Penn2

In Defense Of The Cherokees: The “William Penn” Essays

Introduction:

Jeremiah Evarts, chief administrative officer of the large interdenominational missionary consortium the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, had definite ideas about the proper relation between the Indian tribes and the United States. Born in Vermont and trained as an attorney, he had become convinced early in his life that God had a special mission for the United States to lead the way in the conversion of the world to Christianity. American leadership required that the United States be a “beacon of goodness” that radiated the light of justice and morality in all of its affairs. Christian citizens were obligated, he believed, to critique their leaders if they strayed from the path and demand that they return. Otherwise, Evarts feared, God would punish the United States with disasters and destruction.

Since 1817, the American Board had maintained a significant presence in the Cherokee Nation. Several missionaries lived there, operated schools, conducted religious services, studied the language, worked on a translation of the Bible, and sent back to headquarters in Boston a steady stream of correspondence and reports on their progress. Evarts read all the reports, studied what additional sources he could find, and developed a deep and abiding respect for the Cherokees. Furthermore, with a lawyer’s eye, he analyzed the history of Indian policy in all of its legislative and administrative aspects. To him, the Constitution clearly authorized Congress and the president to conduct relations with the Indians outside the involvement of the states. Treaties were the acts of sovereigns, and the policy of the United States had always been to respect the sovereign rights of the tribes. By definition, therefore, tribal sovereignty was superior to the claims of the states. In addition, neither Evarts nor his associates in New England were Democrats. Their view of the Union and the proper relation of the federal and state governments convinced them that the Constitution intended the national government to take an active, leading role in public affairs, to override and inhibit the narrow and selfish provincialism of the states, and to set the moral tone for the country.

Evarts was both outraged and terrified by the events of the winter of 1828—1829. Georgia’s extension of jurisdiction over the Cherokees and the Cherokee protest to the president had elicited the response of the Jackson administration. Though conveyed in a private letter dated April 18, 1829, from Secretary of War John Eaton to the Cherokee Council, the news that the government would not protect the Cherokees from the actions of Georgia law but rather would encourage the state’s aggressive policy quickly made its way to Evarts’s desk at the American Board offices. Shortly thereafter, Thomas L. McKenney, the War Department official chiefly responsible for the administration of Indian policy, wrote Evarts to explain and justify Jacksonian policy. Unable to win the support of the American Board, McKenney approached Episcopalian and Dutch Reformed church officials in New York; they agreed with Jackson’s arguments and in July, with McKenney’s active involvement, organized the Indian Board for the Emigration, Preservation, and Improvement of the Aborigines of America. This organization of lay and clerical religious leaders, McKenney hoped, would offer a persuasive alternative moral voice to Evarts and the American Board.

All of this jolted Evarts, who believed that the new policy was un constitutional, illegal, immoral, and fraught with danger. Not only would the policy run roughshod over Indian human and legal rights, it would surely rain untold suffering and hardship onto a helpless and innocent people. Furthermore, God would punish the United States for such immorality, and Evarts shivered to think of the consequences.

Thus motivated, between August 5 and December 19, 1829, Evarts wrote and published in the Washington National Intelligencer twenty-four articles entitled “Essays on the Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians.” Published under the pseudonym of William Penn, Evarts’s essays constitute a propaganda masterpiece of historical, legal, and moral analysis and interpretation of America’s relations with the Indians. The essays, reprinted in dozens of papers and published as a separate pamphlet, responded to Jackson’s position and shaped the arguments on removal that resounded in Congress and the press during the early months of 1830.

The selection printed here is a summary of the “William Penn” essays written by Evarts late in 1829 as the body of a petition that opponents of removal could sign and send to their congressmen. Entitled “A Brief View,” this represented one of many efforts by Evarts and those of like mind to bombard Congress with expressions of popular outrage. Note the logic of Evarts’s presentation. How does he mix history, law, and morality to make his points? Do his views of the Cherokees betray a paternalistic attitude? What kinds of future relations between Indians and non-Indians does Evarts imagine?

WILLIAM PENN [JEREMIAH EVARTS][i]

“A Brief View of the Present Relations between the Government and People of the United States and the Indians within Our National Limits”

November 1829

In the various discussions, which have attracted public attention within a few months past, several important positions, on the subject of the rights and claims of the Indians, have been clearly and firmly established. At least, this is considered to be the case, by a large portion of the indifferent and reflecting men in the community. Among the positions thus established are the following: which, for the sake of precision and easy reference, are set down in regular numerical order.

1. The American Indians, now living upon lands derived from their ancestors, and never alienated nor surrendered, have a perfect right to the continued and undisturbed possession of these lands.

2. Those Indian tribes and nations, which have remained under their own form of government, upon their own soil, and have never submitted themselves to the government of the whites, have a perfect right to retain their original form of government, or to alter it, according to their own views of convenience and propriety.

3. These rights of soil and of sovereignty are inherent in the Indians, till voluntarily surrendered by them; and cannot be taken away by compacts between communities of whites, to which compacts the Indians were not a party.

4. From the settlement of the English colonies in North America to the present day, the right of Indians to lands in their actual and peaceable possession, and to such form of government as they choose, has been admitted by the whites; though such admission is in no sense necessary to the perfect validity of the Indian title.

5. For one hundred and fifty years, innumerable treaties were made between the English colonists and the Indians, upon the basis of the Indians being independent nations, and having a perfect right to their country and their form of government.

6. During the revolutionary war, the United States, in their con federate character, made similar treaties, accompanied by the most solemn guaranty of territorial rights.

7. At the close of the revolutionary war, and before the adoption of the federal constitution, the United States, in their confederate character, made similar treaties with the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and Choctaws.

8. The State of Georgia, after the close of the revolutionary war, and before the adoption of the federal constitution, made similar treaties, on the same basis, with the Cherokees and Creeks.

9. By the constitution of the United States, the exclusive power of making treaties with the Indians was conferred on the general government; and, in the execution of this power, the faith of the nation has been many times pledged to the Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and other Indian nations. In nearly all these treaties, the national and territorial rights of the Indians are guaranteed to them, either expressly, or by implication.

10. The State of Georgia has, by numerous public acts, implicitly acquiesced in this exercise of the treaty-making power of the United States.

11. The laws of the United States, as well as treaties with the Indians, prohibit all persons, whether acting as individuals, or as agents of any State, from encroaching upon territory secured to the Indians. By these laws severe penalties are inflicted upon offenders; and the execution of the laws on this subject, is specially confided to the President of the United States, who has the whole force of the country at his disposal for this purpose.

The positions here recited are deemed to be incontrovertible. It follows, therefore,

That the removal of any nation of Indians from their country by force would be an instance of gross and cruel oppression:

That all attempts to accomplish this removal of the Indians by bribery or fraud, by intimidation and threats, by withholding from them a knowledge of the strength of their cause, by practicing upon their ignorance, and their fears, or by vexatious opportunities, interpreted by them to mean nearly the same thing as a command; —all such attempts are acts of oppression, and therefore entirely unjustifiable:

That the United States are firmly bound by treaty to protect the Indians from force and encroachments on the part of a State; and a refusal thus to protect them would be equally an act of bad faith as a refusal to protect them against individuals: and

That the Cherokees have therefore the guaranty of the United States, solemnly and repeatedly given, as a security against encroachments from Georgia and the neighboring States. By virtue of this guaranty the Cherokees may rightfully demand, that the United States shall keep all intruders at a distance, from whatever quarter, or in whatever character, they may come. Thus secured and defended in the possession of their country, the Cherokees have a perfect right to retain that possession as long as they please. Such retention of their country is no just cause of complaint or offence to any State, or to any individual. It is merely an exercise of natural rights, which rights have been not only acknowledged but repeatedly and solemnly confirmed by the United States.

Although these principles are clear and incontrovertible, yet many persons feel an embarrassment from considering the Cherokees as living in the State of Georgia. All this embarrassment may be removed at once by bearing in mind, that the Cherokee country is not in Georgia, in any sense affecting sovereignty, right of soil, or jurisdiction; nor will it rightfully become a part of Georgia, till the Cherokees shall first have ceded it to the United States….

Again, it is supposed, that the existence of a little separate community of Indians, living under their own laws, and surrounded by communities of whites, will be fraught with some great and undefined mischief. This supposed evil is set forth under learned and hard names. It is called an anomaly, an imperium in imperio,[1] and by various other pedantic epithets. When the case is accurately examined, however, all the fog clears away, and nothing appears in the prospect but a little tract of country full of civilized Indians, engaged in their lawful pursuits, neither molesting their neighbours, nor interrupting the general peace and prosperity.

If the separate existence of the Indian tribes were an inconvenience to their neighbours, this would be but a slender reason for breaking down all the barriers of justice and good faith. Many a rich man has thought it very inconvenient, that he could not add the farm of a poor neighbour to his possessions. Many a powerful nation has felt it to be inconvenient to have a weak and dependent state in its neighbourhood, and has therefore forcibly joined the territory of such state to its own extensive domains. But this is done at the expense of honour and character, and is visited by the historian with his severest reprobation.

In the case before us the inconvenience is altogether imaginary. If the United States were examined, with a view to find a place where Indians could have a residence assigned them, so that they might be as little as possible in the way of the whites, not a single tract, capable of sustaining inhabitants, could be found more secluded than the present country of the Cherokees. It is in the mountains, among the head waters of rivers diverging in all directions; and some parts of it are almost inaccessible. The Cherokees have ceded to the United States all their best land. Not a twentieth part of what remains is of a very good quality. More than half is utterly worthless. Perhaps three tenths may produce moderate crops. The people of the United States have a free passage through the country, secured by treaty. What do they want more? If the Cherokee country were added to Georgia, the accession would be but a fraction joined to the remotest corner of that great State; — a State now scarcely inferior in size to any State in the Union except Virginia; a State having but six or seven souls to a square mile, counting whites and blacks, and with a soil and climate capable of sustaining a hundred to the square mile with the greatest of ease. There is no mighty inconvenience, therefore, in the arrangement of Providence, by which the Cherokee claim a resting place on the land which God gave to their fathers….

There is one remaining topic, on which the minds of many benevolent men are hesitating; and that is, whether the welfare of the Indians would not be promoted by a removal. Though they have a right to remain where they are; though the whole power of the United States is pledged to defend them in their possessions; yet it is supposed by some, that they would act wisely, if they would yield to the pressure, quietly surrender their territory to the United States, and accept a new country beyond the Mississippi, with a new guaranty.

In support of this supposition, it is argued, that they can never remain quiet where they are; that they will always be infested by troublesome whites; and that the states, which lay claim to their territory, will per severe in measures to vex and annoy them.

Let us look a moment at this statement. Is it indeed true, that, in the very prime and vigour of our republican government, and with all our boasted reliance upon constitutions and laws, we cannot enforce as plain an act of Congress as is to be found in our national statute-book? Is it true, that while treaties are declared in the constitution to be the supreme law of the land, a whole volume these supreme laws is to be at once avowedly and utterly disregarded? Is the Senate of the United States, that august body, as our newspapers have called it a thousand times, to march in solemn procession, and burn a volume of treaties? Are the archives of state to be searched, and a hundred and fifty rolls, containing treaties with the Indians, to be brought forth and consigned to the flames on Capitol Hill, in the presence of the representatives of the people, and all the dignitaries of our national government? When ambassadors from foreign nations inquire, What is the cause of all this burning? are we to sayj’Forty years ago President Washington and the Senate made treaties with the Indians, which have been repeated and confirmed by successive administrations. The treaties are plain, and the terms reasonable. But the Indians are weak, and their white neighbors will be lawless. The way to please these white neighbours is, therefore, to burn the treaties, and then call the Indians our dear children, and deal with them precisely as if no treaties had ever been made.” Is this answer to be given to the honest inquires of inteffigent foreigners? Are we to declare to mankind, that in our country law is totally inadequate to answer the great end for which human laws are made, that is, the protection of the weak against the strong? And is this confession to be made without feeling and without shame? It cannot be. The people of the United States will never subject themselves to so foul a reproach. They will not knowingly affix to the character of a republican government so indelible a stigma. Let it not be said, then, that the laws of the country cannot be executed. Let it never be admitted, that the faith of the nation must be violated, lest the government should come into coffi sion with white intruders upon Indian lands: —with intruders, whose character is admitted to be lawless; and who can be invested with power, in no other way than by tamely yielding to their acts of encroachment and aggression

The laws can be executed with perfect ease. The Indians can be defended. The faith of the nation can be preserved. Let the President of the United States, whenever the Indians shall be threatened, issue his proclamation, describing the danger and asserting the majesty of the laws. Let him refer to the treaties and the acts of Congress, which his oath of office obliges him to enforce; let him recite the principal provisions of these treaties and acts, and declare, in the face of the world, that he shall execute the laws, and that he shall confidently rely upon the aid and co-operation of all good citizens: —let him do this, and neither he, nor the country, will be disappointed. Law will triumph, and oppression will hide its head.

But it may be supposed, after all, that it would be for the benefit of the Cherokees and other tribes to remove beyond the Mississippi, and there enjoy the advantages, which are offered by the general government. These advantages are developed in a plan, which has been some years before the American people, and which is in substance, as follows:

Congress will set apart a tract of country of moderate dimensions, beyond Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, (principally west of the territory of Arkansas,) and will guaranty it as the perpetual residence of Indians. Upon this tract of country shall be congregated numerous tribes, now residing in different states and territories. The land shall be divided among the tribes and individuals, as Congress shall direct. The emigrants, thus congregated, shall be governed by white rulers, till they are sufficiently amalgamated, instructed, and civilised, to be admitted to some share in the government themselves. The United States will pay the expense of a removal; will furnish implements of agriculture, the mechanical arts, schools, and other means of civilization. Intruders will be excluded; ardent spirits will never be permitted to pass the line of demarcation; good morals and regular habits will be promoted; and the Indians will rise rapidly in the scale of intelligence and virtue. This is the plan; and some good men have so much confidence in it, that they advise the Indians to embrace it, as their only refuge.

But before this advice is officiously pressed upon the Cherokees and other tribes, let the following things be considered.

1. The Cherokees and other tribes are now separate communities, or nations. They have rights as communities, and, under this associated character, they hold the United States by the strong obligations of treaties. They can, therefore, so long as their present relation continues, make a strong, united, and irresistible appeal to the justice and magnanimity of the United States. But the moment they consent to a removal, the existence of their separate communities will cease. Their act of consent to a removal may be called a treaty; but the moment the treaty is signed one of the parties become defunct. Let the terms be violated ever so grossly, and there is no nation of Indians to claim redress. Individuals may complain, but there is no community; for by consent to a removal, the Indians come as much under the government of the United States, as the District of Columbia is. Such a change in their condition is a great one; and let no man advise to it, unless he has duly considered its consequences. From being an independent people, rapidly improving in their character and habits, they will be put into leading strings, and will instantly feel that they are vessals. From walking abroad on their own possessions, as they are now wont to do, they will feel like paupers and mendicants, taken by the government, and stowed away in a crowded poor-house. At least these feelings seem very natural, if they are not certain.

2. There must be much suffering, in the removal of the 60,000 souls, which constitute the south-western tribes; —much expo sure, sickness, hunger, nakedness, either on the journey, or soon after the arrival. The expense will be great; but this our national treasury can bear. The personal suffering comes wholly upon the Indians.

3. The removal must be conducted gradually. Of course all existing associations must be broken up; and the emigrants would be scattered along, at considerable intervals, and thus compelled to form new connexions. This alone would greatly impede their progress in civilization.

4. From the best accounts, which can be obtained of the country, which is selected for this permanent residence of Indians, it is deficient in wood and water, two articles of indispensable necessity to the emigrants. It is certain, that the Chickasaws, who visited this country last year at the expense of government, were unanimously dissatisfied with it as a place for their future residence. No man should advise the Indians to remove from their present habitations, unless he is in possession of undoubted evidence that the place, to which they are to be transported, is a desirable residence, or at least a comfortable one. No such evidence has yet been produced.

5. The crowding together of different tribes, speaking languages entirely unintelligible to each other, and accustomed to different habits, would be productive of quarrels, and effectually impede the progress of improvement.

6. The proposed plan of government is entirely visionary, and has nothing, in the history of human affairs, to sustain it. The white rulers, who should have the charge of controlling and guiding such a heterogeneous mixture of different tribes, would need to be men of the most eminent qualifications; —men of great wisdom, firmness, patience, disinterestedness, and active persevering benevolence. With all these qualifications, their success would be doubtful; without them, defeat would be certain. But there is not the remotest probability, that a majority of agents and sub-agents would be of this character. Judging from all past experience, some of them would be profane, licentious, and overbearing; and a majority would be selfish, looking principally at the emoluments of office and caring little for the Indians.

7. No guaranty of a new country could be given to the Indians. The pretended guaranty would be either a treaty, one of the parties to which would cease to exist at the moment of signing, or an act of Congress, which might be repealed whenever Congress should please. Indeed, in these circumstances, it is an insult to common sense to talk of a guaranty. Even supposing half a dozen, or half a score, of Indian tribes, crowded together on the same territory, under white rules, could maintain their separate national existence, a thing manifestly impossible; but supposing this, how could these tribes insist on their right by treaty to lands upon which they had been placed by the United States, when they had previously left the original soil of their ancestors, because treaties were not strong enough to defend their possession. They can never have a title to a new country of equal validity with their title to the soil of their fathers. So they will regard the matter; and so all men will regard it.

8. It may be expected, therefore, that they will hardly get settled in their new location, before they will be urged to remove again. It will be impossible to escape the cupidity of the whites. If the Indians become outcasts and vagabonds, it will be said that they may as well be driven beyond the Rocky Mountains at once. If they, or a part of them, should live comfortably, it will prove that white men would live comfortably on the same soil. In a quarter of a century, the population of the United States will be 25,000,000. There will probably be 4,000,000 whites west of the Mississippi. Why should these whites be more tender of the rights of Indians than the whites of the present day?

9. The Cherokees, and the other south-western tribes, cannot be persuaded to remove voluntarily. If they go at all, they will go by constraint. They will consider the United States as guilty of the grossest violation of treaties. Of this state of their minds, the proof is already abundant; and, their mind being in this state, they cannot enter with vigour into any measures for their own good, but will abandon themselves to indolence, to despondency, and finally to despair.

These suggestions are made without the least intention to exaggerate. Let them be attentively examined.

May a gracious Providence avert from this country the awful calamity of exposing ourselves to the wrath of heaven, as a consequence of disregarding the cries of the poor and defenseless, and perverting to purposes of cruelty and oppression, that power which was given us to promote the happiness of our fellow-men.