MOV:Savage nobel or nobel savage?

   No one knew exactly how many Cherokees had perished in the ordeal.
The trail was especially hard on babies, children, and the aged. Four
thousand, nearly one fifth of the entire Cherokee population, is the
estimate usually cited, one made by Dr. Butler the Missionary, who said:

   "From the first of June I felt I have been in the midst of death."
The road the Cherokees had followed was truly a "trail where they
cried." And the shock of the roundup, the tedium of the detention
camps, the miseries of the march to the West had generated a hatred so
terrible it could hardly be contained. (Wilkins 315)

   The story behind the "trail of tears" is a story of misery and
shame. What forces could cause this tribe of proud Indians to abandon
their beloved homeland in the fertile hills and valleys of Georgia to
seek a land they knew very little of and cared less about? It is a
story of intrigue and manipulation in a nation formed on supposed
Christian principles - a nation whose "noble" people and leaders proved
to be the savages and whose presumed "savages" proved to be truly noble.

   The forming of the new nation was by all accounts a complicated
process. As early as 1754, the struggle of authority between the
individual colonies in America and the federal government was under way
- the relations with the Indians being a central issue in this power
struggle (Prucha 29).

   In 1776, the statement, "The United States in Congress assembled
shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of . . .
regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not
members of any of the States" (qtd. in Prucha 30), was recommended as
part of the Articles of Confederation. Advocates of state sovereignty,
however, were opposed to federal control. Consequently, the final draft
accepted into the Articles of Confederation added the clause, ". . .
provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits
be not infringed or violated" (qtd. in Prucha 30). This revision
rendered the entire statement so ambiguous it lay the foundation for
the atrocities that would follow for the next century.

   When the colonists finally defeated the British in their war for
independence, they were faced with an enigmatic decision - how to deal
with the native Americans. Many reasoned that, as most Indians had
sided with the British during the war, they should be treated as a
conquered nation with no rights whatsoever. However, a committee report
submitted to Congress on October 15, 1783, wisely pointed out the new
nation had neither the money nor the power to risk war with the Indians
(Prucha 32-33).

   The first treaties with the Cherokee Indians predated the new
nation. Reaffirming these treaties, a new pact was enacted in 1785,
acknowledging the Indians' rights to their lands. It stated, in part,
Congress is now the sovereign of all our country which we now point out
to you on the map. They want none of your lands, nor anything else
which belongs to you; and as an earnest of their regard for you, we
propose to enter into articles of a treaty perfectly equal and
conformable to what we now tell you. (qtd. in H.H. 263)

   To the credit of George Washington, his dealings with the Indians
were characterized by compassion and fairness, having had a deep
understanding of the complex Indian problem. In an address to the
Senate on August 22, 1789, he reminded them that their treaty with the
Cherokees had been entirely violated by the white people living in
North Carolina. White settlers were moving in on the Indian lands,
claiming them as their own. One Indian chief, questioning Congress'
authority and power, wondered that the same leaders who had defeated
the King of Great Britain could not remove these intruders (H. H. 263).

   The Cherokees finally agreed to accept payment for the lands
occupied by the whites. A new treaty was drawn in 1787, redefining
their boundaries, but also adding a clauseprotecting Indian lands. It
clearly declared that any citizen who attempted to settle and claim
Cherokee land would forfeit the protection of the United States
government; the Indians could punish him as they saw fit (H. H. 266).
Many of the "atrocities" the Cherokees were later accused of committing
were actually fair provisions under this treaty, resulting from the
federal government's failure to carry out its responsibility in
defending the rights of the tribe.

   By 1801, it had become apparent the provisions of this treaty were
inadequate. The white settlers continually ignored the boundaries of
the Cherokees, inviting retribution from the Indians, which in turn
caused retaliation by the whites. The increasing bloodshed prompted
President Thomas Jefferson to seek peace by asking the Cherokees to
cede more land to the settlers. To persuade the Indians of his good
intentions, emissaries were instructed to assure the Indians they could
always rely upon the friendship of the United States, that the
President would never abandon them or their children. At first, the
Indians absolutely refused to give up more of their land, but their
desire for peaceful coexistence led them, in 1805, to do just that. The
pattern continued, as the Cherokees, under pressure, ceded additional
land in 1816 and again in 1817 (H. H. 269-270).

   Many white men considered the Indians irreversibly savage. In their
thinking, the Indian would never be capable of any semblance of a
civilized people. Their view was one of removal - the inferior culture
must make room for the superior. Andrew Jackson, the personification of
this way of thinking, fought many battles against the Indians of the
Southeast (Jehoda 41-42). The ideal plan in his mind was to remove
these savages from the path of appointed progress of civilization. This
attitude was also reflected in a report submitted to the House of
Representatives by the Committee of Indian Affairs:

   That the greatest portion, even of the poorest class of the Southern
Indians, may, for some years yet, find the means of sustaining life, is
probable; but, when the game is all gone, as it soon must be, and their
physical as well as moral energies shall have undergone the farther
decline, which the entire failure of the resources of the chase has
never failed to mark in their downward career, the hideous features in
their prospects will become more manifest. (qtd. in Boudinot 114) The
committee further reported:

   The intelligent observer of their [the Cherokees] character will
confirm all that is predicted of their future condition, when he learns
that the maxim, so well established in other places, "that an Indian
cannot work," has lost none of its universality in the practice of the
Indians of the South; . . . that the condition of the common Indian is
perceptibly declining, both in the means of subsistence and the habits
necessary to procure them; and that upon the whole, the mass of the
population of the Southern Indian tribes are a less respectable order
of human beings now, than they were ten years ago. (qtd. in Boudinot
115)

   On the contrary, however, the Cherokees had a strong desire to
embrace the white man's culture. And they succeeded to a degree that is
surprising. Within a span of two years, they developed their own
written language (Van Every 11-12). Within three years, many of them
had learned to read and write; in 1828 they began publication of a
bilingual newspaper, The Cherokee Phoenix (Hudson 449).

   Educationally, the Indians had no reservations in sending their
children to schools run by missionaries. In 1811, a young Cherokee,
Buck Watie, attended a Moravian mission school in Georgia. In 1817, he
renamed himself Elias Boudinot, (after the founder of the American
Bible Society), entered the American Board School in Connecticut and
completed his education. An extremely intelligent and eloquent man,
Boudinot became the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix when publication
began in 1828 (Boudinot 5-6).

   In an address to the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia in
1826, Boudinot boasted of the advances that the Cherokee nation had
made. He specifically pointed out the advances materially: 22,000
cattle, 7,600 horses, 46,000 swine, 2,500 sheep, 762 looms, 2,488
spinning wheels, 172 wagons, 2,943 ploughs, 10 sawmills, 31 gristmills,
62 Blacksmith shops, and a variety of other possessions that indicated
a high degree of civilization (Boudinot 72). Quite a few of the
wealthier Cherokees owned plantations and black slaves. In fact,
thinking that "civilization" was the primary requisition of the whites
and knowing that they could not oppose the United States militarily,
the Cherokees' ambition was to meet the Americans on their own terms.

   Great moral change swept the Cherokee nation. They abolished
polygamy, honored and protected female chastity by law, observed the
Sabbath, banned the killing of aged persons suspected of practicing
witchcraft, and declared murder a crime (Boudinot 75).

   The Cherokee fate as a nation, however, was totally dependent, not
on their own advancement, but on the people and the leaders of the
powerful nation in which they now lived. Some of the tribe, wishing
only to be away from the inscrutable whites, began to emigrate to
Arkansas, but the majority thought the whites had honorable intentions
in their dealings with the Cherokees (Hudson 449). On the contrary, the
moment George Washington left office, a change began to evolve in the
attitude of the federal government toward the Cherokee Indians.

   Thomas Jefferson's reign, (1801-1809), was characterized by a
superficial benevolence toward the Indians. His philosophy was to help
the Indians by encouraging intermarriage with the poorer whites and
thereby absorbing them slowly into white society (Collier 46).
Jefferson also enacted a scheme to "acquire" lands from the Indians,
probably as a result of pressure put on him by state governments. He
placed trading posts among the Indians, extended credit to them,
allowing them to fall hopelessly in debt in order to force them to cede
their land to the government (Hudson 452).

   During James Monroe's presidency, (1817-1825), the concept continued
to develop that it was inevitable the Indians would have to be moved
west of the Mississippi River. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 had
opened this vast area of land; friends and foes of the Eastern Indians
saw this as a solution to the dilemna of coexistence. Monroe's
secretary of war, John C. Calhoun, held the position that the Indians
were not legally nations and should not be treated as such. He felt
they should be treated under the law as any other American citizen. He
did not wish to force the Indians to emigrate, but he also made it
clear to them, if they stayed, they would be destroyed by the
individual states (Hudson 453).

   The Indian emigration had begun in Monroe's administration, but
gained much of its momentum in John Quincy Adam's, (1825-1829). Many of
the tribes began to realize their only hope for cultural survival was
to remove themselves as far from the whites as possible. Therefore
voluntary emigration began in earnest. The Cherokees absolutely refused
to move, defending their rights to the lands on the basis of treaties
and guarantees made to them by the federal government.

   Elias Boudinot, in refuting the policy of removal, wrote in the
Cherokee Phoenix,

   It appears that the advocates of this new system of civilizing the
Indians are very strenuous in maintaining the novel opinion that it is
impossible to enlighten the Indians, surrounded as they are by the
white population, and that they assuredly will become extinct, unless
they are removed. . . . What proof have they that the system which they
are now recommending, will succeed. Where have we an example in the
whole history of man, of a Nation or tribe, removing in a body, from a
land of civil and religious means, to a perfect wilderness, in order to
be civilized. We are fearful these men are building castles in the air,
whose fall will crush those poor Indians who may be so blinded as to
make the experiment. (96)

   The state of Georgia vehemently opposed the presence of both the
Cherokees and the Creeks, whose combined land comprised fully one third
of the state. In 1827, the state surveyed the Indian lands in
preparation for division and take over. President Adams warned Georgia
that her actions violated treaties between the United States and the
Indians, and threatened military force to uphold those treaties.
Georgia responded by calling up its own militia and occupying some of
the Creek lands, in absolute defiance of President Adams. The federal
government, wishing to avoid a confrontation, backed down (Hudson
453-454).

   In the background of these conflicts was a man who had fought many
battles against various tribes, especially the Creeks. He was a man of
influence, a man of blunt forthrightness, a man of convictions. Andrew
Jackson made his opinions known throughout the early nineteenth
century, influencing both thinking and policy-making.

   The largest single event that determined the future of the American
Indian was the election of Jackson to the office of President in 1829.
His opinions in Indian policy-making were influentual before, his
position would now become policy. All the latent frustrations he had
had with past administrative policies would now be his to change. And
change they did.

   Realizing that at last they had a President who was concordant with
their view, the Georgia legislature passed laws incorporating large
areas of Cherokee land. They declared all laws, ordinances, and
regulations of the Cherokee nation to be null and void. The law further
stated that any Indian who sought to induce another to reject
emigration would be imprisoned. Worst of all, the legislature decreed
"that no Indian . . . shall be deemed a competent witness in any court
of this state to which a white person may be a party." (Foreman, Indian
Removal 229)

   Recognizing Jackson's total backing of Georgia, Elias Boudinot
commented in the Cherokee Phoenix:

   It is to be regretted that we were not undeceived long ago . . . It
appears now . . . that the illustrious Washington, Jefferson, Madison
and Monroe were only tantalizing us, when they encouraged us in the
pursuit of agriculture and Government, and when they afforded us the
protection of the United States. (108)

   Jackson's death blow to the Eastern Indians in general and to the
Cherokees in particular was the introduction of the "Indian Removal
Bill" to Congress. It was the first forthright approval of the complete
removal of all the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi. The bill did
not in itself authorize the enforced removal of the tribes, but it set
a precedent in official federal policy toward removal. Many tribes
began an exodus to the west, fearing that their options were quickly
narrowing (Foreman, The Last Trek 59-60).

   The next eight years for the Cherokees were among the darkest years
in American history. A very small number of them left voluntarily, but
the great majority were determined never to give up their homeland.

   White missionaries, living with the Cherokees, were strong vocal
supporters. On December 22, 1830, Georgia passed a law making it
illegal for white men to live in Cherokee lands without a license - the
requirement for the license was a sworn allegiance to the state of
Georgia. Refusing this allegiance, the missionaries were thrown in
prison. Some were beaten, and when two of them still refused to meet
the state's demands, they were sentenced to four years of hard labor.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the
missionaries rights and further declared that certain Georgia laws were
unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson, in utterly refusing to back the
court's ruling, replied, "John Marshall [the Chief Justice] has
rendered his decision; now let him enforce it" (Hudson 462-463).

   It was at this time that Elias Boudinot and other progressive
leaders in the Cherokee nation began to see that justice would never be
done. Apparently, his confidence in the federal government was crushed
when the executive office could so easily ignore a ruling by the
judicial branch. Upon returning to the Cherokee Nation in the spring of
1832, he began to advocate removal - a complete reversal of his
pleadings and arguments for many years (Boudinot 25-26).

   There was, however, a strong majority of leaders who continued to
oppose removal under any circumstances. They were traditionalists who,
according to Boudinot, failed to see the absolute hopelessness of their
cause.

   In December of 1835, the Cherokees were informed by the federal
government of a meeting they would be required to attend, for the
purpose of negotiatiing a new treaty. They were further instructed that
failure to attend the meeting would indicate favor for the treaty.
Choosing to ignore the meeting, only three to five hundred out of
seventeen thousand Indians attended (Hudson 463). Nevertheless, a
removal treaty was drawn and signed by twenty of the "party of
civilization", including Elias Boudinot (Boudinot 26).

   Some saw Boudinot as a traitor, but many recognized his
conscientious ambitions for his people. He himself stated:

   I know that I take my life in my hand, as our fathers have also
done. We will make and sign this treaty. Our friends can then cross the
great river, but Tom Foreman and his people [who violently opposed
removal] will put us across the dread river of death. We can die, but
the great Cherokee Nation will be saved. They will not be annihilated;
they can live. Oh, what is a man worth who will not dare to die for his
people? Who is there here that will not perish, if this great Nation
may be saved? (Boudinot 27)

   Most of the Cherokees refused to recognize the validity of the
treaty. In fact, they refused all aid from the federal government so
they could not be accused in any form of approval of it. For two more
years they clung to their lands, the maximum time allowed under the
treaty. By May, 1838, there were still fully 15,000 Cherokees in the
Southeast. The government then sent about 7,000 United States Army
soldiers, state militia men and volunteers, arrested the Cherokees and
forced them into stockaded concentration camps. Many of the soldiers
looted homes and even dug up graves to steal jewelry from the corpses
(Hudson 464).

   A few thousand Indians were taken west on steamboats, but the great
majority, about 13,000, were divided into smaller groups and herded
west on overland routes that took from three to five months. The toll
on the Indians was great, especially on the very young and old.
Statistics are unclear, but it is reasonably stated that over 4,000
Cherokee Indians never lived through the ardous journey to see the
Mississippi (Foreman, The Five 281-282). To this day, that infamous
journey forced on unwilling emigrants is known as the "trail of tears".

   The federal government was actually proud of their handling of the
removal of the Cherokees:

   The general and enlightened policy evinced in the measures adopted
by Congress toward that people during the last session was ably and
judiciously carried into effect by the general appointed to conduct
their removal. The reluctance of the Indians to relinquish the land of
their birth in the East, and remove to their new homes in the West, was
entirely overcome by the judicious conduct of that officer, and they
departed with alacrity under the guidance of their own chiefs . . . .
Humanity no less than good policy dictated this course toward these
children of the forest; and in carrying out in this instance with an
unwavering hand the measures resolved upon by the Government, in the
hope of preserving the Indians and of maintaining the peace and
tranquillity of the whites, it will always be gratifying to reflect
that this has been effected not only without violence, but with every
proper regard for the feelings and interests of that people. (H.H.
284-285)

   The effect of the removal on the Cherokee people was devasting. Many
in the tribe felt utterly betrayed; for years dissensions rent the
Cherokee Nation. The fate of Elias Boudinot was foretold in his own
writings. On June 22, 1839, he was murdered by a group of Cherokees who
felt that he, indeed, was the betrayer (Wilkins 323). The man who loved
his nation so much, who defended her time after time, and signed a
treaty only in an attempt to save his people from the tyranny of a
"Christian" nation, sacrificed his life for the salvation of the people
he loved.

   Compare for yourself the evidence of history. Who were the civilized
people? The whites first contact with the Indians found them to be
friendly and obliging (Debo 38). The Indians first contact with the
whites found them to be friendly and beguiling.

   Chief Joseph, a famous chief, claimed that talk was only as good as
the actions that backed it up. He stated he was sick of ". . . good
words and broken promises . . ." (Armstrong 116). Red Jacket, a Seneca,
replied he would not embrace the white man's religion until he saw it
make a difference in his white neighbors. "If we find it does them
good, makes them honest, and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will
then consider again what you have said" (Rosenstiel 112). And stating
the truth as clearly as it can be seen in the history of Indian affairs
in the United States, the Delaware chief, Pachgantsilias replied, "I
admit there are good white men, but they bear no proportion to the bad;
the bad must be the strongest, for they rule" (Rosenstiel 97).

   On May 26, 1826,in the very address that boasted of the great
strides his Cherokee nation had been making toward civilization, Elias
Boudinot prophetically stated:

   There is, in Indian history, something very melancholy, and which
seems to establish a mournful precedent for the future events of the
few sons of the forest, now scattered over this vast continent. We have
seen every where the poor aborigines melt away before the white
population. . . . We have seen, I say, one family after another, one
tribe after another, nation after nation, pass away; until only a few
solitary creatures are left to tell the sad story of extinction.

   Shall this precedent be followed? I ask you, shall red men live, or
shall they be swept from the earth? With you and this public at large,
the decision chiefly rests. Must they perish? Must they all . . . go
down in sorrow to their graves?

   They hang upon your mercy as to a garment. Will you push them from
you, or will you save them? Let humanity answer. (79)

   "Humanity" has answered.

   Only one question remains . . . how long before the same fate
befalls Christians?
