Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

powerful States. Our thronged cities, our cultivated fields, our edifices, ships, commerce, canals, railways, the marks of our prosperity and the monuments of our civilization, which meet the eye on all hands, bespeak the presence and the power of a great people. But the primitive lords of the soil are humble dependants on our annual bounty, mutilated, scattered, extinct, melted away in our path like a snow-flake, devoured as the dew before the morning sun. The land once theirs is ours. The empire of our civilization is, by right or by wrong, honestly or dishonestly, established indestructibly throughout the New World.

By what tenure of right is it that we hold our possessions? In regard to this point there is consistency, at least, if there be not justice, in the doctrine of all Europeans. Every nation, as it proceeded to make settlements in the New World, claimed its territory by the title either of discovery or of conquest. They were Christians, introducing their own race, and with it their laws, into regions occupied by Pagans. Thus it notoriously was in the case of the Spaniards and Portuguese, who obtained so large a portion of this continent. The soil and its inhabitants were partitioned between them by the Papal See, and given up to their arms as to an enterprise of crusade. Columbus, the great discoverer, Cortes and Pizarro, the great conquerors, and others of the Peninsular nations, came to the New World under mixed inducements of ambition and of religion. They fought under the banner of the cross. In this sign they overthrew the empires of the Incas and of the Mexicans, and colonized the rich regions of the South. A similar principle directed the colonial undertakings of the French, English, and Dutch. Thus, the commission to the Cabots, in virtue of whose voyage of discovery Great Britain acquired her title in America, empowered them to discover countries unknown to Christian people, and to take possession of these in the name of the King of England. Each and all of the original colonies now com. posing the United States, as Florida, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, Louisiana, founded by Spain, England, Holland, and France, respectively, proceeded in the assertion of their right, as Christians, to plant the lands previously held by Indians. However questionable may be the nature of such a pretension, still it was the idea universally followed. There is not an acre of land held by a citizen of the United States, whose title stands on any other foundation. It is the fundamental doctrine, the oldest element, in the municipal law of every State of the Union.

Conformable to which has been the practice of each of the States, and also of the United States, in their legislation, and in the decisions of their judicial tribunals of every class. The several States, in the disposition of the lands belonging to them, and the United States, in the disposition of the national domain, maintain that the ultimate dominion over the soil, and the exclusive right of granting it, are in themselves subject only to the qualified right of occupancy remaining in the Indian. The latter can occupy, but cannot give a title. His deed conveys his mere occupancy; a title in fee can be derived only from the Government. To this effect are all the text books. Thus, Chief Justice Marshall says:

"All the nations of Europe who have acquired territory on this continent have asserted in themselves, and have recognised in others, the exclusive right of the discoverer to appropriate the lands occupied by the In

dians."

[blocks in formation]

[FEB. 1, 1837.

nal inhabitants. The latter were admitted to possess a present right of occupancy, or use in the soil, which was subordinate to the ultimate dominion of the discov. erer. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion. In a certain sense, they were permitted to exercise rights of sovereignty over it. They might sell or transfer it to the sovereign who discovered it, but they were denied the authority to dispose of it to any other person; and, until such a sale or transfer, they were generally permitted to occupy it as sovereigns de facto. But, notwithstanding this occupancy, the European discoverers claimed and exercised the right to grant the soil, while yet in the possession of the natives, subject, however, to their right of occupancy; and the title so granted was universally admitted to convey a sufficient title in the soil to the grantees in perfect dominion." And Chancellor Kent:

*

"This assumed but qualified dominion over the Indian tribes, regarding them as enjoying no higher title to the soil than that founded en simple occupancy, and to be incompetent to transfer their title to any other power than the Government which claims the jurisdic tion of their territory by right of discovery, arose, in a great degree, from the necessity of the case. * It was founded on the pretension of converting the dis covery of the country into a conquest; and it is now too late to draw into discussion the validity of that preten sion, or the restrictions which it imposes. It is estab lished by numerous compacts, treaties, laws, and ordinances, and founded in immemorial usage. The country has been colonized and settled, and is now held by that title. It is the law of the land, and no court of justice can permit the right to be disturbed by specula. tive reasonings or abstract rights."

Such, then, is the settled law of the land in every part of the United States. The abstract justice of the principle is another question. It grew up, as Chancellor Kent suggests, out of the necessity of the case. Was it better, in the general sum of good, that millions of Christians, or that thousands of Pagans, should occupy America? That the land should be suffered to remain as a lair of wild beasts, and a vast hunting field for a few scattered savages, or that it should be filled with culti vated men, and the improvements, moral, political, and religious, which appertain to refined life? I will not undertake to answer this question, to sum up the good attained, and the expense at which attained, so as to strike the balance between civilization and barbarism. content myself, in this part of the subject, to deal with the practical fact, which lies at the foundation of our intercourse with the Indians.

[ocr errors]

This maxim of public law has directed the colonization of America, from the beginning to the present time. In the English colonies, as distinguished from the Spanish, the process of settlement was mostly a peace. ful one. Generally, the colonists quieted and extin guished the title of the Indians by contract, and at such a price, however inadequate, as they were well satis fied to receive. Yet there was, I believe, no colony of any magnitude which did not, at some period of its ex istence, engage in hostilities with the Indians, and ac quire lands by force, and in right of war. And there was no colony which did not assume, or in practic sanction, the right of exterior legislation over the In dians within its limits, leaving them, nevertheless, t regulate their own interior police, as municipal com munities, so long as they continued capable of doing it In the legislation of Massachusetts, for instance, and New York, as well as that of the United States, the It dians are treated as a dependent, not a sovereign, nor foreign people; as being in a state of pupilage; unde

[blocks in formation]

wardship; and, if indulged with partial self-government, yet subject to see that self-government cease, when their condition shall seem to us to require it; or, in other words, at the will of the State, or of the United States, who by the constitution now possess the exclusive regulation of intercourse with the Indians. And this, again, though at one time a questioned point, must now be regarded as the settled law of the land. Chief Justice Marshall says:

"It may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect, in point of possession, when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the President as their Great Father. They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States, that any attempt to acquire their lands, or to form a political connexion with them, would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory, and an act of hostility."

These principles became the subject of elaborate judicial investigation, in consequence of the controversy between the Cherokees and the State of Georgia. A summary view of the whole ground is presented in the following remarks of Chief Justice Marshall:

"The exercise of the power of self-government by the Indians, within a State, is undoubtedly contemplated to be temporary. This is shown by the settled policy of the Government, in the extinguishment of their title, and especially by the compact with the State of Georgia. It is a question not of abstract right, but of public policy. I do not mean to say that the same moral rule which should regulate the affairs of private life, should not be regarded by communities or nations. sound national policy does require that the Indian tribes within our States should exchange their territories, upon equitable principles, or, eventually, consent to become amalgamated in our political communities.

But a

"At best, they can enjoy a very limited independence within the boundaries of a State, and such a residence must always subject them to encroachments from the settlements around them; and their existence within a State, as a separate and independent community, may seriously embarrass or obstruct the operation of the State laws. If, therefore, it would be inconsistent with the political welfare of the States, and the social advance of their citizens, that an independent and permanent power should exist within their limits, this power must give way to the greater power which surrounds it, or seek its exercise beyond the sphere of State authority. "This state of things can only be produced by a cooperation of the State and Federal Governments. The latter has the exclusive regulation of intercourse with the Indians; and, so long as this power shall be exerci. sed, it cannot be obstructed by the State. It is a power given by the constitution, and sanctioned by the most solemn acts of both the Federal and State Governments; consequently, it cannot be abrogated at the will of a State. It is one of the powers parted with by the States, and vested in the Federal Government. tingency shall occur, which shall render the Indians who reside in a State incapable of self-government, either by moral degradation or a reduction of their numbers, it

But if a con

[H. OF R.

would undoubtedly be in the power of a State Government to extend to them the ægis of its laws. Under such circumstances, the agency of the General Government, of necessity, must cease.

"But if it shall be the policy of the Government to withdraw its protection from the Indians who reside within the limits of the respective States, and who not only claimed the right of self-government, but have uniformly exercised it, the laws and treaties which impose duties and obligations on the General Government should be abrogated by the powers competent to do so. long as those laws and treaties exist, having been formed within the sphere of the federal powers, they must be respected and enforced by the appropriate organs of the Federal Government."

So

Mr. C. said that, having thus developed the public law and the constitutional right applicable to the Indians within the territory of the United States, he should now proceed to another branch of the question of national policy involved in the subject. Under various treaties with the Indians, at every epoch of our history, the United States have assumed the duty of protecting them; we have labored to maintain peace among them; we have anxiously endeavored to civilize and elevate them; we have admitted their right of occupancy; we have proceeded in the extinction of their title by treaties containing liberal stipulations for their permanent advantage; our national intercourse with them has been dictated in general by a pacific, just, and paternal spirit, becoming the character of the United States.

Upon observation of the state of the Indians, in the aim of consulting their particular welfare, and at the same time maintaining them in existence as a distinct people, it has been seen that three courses offered themselves to the choice of the United States:

In the first place, the Indians might be prompted or allowed to organize themselves into political communi. ties, within the limi's of the States in which they should happen to be, and independent of the local jurisdiction of such States. Some of the Southern tribes, from the admixture of white men, or from other causes, did in fact make a great and visible progress towards civiliza. tion, and had manifested an aptitude and a disposition to continue as organized nations on the soil of their inheritance. They had been favored in this by the United States. Yet the difficulties attending the execution of such a plan were serious and embarrassing in the extreme, even if at all superable. I admit (said Mr. C.) the magnitude of those difficulties. I defer to the truth of the remark of Chief Justice Marshall, just quoted, that the exercise of the powers of self-government by the Indians within a State, has ever, in the policy of this nation, been contemplated as temporary; that, as a general rule, when it becomes inconsistent with the political welfare of a State that an independent power should exist within its limits, this power must give way to the greater power which surrounds it; and that sound policy requires of such lesser power, either to part with its territory upon equitable considerations, or eventually consent to become amalgamated in the larger political community. I recall to mind the corresponding remark of Chancellor Kent, in regard to the Indians in the older States, that, "To leave the Indians in possession of the country was to leave the country a wilderness; and to govern them as a distinct people, or to mix with them, or admit them to an intercommunity of privileges, was impossible, under the circumstances of their rela tive condition." These difficulties, I repeat, in the way of leaving the Indians to the exercise of independent political sovereignty within the limits of a State, are serious and embarrassing, even if they be at all superable. They have led to the adoption, in the older States, ofIn the second place, the organization of the Indians

[blocks in formation]

into municipal communities merely, acting under the guardianship and supreme legislative control of the State. Such is the present condition of the few remaining Indians within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thirdly, the removal of the Indians from without the limits of the individual States, and their establishment in the unoccupied territory of the United States west of the Mississippi. This must be regarded as the systematic policy of the present administration. When I speak of it as the policy of the present administration, I do not forget the fact that the idea of the removal of the Indians was entertained at an early period in the history of the Government. The compact with Georgia proves it; and, under the administration of Mr. Monroe, especially, the idea began to assume a distinct shape, as a political measure. But the adoption of the policy, as a settled system, belongs to the last eight years; and the responsibility of it, for good or for evil, for honor or for dishonor, rests with the present administration.

That system, as now in the course of execution, received the sanction of Congress and of the Executive in the act of the 28th May, 1830, for the removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi, which provides as follows: "SEC. 1. It shall and may be lawful for the President to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States west of the Mississippi, not included in any State or organized Territory, and to which the Indian title may be extinguished, as he may judge necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and move there.

"SEC. 2. It shall be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them; and, if they prefer it, that the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same."

"SEC. 7. It shall be lawful for the President to have the same superintendence and care over any tribe or nation in the country to which they may remove, as contemplated by this act, that he is now authorized to have over them at their present place of residence."

The system has received the further sanction of Congress in the act of the 14th July, 1832, having for its object the appointment of commissioners to visit and examine the country set apart for the emigrating Indians west of the Mississippi, and to report to the War Depart ment a plan for the improvement, government, and security, of the Indians.

Now, under the authority of these acts of Congress, the President has proceeded to negotiate treaties with the Indians for their removal to the West, which Congress has confirmed, by directly approving the treaties, and by making vast appropriations to carry them into effect. Some of the Indians have already gone. Others, in cluding the more numerous and important tribes, are in the course of removal. The contemplated examination of the territory assigned for their reception has been made. Plans for the government and security of the removed Indians have been presented to, and have been approved by, the War Department. Many millions of money have been appropriated in execution of the several treaties of emigration. In short, the systematic removal of Indians, I again say, is the settled policy of the existing Government of the United States.

Mr. C. said that if he had enjoyed the honor of a seat in Congress at the time the law of 1830, which gave method and system to the policy of removal, was enacted, he could not have yielded his assent to the measure. He applauded the eloquence, the courage, the zeal, the ability, with which the law was resisted. He should

[FEB. 1, 1837.

have joined with the opponents of it in considering its policy too questionable, the visible and immediate wrong too flagrant, the neglect or violation of the pledged faith of the United States too palpable, the hazards of war and bloodshed to ensue upon its adoption too certain, to justify him in voting for its enactment. He thought he distinguished in the disastrous events which were now transpiring in the South, the very consequences then predicted as likely to follow a systematic attempt to drive the Indians at once beyond the Mississippi.

Now, in seeking after measures of practical good, for the benefit of the Indians, (continued Mr. C.,) I start from these premises. I perceive it to be the settled law of the land, in the jurisdiction as well of the United States as of the several States, that the soil of this continent belongs of right to us. It is ours to take, to pos sess, to convey. I perceive it to be the settled law of the land, that either the United States, or the several States, as the case may be, now hold, or may assume, the government and ultimate control of the Indians. Finally, I perceive it to be the settled policy of those who now administer, and who will for a time, at least, continue to administer, the affairs of the Federal Government, to remove the Indians out of the States, and to collect them by themselves west of the Mississippi. Is there a single member of this House who supposes that the Government of the United States will retrace its steps in this matter? The tide of emigration is flowing to the West. It is impelled by the public force of the nation. Will its refluent waters be made to roll back in their channel? Can they? We know, we must know, that the process of removal cannot be arrested. However lamentable it may be, we cannot recall what is past. We cannot prevent its consummation. It is the existing, certain, unchangeable fact.

What remains for us, then, as practical statesmen, to do? It seems to me a self-evident proposition, too plain for argument, that, instead of wasting our sympathy for the Indians upon impossible objects, we should cast about for the means of protecting and serving them efficiently in the new homes beyond the Mississippi we have compelled them to accept. I cannot bring my mind to approve the policy of removal, particularly in the time and mode of its actual execution. But I acquiesce in the fact which is. I hazard something, perhaps, in making this avowal; but I should be unworthy of my place here, if I were content to swim passively along forever in the current, without venturing at any time to act independently upon my own judgment; and I feel a deep convic tion that it is become a duty to direct my own efforts, and, so far as my example or counsel may have influence, the efforts of other friends of the Indians, into the only practicable path of beneficence which the providence of God has left us to tread. We cannot prevent their emigration. Let us unite in smoothing the way before them; in protecting them at the end of their journey; and in elevating them, if we may, to the rank of civilized men, capable of participating in the advan tages which our social and political institutions bestow.

Mr. C. said he was confirmed in these views by the considerations offered in the elaborate report from the Committee on Indian Affairs, presented, at the last Congress, by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. EVERETT.] He would ask the attention of the House to two or three sentences from that report:

"All must now see and admit that the relations, heretofore so much desired by the Indians and their friends, cannot be sustained in future in their present situation. Whatever may be the wishes of the Government, and even whatever may be its rights, and physical power to enforce those rights, yet the attempt to enforce them might be attended with consequences not less disastrous to the Indians than to the harniony of the States.”

FEB. 1, 1837.]

And again:

Indian Appropriation Bill.

"Whatever difference of opinion may heretofore have existed, the policy of the Government, in regard to the future condition of those tribes of Indians, may now be regarded as definitively settled. To induce them to remove west of the Mississippi, to a territory set apart and dedicated to their use and government forever, to secure to them a final home, to elevate their intellectual, moral, and civil condition, and to fit them for the enjoyment of the blessings of a free government, is that policy."

I declare my acquiescence, then, (said Mr. C.,) not in the original justice, but in the present fact, of the removal of the Indians. Doing so, I direct my mind in pursuit of their good, according to the new condition of things, imposed upon us by the course of events. I look to the administration, which holds the efficient power of the country in its hands, to see what are the plans of the Government. I find them to be, what the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs indicates, as manifested in past years, and especially as communicated to the present Congress by the acting Secretary of War. His report developes the designs of the administration, as follows:

"Connected with the general subject of our Indian relations are two measures, proposed by the Commissioner, which I deem of great moment. They are the organization of an efficient system for the protection and government of the Indian country west of the Mississippi, and the establishment of military posts for the protection of that country and of our own frontiers, in addition to those now authorized by law.

"These measures are due to the numerous tribes whom we have planted in this extensive territory, and to the pledges and encouragements by which they were induced to consent to a change of residence. We may now be said to have consummated the policy of emigration, and to have entered on an era full of interest to both parties. It involves the last hopes of humanity in respect to the Indian tribes; and though, to the United States, its issues cannot be equally momentous, they yet deeply concern our prosperity and honor. It therefore behooves us, at this juncture, seriously to examine the relations which exist between the United States and the inhabitants of the Indian country, to look into the duties which devolve on us, and to mature a system of measures for their just and constant execution.

[H. OF R.

rism of their own institutions, with the inadequate assistance of an agent, and the slight control of the general superintendent, would be imprudent as it regards ourselves, and unjust towards them. Under such a system, hostilities will frequently break out between the different tribes, and sometimes between them and the inhabitants of our frontiers, attended, in both cases, by the usual consequences of savage warfare. To fulfil, in their true spirit, the engagements into which we have entered, we must institute a comprehensive system of guardianship, adapted to the circumstances and wants of the people, and calculated to lead them, gradually and safely, to the exercise of self-government, and, at as early a day as circumstances will allow, the expectations authorized by the passages above quoted from the treaties with the Choctaws and Cherokees should be fulfilled. Indeed, from the facts stated by the Commissioner, it is scarcely to be doubted that the Choctaws are already in a condition to justify the measure. The daily presence of a native Delegate on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States, presenting, as occasion may require, to that dignified assembly the interest of his people, would, more than any other single act, attest to the world and to the Indian tribes the sincerity of our endeavors for their preservation and happiness. In the successful issue of those endeavors, we shall find a more precious and durable accession to the glory of our country, than by any triumph we can achieve in arts or in arms."

Mr. C. said that he recognised in the sentiments of this report the upright and accomplished mind from which they emanated. He commended the general purposes it disclosed. Of the details of the plan it would be premature to speak now: they would become a subject of discussion hereafter, as connected with a bill which the Committee on Indian Affairs had just presented, in accordance with the designs of the Government. He would, however, solicit the attention of the House at this time to an important provision of our treaties with the Indians, very properly referred to by the Secretary of War.

The treaty with the Delawares, concluded at Fort Pitt, on the 17th September, 1778, in the very crisis of the war of the Revolution, contains the following article:

"ART. 6. And it is further agreed on between the contracting parties, should it be found conducive to the mutual interest of both parties, to invite any other tribes who have been friends to the United States to join the present confederation, and to form a State, whereof the Delaware nation shall be the head, and have a representative in Congress."

And in the treaty concluded with the Cherokees, at Hopewell, on the 28th November, 1785, is the following:

"ART. 12. That the Indians may have full confidence in the justice of the United States, respecting their interests, they shall have a right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress."

"In almost every treaty providing for the emigration of an Indian tribe, the impossibility of preserving it from extinction, if left within the limits of any of the States or organized Territories of the United States, and thus exposed to the advances of the white population, is expressly recognised. The advantages which the tribe will derive from its establishment in a territory to be exclusively occupied by red men, under the solemn guarantees and the paternal care of the United States, are uniformly insisted on. In the treaty with the Choctaws of the 27th of September, 1830, the wish of the tribes to be allowed the privilege of a Delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States is expressly mentioned; and though not acceded to by the commissioners of the United States, yet they insert ining: the treaty, that Congress may consider of and decide the application.' In the late treaty with the Cherokees east of the Mississippi, it is expressly stipulated that | they shall be entitled to a Delegate in the House of Representatives, whenever Congress shall make provion for the same.' It is not to be doubted that the hopes thus held out to these tribes had an important influence in determining them to consent to emigrate to their new homes in the West.

"Although some of the Indians have made considerable advances in civilization, they all need the guardianship of the United States. To leave them to the barba

And in the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, with the Choctaws, of the 27th September, 1830, is the follow

ART. 22. The chiefs of the Choctaws have suggested that their people are in a state of rapid advancement in education and refinement, and have expressed a solicitude that they might have the privilege of a Delegate on the floor of the House of Representatives extended to them. The commissioners do not feel that they can, under a treaty stipulation, accede to the request; but, at their desire, present it in the treaty, that Congress may consider of and decide the application.'

[ocr errors]

Finally, at so late a period as the 29th December, 1835, in the treaty of New Echota, with the Cherokees, is this article:

[blocks in formation]

"ART. 7. The Cherokee nation having already made great progress in civilization, and deeming it important that every proper and laudable inducement should be offered to their people to improve their condition, as well as to guard and secure in the most effectual manner the rights guarantied to them in this treaty, and with a view to illustrate the liberal and enlightened policy of the Government of the United States towards the Indians, in their removal beyond the territorial limits of the States, it is stipulated that they shall be entitled to a Delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States, whenever Congress shall make provision for the same." Now, I cannot permit myself (said Mr. C.) to consider these reiterated stipulations as mere tricks of diplomacy, dishonest arts, false pretences, held up to allure the Indians into treaties of cession and of emigration. The idea continually suggested to them has been: You shall become as we are; you shall be organized into a political community, under the guaranty and safeguard of the United States; you shall be heard in the great council of the American people. I desire to see this promise of the nation fulfilled, either to the letter, or, at any rate, in spirit and substance. I hope the Government acts in good faith in this matter. I know it has the power, I adjure it to exert an efficient will, to accomplish its avowed plans of humanity and justice in behalf of the emigrant Indians.

The fate of the Indians, in every part of the United States, has been a deplorable one, from the first day of our intercourse with them to the present hour. In Maine, the tribes, so conspicuous once in the wars of New England and of Canada, are sunk to a community of humble fishermen. In Massachusetts, in Rhode Is land, in Connecticut, the Mohicans, the Pequots, the Narragansetts, names of pride and of power, have dwindled to a wretched remnant. In New York, how few survive of that great and famous confederacy of the Six Nations! The Delawares and their kindred tribes have disappeared from Pennsylvania and Virginia. Our lakes, our rivers, our mountains, our political communities, give witness, in the names they bear, to the former existence of that old race, which has vanished before us, and left no other signs of its presence. In the newer States, we see that process of decay or of extinction now going on which is consummated in the old ones; the Seminoles in arms on their native soil, fighting, not for life or land, but for vengeance, and vowed, it would seem, like the Pequots, to a war of self-extermination; the Creeks hurrying in broken bands to the West; the Cherokees, the most cultivated of the southern tribes, pausing over their doomed exile, like the waters of the cataract, which gather themselves on the edge of the precipice, ere they leap into the inevitable abyss.

Is there no responsibility devolved on us by this state of things? That we are wholly responsible for it, I can by no means admit. The condition in which we see the Indians has arisen from the fact that they are savages; that they are savages in contact with cultivated men; that they have not institutions of civilized life to guard their nationality and their property against the frauds . and the vices of rapacious traders and land pirates, nor the arts of civilized life wherewith to gain subsistence. These are obstacles to their preservation, which we, as a people, in our efforts for their advantage, have perseveringly, but as yet vainly, endeavored to overcome. Wars between them and us have resulted, almost inevitably, from our contiguity. Yet those wars are not imputable to any general spirit of unkindness on our part; and we have strenuously endeavored to prevent their warring among themselves, to protect them against the frauds and injustice of the lawless of our own people, and to impart to them the blessings of civilization.

Still, indirectly, it is clear, we have to answer for the

[ocr errors]

[FEB. 1, 1837.

present degradation of the Indians; since we sought them, not they us; and if no Europeans had come hither, the aboriginal inhabitants of the country would have retained their independence and their pristine sovereignty. Abstractly considered, our conduct towards them, and the doctrines of public right which govern it, are marked by many traits of injustice. You take possession of their country by what you call the right of discovery, or by conquest. You pay them for it, say you? Yes, you purchase land enough for the domicil of a nation with a string of glass beads. And it is impossible to adjust to the standard of abstract justice a dominion built on the bones and cemented with the blood of vanquished and extinguished tribes. You must offend against their nat ural rights, when your power could not otherwise stand. They feel, as did the Indian described by Erskine: "Who is it,' said the jealous ruler of the desert, encroached upon by the restless foot of transatlantic adventure; who is it that causes this river to rise in the high mountains, and to empty itself into the ocean? Who is it that makes the loud winds of winter to blow, and that calms them again in summer? Who is it that rears up the shade of these lofty forests, and that blasts them with the quick lightning at his pleasure? The same Being who gave to you a country beyond the wa ter, and gave ours to us; and by this title we will defend it,' said the warrior, throwing down his tomahawk on the ground, and raising the war cry of his nation." These are the feelings of subjugated men every where, civilized or uncivilized. They are the feelings which produce the scenes now occurring in Florida. They are the feelings in violation of which our empire in the New World was founded. Yet, will you abandon the land now by nativity yours, the homes of your kindred and your affection? You will not? But your dominion over the country has no root in abstract equity, and it is extended and upheld only by your superior strength and art, not by their gratitude or their attachment for benefits received. And it behooves you to make reparation for the injury your very existence here inflicts on the Indian, by promoting, in all possible ways, his welfare, civilization, and peace.

Every consideration of policy calls upon us to conciliate, if we may, the Indians within our jurisdiction. We have compacted together in the West emigrant Indians from various quarters, tribes unfriendly or inimical to each other, sections of tribes reciprocally hostile, and all imbittered, more or less, against us, by whom they have been driven from their own ancient abodes, and stript of their long-descended independence. Can savage warriors, the captives of battle, transported to the West, as chiefs of the hostile Creeks have recently been, prisoners of war in irons-can such men, constituted as they are, fail to nourish the vindictive and jealous feelings which belong to their nature? Will we take no pains to remove or allay these feelings of irritation? Will we deal justly with them hereafter? Will our equity and our mercy be manifested as signally as our power? Wil we secure these victims of our destiny in their new lands Guard them against the intrusion of our own people, and from hostility among themselves? Redeem our promise of protection and political fellowship? It is but the question whether we shall enjoy peace and prosperity on our Western frontier, or whether the Indian shal send his yell into the heart of our settlements, ravag our lands, burn our dwellings, massacre our wives an children. Would ye rally his tribes to the flaming sig of war? Would ye see the thirsty prairies soaked wit the mingled blood of the red man and the white? not, be warned in time by the spectacle of desolatio and carnage in the South.

Is not East Florida laid waste? Have not millions upo millions been expended already in the as yet unavailin

« ПретходнаНастави »