Indian Removal in 1830s - Research Paper Example

Debate around Indian Removal in 1830s Outline Introduction The Georgia - Cherokee Hullabaloo Lawyer Jeremiah Evarts’ defense of the Cherokees The Congress Debate on the Removal Bill Conclusion Debate around Indian Removal in 1830s Introduction Between the late 1820s and 1830s, there was a full-blown dispute on the Indian treaties. This dispute was revived by the criticisms of treaty creation that Andrew Jackson had highlighted earlier. This works looks at the causes of this debate, the role played by President Jackson, Lawyer Evart, missionaries, and other congress leaders in addressing the issue. The debate led to the creation of a removal bill that after much controversy was endorsed. The Georgia - Cherokee Hullabaloo The original dimension of the debate was the demand from the Georgia natives that, the Cherokees be taken out of their state. If that was not taken into account, Georgia threatened to encroach to its jurisdiction into the Cherokees’ territory1. The rift could be traced from the past years. For instance in 1802, Georgia had endorsed an agreement with the federal government that was to see it give up some of its lands that eventually formed the Mississippi and Alabama states2. In return, the government promised to nullify the Indian titles to Georgia lands and that this was to take place in a tranquil and plausible manner. As the need for the Indian portions of land rose, Georgia began to level accusations against the federal government for their not being faithful because they had failed to live up to their word3. Even though some leaders like Monroe and Quincy Adams gave heed to the Georgian lamentations and advised the Indians to vacate the state, most of the presidents maintained their ground that the vacation of the Indians would be volitional and that the federal governments would not evict them forcefully. The debate was aggravated by the Cherokee approval of a legal constitution in 1827 that asserted the sovereignty of the Indian tribe as a nation and that it could not be submissive to Georgia’s command in any way. The Georgians complained bitterly that it was unlawful to establish a different nation within the territory of another sovereign state. The federal leadership did not take any action, which saw the Georgian state citizens handle the issue on their own4. Its action entailed an extension of the authority of Georgia and its set of rules to the Cherokee lands, which had to result to removal of the Cherokee lands from the position of the Indian state, causing the territory to be under Georgia’s influence and by both unconcealed and indirect pressure, evict the Indians out5. To validate their action, Georgia, dealt with the main aspects of the treaty system, which did not allow Indians to access land titles, their independent authority on the lands they claimed and the legitimacy of the contract with the Indian (Which acknowledged both the political independence and title of the Indians). Between 1827 up to the ultimate exclusion of the Cherokees in 1838, rifts could be heard from both the Congress halls and the public press. The law governing Georgia recognized the full title of the state to the Indian lands. Prior to the Revolutionary war, the Georgian law asserted that Great Britain had total authority over the land and after American gaining independence, Georgia had assumed that authority6. The legislature claimed that the Indians within Georgia’s land were tenants and their tenancy could expire at any period as determined by Georgia. In 1827, the Georgia law had asked the people within its state not to reject any agreement that the United States may come up with, in regard to the exclusion of Cherokees. However, when the champions of Cherokees’ rights focused on the Cherokee agreements to protect the Indians from Georgia, the debate graduated from the level of land title to that regarding the Indian legitimacy and autonomy to enter into legal agreements with the United States. Andrew Jackson concurred with Georgia’s stand regarding Indian title and self-governance. His election to the presidency buttressed Georgia. During1828 and 1829, the state added some Cherokee lands to some of its counties and subsequently encroached to its set of rules over those lands respectively. The Cherokee regulations and customs were to be terminated after June 1830. Jackson, through the secretary of war retorted to the Cherokee cries in 1829 by openly informing them that he would not help them regarding Georgia’s fight for independence. He advised them to relocate towards some parts of Mississippi7. The joint attempts and action between President Jackson and the Georgian people elicited a battle from the Cherokees and their allies. There was thus a joint assault against those who were in opposition to the Cherokees. This entailed presentation of all lawful and moral debates in support of the rights of the Cherokees to their inherited territories, the autonomy of the country within those territories and the inviolability of the contracts within which the independent and landed civil liberties had been assured. There was such a holistic discussion on the Indian treaties and the agreement creation power that has never been witnessed again in the history of the United States8. Lawyer Jeremiah Evarts’ defense of the Cherokees An England lawyer, Jeremiah Evarts in liaison with some missionaries spearheaded the campaign. Touched by the way in which Indians were suffering, he cautioned Jackson and his allies of the divine revenge that was waiting in case they were unwilling to deviate from their wicked ways. Evarts most significant task was evidenced in his publication of numerous articles in the National Intelligencer between August and December 18299. This is believed to have been the best presentation of the Cherokee case. Other newspapers and articles reproduced them and other parties such as the clergy and congress leaders derived their arguments from Evarts’ work. Evarts revisited the relations of the Cherokees with the United States, from one treaty to another, singling out the parts that vividly describe the national independence of the Indians. While doing this, he maintained that no one had the mandate to alter or evade what was contained in the agreements10. He also lobbied for the rejection of the removal bill afterwards11. The Congress Debate on the Removal Bill During his first state of the union speech, President Jackson highlighted the concept of the removal and called for movement to the region past Mississippi as the remedy between the raw that existed between people living in Georgia and the Indians12. Both the Senate and House committees on the Indian affairs suggested a removal bill. Whereas the Senate had little debate, the House was in full support of Georgia. During April and May 1830, debates within the Congress revolved around the issue with aspects touching on the Cherokee’s rights and agreement procedures being fully addressed. William Lumpkin represented support for Georgia arguing that the United States was supposed to play a parental role with regard to the Cherokee issue and reserved the mandate to chat the way forward through the removal bill. Those who were in favor of the Cherokees took long sessions on the Congress floor elaborating what they feared the removal bill could imply. They derived from Evart’s writings frequently and he liaised with them often to reinforce their resolve13. The debate also centered on whether or not the Indians were competent to make treaties. One concern that dominated the Cherokee supporters was that removal bill would put power in the president’s hands to be able to direct the Indian matters14. There were also suggestions that the removal bill be amended to safeguard the autonomy of tribes and their ability to make treaties. The battle for the support of the removal bill was lost in Congress with the Senate bill being adopted over the House bill. President Jackson then signed the bill a few days after it had been passed. Conclusion The debate on the removal of Indians from Georgia had its roots in the agreement made between the Congress and Georgia sometimes back. After failure of the Congress leadership to give direction on the issue, Georgians took the matter in their own hands and put mechanisms in place to remove the Cherokees. The election of President Jackson to power buttressed Georgia’s efforts. Other legal and religious support for the Cherokees came in only for their attempts to be thwarted during the debating over and the ultimate signing of the bill. Bibliography Brog, David. In Defense of Faith: The Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity. New York: Encounter Books, 2010. http://books.google.com/books?id=H0git4b3GaQC&pg=PA114&dq=Jeremiah+Evarts+role+in+Indian+removal+bill&hl=en&ei=2s4ATY6lCYja4waS7vzzAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed December 9, 2010). Prucha, Francis, P. American Indian Treaties. The History of a Political Anomaly. California: University of California Press, 1997. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=DH07ZMdSl0kC&pg=PA156&dq=Debate+on+Indian+removal+in+the+1830s&hl=en&ei=7XQATeu5Kcfj4AaoqYH0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Debate%20on%20Indian%20removal%20in%20the%201830s&f=false (Accessed December 9, 2010). Prucha, Francis. The great father: the United States Government and the American Indians. U.S.A: University of Nebraska press, 1995. http://books.google.com/books?id=iSeWGTYsFcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+great+father:+The+United+States+Government+and+the+American+Indians&hl=en&ei=X8oATavPO8Gh4QaZ0ZD0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed December 9, 2010). The University of California. Nile’s weekly Register. 2007. http://books.google.com/books?id=2Uo8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA377&dq=1802+Georgia+treaty+with+the+Congress+to+relinquish+some+of+its+lands&hl=en&ei=TMUATaqTAqaM4gbnrJH0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed December 9, 2010). Read More