Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Bone and gristle!
More from the ER Butcher Shop! Arrrrgghhhh!
Standing on the promise suggested by Marshall’s finding that tribes were “domestic dependent nations,” leading tribesmen influenced the Cherokees to stay put and probably caused missionaries to overstep their already tenuous bounds when encouraging the Indians to resist the greater injustice. The struggle, in fact, was watched keenly by a growing religious-conservative element arising in response to what was perceived as a largely secular era in American life.[1] A second lawsuit in 1832, however, showed just how far federal promises could go when they went up against states’ rights and interests – and a president whose reputation rested on fighting Indians. Georgia authorities convicted and jailed the Rev. Samuel A. Worcester – who later would run one of the earliest printing presses in Indian Territory – and other missionaries to the Cherokees on charges including failure to swear allegiance to the state. When Worcester vs. Georgia went before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that Georgia had violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the solemn treaty rights Cherokees enjoyed with the United States. Georgia refused the court’s order to release the prisoners, holding them for several months. President Jackson was said to have uttered the words that still reverberate through tribal law and Five Civilized Tribes history: “John Marshall has rendered his decision; now let him enforce it.”[2]
...
The Cherokees drew hope from Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, but saw it dashed. Worcester vs. Georgia evoked excited expectation, but it also shattered. The tribe, fractured along politically and familial lines, eventually had to accede to the inevitable and take its place with the other Southeastern tribes on trails to the West.
...
Before considering the “when” and “why” of their work, it is important to remember that the present look at some of the early Indian journalists of Indian territory, and their opinions, seeks to evaluate within the context of the nineteenth century, not to critique their words and ideas from the perspective of the twenty-first.
...
(Andrew Jackson said) And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.[3]
...
Upon Jackson’s death, the Cherokee Advocate took a high road, declining the opportunity the occasion allowed to express bitterness over the wrongs done to the tribes.[4] Later, until the Civil War, the possibilities for full self-rule, however sullied by the travails of the trails of tears, did seem promising. Further, the progressive tribal leaders, well along the path of white “civilization,” probably would have continued to reflect that culture in their government, as well as other aspects of society such as journalism, even if left to their own devices.
...
(Thomas) Jefferson made his opinion regarding removal explicit in one draft of a constitutional amendment he hoped would certify the legality of the purchase, post hoc:
The right of occupancy in the soil, and of self-government, are confirmed to the Indian inhabitants, as they now exist. … The legislature of the Union shall have authority to exchange the right of occupancy in portions where the U.S. have full rights for lands possessed by Indians within the U.S. on the East side of the Mississippi: to exchange lands on the East side of the river for those of the white inhabitants on the West side thereof …[5]
...
Almost obscured by his verbosity (John L. O'Sullivan, the newspaperman who coined the phrase "Manifest Destiny") are several other phrases, in italics in the following, which seem particularly ironic and cutting as regards the Indian tribes and their own destiny, as murky, it seems, as America’s was “manifest.”
Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor now of elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.[6]
...
(From an editorial on slaves held by Choctaws) The conduct of some is beyond endurance: and it is to the interest of their owners, if they want to derive any benefit from their labor, to have them under better subjection; and above all they should keep them at home after night, so that some rest might be obtained by those who do not like to be disturbed. Should there not be a patrol company organized to maintain better order in town, on a Sabbath and after night?[7]
...
Especially enlightening is the distinction the Fort Smith paper made between the Five Civilized Tribes and other tribes on the frontier – one to which the Choctaw editors clearly subscribed:
The Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles and other small tribes, have a large amount of business unsettled, and have expended thousands of dollars, by sending delegates to Washington, employing lawyers at an enormous per cent to attend to their affairs but without success. And from present appearances, Indian affairs, will remain as they are until doom’s day. A change in the Indian department is called for, and the old system of conducting Indian matters, needs remodelling. This department of government, and its policy has not been changed, in the least, since its foundation in the infancy of our government, while many of our Indian tribes, especially those upon our border, have made rapid advances in civilization since that period. But at the present day you will hear from the grave officers of government, addresses and speeches, made to these Indians in the same style and manner, as when their fathers wore the flap and leggings, and sported the tomahawk and scalping knife. Many of these Indians possess as much intelligence, and are as well acquainted with their affairs, and know the relationship they bear to the government, as any officer of government, we do not except the President, or any of the heads of the departments in Washington. They are better qualified to take care of their funds and would keep them more secure from the wily speculator than the government. How can men, who have never seen an Indian, or have no knowledge of their rights, be capable of giving direction to Indian affairs, in such a manner to do justice to the Indians? The whole system, in Washington, is adapted to such Indians as the roving Comanches, or those Indian that have little or no knowledge of the government of the United States – are ignorant – follow the chase, and will listen to a long pow-wow from their Great Father, the President, with a string of wampum beads, a pipe hatch, a few plugs of tobacco, and end with a few puffs of the pipe, a shake of the hand, and a few good promises, which are forgotten, or lost in the mist of politics, while the poor Indian returns to his home highly delighted with his interview, and looks long and anxiously for the fulfilment of the promises of their Great Father, who never speaks with a forked tongue, to his red children. But before, these pledges or promises are fulfiled, the President who made them has retired and his successor who knows nothing or rather cares nothing about them, lets them pass, and so it goes from one Presidential term to another, until the Indians loose all confidence in the government; or perhaps are informed their funds have all been paid out to some person or persons, who have managed during the delay of government, to get hold of their money.[8]
...
In 1850-1852, serious journalistic talk of statehood for what is now Oklahoma and the legal intricacies surrounding individual allotment of Indian-held land – hot topics for a later era of Indian journalists -- was still decades away.
...
(From a letter-to-the-editor) Cuba is under a government tyrannical and oppressive; no doubt some desire a change; but the desire of wealthy Creoles, I apprehend, have lived so long in awe of their rulers, that they have lost that irrepressible nobleness and energy to proclaim themselves free, and then sustain that decision, if need be, to the death. There has not, to our mind, been any indication of the right spirit yet there. … I am no friend to Spanish rule in Cuba. Yet the parties who have thus far joined in the expeditions cannot be justified by the sober, reflecting part of the community, under the circumstances. We say nothing of motives that actuated these unfortunate, and we think, misguided men. We presume they had no mercenary or selfish thought of agrandizement, but actuated from the best impulses of our nature. Their sad fate is lamentable, and their relatives entitled to our best and warmest sympathies. Peace to their ashes.[9]
...
(Editorial) We shall part with the officers of company K, 5th reg’t with much regret. Their kind and gentlemanly deportment since they have been stationed here – not quite twelve months – has won for them the esteem of all who had any intercourse with them, and their removal from among us will be much regretted. We regret the change at this particular time, for their sakes, as they had made such improvements about the garrison as to make them, with their families, so comfortable, and were just beginning to enjoy the sweets of their labor
...
(Editorial) In a few years, we trust that our nation will be well supplied with educated men. Yet we will still be destitute – comparatively speaking – of good farmers, and without them, no nation can prosper. Although the young men are taught to work, and the young females are instructed in housewifery, sewing, &c. – there is yet something wanting on the part of the nation; and that is, to encourage industry. Cannot we devise some plan to encourage farmers? or shall we leave our young men, to do the best they can, resking their falling back in the footsteps of our forefathers, to make a living by hunting. The art of hunting has not, been acquired by our youths, consequently it would be difficult for the to obtain a living in that way.[10]
1] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1945), 350-351.
[2] Grant Foreman, Indian Removal, 234-235; Bass, 129-160. In Bass, 155, Jackson’s words, perhaps apocryphal but succinctly describing his attitude toward the court, are slightly different: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Debo, in A History of the Indians of the United States, 122, repeats the Bass version but seems to doubt whether Jackson uttered the words, always considered informal, at all.
[3] Andrew Jackson, “On Indian Removal,” in The Annals of America, vol. 5, ed. Mortimer J. Adler (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1968), 420. Original, Message to Congress, 6 December, 1830.
[4] Holland, 295.
[5] Annie H. Abel, “The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi,” in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1906, vol. 1, by Charles H. Haskins, corresponding secretary (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 241-242.
[6] John L. O’Sullivan, “Our Manifest Destiny,” in The Annals of America, vol. 7, ed. Mortimer J. Adler (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1968), 289. Originally published as “Annexation,” in United States Magazine and Democratic Review (July 1845).
[7] Choctaw Telegraph, November 22, 1839, p.2., col. 2. The editors complained specifically at least one other time about slaves’ behavior on the Sabbath: “a portion of the Colored gentry in this immediate vicinity … make the Lords day a season of drunken carousing. … Add to this, many of them go armed and are extremely chivalrous in the defence of their honor and their Liege Ladies. A few more such scenes as last Sunday and we should not wonder at seeing them attempt to turn the tables on the American race.” Choctaw Intelligencer, October 2, 1850, p. 2, col. 1.
[8] Ibid., p. 3, col. 1.
[9] Choctaw Intelligencer, September 17, 1851, p. 1, col. 5.
[10] Ibid.
Standing on the promise suggested by Marshall’s finding that tribes were “domestic dependent nations,” leading tribesmen influenced the Cherokees to stay put and probably caused missionaries to overstep their already tenuous bounds when encouraging the Indians to resist the greater injustice. The struggle, in fact, was watched keenly by a growing religious-conservative element arising in response to what was perceived as a largely secular era in American life.[1] A second lawsuit in 1832, however, showed just how far federal promises could go when they went up against states’ rights and interests – and a president whose reputation rested on fighting Indians. Georgia authorities convicted and jailed the Rev. Samuel A. Worcester – who later would run one of the earliest printing presses in Indian Territory – and other missionaries to the Cherokees on charges including failure to swear allegiance to the state. When Worcester vs. Georgia went before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that Georgia had violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the solemn treaty rights Cherokees enjoyed with the United States. Georgia refused the court’s order to release the prisoners, holding them for several months. President Jackson was said to have uttered the words that still reverberate through tribal law and Five Civilized Tribes history: “John Marshall has rendered his decision; now let him enforce it.”[2]
...
The Cherokees drew hope from Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, but saw it dashed. Worcester vs. Georgia evoked excited expectation, but it also shattered. The tribe, fractured along politically and familial lines, eventually had to accede to the inevitable and take its place with the other Southeastern tribes on trails to the West.
...
Before considering the “when” and “why” of their work, it is important to remember that the present look at some of the early Indian journalists of Indian territory, and their opinions, seeks to evaluate within the context of the nineteenth century, not to critique their words and ideas from the perspective of the twenty-first.
...
(Andrew Jackson said) And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.[3]
...
Upon Jackson’s death, the Cherokee Advocate took a high road, declining the opportunity the occasion allowed to express bitterness over the wrongs done to the tribes.[4] Later, until the Civil War, the possibilities for full self-rule, however sullied by the travails of the trails of tears, did seem promising. Further, the progressive tribal leaders, well along the path of white “civilization,” probably would have continued to reflect that culture in their government, as well as other aspects of society such as journalism, even if left to their own devices.
...
(Thomas) Jefferson made his opinion regarding removal explicit in one draft of a constitutional amendment he hoped would certify the legality of the purchase, post hoc:
The right of occupancy in the soil, and of self-government, are confirmed to the Indian inhabitants, as they now exist. … The legislature of the Union shall have authority to exchange the right of occupancy in portions where the U.S. have full rights for lands possessed by Indians within the U.S. on the East side of the Mississippi: to exchange lands on the East side of the river for those of the white inhabitants on the West side thereof …[5]
...
Almost obscured by his verbosity (John L. O'Sullivan, the newspaperman who coined the phrase "Manifest Destiny") are several other phrases, in italics in the following, which seem particularly ironic and cutting as regards the Indian tribes and their own destiny, as murky, it seems, as America’s was “manifest.”
Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor now of elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.[6]
...
(From an editorial on slaves held by Choctaws) The conduct of some is beyond endurance: and it is to the interest of their owners, if they want to derive any benefit from their labor, to have them under better subjection; and above all they should keep them at home after night, so that some rest might be obtained by those who do not like to be disturbed. Should there not be a patrol company organized to maintain better order in town, on a Sabbath and after night?[7]
...
Especially enlightening is the distinction the Fort Smith paper made between the Five Civilized Tribes and other tribes on the frontier – one to which the Choctaw editors clearly subscribed:
The Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminoles and other small tribes, have a large amount of business unsettled, and have expended thousands of dollars, by sending delegates to Washington, employing lawyers at an enormous per cent to attend to their affairs but without success. And from present appearances, Indian affairs, will remain as they are until doom’s day. A change in the Indian department is called for, and the old system of conducting Indian matters, needs remodelling. This department of government, and its policy has not been changed, in the least, since its foundation in the infancy of our government, while many of our Indian tribes, especially those upon our border, have made rapid advances in civilization since that period. But at the present day you will hear from the grave officers of government, addresses and speeches, made to these Indians in the same style and manner, as when their fathers wore the flap and leggings, and sported the tomahawk and scalping knife. Many of these Indians possess as much intelligence, and are as well acquainted with their affairs, and know the relationship they bear to the government, as any officer of government, we do not except the President, or any of the heads of the departments in Washington. They are better qualified to take care of their funds and would keep them more secure from the wily speculator than the government. How can men, who have never seen an Indian, or have no knowledge of their rights, be capable of giving direction to Indian affairs, in such a manner to do justice to the Indians? The whole system, in Washington, is adapted to such Indians as the roving Comanches, or those Indian that have little or no knowledge of the government of the United States – are ignorant – follow the chase, and will listen to a long pow-wow from their Great Father, the President, with a string of wampum beads, a pipe hatch, a few plugs of tobacco, and end with a few puffs of the pipe, a shake of the hand, and a few good promises, which are forgotten, or lost in the mist of politics, while the poor Indian returns to his home highly delighted with his interview, and looks long and anxiously for the fulfilment of the promises of their Great Father, who never speaks with a forked tongue, to his red children. But before, these pledges or promises are fulfiled, the President who made them has retired and his successor who knows nothing or rather cares nothing about them, lets them pass, and so it goes from one Presidential term to another, until the Indians loose all confidence in the government; or perhaps are informed their funds have all been paid out to some person or persons, who have managed during the delay of government, to get hold of their money.[8]
...
In 1850-1852, serious journalistic talk of statehood for what is now Oklahoma and the legal intricacies surrounding individual allotment of Indian-held land – hot topics for a later era of Indian journalists -- was still decades away.
...
(From a letter-to-the-editor) Cuba is under a government tyrannical and oppressive; no doubt some desire a change; but the desire of wealthy Creoles, I apprehend, have lived so long in awe of their rulers, that they have lost that irrepressible nobleness and energy to proclaim themselves free, and then sustain that decision, if need be, to the death. There has not, to our mind, been any indication of the right spirit yet there. … I am no friend to Spanish rule in Cuba. Yet the parties who have thus far joined in the expeditions cannot be justified by the sober, reflecting part of the community, under the circumstances. We say nothing of motives that actuated these unfortunate, and we think, misguided men. We presume they had no mercenary or selfish thought of agrandizement, but actuated from the best impulses of our nature. Their sad fate is lamentable, and their relatives entitled to our best and warmest sympathies. Peace to their ashes.[9]
...
(Editorial) We shall part with the officers of company K, 5th reg’t with much regret. Their kind and gentlemanly deportment since they have been stationed here – not quite twelve months – has won for them the esteem of all who had any intercourse with them, and their removal from among us will be much regretted. We regret the change at this particular time, for their sakes, as they had made such improvements about the garrison as to make them, with their families, so comfortable, and were just beginning to enjoy the sweets of their labor
...
(Editorial) In a few years, we trust that our nation will be well supplied with educated men. Yet we will still be destitute – comparatively speaking – of good farmers, and without them, no nation can prosper. Although the young men are taught to work, and the young females are instructed in housewifery, sewing, &c. – there is yet something wanting on the part of the nation; and that is, to encourage industry. Cannot we devise some plan to encourage farmers? or shall we leave our young men, to do the best they can, resking their falling back in the footsteps of our forefathers, to make a living by hunting. The art of hunting has not, been acquired by our youths, consequently it would be difficult for the to obtain a living in that way.[10]
1] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1945), 350-351.
[2] Grant Foreman, Indian Removal, 234-235; Bass, 129-160. In Bass, 155, Jackson’s words, perhaps apocryphal but succinctly describing his attitude toward the court, are slightly different: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Debo, in A History of the Indians of the United States, 122, repeats the Bass version but seems to doubt whether Jackson uttered the words, always considered informal, at all.
[3] Andrew Jackson, “On Indian Removal,” in The Annals of America, vol. 5, ed. Mortimer J. Adler (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1968), 420. Original, Message to Congress, 6 December, 1830.
[4] Holland, 295.
[5] Annie H. Abel, “The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi,” in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1906, vol. 1, by Charles H. Haskins, corresponding secretary (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), 241-242.
[6] John L. O’Sullivan, “Our Manifest Destiny,” in The Annals of America, vol. 7, ed. Mortimer J. Adler (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1968), 289. Originally published as “Annexation,” in United States Magazine and Democratic Review (July 1845).
[7] Choctaw Telegraph, November 22, 1839, p.2., col. 2. The editors complained specifically at least one other time about slaves’ behavior on the Sabbath: “a portion of the Colored gentry in this immediate vicinity … make the Lords day a season of drunken carousing. … Add to this, many of them go armed and are extremely chivalrous in the defence of their honor and their Liege Ladies. A few more such scenes as last Sunday and we should not wonder at seeing them attempt to turn the tables on the American race.” Choctaw Intelligencer, October 2, 1850, p. 2, col. 1.
[8] Ibid., p. 3, col. 1.
[9] Choctaw Intelligencer, September 17, 1851, p. 1, col. 5.
[10] Ibid.
Comments:
<< Home
Will the slaughter never stop? The horror, the inhumanity of it ... :) I know it's tough, but hang in there. You're getting there. You're going to do it. I gotta faith in ya!
Post a Comment
<< Home
