nation or clan as a Cherokee." Sam Dent was a v e r y devious m a n however, and before g i v i n g her to the Cherokees he had evidently sold M o l l y to a man named H i g h t o w e r i n Georgia and given h i m a b i l l of sale, or so H i g h t o w e r ' s daughter claimed i n 1833. M o l l y H i g h t o w e r , daughter of the claimant, sent agents (slave catchers) into the Cherokee N a t i o n to apprehend Chickaune and her son, Cunestuta (or Isaac Tucker). The case came before the Cherokee Supreme Court, w h i c h ruled that the slave, M o l l y , had become a Cherokee, had always been treated as a Cherokee, and still retained the rights of Cher­ okee citizenship b y v i r t u e of her adoption i n t o the Deer Clan, regardless of her race, complexion, or ancestry. By this same r i g h t , her son was also a Cherokee citizen. The agents of M o l l y H i g h t o w e r had to r e t u r n to Georgia w i t h o u t t h e m . 5 4

5 5

Thus old traditions survived among the burgeoning of new ways. H a d the system of clan adoption persisted as an effective means of g r a n t i n g Cherokee citizenship to blacks or whites (the w a y formalized marriage al­ lowed whites to attain citizenship i n the nation), there w o u l d have been a simple f o r m of emancipation available. One wonders w h y Chulio's sisters did not t r y this to save his last t w o children? Perhaps the Council no longer recognized the r i g h t of clans to adopt blacks ? M o r e l i k e l y the stigma associated w i t h slavery was so great that the clan w o u l d have hes­ itated to adopt even Chulio's children b y a black slave. B y 1820 the CherIbid. Cherokee Supreme Court Docket, 1823-1835, October [no day], 1832, Tennessee A r ­ chives, Nashville. 5 4 5 5

347

C L A S S ,

G E N D E R ,

A N D

R A C E

okees were freely using the t e r m "race" i n their laws and court decisions but, like whites, they still had trouble defining what they meant b y i t . For example, M c K e n n e y , w r i t i n g to the Secretary of War i n 1825, said, "a l i t t l e t i m e o n l y w i l l be required, so far, at least, as i t regards the Cher­ okees, . . . w h e n the whole tribe w i l l no doubt seek to place themselves under the laws of the States and by that act prepare the process for their extinction as a race." O n one level he was referring to the political dis­ appearance of the Cherokee nation; on another, to the disappearance of Cherokee cultural traits; on a t h i r d , he meant that biological changes t h r o u g h intermarriage w o u l d end their distinction as a people. Essentially M c K e n n e y spoke here f r o m the Enlightenment view that there were no significant differences between red and w h i t e men—yet i n 1825, the problem was c o m m o n l y spoken of i n terms of " t h e i r race," " o u r race," and "the black race." W i t h i n another decade or t w o "the A m e r i c a n School of E t h n o l o g y " w o u l d convince most Americans that the E n l i g h t ­ enment t h e o r y of racial homogeneity was w r o n g . A l l m e n were not cre­ ated biologically equal. There was a clear and ineradicable hierarchy of races w i t h the Caucasian at the top and the Anglo-Saxon at the head of the varieties of Caucasians. The "Ethiopian race" was at the b o t t o m . The " A m e r i c a n race" (the Indian) was somewhere i n between but rapidly d y i n g out i n its unequal competition w i t h the superior race that was over­ running it. 56

5 7

I n 1825, the strongest nationalist leaders among the Cherokees still held fervently to the old Washingtonian policy of Cherokee integration i n t o the republic as soon as they reached a state of civilization equal to that of whites. I n M a r c h of that year, John Ross, Charles Hicks, and George L o w r e y told John Q u i n c y Adams, the last of the Presidents to up­ hold the original Indian policy, that "the Cherokee, i f permitted to re­ m a i n peaceably and q u i e t l y i n the enjoyment of their rights [on their an­ cestral land), the day w o u l d arrive when a distinction between their race and the A m e r i c a n f a m i l y w o u l d be imperceptible; of such change the na­ t i o n can have no objection. Complexion is a subject not w o r t h y of consid­ eration i n the effectuation of the great object—for the sake of civilization and the preservation of existence, we w o u l d w i l l i n g l y see the habits and customs of the aboriginal man extinguished, the sooner this takes place the [sooner] the great s t u m b l i n g block, prejudice, w i l l be r e m o v e d . " 58

56

Thomas L. McKenney to George Barbour, December 13, 1825, M-21, reel 2, pp. 298-

305. For extended discussions of the development of racism in America see William Stanton, The Leopard's Spots (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) and George Fredrickson, Black Image on the White Mind (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) and Reginald Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980). Cherokee delegation to John Quincy Adams, March 12, 1825, M-234, reel 71, #0518. 57

58

348

CLASS,

GENDER,

AND

RACE

R e t u r n J. Meigs, w h o lived t h r o u g h the era of Cherokee revitalization, sensed another i m p o r t a n t aspect of the search for equality. The q u a l i t y that he spoke of as " n a t i o n a l p r i d e " was at heart the Cherokees' rejection of their racial i n f e r i o r i t y . Meigs blamed frontier whites for h a v i n g cre­ ated that sense of i n f e r i o r i t y . " W e find the Indian has also his prejudices" against whites, sometimes speaking of t h e m as a separately created and distinctly different race. " B u t i t does not arise f r o m pride as ours [our prejudice] does, i t arises i n the Indian f r o m his h u m b l e conception of himself and of his race, f r o m the discovery he makes that we look d o w n on h i m as an inferior being, has a tendency to make h i m despise himself as the offspring of an inferior race of beings. . . . These things are serious d i f f i c u l t i e s . " Meigs and most other government officials, no matter h o w w e l l disposed, had seldom treated the Indians as equals. Caught i n the tangled web of federal-state relations and the politics of east versus west, federal officials had usually adopted a smug paternalism t o w a r d t h e m . The chief avenue left t h r o u g h w h i c h the Cherokees could regain self-re­ spect became the creation of a strong national spirit of defiant independ­ ence. 59

One other source of self-respect opened for the Cherokees i n the 1820s, although they were slow to take i t . This was the spiritual power contained i n C h r i s t i a n i t y , once i t was divested of its stigma as "the w h i t e man's re­ l i g i o n . " I f the t w o peoples had the same Great Spirit and i f his ways of c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h Cherokees ( t h r o u g h their old ceremonies) had weakened, perhaps i t was possible t h r o u g h C h r i s t i a n i t y to regain a con­ nection w i t h the infinite power that controlled the universe. Perhaps the w h i t e missionaries could show t h e m a new w a y t h r o u g h w h i c h to restore that h a r m o n y between their people, their destiny, and the w i l l of the Great Spirit w h o m the w h i t e men called " G o d . " The tremendous i n f l u x of missionaries f r o m a wide variety of denominations after 1819 opened up new possibilities for Cherokee revitalization and gave a new t h r u s t to their renascence. 5 9

Return J. Meigs to Samuel Trott, August 3,1817, M-208.

349

SEVENTEEN

SEQUOYAH A N D THE C H R I S T I A N S , 1819-1827

The Cherokees seem peculiarly partial to Guess's plan of writing. They can generally learn it in one day and in a week become writing masters and transact their business and communicate their thoughts freely and fully on religious or political subjects by writing. —The Reverend Daniel S. But rick, February 22,1825

T

wo powerful new sources of revitalization came to the Cherokees after 1820: the i n v e n t i o n b y Sequoyah of an easy way to w r i t e their o w n language and the spiritual message of C h r i s t i a n i t y carried to every part of the nation by dedicated preachers—some of t h e m Cherokees. These t w o forces, one nationalistic and one transcending nationalism, seemed to m a n y observers to be w o r k i n g i n opposite directions—one m o v i n g the Cherokees back toward the old ways, the other m o v i n g t h e m toward a revolutionary new way. But i n important respects they were not competitive but complementary. Sequoyah's i n v e n t i o n provided a new means of a self-expression among the Cherokee-speaking full-blood ma­ j o r i t y , g i v i n g t h e m a sense of power and a stimulus to self-expression they had lacked; i t helped t h e m tremendously in overcoming feelings of i n f e r i o r i t y and self-doubt, making t h e m the equals of those Cherokees w h o had learned to speak and write English. Sequoyah's discovery played a major role i n the populist movement leading up to W h i t e Path's Rebel­ lion i n 1827, w h e n the more conservative Cherokees vigorously ex­ pressed their opposition to the speed and extent of acculturation that their leaders were forcing upon t h e m . Christianity offered a message of hope and personal rebirth to match their national rebirth. It opened to every individual the possibility of w i p ­ i n g a bad slate clean and starting over totally fresh. Christian preachers told the beleaguered and disheartened to pray to the Great Spirit and he w o u l d give t h e m justice and courage i n their struggles, personal and na­ tional. Christian theology taught that all men are spiritually equal, that all have unrealized potential, and that God w i l l help t h e m to achieve i t . The Great Spirit gives his strength to those w h o feel weak, frustrated,

350

SEQUOYAH A N D THE CHRISTIANS

poor, and despised. Some Cherokees realized that C h r i s t i a n i t y was not s i m p l y the w h i t e man's religion but that its true adherents constituted a chosen people regardless of their race or nation. B y p r o v i d i n g the de­ spondent w i t h a sense of self-worth, hope, and new possibilities, C h r i s ­ t i a n i t y offered an i m p o r t a n t spiritual counterpart to the secular r e v i t a l i zation of the nationalist chiefs. The missionaries did not always preach i t this w a y , b u t they b r o u g h t a power beyond themselves. Pride i n Sequo­ yah's accomplishments and the power of self-expression i t gave the Cher­ okees matched the pride of the Christian convert at h a v i n g conquered his o w n inner fear, his tendency to despair and self-destruction that had led some to alcoholism. Both movements seemed to provide a means of as­ serting greater control over themselves and their future. Yet b o t h movements were double-edged. C h r i s t i a n i t y threatened to d i ­ vide the n a t i o n i n t o Christian and pagan parties. Sequoyah's syllabary threatened to u n d e r m i n e the whole civilization p r o g r a m . The division between the full bloods w h o spoke no English and the m i x e d blood w h o spoke no Cherokee was heightened. This same division corresponded to a regional division, a class division, and a division between those w h o were slaveholders and those w h o were not. W h e t h e r the Sequoyan syllabary and the rapid spread of Christian mission activities i n the 1820s w o u l d add to the cohesion of the nation or finally split i t irrevocably troubled every­ one. Sequoyah's discovery of a w a y to w r i t e the Cherokee language i n 1821-1822 was b o t h a great impediment to missionary activity and, i n ­ directly, a great advantage. I t took the Cherokees several years before t h e y could accept the fact that one of their o w n people, a Cherokee w h o neither spoke, read, nor wrote English, had mastered the skill that t h e y had always assumed the Creator gave o n l y to the w h i t e m a n . Some had heard that Sequoyah was at w o r k on such a scheme and believed he m u s t be practicing witchcraft because he was preparing to tear d o w n a w a l l that the Great Spirit had f r o m their creation placed between his w h i t e and red children. B u t Sequoyah was convinced that the w h i t e m a n had discovered the art of w r i t i n g for himself and what the w h i t e m a n could discover for his language, the red m a n could discover for h i s . T h r o u g h m a n y years of 1

t r i a l and error, starting first w i t h the impossible task of designing a pictograph for every w o r d , Sequoyah finally discovered that he could divide For Sequoyah's life see Grant Foreman, Sequoyah (Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1938); for Sequoyah's syllabary see the writings of Jack F. Kilpatrick and New Echota Let­ ters, ed. Jack F. Kilpatrick and Anna Gritts Kilpatrick (Dallas: Southern Methodist Univer­ sity Press, 1968). Also Emmet Starr, Early History of the Cherokees Embracing Aboriginal Customs, Religion, Laws, Folk Lore and Civilization (Claremore, Okla.: n.p., 1917), pp. 45-55. 1

351

S E Q U O Y A H AND T H E C H R I S T I A N S

the Cherokee language i n t o eighty-six syllables. He designed a s y m b o l for each. S i m p l y b y m e m o r i z i n g these, anyone w h o could speak Chero­ kee could w r i t e i t , whether y o u n g or o l d . Sequoyah's father was a w h i t e man, probably Nathaniel Gist of V i r ­ ginia, w h o lived for several years among the Cherokees prior to the A m e r i c a n Revolution. Sequoyah's mother called h i m George Gess or Guess. The liaison w i t h Gist was temporary and Sequoyah was not raised by his father. He grew up among the full bloods i n the Lower Towns, be­ came a silversmith and blacksmith, fought w e l l i n the Creek W a r and, i n 1819-1822, was involved i n the conspiracy to sell the Lower T o w n area. He w e n t to Arkansas i n 1821-1822, where he probably completed his i n ­ v e n t i o n . R e t u r n i n g to the old nation, he convinced the Cherokees there that he had t r u l y reduced their language to w r i t i n g . Then he w e n t back to live permanently i n the west. W h e n the Council finally acknowledged w h a t he had achieved, i t voted i n 1824 to have a medal struck i n his honor and sent h i m $500 i n cash. But the Council did not vote to adopt his f o r m of w r i t i n g as the official language of the nation; to do so w o u l d have t h r o w n doubts on the Cherokees' c o m m i t m e n t to civilization and even­ tual incorporation i n t o w h i t e America. Whites w o u l d have interpreted such a decision as regressive—-an effort to put a cultural barrier between red and w h i t e Americans. Nonetheless, for the full bloods i t was a t r e ­ mendous boost to nationalism and separatism. The Council did translate its laws i n t o the Sequoyan syllabary so that the full bloods could read t h e m and occasionally official documents were printed i n that f o r m once the nation obtained a p r i n t i n g press i n 1828 w i t h a font of Sequoyan type. But English always remained the official language of the nation, t h o u g h o n l y about 15 percent of the nation spoke i t i n 1830 and less than 10 per­ cent could w r i t e i t . 2

3

Sequoyah's system was not perfect. I t lacked a means of punctuation; the symbols were complicated and easily distorted; vagaries i n p r o n u n ­ ciation (perhaps left over f r o m the time w h e n the nation had three or more distinct dialects) made i t difficult to translate. Nonetheless, t h o u ­ sands of Cherokees were soon w r i t i n g notes and letters to each other i n Sequoyah's syllables. W r i t t e n Cherokee was called "Sequoyan." " L e t ­ ters i n Cherokee are passing i n all directions," and n o t h i n g is i n "so great demand as pens, i n k , and paper," wrote one missionary i n January 1825.

4

On the difficulties of translating in the Sequoyan syllabary see Kilpatrick and Kilpatrick, eds., New Echota Letters. Accompanying the cash and medal were a tribute to "the great benefits of your incom­ parable system" that " w i l l also serve as an index for other aboriginal tribes or nations sim­ ilarly to advance in science and respectability." Its benefits "cannot be fully estimated." Payne Papers, vn, part 2,172-73. Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, January 25,1825, A B C F M . 2

3

4

352

SEQUOYAH

AND THE CHRISTIANS

" T h e knowledge of M r . Guess's Alphabet is spreading t h r o u g h the n a t i o n like fire among the leaves," w r o t e another. B y October 1824, the Rev­ erend W i l l i a m Chamberlain of the A m e r i c a n Board t o l d his superiors i n Boston that "a great part of the Cherokees can read and w r i t e i n t h e i r o w n language." 5

6

There was not universal pleasure among the missionaries at this. " A l l the scholars, as w e l l as all the neighborhood, have become conversant w i t h the new mode of w r i t i n g , " said the Reverend Isaac Proctor i n 1825, and " t h i s , no doubt, more than a n y t h i n g else has operated against Eng­ lish schools." The Cherokees preferred to w r i t e i n their o w n language rather t h a n spending the t i m e i t took to learn English. W h a t need was there to attend a mission school w h e n one could easily learn to w r i t e at home? " M r . Hicks, I am informed, thinks i t w i l l at least be the means of increasing a desire for learning among the lower class and u l t i m a t e l y b r i n g more of t h e m to a knowledge of English l i t e r a t u r e , " w r o t e A r d H o y t i n December 1824. B u t w h o could tell. I t was tremendously e x h i l ­ arating to be able to express one's thoughts i n one's o w n language and m u c h easier than doing so i n that of another people. " T h e Cherokees seem peculiarly partial to Guess's plan of w r i t i n g , " said the A m e r i c a n Board missionary, Daniel Butrick, i n February 1825. " T h e y can generally learn i t i n one day and i n a week become w r i t i n g masters and transact their business and communicate their thoughts freely and f u l l y on r e l i ­ gious and political subjects b y w r i t i n g . T h e y w i l l doubtless be generally acquainted w i t h this plan of reading and w r i t i n g i n the course of one y e a r . " According to the prevailing standards of ethnology, they had crossed the great d i v i d i n g line between a p r i m i t i v e (pre-literate) and a civ­ ilized (literate) society. B y 1825 the m a j o r i t y of the Cherokees could read and w r i t e . 7

8

A l t h o u g h almost everyone praised Sequoyah for his great accomplish­ ment, few whites made any effort to learn i t or promote it. To w r i t e i t one first had to learn Cherokee and neither the agents nor the missionaries t h o u g h t this w o r t h w h i l e . As the M o r a v i a n , the Reverend John Gambold, said, all schools i n the Cherokee N a t i o n should continue to teach o n l y i n English: " I t is indispensably necessary for their preservation that t h e y should learn our Language and adopt our Laws and H o l y Religion. . . . The study of their language w o u l d i n a great measure prove b u t t i m e and labor lost. . . . i t seems desirable that their Language, Customs, M a n n e r William Chamberlain's Journal, October 22,1824, ABCFM. Probably not more than twothirds of the Cherokees learned to read and write in Sequoyah's syllabary. Ibid; see also Perdue, Slavery and Cherokee Society, p. 60. Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, July 20,1825, ABCFM. Daniel Butrick's Journal, February 22,1823, ABCFM. 5

6 7 8

353

SEQUOYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS

of T h i n k i n g etc. should be f o r g o t t e n / ' Some missionaries, however, like 9

Samuel A . Worcester (nephew of Dr. Worcester) among the Congrega­ tionalists and Evan Jones among the Baptists did take the trouble to learn Cherokee and encouraged the use of the syllabary because they believed that i t was the quickest way to spread Christianity. They made efforts to translate the Bible i n t o Sequoyan. But it did not seem to bother most m i s ­ sionaries that their denigration of the Cherokee language and culture tended to make the full-blood children ashamed of their heritage and their parents and at the same time made the mixed bloods proud of their distinction from the "backward" members of their nation. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , shame and ridicule were the strongest means of expressing social disap­ proval among the Cherokees. I n this case the w o r k of the missionaries backfired. I n 1817 there were o n l y t w o mission schools i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , that of the Moravians at Springplace, Georgia, and that of the Congre­ gationalists (or Presbyterians of the American Board) at Chickamauga (Brainerd), Tennessee. The Moravians were teaching thirteen students; 10

the Congregationalists t h i r t y - e i g h t . This constituted less than 2 percent 11

of the school-age c h i l d r e n .

12

Over the next t w o years, w h i l e the removal

crisis worked itself out, no new schools were started. But i n 1819 the Congregationalists

founded a second school at Taloney (which they

named Carmel) and a t h i r d school ( w i t h the help of a y o u n g Cherokee convert, Catherine Brown) at Creek P a t h .

13

The Baptist Foreign M i s s i o n

Board (then i n Philadelphia, later i n Boston) founded a school at Valley Towns i n 1819 and a second at Tinsawattee i n 1 8 2 1 .

1 4

The Moravians

John Gam bo Id to Thomas McKenney, August 30,1824, MAS. Under a Plan of Union between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists adopted in 1801, the two denominations agreed to permit church members on the frontier to adopt either a congregational or presbyterian polity. In most cases, even frontier people from Congregationalist backgrounds chose Presbyterianism. Churches with Congregationalist members who chose to identify themselves as Presbyterians were popularly known as "Presbygationalist." Congregationalist missionaries to the Cherokees joined Presbyterian Synods and their mission churches were technically Presbyterian. See Williston Walker, A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States (New York: The Christian Literature Co. 1897). John Gambold to Return J. Meigs, June 22,1816, M-208, and Return J. Meigs to Sam­ uel Trott, August 3, 1817, M-208. Return J. Meigs to Thomas McKenney, August 25, 1817, M-208; in this letter Meigs estimates the total Cherokee population in the east as 13,000 and says that perhaps 1,500 were of school age. The number of school-age children was probably two or three times that. Mission schools accepted students from five to sixteen years of age and sometimes older. Daniel Butrick to Return J. Meigs, June 19,1820, M-208; Walker, Torchlights, pp. 69, 136. For a discussion of the Baptist and other early mission schools in the Cherokee Nation see McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries. 9

10

11

12

13

14

354

SEQUOYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS

started a second school at Oothcalogy, the t o w n of M a j o r Ridge, i n 1821.

15

M i s s i o n a r y schools tended to be founded i n response to local re­

quests for t h e m rather than according to any prearranged plan. The M o ­ ravians and Baptists never had more than t w o schools, but the Congregationalists continued to expand t h r o u g h o u t the decade w i t h schools and mission centers at Etowah ( H i g h t o w e r ) 1823, Haweis ( T u r n i p M o u n t a i n ) 1823, W i l l s t o w n (1832), Candy's Creek (1824), N e w Echota (1827), A m o h e e (1831), Red Clay (1835), and R u n n i n g Water (1835). I n 1822 the Methodists sent itinerant preachers to the nation and began their first school at Richard Riley's farm. Thereafter the Methodists began a system of " i t i n e r a n t schools," taught for six months at a t i m e b y their circuit r i d ­ ers at different places along their circuits. B y 1831, w h e n the Methodists reached their peak of activity i n the nation, they had seven circuits, eleven circuit riders, and six schools. I n 1828-1832, w h e n the mission movement was at its height, all of the schools of all of the denominations probably were teaching no more than 200 to 250 of the school-age children i n the nation. Moreover, school teaching proved expensive and difficult and after 1827 the mission boards demanded that more emphasis be placed o n preaching than on teaching, a request the missionaries welcomed. Because the M e t h o d i s t schools were not housed i n permanent b u i l d ­ ings, they received no assistance f r o m the fund that Congress had estab­ lished i n 1819 to support education among the Indians. The Education Fund was an appropriation of $10,000 annually that the Secretary of W a r divided up among the missionary agencies i n all of the Indian nations i n the U n i t e d States to support schools; the b u l k of this m o n e y w e n t to the A m e r i c a n Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. The Cherokee N a t i o n received a larger p r o p o r t i o n of this fund than any other tribe. The Georgia legislature protested against the fund i n 1823 and demanded its suspension because i t tended to create a permanent establishment of the Indians on its soil. However, the Congressional committee established to investigate Georgia's protest voted to sustain the fund as a benefit to the Indians and to the furtherance of the policy of civilization and integration (or i n c o r p o r a t i o n ) . The Education Fund did not provide any support, i n 16

t h e o r y , for the religious w o r k of evangelization among the Indians that was the p r i m a r y function of the missionary societies. Hence the largest p r o p o r t i o n of missionary budgets had to be supplied b y donations f r o m the members of their churches or f r o m local and state missionary socie­ ties organized for fund raising. To stimulate fund raising, all denomina15

1 6

See Schwarze, History of Moravian Missions, pp. 156-62. ASP I I , 458.

355

S E Q U O Y A H AND THE

CHRISTIANS

tions founded missionary journals ( m o n t h l y or quarterly) and newspa­ pers, w h i c h published reports on every mission station. O f p r i m e importance to the subscribers were the educational progress of the I n d i ­ ans and their conversion to C h r i s t i a n i t y ( t h r o u g h the founding of Indian mission churches). Statistical measurement of mission progress inevita­ b l y placed a p r e m i u m on head counting—the number of children i n school, the number of missionary assistants, exhorters, preachers. O n l y the A m e r i c a n Board provided a seminary (in C o r n w a l l , Connecticut) where pious natives of various nations around the w o r l d could be sent b y missionaries of the Board to obtain advanced theological t r a i n i n g to pre­ pare themselves to become ministers to their people. The Moravians sent some of their best students to this school as well. But the Methodists and Baptists did not believe that a "learned m i n i s t r y " was essential to preach­ i n g the gospel. They ordained converts w h o passed o n l y m i n i m a l tests of doctrinal learning but w h o showed sincere and earnest faith, dedication, and preaching talent. Hence they produced more Cherokee preachers and exhorters than the other three denominations and they reaped the largest harvests i n conversions. The old debate about whether Christianization should precede educa­ t i o n or vice versa i n Indian missions had long since been resolved by doing both together. Missionaries preached to adults at their mission compounds or at various "preaching stations" around the nation and at the same t i m e conducted schools where the y o u n g were inculcated w i t h Christian doctrines along w i t h their reading, w r i t i n g , and arithmetic. I t proved to be a m u c h longer and harder job than most missionary boards had expected to Christianize even as "advanced" a people as the Chero­ kees. There were several obstacles quite apart f r o m raising the necessary funds to send dedicated y o u n g w h i t e men and w o m e n to establish and m a i n t a i n the missions. I n the first place, none of the missionaries could speak Cherokee and very few of t h e m ever learned to do so. Second, the Cherokees were more interested i n having their children learn reading, w r i t i n g , and arithmetic than i n t r y i n g to understand (through v e r y crude translation) the complex doctrines and dogmas of the Christian religion. T h i r d , i t took Cherokee children m u c h longer (four to five years) to learn to read and w r i t e English than either their parents or the missionaries imagined i t w o u l d and this caused great discouragement. I n addition, there were the inevitable fears among m a n y Cherokees that the mission­ aries were t r y i n g to take their land or had other ulterior motives; there were frictions w i t h particular missionaries w h o did not hide their disdain for Cherokee manners or beliefs; and there were certain conflicts w i t h i n the missions or between the missionaries and their mission boards over the best methods to be followed i n their w o r k . 356

SEQUOYAH

AND THE CHRISTIANS

A l t h o u g h the missionaries of some denominations did their best to hide the fact that Christians were divided i n t o dozens of different d e n o m ­ inations, each w i t h its o w n doctrinal or ceremonial peculiarities, others flaunted the peculiarities of their denomination, hailing t h e m as the o n l y true doctrines or rituals and brazenly competing to w i n as m a n y Chero­ kees as possible to their o w n ranks (not even scrupling to take t h e m away f r o m other mission churches). One of the principal reasons for the major shift i n emphasis f r o m teaching to preaching i n the Cherokee N a t i o n after 1824 was due to the h i g h l y competitive struggle for converts among the denominations. A n o t h e r was that teaching was more expensive and the results were harder to document. N e w baptisms or admissions to churches were far more i n s p i r i n g to mission donors t h a n the n u m b e r of Cherokee children w h o had advanced f r o m Webster's spelling book no. 2 to spelling book no. 3. This a m b i t i o n to provide statistical evidence of success and thus sustain donations contributed i n the end to a reaction among the Cherokees to the more aggressive tactics of the missionaries. A t first almost all Cherokees welcomed missionaries because t h e y t h o u g h t of t h e m as teachers of the w h i t e man's skills rather t h a n as proselytizers for the w h i t e man's religion. A l t h o u g h full-blood parents sent their children to mission schools, they told the missionaries that " C h r i s ­ t i a n i t y was necessary for w h i t e people o n l y , " and that "there was n o t h i n g i n [the Christian] religion, at least, that the indians could get to heaven without i t . " I f Charles Hicks wished to j o i n the M o r a v i a n mission church, w h i c h he did i n 1813, that was his private business, but i t meant n o t h i n g to the nation that its Second Principal Chief had become a C h r i s ­ tian. (Some did complain, Hicks later said, " t h a t I was more m i n d f u l of Prayer meetings than [of] m y N a t i o n a l d u t i e s . " ) Between 1801, w h e n the Moravians started their mission, and 1819 they made o n l y one other convert besides Hicks, the w i d o w of James V a n n ( i n 1810). I n 1819, h o w ­ ever, the Moravians were overjoyed to find that seven persons decided to j o i n their church at Springplace. M o r a v i a n conversions continued to g r o w slowly but b y 1830 had reached a total of o n l y forty-five for a gen­ eration of mission w o r k . M o s t of these were the parents or relatives of students w h o had attended their school and t w o - t h i r d s of these converts were of m i x e d ancestry. The Moravians, however, were the least ag­ gressive of the four denominations at w o r k among the Cherokees and never really gave up their p r i m a r y emphasis on schooling and example rather t h a n preaching. They never, for instance, sent i t i n e r a n t preachers t h r o u g h the nation. I n order to hear the Moravians preach, the Cherokees 1 7

18

19

17

18

19

Report of the Visiting Committee, May 29,1818, ABCFM. Charles Hicks to John Gambold, April 13,1819, MAS. Schwarze, History of Moravian Missions, pp. 124—33.

357

S E Q U O Y A H

AND T H E CHRISTIANS

had to come to their mission stations. Their church members tended to be the w e l l - t o - d o w h o lived i n the v i c i n i t y of their missions and w h o had concluded that belief i n the Christian view of the Great Spirit was a com­ f o r t i n g assurance that they were doing right and w o u l d obtain their re­ wards. M o s t Cherokees, like Pathkiller, i n i t i a l l y viewed the missionaries as benevolent w h i t e man w h o had come out of the goodness of their hearts to help t h e m and their children. " I t was evidence of great l o v e , " Path­ killer told the missionaries at Brainerd i n 1819, " t o be w i l l i n g to teach and feed so m a n y children w i t h o u t p a y . " They had found that other w h i t e men demanded pay for e v e r y t h i n g they did. The missionaries, on the other hand, were pleased to find that so m a n y Cherokees welcomed t h e m and that they were not o n l y more acculturated than they had expected b u t eager to send their children to school. Brainerd, the first A m e r i c a n Board school, was almost overwhelmed b y 119 students i n 1820 and had to struggle to accept t h e m a l l . 20

The missionaries at first supposed that the Cherokees had no organized religion of their o w n . They could see no regular body of priests conduct­ ing weekly services, no sacred places of worship, no rituals of regular de­ v o t i o n to any deity, no statues or religious idols of any k i n d — i n short, no institutionalized religious system. One missionary told his mission board after he had been i n the nation a few weeks that i t was going to be a lot easier to convert the Cherokees than the Hindus or Buddhists i n India be­ cause " t h e y have not a system of false religion handed d o w n . . . w h i c h m u s t be o v e r t u r n e d . " Even w h e n the missionaries made inquiries t h r o u g h interpreters about the beliefs of the Cherokees, they could find no systematic theology behind the Indians' conceptions of the supernat­ ural. " I t is impossible to obtain any tolerable understanding of the Cher­ okee r e l i g i o n , " w r o t e one of the Congregationalists; " I suspect. . . there was n o t h i n g among t h e m w h i c h w o u l d be called a system of religious be­ liefs," or i f there ever had been, he thought i t had long since disap­ peared. W h e n they consulted sympathetic interpreters about translat­ ing the Bible and other Christian w r i t i n g for their sermons or class lessons, they discovered that the Cherokee language had no words for heaven, hell, devil, grace, soul, g u i l t , repentance, forgiveness, conver­ sion, salvation, evil, or sin—concepts that seemed so basic to h u m a n t h o u g h t to the missionaries that their absence signified an almost sub­ h u m a n ignorance. Hence the frequent missionary references to "heathen darkness," "benighted savagery," or "unenlightened paganism." One 21

22

20 21 22

Brainerd Journal, January 1, 1819, ABCFM; Walker, Torchlights, pp. 90-92. Brainerd Journal, April 9,1818, ABCFM. David Green, Report on Brainerd Mission, 1818-1828, dated " A p r i l , 1828," ABCFM.

358

SEQUOYAH

AND THE CHRISTIANS

Cherokee shocked a missionary b y saying that Cherokees " h a d no expec­ t a t i o n of a n y t h i n g after death, that they seldom or never bestowed any thoughts o n these things, that they were not conscious of having done, said, or t h o u g h t a n y t h i n g that was w r o n g or s i n f u l . " The concept of af­ terlife to a Cherokee, insofar as t h e y had any, according to one Cherokee, was " t h a t i n the other w o r l d they shall live i n the same manner i n w h i c h t h e y live here—that they shall find there the same pleasures w h i c h t h e y enjoy on earth; that they shall attend ball-plays and a l l - n i g h t dances and find various amusements i n w h i c h here they take d e l i g h t . " The distance between this w o r l d and the next was slight to the Cherokees. The spirits constantly moved back and f o r t h and so did the dead—in dreams and v i ­ sions their ancestors often came back to talk w i t h t h e m and t h e y could find spiritual omens everywhere to guide or w a r n t h e m . The function of their adonisgi (priests, conjurors, medicine men) was to keep i n touch w i t h these various spirits and to learn f r o m t h e m h o w to help their peo­ ple. T h e i r incantations were secret and i t took some t i m e before the m i s ­ sionaries learned a n y t h i n g about t h e m . " T h e Great S p i r i t " merged w i t h other spirits and took m a n y forms, but after over a century of close con­ tact w i t h whites, the Cherokees understood the n o t i o n of a Creator. O n the other hand, t h e y did not always give the Creator male gender. The Great Spirit had female as w e l l as male attributes and the earth was their M o t h e r . The Sun was a w o m a n and the m o o n her brother. One Cherokee w o m a n , being asked her conception of God b y a missionary i n 1818, said "she t h o u g h t there was somewhere above a good m a n and w o m a n w h o w o u l d make people h a p p y . " 23

24

25

The advent of numerous missionaries d u r i n g the Cherokee renascence was particularly appealing to those i n favor of rapid acculturation—the ambitious, the m i x e d bloods, the ardent nationalists. The evangelical Protestants' dynamic view of h u m a n h i s t o r y and their o p t i m i s m about social progress made more sense to the rising generation of Cherokees than did the static w o r l d view of their o w n religion. Christians provided answers to their questions about h u m a n behavior and social ideals that were of practical help to these Cherokees i n coping w i t h the changes i n their o w n lives and i n p r o v i d i n g hope i n their struggle for achievement and recognition against heavy odds. W h i t e m e n knew things about na­ ture that t h e y did not know, such as h o w to i m m u n i z e people against smallpox and h o w to make steam engines. " T h e Great B o o k " was not o n l y a guide to spiritual and m o r a l t r u t h but the key to the w h i t e man's success i n conquering so m a n y natural obstacles—giving h i m the convie23

Brainerd Journal, July 26, 1818, ABCFM.

24

Walker, Torchlights, p. 27.

25

Brainerd Journal, January 28,1818, ABCFM.

359

SEQUOYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS

t i o n that he was i n control of nature and not vice versa. B y adding the power of w h i t e man's religious vision and zeal to their o w n efforts, the believers i n Cherokee revitalization believed that they had found the final key to success. N o w the full scope of the w h i t e man's w i s d o m and power could be theirs. The "progressive" Cherokees also shared the missionaries' view that the " b a c k w a r d " people of their nation needed enlightenment and i m ­ provement, both m o r a l l y and intellectually. The missionaries wanted to begin b y teaching the children of influential Cherokee leaders and i t came as no surprise that m a n y of these were of mixed ancestry. The mission­ aries also found that such students were the most persistent i n keeping at their lessons, the fastest to learn, and the most eager to gain approval. Not

o n l y had their parents given t h e m better preparation for school

(speaking English i n the home, encouraging t h e m to learn their letters) but they had also given t h e m more encouragement i n school and had shown t h e m i n their o w n lives h o w advantageous i t was to master the skills of the w h i t e m a n . A l l the missionaries agreed that Cherokee children were quick and i n ­ telligent. " T h e general capacity of the Indian c h i l d r e n , " said A r d H o y t after t w o years of teaching, "and their aptness to learn, we t h i n k is not inferior to the w h i t e s . "

26

The Reverend Thomas Roberts, w h o taught

m o s t l y full-blood children at the Baptist school i n Valley Towns, N o r t h Carolina, felt the same w a y : " T h e Cherokee children learn as fast as any Children I ever saw. They are k i n d , obedient, and i n d u s t r i o u s " and their " m e n t a l powers appear to be i n no respect inferior to those of w h i t e s . "

27

Nevertheless, almost all missionary teachers agreed that after the first m o n t h or t w o , the full bloods began to feel frustrated and disappointed. They asked to go home. They and their parents were discouraged at h o w hard i t was to learn English and h o w long it seemed to take. Consequently the missionaries had a disproportionately h i g h n u m b e r of mixed-blood students. " T h e Cherokees generally, but especially the halfbreeds, seem anxious to have their children educated," said H o y t .

2 8

The Reverend Isaac Proctor, w h o taught at the Congregationalist mission i n Etowah, noted that his school was "made up of children of half and quarter Cherokee and the children of w h i t e men w i t h native w i v e s . "

29

The full-blood children generally seemed to be at the b o t t o m of the class. Ard Hoyt to John Calhoun, Annual Report of Brainerd Mission, February 6,1820, M 221, reel 85, #3323. Baptist Christian Watchman, March 9, '1822; see also Latter Day Luminary, January 8, 1822. 26

27

28

29

Ard Hoyt to S. A. Worcester, September 25, 1818, ABCFM. Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, July 28,1827, ABCFM.

360

SEQUOYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS

The mission schools that were established as model farms (Springplace, Brainerd, Valley Towns) devoted part of their c u r r i c u l u m to t r a i n i n g Cherokee boys to be farmers and Cherokee girls to be farmers' wives. The children of wealthier, mixed-blood families had already learned m u c h about f a r m i n g before t h e y entered school at eight or nine. M i x e d - b l o o d Cherokee girls, m a n y of w h o m entered school at eleven or twelve, had already learned h o w to sew, cook, mend, and p e r f o r m other household tasks. The table manners of the mixed-bloods were better. Because the Lancastrian method of teaching was used i n almost all mission schools, the older or more advanced children taught the younger or slower c h i l ­ dren. Invariably the mixed-blood children became teachers to the f u l l bloods. Social differentiation gradually merged into difference i n skin color. The children became painfully conscious that the students of w h i t e or mixed-blood parents were m u c h more successful i n mastering school les­ sons t h a n children of full-blood parents. A k i n d of paternalism or patron­ i z i n g attitude developed. W h e n missionary teachers chose a p u p i l to set an example of correct w r i t i n g , spelling, or arithmetic, the lighter-skinned pupils were always selected. W h e n a missionary teacher asked a p u p i l to w r i t e a letter to a patron of the mission (in N e w York or Boston), explain­ ing the progress the children were m a k i n g , they m i g h t say: " I t h i n k y o u w i l l be pleased to sit i n our school r o o m and see us attend our studies; y o u w o u l d see some t a w n y girls and some w h o are w h i t e as any c h i l d r e n / ' W i t h o u t realizing w h a t she was saying, even a mixed blood m i g h t express her sense of i n f e r i o r i t y toward the w h i t e children of the missionaries i n her classes: " W h e n Miss Ames [the teacher] tells the t w o w h i t e girls t h e y have done w e l l , we [Cherokees] often say that they can do w e l l because t h e y are w h i t e g i r l s . " Sometimes the teacher asked a student to w r i t e about the progress of the Cherokee N a t i o n . W h e n she did, she m i g h t get an essay like t h i s : 3 0

The unenlightened parts of this nation assemble for dances around a fire. Every year when the green corn, beans, etc. are large enough to eat, they dance all night and torture themselves by scratching their bodies with snake teeth before they will eat. . . . Their dishes are made by themselves of clay. . . . Many about this [mission] station are more civilized . . . and appear as well as white people. Or: I think that you would be pleased to hear about the improvement of the Chero­ kees. Many of them have large plantations and [the] greater part of them keep a 30

This and the other letters from mission children cited below in Payne Papers, vm:9-61.

361

SEQUOYAH A N D THE CHRISTIANS

number of Cattle and some have large buildings, but some live miserably; they don't send their children to school and don't care any thing about the Sabbath. A l w a y s the measure of perfection was the w h i t e person ; the closer one was i n skin color, the closer i t seemed one was to meeting that n o r m . The full-blood child always had far to go and could never really catch up. These differences i n learning skills and social status were further ac­ centuated b y the sermons and lectures that the missionaries required the students to hear w h e n they attended church services. Because the Chris­ tian religion was taught as the o n l y true religion, all that the Cherokee traditionalists believed was not o n l y erroneous or false religion but " s u ­ perstitious," " p r i m i t i v e , " "savage," and " b e n i g h t e d . " A l l the religious festivals, dances, and rituals were " u n c l e a n " or " p o l l u t e d " customs. So too were the medical practices of their medicine men. Daniel Butrick re­ ported that his congregation was " v e r y much disaffected on account of sermons I preached on Conjuring, r a i n - m a k i n g , etc.," but he felt obliged nonetheless to w a r n them " o f the folly of those heathenish practises," w h i c h were leading t h e m d o w n to h e l l . The Reverend Isaac Proctor preached against a medicine man named "Zacharias the aged," because he "has lately tried to make i t rain and to cure a member of the church b y conjuration. I laid before h i m his guilt and s i n , " and of course the others i n the congregation h e a r d . 31

32

Students at mission schools were forbidden to attend ball plays for fear that t h e y w o u l d be corrupted b y the d r i n k i n g , gambling and coarse lan­ guage they m i g h t hear and because the players were "practically naked" w h i l e they played. One student w h o was taken f r o m school b y her par­ ents and b r o u g h t back to live i n a remote Lower T o w n w r o t e back to her teachers and fellow students: " I am here amongst a wicked set of people. . . . W h e n I t h i n k of the poor thoughtless Cherokees going on i n sin, I cannot help blessing God that he has led me i n the r i g h t path to serve h i m . " Proctor w o r r i e d about what w o u l d happen to the students f r o m his school w h e n they returned home : "Can we rationally expect, Dear Sir," he w r o t e to the mission board, " y o u t h s after being tolerably w e l l educated, w o u l d stem the current of i n i q u i t y that w o u l d come i n upon t h e m on r e t u r n i n g to their heathenish parents ? Can they adhere to the m o r a l instructions given t h e m and remain chaste and v i r t u o u s w h e n they w o u l d daily be obliged to hear the most i m p u r e , the most obscene con­ versations and witness the most p o l l u t i n g customs?" 3 3

34

3 1

32

33

Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, May 6 , 1 8 2 8 , ABCFM. Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, May 10, 1827, ABCFM. Rufus K. Anderson, ed., Memoir of Catherine Brown (Boston, 1828), p. 39; Walker,

Torchlights, p. 1 8 1 . 34

Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, July 2 8 , 1 8 2 7 , ABCFM.

362

SEQUOYAH

AND THE CHRISTIANS

Few of the missionaries appeared to realize the k i n d of social divisions t h e y were p r o m o t i n g among the Cherokees. To t h e m i t was s i m p l y a matter of r i g h t and w r o n g , the m o r a l and the i m m o r a l ways to t h i n k and behave. W h e n the Reverend Daniel Butrick tried to p o i n t this out to his colleagues, he o n l y revealed something of his o w n p a t r o n i z i n g approach t o w a r d " u p l i f t i n g " the " i g n o r a n t . " [I] think much of the situation of this dear people. There is a very great difference between the highest and the lowest class. The most enlightened scarcely know the depths of ignorance in which the great body of these people live nor how to get down to them so as to raise them. . . . This is the case also with many, if not most, missionaries. They will not come down far enough to take hold even of their blan­ kets to lift them out of this horrible pit. They think they must equal [in living comfort] if not surpass the first class of Cherokees, and thus fix their marks en­ tirely beyond the reach of all the common Indians. . . . In this way, unless pe­ culiar caution is used, two parties will be formed which will probably be called, though falsely, the Christian and Pagan party. 35

Butrick's prediction was all too accurate. The split between those favoring rapid acculturation and missionary expansion and those favoring reten­ t i o n of the o l d ways did produce an uprising i n 1827 that reflected a n t i mission sentiment i n m a n y aspects. Butrick was also r i g h t i n saying that to label the t w o parties i n the rebellion " C h r i s t i a n " and "Pagan" was i n ­ accurate. As he tried to point out, the issue at stake was the resentment of the poorer and full-blood Cherokees against " t h e pride and superior­ i t y " of the rich and mixed-blood Cherokees. The missionaries did m u c h to contribute to that resentment. Butrick also pointed out that i f the mixed-blood chiefs w h o dominated so m u c h of the nation's affairs "de­ t e r m i n e to support u s " i n such a confrontation, " t h e y w o u l d v e r y prob­ ably lose their a u t h o r i t y , " for the full bloods vastly o u t n u m b e r e d those of m i x e d ancestry and held the m a j o r i t y i n the Council. O f the four denominations that tried to spread C h r i s t i a n i t y t h r o u g h the n a t i o n i n the 1820s, the Moravians were the least successful and the Methodists the most. A s of January 1830, the U n i t e d B r e t h r e n ( M o r a ­ vian) mission churches had 45 members; the Baptist mission churches, 90; the Congregational/Presbyterian mission churches, 167; and the M e t h o d i s t mission churches, 7 3 6 . The missionaries did t h e i r best at the outset to play d o w n denominational differences, b u t the Cherokees were quick to sense t h e m . The missionaries were not as different i n theology (the Congregationalists and Baptists were more Calvinistic, the M o r a v i ­ ans and Methodists more A r m i n i a n ) as i n their religious style and i n the 36

35

36

Daniel Butrick's Journal, November 4,1824, ABCFM. See Cherokee Phoenix, January 1,1830 [actually 1831].

363

SEQUOYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS

demands t h e y placed upon those w h o wished to become members. The Moravians had the most strict requirements, the Methodists, the least strict. The Baptists and Congregationalists were closer to the Moravians i n this respect. Strictness meant, i n part, the requirements of a religious experience of salvation that the convert could describe as a w o r k of grace b y the H o l y Spirit, t r a n s f o r m i n g his or her heart (or soul) f r o m sinful e n m i t y t o w a r d God to wholehearted submission to God. I t also meant a sound knowledge of the doctrinal tenets of the denomination, regular at­ tendance at church and prayer meetings, and exemplary m o r a l deport­ ment. Beyond that, i t meant the willingness to renounce totally all " p o l ­ l u t i n g pagan customs," thereby c u t t i n g the convert off f r o m the most basic aspects of tribal c o m m u n i t y . Even the t o w n councils were steeped i n rituals. Ball plays were forbidden, as they were to mission students, to adult Christians. To j o i n a Methodist society (which the Methodists con­ sidered " t u r n i n g t o w a r d " Christianity), the Cherokees had o n l y to ex­ press a sincere desire to become a Christian and submit to Christian teaching. O t h e r factors were involved i n the choices Cherokees made among the denominations. The Methodist preachers were more democratic, younger, and some of t h e m were married to Cherokees. They had no large mission establishments but rode from village to village on horse­ back, sleeping i n the cabins of the Cherokees, sharing their food, treating t h e m as equals. The other three denominations were more aloof and paternalistic. T h e y stood apart f r o m the Indian and sought to make h i m lift himself up to their level of religious and social behavior. They were slower to admit h i m to church and quicker to cast h i m out i f he was g u i l t y of some relapse i n t o paganism or m o r a l fault. Joining a mission church was not the o n l y w a y to appropriate the spir­ itual power of C h r i s t i a n i t y . M a n y Cherokees w h o were attracted to the new religion adapted i t to their o w n needs i n their o w n ways. T h e y cre­ ated a Cherokee f o r m of Christianity rather than conforming to the w h i t e man's version of Christianity. Little of this was evident i n the 1820s be­ cause of the tensions that developed between missionaries and t r a d i t i o n ­ alists and because the Cherokees' attention was focused so strongly upon the secular reformation taking place i n their social order. After 1830, however, w h e n the missionaries began to back off, a new k i n d of Christianization took place under the preaching of Cherokee converts w h o , i n their o w n language and style, spoke of what C h r i s t i a n i t y could mean i n their lives on their terms. The w o r k of the native m i n i s t r y was not con­ nected w i t h specific doctrines or creeds and did not necessarily lead to church membership. The native exhorters were not, for the most part, 364

SEQUOYAH AND THE CHRISTIANS

ordained b y any denomination and therefore could not administer bap­ t i s m , c o m m u n i o n , marriage, and the other rituals of denominational church life. B u t i n the l o n g r u n they were able to do more than w h i t e m i s ­ sionaries for the Cherokees w h o needed a different vision of the w o r l d and t h e y were able to speak of this f r o m their o w n experience as Chero­ kees. F r o m these native preachers and from other converts, the Chero­ kees learned h o w C h r i s t i a n i t y could be a source of help and power that did not make t h e m feel inferior to whites and that did not compel t h e m to become just like whites. I t u n i t e d Cherokees and w h i t e Christians i n the brotherhood of a transdenominational and interracial spiritual c o m m u ­ n i t y . T h r o u g h i t t h e y found a new order, meaning, and direction i n t h e i r lives. A t this level of renewal or r e b i r t h , C h r i s t i a n i t y became part of the Cherokee renascence. The miracle of restored u n i t y w i t h the Great Spirit could then combine w i t h the miracle Sequoyah provided of w r i t t e n selfexpression to provide t h e m w i t h a holistic new i d e n t i t y : faith w i t h i n themselves and i n a power beyond themselves. Thereafter the Cherokee renascence combined the secular revitalization of their nationalistic t h r u s t and the spiritual revitalization of their religious renovation. The old religion did not die, but i t began to adapt itself to new understandings of the sources of spiritual power that guided the universe and gave i t meaning. The Cherokees slowly learned how to be part of the c o m m u n i t y of a wider w o r l d and yet h o w to see their particular ethnic destiny w i t h i n it. One w a y i n w h i c h C h r i s t i a n i t y could be used to support nationalism was demonstrated i n 1832 w h e n the Principal Chief gave a secular sermon on a fast day he had proclaimed for the nation. I n this talk he urged the Cherokees to appeal to God (or the Great Spirit) for help as a nation and drew an analogy between Satan's persecution of Job and A n d e w Jackson's unjust persecution of the Cherokees. A l t h o u g h revitalization brought a sense of tribal self-confidence, i t also produced differences on internal policies. A dramatic debate began i n 1824 over the necessity for further acculturation. 37

37

See McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 338-40.

365

E I G H T E E N

TOO MUCH ACCULTURATION, 1824-1828 The arts of civilized life [have] been successfully introduced among [us]; [we] consider ourselves permanently settled and no inducement can ever prompt [us] to abandon [our] habitations for a distant, wild and strange clime. —Cherokee memorial to John Quincy Adams, 1824

T

he popular rebellion that broke out against acculturation i n 1827 and that has usually been called " W h i t e Path/s Rebellion" began as early as 1824. I t cannot be attributed to W h i t e Path or to any particular chief. The rebellion came from the b o t t o m up, from a widespread popular uneasiness over the policies of certain nationalist leaders. Its immediate cause was the effort of the National Council to force the adoption of a w r i t t e n constitution for the nation i n 1827. However, there were deepseated causes going back for almost a decade ; dislike of the proliferation of new laws that seemed to have little relevance to the lives of most of the Cherokees; persistent efforts b y an acculturated elite to please the mis­ sionaries by denigrating the customs and pastimes of the m a j o r i t y ; and the increasingly aggressive evangelism of more and more missionaries w h o invaded every corner of the nation, denouncing traditional beliefs and practices, attacking the medicine men, dividing family against f a m i l y and children against parents. A t its base the rebellion was a reaction against the pace and pervasiveness of acculturation rather than against ac­ culturation itself. I t was not i n any sense a rejection of nationalism or a reversion to barbarism. The rebellion was i n m a n y respects an act of self-assertion and self-re­ spect b y the more conservative part of the nation, a mark of the new selfconfidence bred by their renascence as a people—a pride of accomplish­ ment and perseverance for w h i c h the mixed bloods and the educated took too m u c h of the credit. The ability of the Cherokees to support t h e m ­ selves economically and their recognition that they had at last achieved a sense of order after years of chaos and confusion was one source of their pride. The fact that they had staved off t w o federal attempts to remove t h e m t o t a l l y from their homeland was another. A series of successful re­ jections of federal attempts to obtain more land cessions i n 1822, 1823, 366

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

and 1824 convinced the Cherokees that they had at last learned to hold their o w n against the w h i t e man. They could n o w speak to h i m as equals and command respect. Internal political reforms allowed t h e m to speak w i t h one voice on diplomatic matters and produced an efficient system of self-government that was superior to that of m a n y frontier communities around t h e m . The successful discovery of a w a y to w r i t e their o w n l a n ­ guage evoked a new sense of their i d e n t i t y , h i s t o r y , and potential. T h e y began to wonder whether they needed any longer to take knowledge and manners f r o m the w h i t e missionaries and all their leadership f r o m a handful of acculturated, well-to-do mixed bloods w h o claimed to speak for t h e m i n e v e r y t h i n g . The tangible signs of Cherokee achievement were everywhere i n 1824: their t h r i v i n g capital at N e w Echota w i t h its handsome public buildings; their well-dressed, forceful leaders; their new gristmills, sawmills, and turnpikes; their educated y o u n g man w h o , however supercilious t o w a r d "the backward" or " l o w e r class" Cherokees, provided proof that a Cher­ okee could do all that a w h i t e man could. Some of these scholars had been to the A m e r i c a n Board's seminary i n Connecticut; they could read Latin and Greek and understood the w h i t e man's philosophy, h i s t o r y , t h e o l ­ ogy, and political economy. One of the graduates of C o r n w a l l Academy w o u l d , i n 1828, edit their bilingual newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix, for w h i c h the Council ordered fonts of type i n Sequoyan as w e l l as i n Eng­ lish. There were several controversies i n the years 1824—1827 that made even well-educated Cherokees question h o w f r u i t f u l i t was to continue to seek integration i n t o a w h i t e society that discriminated against t h e m . T h e y wondered w h y , for example, having shown all that they could ac­ complish, were the réservées consistently denied the r i g h t to become cit­ izens i n the surrounding states? W h y were Cherokees still denied the r i g h t to testify on their o w n behalf i n w h i t e courts ? W h y were t h e y t o l d t h e y could not lay internal taxes to support their government? W h y w o u l d n ' t the W a r Department pay t h e m for policing their borders? W h y were t h e y refused the funds f r o m their o w n land sales to endow their o w n schools? Even the most sanguine Cherokees were shocked at the racial prejudice exhibited b y the townspeople and Congregational clergy of C o r n w a l l , Connecticut, toward t w o of their finest y o u n g m e n , John Ridge and Elias Boudinot, i n the years 1823-1825. These t w o y o u n g m e n had gone to the A m e r i c a n Board's academy and had fallen i n love w i t h t w o y o u n g w h i t e w o m e n i n the t o w n of C o r n w a l l . W h e n they asked these w o m e n to m a r r y t h e m and the w o m e n accepted, the townspeople, the l o ­ cal clergy, the women's relatives, and even the trustees of the academy recoiled i n h o r r o r and tried strenuously to prevent the marriages. W h i t e citizens held mass meetings to denounce these " t a w n y " savages for their 367

TOO MUCH

ACCULTURATION

audacity. A local newspaper editor deplored the possibility that these fair y o u n g ladies w o u l d become the "squaws" of heathen barbarians. A re­ spectable m o b burned one of the couples i n effigy. W o r s t of all, the t r u s ­ tees of the school (Congregational ministers and members of the A m e r i ­ can Board, whose missionaries were teaching t h e m that red and w h i t e Christians were all brothers and sisters under the skin) not o n l y con­ demned the marriages but, after they took place against their wishes, voted to close the mission school forever lest any more dark-skinned m e n t r y to m a r r y their white-skinned w o m e n . Despite all that the mission­ aries f r o m N e w England l i v i n g i n the Cherokee N a t i o n could do to de­ plore this behavior of their friends and superiors, these incidents cut deeply i n t o the collective psyche of a people w h o had just begun to w i n back its self-esteem and w h o had accepted the missionaries f r o m the n o r t h as its best source of hope against w h i t e injustice. I t confirmed the worst fears of those suspicious of w h i t e benevolence. W h y make such haste to please these people by adjusting all the new laws to their stand­ ards of m o r a l i t y ? I f n o r t h e r n Christians were repudiating the policy that had said intermarriage was the road to equality, i f even the most b r i l l i a n t , w e a l t h y , and h i g h l y acculturated of their y o u n g people (persons dedi­ cated to the cause of Christianity) were not respectable enough to m a r r y w h i t e N e w Englanders, then what hope was there for the average Cher­ okee i n the civilization program ? The rebellion i n 1827 expressed a deeply felt belief that the Cherokee people were at the point of no r e t u r n . The adoption of a constitution based upon that of the U n i t e d States, a l t h o u g h it appeared to m a n y frontier whites as the last arrogant step toward Cher­ okee independence, struck m a n y o r d i n a r y Cherokees as the final surren­ der of their ethnic i d e n t i t y . 1

I t was no coincidence that the rebellion among the Cherokees came just w h e n w h i t e Americans were redefining their o w n national i d e n t i t y . I n the 1820s Americans were shucking off the last vestiges of the E n l i g h t ­ enment and the classical mode that had inspired the Founding Fathers. They were adopting instead the new mode of romantic C h r i s t i a n i t y and Anglo-Saxon manifest destiny. I n 1828 these Americans w o u l d raise to the Presidency the champion of the c o m m o n man against aristocratic privilege—-the spokesman of western expansion and u n t r a m m e l e d lais­ sez-faire free enterprise. America was now ready to define its mission to lead the w o r l d to the m i l l e n n i u m . But what Jacksonians explained as vox populi, vox del, Alexis de Tocqueville was to describe i n 1835 as " t h e t y r ­ a n n y of the m a j o r i t y . " For different versions of the Cherokee marriages in Cornwall see Ralph M . Gabriel, Elias Boudinot (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1941), pp. 57-92; Wilkins, Cher­ okee Tragedy, pp. 144-52; McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 187-90. 1

368

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

John Q u i n c y Adams was the last President of the old school. He was c o m m i t t e d ( i n t h e o r y ) to the original Indian policy of George W a s h i n g ­ t o n . H i s v i c t o r y over A n d r e w Jackson i n 1824 was a fluke, the result of a three-way race i n w h i c h Jackson was obviously the most popular candi­ date b u t lacked the electoral votes to w i n . Adams and his old Federalist school of politics were l i v i n g on borrowed t i m e f r o m 1824 to 1828 and so were the Cherokees. A Cherokee delegation visited Adams s h o r t l y after his i n a u g u r a t i o n i n M a r c h 1825, h o p i n g to convince h i m to make some arrangement w i t h the frontier states that w o u l d stop t h e m f r o m h o u n d ­ i n g the Cherokees to give up more land. " T h e crisis seems at hand," said the Cherokee deputation, " w h i c h must forever seal their d o o m : C i v i l i ­ zation and preservation or dispersion and extinction awaits t h e m . This G o v e r n m e n t [ i . e . , Adams's administration] is the t r i b u n a l w h i c h m u s t pass sentence." T h e y assured Adams that they could never be persuaded to leave t h e i r homeland v o l u n t a r i l y . " T h e arts of civilized life has been successfully introduced among t h e m ; they consider themselves perma­ n e n t l y settled and no inducement can ever p r o m p t t h e m to abandon t h e i r habitations for a distant, w i l d and strange c l i m e . " T h e y pointed o u t to Adams that although "unceasing exertions" had been made to force the Cherokees to y i e l d their rights, " w e have never as yet witnessed a single attempt made on the part of the Government to b r i n g the Compact of 1802 w i t h Georgia to a close b y compromise." W h y was i t always the rights of the Indians that must y i e l d , w h e n their rights were equally p r o ­ tected b y the U n i t e d States Constitution? " W e do sincerely hope that measures m a y be adopted b y the U n i t e d States and Georgia so as to close their compact w i t h o u t teasing the Cherokees for any more of t h e i r land."

2

Yet o n the same day that they were asking the new President to t u r n his attention to some other w a y of solving " t h e Indian question," his Sec­ retary of War, James Barbour, instructed M c K e n n e y of the Office of I n ­ dian Affairs to be sure to ask the Cherokee delegates before t h e y left W a s h i n g t o n whether they were authorized b y their Council " t o negoti­ ate . . . for a sale" of Cherokee land " l y i n g w i t h i n the l i m i t s of Georgia." W h e n asked, the delegates replied politely that t h e y were not so author­ ized and suggested that M c K e n n e y reread their letter of February 1 1 , 1824, to John C. Calhoun i n w h i c h they said they never intended to sell one more foot of their l a n d .

3

Cherokee delegation to John Quincy Adams, March 12, 1825, M-234, reel 71, #0518. Adams noted i n his diary that each of the chiefs "possess fifty to a hundred thousand dollars property," which was a slight exaggeration. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 156. ASP i i , 474. Cherokee delegation to Calhoun, February 11,1824, M-234, reel 71, #0016; Cherokee delegation to Thomas McKenney, March 14,1825, M-234, reel 71, #0524. 2

3

369

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

D u r i n g the next four years, the Cherokees were subjected to the same "teasing" for land f r o m Barbour that they had experienced f r o m every preceding Secretary of War. President Adams and his party were i n too precarious a position politically to risk alienating the voters i n Georgia and other southeastern states that still had large bodies of Indians w i t h i n their borders. Barbour, w i t h Adam's support, pursued " t h e v o l u n t a r y I n ­ dian c o l o n i z a t i o n " policy that Calhoun had adopted i n the last year of M o n r o e ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . As Monroe's Secretary of State, Adams had 4

had no objection to Indian colonization i n the west; although Congress did not fund i t w h e n requested to by M o n r o e and Calhoun i n January 1825, Adams still believed that Indian removal was the o n l y feasible an­ swer to "the Indian q u e s t i o n . "

5

The Indian colonization policy was designed to create a vast " I n d i a n T e r r i t o r y " i n the unsettled part of the Louisiana T e r r i t o r y west of A r k a n ­ sas, M i s s o u r i , and M i c h i g a n . There, under close government supervi­ sion, all of the tribes east of the Mississippi were to be removed, consoli­ dated, and provided w i t h laws designed for their " h a l f - c i v i l i z e d " state.

6

Some accused Calhoun of p r o m o t i n g this i n order to prevent expansion by n o r t h e r n settlers, thereby curtailing the g r o w t h of " f r e e " states. U n ­ der this plan, whites w o u l d be perpetually prohibited f r o m settling west of a line f r o m Arkansas to Canada. The Indians were to be assured that " w i t h o u t destroying their independence" the government w o u l d gradu­ ally " u n i t e the several tribes under a simple but enlightened system of government and laws formed on the principles of our o w n , and to w h i c h , as their o w n people w o u l d partake i n i t , they w o u l d , under the influence of the contemplated i m p r o v e m e n t , at no distant day become prepared" for statehood and representation i n Congress. H o w each of the m a n y dif­ 7

ferent tribes could remain "independent" and still be consolidated under one set of laws administered b y federal officials was not v e r y clear, nor were the criteria to be met for admission as an Indian t e r r i t o r y . W i t h o u t facing the fact directly, the United States was d r i f t i n g t o w a r d a f o r m of regionalized Indian segregation. A l t h o u g h the Indians m i g h t become cit­ izens and m i g h t even gain some k i n d of representation i n Congress, t h e y See Annie H . Abel, "Proposals for an Indian State, 1778-1878," Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1907 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1908), 1:90-99. Prucha, American Indian Policy, p. 231. Annie H . Abel, "The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi," Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1906 (Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1908), 1:342-43; Abel, "Proposals for an Indian State," 1:90-99. Abel, "Proposals for an Indian State," .1:91, note g. 4

5

6

7

370

TOO MUCH

ACCULTURATION

w o u l d always be segregated i n one particular area and w o u l d always re­ m a i n a t i n y m i n o r i t y w i t h little influence i n national affairs. The o n l y v i r t u e i n Adams's colonization proposal was that i t adhered to the v i e w that removal w o u l d be v o l u n t a r y . The pressure to remove v o l u n t a r i l y , however, became increasingly strong. The Indians were being made an offer they could not refuse. W h e n Congress failed to au­ thorize M o n r o e ' s request for $125,000 to inaugurate this process (start­ i n g w i t h pressure upon the Cherokees and Creeks i n Georgia), Adams, Barbour and M c K e n n e y nevertheless decided to reintroduce the b i l l again i n the next session of Congress. M c K e n n e y was particularly eager to have it endorsed b y missionaries among the Indians, i n order to persuade the public that these i m p a r t i a l , benevolent m e n , w h o knew the Indians better t h a n anyone else, agreed that this was the best possible solution to w h a t was becoming a major domestic problem. I f the U n i t e d States was to ex­ pand westward to pursue its destiny, the Indians east of the Mississippi somehow had to be moved out of the w a y . The p r o b l e m was to persuade a public inclined to Christian p h i l a n t h r o p y , fidelity to treaty promises, and romantic sentimentalism that removal was the most benevolent so­ l u t i o n possible. James Fenimore Cooper had w r i t t e n the first of his great Indian romances i n 1823 and The Last of the Mohicans appeared i n 1826. To the easterner, the Indian was becoming a romantic s y m b o l of the past—a disappearing people w h o deserved Christian compassion and h u ­ m a n i t a r i a n sympathy. Politicians w h o yielded to the heartless demands of land speculators and frontier Indian-haters were sure to arouse r i g h t ­ eous i n d i g n a t i o n f r o m this segment of the public. John Q u i n c y Adams, e m p l o y i n g the balance pole of "benevolent colonization," tried for four years to w a l k the tightrope between the eastern and the western views of the Indian question. H e w r o t e i n his diary i n 1825: " [ B a r b o u r ] has given up the idea of incorporating the Indians i n t o the several States where t h e y reside. He has n o w substituted that of f o r m i n g t h e m all i n t o a great t e r r i t o r i a l G o v e r n m e n t West of the Mississippi. . . . I fear there is no practicable plan by w h i c h they can be organized i n t o one civilized, or half-civilized G o v e r n m e n t . . . but they [his cabinet] had n o t h i n g more effective to propose, and I approved i t . " 8

To the Cherokees the w o r s t part of this plan was its policy of encour­ aging i n d i v i d u a l e m i g r a t i o n f r o m each tribe whether the tribe as a w h o l e favored the proposal or not. This w o u l d divide each tribe piecemeal, fo­ m e n t i n g discontent to the p o i n t of total destabilization. There were a l ­ ways malcontents, as i n the Creek Path area of the Cherokee N a t i o n , ready (for m o n e y and other inducements) to move west. For ardent Cher8

Abel, "Indian Consolidation, 1:316; Prucha, American Indian Policy, p. 231.

371

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

okee nationalists, the o n l y possible response to Adam's colonization plan was adamant refusal. O n l y a f i r m resolve to speak and act i n u n i t y could prevent their disintegration. Over the next few years the Cherokees were to see their worst fears realized as tribe after tribe gave up and w e n t west under inexorable government pressure and i n t e r n a l d i s u n i t y . Those tribal nationalists w h o tried to hang on to their land often found i t sold out f r o m under t h e m b y a handful of self-interested chiefs. The tribe that most i m m e d i a t e l y concerned the Cherokees was the Creek N a t i o n , w i t h w h o m they shared their long southern border. Ever since the Creek War, the Creeks had been forced to sell more and more of their land. The State of Georgia, where they owned more land and had more people than the Cherokees, was desperate to get r i d of t h e m because they were on some of its best black-soil cotton land. The Creeks were u n ­ fortunately led b y a group of venal chiefs like W i l l i a m M c i n t o s h w h o used their power to make profitable deals for themselves. Furthermore, m a n y of the Creeks had been unsympathetic to acculturation. T h e y had by no means kept pace w i t h the Cherokees and i n some cases had even driven out missionaries. Still divided i n t o Upper and Lower divisions, the Creeks lacked cohesion and leadership. I f the Creeks were forced to re­ move or to sell land on their n o r t h e r n border that w o u l d then separate t h e m f r o m the Cherokees, the Cherokee N a t i o n w o u l d be surrounded b y whites. Intruders w o u l d m u l t i p l y and national stability w o u l d suffer. A w a r e of this danger, some of the astute, educated y o u n g Cherokees decided i n 1824 to offer political assistance to the Creeks, an effort that did n o t endear t h e m to the Georgians or to the W a r Department. S h o r t l y before the Creeks were to begin negotiations for a sale of their land i n October 1824, the Creek council tried to follow the policy of the Chero­ kees. I t voted that " o n a deep and solemn reflection, we have w i t h one voice [concluded] to follow the pattern of the Cherokees and on no ac­ count whatever w i l l we consent to sell one foot of our land neither b y ex­ change or o t h e r w i s e . " S i m i l a r l y , the Creeks had passed a law p r o v i d i n g 9

the death penalty to any chief w h o signed a treaty ceding land w i t h o u t the consent of the full council. W h e n the same negotiators w h o had failed to move the Cherokees t o w a r d a cession that year (James M e r i w e t h e r and Duncan Campbell) arrived i n the Creek N a t i o n , they reported to the Secretary of W a r that " f o r some t i m e past the Cherokees [have] exerted a steady and officious interference i n the affairs of [the C r e e k s ] . "

10

Una­

ble to persuade the m a j o r i t y of the Creek council to cede its land i n Geor­ gia, M e r i w e t h e r and Campbell made a fraudulent treaty w i t h eight chiefs 9 10

Debo, Road to Disappearance, p. 88. ASP i i , 5 7 0 ; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 1 6 3 - 8 0 .

372

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

at Indian Springs i n February 1825. The cession included m i l l i o n s of acres, v i r t u a l l y all the Creek holdings i n Georgia. The Senate ratified this treaty just before John Q u i n c y Adams took office, b u t w h e n the Creeks executed Chief W i l l i a m M c i n t o s h for his part i n the cession and w h e n even the federal agent protested that the treaty was unjust, Adams de­ cided to reconsider i t . His was a most unusual decision and one that the people of Georgia deeply resented. 1 1

A t this p o i n t the Creek N a t i o n made a formal agreement w i t h three Cherokees, M a j o r Ridge, his son John, and David V a n n , to assist t h e m i n t h e i r future negotiations w i t h the U n i t e d States. John Q u i n c y Adams had sent General E d m u n d P. Gaines to investigate the fraudulent Creek Treaty of Indian Springs. Led b y Chief Opothle Yoholo, the Creeks and their new Cherokee advisors made arrangements w i t h Gaines i n July 1825 to reconsider the treaty i n Washington. The Creeks asked Gaines to accept John Ridge and David V a n n as v o t i n g members of t h e i r delegation, b u t Gaines said that the most the t w o Cherokees could do w o u l d be to act as secretary and scribe for the Creeks. Under this arrangement y o u n g Ridge and V a n n accompanied Opothle Yoholo and the other Creek chiefs to W a s h i n g t o n . 12

13

There, Gaines recommended to Adams that the Treaty of Indian Springs should be abrogated because i t was fraudulent. To assuage the anger of the Georgians, the Creeks agreed to renegotiate a proper treaty that w o u l d cede approximately the same amount of land i f the govern­ m e n t w o u l d pay a just price for i t . Ridge and V a n n played a crucial part i n all the negotiations that followed and earned the respect of the Creeks for t h e i r skill and honesty. The government agreed to pay the Creeks a perpetual a n n u i t y of $20,000 per year, to provide a school fund, and to give t h e m an equal tract of land i n exchange on the Verdigris River i n the western part of the Arkansas T e r r i t o r y (later O k l a h o m a ) . I n addition, t h e y negotiated an extra $217,600 for the chiefs that w o u l d cover the costs of the delegation i n W a s h i n g t o n and provide funds for r e s t i t u t i o n and e m i g r a t i o n . The Creeks still retained over half t h e i r land i n the East (now m o s t l y i n Alabama) and their n o r t h e r n border w i t h the Cherokees remained almost intact. The Creeks paid Ridge and V a n n $5,000 each for their services and gave Major Ridge a gift of $10,000 for his advice. 14

W h e n i t t u r n e d out that because of faulty maps this treaty did not eliminate all Creek title to land i n Georgia, Barbour began negotiations for the r e m a i n i n g 192,000 acres. W h e n the Creeks refused to sell this 11 12 1 3

14

Debo, Road to Disappearance, pp. 89-92; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 164. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 163-65. Ibid. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 171.

373

TOO MUCH

ACCULTURATION

land, Barbour claimed that V a n n and Ridge were behind the decision. He w r o t e to the Principal Chief of the Creeks, Little Prince, saying, " Y o u r Great Father fears that there m a y be bad men among y o u w h o advise y o u against his wishes. There is great reason to apprehend that John Ridge and David V a n n , natives of the Cherokee N a t i o n , are v e r y i m p r o p e r l y i n ­ terfering i n the affairs of the Creek N a t i o n and by their Council creating and keeping up a feeling i n that N a t i o n dangerous to its peace and hostile to the best view of the Government w i t h respect to i t . "

1 5

Such u n f r i e n d l y

behavior, Barbour said, was " h i g h l y disapproved of b y the President and cannot be p e r m i t t e d . " Barbour told the Creeks that failure to correct this problem w o u l d "lead to consequences that w o u l d seriously affect the t r a n q u i l i t y and happiness of the Cherokee N a t i o n " as w e l l as themselves, i n order to frighten the Cherokees i n t o persuading their chiefs to force the Ridges and V a n n to w i t h d r a w their services.

16

I n response, the Cherokee

Council voted that the Creek advisors had acted i n their capacity as p r i ­ vate citizens i n this matter and had a perfect r i g h t to do s o .

17

Barbour was r i g h t that V a n n and the Ridges were actively counseling their neighbors to hold out against any further cessions. John Ridge not o n l y had d r a w n up the protest for the Creeks against ceding the additional 192,000 acres i n Georgia but had also helped draw up a complaint for t h e m against the abusive and corrupt behavior of their federal agent, John Crowell.

18

Moreover, the three Cherokees began efforts to help the

Creeks to better consolidate their nation and centralize their government as the Cherokees had done. M c K e n n e y came to the Creek N a t i o n i n 1827 and managed to persuade Little Prince that Opothle Yoholo was p l o t t i n g w i t h the Cherokees to undermine his power as Principal Chief. Little Prince then threatened to k i l l John Ridge i f he did not leave the nation at once and agreed w i t h M c K e n n e y to sign a treaty ceding the last 192,000 acres of Creek land i n G e o r g i a .

19

M c K e n n e y reported to Barbour that the

Creeks were "a wretched people" given to "habitual drunkenness" w h o , t h r o u g h "ignorance and weakness," had allowed these Cherokee chiefs to insinuate themselves i n t o Creek affairs. "Conscious of their o w n ineffi­ ciency to manage for themselves their concerns, they have yielded to this James Barbour to Little Prince, June 23, 1827, M - 2 1 , reel 4, pp. 78-82; Thomas Mc­ Kenney to John Crowell, April 26,1827, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 31. James Barbour to Cherokee Council, June 25, 1827, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 83; Thomas McKenney to James Barbour, November 13,1827, M-234, reel 72, #0254. John Ross to James Barbour, August 1,1827, M-234, reel 72, #0251. Thomas McKenney to John Crowell, April 26,1827, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 3 1 ; S. S. Hamil­ ton to John Crowell, September 3, 1827, M - 2 1 , reel 4, pp. 123-24. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 179-80; Luther Blake to Thomas McKenney, Febru­ ary 8, 1828, M-221, reel 107, #7024; Thomas McKenney to James Barbour, February 22, 1827, M - 2 1 , reel 3, p. 395. 15

16

17

18

19

374

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

state of dependence on others." He was happy to say that w i t h o u t such outside interference i n the future, " t h e y w o u l d submit cheerfully to be guided b y the G o v e r n m e n t . " 20

John Ridge had a v e r y different view of the controversy w i t h M c ­ Kenney, w h i c h was later published i n the Cherokee Phoenix. He said that w h i l e he was i n W a s h i n g t o n renegotiating the Treaty of Indian Springs, certain federal officials had tried to bribe h i m and V a n n i n t o b e t r a y i n g the Creek delegation. W h e n t h e y refused the bribe, the government decided to deprive the Creeks of their assistance. 21

The y o u n g Cherokee leaders later proposed to assist the Choctaws, b u t t h e y discovered that the Choctaws had been warned b y the W a r Depart­ m e n t to have n o t h i n g to do w i t h t h e m . M c K e n n e y had w r i t t e n to t h e m i n December 1827 w h e n efforts were about to begin to remove t h e m to the west: "Ridge, I t h i n k , is a dangerous, meddling m a n . You m u s t be­ ware of s u c h . " I t proved impossible to b r i n g about cooperation among the southeastern tribes at this critical point. The government was able to prey u p o n the fears of each tribe that either i t w o u l d be duped b y its neighbors or i t w o u l d be severely punished b y the government for ac­ cepting outside aid. 22

A new problem for the Cherokees arose i n July 1826 w h e n John Q u i n c y Adams, at the insistence of the states of Georgia and Tennessee, urged the Cherokees to allow surveys to be made t h r o u g h their land for canals and horse-drawn r a i l w a y s . The Cherokees were t o l d of the m a n y economic benefits that w o u l d come to t h e m f r o m opening such avenues of trade and e m p l o y m e n t , b u t the Council saw the matter as political, rather than economic. I t replied that after mature deliberation " a n d w i t h a full sense of the great importance of i n t e r n a l i m p r o v e m e n t s , " i t had nevertheless concluded that " n o individual state shall be p e r m i t t e d to make i n t e r n a l improvements w i t h i n the sovereign l i m i t s of the Cherokee N a t i o n . " The request w o u l d infringe upon Cherokee sovereignty and " t h e Cherokee N a t i o n can never surrender" jurisdiction over any part of its soil to a state of the U n i o n . The Cherokees dealt o n l y w i t h the federal government. Intrastate canals and railways, whether owned b y a state or by private corporations, w o u l d set a bad precedent and weaken the Cher­ okees' r i g h t to rely upon the treaty power i n dealing w i t h w h i t e s . To Adams and Barbour, national expansion and commerce required that the 23

24

25

Thomas McKenney to James Barbour, November 29,1827, M - 2 1 , reel 4, pp. 153-57. Cherokee Phoenix, April 3,1828, and July 2,1828. Thomas McKenney to David Folsom, December 13,1827, M - 2 1 , reel 3, pp. 177-78. James Barbour to Hugh Montgomery, July 19,1826, M - 2 1 , reel 3, p. 149. Hugh Montgomery to the Cherokee Council, September 26, 1827, M-208; Hugh Montgomery to Charles Hicks, December 18,1826, M-208. Cherokee Council to Hugh Montgomery, December 18,1826, M-208. 2 0 21

22 23 24

25

375

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

federal government assist the states w i t h internal improvements. Adams believed that the Cherokees' refusal to consent to canals and railways t h r o u g h the nation was another example of their interference w i t h A m e r ­ ica's national prosperity, commerce, and expansion. To the Cherokees, the division of their nation by canals and railways w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y de­ stroy their national i n t e g r i t y ; ownership and profits w o u l d go to w h i t e entrepreneurs. A t the same t i m e that Georgia and Tennessee began ask­ i n g for a r i g h t of w a y for the Hiwassee and Coosa Canal, N o r t h Carolina persuaded a three-man commission under General John Cocke to ap­ proach the Cherokee Council " f o r the two-fold purpose of procuring an e x t i n g u i s h m e n t " of Cherokee claims to all land w i t h i n the limits of N o r t h Carolina and to obtain a r i g h t of w a y to build a canal connecting the H i ­ wassee and Connasauga rivers to aid the people of N o r t h C a r o l i n a . Cocke arrived i n the nation to negotiate just as the Cherokee rebellion against acculturation was reaching its climax i n 1827. Never had the need for Cherokee u n i t y been greater and yet never since Doublehead's day had t h e y been so at odds. 26

W h i l e the surrounding states were becoming increasingly aggressive i n their demands to obtain land and commercial privileges f r o m the Cher­ okees, the missionaries were becoming more aggressive i n their efforts to obtain converts. Despite the assistance that the A m e r i c a n Board, t h r o u g h Dr. Samuel Worcester, had rendered to the nation i n 1819 and despite the eagerness w i t h w h i c h m a n y Cherokees had sent their children to the Board's mission schools over the next five years, there were always m a n y Cherokees w h o were skeptical about the missionaries' motives. The first signs of resentment appeared i n 1821, w h e n the rapid g r o w t h of mission stations led some local chiefs to complain that the missionaries were set­ t l i n g on what remained of their good land. They feared that i n some de­ vious w a y the missionaries' purpose was u l t i m a t e l y to force the removal of the nation to Arkansas so that the mission board could speculate on their land. That year Charles Hicks warned the Congregationalists at Brainerd that i t was "necessary to proceed w i t h great c a u t i o n " i n t o new areas of the n a t i o n ; "the more ignorant class of the N a t i o n , " he said, was convinced " t h a t the missionaries are about to take large tracts of land as pay for teaching the children . . . that heavy charges are [secretly] laid against the nation for the expenses of these schools, and soon the Presi­ dent w i l l compel their payment i n l a n d . " The cynics could not believe that the students were being taught at no expense to the nation. Hicks advised the Board to obtain approval i n advance f r o m the Council 27

2 6 2 7

James Barbour to John Cocke, March 13,1827, M - 2 1 , reel 3, p. 438. Brainerd Journal, August 2, 1821, ABCFM.

376

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

whenever i t wished to add more w h i t e personnel at its stations. The Cherokees became uneasy w h e n they saw great numbers of whites com­ ing onto their land, b u i l d i n g houses, p l o w i n g fields, and starting orchards as t h o u g h they were about to settle permanently. A r d H o y t sympathized w i t h this fear: " W h e n so m a n y w h i t e people are grasping for their land, it is no wonder i f the poor, u n i n f o r m e d Cherokees sometimes suspect that the missionaries (under cover) have the same object i n v i e w . " Never­ theless, as more new schools were started and the model farm at Brainerd was expanded to accommodate more students and teachers, Hicks warned H o y t again a year later that "the people were displeased that so m a n y persons had arrived at Brainerd; they said the i n t e n t i o n was to b u i l d a t o w n " of w h i t e people i n their midst, just as Colonel Earle had planned to do w i t h his i r o n f o u n d r y . 28

29

The problem of missionary expansion was compounded b y the m i s ­ sionaries' need to tell those w h o supported their w o r k h o w w e l l their funds were being spent. Accounts of mission expansion i n missionary journals eventually got into the hands of the Cherokees. One article i n 1822 i n the Missionary Herald, the official journal of the A m e r i c a n Board, annoyed the Cherokees because " i t contained an estimate of m i s ­ sion property at Brainerd, including improvements of land to a consid­ erable a m o u n t . " Boasting to their supporters, the missionaries aroused the suspicions of the Cherokees. Hicks "said that although he m i g h t u n ­ derstand i t and be satisfied" that i t was done to satisfy the curiosity of those w h o donated money to the mission, " y e t the Cherokees generally could not but consider i t as a claim on the land and say, T h i s is w h a t we always told y o u , that these missionaries w o u l d claim the land for t h e m ­ selves/ " W h e n the Baptist missionaries at Valley Towns tried to take a census of the region i n 1822 to determine h o w m a n y Cherokee children lived near their school, the missionary superintendent reported that " t h e measure excited m u c h jealousy" and he had to drop i t . The missionaries dared not even draw maps of the various routes they followed i n t h e i r itinerant preaching: " I w o u l d endeavor to draw a map," said one mission­ ary i n 1823, "were i t not for fear of continuing among the Cherokees an idea" they have " t h a t we intend u l t i m a t e l y to get their l a n d . " A n o t h e r reported i n 1824: " I t appears that a v e r y considerable number among this people have f r o m the beginning suspected that the object of the mission 3 0

3 1

32

28 29 30 31 32

Brainerd Journal, December 11,1822, ABCFM. Jeremiah Evarts, Memo, May 9,1822, ABCFM. Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, January 22,1823, ABCFM. Jeremiah Evarts, Memo, May 1,1822, ABCFM. Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, June 11,1823, ABCFM.

377

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

was to obtain wealth for the missionaries." Some Cherokees even sus­ pected that Charles Hicks and other influential chiefs were enriching themselves b y m a k i n g special arrangements w i t h the missionary board. W h e n the first group of graduates f r o m local mission schools was sent to Connecticut to obtain advanced t r a i n i n g for the m i n i s t r y at the Board's seminary i n Cornwall, r u m o r said "that M r . Hicks spoke w e l l of i t [Brai­ nerd School] because he got m o n e y for everything that was done here— that the boys w o u l d be sent away among the w h i t e people and never re­ turned—and that M r . Hicks had a sum of money for every boy that was thus sent a w a y . " Somehow the decisions being made by the n e w l y con­ structed Cherokee Council of t h i r t y - t w o chiefs were not being w e l l ex­ plained to the mass of people l i v i n g i n the o u t l y i n g areas of the nation. 33

34

A d d i t i o n a l resentment developed when i t was found that the mission­ aries at Brainerd were charging parents a dollar per week for r o o m , board, and clothing for their children. Few Cherokees had ready cash i n this amount and the missionaries quickly corrected the problem b y charging o n l y those parents w h o could afford to pay. The full bloods then began to discover h o w hard i t was for their sons and daughters to learn to read and w r i t e w h e n the teachers spoke no Cherokee and had to use bilingual stu­ dents to help translate the lessons. Records of student enrollment at Brai­ nerd School, the first and largest of the American Board's schools, reveal not o n l y a sharp drop i n enrollment after 1821 but an even sharper de­ crease i n the p r o p o r t i o n of full-blood students. (See table 9.) Brainerd's enrollment increased f r o m 38 i n 1817 to a peak of 132 i n 1819 and then fell to 46 i n 1825. A l t h o u g h the full bloods constituted 75 percent of the population i n the Cherokee N a t i o n , they never made up more than 61 percent of the student body. That peak was reached i n 1820; i t declined thereafter to r o u g h l y 40 percent. 35

W h e n the missionaries of the A m e r i c a n Board failed to follow Hicks's advice i n obtaining permission from the Council whenever they planned to b r i n g i n additional missionaries and mission assistants (blacksmiths, farmers, carpenters, and teachers) and when they failed to make periodic reports to the Council about their activities, a political quarrel erupted i n 1824. The A m e r i c a n Board was charged i n the Council w i t h deliberately flouting tribal a u t h o r i t y . Pathkiller and The Speaker, t w o of the most i n ­ fluential older chiefs and both full bloods w h o did not speak English, lodged the protest. One missionary wrote i n his j o u r n a l : "There is n o w Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, August 4,1824, ABCFM. Brainerd Journal, June 13, 1821, ABCFM. Morey D. Rot h berg, "Effectiveness of Missionary Education among the Cherokees" (seminar paper, Brown University, 1973). 33 34

35

378

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

TABLE 9

Mixed-Blood and Full-Blood Students at Brainerd Mission, 1817-1827

Year

Total Students

Number of Full Bloods

Number of Mixed Bloods

Percent of Full Bloods

1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827

38 76 132 119 113 88 73 56 46 52 54

12 25 67 72 63 44 32 23 19 19 22

26 51 65 47 50 40 41 33 27 33 32

32% 33% 51% 61% 56% 50% 44% 41% 41% 37% 41%

SOURCE: Statistics compiled from archives of the American Board at Houghton Library, Harvard University, in Morey D. Rothberg, "The Effectiveness of Missionary Education among the Cherokees: The Brainerd Schools, 1817-1836" (unpublished seminar paper, Brown University, 1973).

a v e r y powerful opposition to Missions among the C h i e f s . " The Rev­ erend W i l l i a m Chamberlain, w h o had succeeded H o y t as Superintendent of the A m e r i c a n Board's Cherokee missions, was required to appear be­ fore the Council i n October to explain this breach of agreement. " M r . Hicks is unshaken i n his confidence" i n the mission, Chamberlain re­ ported to the Prudential Committee of the Board i n Boston that A u g u s t ; " t h i s I believe is the case w i t h all the enlightened chiefs. B u t Pathkiller and the Speaker are v i o l e n t l y opposed, and as they have great influence among the c o m m o n people and the [other] unenlightened chiefs, i t is very probable that there w i l l be a v e r y powerful opposition to the m i s ­ sions i n the next c o u n c i l . " W i t h the help of M a j o r Ridge and D a v i d B r o w n the missionaries weathered the storm, but the suspicions did not cease. I n fact, the decision of the chiefs i n 1824 to use m o n e y f r o m the Cherokee N a t i o n a l Treasury to translate the Bible i n t o Sequoyah's s y l ­ labary m a y have added to the discontent. M a j o r Ridge added fuel to the fire by t r y i n g to persuade the Council to follow the practice i n state leg­ islatures of paying a Christian chaplain to open and close Cherokee C o u n ­ cils w i t h p r a y e r . A year later David B r o w n , a mission school graduate, made the unwarranted statement to the w h i t e public that missionary 36

37

38

39

William Chamberlain's Journal, August 11,1824, ABCFM. Ibid, and McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 192-95. William Chamberlain's Journal, August-October, 1824; Wilkins, Cherokee p. 160. William Chamberlain's Journal, October 26,1824, ABCFM. 36

37 38

39

379

Tragedy,

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

teaching had n o w so permeated the country that "the Christian religion is the religion of the n a t i o n . " This was not calculated to put the minds of the traditionalists at ease. A n o t h e r source of anti-mission sentiment among the Cherokees stemmed f r o m the missionaries' insistence that all Cherokee medical p r o ­ cedures were impermissible because they were mixed w i t h pagan super­ stition and "sorcery." M a n y Cherokees w h o had converted to C h r i s t i ­ a n i t y continued to rely upon their medicine m e n i n times of illness. B u t if t h e i r missionary pastor discovered this, t h e y were subject to severe crit­ icism and even excommunication. The pages of the missionary journals and letters i n the 1820s are filled w i t h such controversies. The issue aroused great controversy whenever there was a smallpox epidemic. The missionaries and federal agent recommended preventive medicine b y vac­ c i n a t i o n . The Cherokees waited u n t i l people became sick and then tried i n vain to exorcise i t t h r o u g h traditional r i t u a l s . Christian converts w h o accepted missionary advice were considered apostates. W h e n a M o r a v i a n convert refused to allow incantations by her uncle, an adonisgi, i n her home, she was driven i n t o the woods and fled to the mission station at Springplace. 4 0

41

42

43

44

A f t e r 1824 the h o s t i l i t y against missions m o u n t e d as the M e t h o d i s t itinerants practised a new type of evangelistic activity. N o t interested i n schools, t h e y did not f o r m permanent mission stations. Following the pattern they had established i n reaching the scattered settlements of the w h i t e frontier, the Methodists rode on horseback from t o w n to t o w n among the Cherokees, preaching wherever they could draw a crowd. The Tennessee M e t h o d i s t Conference, which was i n charge of frontier evan­ gelism, decided to include the Cherokee N a t i o n as part of its sphere of spiritual concern i n 1824. U n l i k e the other mission agencies, the M e t h ­ odists always considered the Indian nations as part of home missions rather than foreign missions. Every year after 1824 the Tennessee C o n ­ ference assigned more and more missionaries to " t r a v e l i n g circuits" i n the n a t i o n u n t i l they had covered v i r t u a l l y every part of i t w i t h preaching stations. A circuit rider m i g h t be assigned to preach i n t w e n t y to t h i r t y towns over a 150-mile circuit. He w o u l d cover that circuit four times each year, preaching, baptizing, and holding camp meetings and " l o v e feasts" u n t i l he had made sufficient converts to f o r m a M e t h o d i s t " s o c i e t y " or ASP i i , 651. Brown was responsible for translating the Bible into Sequoyan; he was assisted by George Lowrey and Daniel Butrick; see Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, June 4 0

25,1825, ABCFM. 4 1

4 2 4 3

4 4

McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 204-208. Schwarze, History of Moravian Missions, pp. 174-75. Ibid. Springplace Diary, January 9,1824, MAS.

380

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

"class" at each p o i n t along his circuit. These societies were led b y local Cherokees appointed b y the circuit rider and chosen f r o m among the most respectable, pious, and responsible of the converts i n that t o w n . The "class leaders" were not ordained, b u t they could lead i n prayer and Bible reading and encourage the k i n d of piety and m o r a l i t y that the M e t h o d i s t church discipline required of those w h o wanted to become members. O n the w h i t e frontier, classes or societies became formalized i n t o churches and t h e n h i r e d a permanent pastor. A t this stage they were taken off the circuit and became self-supporting. A m o n g the Cherokees, however, none of the societies ever advanced to that stage. A l t h o u g h the M e t h o d ­ ists made m a n y converts w h o were admitted as "members of classes" or societies, t h e y had no Cherokee churches as the permanent mission sta­ tions of the other denominations did. The circuit riders had to p e r f o r m all church ordinances and t h e y were paid small salaries b y the conferences. 45

However, measured i n terms of converts, the M e t h o d i s t circuit riders were b y far the most successful missionaries among the Cherokees. T h e i r success was due to t h e i r simplified theology of free w i l l , their enthusiastic style of preaching, the earnestness of their y o u n g circuit riders, and t h e i r looser concept of conversion. Whereas the Congregationalists and Bap­ tists were Calvinists w h o believed that o n l y a few of " t h e elect" were foreordained for salvation and the Moravians set such strict standards of pious behavior that few could meet t h e m , the Methodists believed that salvation was open to everyone and that the willingness to say one ac­ cepted C h r i s t i a n i t y and wanted to learn more about i t was sufficient to obtain baptism. Moreover, the Methodists believed that their converts could " g r o w i n grace," that is, slowly w o r k their w a y t o w a r d a better u n ­ derstanding of Christian teaching and t o w a r d the self-discipline that w o u l d enable t h e m to live m o r a l , u p r i g h t lives. Methodists also allowed, as Calvinists did not, for " b a c k s l i d i n g " ; they believed that even those most anxious to be good Christians m i g h t sometimes fall i n t o sin or er­ ror. Such "backsliders" could always repent and begin a new effort to re­ deem themselves. M e t h o d i s m was therefore more suitable i n its style and message to the needs of a people w h o were s t r u g g l i n g to move f r o m an old religion t o w a r d a new one. M e t h o d i s t revival meetings or camp meet­ ings were held o u t under the trees and lasted for hours or even days; t h e y were filled w i t h ecstatic religious exercises (speaking i n tongues, j u m p i n g and s h o u t i n g , w h i r l i n g around, fainting or falling). Like Cherokee dances and festivals, they constituted a r h y t h m i c bodily effort to become one w i t h the mysterious spiritual power that filled the universe. O n the w h o l e the other denominations disapproved of M e t h o d i s t the45

See McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries,

381

pp. 164-80.

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

T A B L E 10

Cherokee Converts to Christianity by Denomination, 1800-1838 (figures listed are cumulative)

Moravian (began 1800)

Year 1800-1809 1810 1810-1817 1819 1820 1822 1823 1824 1825 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1838

—

1 2 19 19 22 22? 22? 35 50 50? 45 46 45 71 65 [missions closed]

American Board [Congregationalist] (began 1817)

Methodist (began 1822)

Baptist (began 1819)

— —

— — —

— —

—

8 22 25 43 43? 80 100 110 167 180 167 167? 167? 167? 167? 150

_ 33

100 289 309 400 675 763 1028 850 850? 936 508 700 [mission closed]

—

2 33 33? 50 50? 50? 87 61 90 117 120 208 244 500

SOURCE: Figures compiled from mission reports. NOTE: Question mark indicates no figure for that year and a holdover figure from preceding year. Declines may indicate closing of a mission, a mission moved west, or movement of Cherokees out of the mission area. Figures were not reported regularly or carefully and may include some Cherokee slaves or even whites living in the area in some cases. The figures do not include any western Cherokees. By 1838 approximately 10-12 percent of the Cher­ okee population were members of mission churches, a figure comparable to church mem­ bership in surrounding white settlements. For further details see William G. McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, 1789-1839 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).

ology, standards of membership, and preaching style, but they could not help being impressed by their success at saving Cherokee souls. I n order to compete w i t h t h e m the Congregationalists and Baptists began to i m i ­ tate their system of itinerant preaching. (See Table 10.) Itinerant preach­ i n g was not o n l y more exciting (and romantic) than the tedious nature of school teaching, but i t promised to capitalize upon what was assumed to be a g r o w i n g interest by the Cherokees i n learning about C h r i s t i a n i t y . Traveling evangelism w o u l d , as one Congregationalist missionary p u t i t , " b r i n g the degraded, dull Cherokees to a level w i t h the half Cherokees" m u c h faster than stationary preaching. The Reverend Daniel B u t r i c k , 46

46

Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, July 28,1827, ABCFM.

382

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

one of the first Congregationalists to t r y the experiment (using a native interpreter, as the Methodists did), rode 3,400 miles i n 1823-1824, held 171 meetings, and baptized 18 adults and 25 c h i l d r e n . He saved more souls i n one year t h a n the whole mission staff d i d at Brainerd. The Bible said, " G o out and b r i n g t h e m i n , " g i v i n g divine sanction to the i t i n e r a n t method. Moreover, itinerancy was m u c h less expensive t h a n r u n n i n g a model f a r m and school. 47

The Baptist missionaries also drastically altered their priorities after 1826. Like the Congregationalists and Presbyterians, they had believed that civilization (i.e., education) should precede Christianization. B u t their vocational school at Valley Towns i n the N o r t h Carolina region of the nation proved v e r y expensive and produced v e r y few converts. I n 1827 the Boston Board required the missionary superintendent, Evan Jones, to curtail the residential, vocational school, l i m i t i n g i t to t w e n t y female day students to be taught b y Jones's assistants. The Baptist school at H i c k o r y Log was to be continued o n l y i f the Cherokee parents contrib­ uted to its support. The t i m e free f r o m schooling was used b y the m i s ­ sionaries to ride on horseback f r o m place to place, preaching the gospel even i n the most remote areas of the Great S m o k y M o u n t a i n s . T h e i r re­ ports of serious opposition f r o m traditionalists and their medicine m e n did not deter this effort to root out paganism. 48

The Moravians did not become itinerant preachers, t h o u g h one M o ­ ravian missionary urged his denomination to follow the example of the Methodists, Baptists, and A m e r i c a n Board, saying, " [ I t h i n k ] more good could be done i n the itinerant plan than b y the present expensive w a y " of schooling; " I t h i n k i t is a useless expense to board [students] because other denominations are b y far more diligent i n diffusing religious knowledge among the natives than we are because their entire plan and system is better adapted to this c o u n t r y . " 49

The drastic change i n missionary methods aroused a new k i n d of anx­ i e t y among the Cherokees, w h o had h i t h e r t o found that i f t h e y did not w a n t to send their children to mission schools, they could easily ignore the w h o l e effort of Christian imperialism. Previously they m i g h t not have liked the s y m p a t h y that their nationalist leaders so often displayed for Christianization, but i t did not affect their daily lives i n remote c o m ­ m u n i t i e s . After 1824, however, there was no w a y to escape confronta­ tions w i t h avid Christian proselytizing. Even the m o u n t a i n villages found itinerants entering their c o m m u n i t y , starting meetings, denouncing "heathenism," and s t i r r i n g up religious controversy. I n e v i t a b l y some Cherokees were persuaded to j o i n the new religion and a permanent 4 7

4 8 4 9

Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, September 3,1824, ABCFM. McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 158-60. Henry G. Clauder, Diary, May 2 and May 10,1829, MAB.

383

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

preaching station w o u l d be established i n the area; the Christian preach­ ers w o u l d come back regularly, their members increased and became a source of disagreement w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y as the old and new r e l i ­ gions competed. Unlike the Cherokees, Christians enjoyed confronta­ tions and went out of their w a y to force debates and stir up emotions. The old ethic of communal h a r m o n y was already badly eroded; Christian evangelistic efforts finished i t , shattering the old communal consensus, To be a Cherokee now, even i n one's private life, one had to stand up and fight. N o t h i n g could be taken for granted; there were no c o m m o n as­ sumptions. Competition and theological combat n o w pervaded every sphere of Cherokee life. The Christian gloried i n Jesus's words: " I came not to send peace but a sword . . . to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her m o t h e r - i n - l a w / ' Quarrels broke out not o n l y w i t h i n families but between conjurors and itinerant preachers and between t o w n council members and n e w l y formed Christian groups. Eventually, w h e n some of the converts found that C h r i s t i a n i t y required a more total alteration i n their behavior than they had o r i g i n a l l y realized, there were angry quarrels between church members and their w h i t e missionary leaders. As i n m a n y frontier w h i t e communities, the "diffusing of religious knowledge" and the deep con­ victions that came f r o m new choices produced bitter arguments and the division of neighbor against neighbor. Christian converts tried to set new social and ethical norms and denounced those w h o failed to conform to t h e m . The followers of the old religion had their o w n norms, convictions, and beliefs that they considered as sacred and divinely ordained as those of the Christians. The missionaries and their converts attacked as " w i c k e d " and "depraved" sinners those w h o had more than one wife, those w h o drank liquor, those w h o gambled or went to ball plays, and those w h o practiced the religious ceremonies of their forefathers or Cher­ okee medicine. " T h e i r conjuring is as purely heathen as almost a n y t h i n g to be met w i t h on the River Ganges," said one Congregational missionary i n a typical diatribe; " w h e n conjuring they pray to almost every crea­ ture—such as w h i t e dogs, butterflies, turtles, etc. e t c . " One missionary told a Cherokee adonisgi that all this w o r k "was o n l y the black waters of heathenism designed and calculated to keep their thoughts entirely f r o m the one true G o d . " He reported that "the people i n all their wants applied o n l y to their conjurors and these applied their petitions to some fictitious, i m a g i n a r y being w h o had no real existence i n the universe. So that the true God was neither an object of fear or reverence or gratitude." He told 50

5 0

Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, July 28,1827, ABCFM.

384

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

the medicine m a n he must give up his system of helping people, " r e ­ nounce i t forever," and t u r n to the one true God for h e l p . I t i n e r a n t preachers courted public debates w i t h conjurors i n order to denounce t h e m as wicked m e n w h o o n l y brought h a r m to their communities. Despite the rapid acculturation among mixed-blood Cherokees, the traditional religion continued strong among the full bloods. This was es­ pecially evident whenever one of the periodic epidemics of smallpox, measles or some other " w h i t e man's disease" swept t h r o u g h the nation. D u r i n g a particularly v i r u l e n t outbreak of smallpox i n the summer of 1824, the Congregational missionary at Carmel, M o o d y H a l l , estimated that "1000 w i l l die w i t h i t . " I n Carmel alone, twenty-seven died. " T h e O l d C o n j u r o r , " H a l l reported, "has appointed a great Physic dance (as i n the case of the measles), p r o m i s i n g that all w h o j o i n h i m shall not be af­ flicted w i t h the disease." The Moravians also noted the reliance u p o n traditional remedies d u r i n g this epidemic. " M o s t of the Indians believed that this disease was spread b y a monstrous serpent of the thickness of a m a n and w i t h a w h i t e head. To catch even the odor of this serpent is fatal. Therefore the Indians sought refuge w i t h their sorcerers. One of these arranged a so-called 'Physic dance' at Tallony. For seven nights this dance must be continued, the Indians d r i n k i n g a tea brewed f r o m certain herbs, along w i t h this exercise, w h i l e the sorcerer prays either to a great eagle w h o m he pretends to see or to the black dog i n the n o r t h , the w h i t e dog i n the east, the gray dog i n the south and the red dog i n the west. The sorcerer's fee is seven deer hides f r o m the c o m m u n i t y i n w h i c h the dance is held and a s t r i n g of beads f r o m each f a m i l y . " The Congregational and M o r a v i a n missionaries sought to expose the ignorance of the Cherokee doctors b y obtaining cow pox vaccine and u r g i n g all the Christian Indians (and others w h o could be persuaded) to submit to vaccination. The M o ­ ravians reported that i n their v i c i n i t y the epidemic was checked b y this m e t h o d and the sorcerer discomfited. 51

52

5 3

I n the t o w n of Etowah a n e w l y converted Cherokee, Alexander San­ ders, wished to show his zeal for his new religion. I n 1825, i n order to help his minister stamp out the pagan customs that were dragging his people to hell, Sanders and some of his friends burned the t o w n council house to the g r o u n d . He called i t " t h e Devil's meeting hosue" because its meetings were opened w i t h the old rituals and calls for dances and festi­ vals issued f r o m t h e r e . I n retaliation, the traditionalists of Etowah threatened to b u r n d o w n the mission schoolhouse. A n o t h e r missionary 54

51 52 53 54

Daniel Butrick's Journal, September 8,1830, ABCFM. Moody Hall to Jeremiah Evarts, June 29,1824, ABCFM. Schwarze, History of Moravian Missions, pp. 174^75. Moody Hall to Jeremiah Evarts, August 20,1825, ABCFM.

385

T O O M U CH

ACCULTURATION

was asked to w i t h d r a w from the t o w n he preached i n because his converts insisted on harassing the traditionalists. They told t h e m they were g o i n g to hell w h e n they died; some taunted the traditionalists b y saying that the red w i n e taken at Christian c o m m u n i o n was more powerful as a spir­ itual d r i n k than the "black physic" taken at Cherokee religious ceremo­ n i e s . The headmen of one t o w n complained to Charles Hicks that the Christianized Cherokees w o u l d no longer attend t o w n council meetings because their religious beliefs w o u l d not permit t h e m to participate i n the rituals that opened and closed the meetings; thus the official business of the t o w n could not be properly d o n e . Cherokee religion did not conceive of any separation between church and state; to participate i n Cherokee life one participated i n Cherokee religious practices. Christians, being forbidden to engage i n the old practices, no longer performed their civic duties as Cherokees. 55

56

One of the more bitter controversies over the Christian values that the missionaries taught and the values of the Cherokee religion concerned the relatively benign practice of hospitality. A Cherokee was expected to welcome any visitor into his home and give h i m food and lodging. The missionaries called this " b e g g i n g " and disliked i t intensely. A t first they put up w i t h i t , but as they became more sure of their position i n the na­ t i o n they tried to discourage it. The Reverend M o o d y H a l l finally refused to give food to Cherokees w h o came to his door. He wanted the Cherokees i n his c o m m u n i t y to learn the values of hard w o r k and self-reliance. This annoyed the Cherokees and seemed inconsistent w i t h the sermons M o o d y preached about h o w Jesus said to feed the poor and clothe the na­ ked. One n i g h t an old Cherokee appeared at Hall's home stark naked and demanded food. H a l l refused and the man burst i n t o the r o o m , s w i n g i n g at H a l l w i t h a knife. Others present disarmed the m a n , but f o l l o w i n g sev­ eral other incidents that H a l l said displayed an intent to h a r m h i m and his wife, he hastily left the t o w n . This pleased the traditionalists but annoyed Hall's converts. He had often told t h e m that as a m i n o r i t y i n their nation, t h e y m u s t be brave and w i l l i n g to face up to the persecution of their neighbors w h e n they joined the mission church. N o w H a l l had shown he lacked the courage of his o w n c o n v i c t i o n s . 57

Vehement arguments sometimes took place w h e n y o u n g converts w h o were licensed to preach upbraided their people i n an effort to make t h e m give up the old religion. M o s t of these zealous converts were y o u n g , Charles Hicks to John Cambold, June 5,1824, MAS. See William G. McLoughlin, "Cherokee Anti-Mission Sentiment," Ethnohistory 21 (1974): 361--70. Walker, Torchlights, p. 210; Jeremiah Evarts to Moody Hall, August 20,1824, ABCFM; McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, p. 201. 5 5

56

5 7

386

TOO

MUCH

ACCULTURATION

products of the intense piety of the mission schools. B y Cherokee t r a d i ­ t i o n the y o u n g were required to respect their elders, to be silent before t h e m and to heed what they said. I t struck the older Cherokees as the height of bad manners for these heedless y o u n g m e n to denounce their elders i n public for f o l l o w i n g the religion of their ancestors. One or t w o such itinerant exhorters were threatened w i t h violent treatment i f t h e y returned to certain villages after such actions. O n one occasion a group of traditionalists t h r e w stones at a cabin i n w h i c h an exhorter was conduct­ ing a meeting. A p a r t f r o m the knife attack upon M o o d y H a l l , no missionaries were ever attacked i n the Cherokee N a t i o n . Because of the staunch defense of missionary efforts b y the nationalist chiefs, the a u t h o r i t y of the nation was exerted to protect t h e m . For example, the Lighthorse were sent to ar­ rest and t r y the m a n w h o attacked H a l l . Despite the objections of some local chiefs, the national leaders did not want to curtail itinerant preach­ i n g i n any w a y , nor did they w a n t the w h i t e churchgoing public to hear that there was any antagonism between the traditionalists and the m i s ­ sionaries. A great deal of effort was expended to cover up anti-mission incidents. Those that could not be kept secret were described as the ac­ tions of eccentric, deranged, drunken, or no-account Indians. The m i s ­ sionaries themselves mentioned t h e m o n l y i n private letters. T h e y too wished the public to believe that they were respected and successful i n their w o r k . Yet beneath the surface religious animosities intensified be­ tween 1824 and 1827. I t finally broke out i n the rebellion of 1827. To m a n y i t appeared that this w o u l d put an end to Cherokee revitalization and the nation w o u l d slide backward i n t o chaos and confusion. 58

5 8

Daniel Butrick to Jeremiah Evarts, January 15,1828, ABCFM.

387

NINETEEN

REBELLION A G A I N S T THE CONSTITUTION,

1827

The whole Nation here is in the greatest turmoil. The greater part wants to have the new laws abrogated and are for having the missions dissolved. . . . [Pagan] Dances at night are arranged and during the day they hold Council. No one trusts anyone any more. —The Reverend Johann Schmidt, missionary to the Cherokees, May 16,1827

O

n October 23,1826, the National Council voted to call a convention to meet on the following Fourth of July for the purpose of "adopting a Constitution for the future government" of the n a t i o n . I t nominated ten candidates from each of the eight districts and instructed the people to choose three of these to represent their district at the convention. The ar­ guments used to support and oppose this measure i n the Council have not survived, but evidently the decision was b i t t e r l y contested. I n another heated session a year earlier, the Council had expelled from its member­ ship the old and respected chief, W h i t e Path, replacing h i m w i t h Elijah Hicks, the Christian son of Charles H i c k s . N o reason for W h i t e Path's expulsion was given i n the resolution that announced i t , but apparently he had opposed too strenuously the centralization, rapid acculturation, and Christianization of his country. W h i t e Path was not alone i n his feel­ ings. A f t e r the vote to adopt a constitution was passed, those w h o agreed w i t h h i m concluded that they must now band together and take a strong stand against this cultural revolution before i t was frozen i n t o the f u n ­ damental law of the land. The Cherokee renascence that its leaders were so proud of and that the philanthropists and missionaries found so heart­ ening was becoming burdensome to m a n y Cherokees. The first public act of the rebellious chiefs was to call an extra-legal council at Ellijay, near T u r n i p t o w n , which was W h i t e Path's t o w n , late i n February or early i n M a r c h 1827. The rebellion could hardly have come 1

2

Cherokee Laws, pp. 73-76. Ibid., pp. 66-67; see also James Mooney's discussion and the statement of his Cherokee informant, James Wafford, in "Myths of the Cherokees," pp. 113-114; see also Marion Starkey, The Cherokee Nation (New York: Knopf, 1946), pp. 104-105; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 196. 1 2

388

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

at a worse m o m e n t . I n the middle of January, Pathkiller, the venerable Principal Chief, had died; t w o weeks later, Charles Hicks, the Second Principal Chief, died. The nation was leaderless. B o t h Georgia and N o r t h Carolina had just been authorized b y Congress to send treaty commis­ sioners to extract more land and the rights of w a y for canals t h r o u g h the n a t i o n . As Speaker of the Council, M a j o r Ridge assumed leadership of the lower house; John Ross remained as President of the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e or upper house. John M a r t i n became acting Treasurer of the nation. The choice of new principal chiefs required a full council, b u t the Council was not scheduled to meet again u n t i l October 1827. W h e t h e r the substance or m e r e l y the desirability of a constitution had been discussed at the Council i n October 1826 is not k n o w n , b u t the de­ cision to call a constitutional convention culminated a series of contro­ versies that had disturbed the i n t e r n a l h a r m o n y of the nation for several years. Lacking specific statements b y the dissident chiefs, we can o n l y speculate o n the reasons behind their revolt. Perhaps they feared that m u c h of the objectionable legislation passed since 1819, w h i c h so far had been o n l y loosely enforced, w o u l d be rigorously enforced under the con­ s t i t u t i o n . The dissidents clearly wanted some of these laws repealed, i n any case. The most offensive laws m a y have been those u n d e r m i n i n g o l d customs (clan revenge, matrilineal inheritance, witchcraft, p o l y g a m y , i n ­ fanticide) and i m p o s i n g Christian m o r a l i t y (opposing g a m b l i n g , p r o m o t ­ ing Sabbath observance, p r o h i b i t i n g ardent spirits "at ball plays, all n i g h t dances and other public g a t h e r i n g s " ) . There were certainly m a n y w h o m u s t have disliked the law of October 1826, that stated that " n o person who disbelieves i n the existence of the Creator and of rewards and p u n ­ ishments after death, shall be eligible to h o l d any office" nor allowed to give " t e s t i m o n y i n any court of j u s t i c e . " The Council had even passed an oath of office, evidently administered to some officials of the n a t i o n , that was distinctly Christian and i f enforced w o u l d have excluded all traditionalists f r o m office h o l d i n g : " Y o u do solemnly swear, b y the H o l y Evangelists of A l m i g h t y God, that y o u , as M a r s h a l l of Coosewatee district, w i l l strictly support and observe the laws of the Cherokee Nation. . . . " 3

4

5

O t h e r chiefs probably objected to the expenditure of public funds for translating the Bible i n t o Sequoyan, laws establishing a capital city w i t h large public buildings and streets whose plots on each side were auctioned off to the highest bidders, or the laws designed to establish a seminary of For the law prohibiting consumption of alcohol at ball plays in 1824 see Cherokee p. 36. 3

4

Cherokee Laws, p. 77.

5

Ibid., p. 68.

389

Laws,

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

higher learning. Some m a y have feared that the constitution w o u l d p r o ­ claim the Cherokees to be a Christian nation and thereby exclude the ma­ j o r i t y f r o m a meaningful part i n decision m a k i n g or at least m a r k t h e m as second-class citizens. A l r e a d y the intense centralization of power had cut the n u m b e r of chiefs b y almost t w o - t h i r d s and seriously undermined the power of the t o w n councils i n favor of the complex district courts under appointed judges. The leaders of the rebellion m a y w e l l have believed that they were about to be asked to t u r n over the control of the nation to a h i g h l y acculturated, wealthy, English-speaking oligarchy. Chiefs had been told that they had no power to call councils even i n their o w n towns or districts. I n effect, W h i t e Path led a counterrevolution i n the name of preserving the Cherokee way of life-—or as m u c h of i t as i t was still pos­ sible to preserve. Those w h o dominated the legitimate council and wanted a w r i t t e n con­ s t i t u t i o n modeled on that of the U n i t e d States professed to be patriots and defenders of their nation's rights, but i f they were to make the c o u n t r y i n t o a Christian republic like the U n i t e d States, w o u l d they still be Cher­ okees ? W h a t w o u l d be the basis of their patriotism ? As Christians, assim­ ilated to Euro-American beliefs and practices, w o u l d not their loyalties and policies lie i n a different direction from that of the great m a j o r i t y of the Cherokee people, w h o spoke no English and still held to the beliefs of their forefathers ? I f this acculturated elite could "break" and expel W h i t e Path for voicing the concerns of the m a j o r i t y , i f the views of people for w h o m W h i t e Path spoke were to be denounced w i t h i m p u n i t y by w h i t e missionaries and Christian converts (as " p o l l u t e d , " " i g n o r a n t , " "back­ w a r d " and otherwise a disgrace to the nation), then could not a constitu­ tional government exclude from power all chiefs w h o held these views ? The Cherokees had always believed i n government by consensus, f r o m the b o t t o m up; but for eight years or more they had been increasingly ruled b y an aristocracy f r o m the top d o w n . The disdain of those at the top for those at the botton was every day becoming more palpable. The av­ erage Cherokee, having w o n back his national self-respect over the past decade, was not w i l l i n g to yield i t n o w to a handful of acculturated Cher­ okees w h o seemed ashamed of being Cherokee. The rebellion was not violent. N o armed conflict took place; no lives were lost. None of W h i t e Path's followers accused chiefs like Ross, Ridge, L o w r e y , Elijah Hicks, W i l l i a m Hicks, or John M a r t i n of being traitors to the nation as Doublehead, Toochelar, and the Creek Path conspirators had been. I t was not a question of selling the land of the Cherokees but of sell­ i n g their souls—that is, of p u t t i n g so much emphasis on saving the nation b y assimilating to w h i t e patterns of behavior and t h o u g h t that o r d i n a r y Cherokees no longer felt at home i n their nation or knew w h a t i t stood 390

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

for. W h i t e Path's movement concerned the l i m i t s of assimilation. I t f o l ­ lowed the traditional Cherokee strategy of w i t h d r a w a l of the dissidents f r o m participation i n the actions of a council w h e n they could not concur w i t h its actions. I n effect, the Ellijay council was an effort to assert a dif­ ferent consensus w i t h i n the nation. The r e v o l u t i o n contained a strong religious element—a counterreform a t i o n led b y Cherokee priests and medicine m e n w h o fueled the spirit of resistance to assimilation b y reviving the dances and rituals of the old Cherokee order. Like the local, full-blood chiefs, the Cherokee adonisgi were facing a dire threat to their power and influence. The missionaries heard r u m o r s of this powerful traditionalist revival, b u t they saw l i t t l e of i t ; the Cherokee religion had become v i r t u a l l y an underground move­ m e n t as C h r i s t i a n i t y had advanced. The agent, H u g h M o n t g o m e r y , re­ corded n o t h i n g about these developments; he had lost touch completely w i t h the Cherokees, devoting most of his t i m e to cultivating a plantation at the agency w i t h his slaves; he assumed that the Cherokees were n o w able to look out for themselves. W h i t e Path's rebellion did not appear to M o n t g o m e r y to be a governmental matter (except that treaty commis­ sioners m i g h t fish better i n m u d d y waters) and none of the agent's re­ ports i n these years m e n t i o n i t . A l l that we k n o w of its h i s t o r y comes f r o m the confused reports and exaggerated fears of the missionaries and a few negative remarks b y the acculturationists i n the legally elected Council. B o t h sides i n the rebellion were eager afterward to keep the m a t ­ ter hidden f r o m the w h i t e public. I t was an internal matter to be resolved by the Cherokee people. The first extant m e n t i o n of the revolt was by the Reverend Samuel Worcester, then at Brainerd. He wrote on M a r c h 2 9 , 1 8 2 7 : Since Mr. Hicks' death, a dissatisfied party have held a Council at which they are said to have had some [delegates] from every district in the nation except one (not, however, chiefs from all) and took it upon themselves to say what should be and what should not be, in regard to the affairs of Government, and to repeal and en­ act laws. They, however, took no measures to secure the execution of their laws and though perhaps the majority of the people are dissatisfied with some features of the laws, yet for want of system and energetic leaders, I presume the faction is not to be dreaded. 6

Worcester did not say w h a t specific laws the dissident council had legis­ lated about, b u t the fact that he conceded that i t represented the m a j o r i t y indicates the seriousness of the movement. N o r did he characterize the movement as representing o n l y the full bloods or the poor, the "back­ w a r d , " or anti-mission traditionalists. He did m e n t i o n that one of the 6

Samuel Worcester to Jeremiah Evarts, March 29,1827, ABCFM. Emphasis i n original.

391

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

most trusted Christian converts at the mission, a full blood w h o had been given the name Samuel J. M i l l s after his conversion and w h o often served the mission as an interpreter, was among those w h o attended the rebel council "and signed their resolutions." M i l l s had been accused of practic­ ing " c o n j u r i n g " after his conversion, and he may have been among those disillusioned w i t h the attitude of the Congregationalists t o w a r d the " b a c k w a r d " people of his nation. Worcester said that John Ross and the other leaders of the official council had dismissed the whole matter as "a noise that w i l l end i n noise o n l y . " Ross told the missionaries at Brainerd i t w o u l d amount to n o t h i n g . Worcester thought " i t m a y excite so m u c h of a spirit of opposition to the [Cherokee] Government as to occasion se­ rious difficulty i n the excution of the laws," but he did not m e n t i o n w h i c h laws nor, i n M a r c h , did he m e n t i o n any anti-mission activity i n connec­ t i o n w i t h the rebellion. Worcester was w r i t i n g from Tennessee. The Moravians, w h o lived m u c h closer to Ellijay, heard a more frightening account of w h a t was going on. To t h e m the movement was strongly anti-missionary i n its i n ­ tentions and fraught w i t h violence: Since the death of our departed Brother Hicks, the whole Nation here is in the greatest turmoil. The greater part wants to have the new laws abrogated and are for having the missions dissolved. Hardly one in fifteen votes for the laws. . . . Dances at night are arranged and during the day, they hold Council. No one trusts anyone any more; now and again there are threats of murder. Judge Martin, who was named by the National Committee in Bro. Hicks' place as Secretary and Treasurer, is being threatened with death and with having his house burned down. . . . The negroes set fires to the houses, others are supposed to have poi­ soned one another. Some of the negroes run away. 7

According to the Moravians, the rebels had named Big Tiger as their p r i n ­ cipal chief. The Moravians described h i m as a conjuror; he was a full blood w h o still wore silver a r m bracelets. The Moravians were w o r r i e d because John Ross, The Ridge, and the other legally elected chiefs were taking no action to put the rebellion d o w n . The Moravians had also heard that Elijah Hicks, the Christian son of Charles Hicks, had offered to j o i n and lead the rebels. This was a shock because Elijah Hicks was a member of the M o r a v i a n mission church. I n addition, the Moravians said that m a n y Cherokees were having dreams and visions and m a k i n g prophecies as they had done d u r i n g the Ghost Dance movement of 1811-1812. Strange and remarkable events were occurring. One of these concerned "a w o m a n [who] was delivered of three children [triplets] w h o brought all their teeth w i t h t h e m i n t o the 7

Johann Schmidt to A . Benade, May 16, 1827, MAS.

392

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

w o r l d ; w h e n the first one was b o r n , i t is supposed to have spoken and called her to account for her godless w a y of l i f e / ' I n this context " g o d ­ less" meant contrary to the traditional w a y of life. The story probably contained a symbolic message that the next generation of Cherokees w o u l d curse those w h o had abandoned the old religion. 8

To the Moravians the situation was so dangerous that t h e y t h o u g h t the f o r t h c o m i n g treaty negotiations m i g h t easily be manipulated b y the fed­ eral commissioners i n favor of a total removal, and " t h e y [the Cherokees] w i l l perish together w i t h their c o u n t r y . . . . M a y God sustain t h e m and us t o o . " T h e y reported i n M a y that w h e n A l e x M c C o y , one of the lead­ ing nationalist chiefs, sent a letter f r o m the legal government to " t h e re­ bellious C o u n c i l " asking t h e m to come to a conference to t r y to reach some agreement, one of the rebel chiefs, Rising Fawn, " w h o is the chief instigator among t h e m . . . stepped on i t " as a sign of contempt for t h e i r authority. 9

10

The Reverend Isaac Proctor of the A m e r i c a n Board at Carmel M i s s i o n reported on M a y 10 that "there is n o w existing i n this nation a most fear­ ful division among the Cherokee. The full Cherokees have risen up against the laws of the N a t i o n and appear to desire their old f o r m of G o v ­ e r n m e n t . " Like the Moravians, he believed that "the old party are rather opposed to Missionaries" and he feared that the Cherokees m i g h t be about to experience the same k i n d of civil war that had ravaged the Creek N a t i o n i n 1813. As had Worcester and the Moravians, he recog­ nized that " t h i s [rebellious] party is m u c h the largest" part of the nation. The Reverend W i l l i a m Chamberlain, a Congregationalist at Brainerd, w r o t e i n M a y that the dissidents were i n fact "the heathen p a r t y " — t h e full bloods—and that they were " m a k i n g a grand and u n i t e d effort to de­ stroy the government and drive [true] religion and all improvements f r o m the N a t i o n . " 11

1 2

But apart f r o m such vague hypotheses and r u m o r s , there is l i t t l e con­ crete evidence about the precise goals of the dissidents and no record of whatever votes t h e y took against the missionaries or "the new l a w s . " James M o o n e y interviewed an old Cherokee i n the 1880s w h o recalled that " f r o m the townhouse of Ellijay, he [ W h i t e Path] preached the rejec­ t i o n of the new constitution, the discarding of C h r i s t i a n i t y and the w h i t e man's ways, and a r e t u r n to the old tribal law and c u s t o m . " B y the end 13

8 9 10 11 12 13

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, May 10,1827, ABCFM. William Chamberlain's Journal, May 3,1827, ABCFM. Mooney, " M y t h s of the Cherokees," pp. 113-14.

393

R E B E L L I O N AGAINST T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N

of M a y the legal government had agreed to a meeting and matters seemed sufficiently calm to p e r m i t the election of delegates to the constitutional convention. A p p a r e n t l y the legally elected chiefs had agreed to discuss all matters of contention prior to the convention itself but after the election of delegates. The law that had called for the constitutional convention and that had nominated ten persons i n each district to stand for election had also pre­ scribed the manner i n which the delegates were to be chosen. The election was set for "the Saturday previous to the commencement for the Courts for M a y T e r m / ' 1827 (the last week i n M a y ) . A d u l t male voters were to vote orally at specified polling places for three out of the ten nominees i n each district. W h i t e Path was not among the nominees nor were most of the rebel leaders. However, Kelachulee, w h o m Worcester identified as a rebel leader, was. Those elected to the constitutional convention were: Chickamauga District: John Ross, John Baldrige Chattooga District : George Lowrey, John Brown Amohee District: Edward Gunter, Lewis Ross, Thomas Form an, Hair Conrad Coosewatee District: John Martin, Joseph Vann, Kelachulee Hickory Log District: James Daniel, John Duncan Taquoee: Ooclenota, William Baling (or Boling) Etowah : Joseph Vann, Thomas Pettit, John Beamer Aquohee: John Tim son, Situakee, Richard Walker 14

A disproportionately high number of these were well-to-do, Englishspeaking m i x e d bloods because that, was the way the nominations had been structured b y the Council. It is not k n o w n whether the rebels b o y ­ cotted the election (because there were so few full-blood candidates) or whether they voted for unauthorized candidates w h o were denied elec­ t i o n b y the authorities. O f the t w e n t y - o n e delegates elected, o n l y four were full bloods; all delegates but nine could w r i t e their names i n Eng­ lish. The o n l y election i n w h i c h a close contest occurred was i n W h i t e Path's district, where Kelachulee received the same number of votes as John Ridge. Worcester reported that Kelachulee "has been considered as the head of the opposition p a r t y . " I n the run-off election, he defeated the younger Ridge. Kelachulee was an aged chief, a full blood married to a f u l l blood, a man w h o had long service i n the Council and w h o had served as a delegate to meetings w i t h the Secretary of War i n Washington. A l l the evidence shows h i m to have been an ardent patriot. He spoke no Eng­ lish, owned no slaves, and never had a n y t h i n g to do w i t h the missionarCherokee Laws, p. 40. It is not clear why some districts were allowed four while some had only two; each should have had three for a total of twenty-four, but only twenty-one signed the constitution. 14

394

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

ies. B u t not all those delegates w h o were English-speaking m i x e d bloods were ardent supporters of missions. Between 1824 and 1827 at least five of those elected had been described b y missionaries as " q u i t e opposed to missions" i n one w a y or another. Late i n June, a meeting took place at N e w Echota between the t w o fac­ tions to t r y to w o r k out a reconciliation. There are some brief notes of this council that show that a committee was appointed to t r y to resolve the m a i n issues. A f t e r five days, i t issued a long resolution that was signed b y nine of the rebels: Kelachulee, Tyger (Big Tiger), Cabbin S m i t h , Terrapin Head, Ahchatoueh, Katchee, F r y i n g Pan, George M i l l e r , and Atosotokee. It stated that the signers regretted their actions that had been "calculated to produce party feelings injurious to the public w e l f a r e / ' The members of "the dissatisfied p a r t y " n o w agreed that " h a r m o n y and u n a n i m i t y " should prevail " i n supporting the public laws of the n a t i o n " and " t h a t all meetings of opposition be discouraged." They also agreed that the rebels w o u l d petition the lawful council regarding any of the laws that t h e y "considered u n w h o l e s o m e . " I n short, they agreed to end the rebellion and to w o r k for r e f o r m w i t h i n the legal system. I t is perhaps significant that three of those mentioned i n other sources as leading figures i n the rebellion did not sign this agreement: W h i t e Path, Rising Fawn, and D r o w n i n g Bear. Furthermore, the Moravians reported that this reconcil­ iation council was o n l y sparsely attended and that i n their opinion "the prospects [were] b a d " for reconciliation of the t w o factions.

15

The C o n ­

gregationalists, however, believed that "the t u m u l t of the people i n this n a t i o n " had ended.

16

General Cocke came to N e w Echota early i n June to observe the con­ stitutional convention and to lay the g r o u n d w o r k for his treaty negotia­ tions i n the fall. Cocke learned that the council of reconciliation " a d ­ journed w i t h o u t settling their business amicably and that some of the o l d Indians are v e r y m u c h dissatisfied and intend to raise opposition to t h e i r new mode of Government b y C o n s t i t u t i o n . " According to his source, 17

the whole rebellion stemmed f r o m the arrogant behavior of the m i x e d bloods over the preceding six or eight years: "the m i x e d bloods are now, and have been for some t i m e , at the head of affairs and passed laws so contrary to ancient customs that the native Indian is ready to r e v o l t . "

1 8

Evidently to deter further rebellion, those attending the reconciliation council at N e w Echota voted " t h a t every leader of an extra [illegal] coun15 16 17 18

Johann Schmidt to Theodore Schulz, July 2,1827, MAS. A r d Hoyt to Jeremiah Evarts, July 16,1827, ABCFM. John Cocke's Journal, July 18, 1827, M-234, reel 72, #0248. John Cocke's Journal, July 1,1827, M-234, reel 72, #0245.

395

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

cil should be punished w i t h a hundred lashes," w h i c h seems to indicate that they expected further t r o u b l e . The constitutional convention met, as scheduled, on July 4,1827. John Ross was elected president and A l e x M c C o y , clerk. Ross probably pre­ sented a draft copy at the first session that was then debated and amended over the next three w e e k s . There are no extant minutes of the conven­ t i o n nor any comments on its actions by those w h o attended, but f r o m internal evidence i t is possible to suggest some of the issues that m a y have been controversial and some that may have been w r i t t e n i n such a w a y as to alleviate the worst fears of the rebels. The draft of the constitution was obviously designed as the capstone of Cherokee nationalism and of the Cherokee renascence—a Cherokee version of the A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n to suit Cherokee needs. The drafters wished to demonstrate to the w o r l d that politically—as a nation—the Cherokees were n o w f u l l y civilized and republicanized and that they were f u l l y capable of self-government ac­ cording to the same kinds of laws and legal system that w h i t e Americans adopted i n a Western t e r r i t o r y prior to statehood. As such, the conven­ t i o n hoped to show that the Cherokees had n o t h i n g to gain and m u c h to lose b y being sent to the West under any " c o l o n i z a t i o n " scheme that w o u l d place t h e m under some " m o d i f i e d " f o r m of republican laws suita­ ble to "half-savage" people. The convention also wanted to demonstrate that the Cherokee w a y of life was n o w perfectly compatible w i t h Chris­ t i a n i t y and that its people were open to the same k i n d of development to become a Christian nation as the rest of the United States. However, m u c h of the w o r d i n g about religion was so ambiguous that adherents to the old Cherokee religion could not claim that their ways were i n any re­ spect proscribed or that C h r i s t i a n i t y was the preferred religion of the na­ t i o n . The preamble, however, went further toward acknowledging the de­ i t y than the A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n . 19

20

We, the Representatives of the People of the Cherokee Nation, in Convention as­ sembled, in order to establish justice, ensure tranquility, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessing of liberty; ac­ knowledging with humility and gratitude the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in offering us an opportunity so favorable to the design and implor­ ing his aid and direction in its accomplishment, do ordain and establish this Con­ stitution for the Government of the Cherokee Nation. 21

I n adapting the A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n to the Cherokee situation, one of the most i m p o r t a n t issues was to define their t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries. Johann Schmidt to Schulz, July 18, 1827, MAS. For a comparison of the Cherokee constitution with the United States Constitution see Strickland, Fire and the Spirits, pp. 65-66. This and the quotations below from the Cherokee constitution are taken from Chero­ kee Laws, pp. 118-25. 19

2 0

21

396

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

Hence A r t i c l e I spelled these out v e r y specifically and stated that the land w i t h i n those boundaries was " s o l e m n l y guaranteed and reserved forever to the Cherokee N a t i o n by the treaties concluded w i t h the U n i t e d States" and that t h e y "shall forever hereafter remain unalterably the same." This was, of course, the heart of the matter, for i f this Indian nation was not to be subject to d i m i n u t i o n b y further cessions or b y the u l t i m a t e i n ­ corporation of the people as individuals into the U n i t e d States (i.e., the denationalization of the Cherokee N a t i o n ) , the Cherokees had subverted the whole i n t e n t i o n of George Washington's Indian policy. The Chero­ kees argued that Washington's policy was not of their m a k i n g but that t h e y had for t h i r t y years tried to live up to i t . T h e y could also demon­ strate that since 1808 the federal government had been t r y i n g to alter that policy t h r o u g h its removal and exchange program. I n addition t h e y could argue that w i t h i n the past five years the states i n w h i c h t h e y lived were frank i n their demands for total extinction of Cherokee land claims w i t h i n their boundaries and seemed determined to subvert the Cherokees' trea­ ties w i t h the federal government b y one means or another. Finally, t h e y could argue w i t h equal force that w i t h the adoption of the colonization plan by M o n r o e and Adams, the chief executives themselves had altered Washington's original policy, leaving o n l y the shred of " v o l u n t a r y " re­ m o v a l . The next obvious step was forced removal. The Cherokee consti­ t u t i o n was an effort to prevent that and to assert their choice (while t h e y still had one) to remain forever where they were under the original Washingtonian grant of self-government. Section 2 of A r t i c l e I asserted the national sovereignty of the Cherokee people and affirmed the traditional Cherokee principle of c o m m u n a l o w n ­ ership of the land: The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this Government shall extend over the coun­ try within the boundaries above described, and the lands therein are and shall re­ main the common property of the nation; but the improvements made thereon, and in possession of the citizens of the nation, are the exclusive and indefeasible property of the citizens respectively who made or may rightfully be in possession of them. Moreover, no citizen had the r i g h t to dispose of his or her improvements " t o the U n i t e d States, individual states, nor to i n d i v i d u a l citizens thereof." Citizenship i n the Cherokee N a t i o n meant residence w i t h i n the constitution's prescribed boundaries. A n y citizens w h o moved outside these boundaries to Arkansas or w h o accepted reserves " a n d became cit­ izens of any other Government, all their rights and privileges as citizens of the nation shall cease." Presumably the chiefs and councils elected b y the Arkansas Cherokees constituted a separate government. Clearly, u n ­ der the Cherokee constitution, any w h o m i g h t emigrate to Arkansas did 397

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

not automatically carry w i t h t h e m a proportionate share of their home­ land for exchange purposes. A r t i c l e I I divided the government into three "distinct Departments: the Legislature, Executive and the Judicial." Article I I I defined the powers of the legislature or "General C o u n c i l " ; the National Committee (or u p ­ per branch) was to be made up of t w o elected members f r o m each of the eight electoral districts; the National Council (or lower house) was to consist of three members f r o m each district. Qualifications did not differ for the t w o branches. Article I I I also defined the qualifications for v o t i n g , m a k i n g explicit the sexual and racial qualifications that had already evolved i n practice. W o m e n , for example, had had no rights i n council af­ fairs for t w e n t y years. V o t i n g rights were n o w l i m i t e d to " a l l free male citizens (excepting Negroes and descendants of w h i t e and Indian m e n b y negro w o m e n w h o m a y have been set free) w h o shall have attained the age of eighteen years." The Cherokees were determined to follow the practice of the southern states i n defining as " N e g r o " any person w h o had a drop of black blood. Office holding was similarly l i m i t e d , but full citi­ zenship was granted to those of mixed white-and-Cherokee ancestry re­ gardless of any official f o r m of marriage (Christian or secular)—in itself a concession to traditionalism. No person shall be eligible to a seat in the General Council but a free Cherokee male citizen who shall have attained to the age of twenty-five years; the descend­ ants of Cherokee men by all free women except [of] the African race, whose par­ ents may be or have been living together as man and wife according to the cus­ toms and laws of this nation, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of this nation as well as the posterity of Cherokee women by all free men. No person who is of a negro or mulatto parentage, either by the father or mother's side shall be eligible to hold any office of profit, honor or trust under this government. The Cherokee N a t i o n was a slaveholding state. O n the one hand, t r a d i ­ tionalists m a y have been pleased that w h i t e m e n were excluded f r o m of­ fice, on the other, they m a y have disliked the elimination of women's par­ ticipation i n councils and m a y have been offended by the i m p l i c i t assumption that the father, not the mother, was the official source of par­ entage, w h i c h indicated the abandonment of the m a t r i l i n e a l clan kinship system. The disfranchisement of w o m e n (who i n earlier times had the r i g h t to some participation i n t o w n and national councils) seems to have aroused no reaction among the Cherokee w o m e n . Except for the women's petition of 1818, there is no evidence of female participation i n the gov­ erning process after 1794 (although Stone Carrier had taken t w o w o m e n i n his delegation to Washington i n 1808). Probably w o m e n retained their

398

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

traditional a u t h o r i t y i n clan affairs, but clans were nowhere m e n t i o n e d i n the constitution. A significant reversal of the A m e r i c a n C o n s t i t u t i o n provided that all m o n e y or appropriation bills must originate i n the upper house, a deci­ sion that had its roots i n 1813, w h e n the National Committee ordered the federal agent t u r n over all national income to i t . A r t i c l e I V defined the duties and qualifications of the Principal Chief and Assistant Principal Chief. T h e y were to be elected for four-year terms b y the General Council—a significant shift f r o m the t r a d i t i o n of life tenure. " N o person except a natural b o r n citizen shall be eligible to the office of Principal Chief," and he must be over t h i r t y - f i v e years o l d . A distinctive feature of the Cherokee constitution (though not u n l i k e the "cabinet" of the A m e r i c a n Chief Executive) was the creation of a Council of Advisors. They were to be elected by the legislature " t o advise the Principal Chiefs." The t w o chiefs and three counselors constituted an ex­ ecutive body w i t h power to act w h e n the council was not i n session (but their acts had to be reviewed and ratified b y the Council). N o w that the National Committee was, strictly speaking, the Senate of the legislature, it was not clear h o w i t w o u l d function between legislative sessions. That the counselors m a y have been created as roles for old chiefs not elected to the Council is indicated by the requirement that w h e n u n a n i m i t y was lacking the opposing positions of counselors i n any executive committee decision were to be w r i t t e n and considered by the Council w h e n i t re­ viewed the actions of that body. The N a t i o n a l Treasurer was to be elected b y the legislature and to give bond w i t h sureties. He could draw no m o n e y f r o m the N a t i o n a l Treasury "but b y warrant f r o m the Principal Chief and i n consequence of appro­ priations made b y l a w . " A r t i c l e V defined the official duties of the judges of the supreme, cir­ cuit, and district courts m u c h as they had already been defined i n previous legislation. T h e y were to be "appointed by a j o i n t vote of each House of the General C o u n c i l " and must be over t h i r t y years old. Retirement was mandatory at seventy. A r t i c l e V I contained w h a t amounted to the A n g l o - S a x o n B i l l of Rights, guaranteeing a j u r y t r i a l , due process of law, "free exercise of religious w o r s h i p , " and freedom " f r o m unreasonable seizures and searches." N o t h i n g was said about freedom of speech or freedom of the press, b u t this was not an oversight. The nation was i n the process of establishing a national newspaper (its first edition appeared i n February 1828), w i t h an editor appointed b y the Principal Chief and removable b y h i m . Because this paper was paid for b y national funds and distributed at no charge and because i t was to represent the official position of the n a t i o n , i t was not 399

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

designed to be open to dissident positions that w o u l d divide and confuse the people. The existence of other newspapers or other forms of free expression was not prohibited, but having just been t h r o u g h a rebellion, those w h o drafted the constitution did not want to encourage such behav­ ior. This was to cause problems for the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix i n the difficult years ahead. 22

A r t i c l e V I also dealt w i t h education. Its phraseology resembled A r t i c l e I I I of the constitution of Massachusetts. The parallel is interesting be­ cause Massachusetts at that t i m e still had a religious establishment w i t h entaglements between church and state as w e l l as between religion and education. Because the missionary schools included religious i n s t r u c t i o n and were supported b y m o n e y appropriated b y Congress and because i n the near future the Cherokees hoped to have their o w n national school fund that m i g h t i n part support mission schools, i t was necessary to ex­ plain i n this article the relationships involved: " R e l i g i o n , m o r a l i t y and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of l i b ­ erty and the happiness of m a n k i n d , schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged i n this N a t i o n . " The constitution did not spe­ cifically say that public taxes m i g h t be levied for the support of schools or for mission activities, but this was left an open possibility; the relation­ ship between religion, education, and good government was articulated. The rebel faction m a y not have liked the implications of this. Probably even more a n n o y i n g to conservative Cherokees was the sec­ t i o n i n A r t i c l e V I stating that " n o person w h o denies the being of a God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office i n the civil department of this N a t i o n . " This was strangely at odds w i t h the oath of office specified i n A r t i c l e I I I of the constitution: " I , A . B . , do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case m a y be) that I have not obtained m y election by b r i b e r y , threats, or any undue and unlawful means used b y myself or others . . . and that I w i l l bear true faith and allegiance [to the nation and its c o n s t i t u t i o n ] . " Ostensibly this was designed (as were the oaths i n most A m e r i c a n state constitutions) to exclude atheists, b u t unless the w o r d " G o d " i n A r t i c l e V I was translated as "Great S p i r i t , " i t could have caused difficulty for believers i n the traditional religion. However, there is no indication that i t was ever interpreted to exclude those w h o adhered to the old religion. A n o t h e r section of this grab-bag article lifted a clause f r o m m a n y early A m e r i c a n state constitutions excluding ministers of the Gospel f r o m h o l d i n g office on the grounds that they were " b y profession, dedicated to See Theda Perdue, ed., Cherokee Editor: The Writings of Elias Boudinot (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983), pp. 25-26; Boudinot was fired as editor in 1832 be­ cause he represented a minority view that advocated signing a treaty of removal 22

400

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

the service of God and to the care of souls and ought not to be diverted f r o m the great d u t y of their f u n c t i o n " by entering politics. This too m a y have been a concession to the fears of conservatives over the rising n u m ­ ber of Christian converts and exhorters under the auspices of the various mission agencies. However, this article was never enforced and i n later years some notable Cherokee preachers did hold h i g h office, such as Jesse Bushyhead, Young Wolf, Turtle Fields, John T i m s o n , and Stephen Fore­ man. The constitution ended w i t h an article p e r m i t t i n g amendments w i t h the vote of " t w o - t h i r d s of each H o u s e " provided that the amendment passed i n t w o separate and successive sessions (a provision also contained i n the Massachusetts constitution). Judged as a measure of Cherokee political m a t u r a t i o n , the constitution was a sound and workable document. I t grew out of a generation of p o l i t ­ ical experience. I n most respects i t simply codified existing statutes and legal practices. Its chief v i r t u e was that i t did not directly challenge the old customs beyond those reforms that had already been enacted b y the Council. M o s t Cherokees probably saw the document for w h a t i t was— an ideological statement to head off the vigorous efforts to remove t h e m or take their land. I t did not really alter their current structure or behav­ ior i n any significant w a y . Neither, of course, did i t place any brake u p o n rapid acculturation. The constitution was originally designed to go into effect at once, b u t apparently w h e n the chiefs discovered what an uproar i t aroused i n the neighboring states (Governor T r o u p of Georgia a n g r i l y sent a copy of i t to President Adams demanding his denunciation of i t ) , the nation's lead­ ers felt that i t w o u l d be judicious to wait for Adams's reactions. The Georgians expected h i m to declare i t n u l l and v o i d ; the Cherokees ex­ pected h i m to approve i t . Adams took seven months to find a w a y out. W h e n the N a t i o n a l Council met i n October 1827, i t elected i n t e r i m chiefs to replace Pathkiller and Charles Hicks and announced that permanent replacements w o u l d be chosen under the constitution the f o l l o w i n g year. The fact that John Ross was not chosen as acting chief m a y indicate some displeasure w i t h h i m . Instead the Council elected W i l l i a m Hicks, the brother of Charles Hicks, as i n t e r i m Principal Chief; Ross became Second Principal Chief and Elijah Hicks, President of the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t t e e . W h i l e the Council was meeting at N e w Echota i n October, General Cocke and t w o other treaty commissioners sent t h e m a message f r o m the federal agency i n Hiwassee stating that they wished the Council to come there to discuss i m p o r t a n t business. The Council replied, as i t had i n 1822, that i t declined to attend a meeting concerned o n l y w i t h the busi­ ness of asking i t to cede more land. " T h e Cherokee N a t i o n has no more 401

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

land to dispose o f " they said, and " w e cannot accede to y o u r proposi­ t i o n s . " Cocke was u n w i l l i n g to come to N e w Echota and therefore he and the other commissioners returned home w i t h o u t h o l d i n g any nego­ tiations. I n his report to the Secretary of War, Cocke blamed the Chero­ kees for assuming that they n o w had "a separate, independent govern­ ment not amenable or subject to that of the U n i t e d States." The Cherokees had insisted i n their letter to Cocke that they were u n w i l l i n g " t o part w i t h our home—the land of our b i r t h " simply for the "aggran­ disement" of the states of Georgia and N o r t h Carolina on whose behalf Cocke had come to bargain for Cherokee land. 23

24

T h o u g h Cocke had been provided w i t h funds for " i n d u c i n g " well-dis­ posed chiefs to sign a treaty, none of the rebels associated w i t h W h i t e Path came to Hiwassee to accommodate h i m . Nonetheless, Cocke re­ ported to the Secretary of War that i n his opinion " t w o - t h i r d s of t h e m are w i l l i n g to cede their whole country and remove to the west of the M i s ­ sissippi." He blamed the impasse upon the mixed-blood elite, w h o had intimidated "the real Indians." There is no evidence for this. I n fact, over the next decade the full-blood conservatives proved far more determined to remain i n their homeland than m a n y of the mixed-blood elite. H o w ­ ever, W h i t e Path's rebellion helped to provide frontier whites w i t h an ex­ cuse to persist i n seeking Cherokee removal; they said they were acting i n the interests of the full bloods against the m o n o p o l y of power held b y the mixed bloods. 25

Concerted efforts by W h i t e Path and his friends to curtail the rapid pace of acculturation ceased after 1827, but there were continued out­ bursts of resistance to missionary expansion as long as the Cherokees re­ mained i n the East. I n fact, o n l y t w o days after the constitutional conven­ t i o n ended i n July 1827, the Reverend Johann Schmidt of Springplace wrote that "adversaries of the Gospel are not lacking"; " i n the Chatooga D i s t r i c t , " he said, " o l d D r o w n i n g Bear . . . [still] tries to convince every­ one that the teaching of the w h i t e people is not suitable for I n d i a n s . " I n A p r i l 1828, D r . Elizur Butler, medical missionary for the Congregation­ alists, reported that the traditionalists near Haweis mission sometimes "threaten our lives but more frequently [threaten] to w h i p u s " for con­ t i n u i n g to proselytize i n their t o w n s . T w o months later, a Cherokee convert w h o frequently exhorted for the Congregationalists was preach26

27

John Cocke's Report on Cherokee Negotiations, August 15-October 11,1827, M-234, reel 72, #0267-0298. Ibid. Ibid. Johann Schmidt to Schulz, July 30,1827, MAS. Elizur Butler to Jeremiah Evarts, April 7,1828, ABCFM. 2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

402

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

ing t w e n t y miles f r o m Haweis w h e n he was "stoned" b y a crowd amidst "considerable disturbance." Even after the Council voted i n November to fine ten dollars " a n y person or persons [who] shall i n t e r r u p t b y m i s ­ behaviour any congregation of Cherokee or w h i t e citizens assembled at any place for the purpose of D i v i n e w o r s h i p , " such outbursts c o n t i n u e d . I n September 1830, the Reverend Daniel Butrick of the A m e r i c a n Board reported that at the t o w n of R u n n i n g Water some Cherokees threatened to meet h i m w i t h loaded guns i f he appeared to keep a preaching appoint­ ment. He came anyway. Those opposed did not attack h i m . I n the years 1836-1838 a new revival of the Cherokee religion frightened m a n y of the missionaries. But open rebellion by any large number of Cherokee con­ servatives did not occur again i n the east. 28

29

3 0

W h i l e Adams and the W a r Department m u l l e d over their copies of the Cherokee constitution, the Cherokees engaged i n their first public polit­ ical campaign as various candidates vied for election to the N a t i o n a l Council, w h i c h w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y ratify the new fundamental law. The Cherokee Phoenix began publication i n February 1828 and i n its pages various candidates offered their views on h o w the government should op­ erate under the new constitution. I n addition, the editor of the Phoenix printed several letters addressed to h i m expressing the views of various citizens on the issues facing the nation. Because the paper was p r i n t e d i n b o t h English and Sequoyan, the non-English-speaking Cherokees could participate i n this debate and become conversant w i t h the issues. I n its way, the Cherokee N a t i o n was embarking on its o w n version of Jacksonian democracy. The c o m m o n man had a new sense that he was part of the political process that for so long had been dominated b y the elite. As a national paper, subsidized b y the N a t i o n a l Treasury, the Phoenix took no side i n the debate. Its editor, Elias Boudinot (Buck Watie or O o watie), was a nephew of Major Ridge, educated at the M o r a v i a n school at Springhouse and the C o r n w a l l Seminary. M a r r i e d to a w h i t e w o m a n and officially engaged i n helping the Reverend Samuel Worcester translate the Bible i n t o Cherokee for the A m e r i c a n Board, Boudinot was a consci­ entious editor, t h o r o u g h l y devoted to the process of acculturation and Christianization. He had overcome his h u r t pride at the racial prejudice demonstrated b y the whites i n Cornwall over his m a r r y i n g H a r r i e t Gold. I n 1826 he had gone on a speaking t o u r for the nation to raise funds for Elizur Butler to Jeremiah Evarts, June 5, 1828, ABCFM. Actually the cabin i n which he was preaching was stoned, not the preacher. Cherokee Laws, p. 107. This law also prescribed 39 lashes for any Negro who inter­ rupted a Christian meeting, but it is doubtful whether slaves were active in White Path's Rebellion. Daniel Butrick's Journal, September 8,1830, ABCFM. 28

29

30

403

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

the p r i n t i n g press and the national academy. The address he gave i n P h i l ­ adelphia, N e w York, Boston, and other places was printed i n pamphlet f o r m , the first w o r k by a Cherokee to be printed. I n i t he explained the Cherokees' progress and looked forward to the day w h e n they m i g h t be allowed full equality as citizens to share i n the rising g l o r y of the U n i t e d States. Like John Ridge, David Vann, and David B r o w n , he was among those b r i g h t y o u n g leaders of the rising generation w h o were determined to prove that they could meet every test the whites held up for t h e m and earn their respect despite their " c o m p l e x i o n . " Under Boudinot's editor­ ship, the Cherokee Phoenix proved to be a remarkable force both i n at­ tracting w h i t e support for the nation (copies were sent to m a n y ministers and missionary societies t h r o u g h o u t the United States and were ex­ changed w i t h other newspapers) as well as keeping the Cherokee people informed of the efforts of the state and federal politicians to obtain Cher­ okee land. A year after i t started publication i t added to its name the words and Indian Advocate to indicate that the Cherokees saw t h e m ­ selves as the spokesmen for all the Indian nations i n the fight against I n ­ dian r e m o v a l . 31

In the months before the election of A u g u s t 1828 the chief issue de­ bated i n the nation was what qualifications for office a candidate should have. M o r e specifically, the issue was h o w to balance the interests of the 75 percent of the population w h o were non-English-speaking, t r a d i t i o n ­ alist, full bloods against the 25 percent (or less) w h o spoke English and understood the complex problems of dealing w i t h w h i t e society. A dem­ ocratic society required proportional representation, but national survival seemed to indicate the need for rule by the aristocracy of talent, wealth, and experience. Since 1810 the t w o principal chiefs had been representa­ tives of these t w o segments of Cherokee society; the Principal Chief rep­ resented the full blood m a j o r i t y while the bilingual Second Principal Chief attended to most of the diplomatic relationships w i t h w h i t e offi­ cials. S i m i l a r l y , the National Committee consistently contained a major­ i t y of bilingual, well-to-do mixed bloods because its principal activities concerned relations w i t h federal officials. The full bloods had their power i n the National Council, or lower house, which dealt w i t h local affairs. But was this division of labor necessary or advisable n o w that the nation had reached such an advanced position of economic and political sophis­ tication ? Could the full bloods w h o spoke no English and understood little of the economic complexities of a market economy serve effectively u n ­ der the new constitution? O r had their rebellion indicated that they were so disaffected, that they found the new ways so alien and offensive, that 31

Perdue, Cherokee Editor, p. 18.

404

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

t h e y w o u l d obstruct or distort the nation's development (as the acculturated Cherokees defined i t ) and jeopardize its security? I n M a y 1828, a letter addressing these issues appeared i n the Phoenix signed " U t a l e t a h " (the author's i d e n t i t y was not otherwise given). Utaletah argued that " u n i t y " was the o v e r r i d i n g necessity for the n a t i o n . The Cherokees m u s t combine w i t h "one object, the preservation of ourselves as a free and sovereign people, observing strictly our relations w i t h the U n i t e d States w i t h w h o m alone we are connected b y solemn treaties." There were m a n y w h o did not understand the complexity of t h e i r situa­ t i o n . " T h e art of legislation is little understood b y a m a j o r i t y of the na­ t i o n , " Utaletah w r o t e . W o u l d i t not be best, therefore, to select candidates for the N a t i o n a l Committee w h o were " m e n of education and good knowledge of the affairs of our n a t i o n , " w h i l e the N a t i o n a l Council, or lower house, " s h o u l d be composed of full blooded Cherokees k n o w n for their love of c o u n t r y , the land of their forefathers, and also celebrated for t h e i r good natural sense, justice and firmness." Our nation as a political body has reached an important crisis, and bids fair for rapid progress in the path of civilization, the arts and sciences; while at the same time we can say with no ordinary degree of exultation, that agriculture is gradu­ ally gaining an ascendancy amongst us equalled by no other Indian Tribe. 32

Utaletah favored c o n t i n u i n g the development of the nation as i t had evolved under the system of the past t w e n t y years, b u t he wished to as­ sure the f u l l bloods of an equal voice i n decision m a k i n g . Elijah Hicks, the t h i r t y - y e a r - o l d son of Charles Hicks and b r o t h e r - i n law of John Ross, w r o t e a letter to the Phoenix i n July that took the v i e w that the n a t i o n needed leadership chiefly f r o m the well-educated. H e was himself of that group. " I shall support strenuously the election of a P r i n ­ cipal Chief w h o shall be a learned m a n . " He hoped none w o u l d t r y to per­ petuate "the past custom of placing an unlearned person i n that depart­ m e n t . " H e w o u l d find i t " h u m i l i a t i n g " to have the nation led n o w by a Cherokee w h o spoke no English and understood n o t h i n g of the complex ways of the m o d e r n w o r l d ; such a m a n w o u l d lack "competency to per­ f o r m all the business connected w i t h the office" and become "dependent on others" for advice, as Pathkiller had been dependent on Elijah's father. The chief of the Cherokees should not have to conduct official business t h r o u g h the use of an interpreter. " I f i t is our object to place useful m e n i n our offices," then " o u r advanced situation requires a learned m a n at the head of our g o v e r n m e n t . " O n the other hand, Hicks appealed to the anti-mission sentiment of the 33

32 33

Cherokee Phoenix, May 6,1828. Cherokee Phoenix, July 21,1828.

405

R E B E L L I O N

A G A I N S T

T H E

C O N S T I T U T I O N

conservatives b y expressing serious criticism of the twelve mission sta­ tions w i t h their "splended establishments on the choicest of lands" that now existed i n the nation and that seemed bound to increase i n n u m b e r and size. " W e have permitted t h e m to settle on our land w i t h o u t a special understanding of the duration of t i m e for their continuance." I t was t i m e to obtain some specific contractual agreements w i t h the various mission boards to establish inspection of mission w o r k and to regulate their activ­ ities. O f course, the best kinds of persons to undertake this delicate w o r k w o u l d be those w h o understood the nature and purpose of education. A letter f r o m John Huss, a full blood f o r m e r l y k n o w n as " T h e S p i r i t " or "Captain S p i r i t " but rechristened after his conversion b y the Congre­ gationalists, appeared i n the Phoenix opposing the view that "the N a ­ tional C o m m i t t e e should be composed of men acquainted w i t h letters and the Council of full I n d i a n s . " This " w o u l d be a great evil, for i t w o u l d appear like creating a division among the people." I t was w e l l k n o w n , he said, that the poor and uneducated feel that "those w h o talk English are overbearing. Dissensions w i l l soon follow i f such a course is pursued." I n his opinion b o t h the upper and lower houses " s h o u l d be m i x e d " w i t h English-speaking and non-English-speaking representatives so that they w o u l d have to learn to w o r k together. " O u r Chiefs and legislators have made for us a C o n s t i t u t i o n . I f we be of one m i n d i n the support of this C o n s t i t u t i o n , the inhabitants of Georgia w i l l not take away our land . . . if we be divided i n t o parties, we shall be liable to lose our t e r r i t o r y . " He realized that some did not like the new constitution, b u t he t h o u g h t i t had strengthened the nation. " W h e r e v e r a people preserve a regular system of government, that c o m m u n i t y is f i r m l y established. So let i t be w i t h us Cherokees." The great mistake of the Arkansas Cherokees was that they had wandered off f r o m their brethen and were " l i k e a lost people." The division of the Cherokees into east and west had occurred " f o r w a n t of a regular system of g o v e r n m e n t . " N o w the eastern Cherokees had a regu­ lar system and they should use i t to prevent further divisions. 34

M a j o r Ridge w r o t e a letter u r g i n g those w h o were uncertain about the new f o r m of government to participate i n i t and help to guide it. A s a n o n English-speaking chief he sympathized w i t h those w h o had doubts and believed that " t o elect hastily such men as w i l l be too speedy imitators of w h i t e people w o u l d not be w e l l . " He knew that m a n y were w o r r i e d over the new ways because they did not understand t h e m . " I t is not r i g h t to proceed hastily and f r o m laws w h i c h the people do not understand. I f a child beginning to walk attempts to r u n , he soon falls and cries. A n d i f a Cherokee Phoenix, July 2, 1828. Huss could not write English so Boudinot must have translated this. For Huss see Walker, Torchlights, p. 128. Huss was ordained as a Cherokee evangelist by the Congregationalist missionaries in 1824. 34

406

REBELLION

AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

man w o r k i n g i n the field does not p e r f o r m his w o r k t h o r o u g h l y , he goes over m u c h g r o u n d indeed b u t the field w h i c h he has passed over is still f u l l of weeds." H e did not favor t u r n i n g the n a t i o n over to educated m e n who w o u l d rush i n t o assimilation; some balance had to be kept w i t h those who respected the old ways and wished to move more s l o w l y . The n a t i o n was w e l l aware that i t was i n a critical position. M o r e federal negotiators had been appointed to meet w i t h t h e m i n October. T h e y needed to bridge the gap between the eager y o u n g acculturationists and the w o r r i e d f o l ­ lowers of W h i t e Path and Rising F a w n . 35

I n order to assure the w h i t e public that their c o u n t r y was stable and that t h e i r democratic system was functioning s m o o t h l y , the chiefs asked some of the missionaries to serve as supervisors and poll watchers w h e n the election took place i n A u g u s t 1828. One of these w r o t e : " I was pres­ ent at one of the Precincts at the late Cherokee State Election and was as­ tonished to see so m u c h order and r e g u l a r i t y . There was n o t h i n g of that i n t r i g u e or unfairness w h i c h is to be seen at the elections i n the civilized States." The rebels did not create any fuss. W h i t e Path himself ran for election f r o m his district and w o n . (Kelachulaee had died i n February 1828.) Several Christian converts were also elected. The Reverend Isaac Proctor said that of the f o r t y persons elected " m o r e t h a n one-fifth are p i o u s " — m e a n i n g churchgoers. Less than one-tenth of the Cherokees were Christians at this t i m e . The list of those elected shows that most of those w h o had led the nation for the preceding ten years received a vote of confidence. 36

37

A t its first meeting i n October, the new Council ratified the constitu­ t i o n and t h e n elected John Ross, First Principal Chief; George L o w r e y , Second Principal Chief; Lewis Ross, President of the N a t i o n a l C o m m i t ­ tee; G o i n g Snake, Speaker of the Council; John M a r t i n , Chief Justice of the Supreme C o u r t ; A l e x M c C o y , clerk of the lower house; and W i l l i a m Shorey Coody, clerk of the upper house. M a j o r Ridge and W i l l i a m Hicks were chosed as counselors to the chiefs. O n the w h o l e , the N a t i o n a l C o m ­ mittee continued to be p r e d o m i n a n t l y those of experience, of m i x e d an­ cestry, w e a l t h y , and English-speaking w h i l e the N a t i o n a l Council was p r e d o m i n a n t l y non-English-speaking and full blood. To discourage any further rebellions, the Council ratified the decision of the reconciliation council i n June 1827, p u n i s h i n g those w h o organized " u n l a w f u l meetings w i t h i n t e n t to create factions . . . or to encourage re­ b e l l i o n " w i t h 100 lashes. However, probably also as a result of agree38

35

Cherokee Phoenix, June 24,1828.

3 6

Isaac Proctor to Jeremiah Evarts, September 3,1828, ABCFM. Ibid. Proctor did not identify the nine who were "pious." Cherokee Laws, p. 117. Apparently no one was ever punished for this.

37

38

407

REBELLION AGAINST T H E CONSTITUTION

merits reached at that council, the Council agreed i n October to take up the problem of missionary expansion and regulation. W i l l i a m Hicks and John Ross had addressed a j o i n t message to the Council on October 13 i n w h i c h t h e y made a number of recommendations for action. One sugges­ t i o n was the establishment of a v i s i t i n g committee to supervise the var­ ious mission schools. The Council engaged i n an extensive debate on this matter. John Gunter introduced a m o t i o n to require all members of the mission staffs " t o obtain p e r m i t s " just as white traders and artisans had to d o . I n the past the Council had requested the missionaries to ask its permission before b r i n g i n g i n new personnel, but the missionaries had ignored this. The Tennessee M e t h o d i s t Conference never bothered to ask permission w h e n i t expanded its traveling circuits year after year. A l l the mission boards had b l i t h e l y assumed that they had a perfect r i g h t to i n ­ crease t h e i r mission staffs and activities more or less at w i l l . Gunter ar­ gued that this was "inconsistent" w i t h the r i g h t of the nation to regulate all activities by whites w i t h i n its borders. 39

4 0

Gunter's m o t i o n was opposed b y Richard Taylor and Joseph V a n n (of Coosewatee) w h o "argued on the blessing of education and the good w h i c h has been produced b y mission establishments." From the i n t e n s i t y of this debate i t is clear that the rebels had not been silenced, although they were abiding by their agreement to seek reform w i t h i n the consti­ t u t i o n a l system. Following the debate, the Council voted to undertake a full investigation of all the missionary agencies i n order to determine what privileges t h e y did and did not have w i t h i n the nation. I n addition, the Council appointed t w o committees to visit all the schools i n the nation (private and missionary) "once a year and to report to the General C o u n ­ cil a n n u a l l y on the number of scholars, progress of education, e t c . " The Council thereby assumed the power to administer the nation's educa­ tional system. They expected soon to have a national academy of their o w n and i f the W a r Department w o u l d ever fulfill its agreement to sell the Cherokee education tract and provide an endowment fund for educa­ t i o n , the nation expected to have sufficient funds to create its o w n com­ m o n schools to complement the existing mission schools. 41

Early i n the spring of 1828, John Q u i n c y Adams had finally reacted of­ ficially to the Cherokee constitution. Secretary of War Barbour w r o t e to M o n t g o m e r y on M a r c h 23, instructing h i m to call the chiefs together and i n f o r m t h e m that as far as President Adams was concerned, their consti­ t u t i o n had not altered their relationship w i t h the United States. Or, as he Cherokee Phoenix, October 22, 1828. Payne Papers, vn: 91-92. This is one of the few surviving records of a debate in the Cherokee National Council. 39

40

41

Cherokee Laws, p. 94.

408

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

put i t , their new f o r m of government w o u l d " n o t be recognized as chang­ i n g any one of the relations under w h i c h they stood to the General Gov­ e r n m e n t . " Adams stated that the constitution "cannot be considered i n any other light t h a n as regulations of a p u r e l y m u n i c i p a l character." This was meant to assure the State of Georgia and others concerned that Adams did not acknowledge that the Cherokees had, b y adopting a con­ s t i t u t i o n , established their independence as a sovereign state. Despite its negative tone, the Cherokees were happy w i t h this re­ sponse. John Ross wished to put the same face on the matter; " T h e con­ s t i t u t i o n , " he said, "is not considered i n any respect to change the rela­ tionship w h i c h the N a t i o n sustains w i t h the government of the U n i t e d States; i t was adopted w i t h no view to set up independence unwarranted b y the Treaties w i t h the United States." Its purpose was to assert the nation's r i g h t to self-government w i t h i n the treaty obligations t h r o u g h w h i c h the U n i t e d States had agreed to protect its borders against the i n ­ dividual states of the U n i o n . Ross was well aware that A n d r e w Jackson and the western states believed that Indian treaty relationships w i t h the federal government were the great s t u m b l i n g block to Indian removal. O n l y an assertion of states' rights against and above those of the federal government could u l t i m a t e l y attain the goal of those favoring total com­ pulsory removal. The Cherokees had n o w maneuvered w h i t e A m e r i c a into a corner. To drive the Cherokees off their homeland, the whites w o u l d have to subvert their o w n C o n s t i t u t i o n . 42

43

This had already become clear i n February 1827 w h e n the State of Georgia directly confronted President Adams w i t h its claim that i t was sovereign over Indian land w i t h i n its o w n boundaries and dared h i m to call out the United States A r m y w h e n Georgia flouted a treaty made w i t h the Creek N a t i o n . B y a treaty ceding Creek land i n Georgia, the Creeks i n Georgia had been given a certain period of t i m e w i t h i n w h i c h to re­ move themselves (either to western Arkansas or to what remained of their land i n Alabama). D u r i n g that period no whites were to enter the ceded area. However, the Georgians could not wait to start s u r v e y i n g i t for sale. W h e n Governor Troup ignored the treaty and sent the state sur­ veyors i n t o the Creek N a t i o n i n January 1827, the Creeks complained to Adams and Adams protested to T r o u p . W h e n T r o u p refused to heed A d ­ ams's warnings to w i t h d r a w the surveyors i m m e d i a t e l y , Adams an­ nounced his i n t e n t i o n of sending the a r m y to prevent "encroachment upon the territories secured b y a solemn treaty to the Indians." He said he w o u l d use " a l l the force c o m m i t t e d [to h i m as Chief Executive] for that H u g h M o n t g o m e r y t o James B a r b o u r , A p r i l 1 7 , 1 8 2 8 , M - 2 3 4 , reel 72, # 0 5 4 7 . J o h n Ross t o J o h n Cocke, i n Cocke's j o u r n a l of t h e t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s , A u g u s t 1 5 - O c tober 1 1 , 1 8 2 7 , M - 2 3 4 , reel 72, # 0 2 6 7 . 4 2

4 3

409

REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION

p u r p o s e / ' To this threatened use of federal force against a sovereign state, the Congressman f r o m Mississippi (a state equally eager to assume the sovereign r i g h t to remove the Choctaws f r o m its land) said that " i f the bayonets of the General Government should on this account [pro­ tecting Indian rights] be t u r n e d against any of the States," the Georgians " w o u l d speedily find its friends r a l l y i n g around i t . " Adams was saved f r o m this crisis b y the speedy completion of Georgia's survey and the w i t h d r a w a l of its surveyors before he got around to i n s t r u c t i n g the a r m y to eject t h e m . 44

4 5

4 6

I n December 1827, Georgia's legislature passed a resolution affirming that i t was sovereign over the Cherokee land w i t h i n its border. I t did this to show that Adams had not w o n the confrontation. After 1828, the ques­ t i o n of states' rights became a b u r n i n g issue for w h i t e Americans i n sev­ eral different ways. One concerned the status of Indian nations w i t h i n state boundaries; another, the r i g h t of the federal government to lay and collect tariff duties; and the t h i r d , the supremacy of treaty rights over state sovereignty. The Cherokees became one of the focal points of this complex national debate. I n a sense, the Cherokees had seized the i n i t i a ­ tive i n 1827 b y asserting their r i g h t to a self-governing constitution. The states needed a popular referendum to regain the initiative. Jackson's election provided i t . W h i t e Americans moved toward a populist f o r m of democracy at the precise m o m e n t that W h i t e Path's populist movement collapsed among the Cherokees, but h o w well the United States Consti­ t u t i o n w o u l d fare under Jacksonian democracy was yet to be seen. George Troup to John Quincy Adams, February 17, 1827, M-221, reel 105, #6051; John Quincy Adams to James Barbour, February 24,1827, M-221, reel 105, #5606; see also Dale Van Every, Disinherited (New York: William Morrow, 1966), p. 100 and Ulrich B. Phillips, "Georgia and States' Rights," Annual Report of the American Historical Associa­ tion, 1901 (Washington, D.C., 1885), 2:60-62. Van Every, Disinherited, p. 102. The best account of this confirmation between Adams and Georgia is contained in Green, Politics of Indian Removal, pp. 132-35. 44

45

46

410

TWENTY

THE

R E M O V A L CRISIS OF 1828

The lands in question belong to Georgia. She must and will have them. —Resolution of the Georgia legislature, December 1827

W

hen the Cherokees refused to discuss w i t h treaty commissioners either a land cession i n Georgia or permission for Georgia to b u i l d canals t h r o u g h their nation i n October 1827 and w h e n i t became clear that John Q u i n c y Adams had no i n t e n t i o n of doing a n y t h i n g about the Cher­ okee constitution, the Georgians decided i t was t i m e to take matters i n t o their o w n hands. To vent their anger and to provide the people of the U n i t e d States w i t h a new and simple remedy for the Indian question, the resolutions passed b y Georgia i n December 1827 were designed to explain to the Cherokees exactly what their status was w i t h i n the boundaries of that state. The first of these resolutions stated that " t h e absolute title to the lands i n controversy is i n Georgia," and "she may r i g h t f u l l y possess herself of t h e m w h e n , and by what means, she pleases." " W e are aware that the Cherokee Indians talk extravagantly of their devotion to the land of their fathers," said the legislators, and Georgia was w e l l aware that " t h e y have gone v e r y far toward convincing the General Government that negotiations w i t h t h e m i n view of procuring their relinquishment of title to the Georgia lands w i l l be hopeless," but such was not the case. The intransigence of the Cherokees w o u l d change " i f the General G o v e r n ­ m e n t w i l l change its policy toward t h e m and apprise t h e m of the nature and extent of the Georgia title to those lands and what w i l l be the probable consequence of their remaining refractory." However, i f the Federal (i.e., "General") government was u n w i l l i n g to act, then Georgia's government could and w o u l d . The Federal General government was to be allowed just one more chance to fulfill its sacred obligation under the Compact of 1802 and i t was given a deadline to meet this u l t i m a t u m . 1

Report of the Georgia Legislature, December 19,1827, M-234, reel 72, #0432; see also Phillips, "Georgia and States Rights," pp. 71-72; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 71-72; Van Every, Disinherited, p. 103. 1

411

REMOVAL

CRISIS

Asserting that "the policy which has been pursued by the U n i t e d States toward the Cherokee Indians has not been i n good faith t o w a r d Georgia," the legislators demanded that the government once again reopen frank and serious "negotiations w i t h the Cherokee Indians upon this subject" and explain to t h e m that Georgia w o u l d magnanimously allot one-sixth of the Cherokee area w i t h i n Georgia to those Cherokees w h o chose to re­ side on their farms as personal reserves (to be held as their private prop­ erty under state l a w ) . Georgia w o u l d not rescind the law denying Indians the r i g h t to testify i n its courts and, although the resolutions did not say so, these Cherokee citizens of Georgia w o u l d have o n l y the precarious status of freed slaves. 2

Finally, Georgia's resolutions of 1827 stated that i f the Cherokees failed to cooperate i n this final effort to extinguish their title to all their land w i t h i n the boundaries of Georgia, the state w o u l d exercise its sov­ ereign power b y " t a k i n g possession of, and extending our a u t h o r i t y and laws over, the whole of the lands i n controversy." Let there be no m i s ­ take : " T h e lands i n question belong to Georgia. She must and will have t h e m . " Georgians had fought and died i n the Revolution to free their land f r o m the B r i t i s h and their Indian allies; they had t e m p o r a r i l y yielded their rights i n the land to allow the federal government to treat w i t h the Indians u n t i l the west was free of foreign influence; they had given their western t e r r i t o r y (now Alabama and Mississippi) to the federal govern­ m e n t i n exchange for a solemn promise to extinguish all Indian titles w i t h i n Georgia as soon as reasonably possible. A quarter of a century had gone b y . The Creek War and the W a r of 1812 had been fought and more of Georgia's blood had been shed. "Georgia has the right to extend her a u t h o r i t y and laws over her whole t e r r i t o r y and to coerce obedience to t h e m f r o m all description of people be they w h i t e , red or black." (The t e r m " w h i t e " i n the last phrase was a veiled reference to the missionaries, w h o m the Georgians suspected of encouraging the Cherokees to believe that the land was theirs and that the federal government w o u l d perma­ n e n t l y protect their r i g h t to i t . ) 3

The resolutions were received w i t h w i l d enthusiasm b y v i r t u a l l y all the citizens of Georgia. Three years earlier, H u g h M o n t g o m e r y had ex­ plained these strong feelings to the War Department: " T h e prevailing idea i n Georgia, especially among the lower class, is that they are the R i g h t f u l owners of the soil and that the Indians are mere Tenants at w i l l ; indeed, sir, there is o n l y one point on w h i c h all Parties, b o t h h i g h and low, i n Georgia agree, and that is that they all want the Indian L a n d s ! " A l 4

2 3 4

Ibid. Ibid. Emphasis in original. Hugh Montgomery to Thomas McKenney, April 23, M-234, reel 71, #0595.

412

REMOVAL

CRISIS

t h o u g h he was Federal agent to the Cherokees, M o n t g o m e r y was a Geor­ gian and k n e w whereof he spoke. Y i e l d i n g to the electoral winds of constitutional doctrine b l o w i n g f r o m the west, John Q u i n c y Adams instructed his Secretary of W a r to sound out the Cherokees once again " o n the subject of ceding their land or any p o r t i o n of i t w i t h i n the l i m i t s of Georgia." Barbour relayed the message to M o n t g o m e r y and one day w h e n John Ross was at the agency, M o n t ­ g o m e r y read the letter to h i m . Ross looked at h i m silently for some t i m e and then remarked g r i m l y that "he supposed that the G o v e r n m e n t took it for granted that the Indians were not i n earnest." 5

6

T w o months before this incident, M c K e n n e y had managed to w o r k out a treaty w i t h the Arkansas Cherokees that he believed w o u l d solve the government's dilemma. I f Adams w o u l d o n l y press home the advantage that this treaty gave h i m , M c K e n n e y believed, he m i g h t yet solve the I n ­ dian question before the election i n November. The need for this treaty arose f r o m the failure of the government to fulfill properly and com­ pletely the promises i t had made to the Cherokees w h o had emigrated to the West i n 1817-1819. T h e y had been promised perpetual ownership of a tract of land i n Arkansas equal to their proportionate share of the east­ ern part of the nation. B u t the exact amount of land was still i n question because of incomplete surveys of the land ceded b y the eastern Cherokees i n 1817 and 1819. Moreover, i n 1818, President M o n r o e had promised that those i n Arkansas w o u l d be given "a western o u t l e t " ; n o w not o n l y were w h i t e m e n crowding i n on the Cherokees' eastern border i n A r k a n ­ sas b u t the whites had gotten around behind t h e m and blocked the pos­ s i b i l i t y of an outlet to the west. However, the citizens of Arkansas Ter­ r i t o r y seemed as determined to t r y to move the western Cherokees totally out of their boundaries as the citizens of Georgia were to remove the east­ ern Cherokees. John C. Calhoun had suggested i n 1825, just before M o n ­ roe left office, that the Arkansas Cherokees should seriously consider m o v i n g further west, but t h e y had refused. T h e y had sent delegations to W a s h i n g t o n i n 1826 and 1827 to t r y to get their boundaries f i r m l y set­ tled, to have their outlet surveyed, and to obtain the removal of w h i t e i n ­ truders on their land, b u t n o t h i n g had been done for t h e m . T h e y had not yet even been f u l l y reimbursed for the costs of their r e m o v a l . 7

I n A p r i l 1828 their delegation was still bargaining w i t h Barbour i n W a s h i n g t o n about these matters. Barbour told t h e m that M o n r o e had not promised t h e m a western outlet, but M c K e n n e y was able to confirm their Thomas McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, July 22,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 47-48. Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, August 26,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0605. See Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 114-24; Thomas McKenney to James Bar­ bour, December 5,1825, M - 2 1 , reel 2, p. 312. 5

6 7

413

REMOVAL

CRISIS

c l a i m . N e i t h e r Barbour nor Adams wanted to remove the w h i t e settlers i n Arkansas w h o n o w blocked such an outlet. McKenney's alternative was to press for their removal further west under the new colonization plan. The western delegates knew that a treaty agreeing to leave Arkansas i n exchange for lands farther west w o u l d be opposed b y the chiefs and people w h o had sent t h e m . They pointed out that they had not been au­ thorized b y their people to make any new treaties; they had come s i m p l y to obtain the full i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the old treaties. The Arkansas Cher­ okees had passed the same k i n d of law adopted b y the eastern Cherokees a u t h o r i z i n g the death penalty for any chiefs w h o ceded land w i t h o u t the authorization of the f u l l Council. The delegates included George Guess, James Rogers, Thomas M a w , Thomas Graves, George M o r r i s (or M a r r i s ) , John Looney, J. W . Flory, and Black Fox. W h e n they asked w h y M c ­ Kenney could not simply have their present tract surveyed (including the outlet) and remove the w h i t e intruders, M c K e n n e y said that the surveys of the eastern Cherokee cessions of 1817 and 1819 were not yet completed so that he was not sure precisely h o w m u c h land they were entitled to i n Arkansas. He estimated, however, that they w o u l d be entitled to 3,917,784 acres. The delegation felt that much more than that was due to t h e m . For six weeks i n A p r i l and M a y M c K e n n e y wrangled w i t h the del­ egates, h o l d i n g out to t h e m the promise of a tract of seven m i l l i o n acres further west plus the outlet, i f they agreed to move again. He said other­ wise they w o u l d have to wait u n t i l the eastern surveys were completed. He also threatened that the government m i g h t never be able to give t h e m their outlet i f they did not take i t on these terms, because soon too m a n y whites w o u l d have settled west of t h e m . Frustrated and w o r n out, the del­ egates finally yielded on the condition that whatever they agreed to w o u l d be valid o n l y w h e n ratified b y the full council i n Arkansas. O n M a y 6,1828, they signed a treaty that M c K e n n e y assured Adams w o u l d lead to the removal of the eastern Cherokees as w e l l as settle the problems of those i n the west. Adams submitted i t for ratification by the Senate w i t h o u t w a i t i n g for the Cherokee council i n Arkansas to consider i t . 8

9

Ostensibly this treaty concerned o n l y the problems of the Cherokees i n Arkansas; no delegates f r o m the eastern Cherokees were present at the signing of the treaty, nor were they informed of its negotiation or asked to ratify i t . Its principal clauses called for a grant to the western Chero­ kees of seven m i l l i o n acres along the headwaters of the Arkansas River i n w h a t is n o w the northeastern corner of Oklahoma (but was then the western part of Arkansas T e r r i t o r y ) , plus the award of an outlet (or strip Thomas McKenney to James Barbour, April 12,1828, M-21, reel 4, p. 401. Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 118-20, and Cherokee Treaty, May 6,1828, M 21, reel 4, p. 430. 8

9

414

REMOVAL

CRISIS

of land) fifty-five miles wide extending f r o m this area due west to the U n i t e d States border w i t h Mexico. They were also to receive a grant of $50,000 o u t r i g h t for the land they n o w occupied i n Arkansas and $2,000 per year for three years to help t h e m resettle farther west on the new tract. I n ad­ d i t i o n , the government agreed to reimburse each Cherokee i n Arkansas for the appraised value of the improvements he had made on the land there. The treaty included a promise that this new seven-million-acre tract w o u l d remain the land of the Cherokees " f o r e v e r . "

10

The most i m p o r t a n t point of this treaty for M c K e n n e y and Adams and u l t i m a t e l y for the eastern Cherokees was a clause that the westerners had v e r y l i t t l e real interest i n . T h e y had not objected, however, w h e n M c ­ Kenney suggested its insertion. A r t i c l e 8 stated that i n order " t h a t t h e i r Brothers yet r e m a i n i n g i n the States m a y be induced to j o i n t h e m " i n their new tract, i t was agreed " o n the part of the U n i t e d States that each Head of f a m i l y " n o w residing i n the east, " w h o m a y desire to remove West, shall be given, on e n r o l l i n g himself for emigration, a good Rifle, a Blanket, a Kettle, and five pounds of tobacco" as " j u s t compensation for the property he m a y abandon" i n the eastern nation. Furthermore, " t h e cost of e m i g r a t i o n " was to be "borne b y the U n i t e d States" as w e l l as the cost of "provisions for twelve months after their a r r i v a l " i n the new tract.

11

M c K e n n e y told the western Cherokees that he had to include this

clause because he was g i v i n g t h e m a m u c h larger tract t h a n their numbers entitled t h e m to and further emigration w o u l d help h i m to j u s t i f y the treaty. Furthermore, he pointed out, w i t h every new emigrant the west­ erners w o u l d be entitled to a larger p r o p o r t i o n of the a n n u i t y paid to the n a t i o n each year (it being assumed that the Cherokees were still one na­ t i o n and that this sum was perennially open to revision, claims that the eastern Cherokees w o u l d not have concurred i n ) . M c K e n n e y ' s cleverest trick, one he considered particularly astute considering the pressures the Georgians were placing on Adams, was to promise that every head of f a m i l y among the eastern Cherokees w h o took four persons w i t h h i m to the new tract and w h o " m i g r a t e d f r o m w i t h i n the chartered l i m i t s of the State of Georgia" w o u l d be paid $50 (or $10 per i n d i v i d u a l i f there were over five i n the f a m i l y ) upon his arrival i n the new tract. President Adams was delighted w i t h the treaty and i m m e d i a t e l y au­ thorized M o n t g o m e r y to make this new o p p o r t u n i t y for e m i g r a t i o n Cherokee Treaty, May 6, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 430; Thomas McKenney to George Graham, May 28,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 471; Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, pp. 11820; and Berlin B. Chapman, " H o w the Cherokees Obtained the Outlet," Chronicles of Oklahoma 15 (1937): 30-41. Cherokee Treaty, May 6, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 430. 10

11

415

R E M O V A L

C R I S I S

k n o w n to the eastern Cherokees and to start enrolling e m i g r a n t s . M o n t g o m e r y was to take special care to induce emigration f r o m the Georgia area because "the obligation of the U n i t e d States i n the compact w i t h Georgia created [the] obligations w h i c h led to such a t r e a t y . " B u t the o n l y w a y the treaty of 1828 could fulfill that compact was under the assumption, not stated i n the treaty, that for each emigrant an equivalent p r o p o r t i o n of Cherokee land i n the Georgia area w o u l d be ceded. I f enough emigrants could be enrolled, the Cherokees i n the east w o u l d be told that they must cede all of their land i n Georgia. " M u c h is expected of y o u , " M c K e n n e y told M o n t g o m e r y , for on the agent's ability to i n ­ duce a large scale emigration depended Adams's response to the Georgia resolutions and perhaps his reelection. 12

13

Adams was so pleased w i t h this arrangement that he authorized M c K e n n e y to pay $500 each to James Rogers and Thomas M a w of the western delegation to r e t u r n home b y way of the eastern nation, where t h e y were to spend several weeks or more as secret agents of the govern­ ment, inducing their friends and relatives to enroll for e m i g r a t i o n . I n explaining this to M o n t g o m e r y , M c K e n n e y warned h i m that m u c h of Rogers's and M a w ' s success " w i l l depend upon keeping the object of [their] visit a secret." 14

Thus out of Adams's desperation and McKenney's artifice the Chero­ kees were faced w i t h their t h i r d removal crisis i n the summer of 1828. They soon became aware of the treaty and obtained a copy. The editor of the Phoenix p r i n t e d i t i n full i n July and wrote a blistering editorial. " I f our e m i g r a t i o n is to be effected, we had rather that a treaty was made w i t h us d i r e c t l y . " The government could hardly expect their cooperation w i t h a treaty made behind their backs. The National Committee then appointed a group of chiefs to travel t h r o u g h o u t the nation explaining the treaty and u r g i n g resistance to i t . This committee visited every t o w n and village, arguing that no one should place any reliance whatsoever on the government's promises of assistance to t h e m i n emigrating or i n their se­ curing a permanent home i n the west. They had o n l y to remember the false promises made to those w h o had removed i n 1809-1810 and i n 1817-1819; they had o n l y to look at the sad plight of their brethren w h o had settled i n western Arkansas under f i r m promises of government p r o ­ tection and n o w they were being forced to give up all their improvements and move farther w e s t . Boudinot emphasized this i n his editorial i n the Phoenix: 15

16

12 13 14

15 16

Thomas McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, May 27,1828, M-21, reel 4, p. 465. Ibid. Ibid. Cherokee Phoenix, July 21, 1828. Ibid., March 4, 1829; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 199-200.

416

REMOVAL

CRISIS

Thus has it happened to the Cherokees in Arkansas to whom a beautiful talk was given promising peace and happiness and now, scarcely ten years are passed, and they [the whites] have become weary of them. But those to whom this delusive promise was first made do not now remember it. Glass and Tutsalah [Toochelar] now sleep. I pity those Cherokees who have gone from us. Our wandering blood will be extinguished far away from us. But let us learn. Let us hold fast to the country which we yet retain. Let us direct our efforts to agriculture and to the increase of wealth and to the promotion of knowledge. His editorial declared that the h i s t o r y of the western Cherokees was " p r o o f of the uselessness of this emigration scheme." As for the induce­ ments M c K e n n e y offered to promote removal, Boudinot declared t h e m " t r i f l i n g " — a n i n s u l t to the Cherokees: " A blanket has lost its former value w i t h us; so has the rifle and the kettle, and the m e n t i o n of five pounds of tobacco i n a treaty where the interest of a nation of Indians is supposed to be concerned looks to us too m u c h like j e s t i n g . " 17

The treaty seemed to be a major coup for Adams i n the battle to get around the stubbornness of the Cherokee Council. The people of A r k a n ­ sas were pleased to have the Cherokees i n their t e r r i t o r y removed farther west. Georgia's congressional delegation supported M c K e n n e y ' s sugges­ t i o n that the $50,000 that Congress had recently appropriated to t r y one more negotiation for land w i t h the Cherokee Council should be n o w ap­ plied to p r o m o t i n g the emigration plan i n the t r e a t y . The w h i t e A m e r ­ icans w h o favored m o v i n g all the Indians to an " I n d i a n T e r r i t o r y " were pleased that the eastern Cherokees m i g h t be the avant-garde of this p r o ­ g r a m to r i d the east of all I n d i a n s . M c K e n n e y boasted to the Reverend Thomas Stuart of Mississippi: "Indians I have found out, are o n l y c h i l ­ dren, and can be properly managed o n l y b y being treated as s u c h . " 18

19

20

U n f o r t u n a t e l y for the eastern Cherokees, there was another shortage of food d u r i n g the summer of 1828 and heavy rains that spring had p r o ­ duced flooding that had held up the planting and thus delayed the s u m ­ mer corn harvest. A w h i t e trader i n the Georgia area, Jacob Scudder, t o l d M o n t g o m e r y i n A u g u s t that the Cherokees i n his region were " l i t e r a l l y s t a r v i n g . " M a n y of t h e m were so demoralized b y harassment f r o m Geor­ gia's intruders w h o constantly stole their livestock that they had not bothered to plant a n y t h i n g . They were " l i v i n g on Tarapin and Frogs," Scudder said and "a v e r y great p o r t i o n of the Indians i n that quarter w i l l go" west. M c K e n n e y prepared for a great exodus. He ordered blankets and ket21

17 18 19 20 21

Cherokee Phoenix, July 9,1828. Thomas McKenney to Peter Porter, July 9,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 16. James Barbour to William McLean, April 29,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 423. Thomas McKenney to Thomas Stuart, April 14,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 4, p. 406. Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, August 7,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0594.

417

REMOVAL

CRISIS

ties f r o m Joseph Lopez Dias i n N e w York C i t y and 500 rifles f r o m H e n r y Derringer i n Philadelphia for those w h o w o u l d enroll. He told M o n t g o m ­ ery to make contracts for flatboats, keelboats, and provisions to move the emigrants d o w n the Tennessee and up the Arkansas River to their new h o m e . The federal agent to the Indians i n Arkansas, Colonel Edward W . D u v a l , was instructed to have supplies ready at a depot i n the new tract to assist the emigrants w h e n they arrived. To assist Rogers and M a w i n their clandestine efforts to promote enrollment, M c K e n n e y printed cop­ ies of the resolves passed by the Georgia legislature i n December 1827 and told t h e m to distribute these as evidence of the f u t i l i t y of t r y i n g to hold on to their land i n the east. These reprints were to be employed, M c ­ Kenney said, " n o t as threats to intimidate individuals but as inducements rather for t h e m to accede to the wishes of the General G o v e r n m e n t . " I n June 1828 Adams had replaced James Barbour as Secretary of W a r w i t h Peter B. Porter, a general from N e w York State. Porter had been a war hawk i n 1812 and a bitter opponent of Tecumseh. He had no doubt that total removal of all the Indians east of the Mississippi was both nec­ essary and desirable. His appointment was an effort to convince the west­ ern states that Adams was wholeheartedly behind the colonization plan. Porter gave full support to McKenney's effort to promote emigration among the Cherokees and assured the Georgia Congressmen that they need not continue to push for a treaty w i t h the eastern Cherokees for t o ­ tal extinction of Cherokee title to land i n their state because "the machin­ ery for the accomplishment of the same object was contrived i n , and has been set i n m o t i o n under, the late Treaty w i t h the Cherokees of A r k a n ­ sas." 22

23

24

M c K e n n e y had talked w i t h the Georgia Congressmen; he told Porter that they preferred "the mode w h i c h the provision i n the Treaty and the instructions under i t provides" to the choice of appointing new treaty commissioners w h o w o u l d probably face another h u m i l i a t i n g refusal. "Those Indians," M c K e n n e y said, "are no longer to be treated i n the usual mode of entering i n t o compacts under the treaty f o r m . " This had proved ineffective and that was w h y he had taken other means. I n July, Congressman James C. M i t c h e l l of Tennessee wrote to the W a r Department asking w h y the i m p o r t a n t task of s t i m u l a t i n g emigration among the Cherokees had been left solely to the resident agent. M i t c h e l l 25

Thomas McKenney to Peter Porter, July 26, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 52; Thomas Mc­ Kenney to Joseph Dias, August 4, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 74; Thomas McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, November 26,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 205. Thomas McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, July 22, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 47-48. Thomas McKenney to Peter Porter, July 9, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 32-33; Thomas McKenney to J. C. Mitchell, July 10, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 34-35. Thomas McKenney to Peter Porter, July 9,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 32-33. 22

23 24

25

418

REMOVAL

CRISIS

was not aware of the secret assistance M o n t g o m e r y had f r o m Rogers and M a w and wanted special agents appointed to assist M o n t g o m e r y (as M c M i n n had assisted Meigs i n 1817-1819). Furthermore, M i t c h e l l t h o u g h t i t unfair for the government to provide a cash bonus o n l y to Cherokees w h o emigrated f r o m Georgia. The same bonus should be of­ fered to those w h o w o u l d leave Tennessee. McKenney's p r i m e concern was Georgia's claims and he did not want a n y t h i n g to compete w i t h t h e m ; he declined M i t c h e l l ' s suggestion. He had to admit however, that Rogers and M a w i n their first few months among the eastern Cherokees had not been v e r y effective. I n the first place, they had not been able to keep their mission secret for long. W h e n i t became k n o w n , they met so m u c h resistance that they became demoralized and M c K e n n e y heard that t h e y were using their subsistence funds to keep themselves i n w h i s k e y . A f t e r corresponding about this w i t h M o n t g o m e r y , he told h i m that he should accompany Rogers and M a w i n order to keep an eye on t h e m and urge t h e m to greater e f f o r t s . He reminded Porter that M o n t g o m e r y had been appointed federal agent to the Cherokees at the request of Georgia's politicians: he "is the chosen agent of Georgia, and i f there be a failure, no blame can attach to the E x e c u t i v e . " 26

27

28

M o n t g o m e r y was unhappy that Porter had ruled that no r e m u n e r a t i o n w o u l d be given to any emigrant for any crops left i n his fields w h e n he departed or for any of his horses, cattle, hogs, chickens, sheep, or other livestock that he did not w a n t to transport west. The emigrant was " t o sell o n his o w n account" any stocks or crops he wished to leave and get the best terms he could. Under the circumstances the emigrant was at some disadvantage i n t r y i n g to obtain profitable terms f r o m Cherokee neighbors w h o opposed his going and w h i t e buyers w h o w o u l d take ad­ vantage of his need for cash. 29

A l t h o u g h M o n t g o m e r y had been optimistic i n June about the success of the plan, b y the end of A u g u s t he was disappointed w i t h the results. " I m u s t confess," he w r o t e to M c K e n n e y o n A u g u s t 26, " t h a t the prospects is not at this t i m e v e r y propicious." He blamed this o n the successful ef­ forts of the Council to counteract the program. " A l l the influential part of the nation [have worked] to discourage the poorer class f r o m i n r o l l i n g and even threatening those w h o are engaged i n i t . I feel but little w i l l be Thomas McKenney to J. C. Mitchell, July 10,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 34-35; Thomas McKenney to J. C. Mitchell, August 23,1828, reel 5, pp. 94-96. Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, July 3, 1828, M-234, reel 72, #0572; Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, August 7, 1828, M-234, reel 72, #0594; Thomas Mc­ Kenney to Peter Porter, July 26,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 54-55; Thomas McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, August 26,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 101. Thomas McKenney to Peter Porter, July 26,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, pp. 54-55. Thomas McKenney to Hugh Montgomery, August 2,1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 73. 26

27

28

29

419

REMOVAL

done this y e a r . "

30

CRISIS

D u r i n g the fall and winter, teams of Cherokee chiefs

led b y M a j o r Ridge, John Ross, and John Ridge again rode on horseback around the nation opposing emigration and speaking against the f o l l y of t r u s t i n g the government's promises. The Cherokee steady opposition to e n r o l l m e n t . three

influential

Cherokees

31

Phoenix also kept up

The National Committee assigned

(George Sanders,

Samuel Graves,

and

Thomas Foreman) to dog the steps of Rogers, M a w , and M o n t g o m e r y t h r o u g h the nation and give public answers to every statement t h e y made.

32

I n the course of these public debates, feeling ran h i g h against the A r ­ kansas Cherokees for having allowed this problem to arise and then for lending t w o of their people to promote i t . Thomas Foreman told a t h r o n g at Coosewatee i n September that Rogers and M a w belonged to a body of traitors w h o i n 1817 "had sold this c o u n t r y and were [now] come to per­ suade the Indians [still here] to give i t u p . "

3 3

M o n t g o m e r y reported that

Foreman, Sanders, and Graves had also privately warned Rogers and M a w that t h e y had better r e t u r n to Arkansas for " t h e i r lives were i n dan­ ger" and the Council could not be responsible for w h a t m i g h t happen to them.

3 4

The o n l y parts of the nation i n w h i c h e n r o l l m e n t had any success were around Creek Path and W i l l s Valley i n the Lower Towns and near the fed­ eral agency i n eastern Tennessee. According to M o n t g o m e r y , however, those w h o were most eager to emigrate were w h i t e m e n w i t h Cherokee wives or the sons of such marriages. Moreover, most of these people ex­ pected bribes: " I believe m a n y w h i t e men w h o married into the n a t i o n and some of the halfbreeds are expecting something like douceurs for breaking the ice" and leading the movement west, M o n t g o m e r y told M c K e n n e y i n October.

35

" I find (and they k n o w i t too) that on the former

ocation [of removal, 1817-1819] money was dealt out liberally [by M c M i n n ] , indeed thousands i n a week, to individuals (many of w h o m never went) w i t h a view to their acts and example opperating on others. This m a y have been r i g h t then, but n o w we feel the effects of i t , and this example and the hopes of Reservations, opporate more

injuriously

[against us] than all the influence of the chiefs. M a n y of the best i n ­ formed halfbreeds say they expect better terms and w i l l therefore w a i t . " 30 31 3 2 3 3 3 4 35

Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, August 26, 1828, M-234, reel 72, #0605. Cherokee Phoenix, September 3,1828. Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, September 26,1828, reel 72, #0616. Ibid. Ibid. Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, October 2,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0621.

420

REMOVAL

CRISIS

I n short, the o n l y persons w i l l i n g to go west or to enroll expected to be paid handsomely for i t . Toward the end of October, 1828, a violent quarrel occurred between Rogers and t w o Cherokees named James Spears and A r c h y Foreman. A c ­ cording to M o n t g o m e r y , Spears and Foreman walked i n t o a tavern where Rogers was d r i n k i n g and " w i t h o u t speaking a single w o r d to h i m , struck h i m on the head w i t h a rock supposed to w e i g h near four p o u n d . " W h e n Rogers staggered to his feet and asked w h y Spears had h i t h i m , Spears s i m p l y h i t h i m a g a i n . M o n t g o m e r y was outraged and feared that this w o u l d intimidate any Cherokee f r o m enrolling thereafter. He ordered the arrest of Spears and Foreman; Foreman escaped but Spears was taken to prison. Foreman was t h o u g h t to be planning a similar assault u p o n M a w . " T h e h o s t i l i t y " had caused some enrollees to have second thoughts, M o n t g o m e r y said. Unless the government provided armed protection to those w h o wanted to go west, such violence w o u l d put " a n end to e m i ­ gration h e r e . " 36

37

As Principal Chief, John Ross provided m o n e y to free Spears on bail and told M o n t g o m e r y that he had no right to interfere i n a quarrel be­ tween t w o Cherokees. Spears's assault, he said, was not related to the emigration p r o g r a m at all; i t was the result of a personal quarrel between h i m and Rogers over a matter of f a m i l y property. M o n t g o m e r y had ar­ rested Spears because Rogers was an official agent of the W a r Department and i n his opinion Rogers had been injured w h i l e acting i n the line of d u t y . The Cherokee Council supported Ross's interpretation and p r o ­ tested that M o n t g o m e r y had exceeded his a u t h o r i t y i n "arresting an I n ­ dian for w h i p p i n g another I n d i a n " i n a private m a t t e r . The Council said at the same t i m e " W e do hereby protest against the Arkansas Cherokees interfering or i n t e r m e d d l i n g w i t h the concerns of our citizens" and t r y i n g " t o seduce any of our citizens away f r o m this c o u n t r y . " The Council also told M o n t g o m e r y i t w o u l d accept no responsibility i f such insidious actions aroused some patriotic Cherokees to retaliate. M o n t ­ g o m e r y responded that " n o dishonorable steps have or w i l l be taken to induce any of the Cherokees to e n r o l l , " but he said he knew that m a n y poor Cherokees wanted to go and he t h o u g h t t h e y were hesitant because " t h e y were afraid of the B i g M e n at the N e w T o w n [ N e w Echota]." The 38

39

40

Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, October 31,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0639; Gid­ eon Morgan to Thomas McKenney, October 24,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0630. Hugh Montgomery to Peter B. Porter, October 31,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0639. Cherokee Council to Hugh Montgomery, November 21,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0659; Hugh Montgomery to Cherokee Council, November 24,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0663. Cherokee Council to Hugh Montgomery, November 21,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0659. Ibid. 3 6

3 7 3 8

3 9

4 0

421

REMOVAL

CRISIS

government w o u l d not tolerate any effort to i n t i m i d a t e these poor Cher­ okees, he told the C o u n c i l .

41

M c K e n n e y was equally incensed b y the attack on Rogers. He told Por­ ter that the Cherokees had displayed "a fixed purpose b y threats and otherwise to keep their people f r o m emigrating. The remedy is the presense of an armed force near or upon the borders of these people for the protection of such as m a y desire to r e m o v e . "

42

Porter agreed to send

troops to the Cherokee border i n Georgia and told M o n t g o m e r y to go ahead and press the suit against Spears for assaulting Rogers. The A m e r ­ ican public was led to believe, however, that the troops were sent i n con­ nection w i t h problems over Creek removal i n the southern part of Geor­ gia. A second serious check upon emigrant enrollment came on November 12,1828, w h e n the Phoenix printed a letter f r o m the clerk of the A r k a n ­ sas Cherokee council, W i l l i a m T h o r n t o n , stating that the Cherokees i n Arkansas were so angry w i t h the delegates w h o had made the treaty i n M a y forcing their o w n removal that they had deposed t h e m f r o m office and repudiated the treaty. T h o r n t o n wished to i n f o r m the eastern Cher­ okees that the westerners w o u l d not encourage emigration f r o m the east to t h e i r t e r r i t o r y : " I understand that t w o of our people are i n y o u r nation h u n t i n g emigrants to this nation. . . . we don't approve of this, and I hope t h e y w i l l not be countenanced. That part of the Delegation that has arrived [here f r o m Washington] are all broke [n] and silenced forever and the others [Rogers and M a w ] w i l l fare the same" w h e n they r e t u r n . The whole delegation "have acted w i t h fraud and deception" T h o r n t o n s a i d .

43

O n October 3 1 , M o n t g o m e r y reported that six months of e m i g r a t i o n efforts had resulted i n almost total failure. " W e have on the [enrollment] register b u t eleven persons and four or five of t h e m have no f a m i l y . " M o s t of these " w a n t a part of the price of their i m p r o v e m e n t before they go to relevé t h e m f r o m d e b t . "

44

This was a far cry f r o m the thousands

M c K e n n e y had expected and prepared for. The Cherokees seemed to have successfully resisted the t h i r d attempt to remove t h e m . That fall b o t h their Council and the council of the western Cherokees voted to send del­ egations to Washington to put an end to the problems raised b y M c Kenney's treaty. W h e n Porter made his report on Indian affairs to President Adams i n Hugh Montgomery to Cherokee Council, November 24,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0663. Thomas McKenney to Peter Porter, December 1, 1828, M - 2 1 , reel 5, p. 214. Cherokee Phoenix, November 12, 1828; the letter from Thornton is dated September 28,1828. See also Templeton W. Ross to Peter Porter, September 28,1828, M-234, reel 72, #0667. Hugh Montgomery to Thomas McKenney, October 31, 1828, M-234, reel 72, #0639. 41

42 43

44

422

REMOVAL

CRISIS

November 1828, he f u l l y endorsed removal of all Indian tribes " i n t o a colony consisting of distinct tribes or communities but placed contiguous to each other and connected b y general laws w h i c h shall reach the w h o l e . Let the lands be apportioned among families and individuals i n sever­ a l t y " ; administrators and superintendents should "assist t h e m i n f o r m ­ i n g and administering a code of laws adapted to [their] state of civiliza­ t i o n . " The most surprising part of Porter's report was an attack u p o n the missionaries and missionary schools supported b y the Education Fund. M i s s i o n schools had created, he said, a group of "half-educated" Indians who " f i n d i n g no outlet for their intellectual skills and attainments among their degraded people," either became useless drunkards or " o b n o x i o u s " troublemakers. As for the missionaries, Porter said, they were l i t t l e more t h a n "agents [who] are operating, more secretly to be sure, but not w i t h less zeal and effect, to prevent such e m i g r a t i o n " and thus to t h w a r t the benevolent intentions of the government. He explained that t h e i r reason for w a n t i n g to prevent Indian removal was because "missionaries and teachers w i t h their families . . . having acquired principally b y the aid of this [Civilization] fund, v e r y comfortable establishments

[east of the

Mississippi], are u n w i l l i n g to be deprived of t h e m b y the removal of the Indians."

45

President Adams, i n his report to Congress on the Indians on Decem­ ber 2, noted that " w e have been far more successful i n the acquisition of their lands than i n i m p a r t i n g to t h e m the principles, or i n s p i r i n g t h e m w i t h the spirit, of c i v i l i z a t i o n . " This to h i m was proof of the failure of the original Indian policy of George Washington and his successors. He saw no good d e r i v i n g f r o m the Education Fund that was designed to carry o u t the policy. A l t h o u g h the Cherokees m i g h t have been cited as an exception to this evaluation, Adams had no difficulty explaining w h y t h e y too should be removed as part of the colonization plan: " W h e n we have had the rare good fortune of teaching t h e m the arts of civilization and the doc­ trines of C h r i s t i a n i t y , we have unexpectedly found t h e m f o r m i n g i n the midst of ourselves, communities claiming to be independent of ours and rivals of sovereignty w i t h i n the territories of our U n i o n . "

4 6

The more

successfully an I n d i a n nation acculturated itself, the more dangerous i t became to A m e r i c a n expansionism. The Cherokee renascence m i g h t have been hailed b y Adams as a remarkable achievement for the Indians as w e l l as the c r o w n i n g success of America's philanthropic civilization p r o g r a m . Instead, he portrayed i t as a grievous failure. Congress did not pass the proposal for Indian colonization that Adams 45

46

Cherokee Phoenix, January 7,1829. Prucha, American Indian Policy, pp. 232-33.

423

REMOVAL

CRISIS

and Porter introduced i n January 1829, because Adams was by then a lame-duck President. A n d r e w Jackson had been elected i n November 1828 and everyone knew that w h e n he was inaugurated on M a r c h 4, he w o u l d have his o w n plan for r e m o v i n g the Indians. W h a t that plan w o u l d be was predictable. The State of Georgia i n effect provided the basis for i t i n a series of laws its legislature passed toward the end of December, w h e n it was clear that McKenney's emigration plan was a flop. Georgia's p r o ­ gram for the Indians was not really new. Return J. Meigs had proposed i t as early as 1811 and several times thereafter. However, i t was unworkable so long as the Presidents of the United States believed that treaties were the supreme law of the land and that under their treaties the Indians had the r i g h t to refuse to cede land or remove to the west. Given this, there was no w a y the government could coerce t h e m . Georgia's detailed law of December 1828 was based on the assumption that under A n d r e w Jackson these previous presidential assumptions w o u l d cease to apply. Treaty ob­ ligations and even the Trade and Intercourse Acts w o u l d be abandoned. The Georgia law stated that the terms outlined i n i t w o u l d not take ef­ fect u n t i l June 1, 1830 (presumably to give the Cherokees t w o years to remove to the west i f they did not like what the new policy had i n store for t h e m ) . The law then asserted that " a l l laws of this state . . . are ex­ tended o v e r " the t e r r i t o r y claimed b y Indians [Creeks and Cherokees] w i t h i n Georgia's boundaries. That land was to be surveyed w i t h i n the next t w o years b y the State of Georgia and divided i n t o counties. " A f t e r the first day of June, 1830," all Indians still residing i n those areas "shall be liable and subject to such laws and regulations as the legislature m a y hereafter prescribe." W h e n this happened, " a l l laws, usages, customs made, established and enforced i n the said t e r r i t o r y b y the said Cherokee Indians be, and the same are hereby on and after June 1, 1830, declared n u l l and v o i d . " O n that date Cherokee tribal existence i n the east w o u l d cease. A l l the laws, the constitution, the court system, as w e l l as the old u n w r i t t e n customs of the Cherokee N a t i o n (such as tribal ownership of land) w o u l d be n u l l and void. Cherokees w o u l d thenceforth be subject to the same laws as other Georgians except that, being savages, heathens, and people of color, " n o Indian or descendant of an Indian residing w i t h the Creek or Cherokee nations of Indians shall be deemed a competent witness or party to any suit i n any court created by the constitution or laws of this state to which a w h i t e man may be a p a r t y . " 47

Georgia's action was part of the same states' rights feeling that asserted itself i n South Carolina over the Tariff of A b o m i n a t i o n s and that (follow­ ing Calhoun's South Carolina Exposition that year) led to the nullifica47

Peters, Case of the Cherokee Nation, pp. 281-282.

424

REMOVAL

CRISIS

t i o n of the tariff, Nationalistic feelings, i t seemed, had inspired not o n l y the U n i t e d States and the Cherokees and the Creeks but also the southern states. James W . M o o r e , Congressman for Georgia, i n denouncing the Cherokee constitution, had said that "sovereignty over soil is the a t t r i b ­ ute of States, and i t can never be affirmed of tribes l i v i n g i n savage con­ d i t i o n . " Georgia, however, was i n a civilized condition and "Georgia," Governor T r o u p said, " m u s t be sovereign upon her o w n soil, w i t h i n her chartered l i m i t s ; she has made no surrender of her t e r r i t o r i a l sovereignty and jurisdiction b y entering i n t o the U n i o n . " The Cherokees had feared the worst w h e n they learned that Jackson had been elected. The editor of the Phoenix said i n the issue of December 10, 1828, that i t was n o w certain Jackson w o u l d be the next President. The voice of the w h i t e electorate had spoken and, b y their m a j o r i t y o p i n ­ ion, the fate of the Indian seemed sealed. Thus "republican t y r a n n y expells" the Indian f r o m his h o m e l a n d . 4 8

4 9

50

The Cherokee delegation that came to W a s h i n g t o n i n January 1829 to discuss M c K e n n e y ' s treaty realized that the matter was n o w out of A d ­ ams's hands and decided to stay on i n the city u n t i l Jackson was i n a u g u ­ rated and talk to h i m . I t surprised t h e m that Adams had n o t h i n g to say about Georgia's open defiance of the C o n s t i t u t i o n and its treaty power. To make matters worse, the State of Alabama had followed Georgia's ex­ ample i n January and had said that i t too planned to extend its jurisdiction over all the Indian lands w i t h i n its borders. A few days after Jackson's inaugural, the Cherokee w e n t to speak w i t h his Secretary of War, John Eaton. Their first question was w h a t reaction President Jackson w o u l d have t o w a r d the laws passed by Georgia i n "defiance of the Laws of the U n i t e d States and the most solemn treaties e x i s t i n g " between the Cher­ okees and the government. T h e y were told they w o u l d have to w a i t for Jackson himself to answer that; he did so i n A p r i l w h e n he instructed Ea­ ton to tell the Cherokee delegates that the federal government w o u l d never assert its a u t h o r i t y against the sovereign power of the State of Georgia w i t h regard to the land or the people w i t h i n its borders. D i d the Cherokees really expect otherwise, Eaton asked? D i d they t h i n k the gov­ ernment w o u l d 51

step forward to arrest the constitutional act of an independent State exercised within her own limits? Should this be done and Georgia persist in the mainte­ nance of her rights and authority the consequence might be that the act would prove injurious to us and, in all probability, ruinous to you. The sword might be 48

4 9

50

51

Van Every, Disinherited, pp. 119. ASP I I , 743.

Cherokee Phoenix, December 10,1828. Green, Politics of Indian Removal, pp. 145-147.

425

REMOVAL

CRISIS

looked to as the arbiter in such interference. But this can never be done. The Pres­ ident cannot and will not beguile you with such expectation. The arms of this country can never be employed to stay any state of the Union from those legiti­ mate powers which attach and belong to their sovereign character. 52

Eaton went on to explain to the Cherokee delegates that this being the unalterable political reality, the President advised t h e m to remove as soon as possible to the seven-million-acre tract that had been designated for t h e m i n the treaty of M a y 6, 1828. The Cherokees i n Arkansas, he re­ minded t h e m , had already accepted this choice w h e n their council w i t h ­ drew its i n i t i a l objection to the treaty i n January 1829. The western Cher­ okees were already i n the process of removing to the new tract and the eastern Cherokees should do likewise. Eaton then drew the State of Tennessee into the effort to remove the Cherokees on the terms that its Congressman, James M i t c h e l l , had sug­ gested to M c K e n n e y the preceding summer. Realizing that Rogers, M a w , and M o n t g o m e r y had been ineffective i n pushing the emigration plan, Eaton appointed t w o new secret agents. These were Governor W i l l i a m Carroll of Tennessee and General John Coffee, Jackson's old friend. Eaton called this a mission of mercy i n his letter to Carroll i n M a y 1829: A crisis in our Indian Affairs has arrived. Strong indications are seen of this in the circumstances of the Legislatures of Georgia and Alabama extending their laws over the Indians within their respective limits; these acts, it is reasonable to pre­ sume, will be followed by the other States interested in those portions of their soil now in the occupancy of the Indians. In the right to exercise such jurisdiction, the Executive of the United States fully concurs and this has been officially an­ nounced to the Cherokee Indians. 53

Therefore, Eaton continued, the President wished to ask Carroll i f he w o u l d "undertake to enlighten the Cherokee and Creeks" on the neces­ sity of emigration. " I n y o u r progress t h r o u g h their C o u n t r y , i t w o u l d be w e l l to ascertain, i f y o u can do so w i t h o u t disclosing the purpose of the Executive" i n appointing t h e m , whether or not the Cherokees manifested "a willingness to negotiate for a cession" of their land under these new circumstances. The President, t h o u g h upholding the rights of the states to assume control over Indian land, nevertheless wished to be helpful to the Indians i n this situation. I f they were to cede their land to the federal government, he w o u l d be able to pay t h e m for i t and to assist t h e m i n m o v i n g west; surely that was preferable to coming under the jurisdiction of Georgia and Alabama. "The President views the Indians as the C h i l ­ dren of the Government. He sees what is best for t h e m . " Carroll's m i s 52 53

James Eaton to Cherokee delegation, April 18,1829, M-21, reel 5, pp. 408-410. John Eaton to William Carroll, May 30,1829, M-21, reel 5, p. 456.

426

REMOVAL

CRISIS

sion was really "a w o r k of m e r c y / Eaton said, because i n his view, there was " n o doubt, however, but the mass of these people w o u l d be glad to emigrate, and there is as little doubt but that they are kept f r o m this ex­ ercise of their choice by their Chiefs and other interested and influential m e n amongst t h e m [the missionaries] w h o , tenacious of their a u t h o r i t y and their power, and u n w i l l i n g to forego their gainful positions, keep t h e m under the ban of their d i c t a t i o n . " Carroll's task was to w o r k on the self-interest of the well-disposed i n order to assist "the real Indians" against their chiefs. B r i b e r y , he implied, m i g h t be i n order. " I t becomes therefore a matter of necessity, i f the General Government w o u l d benefit these people, that i t move upon t h e m i n the line of their o w n prejudices and, by the adoption of any proper means, break the power that is war­ r i n g w i t h their best interest." I n Carroll's private talks w i t h those i n f l u ­ ential chiefs w h o were disposed to emigrate (or to encourage others to m i ­ grate), Eaton told Carroll that "offers to t h e m of extensive reservations i n fee simple and other rewards" should be made that w o u l d " i t is hoped, result i n obtaining their acquiescence" to a total cession of Cherokee land i n the east. " G o to t h e m as a friend," Eaton urged; "enlarge o n their cor­ porate degradation as a people and the total impossibility of their ever at­ t a i n i n g to higher privileges w h i l e they retain their present relations to a people w h o seek to get r i d of t h e m . " 7

The Cherokees never saw this letter, but they knew w e l l enough w h a t was i n store for t h e m . T h e y had bested John Q u i n c y Adams's effort to remove t h e m i n 1828, but n o w their f o u r t h removal crisis was at hand. This t i m e they had very few means to withstand i t . Probably the m i s ­ sionaries i n the field w o u l d help, but the mission boards that employed t h e m were cautious about entering politics. Perhaps out of h u m a n i t a r i a n interests the churchgoing public could be aroused to defend the Consti­ t u t i o n of the U n i t e d States and the nation's pledged honor i n Indian trea­ ties. B u t the vast m a j o r i t y of the public had already spoken i n favor of Jackson. I n the end, the Cherokees found o n l y one real source of power that m i g h t take their side, the Supreme Court of the U n i t e d States. I t was still led by that old Federalist appointee and arch foe of A n d r e w Jackson, John M a r s h a l l of V i r g i n i a . Perhaps f r o m h i m they w o u l d obtain a v a l i ­ dation of their sovereignty.

427

T W E N T Y - O N E

THE

MISSIONARIES A N D THE SUPREME COURT, 1829-1833

We believe no one can now remain neutral . . . each individual inAmerica must either be for the Indians or against them. —Cherokee Phoenix and Indian Advocate, January 1,1831

T

he Cherokees' f o u r t h removal crisis began i n A p r i l 1829 w h e n Jackson's Secretary of War, John Eaton, gave new life to Thomas M c Kenney's m o r i b u n d treaty of 1828 w i t h the western Cherokees. Georgia's u l t i m a t u m to Adams and the Cherokees and Jackson's forceful support for i t brought a new and different k i n d of pressure to bear upon the Cherokees. The new administration was prepared to make good on the threats of w i t h d r a w i n g federal protection of treaty rights, threats that had been made before but never acted on. Jackson and his Secretary of W a r did all they could to impress the Cherokees w i t h the hopelessness of their situation. W i t h o u t federal protection they w o u l d be at the mercy of the state governments and the frontier whites. Jackson's first step had been to stimulate enrollment for emigration u n der the treaty of 1828 by appointing Carroll and Coffee as secret federal agents to w o r k among the Cherokees. A t the same t i m e , Jackson prepared a removal b i l l for Congress that was designed to provide m o n e y for land cessions—ostensibly to ease the difficulty of removal for each tribe east of the Mississippi by p r o v i d i n g money, i n exchange for land, w i t h w h i c h to start over i n the west on new land to be assigned to them. The removal b i l l applied to all Indians i n the east, but the Cherokees became the cause célèbre i n Jackson's removal effort. As long as the Cherokees successfully resisted removal, the plan was i n jeopardy. To bolster his position, Jackson portrayed himself as the Indians' best friend. Their enemies, he said, were their wealthy half-breed leaders, their misguided missionaries, and the relentless (but understandable) demands of the w h i t e westerners for more land. Jackson's aim was to convince those voters w h o sympathized w i t h the Indians and w h o did not want to force them to leave their homelands that his removal policy offered a more benign and helpful option than the one Georgia and Alabama presented or the one the Cherokees 428

THE MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

wanted. Georgia's plan to denationalize t h e m and put t h e m i n a class w i t h freed blacks w o u l d destroy the Indians, Jackson said. The Cherokees' plan to create separate Indian sovereignties w i t h i n the existing states was u n ­ constitutional. He claimed to see no reasonable alternative to removal and exchange of lands. The p r o b l e m for the Cherokees was to convince the public that i t was not i n America's or the Indians' best interest to allow compulsory re­ m o v a l and that under federal treaty protection t h e y could best survive and t h r i v e where they were. Removal w o u l d destroy a generation of i n ­ tense Indian and w h i t e effort to civilize and Christianize the Indians. I f forced to go west, they w o u l d have to abandon homes, farms, schools, churches, and all other improvements and start these efforts all over again i n the wilderness. This w o u l d be v e r y expensive to themselves and to the taxpayers. The o n l y persons w h o w o u l d profit f r o m this Draconian measure w o u l d be w h i t e land speculators and cotton planters i n a few southern states and their equivalents i n the old northwest. The Chero­ kees tried to demonstrate to the average w h i t e citizen that, f u r t h e r m o r e , Jackson was i n effect subverting the U n i t e d States C o n s t i t u t i o n b y u p ­ h o l d i n g states' rights over treaty rights (the supreme law of the land). I n the end, most Americans chose to believe w h a t t h e y wanted to be­ lieve: namely, that w h i t e A m e r i c a was a benevolent society, that A m e r ­ ican expansion was predestined b y God for the good of m a n k i n d , and that a l t h o u g h removal was harsh and expensive, i t represented the o n l y hope for Indian survival. Americans chose to believe i t was necessary " i n the nature of t h i n g s . " Indian removal was no one's fault, really; the Indians 1

were so far behind i n h u m a n progress and ability that t h e y w o u l d need generations to catch up. Removal w o u l d give t h e m more t i m e for this. A certain a m o u n t of Indian comfort and rights must be sacrificed to the w h i t e man's mission to expand, to cultivate the earth and develop its re­ sources. Being optimists, the Americans convinced themselves that the Indians w o u l d be all r i g h t once they got used to the idea of starting over again i n the west. W h i t e Americans constantly moved west and started over and i m p r o v e d their l o t ; the Indians could do the same. O f course, someday the westward movement of the w h i t e frontier w o u l d catch up w i t h the Indians i n their new homes, b u t presumably b y then t h e y w o u l d be ready for i n t e g r a t i o n . M e a n w h i l e , of course, the A m e r i c a n govern­ m e n t w o u l d and should do all i t could to help the Indians: the govern­ m e n t w o u l d b u y their eastern lands, pay for their transportation west, send agents there to help t h e m adjust; the missionary societies w o u l d See Brian W. Dippie, The Vanishing American (Middletown, Conn. : Wesleyan U n i ­ versity Press, 1982). 1

429

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

continue to educate and Christianize t h e m there. W i t h a little effort b y the Indians themselves, e v e r y t h i n g w o u l d w o r k out i n the long r u n . One of the chief obstacles the Cherokees faced i n t r y i n g to overcome these rationalizations for removal was that some Indian tribes were i n ­ deed suffering badly i n the east. Some of these, like the Potawatomies, the M i a m i s , and the Kickapoos v o l u n t a r i l y went west; they believed that it could hardly be any worse for t h e m there. These were small tribes of a few hundred families l i v i n g i n N e w York, O h i o , Indiana, and M i c h i g a n , w h o had been given very t i n y tracts of land, w h o were surrounded and constantly harassed by whites, and whose communities lacked leadership and coherence; they had no possibility of becoming self-sufficient. U n l i k e the Cherokees, they had become demoralized, split i n t o factions, and m i r e d i n poverty, debt, and alcoholism. Their future was indeed as hope­ less as Jackson portrayed i t . But the situation was very different for the five large southeastern tribes. They still owned considerable valuable soil; they had made steady progress toward economic self-sufficiency and political stability; w i t h continued assistance they could survive and prosper where they were. For these Indians, the so-called five civilized tribes, the Cherokees became the spokesmen. I f an exception were made for t h e m , the Indians m i g h t yet be able to find their place i n the destiny of the new nation. Cherokee success w o u l d give hope to the other tribes that all was not lost. H a v i n g overcome their internal crisis over acculturation, the Chero­ kees i n 1828 had elected an extremely able and experienced group of m e n to lead t h e m under their new constitution. The success of their renas­ cence provided their people w i t h considerable confidence and u n i t y . The less acculturated believed that their leaders w o u l d allow t h e m to retain as m u c h of their traditional way of life as they wanted. Three times they had faced removal threats and w i t h each victory they had gained more strength. W h e n their delegation, headed by Principal Chief John Ross, returned f r o m Washington i n the spring of 1829, i t met w i t h the N a t i o n a l Council to plan its response to Georgia and Jackson. Their survival re­ quired efforts on t w o fronts: the protection of their o w n borders f r o m w h i t e intruders and the defeat of Jackson's removal b i l l i n Congress. Jackson's support of Georgia's assertion of state sovereignty over I n ­ dian land encouraged w h i t e settlers to intrude i n t o the Cherokee N a t i o n ; the Council's repeated requests to the federal agent to remove these i n ­ truders met w i t h no response. The administration wanted the Cherokees to see just h o w vulnerable they were to w h i t e oppression w i t h o u t federal support. Fate dealt the Cherokees a cruel blow w h e n gold was discovered i n several streams along the nation's southeastern border w i t h Georgia, particularly on the Chestatee River. The discovery was made sometime 430

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

d u r i n g the spring of 1829, b u t the amount of gold available was not t h e n k n o w n . As prospectors poured i n and discovered that there was appar­ e n t l y a great deal of i t easily obtainable b y panning, a gold rush started that b r o u g h t hordes of whites and Indians to the gold regions along the Chestatee River near Dahlonega and then spread to nearby areas. H a d the federal government protected their borders and had the Cherokees been allowed to m i n e their o w n m i n e r a l resources, the nation w o u l d have sud­ denly entered an era of tremendous prosperity and g r o w t h . Under the circumstances, the gold rush o n l y added to their i n s t a b i l i t y and the dis­ r u p t i o n of civil order. M a n y w h i t e Americans could not believe that God 2

intended such riches to be left to those they viewed as savage pagans. I n A u g u s t 1829, John Eaton instructed H u g h M o n t g o m e r y that re­ m o v a l of the w h i t e intruders on Cherokee land was n o w the d u t y of Geor­ gia and not of the federal government because the sovereign state of Georgia n o w had preeminent a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n its o w n borders. A m o n t h 3

later, the Cherokee Council decided to take matters i n t o its o w n hands. T h e y were most w o r r i e d at that t i m e about an area i n the southeast cor­ ner of the nation near Beaver D a m and Cedar Creek, where a large n u m ­ ber of intruders were b u i l d i n g cabins, clearing land, and sowing crops ( t h o u g h no gold had been found i n this area). I f the Cherokees could, b y a show of a u t h o r i t y , drive off these settlers, that m i g h t discourage others. M a j o r Ridge was authorized to gather a lighthorse patrol and eject eight­ een families of Georgians f r o m their unauthorized farms i n this area. I n January 1830, Ridge and t h i r t y armed Cherokees rode to Beaver D a m . T h e y p o l i t e l y but f i r m l y ordered the w h i t e families to leave and then burned their cabins, destroyed their crops, and tore d o w n their fences.

4

The intruders left resentfully but did not go far; soon after Ridge and his troops had gone, t h e y returned. They discovered four of Ridge's m e n i n Mooney, Historical Sketch, p. 110; Starkey, The Cherokee Nation, pp. 110-114. Ac­ counts vary as to precisely when the Cherokees discovered gold and when the whites in Georgia found out about it. See also Hugh Montgomery to John Forsyth, July 12, 1828, Georgia Archives, Atlanta. Montgomery writes: " O n the subject of gold diggers, the last accounts give the number at from four to seven thousand. Their morrals [sic] are as bad as it is possible for you to conceive; you can suppose the gamblers, swindlers, debauchers and profane Blackguards all collected from six or seven states without either law or any other power to prevent them from giving full vent to their vicious propensities, or think of Sodom before the arival [sic] of the distroying angils—and you have some faint idea of the morals of the place." John Eaton to Hugh Montgomery, August 18, 1829, M - 2 1 , reel 6, p. 69; John Ross to John Eaton, September 3,1829, M-221, reel 100, #8539. In addition to ejecting white fam­ ilies and burning their dwellings in Beaver Dam, Major Ridge and his regulators also did the same in Vann's Valley, Terrapin Creek, and Cedar Town. J. B. Pendleton to George Gilmer, February 7,1830, Georgia Archives, Atlanta. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 204-205; Starkey, The Cherokee Nation, p. 114. See Allen Fambrough to George Gilmer, February 8,1830, Georgia Archives, Atlanta. 2

3

4

431

THE MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

one of the deserted cabins, d r i n k i n g whiskey they had found. A gang of t w e n t y - f i v e whites assaulted the four Cherokees and beat t h e m so badly that one of t h e m died f r o m his injuries. To t r y any of these intruders for m u r d e r was impossible. I n fact, the other three battered Cherokees were themselves placed i n prison i n Georgia by those w h o had assaulted t h e m . The Georgians were so angry at the Cherokee effort to remove their cit­ izens f r o m "Georgia's l a n d " (though w i t h i n Cherokee treaty boundaries) that Governor George G i l m e r demanded that Jackson retaliate against this unjustifiable assertion of Indian a u t h o r i t y . Neither the state nor the federal government was sure at this point w h o was responsible for the Cherokees. 5

M e a n w h i l e , so m a n y whites had settled i n the gold m i n i n g region of the Cherokee nation that fighting between t h e m and the Cherokee resi­ dents was constant. The Council estimated that $1,500 to $2,000 w o r t h of gold r i g h t f u l l y belonging to the Cherokee N a t i o n was being extracted every day. Cherokees w h o w e n t to the gold regions near Dahlonga were robbed and driven out b y whites. Whites quarreled among themselves over the best sites for digging and panning. A g e n t M o n t g o m e r y said he had no troops and no authorization to t r y to m a i n t a i n order. The Council sent a protest to John Eaton i n M a r c h 1830 stating that their agent s i m p l y "stands here w i t h folded arms, as i t were, merely to witness the rights of the Cherokees invaded and trampled under foot w i t h i m p u n i t y . " Geor­ gia's legislature passed a resolution that the mineral resources w i t h i n the Cherokee N a t i o n belonged to the State of Georgia because Indians were o n l y tenants on the land; Georgia forbade Indians to extract any g o l d . U l t i m a t e l y , out of fairness to those Georgia citizens w h o w o u l d soon be­ come owners of this land w h e n i t was surveyed and given away b y l o t ­ t e r y , Governor G i l m e r prohibited whites from extracting gold and re­ quested Jackson to send troops to clear these areas, w h i c h he did. 6

7

After June, Georgia created its o w n police force to patrol the Cherokee area. K n o w n as the Georgia Guard, i t was essentially a private security force under m i l i t i a officers. The state gave the Guard orders to m a i n t a i n law and order i n the Cherokee lands w i t h i n the borders of the state, but the state accepted no responsibility for the actions of the Guard. I n d i v i d ­ uals w h o complained of the behavior of the Guard (as some missionaries eventually did) were told that they w o u l d have to b r i n g a private suit against the individual guardsman i n v o l v e d . A l t h o u g h the official orders 8

George Gilmer to John Eaton, February 5,1830, M-234, reel 74, #0132. Cherokee Council to John Eaton, March 3,1830, M-234, reel 74, #0096. George Gilmer to Yelverton P. Ring, June [no day] 1830, M-221, reel 100, #8773. Mooney, Historical Sketch, p. I l l ; George Gilmer to John Howard, Methodist Chris­ tian Advocate andZion's Herald, September 30, 1831. 5

6

7

8

432

THE

MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

to the Guard instructed t h e m to protect b o t h Cherokees and whites, i n fact the Guard r i g h t l y understood its job to be one of harassing the Cher­ okees and siding w i t h w h i t e intruders i n any dispute. Over the next few years the Guard arrested missionaries w h o obstructed Georgia's w i l l , ar­ rested John Ross (and seized all his papers), arrested a newspaper reporter who had come to i n t e r v i e w Ross (and seized his papers), and confiscated the Cherokee p r i n t i n g press and all its type. I n day-to-day affairs the Georgia Guard became a p r i m e source of Cherokee destabilization f r o m 1830 to 1835. 9

I n January 1830, Congressmen f r o m Tennessee (at Georgia's request) had introduced Jackson's Removal B i l l . The Cherokees rested t h e i r hopes for ending the removal crisis u p o n defeating this b i l l . I n addition to t h e i r o w n memorials against its passage, the Cherokees were delighted to find that m a n y philanthropic w h i t e citizens around the n a t i o n were also sub­ m i t t i n g petitions against i t . Quaker groups f r o m Pennsylvania were par­ t i c u l a r l y active i n this w o r k , as were church and missionary societies i n New York and N e w England. Editorial writers i n secular newspapers also alerted the public to the controversial aspects of the b i l l . 1 0

Passage of the Removal B i l l i n 1830 became the test of whether Jackson had a mandate to reverse A m e r i c a n Indian policy. H i s b i l l w o u l d i n s t i t u t e w h a t was t a n t a m o u n t to compulsory removal of all Indians east of the Mississippi. M c K e n n e y , at the Office of Indian Affairs, h a v i n g spent all of the $50,000 appropriated by Congress to treat w i t h the Cherokees i n 1828 i n his futile effort to stimulate Cherokee e m i g r a t i o n , n o w supported Jackson's b i l l as ardently as he had supported President Adams's coloni­ zation b i l l . The Removal B i l l authorized the Secretary of W a r to negotiate the removal of every tribe i n the Mississippi Valley and c o m m i t t e d C o n ­ gress to p r o v i d i n g the funds to reimburse the tribes for land t h e y ceded i n the east and several m i l l i o n s more to transport t h e m to an Indian ter­ r i t o r y i n the west. Jackson provided his rationale for the b i l l i n a message to Congress on December 8,1829. The C o n s t i t u t i o n , he said, "declares that no new State shall be formed or erected w i t h i n the jurisdiction of any other State w i t h ­ out the consent of its legislature. I f the General G o v e r n m e n t is not per­ m i t t e d to tolerate the erection of a confederate State w i t h i n the t e r r i t o r y of one of the members of this U n i o n against her consent, m u c h less could it allow a foreign and independent government to establish itself t h e r e . " The Indian nations were " f o r e i g n and independent g o v e r n m e n t s " under See John Howard Payne, Letter to My Countrymen, ed. Clemens de Baillou (Athens, Ga. : University of Georgia Press, 1961). Starkey, The Cherokee Nation, pp. 120-22; Ronald N . Satz, American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1975), p. 20. 9

10

433

THE MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

the treaty system, but treaties that had promised t h e m permanent selfgovernment w i t h i n their present boundaries were w i t h o u t a doubt, i n Jackson's opinion, unconstitutional. The t e m e r i t y of the Cherokees i n es­ tablishing their o w n constitution was the prime example of the f o l l y of the original Indian policy. "Actuated by this view of the subject," Jackson said, " I informed the Indians i n h a b i t i n g parts of Georgia and Alabama, that their attempt to establish an independent government w o u l d not be countenanced b y the Executive of the United States and advised t h e m to emigrate beyond the Mississippi or submit to the laws of those States." I n order to allow for their orderly emigration, he n o w asked for m o n e y f r o m Congress and the a u t h o r i t y to negotiate cessions of all Indian land i n the east to reimburse the federal government and states for the cost of helping the Indians remove. 11

The debate over the b i l l took place i n A p r i l and M a y . A t times Con­ gress was so evenly divided that votes on key amendments resulted i n ties. The Cherokees were happy to find that " t h e i r friends at the n o r t h " were strongly opposed to the b i l l . The leaders of the A m e r i c a n Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, most of w h o m lived i n Boston, were particularly helpful to their cause; the secretary of the Board, Jere­ m i a h Evarts, spent considerable t i m e i n Washington l o b b y i n g against the b i l l . Perhaps the most effective service rendered b y Evarts was his p u b l i ­ cation of a series of articles that were w i d e l y reprinted under the pseu­ d o n y m " W i l l i a m Penn" and later appeared i n book f o r m (copies of w h i c h were given to every Congressman). Evarts's articles were carefully re­ searched and documented; they provided powerful arguments i n favor of the treaty rights of the Indians, the a u t h o r i t y of the federal government over Indian affairs, and the progress the Indians had made t o w a r d the goal of civilization and incorporation as equal citizens. 12

Evarts's position was supported b y the most influential spokesmen of the N a t i o n a l Republican Party (soon to become the W h i g Party) i n C o n ­ gress, including H e n r y Clay, Daniel Webster, Theodore J. Frelinghuysen, and D a v y Crockett. Carefully read, their speeches do not display strong faith i n the progress or equality of the Indians, but they contained strong arguments against Jackson's policy toward t h e m . Jacksonian political leaders maintained t h r o u g h o u t that opposition to the Removal B i l l was essentially founded on party lines rather than on principles. Judging f r o m congressional v o t i n g patterns, the struggle seems to have been between western and eastern states. To assist the Democrats, the Reverend Isaac M c C o y , a Baptist missionary to the Potawatomi Indians of Indiana, was Van Every, Disinherited, p. 112. See also Francis Paul Prucha, "Andrew Jackson's In­ dian Policy," Journal of American History 56 (June 1969) : 527-39. Prucha, ed., Cherokee Removal, pp. 4-27. 11

12

434

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

persuaded to i n f o r m Congress w h y he and most of the members of his d e n o m i n a t i o n supported the b i l l . M c C o y had i n fact persuaded the T r i e n n i a l C o n v e n t i o n of Baptists t h r o u g h o u t the nation to support A d ­ ams's colonization plan i n 1827 and had w r i t t e n a book i n favor of the idea. I n the w i n t e r and spring of 1830 Congressman L u m p k i n of Georgia, chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs, used M c C o y to d r u m up petitions f r o m religious leaders supporting the removal b i l l and to respond to petitions opposing the b i l l . M c C o y noted i n his memoirs that almost all of the petitions received b y Congress i n opposition to re­ m o v a l cited the progress of the Cherokees as the principal argument for a l l o w i n g the Indians to remain where they were. M c C o y had never vis­ ited the Cherokee N a t i o n but he considered t h e m the exception that proved the rule. M c K e n n e y helped support the b i l l b y organizing a group of D u t c h Reformed ministers i n N e w York C i t y to w o r k for i t . He t o l d Jackson p r i v a t e l y that all the members of the group were strong support­ ers of the Democratic P a r t y . 1 3

14

The Cherokees were sorry to see the divisions i n the missionary ranks that M c C o y and M c K e n n e y managed to create, but t h e y felt that the Congregationalists i n Massachusetts, the Presbyterians i n N e w Jersey, and the Quakers i n Pennsylvania were more powerful and effective i n their support than the Baptists and D u t c h Reformed ministers w h o con­ stituted Jackson's chief religious support. The most effective leader of the W h i g opposition i n Congress was Senator Theodore J. Frelinghuysen, a Presbyterian f r o m N e w Jersey and f o r m e r l y one of the directors of the A m e r i c a n Board. He centered his attention upon the compulsory aspect of Jackson's policy. A l t h o u g h the b i l l itself left i t up to each Indian tribe whether i t w o u l d sign a removal treaty or whether i t w o u l d accept the jurisdiction of the state government where i t lived, Frelinghuysen made t w o i m p o r t a n t points about these cruel alternatives. First, he pointed out that i n Georgia and the other southeastern states, denationalized Indians w o u l d become second-class citizens under state jurisdiction, w h i c h was h a r d l y a viable o p t i o n : " D o the obligations of justice change w i t h the color of the skin?" he asked. "Is i t one of the prerogatives of the w h i t e m a n that he m a y disregard the dictates of m o r a l principles w h e n an I n ­ dian shall be concerned?" George Washington and the Founding Fathers had inaugurated the original Indian policy of integration, he said, because i n 1776 t h e y "contended for the v e r y rights and privileges that our I n d i a n neighbors n o w i m p l o r e us to protect and preserve to t h e m . " Were the free For McCoy's position see McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 273-77. See James Van Hoeven, "Salvation and Indian Removal" (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt U n i ­ versity, 1972), pp. 113-44 and Francis Paul Prucha, "Thomas L. McKenney and the New York Indian Board," Mississippi Valley Historical Review 48 (1962):625-55. 13 14

435

THE

MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

w h i t e citizens of the U n i t e d States to " t u r n traitors to our principles" be­ cause the Indian's skin was a different shade? Frelinghuysen concluded his speech b y saying that the arguments of the Jacksonians s i m p l y boiled d o w n to " h o w shall we most plausibly break our f a i t h . "

1 5

Frelinghuysen's second argument addressed the claim of Jackson that his Removal B i l l was a benevolent act to help the Indians out of a d i l e m m a forced upon t h e m b y the sovereignty of the states. Senator (later Presi­ dent) James Buchanan, speaking for the Democrats, had noted that there was apparently some "misapprehension of the b i l l and of its purpose" among the friends of the Indians. " I t was c o m m o n l y believed," he said, " t h a t the Indians were to be removed from the Southern States b y force; and n o t h i n g was further f r o m the i n t e n t i o n of Congress or the State of Georgia."

16

But there was force involved, Frelinghuysen said; the ques­

t i o n was o n l y w h a t k i n d of force. Jackson admitted that the Georgians were harassing the Indians, but he wished to portray himself as their sav­ ior. To call his bluff Frelinghuysen introduced an amendment to the Re­ moval B i l l that made its supporters face up to the government's respon­ s i b i l i t y for state harassment. This amendment stated, " t h a t u n t i l the said tribes or nations shall choose to remove, as b y this act is contemplated, t h e y shall be protected i n their present possessions and i n the enjoyment of all their rights or t e r r i t o r y , and government as heretofore exercised and enjoyed, f r o m all interruptions and encroachments."

17

The amend­

m e n t asked Jackson to provide federal troops to keep out intruders and m a i n t a i n law and order i n all the Indian nations, as by treaty and the Trade and Intercourse Acts they were required to do, u n t i l any tribe v o l ­ u n t a r i l y agreed to remove. N o Indian nation could survive w h i t e harass­ m e n t w i t h o u t federal protection. As the Cherokees and the other south­ eastern

tribes

had

discovered,

once federal

troop

protection

was

w i t h d r a w n , life became intolerable b o t h on and w i t h i n their borders. N e i ­ ther property, life, nor l i m b was safe from the k i n d of whites w h o en­ croached upon t h e m . Nevertheless Frelinghuysen's amendment was de­ feated. The combined votes of the southern and western Senators were greater than those of the N e w England and m i d - A t l a n t i c states. I n the end, w h i t e Americans chose not to see what they were doing and h o w t h e y were doing i t .

1 8

O n M a y 26, 1830, the Removal B i l l came up for its final vote. N e w Van Every, Disinherited, p. 115. Ibid., p. 113. Ibid., p. 117. Alexis de Tocqueville, touring America during the removal crisis, wrote of the political attitude toward the Indians, " i t is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity" (Dippie, The Vanishing American, p. 70). 15

16

17

18

436

THE MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

England's Senators voted 11 to 1 against i t ; southern Senators voted 18 to 0 for i t . I n the House, the southerners voted 60 to 15 i n favor; N e w Englanders voted 28 to 9 against i t . Those f r o m the northwest were more evenly divided b u t voted 23 to 17 i n f a v o r .

19

Jackson signed the b i l l on

M a y 28 and three days later Georgia asserted its a u t h o r i t y over 192,000 acres of Creek land left i n that state and 4,600,000 acres of Cherokee land, i n c l u d i n g their capital city of N e w Echota, the homes of John Ross, M a j o r Ridge, and m a n y other members of the Council, and six missionary sta­ tions (three of the A m e r i c a n Board, one of the Baptists, and the t w o r u n b y the M o r a v i a n s ) . Thereafter, as far as the Georgians were concerned, 20

the Cherokee N a t i o n did not exist. Its Council was forbidden to meet; all Cherokee courts were closed; its laws and its police were not allowed to function. Three hundred and t w e n t y Georgia surveyors i m m e d i a t e l y en­ tered the n a t i o n to begin d i v i d i n g i t into tracts of 160 acres each to be given away to w h i t e citizens b y l o t t e r y (the gold field region was so v a l ­ uable that l o t t e r y tracts here were l i m i t e d to 40 acres). Hundreds of w h i t e Georgians followed the surveyors into the region (under the protection of the Georgia Guard), eager to locate the best farms, plantations, m i l l sites, missionary stations, ferries, and taverns so that t h e y could specu­ late h o w to obtain t h e m for themselves. A l t h o u g h the Georgia law stated that all Cherokees w o u l d be given a tract of land, subsequent revisions made i t clear that they w o u l d get o n l y the land that no w h i t e citizen wanted. Furthermore, as experience w i t h the reserve system had shown, sooner or later most of the Cherokees w o u l d be forced off or cheated o u t of whatever land they received. H a v i n g no r i g h t to defend themselves i n the Georgia courts, there was no w a y they could defend t h e i r p r o p e r t y . Soon after the l o t t e r y began handing out tracts i n October 1830, Geor­ gia's citizens were forcefully m o v i n g Cherokees out of their homes and off of their f a r m s .

21

John Ross became the leader of Cherokee resistance, ably supported b y his brother Lewis and v i r t u a l l y all of the elected chiefs and local headmen. The crisis produced a tremendous spirit of solidarity i n the nation. Every­ one realized this was a life-or-death struggle for their national homeland. Van Every, Disinherited, pp. 117,120. McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 300-320. There were two Moravian mission stations (Springplace and Oochgelogy), three American Board stations (Carmel, Haweis, and Hightower-Worcester's station at New Echota had no school or church), and one Baptist station (with a church at Tinsawatee and a school i n the nearby town of Hickory Log) within the boundaries of Georgia. Georgia at first promised that Cherokees could retain the 160-acre tract on which they lived and farmed after i t had been surveyed by the state, but white intruders and the Georgia Guard tended to dispossess Cherokee families at will in the effort to harass the entire tribe into removing to the West. 19

20

2 1

437

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

Ross wished to continue to hold Council meetings at N e w Echota after June 1,1830, despite Georgia's assertion of its jurisdiction, but the C o u n ­ cil persuaded h i m that i t w o u l d be wiser to move the seat of government t e m p o r a r i l y to a Cherokee t o w n i n Tennessee called Red Clay, just across the border f r o m Georgia. Tennessee and N o r t h Carolina had not yet joined Georgia and Alabama i n exercising their sovereignty over the Cherokee land w i t h i n their borders, t h o u g h b o t h eventually did so. W h i l e Cherokee Councils met thereafter i n Red Clay, the Cherokees i n Georgia and Alabama continued to live as best they could on their farms. T h e y obeyed their o w n laws and chiefs and continued to hope that the Council w o u l d find some solution to their m o u n t i n g problems. The Council authorized Ross to hire w h i t e lawyers to assist t h e m i n the increasing number of cases i n v o l v i n g Cherokees arrested by the Georgia Guard for interfering w i t h Georgia's a u t h o r i t y or engaging i n disputes w i t h w h i t e intruders. The t w o most i m p o r t a n t lawyers for the Cherokees were W i l l i a m W i r t , former A t t o r n e y General of the U n i t e d States and soon to be a candidate for President against Jackson on the A n t i - M a s o n i c Party ticket, and John Sergeant, w h o ran for Vice President w i t h H e n r y Clay i n 1832. A l m o s t at once the Cherokees encountered difficulty rais­ i n g m o n e y to pay these lawyers. John Eaton decided that after 1830 no Cherokee N a t i o n existed i n the east; hence there was no Cherokee Treas­ u r y or Treasurer to w h o m the government could pay its share of the tribal a n n u i t y . His solution was to divide the $6,666.66

i n the a n n u i t y by

the total of 14,500 Cherokees and to issue instructions t h r o u g h the fed­ eral agent that each Cherokee head of f a m i l y could apply to the agent for his 45-cent share and the shares of his f a m i l y m e m b e r s .

22

Ross and the

Council protested against this and persuaded the great m a j o r i t y of Cher­ okees to boycott the process of dissipating their funds. For five years the government kept the annuities i n escrow i n a Nashville bank w h i l e the Cherokees ran deeper and deeper into debt.

23

Eaton's decision was an ob­

vious f o r m of harassment designed to prevent the Cherokees f r o m effec­ t i v e l y governing their nation and b r i n g i n g their test cases to court. Just because the Cherokee N a t i o n had ceased to be recognized by Georgia and Alabama did not mean that i t had cased to exist i n Tennessee and N o r t h Carolina. The first o p p o r t u n i t y for a test case occurred i n the fall of 1830 w h e n Royce, Cherokee Nation of Indians, p. 113. Montgomery reported that only 3 percent of the Cherokees came to the agency to ask for their share of the annuity in 1830-1831. He paid out a total of $325. Some of those who came to him asked for food rather than money. He also claimed that some Cherokees who broke the boycott were whipped for it by tribal patriots. See his translation of an article on the subject published in Sequoyan, August 4, 1831, M-234, reel 74, #0618. 22

23

438

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

Georgia arrested a Cherokee named C o r n Tassell (or George Tassel) for the m u r d e r of another Cherokee. He was arrested b y the Georgia Guard, tried, and condemned to death. W i r t applied to the federal court to free C o r n Tassell on a w r i t of error on the g r o u n d that Georgia had no j u r i s ­ diction over a crime that, under the treaty power, was w i t h i n the selfgoverning police rights of the Cherokee N a t i o n . H a d the Supreme C o u r t adjudicated this case, i t m i g h t have ruled Georgia's laws u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and returned the Cherokee Council to control over their land i n Georgia and Alabama. The authorities i n Georgia, fearing this, executed C o r n Tassell before any federal court could make a r u l i n g , thereby m a k i n g the issue m o o t . 2 4

N e x t W i r t sought an i n j u n c t i o n against Georgia's laws for i n f r i n g i n g the sovereignty of the Cherokee N a t i o n under federal treaties. This case reached the Supreme C o u r t early i n 1831 and on M a r c h 3, 1831, the C o u r t ruled i n Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that the Cherokees had no r i g h t to b r i n g such a suit because they did not qualify as an independent foreign n a t i o n . The Cherokee N a t i o n , John M a r s h a l l said i n the Court's first formal effort to define the exact nature of Indian tribes w i t h i n the U n i t e d States, was "a domestic, dependent n a t i o n . " I t had no standing i n the C o u r t and its suit was t h r o w n out. 25

A l t h o u g h this case failed to stop Georgia, John Ross and the Council were pleased b y the Court's definition of the Cherokees as "a domestic n a t i o n , " for at least that indicated the Cherokees were not s i m p l y " t e n ­ ants at w i l l " of the states i n w h i c h they resided. Ross had the decision printed and distributed so that the Cherokees could see that t h e y had es­ tablished for themselves a clear legal status as "a n a t i o n " — t h o u g h w h a t the rights of a "domestic, dependent n a t i o n " were was yet to be defined. John M a r s h a l l let i t be k n o w n privately that he sympathized w i t h the constitutional argument of the Cherokees on the supremacy of the treaty clause to states' rights, b u t he said their lawyers m u s t find a better means to b r i n g this matter before the C o u r t . The Georgians had provided the o p p o r t u n i t y for this b y passing a law i n December 1829 that was designed to drive the missionaries out of the Cherokee N a t i o n . N o t o n l y had the missionaries to the Cherokees been under attack for some t i m e b y west­ erners for their role i n civilizing the Indians, b u t the federal Education Fund of 1819 itself had been denounced b y Georgia as contrary to the Compact of 1802. I n June 1830, Eaton curtailed all grants f r o m this fund 26

Grant Foreman, Indian Removal (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1932), pp. 233-35; Phillips, "Georgia and States Rights," pp. 75-76. Satz, American Indian Policy, pp. 4^-46; Peters, Case of the Cherokee Nation, pp. 2 224. Phillips, "Georgia and States Rights," pp. 77-78. 2 4

25

2 6

439

THE M I S S I O N A R I E S AN D TIIE S U P R E M E

COURT

to mission schools east of the Mississippi because the administration's policy henceforth was to support o n l y Indian education that took place i n the t e r r i t o r y set aside for Indians i n the west. However, Eaton let i t be k n o w n that his real a i m was to support Georgia i n its effort to r i d the Cherokees of missionary assistance: "The Government b y its funds," he said, " s h o u l d not extend encouragement and assistance to those w h o , t h i n k i n g upon this subject, employ their efforts to prevent r e m o v a l s . " N o doubt the A m e r i c a n Board's l o b b y i n g efforts against the Removal B i l l were the principal cause for this action, but the Georgians themselves were convinced that individual missionaries w i t h i n the Cherokee N a t i o n were p r o v i d i n g political advice and m o r a l assistance to those resisting re­ moval. 27

The most convincing evidence for this was a statement issued b y seven of the nine M e t h o d i s t missionaries who were i t i n e r a t i n g among the Cherokees. These missionaries had met at the Chatooga camp meeting g r o u n d i n the Cherokee N a t i o n i n September 1829 and, after a rousing revival meeting, issued a set of resolutions that were later published i n a M e t h o d i s t newspaper, the Christian Advocate, p r i n t e d i n N e w York C i t y . The resolution was designed to arouse denominational and public support for the Cherokees and opposition to the efforts to force t h e m to sign a removal treaty. The seven missionaries claimed to speak for the t w o ab­ sent circuit riders as well as themselves when they said : " I t is the u n a n ­ imous opinon of this board of missionaries that a removal of the Chero­ kees to the west of the Mississippi w o u l d , i n all probability, be ruinous to the best interests of the n a t i o n . " Furthermore, they denied the charges made b y Jackson, Eaton, M o n t g o m e r y , and other government officials that the Cherokees were "under the controlling influence of the principal m e n of the n a t i o n " and that the missionaries opposed removal " m e r e l y i n order the more effectually to extend our missionary operation here." Asserting that the great body of the Cherokee people "is f i r m l y resolved not to remove," t h e y called for "the sympathy and religious interposition of the Christian c o m m u n i t y i n these United States, together w i t h all true and faithful friends of h u m a n i t y and justice" on behalf of the oppressed Cherokees. 28

The Cherokees were heartened b y this and the editor of the Phoenix published an editorial asking the missionaries of the other denominations to add their support: " M u s t their mouths be muzzled because they are embassadors of r e l i g i o n ? " The Reverend Samuel Worcester had then called for a meeting of all the missionaries of all the denominations to 29

27 28

29

Prucha, American Indian Policy, p. 246. McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, Cherokee Phoenix, October 1, 1830.

440

pp. 289-92.

THE

MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

meet at his home i n N e w Echota early i n December to sign a similar m a n ­ ifesto. The meeting (after a short postponement) was attended b y nine members of the Americans Board Missions, t w o Moravians, one Baptist, and one of the Methodists w h o had signed the September resolves. Their manifesto was signed on December 29, 1830. The missionaries said that although, as missionaries, they did not give direct advice or counsel to the Cherokees i n political affairs, nevertheless as individuals they had the r i g h t to express their opinions w h e n asked b y Cherokees. Furthermore, they felt they had the r i g h t to say that removal of the Cherokees was not i n the best interest of that people. Like the Methodists, the missionaries of the other denominations insisted that the Cherokees were b y no means intimidated by their "halfbreed" leaders but that their leaders clearly represented the w i l l of "the whole mass of the Cherokee people." The m a j o r i t y of Cherokees were " t o t a l l y averse to a r e m o v a l . " They were a democratic republic, the missionaries noted, and "the disposal of office is i n the hands of the people"; no man could possibly remain long i n office " i n opposition to the w i l l of the people." A l t h o u g h i t was true that " I n ­ dians of m i x e d b l o o d " dominated the upper house, they did so because of their experience. T w o - t h i r d s of the members of the lower house of the Cherokee legislature were full bloods and w i t h o u t their concurrence no action was possible i n the nation. The missionaries then stated the "facts" of the tremendous improvement that had taken place i n the social, eco­ nomic, and political order of the Cherokees over the past t h i r t y - f i v e years. As persons laboring to "aid t h e m i n their progress, we cannot do otherwise than earnestly deprecate any measure w h i c h threatens to arrest i t . " I n their view, the removal of this nation was to be "deprecated" be­ cause i t could o n l y serve " t o retard, i f not totally to arrest their progress i n religion, civilization, learning and the useful arts." The whole Indian removal policy of the Jackson A d m i n i s t r a t i o n was " n o t merely of a p o l i t ­ ical but of a m o r a l nature, inasmuch as i t involves the maintenance or v i ­ olation of the faith of our c o u n t r y . " 30

The editor of the Cherokee Phoenix issued an " e x t r a " edition contain­ ing the entire manifesto on January 1,1831, t w o days after the meeting. I n addition an editorial b y Elias Boudinot said: " W e believe no one can not remain n e u t r a l . . . each individual i n America must either be for the Indians or against t h e m . " A week before the missionaries had met to issue this statement, the legislature of Georgia had passed a law r e q u i r i n g all w h i t e m e n l i v i n g w i t h i n the area f o r m e r l y claimed b y the Cherokees i n Georgia to take an 3 1

30 31

Ibid., January 1,1830 [actually 1831]. Ibid.

441

THE M I S S I O N A R I E S ANI) T H E S U P R E M E

COURT

oath of allegiance to obey the laws of the State of Georgia. W h i t e s were given u n t i l M a r c h 1,1831, to sign the oath or to remove outside Georgia's boundaries.

32

Copies of this law were sent i n January to each of the

t h i r t y - t w o missionaries residing i n the Cherokee N a t i o n as w e l l as to w h i t e traders, mechanics, innkeepers, m i l l w r i g h t s , and other whites there. The legislature had little doubt that those doing business i n the na­ t i o n w o u l d take the oath, for most of t h e m were residents of Georgia and the s u r r o u n d i n g states. But they knew that the missionaries, especially those f r o m the n o r t h e r n states, m i g h t decline to do so. I f they did sign, t h e y w o u l d of course be bound to submit to the laws of Georgia or face i m p r i s o n m e n t . I f they did not take the oath, they w o u l d have to leave or be subject to imprisonment—assuming, of course, that the law was con­ stitutional. Here at last m i g h t be a case that could be brought before the U n i t e d States Supreme Court, i f some missionary was w i l l i n g to risk i m p r i s o n ­ ment b y disobeying i t . The one Baptist missionary l i v i n g w i t h i n the boundaries of Georgia, Duncan O ' B r i a n t , was a native of Georgia and supported b y the funds of the Sarepta Baptist M i s s i o n a r y Society of Georgia. U n l i k e the Reverend Evan Jones i n Valley Towns, N o r t h Caro­ lina, w h o was supported by the Baptist Foreign M i s s i o n a r y Board i n Bos­ t o n , O ' B r i a n t had not signed the manifesto i n Worcester's home and had no i n t e n t i o n of opposing removal. I n fact, he not o n l y signed the oath of allegiance to Georgia but helped to persuade the members of his mission­ ary church at Tinsawattee to enroll for emigration under the treaty of 1828. He and his church members departed for the west M a r c h 30, 1832.

33

O f the nine Methodist missionaries i n the nation, o n l y t w o lived i n Georgia. However, all of those w h o had signed the Chatooga resolves had been severely censured by their mission board i n Tennessee for meddling i n politics and had been instructed to steer clear of politics thereafter.

34

The Moravians at Springplace and Oothcaloga wrote to their mission board i n Salem, N o r t h Carolina, for advice. Their board confirmed their o w n view that they should neither sign the oath nor engage i n civil dis­ obedience. Their o n l y alternative was to close their t w o mission stations and move to Tennessee, where they tried to continue to look after their converts.

35

Phillips, "Georgia and States Rights," p. 73. The law requiring an oath of all whites within the Chreokee Nation was passed by Georgia on December 22,1830, but the mission­ aries were not aware of it when they wrote their manifesto a week later. McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, pp. 279-82. Ibid., pp. 293-94. Ibid., pp. 284-88. 32

33

34

3 5

442

THE MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

There were five male members of the A m e r i c a n Board missions l i v i n g i n Georgia (women missionaries were exempted i n the law f r o m signing the oath) : Samuel A . Worcester, Elizur Butler, Daniel S. Butrick, Isaac Proctor, and John Thompson. T h e y too w r o t e to the Board for advice, b u t added t h e i r position that they could not sign the oath nor could t h e y y i e l d their r i g h t to preach the gospel to the heathen. Therefore, they wished to b r i n g a test case b y risking i m p r i s o n m e n t " f o r righteousness sake." The A m e r i c a n Board i n Boston, f u l l y i n sympathy w i t h t h e i r position, said that t h e y m u s t make their decisions as individuals b u t that the Board w o u l d provide legal help for any w h o were arrested and wished to b r i n g a test case before the Supreme Court. Soon after this, three of the five had second thoughts. T h e y felt that missionaries should not interfere w i t h " T h a t w h i c h is Caesar's" and noted that the Bible ordered all Christians to "obey the powers that be for they are ordained of G o d . " I f the Presi­ dent of the U n i t e d States supported Georgia's position, t h e n Georgia was " t h e powers that be" and must be obeyed. Since they could not i n con­ science sign the oath, t h e y w o u l d move out of the state and continue to minister to their flock b y i t i n e r a t i n g (which i n their view was not resi­ dence). This left t w o missionaries, the Reverend Samuel Worcester at N e w Echota and the medical missionary, Dr. Elizur Butler, at Haweis, to b r i n g the case. H a v i n g refused to sign the oath, they were arrested b y the Georgia Guard on July 7 and, under v e r y r o u g h treatment, taken to L a w renceville, Georgia, for t r i a l . The court found t h e m g u i l t y and sentenced t h e m to four years at hard labor on September 8, 1831. Their lawyers, paid b y the Board, i m m e d i a t e l y appealed to the Supreme C o u r t . 36

37

D u r i n g the weeks between M a r c h 1 and July 7 the Georgia Guard had been particularly hard upon a number of missionaries w h o at first de­ clined to sign the oath. I t had arrested and t e m p o r a r i l y imprisoned at least five missionaries, t w o of t h e m Methodists, at different times. U l t i m a t e l y all b u t Worcester and Butler escaped conviction, but the news of these ar­ rests and the news that ministers of God had been dragged t h r o u g h the forests tied to the horses of the Guards, rudely cursed, shoved, and made to sleep w i t h chains around t h e m on jail floors shocked and horrified Prot­ estants across the c o u n t r y . Even ministerial associations and presbyteries i n the South that were strongly i n support of Georgia and Jackson were moved to protest against such actions. The Cherokees believed that n o w the Georgians had gone too far and that w h i t e voters w o u l d finally realize the k i n d of unscrupulous, lawless, godless people w i t h w h o m the Indians had to deal on the frontier. Public opinion, they believed, w o u l d at last Ibid., p. 260. See Edwin A. Miles, "After John Marshall's Decision," journal of Southern 39 (1973): 520-44; McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, p. 262. 3 6

3 7

443

History

THE MISSIONARIES AND THESUPREME

COURT

t u r n against Jackson and force h i m to modify his policy, at least i n their particular case. O n M a r c h 3 , 1 8 3 2 , after the t w o Congregationalist missionaries had been i n prison for eight m o n t h s , John M a r s h a l l finally rendered the de­ cision of the Supreme Court i n Worcester

v. Georgia.

The arrest of the

missionaries, M a r s h a l l said, was illegal because Georgia had no a u t h o r i t y to execute its laws w i t h i n an Indian nation protected under the treaty clause of the C o n s t i t u t i o n . " T h e Cherokee N a t i o n . . . is a distinct com­ m u n i t y , occupying its o w n t e r r i t o r y . . . i n w h i c h the law of Georgia can have no r i g h t to enter but w i t h the assent of the Cherokees. . . . The A c t of the State of Georgia [ i n arresting and i m p r i s o n i n g the defendants] . . . is consequently v o i d . "

3 8

The Cherokees had at last been vindicated. Georgia's arguments for states' rights and Jackson's defense of t h e m were declared u n c o n s t i t u ­ tional b y the highest a u t h o r i t y i n the land. The Cherokees could have asked for no more. I n principle, their cause was settled. But principle was not the r u l i n g power i n this situation. The voice of the people was the voice of God; i t had spoken i n favor of A n d r e w Jackson and i t continued to speak i n his support. The State of Georgia refused to release its pris­ oners w h e n the lawyers appeared w i t h Marshall's decision. Jackson was angry, b u t he had no i n t e n t i o n of changing his m i n d . I n his o p i n i o n the Supreme C o u r t was o n l y one of several branches of government that could interpret the C o n s t i t u t i o n ; Congress and the Chief Executive could also do so. A l l were sworn to uphold the C o n s t i t u t i o n as they saw i t . I n his o w n veto messages he had told the Congress w h e n i t had acted uncon­ s t i t u t i o n a l l y . He believed that his judgment on the Cherokee case was as good as John Marshall's. I f the people did not agree w i t h h i m , they could refuse to reelect h i m . The Court, w i t h its appointed life tenure, spoke o n l y for itself. I t was not responsible to the people and i n this case, i n Jackson's opinion, i t had acted against the best interest of the people. The A m e r i c a n Board consulted w i t h its lawyers and discovered that there was one more step that must be taken. Jackson had to be faced tech­ nically w i t h the fact that Georgia w o u l d not execute the Court's decision. This required the lawyers to go back to M a r s h a l l and obtain a w r i t f r o m h i m that w o u l d ask the Chief Executive to see that the Court's order was carried out. Jackson w o u l d then be unable to remain silent (as he had so far). H e w o u l d either have to compel Georgia to release the missionaries or to defy the Court and the Constitution. The lawyers could not r e t u r n to M a r s h a l l for the w r i t u n t i l January 1 8 3 3 , w h e n the Court reconvened. Satz, American Indian Policy, pp. 47-53; Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 228; McLoughlin, Cherokees and Missionaries, p. 264. 3 8

444

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

M e a n w h i l e the t w o A m e r i c a n Board missionaries w h o had b r o u g h t the case remained at hard labor i n the Georgia penitentiary. I n the months between M a r c h 1832 and January 1833 m a n y new cir­ cumstances intervened against the Cherokees. First, Jackson's W h i g ene­ mies forced h i m to veto a b i l l to recharter the Bank of the U n i t e d States, a decision that was a grave miscalculation. The veto was h i g h l y popular among the c o m m o n people; t h e y considered the bank an oppressive tool of the eastern, monied aristocracy. Then i n July 1832, Congress passed a new tariff law, again over the vehement objection of South Carolina, w h i c h threatened to n u l l i f y i t ; and the sovereign state of South Carolina f u l l y expected the other southern agricultural states to j o i n i t i n this ac­ t i o n . The states too, i t seemed, had the power to interpret the C o n s t i t u ­ tion. I n one respect the nullification threat placed Jackson i n a dilemma. I t seemed to be simply another example of states' rights aggression against the federal u n i o n . I f he were to enforce the tariff against South Carolina, as he wished to do, w o u l d he not have to act w i t h equal force against Georgia's assertion of states' rights? O n the other hand, i f he could isolate South Carolina by g r a n t i n g Georgia's claims, m i g h t he not thereby pre­ vent Georgia and other southern states that wanted Indian removal f r o m j o i n i n g i n the nullification movement? Jackson's reelection i n 1832 seemed to place the popular w i l l once again i n his hands. South Carolina, not to be intimidated, voted on November 24 to de­ clare the new tariff n u l l and void w i t h i n its borders as of February 1,1833. I n order for Jackson to use his popular power to b r i n g South Carolina i n t o line, he w o u l d first have to come to some agreement w i t h Georgia. B u t were M a r s h a l l to face h i m w i t h the task of releasing the missionaries, he w o u l d be on the horns of the dilemma. I f he ignored Marshall's order, he w o u l d be hard put to take a strong stand against South Carolina for de­ f y i n g federal a u t h o r i t y w h i l e he was allowing Georgia to do so. I f he en­ forced Marshall's order against Georgia, he m i g h t w e l l drive that state as w e l l as other southern states toward nullification and precipitate a major national crisis. I t was perhaps possible to argue that Georgia was acting o n l y on a matter of i n t e r n a l concern w h i l e South Carolina was acting i n direct defiance of Congress, but this was not a strong position f r o m w h i c h to u n i t e the c o u n t r y behind federal supremacy. Suddenly the t w o missionaries i n Milledgeville Penitentiary found themselves the focus of national attention. O n l y they could get Jackson and the c o u n t r y off the hook and save the nation f r o m civil war. O r so t h e y were told b y a steady stream of distinguished southern visitors to the prison, all of w h o m begged t h e m to tell their lawyers not to carry an appeal to M a r s h a l l . Governor L u m p k i n of Georgia i n v i t e d Worcester's 445

THE MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME COURT

and Butler's wives to meet w i t h h i m and then to visit their husbands to persuade t h e m to put the safety of the U n i o n ahead of their o w n cause. L u m p k i n let i t be k n o w n that i f the t w o missionaries w o u l d simply re­ quest a pardon, he w o u l d grant i t w i t h o u t i m p l y i n g that they had done any w r o n g but had merely acted out of conscience. The Prudential C o m ­ mittee of the A m e r i c a n Board met i n executive session on December 25, 1832, to decide what advice i t should send to its t w o missionaries. The Board voted to advise t h e m not to make the final appeal to M a r ­ shall; b y the t i m e their letter reached the prison, Worcester and Butler had already reached the same conclusion. They w o u l d sacrifice the Cher­ okees to save the U n i o n . They instructed their lawyers not to carry an appeal to M a r s h a l l and their case was over. Instead, on January 8, 1833, they wrote to Governor L u m p k i n saying that they had w i t h d r a w n their suit lest i t " m i g h t be attended w i t h con­ sequences injurious to our beloved c o u n t r y " ; that is, i t m i g h t force a con­ frontation between the federal government and Georgia that w o u l d push Georgia onto the side of South Carolina and nullification. L u m p k i n forced the missionaries to ask for " m a g n a n i m i t y " f r o m the state and then, publicizing their request as an admission of g u i l t , he told the war­ den to release t h e m on January 14. T w o days later, A n d r e w Jackson, freed f r o m embarrassment over the Cherokee question, presented Congress w i t h his Force Bill to obtain the power to use the a r m y and navy, i f nec­ essary, to force South Carolina to obey the federal government. Georgia, its success against the Cherokees n o w ensured, offered no support for South Carolina; nor did any other southern state. O n January 2 1 , South Carolina suspended its nullification proclamation, hoping that Congress w o u l d pass a more moderate tariff. W h e n Congress did so i n M a r c h , South Carolina, having no support from other southern states, agreed to pay the tariff. The nation, W h i g s and Democrats alike, u n i t e d i n praise of the strong executive w h o had saved the U n i o n f r o m secession and civil war. 39

The Cherokees had lost their last hope. For t h e m the worst blow was that the A m e r i c a n Board, having w r i t t e n to advise Worcester and Butler to w i t h d r a w their final appeal to Marshal, sent another letter to John Ross on December 27, 1832, advising h i m that further resistance was useless and that he should t r y to persuade his nation to make the best bargain i t could w i t h Jackson for its land and then remove to the w e s t . W h e n 40

Miles, "After John Marshall," p. 541. According to Ulrich Phillips, however, the ma­ jority of voters in Georgia were never m favor of South Carolina's position on nuilificaton. Phillips, "Georgia and States Rights," pp. 78-82, 113. William Wisner to Samuel Worcester, December 26, 1832, A B C F M ; David Green to John Ross, December 27, 1832, John Ross Papers, Gilcrease institute, Tulsa, Oklahoma; 3 9

4 0

446

THE

MISSIONARIES AND THE SUPREME

COURT

Worcester returned to N e w Echota, he was convinced that he had made the r i g h t decision and agreed w i t h his Board that the Cherokees should give up. For the past eighteen months, the Cherokees had treated h i m as a heroic m a r t y r ; n o w they became decidedly cool t o w a r d h i m and t o w a r d all missionaries. From this point on, they realized, they were on their own. There was no body of w h i t e men they could rely upon for help. Further progress for the Cherokee renascence had to wait as the nation devoted all of its energy and resources to the single end of political sur­ vival i n the east. This desperate struggle rested on the f o r l o r n hope of a presidential v i c t o r y for the W h i g Party i n 1836. Samuel Worcester to David Greene, January 23,1833, ABCFM; Lucy Butler to David Greene, June 23, 1833, ABCFM. Lucy Butler said that Ross and the Cherokees were very upset over "the change of sentiment among the friends of the Cherokees." Ross had hoped they would be as stubborn about opposing Jackson's policy as the National Council was. The American Board had conceded to Jackson too hastily, he thought.

447

EPILOGUE

T H E E N D OF T H E C H E R O K E E R E N A S C E N C E , 1833 We have been made to drink the bitter cup of humiliation; treated like dogs; our lives, our liberties, the sport of whitemen; our country and the graves of our Father torn from us. . . . We find ourselves fugitives, vagrants in our own country. —John Ross, Chief of the Cherokees

T

he first Cherokee renascence ended on January 8,1833, i f any precise date can be picked. Some, of course, w o u l d argue that i f the passage of the Removal B i l l i n M a y 1830 had not made certain their defeat, the reelection of Jackson i n November 1832 certainly did. The precise date is not i m p o r t a n t . Probably i t is not fair to place the blame for the fate of the Cherokee N a t i o n on the t w o missionaries w h o capitulated to Georgia after having sacrificed so m u c h to help the Cherokees. Had they persisted i n asking John M a r s h a l l to make Jackson execute the Court's decision, Jackson w o u l d have found reasons to refuse and the voters w o u l d have supported h i m . The missionaries, like the Cherokees, were pawns i n a m u c h larger game. W h o can say precisely w h y the Age of Reason w i t h its faith that all m e n are created equal gave way between 1789 and 1833 to the Age of Romanticism w i t h its conviction that the United States was "a w h i t e man's c o u n t r y " ? The capitulation of the missionaries was merely s y m ­ bolic of that shift. Still, w h e n even these staunch allies yielded, the Cher­ okees were left w i t h no organized or active support for their cause among w h i t e Americans, and alone they could not hope to succeed. As early as M a r c h 1832, Senator Frelinghuysen and Associate Justice John McLean of the Supreme Court, two of the leading national figures i n the fight for Cherokee rights, had told John Ridge that Jackson's refusal to accept Marshall's decision meant that removal could not be stopped. It remains questionable how deep the c o m m i t m e n t to defend Indian rights was among W h i g politicians. I f H e n r y Clay had been elected i n 1836, he w o u l d hardly have been able to hold back the expansionist clamor to remove these " i n f e r i o r people" from the path of progress. As Secretary of State i n 1825, Clay had expressed to John Q u i n c y Adams his 1

1

Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 230-31, 243.

448

THE

END OF RENASCENCE

doubts about Indian survival. Adams wrote i n his diary that Clay t o l d him that it was impossible to civilize Indians; that there never was a fullblooded Indian who took to civilization. It was not in their nature. He believed they were des­ tined to extinction, and, although he would never use or countenance inhumanity towards them, he did not think them, as a race, worth preserving. He considered them as essentially inferior to the Anglo-Saxon race which were now taking their place on this continent. They were not an improvable breed, and their disappear­ ance from the human family would be no great loss to the world. 2

Jackson probably spoke for the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y of w h i t e voters w h e n he said, after his second election, that the Indian question was a ra­ cial question: It is to be hoped that those portions of two of the Southern tribes [Cherokees and Seminoles] . . . will realize the necessity of emigration and will speedily resort to it. . . . Those tribes cannot exist surrounded by our settlements and in continued contact with our citizens. . . . They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favor­ able change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and superior race and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long dis­ appear. 3

W h e t h e r the racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxon was considered b i o ­ logically innate or whether Indian i n f e r i o r i t y rested on cultural habits re­ sistant to change was irrelevant. Ethnocentricity was as effective as rac­ ism i n d o o m i n g the Indians to second-class citizenship. B y 1833 a party had developed w i t h i n the Cherokee N a t i o n that fa­ vored removal o n the best possible terms. John Ridge spoke for this group w h e n he said i n February 1833: " I hope we shall attempt to establish [ourselves] somewhere else," for " w e can't be a nation h e r e . " John Ross, w h o led the anti-removal party, continued to believe that i f t h e y couldn't be a nation where they were, t h e y couldn't be a nation anywhere. Ross was r i g h t . The k i n d of nation that the Cherokees later became i n the west was far different f r o m what they had worked so hard to be i n the east. 4

M u c h has been w r i t t e n and is still to be w r i t t e n about the Removal Quoted in Richard Drinnon, Facing West, pp. 179-80. Andrew Jackson, Message to Congress, December 3, 1833, Congressional Serial House Documents, Twenty-third Congress, American State Papers, vol. 234, p. 14. Jackson was speaking here in terms of an older, ethnocentric argument for racial superiority rather than in terms of the new biological argument, though the two positions were slowly shading into each other. His statement implies that the Indians had it in their power to improve them­ selves, but they refused to do it because they were so habituated to their old ways. Using this concept of permanent racial inferiority placed the blame squarely upon the Indians by implying they had the free will to change but simply would not exercise it. Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, p. 243. 2

3

4

449

T H E E N D OF

RENASCENCE

Party among the Cherokees and the fatal and fraudulent treaty that its leaders signed at N e w Echota w i t h Jackson's emissary, the Reverend John F. Schermerhorn, i n December 1835. I n that treaty, a small m i n o r i t y of chiefs agreed to cede all their homeland for five m i l l i o n dollars and other c o m m i t m e n t s to assist t h e m i n reestablishing themselves i n w h a t is n o w northeastern Oklahoma. This pro-removal faction was not made up of full bloods w a n t i n g to retain their old h u n t i n g ways far f r o m the oppres­ sive whites, nor were they the worst members of the mixed-blood class i n the nation. These were some of its best, most dedicated, patriotic lead­ ers—Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot, John Ridge, W i l l i a m Hicks, Stand W a tie, David Vann, A n d r e w Ross, and W i l l i a m S. Coody. I n their o p i n i o n , the effort to remain i n the east after 1833 was causing more suffering than i t was w o r t h . They believed that John Ross's stubborn refusal to face up to reality was o n l y h u r t i n g the people w h o trusted h i m . I n a sense they were r i g h t , but they sacrificed principle for practicality. 5

Speaking for the signers of the Removal Treaty i n 1835, Elias Boudinot confirmed m u c h of what the dissidents i n W h i t e Path's Rebellion had feared: the educated, y o u n g leaders of the nation had gotten too far ahead of their people and yet still claimed the right to speak for t h e m . As B o u ­ dinot put i t , " i f one hundred persons are ignorant of their true situation and are so completely blinded as not to see the destruction that awaits t h e m , we can see strong reasons to justify the actions of a m i n o r i t y of fifty persons to do what the m a j o r i t y would do i f they understood their c o n d i t i o n . " However, the signers of this treaty were not as fifty out of one hundred; they were a t i n y m i n o r i t y of 75 out of 15,000. Even after the Removal Treaty was signed, fewer than 2,000 Cherokees deserted the stubborn Ross i n the cruel years bet wen 1835 and 1838. W h i t e Path h i m ­ self remained w i t h Ross and died w i t h thousands of other Cherokees i n the forced emigration i n 1838-1839. Close to 1,000 Cherokee full bloods i n the Great S m o k y M o u n t a i n s fled to secret hideaways and were never rounded up b y the U n i t e d States troops; their descendants still remain i n N o r t h Carolina. 6

It can be argued that, phoenix-like, the Cherokees once again rose f r o m the ashes of defeat after 1839. They put d o w n new roots i n their allotted corner of the west and made that part of "the Great A m e r i c a n Desert" b l o o m like the rose. They built good homes and farms and prospered. However, this second renascence was unlike the first. I t lacked that s i m ­ ple, buoyant idealism and hope, that ebullient expectancy of successful The best account of the "Treaty Party" and the signing of the Removal Treaty in 1835 is contained in Wilkins, Cherokee Tragedy, pp. 254-78. Elias Boudinot, Letters and Other Papers Relating to Cherokee Affairs, in Cherokee Ed­ itor, ed. Perdue, p. 162. 5

6

450

THE END OF RENASCENCE

participation as equals i n the future destiny of the republic that had i n ­ spired t h e m prior to 1833. I n a totally different e n v i r o n m e n t , w i t h the stinging m e m o r y of their betrayals and humiliations, the optimistic spirit of their first renascence was replaced by a more hard-headed, g r i m r e l i ­ ance u p o n self-interest. The Cherokees knew they w o u l d not share i n the rising greatness of the United States. The full-blood conservatives, although they had displayed less eager­ ness before 1833 to emulate the w h i t e man, suffered more f r o m the alien environment. T h e y missed the ancient hills, valleys, rivers, and springs of their ancestral land; they could not find i n the West that rapport w i t h nature or that healing power i n its alien flora and fauna that had sustained their spirits and bodies i n the East. The herbs and roots upon w h i c h their adonisgi relied for their medicine could not be found. A n uprooted peo­ ple, physically and emotionally, they did not t h r i v e c u l t u r a l l y i n the new soil. For another generation they cultivated the new land as best t h e y could, b u t t h e y knew that their days of self-government were numbered. Worse than the deepening disdain of w h i t e Americans, however, was the bitter e n m i t y that poisoned their i n t e r n a l relationships. Three of the signers of the Removed Treaty of N e w Echota were assassinated i n June 1839 (Bou­ dinot, M a j o r Ridge, and John Ridge) for breaking the law against selling tribal land w i t h o u t the approval of the people i n full council. A terrible civil war ensued for the next seven years i n w h i c h the Removal Party and the " o l d settlers'' (those w h o had emigrated between 1794 and 1835) struggled for control of the nation against the far more numerous Ross Party w h o came west i n 1838-1839. The brief second renascence of the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the years 1846 to 1860 ended w i t h the C i v i l War. A f t e r struggling to avoid involvement i n "the w h i t e man's w a r , " the Cherokees split again, half j o i n i n g the Confederate States of A m e r i c a , half j o i n i n g the U n i t e d States. Twice i n one generation, Cherokee fought against Cherokee. Whatever was left of their ancient t r a d i t i o n of govern­ ment b y consensus and the old ethic of h a r m o n y died forever i n 1833. This is not to say that the Cherokee people or their culture died. The Cherokees are more numerous today than ever. A n d cultures do not die; t h e y simply develop i n new ways. The search for a self-governing Cher­ okee state w i t h i n the U n i t e d States was just one phase i n the c o n t i n u i n g evolution of Cherokee culture. I t was, however, a remarkable phase, and the failure of that renascence has cast a heavy shadow. The Cherokees did their best i n the years 1794 to 1833 to realize Jefferson's promise that " W e shall all be A m e r i c a n s . " The failure was not theirs.

451

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I

have relied p r i m a r i l y on the records of Indian affairs i n the N a t i o n a l Archives, first-hand accounts b y missionaries, and materials i n state archives. The N a t i o n a l Archives have now placed on m i c r o f i l m most of their records relating to Indian Affairs and the Office of the Secretary of War. A list of the most i m p o r t a n t of these m i c r o f i l m series for this study, indicating the abbreviations used for annotation, is given at the beginning of the book. The most i m p o r t a n t missionary archives are those of the Moravians (or U n i t e d Brethren) i n Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and W i n ­ ston-Salem, N o r t h Carolina; the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions at H o u g h t o n Library, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y ; the Pres­ byterian Historical Society, i n Philadelphia; the A m e r i c a n Baptist H i s ­ torical Society i n Rochester, N e w York; the Dargan-Carver M e m o r i a l L i ­ b r a r y of the U n i t e d Methodists i n Nashville, Tennessee; and the Garrett Evangelical Seminary i n Evanston, Illinois. The state archives i n Nashville, Tennessee; A t l a n t a , Georgia; and Ra­ leigh, N o r t h Carolina have been v e r y helpful i n providing the perspective of the frontier states that surrounded the Cherokee N a t i o n i n the years covered b y this study. I m p o r t a n t Cherokee archives include the Gilcrease Institute, Tulsa, Oklahoma (where the John Ross Papers and Grant Fore­ m a n Papers are located) and the Cherokee M u s e u m at Qualla, N o r t h Car­ olina. O t h e r i m p o r t a n t sources of materials relating to the Cherokee I n ­ dians include the Silas D i n s m o o r Papers, the John H o w a r d Payne Papers, and the A y e r Collection at the N e w b e r r y L i b r a r y , Chicago; the O k l a ­ homa Historical Society, i n Oklahoma C i t y ; the Western Collection of the U n i v e r s i t y of Oklahoma, N o r m a n ; the Worcester-Robertson Papers and the Schleppy Collection at Tulsa U n i v e r s i t y ; and the Daniel Parker Papers at the Pennsylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia. I have also made extensive use of the editions of the Cherokee Phoenix at the A m e r ­ ican A n t i q u a r i a n Society i n Worcester, Massachusetts. Bibliographic resources on the Indians of N o r t h America are becoming more numerous and valuable. For this study I have particularly made use of James P. Ronda and James A x t e l l , Indian Missions: A Critical Bibli­ ography ( B l o o m i n g t o n : Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978); R a y m o n d D . Fogelson, The Cherokees: A Critical Bibliography ( B l o o m i n g t o n : I n d i 453

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978); the bibliography contained i n Charles H u d ­ son, The Southeastern Indians (Knoxville: U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee Press, 1976); and the bibliography i n the new edition of T h u r m a n W i l ­ kins, Cherokee Tragedy ( N o r m a n : U n i v e r s i t y of Oklahoma Press, 1985). A major and accessible source of of p r i m a r y documents relating to I n ­ dian Affairs that is particularly rich w i t h respect to the Cherokees is American State Papers: Indian Affairs, vols. I and I I , Documents, Leg­ islative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, edited b y Walter L o w r i e , Walter S. Franklin, and M a t t h e w St. Clair Clark (Wash­ i n g t o n , D . C . : Gales and Seaton, 1832,1834). I . P R I M A R Y SOURCES Adair, James. History of the American Indians. Edited by Samuel C. Williams. 1775. Reprint. New York: Johnson, 1969. Bart ram, William. "Observations on the Creek and Cherokee Indians/' Ameri­ can Ethnological Society Transactions 3 (1853) : 1—81. Boudinot, Elias. An Address Delivered to the Whites. Philadelphia, 1826. Cherokee Nation. Laws of the Cherokee Nation. Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, 1952. Evarts, Jeremiah. Essays on the Present Crisis. Boston, 1829. Gilmer, George R. Sketches of Some of the First Settlers of Upper Georgia. New York: Appleton, 1855. Reprint. Americus, Georgia, 1926. Hawkins, Benjamin. A Sketch of the Creek Country. Publications of the Georgia Historical Society, vol. 3 (1938). Lumpkin, Wilson. The Removal of the Cherokee Indians. Worm sloe, Georgia, 1907. McCoy, Isaac. History of Baptist Indian Missions. Washington, 1840. Reprint. New York: Johnson, 1970. McKenney, Thomas L., and James Hall. History of the Indian Tribes. Philadel­ phia, 1836. Morse, Jedidiah. A Report to the Secretary of War. New Haven, Conn., 1822. Owen, Narcissa. Memoirs. Washington, D . C , 1907. Peters, Richard. The Case of the Cherokee Nation against the State of Georgia. Philadelphia, 1831. Ross, William P. Life and Times of Hon. Wm. P. Ross. Fort Smith, A r k . , 1893. Stuart, John A. A Sketch of the Cherokee and Choctaw Indians. Little Rock, 1837. Timberlake, Henry. Memoirs. Edited by Samuel C. Williams. 1.765. Reprint. Marietta, Ga., 1948. I I . CHEROKEE CULTURE Bloom, Leonard. "The Acculturation of the Eastern Cherokee: Historical As­ pects." North Carolina Historical Review 19 (October 1942) :328-58.

454

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, John P. Old Frontiers. Kingsport, Tenn. : Southern Publishers, 1938. Butrick, Daniel. Cherokee Antiquities. Vinita, I.T.: Indian Chieftain Publishers, 1884. Fenton, William N . , and John Gulick, eds. "Symposium on Cherokee and Iro­ quois Culture." Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bul­ letin 180. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1961. Fogelson, Raymond D. "The Cherokee Ballgame Cycle." Ethnomusicology 15 (1971): 327-28. . "On the Varieties of Indian History." Journal of Ethnic Studies 2 (1974): 105-112. Fogelson, Raymond D., and Richard N . Adams, eds. The Anthropology of Power. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Gearing, Fred O. Priests and Warriors. American Anthropological Association Memoir 93. Menasha, Wis. : American Anthropological Association, 1962. Gilbert, William H . , Jr. "The Eastern Cherokees." Smithsonian Institution, Bu­ reau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1943. Hudson, Charles M . The Southeastern Indians. Knoxville: University of Ten­ nessee Press, 1976. , ed. Four Centuries of Southern Indians. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1975. Hultkrantz, Âke. Belief and Worship in Native North America. Syracuse: Uni­ versity of Syracuse Press, 1981. Kilpatrick, Jack F. Sequoyah, of Earth and Intellect. Austin: Encino Press, 1965. , ed. "The Wahnenauhi Manuscript." Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 196. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. Kilpatrick, Jack F. and Anna Gritts Kilpatrick, eds. New Echota Letters. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1968. . The Shadow of Sequoya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965. Loomis, A. W. Scenes in the Indian Country. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Pres­ byterian Board, 1859. Mooney, James. "The Cherokee Ball Play." American Anthropologist, o.s., 3 (1890): 105-132. . Historical Sketch of the Cherokee. Chicago : Aldine Publishing Co., 1975. . "The Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees." Smithsonian Institution, Bu­ reau of American Ethnology 7th Annual Report, 1885-88. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1891. . "Myths of the Cherokees." Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Ameri­ can Ethnology 19th Annual Report, 1897-98, part 1. Washington, D.C. : Gov­ ernment Printing Office, 1900. . "The Ghost Dance Religion." Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Amer­ ican Ethnology 14th Annual Report, 1892-93, part 2. Washington, D.C. : Gov­ ernment Printing Office, 1896. 455

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reid, John Philip. A Law of Blood. New York: New York University Press, 1970. . A Better Kind of Hatchet. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer­ sity Press, 1976. Spicer, Edward H . Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Strickland, Rennard. Fire and the Spirits. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1975. Swanton, John R. 'The Indians of the Southeastern United States." Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1946. Wilms, Douglas C. "Cherokee Settlement Patterns/' Southeastern Geographer 14 (1974): 46-53. . "Cherokee Indian Land Use in Georgia, 1800-1838." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973. I I I . A M E R I C A N I N D I A N POLICY

Abel, Annie H . "The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi." Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1906. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1908. . "Proposals for an Indian State, 1778-1878." Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1907. Vol. 1. Washington, D . C : Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1908. Dippie, Brian W. The Vanishing American. Middletown, Conn. : Wesleyan Uni­ versity Press, 1982. Green, Michael D. The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and So­ ciety in Crisis. Lincoln : Nebraska University Press, 1982. Harmon, George D. "Benjamin Hawkins and the Federal Factory System." North Carolina Historical Review 9 (1932) : 138-52. — . Sixty Years of Indian Affairs. Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina Press, 1941. Horsman, Reginald. Expansionism and American Indian Policy, 1783-1812. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1967. . Race and Manifest Destiny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. McCoy, Isaac. Remarks on the Practicability of Indian Reform. 2d ed. New York. 1829. Miles, Edwin A. "After John Marshall's Decision." Journal of Southern History 39 (1973):520-44. Phillips, Ulrich B. "Georgia and States' Rights." Annual Report of the American HistoricaIAssociation, 1901. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1902. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years. Cam­ bridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. 456

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. "Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy: A Reassessment." Journal of Ameri­ can History 66, no. 3 (December 1969):527-39. . The Great Father: The United States Government and the American In­ dians. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Prucha, Francis Paul, ed. Cherokee Removal: The 'William Venn Essays and Other Writings by Jeremiah Evarts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1981. Royce, Charles C. ' T h e Cherokee Nation of Indians, A Narrative of their Official Relations with the Colonial and Federal Governments." Smithsonian Institu­ tion, Bureau of American Ethnology 5th Annual Report, 1883-1884. Wash­ ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1887. Reprint. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975. Satz, Ronald N . American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: Univer­ sity of Nebraska Press, 1975. Sheehan, Bernard. Seeds of Extinction. Chapel H i l l : University of North Caro­ lina Press, 1973. Viola, Herman J. Thomas L . McKenney, Architect of America's Indian Policy, 1816-1830. Chicago: Swallow Press, 1974. I V . C H E R O K E E H I S T O R Y , 1700-1840

Abel, Annie H . ' T h e Cherokee Negotiations of 1822-1823." Smith College Studies in History 1 (July 1916). Brown, John P. Old Frontiers. Kingsport, Tenn. : Southern Publishers, 1938. Conser, Walter H . , Jr. "John Ross and the Cherokee Resistance Campaign, 18331838." Journal of Southern History 44 (May 1978): 191-212. Corkran, David H . The Cherokee Frontier, 1740-1762. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962. Cotterill, Robert S. The Southern Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1954. Dale, Edward E., and Gaston L. Litton, eds. Cherokee Cavaliers. Norman: Uni­ versity of Oklahoma Press, 1939. Debo, Angie. And Still the Waters Run: The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. 1940. Rev. ed., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. . The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1934. . The Road to Disappearance. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1941. DeRosier, Arthur H . , Jr. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: Uni­ versity of Tennessee Press, 1970. Drinnon, Richard. Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and EmpireBuilding. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980. Eaton, Rachel. John Ross and the Cherokee Indians. Chicago: n.p., 1921. Foreman, Grant. Indian Removal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1932. 457

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—— . Sequoyah. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1938. Gabriel, Ralph H . Elias Boudinot. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1941. Gibson, Arrell M . The Chickasaws. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. Goodwin, Gary. Cherokees in Transition. Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1977. Govan, Gilbert E., and James W. Livmgood. The Chattanooga Country, 15401951. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1951. Halliburton, Rudi, Jr. Red over Black. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 1977. Haywood, John. Civil and Political History of Tennessee. Nashville, 1821. King, Duane, ed. The Cherokee Indian Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennes­ see Press, 1979. Littlefield, Daniel F., Jr. Africans and Creeks. Westport, Connecticut. Greenwood Press, 1979. McKenney, Thomas L. and James Hall. Biographical Sketches and Anecdotes of Ninety-Five of 120 Principal Chiefs from the Indian Tribes of North America. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Interior, 1967. McLoughlin, William G. "Cherokee Anti-Mission Sentiment." Ethnohistory 21 (1974): 361-70. . The Cherokee Ghost Dance and Other Essays on the Southeastern In­ dians. Macon, Ga. : Mercer University Press, 1984. . Cherokees and Missionaries, 1789-1839. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. . "Experiment in Cherokee Citizenship." American Quarterly 33 (1981):3-25. . " A Note on African Sources of American Indian Racial Myths." journal of American Folklore 89 ( 1976) :331--35. . Thomas Jefferson and the Beginning of Cherokee Nationalism." William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 32 (October 1975) :562-80. McLoughlin, William G. and Walter U . Conser, Jr. "The Cherokees in Transi­ tion." Journal of American History 64 (1977) : 678-703. Malone, Henry T. Cherokees of the Old South. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1956. Moulton, Gary. John Ross, Cherokee Chief. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1978. Perdue, Theda, ed. Cherokee Editor: The Writings of Elias Boudinot. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983. . Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 1540-1866. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1979. Pound, Merritt B. Benjamin Hawkins, Indian Agent. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1951. Rogin, Michael P. Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indians. New York: Knopf, 1975. Royce, Charles C. The Cherokee Nation of Indians. 1887. Reprint. Chicago: A l dine, 1975.

458

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Starkey, Marion. The Cherokee Nation. New York: Knopf, 1946. Starr, Emett. Early History of the Cherokees Embracing Aboriginal Customs, Religion, Laws, Folk Lore and Civilization (Claremore, Okla. : n.p., 1917. . History of the Cherokee Indians and Their Legends. Oklahoma City: Warden, 1922. Traveller Bird. Tell Them They Lie: The Sequoyah Myth. Los Angeles: Westernlore Publishers, 1971. Van Every, Dale. Disinherited. New York: William Morrow, 1966. Wardell, Morris. A Political History of the Cherokee Nation, 1838-1907. Nor­ man: University of Oklahoma Press, 1938. Woodward, Grace. The Cherokees. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. Young, Mary E. "Indian Removal." In Indians of the Lower South. Edited by John Mahon. Pensacola: Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, 1975. . Redskins, Ruffle Shirts and Red Necks. Norman: University of Okla­ homa Press, 1.961. . "Women, Civilization and the Indian Question," in Clio Was a Woman: Studies in the History of American Women. Edited by Mabel E. Deutrich and Virginia C. Purdy. Washington, D.C. : Howard University Press, 1980.

V. M I S S I O N A R Y H I S T O R I E S

A. General Beaver, R. Pierce. Church, State and the American Indians. St. Louis: Concordia, 1966. Berkhofer, Robert F., Jr. Salvation and the Savage. New York: Atheneum, 1976. Bowden, Henry W. American Indians and Christian Missions. Chicago: Univer­ sity of Chicago Press, 1981. B. Denominational Anderson, Rufus K., ed. Memoirs of Catherine Brown. Boston, 1828. Andrew I I , John A. Rebuilding the Christian Commonwealth. Lexington: Uni­ versity of Kentucky Press, 1976. Bangs, Nathan. An Authentic History of the Missions under the Care of the Mis­ sionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, 1832. Barclay, Wade C. History of Methodist Missions. 2 vols. New York: Board of Missions of the Methodist Church, 1949-50. Bass, Althea. Cherokee Messenger. Norman: University Oklahoma Press, 1936. Bass, Dorothy C. "Gideon Blackburn's Mission to the Cherokees." Journal of Presbyterian History 52 (Fall 1974) :203-226. Coleman, Michael C. "Not Race but Grace : Presbyterian Missionaries and Amer­ ican Indians, 1837-1893." Journal of American History 7 (June 1980):41-60. Faust, Harold S. "The Growth of Presbyterian Missions to the American Indi­ ans." Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 22 (1944):82-123. Fries, Adelaide L., trans, and ed. "Records of the Moravians in North Carolina." 459

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Publications of the North Carolina Historical Commission. Vols. 23, 24, 25, 27. Raleigh, N.C., 1943,1947,1954. Hamilton, Kenneth G., trans, and ed. "Minutes of the Mission Conference Held in Springplace." The Atlanta Historical Bulletin (Winter 1970):9-87. , trans, and ed. "Minutes of the Mission Conference Held in Springplace." The Atlanta Historical Bulletin (Spring 1971):31-59. Harrell, David E. Quest for a Christian America. Nashville: Bethany Press, 1965. John, Isabelle G. Handbook of Methodist Missions. Nashville, 1893. Lazenby, Marion E. History of Methodism in Alabama and West Florida. N.p., 1960. McCoy, Isaac. History of Baptist Indian Missions. Washington, D . C , 1840. McFerrin, John B. History of Methodism in Tennessee. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1879. Malone, Henry T. "The Early Nineteenth Century Missionaries in the Cherokee Country." Tennessee Historical Quarterly 10 (June 1951): 127-39. Moffitt, James W. "Early Baptist Missionary Work among the Cherokee." The East Tennessee Historical Society's Publications 12 (1940) : 16-27. Moseley, J. Edward. Disciples of Christ in Georgia. St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1954. Mudge, Enoch. "History of the Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church." In History of American Missions to the Heathen. Worcester, Mass. : Spooner & Howard, 1840. Peacock, Mary T. "Methodist Mission Work among the Cherokee Indians before Removal." Methodist History 3 (1965) :20-39. . The Circuit Riders and Those Who Followed. Chattanooga: Hudson Printing Co., 1957. Phillips, Clifton J. Protestant America and the Pagan World. Cambridge: Har­ vard University Press, 1969. Routh, Eugene C. "Early Missionaries to the Cherokees." Chronicles of Okla­ homa 15 (December 1937) : 449-65. Schultz, George A. An Indian Canaan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972. Schwarze, Edmund. History of the Moravian Missions among the Southern In­ dian Tribes of the United States. Bethlehem, Penn. : Times Publishing Co., 1923. Strong, William E. The Story of the American Board. Boston : Pilgrim Press, 1910. Tracy, Joseph. History of American Missions to the Heathen. Worcester, Mass., 1840. Walker, Robert S. Torchlights to the Cherokees. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Washburn, Cephas. Reminiscences of the Indians. Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1969. West, Anson G. History of Methodism in Alabama. Nashville, 1893.

460

INDEX abortion. See infanticide acculturation. See Cherokees, acculturation of Adair, Edward, 20, 75 Adams, John, 46, 47, 77 Adams, John Quincy, 348, 369, 411, 413, 414, 415, 448-49; and Cherokee con­ stitution, 401, 408-409; effort to re­ move Cherokees (1828-1829), 416-29; and Indian colonization, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 376 adonisgi. See Cherokees, adonisgi Afro-Americans, 337-38, 348. See also slaves and slavery agents, federal Indian, 34-57, 110. See also Hawkins, Benjamin; Lewis, Thomas; M c M i n n , Joseph; Meigs, Return J.; Montgomery, Hugh; Shaw, Leonard agriculture. See Cherokees, agriculture and farming of Alabama (territory and state), 7, 20, 22, 58, 186, 187, 194-95, 198-201, 206, 208, 214, 247; Cherokee reserves i n , 275; detribalizes Cherokees, 425 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. See missionaries, American Board American Revolution, 3, 19-20, 21 American school of ethnology, 348 annuity. See Cherokees, annuities of anti-mission sentiment, 376-87, 388-91, 392-93, 396, 402-403, 430, 441-47. See also Ghost Dance movement; White Path's Rebellion Arkansas (territory and state), 56, 80, 94, 128, 130, 209 Arkansas, Cherokee settlements i n , 80, 94, 128, 130, 135, 153, 160, 162-64, 170, 209, 211, 217-20, 225, 228, 261-68 Arkansas, removal of Cherokees to, i n 1808-1810: 128-37, 147-67; in 18171819: 222-57; in 1828-1829: 222-57, 413-28. See also Creek Path conspir­ acy Arkansas River, 152, 153, 219, 235

Armistead, Captain A . B., 121 Armstrong, John, 190, 195, 197 A r m y garrisons, 121, 128, 179, 280, 309 artisans and mechanics i n Cherokee Nation, 36, 66, 72, 83, 171, 175, 290-91, 32728 Augusta, Georgia, 64 Augusta-Nashville Turnpike ("Georgia Road"), 77-90, 92-93, 121, 127 Autowe, 102 backsliding, 381 Badger, The, 20 Badger's Son, 61, 126, 158 Baldridge, John, 210 ball plays, 15, 33, 64, 120, 362 Baptists. See missionaries Barbour, James, 318, 369, 370, 373, 374, 375, 413, 414 Bark, The, 210, 211 Benge, John, 210 Big Bear, The, 115, 175, 182 Big Tiger, 392, 395 Big Warrior, 188, 190 Blackburn, Rev. Gideon, 74-75, 141-42, 248. See also missionaries, Presbyte­ rian Black Fox, 59, 60, 87, 88, 99, 100, 103, 105, 109, 111, 115, 116, 118, 122, 125, 130, 137, 138, 139; death of, 190; deposed, 145, 147; reinstated, 156, 157 blacks. See Afro-Americans; slaves and slavery Blair, James, 181, 304 blood revenge. See clan revenge Bloody Fellow, 20, 22, 24, 25, 60, 61 Blount, Gov. William, 23-24, 40, 60, 61 Blount, Gov. Willie, 166, 167, 320 Bold Hunter, 63 Bone Polisher, 120 Boone, Daniel, 18 Boot, The. See Chulio Boudinot, Elias (Buck Watie), 277, 288, 367-86, 403, 416-17, 441, 450-51 Bowl, The, 159, 166

461

INDEX

Brainerd Mission, 249, 252, 253, 358, 37677, 378-80, 392, 393. See also missionaries, American Board bribery of Cherokees by federal agents and treaty commissioners, 59, 84-89, 9293, 98, 103, 118, 122, 123, 208, 210, 305 British and Indians, xvii, 3-4, 17, 18-19, 34, 60, 77, 80, 135, 167, 183, 185, 188-89 Broomstown Council (1808), 138, 144-48 Brown, David, 342, 379 Brown, James, 115, 158, 192, 238, 239, 254 Brown, John, 264 Brown, Richard, 54-55, 118, 157,192, 210, 211, 277, 230 Brown, William, 127 Buchanan, James, 436 Burr, Aaron, 77 Butler, Dr. Elizur, 402, 443, 447 Butrick, Rev. Daniel S., 353, 363, 383-84, 403, 443 Byers, Nicholas, 103

Cabbin (Big Cabin, Cabin Smith, Old Cabin), 60, 87, 124, 145, 160, 192, 230, 254, 395 Calhoun, John C , 303, 306, 307, 369, 413; and Cherokee lighthorse, 309-312; and Creek Path conspiracy, 269; ends government aid to Cherokees (1819), 280; promotes Cherokee removal (1817-1819), 240-59 Campbell, Arch, 210, 266, 270 Campbell, Duncan, 293, 303-307, 372 camp meetings, 381 canals and railways sought in Cherokee Na­ tion, 375-76, 401 Carey, James, 40 Carroll, Gov. William, 426-27, 428 Catahcookee, 50-51 Catawbas, 16, 170 censuses. See Cherokees, population of cessions of land. See Cherokees, treaties of Chamberlain, Rev. William, 353, 379, 393 Chatloe, 115, 126 Chattahoochee River, 128 Chattanooga, 19 Chechou (Cheh Chuh), 102, 105 Cherokees. See also anti-mission senti­ ment; Arkansas, Cherokee settlements in; citizenship among Cherokees; citi­ zenship for Indians; clan revenge ; clans; division of land in severalty; di­ vision of Cherokee Nation proposed; emigration to the west; factors and fac-

462

tories; fur trade; hunting; intermar­ riage; intruders; Lower Towns; Overhill Towns ; reserves; slaves and slavery; trade and traders; Upper Towns; western Cherokees acculturation of, xv-xvii, 3-33, 38-57, 61-68, 70-72, 83, 106, 116, 117, 125, 131-32, 161-62, 168-73, 175-76, 177, 185, 204, 213, 237-38, 278-301, 32687 adonisgi (priests, doctors, shamans), 10, 14-16, 17-18, 33, 226. See also antimission sentiment; Ghost Dance movement agriculture and farming of, 4-6, 26, 43, 61, 62, 63, 64-71, 106, 116, 149-50, 171-73, 289, 299-300, 328-29. See also Cherokees, cotton and; Chero­ kees, fee-simple land ownership alcohol abuse and, 56 annuities of, 54, 68, 96, 99, 100, 104, 107, 116, 160, 172-73, 213, 223-24, 225, 226, 237, 238, 279, 282, 296, 297-300, 316-18, 377-89, 438. See also treasury of, under Cherokees, government of Arkansas Cherokees. See western Cher­ okees artisans and mechanics among, 36, 66, 72, 83, 171, 175, 290-91, 327-28 ball plays, 15, 33, 64, 120, 362 blacks among. See Afro-Americans; slaves and slavery centralization of authority, 44-45, 13942, 156-57. See also Cherokees, gov­ ernment of ceremonies, rituals, dances, 4, 5, 9-15, 29, 30, 33, 44, 66, 177, 226-27, 237 cessions of land. See Cherokees, treaties of children of, 4, 9, 30-31, 33, 66. See also Cherokees, family life of; Cherokees, women Christianization of, 47, 72-76, 237, 259, 334, 356-62, 364-65, 377-89, 401, 406. See also missionaries class divisions, 327-29. See also Chero­ kees, full bloods; Cherokees, mixed bloods communal land ownership, 4, 65, 71, 106, 292, 397 constitution. See Cherokees, government of at Cornwall Academy, 367-68 cosmogony of, 14, 31 cotton and, 43, 62-63, 67, 71, 93, 199, 202, 205, 207, 299-300, 372

INDEX

"countrymen." See intermarriage Creek Path conspiracy and, 260-72, 420 Creek War and, xvii, 183, 185, 186-205 cultural disorientation of, 3-33, 54-57 customs and rituals. See Cherokees, ball plays; Cherokees, ceremonies death penalty for sale of land, 241 debts of, 95, 103, 116, 122, 175, 238, 279. See also bribery decentralized government of, 8-9, 59 diplomacy of. See Cherokees, treaties of diseases and epidemics, 3, 14-16, 17-18, 385 economic growth. See Cherokees, accul­ turation of education of. See missionaries; schools election campaign of 1828, 404-407 elite. See Cherokees, class divisions; Cherokees, mixed bloods English-speaking. See Cherokees, mixed bloods executive committee of 1809, 111, 15758 factions, 92-93, 95-96, 99,100,102-107, 109, 127, 134-47. See also Lower Towns; old chiefs; Upper Towns; western Cherokees; young chiefs family life of, 4-5, 9-10, 30-32, 33, 6263, 71, 140-41, 161, 169, 330-33. See also Cherokees, women famines, 67-68, 123, 179, 222-23, 238 fee-simple land ownership, 36, 106, 11213, 114. See also citizenship entries; reserves full bloods, 69, 71, 72, 76, 86, 88, 93, 102, 105, 111, 170-75, 178-85, 217, 236, 300, 329, 342, 361-63, 390-96, 441, 450, 451. See also Cherokees, tradi­ tionalism Ghost Dance movement (1811-1812), 178-85 government of: bicameral legislature, 225, 285, 287; centralization of, 22427, 284-89; constitution of 1817, 22326, 287; constitution of 1827, 388, 394-401; courts, 285, 286, 336-37, 399; elections, 286-87, 404-407; i n ­ ternal taxes, 295-96, 319-24; paid bu­ reaucracy, 287; paper money, 293; po­ lice force, 286; and roads, 290; and taxes on traders, 319-24; treasury of, 172, 223, 224, 225, 261, 293-98, 316, 379, 399; written records, 225. See also Cherokees, laws; Cherokees, Na­ tional Committee guerrilla war (1777-1794), 20-25

463

harassment of, by Jackson's troops, 194— 95 harmony ethic of, 4, 11-12, 15, 27, 395 horsestealing, 44-45, 49, 55-56, 140 infanticide, 10, 142, 333 inheritance and wills, 13, 63, 71, 140-41, 161, 294-95, 331-32 kinship. See clans land use, 4, 5-6, 9-10, 67, 292, 397. See also Cherokees, agriculture and farming of law of blood. See clan revenge laws, 11-13, 43-45, 139-42, 175, 223-26, 2 8 - 8 9 ; criminal, 175; economic, 175, 285, 289-94; judiciary, 285, 286, 399; labor, 290-91; religious ("blue laws"), 175, 289; social, 289, 330-33 lighthorse patrol, 44-46, 89, 139-40, 151, 161, 175, 238, 280, 309-312, 431-32 livestock, 5-6, 64, 106, 171, 289, 291-92, 295 Loyalists among, 20-21, 31, 42, 60, 83, 98, 146 market economy, 4, 5, 35-36, 64-65, 288-95. See also Cherokees, acculturation of mechanics, 171, 290-91 medicine. See Cherokees, adonisgi mineral resources of, 95, 119-20, 123, 171-72, 430-31, 432 ministers (Christian), 401, 406 mixed bloods, xviii, 31-32, 33, 57, 64, 67- 71, 72, 75-76 84, 86, 95, 102, 112, 166-67, 170, 173-74, 329 murders of, by whites, 49-53, 53-54, 8687, 282-83 myths of, 14, 31, 176-77, 178, 342 National Committee, 157-58, 223, 244, 399, 416; creation (1809), 157-58; role redefined (1817), 224-25 nationalism, xvii-xix, 110-27, 146-67, 203-204, 226, 232-33, 241-42, 303, 306, 307, 308, 325, 345, 366-67, 375, 397, 429 negotiations. See Cherokees, treaties of oaths not accepted in white courts, 52-54 old chiefs faction, 100, 101, 149-50 outlet, 264, 413, 415 and paper money controversy, 316-19 and pensions for Creek War veterans, 197-203 as "a people of color," 212-13, 254 polygamy and, 13, 332-33, 389 population of, 3, 7-9, 18-20, 25, 27, 28, 68- 69, 169-71, 245, 256, 277, 450 "progressive" Cherokees, 69, 72, 84, 86, f

INDEX

Cherokees (cont.) 95, 106, 112. See also Cherokees, mixed bloods prophets, 178-85 racial views of. See slaves and slavery rebellion of young chiefs (1805-1808), 100-108 religion. See under Cherokees: adonisgi; Christianization; traditionalism removal crises: 1808-1810, 140-62; 1816-1817, 2 0 - 2 2 0 ; 1817-1819, 2 2 1 27, 228-59; 1828-1829, 413-28; 1835, 428-53. See also memorials against re­ moval; removal policy retaliation for murder, 12-13, 31, 43, 44, 49-52, 121, 139-57, 161-62, 396, 400 schools, 72-76, 173-74, 237, 254, 257, 309, 314-15, 335, 400. See also schools main entry separatism (radical nationalism), 18, 48, 57, 70, 204, 303, 307, 325, 375, 397, 429 Sequoyan syllabary, 192, 210, 350-54, 365, 379, 389, 414 slavery among. See slaves and slavery spinning and weaving, 43, 62-63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 93, 173, 300, 301, 327 sovereignty. See Cherokees, nationalism statistics of growth, 168-73. See also Cherokees, acculturation of; Cherokees, population of taxes on traders, 319-24 traditionalism and traditionalists, xvi, 4— 5, 9-15, 29-30, 32, 46, 64-66, 68-70, 93, 102, 111, 133, 175, 386; Ghost Dance movement, 178-85; White Path's Rebellion, 110, 366, 388-96, 450. See also Cherokees, adonisgi; Cherokees, full bloods treasury. See Cherokees, government of treaties of, 7, 18-20, 25-29, 107, 134; 1785: 21, 24; 1791: 23, 204, 308-309; 1794: xvii, 25; 1798: 46, 304; 1804: 90, 125, 237, 297; 1805-1806: 104108, 198; 1816: 195-203, 210-11; 1817: 221-27; 1819: 253-59, 309, 314; 1828: 413-16; 1835: 450-51. See also secret clauses in treaties White Path's Rebellion, 110, 366, 38896, 450 witchcraft, 13-14, 39, 335 women, 4, 9-10, 13, 14, 26, 30-31, 33, 43, 62-63, 64-65, 66, 67, 93, 106, 131, 140-42, 170-71, 185, 219-20, 225, 240, 294, 327, 330-34, 336, 361, 39899; petition of 1817, 216

young chiefs (young warriors) faction, 100, 105-106, 107, 109-127, 149, 185, 186, 188-89 Cherokee native ministers (Christian), 401, 406. See also Cherokees, Christianiza­ tion of Cherokee outlet, 264, 413, 415 Cherokee Phoenix, 255, 375, 399-400, 403, 404, 405, 406, 416, 420, 422, 425, 441 Chetowe, 102, 105 Cheucunnesee, 199 Chickamauga Creek, 119, 122, 136 Chickamauga towns. See Lower Towns Chickasaws, 7, 9, 20, 57, 83, 90, 97, 98, 100, 102-103, 105, 122, 189, 201, 209-210 Chickaune, Molly, 347 Chisholm, John D . , 25, 42, 60, 69, 95, 99, 102, 104, 105, 111, 120, 121, 122; de­ posed, 145; emigrates, 152, 166, 217, 220, 229 Choctaws, 7, 122, 160, 207 Christian Advocate, 440 Christianity. See missionaries Christianization. See Cherokees, Christian­ ization of Chulio (The Boot, Shoeboot), 81, 88, 114, 124, 126, 134, 135, 158, 185, 192, 211; has children by his slave, 343-46 Civills (Sevells), Jack, 338-39 Civil War, 451 citizenship among Cherokees, 162-63, 225, 397 citizenship for Indians, xv, xvii, 34, 102, 105, 114, 129, 131-32, 151, 165, 21213, 214-16, 231, 234, 260-61, 271-76, 305, 306, 307, 308. See also reserves civilization policy of U.S., xvi-xix, 34-40, 213 clan revenge (law of blood, retaliation), 1213, 21, 31, 43, 44, 49-52, 82, 121, 139, 140, 161-62, 396, 400 clans, 11-13, 21, 67, 121, 140-41, 161-62, 294, 330, 347, 398. See also matrilineal descent Claremont, 219 Clark, Gov. William, 220 class divisions among Cherokees, 327-29. See also Cherokees, full bloods; Cher­ okees, mixed bloods Clay, Henry, 434, 448-49 Clinton, George, 125 Cocke, John, 192, 376, 395, 402 Coffee, John, 192, 193, 200, 210, 266, 278; secret mission of, 426, 428 Colbert, George, 97

464

INDEX

colonization plan. See Indian colonization plan conjurors. See Cherokees, adonisgi conservative Indians. See Cherokees, traditionalists constitution, Cherokee. See under Cherokees, government of conversion to Christianity. See Cherokees, Christianization of Coody, Arthur, 20 Coody, William Shorey, 284, 407, 450 Cooper, James Fenimore, 371 Cornelius, Elias, 250-51 Corn Tassell (George Tassell), 439 Cornwall Academy, 367-68 cotton cultivation, 43, 62-63, 67, 71, 93, 199, 202, 205, 207, 299-300, 372 cotton gins, 105, 114 "countrymen." See intermarriage Crawford, William, 198-203, 212-13, 22021 Creek Indians, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 43, 44, 57, 58, 60, 78, 97, 102, 125, 170, 179, 18590, 207, 214, 372-74, 409 Creek Path conspiracy, 260-72, 420 Creek War (1812-1814), xvii, 183, 185, 186205 Crèvecoeur, Hector St. John de, xv Crittenden, W i l l , 127 Crockett, David, 434 Cumberland River, 94 Cumberland Road, 77, 90 Davis, George Barber, 168-73 Davis, James, 115 Dearborn, Henry, 53, 58, 77-90, 79-80, 94, 97-108, 117, 118, 119, 125, 128, 133, 135, 138-39 demography. See Cherokees, population of Dent, Sam, 347 Derringer, Henry, 418 DeSoto, Hernando, 16 detribalization of Cherokees urged, 36, 106, 112-13, 125, 165, 212, 424-52 Dinsmoor, Silas, 42-45, 61 diseases and epidemics. See Cherokees, diseases and epidemics division of Cherokee Nation proposed, 1 3 1 32, 135, 142, 143-47, 149, 151, 153, 158. See also Lower Towns; western Cherokees division of land in severalty, 36, 71, 106, 112-13, 114, 116, 131-32, 143, 148-49 domestic manufactures. See Cherokees, spinning and weaving Doublehead, 20, 24, 60, 61, 63, 67-68, 69-

71, 90, 92, 93, 122, 125, 137, 142, 167, 172, 187, 201, 294; assassinated (1807), 120-21; and the Georgia Road, 81-82, 84-88; leads old chiefs, 102, 109, 110-11 Doublehead's Tract, 105-106, 121, 216-17, 273 Dragging Canoe, 20, 22, 24, 187, 198 Dreadful Water, 126, 127, 158 Drowning Bear, 395, 402 Duval, Edward W.,418 Earle, Elias W., 109, 119-20, 122, 127, 13334, 139, 377 earthquake. See Ghost Dance movement Eaton, John, 278, 425-27, 428, 431-32, 438-44 Education Fund (1819), 355, 439 Eight Killer, 275 Elders, W i l l , 88 Elk, The, \76-77 Ellington, Clarinda (white captive), 344 Ellijay, 388 emigration to the west, 56-57, 80, 94-95, 128-30, 132, 134-47, 152-60, 170, 225, 234-35, 239, 245 epidemics, 3, 14-16, 17-18, 385 Eskaqua (Bloody Fellow), 20, 22, 24, 25, 60, 61 Ethiopians, 348 ethnology, American school of, 348 Etowah River, 57, 135 Etowah town, 129; anti-mission sentiment in, 385-86 European invasion, 4-5, 7, 16, 176 Eustis, William, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 164, 166, 167, 188 Evarts, Jeremiah, 434 expansion of the frontier, x v i - x v i i i , 3, 16, 19-23, 34-35, 43, 206-207, 219-20, 371, 375 factionalism, 92-93, 95-96, 99, 100, 102107, 109, 127, 134-47. See also Cherokees, factions cross-references factors and factories, 37-38, 57, 59, 66, 68, 95, 103, 108, 122, 169, 179, 279 Falling, John, 151 Falling, Peggy, 127 family life. See under Cherokees: children of; family life of; women Family Visitor, 342 famines, 67-68, 123, 179, 222-23, 238 farming. See Cherokees, agriculture and farming of Federal agents, 34-51

465

INDEX

Fields, George, 115,126, 266, 270 Fields, Richard, 115, 158 Fields, Turtle, 266, 270 Five Killer, 135 Florida, 307, 309 Foreman, Anthony, 320 Foreman, Archy, 421 Foreman, Thomas, 245, 302, 420 Fort Jackson, Treaty of, 194, 198-201, 208 Fort Mims, 191 Franklin, State of, 23 freedmen (free blacks), 337-39, 340, 3 4 1 42,347 Frelinghuysen, Theodore J., 434-36, 448 French and Indians, 3, 5, 7, 17, 18, 31, 34, 60, 77, 80, 83 frontier expansion. See expansion of the frontier frontier prejudice toward Indian. See prej­ udice full bloods. See Cherokees, full bloods fur trade, 3-5, 16-17, 19, 25, 26, 33, 58, 6 1 63, 64-65, 66-67, 68, 92, 94, 99, 130, 131, 166-67, 172, 179, 217-18, 299. See also hunting Gaines, Gen. Edmund P., 373 Gallatin, Albert, 288, 299 Gambold, Rev. John, 353 Georgia, 7,19, 22, 50, 55, 58, 59, 78-79, 90, 128, 129, 146, 171, 214, 254, 261, 273, 302, 304, 305, 313, 355, 372, 375, 401, 409, 410-13, 416-29, 431-32; detribalizes Cherokees, 437; jails mission­ aries, 441-43 Georgia Compact (1802), 22, 248, 273, 307, 316, 369, 411, 439 Georgia Guard, harasses Cherokees, 43233, 437, 438, 439, 443 "Georgia Road" (Augusta-Nashville Turn­ pike), 77-90, 92-93, 121, 127 Ghost Dance movement (1811-1812), 17885 Gilmer, Gov. George, 273, 278, 316, 432 Girts, Simon, 146 Glass, The, 20, 60, 79, 85, 95, 99, 100-101, 115, 118, 122, 124, 125, 147, 156, 158, 160, 210-11, 230, 232, 417; favors re­ moval, 133-34, 144; deposed, 145 Going Snake, 230, 232, 238 Gold, Harriet, 403 gold rush in Cherokee Nation (1828), 16, 430-31 Goose, Sammy, 50 Graham, George, 221-23, 229, 234, 235, 238, 239

Great Smoky Mountains, 7, 9, 57, 59, 383, 450 Great Spirit, The, 18, 70, 176-85, 349, 359, 365. See also Ghost Dance movement Green Corn Dance, 33, 66 gristmills. See mills guerrilla war (1777-1794), 20-25 Guess, George. See Sequoyah Gunter, Edward, 20

Halfbreed, The Big, 127, 158, 160 Hall, Rev. Moody, 385-87 Hambright, Benjamin, 313-14 Hampton, General Wade, 155 Handsome Lake, 184 Hanging Maw, 17, 23 Harlin, George, 276 harmony ethic, 4, 11-12, 15, 27, 395 Harris, General Buckner, 137, 138, 151 Harrison, John, 127 Harrison, General William, 179 Hawkins, Benjamin, 42-45, 47, 61, 62, 78, 80, 81, 122, 125, 198; and Creek War, 186-91 Henderson, Richard, 19, 20, 93 Hicks, Charles, 71, 100, 102, 105, 109, 111, 115, 127, 134, 147, 148, 157, 177, 182, 190-91, 230, 231, 232, 237-59, 267, 268-71, 284, 288, 298, 305, 310, 315, 376-78, 392; converted, 357; death, 389; leads revolt, 136-45; and paper money controversy, 316-18; taxing traders, 322-24 Hicks, Elijah, 241, 287, 306, 388, 392, 401, 405 Hicks, William, 401, 407 Hightower, Molly, 347 Hindman, Thomas C , 317-18 Hiwassee, 51, 58, 73, 89, 102, 103, 104, 119, 120, 135, 145, 148 Hiwassee and Coosa Canal proposal, 375-76 Hiwassee school, 75 Holston, Treaty of, 23-24 Holston River, 19, 23, 40 Hopewell, Treaty of (1785), 21, 24, 78, 204, 320 horse stealing, 44-46, 49, 55-56, 140, 175 Horseshoe Bend, Battle of, 193-94 Houston, Sam, 251 Hoyt, A r d , 251, 252, 253, 258, 259, 353, 360, 377 Huffaker (Huffaker), Michael, 320, 323 hunting, 4-5, 10, 14, 25-26, 43, 93, 94, 172. See also fur trade Huss, John, 406

466

INDEX

Indian citizenship. See citizenship for Indi­ ans Indian colonization plan, 370-71, 372, 397, 422-23, 433 Indian policy, of U.S., xv-xix, 34—40, 61, 62-63, 84-87, 96-100, 105, 112 Indian removal, xvi-xix, 433-60 Indian Removal Act (1830), 435-37 infanticide, 10, 142, 333 inheritance, 13, 63, 71, 140-41, 161, 29495; wills, 331-32 intermarriage: Cherokees and blacks, 170, 339-40, 343-46, 348; Cherokees and whites, xv, 32, 34, 67, 68, 69, 70, 170, 213, 331-33; "countrymen," xv, 32, 67, 69, 70 intruders, 38, 78-79, 122, 128-29, 139, 154-55, 161, 198, 200, 222, 237, 264, 280, 306, 431-32; lighthorse expels (1820), 309-312; shoot soldiers, 31314. See also Wafford's Tract iron ore and iron foundry (in Cherokee Na­ tion). See Earle, Elias W. Iroquois, 9 Jackson, Andrew, xvii, xviii, 278, 309, 369; bribes Cherokee chiefs, 210-11; in Creek Path conspiracy, 266-79; and Creek War, 192-205; forces Cherokee removal, 424—60; and John Marshall, 444-45 opposes making treaties, 26970; praises Cherokee soldiers, 194; presses for removal (1816), 206-217; removal efforts (1817), 228-39; and treaty of 1817, 222; and Treaty of Fort Jackson, 194-204 Jared, Gov. Irwin, 128 Jefferson, Thomas, xv, 37, 39, 46, 47, 94, 98, 105, 106, 112, 125, 131, 134, 135, 144, 147-51, 159, 177, 220; and Gideon Blackburn, 75; on division of Cherokee Nation, 150-51; and Georgia Com­ pact, 22; and "Georgia Road," 77-90; presses for removal and exchange of land, 129-30, 147-51; quoted, xv, 33, 37, 92; and Wafford's Tract, 78-79 Jobber's Son, 135 Jolly, John, 234, 239 Jones, Rev. Evan, 383, 442 Junaluska, 192 Justice, Dick, 60, 85, 95, 99, 100, 115, 147, 158, 210, 211 ;

Kalatahee, 135, 154, 230, 234 Katahee, 160 Kategiskee, 60, 67, 87, 88

467

Kelachula (Kelachulee), 126, 127, 154, 158, 230, 231, 232, 394, 395, 407 Kentucky, 7, 19, 21, 78, 93 Kingsbury, Rev. Cyrus, 248-50 kinship. See clans Knox, Henry, 23, 34-40, 61, 68, 213 Knoxville, Tenn., 42, 64, 77, 78 Kulsatahee, 73 land cessions. See Cherokees, treaties of land ownership. See Cherokees, fee-simple land ownership; Cherokees, land use land sales (prices set for Indian land), 96100, 135-36, 210 land speculators, xvi, 23-24, 78, 81, 97-98, 110, 114-15, 126, 200, 207, 219, 247, 270 LaRochefoucauld, Duke de, quoted, 49 law of blood. See clan revenge law enforcement. See lighthorse patrol laws. See Cherokees, laws legal assistance to Indians, 283-84 Lewis, Thomas, 45, 46, 61, 79, 83, 140 lighthorse patrol, 43-44, 89, 139-40, 151, 161, 175, 238, 280 Little Prince, 374 Little Tennessee River, 131, 135, 159, 175 Little Turkey, 17, 22, 23, 33, 59, 60, 61, 66, 87, 339 Little Warrior, 188, 189-90 livestock. See Cherokees, livestock Louisiana Territory, 94, 215 Lovely, Maj. William S., 60, 74, 88, 90, 146, 218-20 Lower Towns, 9, 18, 20, 22-23, 24, 25, 4 0 57, 68, 90, 209, 230; and Creek Path conspiracy, 260-72; favor removal, 138-56; population of, 171; reunite with Upper Towns, 156; and revolt of young chiefs, 109-127; and sale of hunting grounds, 92-108 Lowrey, George, 157, 231, 254, 302, 306, 315, 407 Lowrey, John, 89, 95, 109, 111, 116, 124, 157, 188, 190, 192, 204, 210 Loyalists i n Cherokee Nation, 20, 21, 31, 32, 42, 60, 83, 98, 146 Lumpkin, Gov. Wilson, 261, 278, 435, 445, 446 Lying Fawn, 135 McCarty, John S., 320-23 McCoy, Alex, 302, 305, 393, 396, 407 McCullough v. Maryland, 323 McDonald, John, 19, 20, 25, 60, 71, 75, 87, 88, 89, 111, 116,182, 249

INDEX

McGhee, John, 320, 322 Mcintosh, John (Quotaquskey), 25, 89, 111, 115, 120, 124, 144, 157, 182, 230, 231, 232, 373 Mcintosh, William, 188, 304; tries to bribe Cherokee chiefs, 305 McKee, John, 42 McKenney, Thomas L., 282, 310, 315, 348, 369, 371, 374-75, 413-19, 433 McLemore, John, 160 M c M i n n , Gov. Joseph, 196, 206-215, 2 2 1 27, 272, 283, 298, 306; death, 318; ef­ forts to remove Cherokees, 228-59; paper money controversy, 318; taxing traders, 322-24, 420 MacNair, David, 192 McQueen, Peter, 188 Madison, James, 152, 155, 164, 166, 167, 194, 199-202, 204, 216, 219 manifest destiny. See expansion of the frontier market economy of the Cherokees, 4, 5, 3536, 64-65, 288-95 marriage. See intermarriage; Cherokees, women Marshall, John, 323, 427, 439, 444-46, 448 Martin, John, 254, 389, 392, 407 Martin, Rev. John, 72 matrilineal descent, 13, 63, 140-41, 225. See also Cherokees, women; clans Maw, Thomas, 414, 416-23 mechanics. See artisans medicine men. See Cherokees, adonisgi Meigs, Col. Return J., 47-54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 74, 75, 77, 166-67, 296, 297, 303, 309-312; attempts to arrest Vann and "Hicks, 136-39; and census of 1809, 168-73; creates re­ moval crisis (1808-1810), 128-45; and Creek War, 188-95; criticizes Chero­ kee government, 235-36; efforts for removal (1816-1819), 208-209, 21215, 218-19, 221-27, 234-36; ends eco­ nomic assistance (1819), 280-83; fa­ vors Lower Towns, 131; and Ghost Dance, 181, 183-84; opposes citizen­ ship for Cherokees, 132; opposes re­ volt of the young chiefs, 109-127; op­ poses taxing traders, 322-23; and paper money controversy, 316-19; and reparations against Jackson's troops, 195-203; and sale of hunting grounds, 93-108 Meigs, Timothy, 223-24 Melton, Miles, 102 Melton, Moses, 88, 105, 111, 331

468

memorials against removal, 229-30, 237, 240, 241, 242-43 Meriweather, David, 228-29, 272 Meriweather, James, 273, 303-307, 372 Methodists. See missionaries millennialism, xvi, 177, 181, 184. See also Ghost Dance movement mills (gristmills, sawmills), 67, 96, 105, 114, 131, 132, 173 minerals in Cherokee Nation. See Chero­ kees, mineral resources of missionaries, xvi, xviii, xix, 36, 37-38, 46, 72-76. See also Brainerd Mission; Cherokees, Christianization of; mis­ sion schools American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Congregationalists), 248-51, 253-55, 363-64, 376, 378-80, 383, 384-87, 391-92, 434; and Corn­ wall Academy, 367; and school fund, 254, 257, 258, 352-53, 354-55; schools, 173-74, 407 anti-paganism, 362-63 Baptist, 354, 360, 363, 377, 383, 440, 442; Isaac McCoy and removal, 43435 and Cherokee nationalism, 365, 376, 387 and Cherokee religion, 358-59 converts of, 357, 363-64 government support to, 160, 172-79, 350 Methodist, 355, 363-64, 380-84; and re­ moval crisis, 440, 442, 443 Moravian (United Brethren), 46-47, 7274, 76, 250, 354-55, 363-64, 380, 381, 383, 385, 392-93, 442; convert Charles Hicks, 357; report of Ghost Dance v i ­ sions, 180-85 native preachers, 364-65 Presbyterian, 72, 74-76, 248 and removal, 434-56 sectarianism of, 357 and Sequoyan syllabary, 352-55 suspicions against, 355, 356-60 and White Path's Rebellion, 388-96 Missionary Herald, 377 mission schools, 173-74, 354-58, 360-62; enrollment at, 378-79; regulated by Cherokees (1827), 407 Mississippi (territory and state), 22, 55, 105 Mississippi River, xvi, 17, 34, 56, 219 Mississippi Valley, xvi, 18, 34, 77 mixed bloods. See Cherokees, mixed bloods Mobile, 172 Monroe, lames, 221-22, 257, 271, 273, 371; and Cherokee outlet, 264 Montgomery, Hugh, 274, 282, 318-19,

INDEX

324, 391, 431, 440; and removal crisis of 1828, 412-13, 415-19 Moore, James W . , 425 Moore, Samuel, 137 Moravians. See missionaries Morgan, Gideon, 192, 254, 320-22, 343 Muscle Shoals, 20, 67, 83, 85, 90, 103, 104, 105, 114, 121, 144, 172, 198 Muscogee Confederation, 122 myths. See Cherokees, myths of Nashville, 77, 78, 81 Natchez Trace, 78, 83 National Committee. See Cherokees, Na­ tional Committee National Intelligencer, 199 nationalism. See Cherokees, nationalism Necuteou, 127 Nettle Carrier, 115, 160 New Echota, 395, 421, 437; Treaty of, 45051 New Madrid earthquake (1811), 182 New Orleans, 83, 84, 194, 195 North Carolina, 4, 7, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 46, 51, 57, 59, 60, 68, 175, 274, 450 Nullification Crisis (1828-1832), xviii, 42425, 445-46 Nauttall, Thomas, 217 Office of Indian Affairs, 282, 315, 369, 433 old chiefs faction, 100, 101, 149-50 Old Tassell, 23 Oochgelogy, 121 Opothle Micco, 188 Opothle Yoholo, 373, 374 Ore, James, 25, 171 Osages, 56, 94, 239, 262, 263-64; war with Cherokees, 164, 217-20 Otter Lifter, 340 Overhill (or Valley) Towns, 9, 57, 60, 68, 90, 170-71 Panic of 1819, 247, 268 paper money controversy, 316-19 Parched Corn Flour, 147, 160, 266 Parris (Paris) (Pearis), George, 126, 127, 135, 160 paternalism toward Indians, 54-55, 71-72, 132-33, 204, 423, 426-27 Pathkiller, 60, 67, 88, 99, 100, 111, 116,125, 126, 134, 139, 146, 157, 158, 210, 211, 216, 221-22, 224; and Creek Path con­ spiracy, 269; death, 389; made chief, 145; made Principal Chief (1811), 190; and missionaries, 358, 378-79; op­

poses removal (1817), 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 245, 253 patrilineal family and inheritance, 13, 63, 71, 140-41, 161, 294-95, 331-32 patriotism of Cherokees. See Cherokees, nationalism Paul (a freed slave), 341-42 pensions for Cherokee Creek War veterans, 199-203 Pettit, Thomas, 135-57 Phillips, Col. James, 121 Phoenix. See Cherokee Phoenix polygamy, 13, 332-33, 389 population of Cherokees. See Cherokees, population of Porter, Peter B., 418-19, 422; criticizes missionaries, 423-24 powder mills, 171-72, 192 prejudice, against Indians, x v i , 23, 34—35, 48-49, 52-55, 165, 189, 193-96, 206, 212-13, 249-50, 252, 254, 273, 278, 284, 367-68, 435, 436, 448-49 Presbyterians. See missionaries prices paid for Indian land, 96-100, 135-36, 210 Proctor, Rev. Isaac, 353, 360; opposes adonisgi, 362, 393 "progressive" Cherokees, 69, 72, 84, 86, 95, 106, 112. See also Cherokees, mixed bloods prophets (Ghost Dance), 179-85 purification ritual, 14-16 Quakers, 258, 433 Quapaws, 56, 94, 217-20, 263 Quotaquskey. See Mcintosh, John racism. See prejudice rape, 333-34 Ratliffe, John, 88, 111 "Red Sticks" (Upper Creeks). See Creek War Reece, Charles, 192 Reed, James, 267, 268 religion. See Cherokees, adonisgi; Chero­ kees, traditionalism; Ghost Dance movement; missionaries removal bill of 1817, 235, 239, 247 removal crises. See Cherokees, removal crises removal effort of 1828, 413-28 removal policy, xvi-xix, 94, 106-107, 12829, 132, 135, 166, 167, 397; 1808,14664; 1815, 207-208; 1817, 221-59; 1828, 413-28; 1830, 428-48; 1835, 450-51 removal under Jackson, 428-48

469

INDEX

reserves, reservees, reservations, 260-61, 305, 420; in 1805-1806: 101-108, 114, 129; in 1808: 144; in 1811: 167; in 1816: 212-16; in 1817-1819: 231-32, 234, 241, 245; in 1819-1828: 271-76 revitalization, 178-85, 387, 388-410. See also Cherokees, nationalism Revolutionary land bounties, 22, 130, 272 Rice, Leonard, 137 Ridge, John, 288, 299-300, 367-68, 373-75, 394 Ridge (The) Major, leads young chiefs faction, 100, 109, 111, 120, 126, 127, 134, 135, 144, 154, 157, 177, 180-81, 182, 185, 187, 188, 190, 192, 199, 210, 231, 232, 284, 306, 373-74, 379, 389, 406407, 420, 431-32, 450-51 Riley, John, 102, 104, 148 Riley, Richard, 192, 200, 238, 355 Riley, Samuel, 64, 75, 96, 104, 111, 136-38, 147, 148, 172, 332 Rising Fawn, 302, 393, 395, 407 Roberts, Rev. Thomas, 360 Robertson, Gov. James, 23, 154 Rogers, James, 234, 266, 414; secret mis­ sion for War Department, 416-22 Rogers, John, 20, 42, 60, 88, 98, 99, 116, 120, 145, 146, 148, 229; and the Removal Party, 449-51 Ross, Daniel, 20, 60, 64, 75, 87, 88, 89, 182, 199 Ross, John, 115, 191, 231, 232, 249, 253, 254, 258, 267, 284, 287, 302, 305, 306, 310, 315, 324, 348, 389, 401, 407, 409, 413, 420-21, 432, 437-38, 439, 449, 450, 451; and Cherokee constitution, 396-400; opposes removal, 430-57; and White Path's Rebellion, 392 Ross, Lewis, 254, 407, 437 Ross, Templin, 275 Runion, Barefoot, 50 Saint Francis River, 56, 81. Sale Creek School, 75 salines, 171, 293. See also Cherokees, min­ eral resources of Sanders, Alex, 126, 127, 385 Sanders, George, 120, 121, 126, 127, 151, 192, 420 saltpeter caves, 171, 267, 293. See also Cherokees, mineral resources of Saulowee, 159, 166 Sawtey (Sautee), 114 Schermerhorn, Rev. John F., 450 Schmidt, Rev. Johann, 402 schools, 72-76, 160, 173-74, 254. See also

Brainerd Mission; Cherokees, schools; Cornwall Academy; missionaries; mission schools Scudder, Jacob, 320-22, 329, 417 Second Great Awakening, xvi, 258-59 secret clauses i n treaties, 101-108 Seed, The, 144,160 Selu, 176 Seminoles, 7, 194, 280, 307, 309, 343 separatism (racial), 18, 48, 57, 70, 177 Sequoyah (George Guess), 192, 210, 266, 350-54, 365, 379, 389, 414; and Creek Path conspiracy, 267, 270-71 Sergeant, John, 438 Sevier, Gov. John, 23, 51, 121, 137, 138, 167 shamans, Cherokee. See Cherokees, adonisgi sharecroppers, white, in Cherokee Nation, 72, 139, 170, 173; ordered expelled, 181-82 Sharp Fellow, 175 Shaw, Leonard, 39-42, 47, 60 Shawnees, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 167; and Creek War, 187; and Ghost Dance, 179, 181, 184, 187 Shoeboot. See Chulio Shorey, Peggy, 275 Shorey, W i l l , 20, 64, 115 silversmiths, 6, 9, 171, 173, 328 Skiagunsta, 3, 6 Skuka, 144 slaves and slavery, xvii, xviii-xix, 16, 3 1 32, 38-39, 45, 67, 70-71, 74, 91, 95, 121, 127, 137, 151, 328; among Cher­ okees, 335-48; numbers among Cher­ okees, 170, 174, 328, 340; Cherokee slave dealers, 343; Creek captives en­ slaved, 194; manumission, 341-42; Indian slaves, 16, 55, 343; slave code, 340-41 ; slave patrols, 340; as war booty, 192, 194, 304, 343 smallpox, 17, 395 Smith, Daniel, 103 Sour Mush, 124, 126, 134, 157, 158, 160, 211, 235 South Carolina, 4, 5, 7, 20, 59, 81, 125, 199, 424-25, 445-46 sovereignty of Cherokees. See Cherokees, nationalism Spanish and Indians, 3-4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 25, 31, 34, 56, 60, 77, 80, 339 Spear, John, 115 Spears, James, 421, 422 spinning and weaving among Cherokees, 43, 62-63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 93, 173, 300, 301, 327

470

INDEX

Springplace, Georgia, 47, 73-74 squatters. See intruders Starr, James, 244 Steiner, Rev. Abraham, 298-99 Stone Carrier, 131, 135, 139, 144, 146, 153, 175 Stuart, Rev. Thomas, 417 Suakee, 158 Tahlootiskee, 102, 104n Takatoka, 219 Talladega, 193 Tallashatchee, 193 Tallapoosa River, 193 Tatnall, Gov. Josiah, 78n, 90 tavern franchises, 115 taxing traders, 319-24 Taylor, Richard, 20, 192, 199, 238, 408 Tecumseh, xvii, 167, 179; and Creek War, 187-89, 206 Tellico, 46, 103, 159 temperance, 334-35 Tenskawatawa, 179, 184 Tennessee, 7, 19, 20, 21, 23, 41, 43, 46, 49, 50, 55, 62, 73, 94, 102, 133, 166, 201, 214, 268, 274, 305, 375 Tennessee Methodist Conference, 380, 408 Tennessee River, 7, 9, 20, 58, 101, 114, 118, 122, 130, 211 Terrapin, 115, 124 territorial status for Cherokees, 131-32 testimony of Indians not valid in white courts, 52-54 Thompson, John, 20, 94, 98, 99, 116, 192, 266 Thornton, William, 422 Thorp, William, 60, 83 Tippecanoe, 179 Tolluntuskee, 20, 60, 88, 95, 99, 101, 102, 104, 147-48, 152, 158, 159, 160, 166, 217, 219; deposed, 145 Toochelar (Toochalah), 99, 139, 144, 149, 157, 158, 210, 216, 230, 232, 234, 417; deposed, 227 Tories. See Loyalists Tougaloo, 127, 180, 183 Trade and Intercourse Acts, xviii, 37, 38, 72, 321, 424, 437 trade and traders, 4-6, 16, 18, 34-40, 72, 73-74, 84, 85, 86, 96, 108, 116, 126, 172, 179, 223, 226, 279, 296; taxes on, 319-24 traditionalism and traditionalists. See Cherokees, traditionalism and tradi­ tionalists Transylvania, 20

treasury. See under Cherokees, govern­ ment of treaties. See Cherokees, treaties of Trimble, James, 155-56 Troup, Gov. George, 401, 409, 425 Tuckabatchee, 179, 187 Turk, Capt. A . B.,313 Turkeytown, 193; council i n (1816), 210-11 Turtle at Home, 60, 88, 100, 118, 147, 155, 157 Tuscaroras, 7 Tuskegitehee, 60, 88, 126, 127 Uchees (Yuchis), 7, 170 Unicoy Mountains, 9 United Brethren. See missionaries, Mora­ vians United States, Indian policy of. See Indian policy Upper Towns, 23, 42, 47, 58-59, 68; and the Georgia Road, 78-90; oppose removal (1808-1810), 138-56; oppose removal (1817), 231; population of, 171; pro­ pose division of nation, 131-32; rebel­ lion of, 107, 109-127; reunite with Lower Towns (1809), 156 Ustanali, 42, 58, 60, 78, 114 Ustanali Council opposes removal (1809), 153-54 Valley Towns, 9, 57, 60, 115, 119, 129, 17071, 173, 214-15, 360, 377, 383; oppose removal (1817), 231 Vann, David, 373-74, 450 Vann, James, 47, 50, 64, 71, 73-74, 88, 89, 111, 116, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 147, 148, 181, 294, 343; deposed, 77; leads faction of young chiefs, 100, 101, 109-127; leads revolt, 134-45; murdered, 1809, 151 Vann, Joseph, 408 Virginia, 4, 21 visions and dreams, 179-85, 392-93 Wafford, Col. James D . , 78 Wafford's Tract, 78-79, 86, 89, 91, 125, 237, 297, 306 Walker, John, 20, 60, 111, 115, 144, 157, 182, 188, 190, 193, 199, 204, 210, 230, 240, 254, 263 Walker's Ferry, 120 war, 13-15, 18-20; War of 1812, xviii, 179, 186-205; with Osages and Quapaws, 94-95. See also Creek War, guerrilla war Warrior's Nephew, 135

471

INDEX

Washington, George, xv, 23, 24, 25, 42, 60, 61, 68, 128, 213, 325, 369, 397, 435; Indian policy of, 35-40 Watauga, 19, 20 Waters, George M . , 157 Watts, John, 20, 24, 25, 40-42, 60 Wayne, Anthony, 25 Webber, Walt, 217, 266 Webber, W i l l , 20 Webster, Daniel, 434 western Cherokees, 56, 130, 162, 170, 21720, 225, 229, 245, 256, 260, 261-67, 397-98; and treaty of 1828, 413-16 westward expansion of whites, xvi, xvii, 3, 16, 18-23, 34-35, 43, 206-207, 219-20 Whale, The, 192 Whig Party, 434, 445, 446-47 White Path, 192, 402, 407, 450 White Path's Rebellion, 110, 366, 388-96, 450 white intermarriage. See intermarriage white intruders. See intruders white prejudice against Indians. See preju­ dice

Wilkinson, James, 77, 78, 82-83 Williams, James, 317 Willstown, 60, 90, 105, 112, 115 Willstown Council (1809), 156-58 Wirt, William, 322-23, 438-39 witchcraft, 13-14, 39, 335 Woman Holder, 131 women. See Cherokees, women Worcester, Dr. Samuel A . , 250, 251, 257, 258, 376 Worcester, Rev. Samuel A . , 354, 391-92, 403, 440, 443-47 Worcester v. Georgia (1832), 444 Yazoo Fraud, 22 Yemassees, 7 young chiefs (young warriors) faction, 100, 105-106, 107, 109-127, 149, 185, 186, 188-89 Young Dragging Canoe, 199 Young Watts, 60, 115 Young Wolf, 126, 210, 266, 270, 345-47 Zacharias, 362

472

9