Native Americans: 22 Books on History, Mythology, Culture & Linguistic Studies. James Mooney

country theretofore a wilderness, and inhabited only by savage tribes, many important and controlling reasons exist why the occupation of such a country should be accomplished by regular and gradual advances and in a more or less connected and compact manner. It was expedient that a united front should be presented by the earlier settlers of this continent, in order that the hostile raids and demonstrations of the Indian warriors might be successfully resisted and repulsed. Therefore, the settlements were, as a rule, extended from the coast line toward the interior by regular steps, without the intermission of long distances of unoccupied territory. This seemed to be the policy anterior to the Revolution, and was announced in the proclamation of King George in 1763 wherein he prohibited settlements being made on Indian lands or the purchase of the same by unauthorized persons.

      The first ordinances of Congress under the Articles of Confederation for disposing of the public lands were predicated upon the same theory. But after the close of the war for independence, circumstances arising out of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain and the acquisition of Louisiana from France imposed the necessity for a departure from the old system. Within the limits of the territory thus acquired sundry settlements had been made by the French people at points widely separated from one another and with many hundreds of miles of wilderness intervening between them and the English settlements on the Atlantic slope. The evils and inconveniences resulting from this irregular form of frontier were manifest.

      Settlements thus widely separated, or projecting in long, narrow columns far into the Indian country, manifestly increased in large ratio the causes of savage jealousy and hostility. At the same time the means of defense were rendered less certain and the expense and difficulty of adequately protecting such a frontier were largely enhanced.

      Such, however, was the condition and shape of our frontier settlements during the earlier years of the present century. Settlements on the Tennessee and Cumberland were cut off from communication with those of Georgia, Lower Alabama, and Mississippi by long stretches of territory inhabited or roamed over by the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws.

      The French communities of Kaskaskia, Vincennes, and Detroit were similarly separated from the people of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and newly settled Ohio by the territory of the hostile Shawnees, Miamis, Wyandots, Pottawatomies, Ottawas, Kickapoos, et al.

      A cure for all this inconvenience and expense had been sought and given much consideration by the Government authorities.

President Jefferson (as has been previously stated) had, as early as 1803,225 suggested the propriety of an exchange of lands by those tribes east of the Mississippi for an equal or greater area of territory within the newly acquired Louisiana purchase, and in 1809 had authorized a delegation of Cherokees to proceed to that country with a view to selecting a suitable tract to which they might remove, and to which many of them did remove in the course of the years immediately succeeding.226

The matter of a general exchange of lands, however, became the subject of Congressional consideration, and the Committee on Public Lands of the United States Senate reported227 a resolution for an appropriation to enable the President to negotiate treaties with the Indian tribes which should have for their object an exchange of territory owned by any tribe residing east of the Mississippi for other land west of that river.

      The committee expressed the opinion that the proposition contained in the foregoing resolution would be better calculated to remedy the inconvenience and remove the evils arising out of the existing condition of the frontier settlements than any other within the power of the Government. It was admitted, however, that this object could not be attained except by the voluntary consent of the several tribes interested, made manifest through duly negotiated treaties with them.

The Senate was favorable to this proposition, but the House of Representatives interposed a negative upon the action taken by the former body.228

      Removal of Cherokees encouraged.—The subject had long been under consideration by the Cherokees, and no opportunity had been lost on the part of the executive authorities of the United States to encourage a sentiment among them favorable to the removal scheme. Many individuals of the tribe had already emigrated, and on the 18th of October, 1816, General Andrew Jackson, in addressing the Secretary of War upon the subject of the recent Cherokee and Chickasaw treaties, suggested his belief that the Cherokees would shortly make a tender of their whole territory to the United States in exchange for lands on the Arkansas River. He further remarked that a council would soon be held by them at Willstown to select a proper delegation who should visit the country west of the Mississippi and examine and report upon its character and adaptability for their needs. In case this report should prove favorable, a Cherokee delegation would thereupon wait upon the President, with authority to agree upon satisfactory terms of exchange. To this the Secretary of War replied that whenever the Cherokee Nation should be disposed to enter into an arrangement for an exchange of the lands occupied by them for lands on the west side of the Mississippi River and should appoint delegates clothed with full authority to negotiate a treaty for such exchange they would be received by the President and treated with on the most liberal terms.

This state of feeling among the Cherokees had been considerably increased by the fact that those of their people who had already settled upon the Arkansas and White Rivers had become involved in territorial disputes of a most serious character with the Osages and Quapaws. The latter tribes claimed ownership of the lands upon which the former were settled. Upon the Arkansas Cherokees laying their complaints before the United States authorities, they were informed that nothing could be done for their relief until the main body of the nation should take some definite action, in accordance with previous understanding, toward relinquishing a portion of their territory equal in area to the tract upon which the emigrant party had located.229

      Further Cession of Territory by the Cherokees

       Table of Contents

With a view to reaching a full understanding on this subject, the Secretary of War notified230 General Andrew Jackson, Governor McMinn of Tennessee, and General David Merriwether that they had been appointed commissioners for the purpose of holding a treaty with the Cherokees on or about the 20th of June, 1817.231 In pursuance of these instructions a conference was called and held at the Cherokee Agency, which resulted in the treaty of July 8, 1817.232 By this treaty the Cherokees ceded two large tracts of country233 in exchange for one of equal area on the Arkansas and White Rivers adjoining the territory of the Osages. The Cherokees also ceded two small reservations made by the treaty of January 7, 1806.234

The large cession by the first article of the treaty of 1817, though partially in Georgia, was at the time supposed to cover all the territory claimed by the Cherokees within the limits of North Carolina,235 and was secured in deference to the urgent importunities of the legislature and people of that State. It was subsequently ascertained that this supposition was incorrect.

Majority of Cherokees averse to removal.—During the conference, but before the negotiations had reached any definite result, a memorial was presented to the United States commissioners, signed by sixty-seven of the chiefs and headmen of the nation, setting forth that the delegation of their nation who in 1809 visited Washington and discussed with President