Newspaper Page Text
CHEROKEE PHOEIV1X AND INDIANS’ ADTOCATE.
feel, every day of his life, that he
was despised, hated, and oppressed;
—in such circumstances, how long
would he retain property and a home/
and what would be the prospects ol
his children?
5. Some parts of Col. Folsom’s
speech have, as we apprehend, been
greatly misunderstood by readers.
After repeating some part ol the
President's language, he thus express
es himself concerning it; “We do not
say that his words are lies. We
think they are true and respect them
as sacred. But ive are distressed.
Oh that our Great Father would love
us! Oh that Col. Ward would love
the opinion here expressed, as well
as most of the reasoning on which it is
louuded, applies to the case ol th<
Cherokees, Creeks, and Chickasaw?,
all of which tribes hold similar reh-
tious with the United States.
us! Oh that the king of Mississippi
Would love us!”
The meaning of this passage we
take to be as follows'; “It is not for
us to distrust the words of the Presi
dent of the United States. We ren
der all proper respect to his declara
tions. We do not doubt his sincerity
in saying that the laws of Mississippi
will be extended over us, and that he
therefore thinks it for out benefit that
we should immediately consent to re
move. Hence our extreme distress.
Oh that the President of the United
States would compassionate us, in our
present perplexed and forlorn condi
tion! Oh that the Agent of the Unit
ed States, who has resided among us
and knows our condition, our anxieties
and fears, would compassionate us,
and make moving representations in
our behalf. Oh that the govern
ment of Mississippi would feel
for our distress; respect our rights,
and let us remain in the peaceable en
joyment of our possessions!”
In another place, Col. Folsc'm says;
“Here we have lived, and here we
wish to live. But whatever the
white man wishes to do, he will do.
if he shall will us to . stay here, we
shall stay. If he will us to go, we
shall go.” This passage is under
stood by some to mean, that the
Choctaws will acquiesce in what
ever the government does; or at
least th?,t they will make no further
remonstrance. But we do not thus un
derstand it. The speaker had previ
ously expressed a most decided opin
ion, that the Choctaws have a perfect
right to their country. Immediately
before uttering the passage just quot
ed, he had expressed due respect for
the government of the United States
and the government of Mississippi,
lie was not disposed to charge the
rulers of the whites with insincerity,
or want of benevolence; nor to say
any thing, which should provoke their
displeasure. This he did not think
consistent with the decorum of a
public occasion. Certainly it would
not have been consistent with Indian
politeness. Indeed, there is much
reason to think, that he was altogether
inclined to put the most favorable
construction upon the measures and
designs of our public agents. He
then proceeds, in the passage quoted,
which is doubtless of the following
import: “Our right to our country is
incontrovertible. We wish to re
tain our hereditary possessions.
But the pavver ot the United States is
irresistible. It is a question of mere
Force. We must submit as a mat
ter of inevitable necessity. If the
whites choose to take our lands, lliey
must take them. If they send us be
yond the Mississippi, we must go.
Our wishes, and our rights will have
nothing to do, in the decision of the
question.” This interpretation ren
ders the whole speech entirely con
sistent, but any other would make it
full of contradictions.
At th» close of these remarks, we
deem it proper to say, that the In
dians seem to us to be supported in
the views which they entertain of
their own rights, not only by the ab
stract principles of justice, but by
the natural and fair meaning of all the
treaties, which the whites have made
with them; by the laws of Congress
respecting them; and by authorized
declarations of public agents to them,
—declarations continued during half a
century, & in the course, of that time,
very frequently repeated.
If any apology should be deemed
necessary for this expression of an
opinion, which is opposed to contem
plated measures of the government of
the United States, such an apology
may he found in the exigency of the
case, the great interests at stake, and
especially in the pnblic and official
solicitation of opinions, by the autho
red agent of the general govern
ment. 1
It i« hardly necessary to add, that
From the Connecticut Courant.
The Choctaws.—Whenever twonn-
tions are brought into contact, tor the
purpose of discussing conflicting
claims, through the medium of culy
organized agents, they become a
spectacle to the world. The inter
est felt is in proportion to the rank
which the parties hold among the na
tions of the cArth. the character
which they have mahtained in their
inter-national intchcmrse; and it is
graduated also, by tie importance of
the principles irtvoliCd in the discuss
ion. If the powersare free, enlight
ened, Christian natins, we expect a-
bility, at least, if nc fairness.
I was lead to tlrse reflections on
reading an official ©ramunication from
the American Secetary at War, to
the Chiefs of the (hoctaw Nation, as
sembled in Coucil, through Col.
Ward the United States’ agent; and
the answer of Col Folsom, the head
Chief, in behalf o the Council
1 propose to \nalyze the claims
here made on the part of the United
Slates, and the aiswer given; though
doubtless the further answer, which
is to be in writing, will be more
complete.
The Amoj ican Minister sks-“How
can the Indians expect to renain where
they cire'I” To tins the
isler replied—“We do
law
nit
lidian Min-
vvish to
This land
jave
sell our land and remove,
our Great Father above
We stood on it before the vhite man
came to the edge of the American
land. We sit on it still. It belongs
to no one in any place but Juiselves.”
How simple, yet how condusive the
answer? We trace, saysthe Indian,
our title back to the Cr/ator of the
earth, and a continued, peaceable
possession, in ourselves aid those un
der whom we claim, dowj to the pres
ent time—a title parauount to all
other titles; recognized by all writers
on the laws of nature, ant of nations,
and of municipal law, no* to be the
best title, only, but the basis of all ti
tle, the rights of meum and tuum be
ing founded on it.
Took at our position, is it not in
principle this? I go (o my neighbor
—look upon his wealthy possessions,
and ask him “how can you expect
to retain your house and land?,”—,
“Expect it, sir, why this estate, that
that you have cast your covetous eyes
upon, is an ancestral estate. 1 can
trace my title through a succession of
ancestors up to my progenitors, who
first discovered and planted this is
land. The highest title that any a-
round me claim is by original deed
from him, (though there are some
squatters’,) but I hold my title by in-
heritance. Please to walk out, sir.”
With this I am in nothing abashed,
but reply, “Stop—I have an argu
ment which perhaps will prevail—do
you notice my sword?” “For. the
American Minister, continues; “ They
(the Indians) are surrounded by the
whites. They are within the limits and
jurisdiction of a Stale, whose Itiws may
at any time bt extended over them.”
To this the Choctaw Minister re
plies, “White men came and sat
down here and there, and are all a-
round us. When they have wished
to buy land of uS we had good coun
cils together, (we sold to them ) —
The white man always said the land
is yours, it is yours, it is yours.—
Now a different talk is sent to us.—
We are distressed.”
Reader, do you not here perceive
the sword. The Choctaw does, and
is distressed. Ah, poor fellow, you
would not have used that word hun
dred years a gone, nor would you then
have been told that any nation on earth
could extend its laws over you!
The American agent proceeds thus,
“nor can the United States prevent it.
because they have jtot the constitutional
power to prevent it.”
Here the Choctaw Chief, pereeiv
ing that lie is threatened, and that
argument avails nothing, like a man
with a dagger at his breast pleads for
life. He appeals to our magnnnimi
ty, and says, “We are told that the
King of Mississippi is abput to extend
his laws over us, Our hands are not
Strong. The King of Mississippi has
strong arms, and many warriors.—
We are distressed.” And well he
may he, for the Indian well knows
from the example of Georgia, that
those laws will be the Tyrants
Scourge. Their object, and their ef
fect, will be extermination.
I now beg the reader’s attention
whilst I examine the question,wheth
er the General Government have not
the power, and ought not to exercise
it, to protect the Indians against the
rapacity of those States who may
attempt thus to destroy them.
The claim is this: “The Choc
taws are within the limits and juris
diction of a State, and consequently
may be* subjected to its laws, and the
General Government cannot consti
tutionally interfere to prevent the op
eration of such laws.
1. How came the Choctaws with
in the limits and jurisdiction of a
State? Our State Governments
were established by the consent and
act of the people, and admitted in the
manner prescribed by the Constitu
tion of the United States. Were the
Indians ever considered, or treated as
a part of our citizens, or were they
subject to us as slaves? Had they
ever had’ any voice in establishing
any State Government, or forming the
General Government? Never.—
When there was no belt called State
limits, encircling that nation. When
Mississippi was only a territory of the
United States, wholly under its juris
diction, and Subject to its laws only,
the Choctaws existed there, and in
dependent nation, governing them
selves, and the United States never
attempted to impose laws upon them,
but implicitly acknowledged their
inability to do it, by treating them as
an independent nation. Could then
the admission of the people of that
territory into the Union, alter their
relation to Ihe Indians? Not at all.
The only effect of their State sove
reignty was the power of governing
themselves, instead of being governed
by the laws of the United States; and
even this power is restricted, because
by their admission, they became sub
ject to the Constitution of the United
States, and treaties made under it,
which ore tlu: supreme law of the land.
We do not then discover any mystical
power in the “State limits” of Mis
sissippi by which its people may
govern the Indians.
2. Cannot the General Govern
ment interfere to prevent the opera
tion of State laws in the case sup
posed?
If the position be correct, that the
Choctaws arc a distinct tribe or na
tion, whether savage or civilized no
matter, the solution of' the question
is easy. That they are a distinct,
independent nation, is proved by the
following facts:—They have always
existed as such, and have never been
recognized us our own citizens, or
admitted to any of the privileges or
subjected to the burdens of citizen
ship. They had no voice in framing
tin; constitution of Mississippi, nor of
the United States. On the contra
ry, they hive always claimed and ex
ercised the powers of an independent
nation; such as making war and peace,
forming treaties, and making and ex
ecuting their own 1 laws. Iflhese aie
not the attributes of sovereignty, we
know not what are: It is but,a conclu
sion from these premises, that in all
cases wherever any law of Mississippi
should be made to bear upon them,
the courts of the U. 8. in a case brp-’t
before them, would declare such law
to be void-
The Constitution provides that
the Judicial power shall extend to
controversies between the citizens of
a State, and foreign States, citizens
or subjects.’’--Art. 3, sec. 2. Now
take a case. Mississippi imposes
taxes on their lands:—a collector en
ters and levies his tax on a Choctaw
farm and conveys it to the purchaser,
an American: he brings ejectment to
recover possession. The case would
be between “a citizen of a State
and a -‘foreign subject,” and conse
quently may be removed into the Uni
ted States’ Courts for trial. The
constitutionality of the law, imposing
the tax, would come distinctly in is
sue, and thero can be no doubt that
it would be declared void.
This case illustrates the whole; for
let a law of any kind, made by
State, touch a Choctaw, and he could
find redress in the same way.
Rut there is another mode of prov
ing that the United States have the
power and are bound to interfere to
protect the Inians.
A treaty between two Powers is a
law of itself, and can exist only be
tween independent Sovereignties. It
is construed by the laws of nations
only, and cannot be affected by any
that either of the contracting
powers or any State may make.
The United States have made
Treaties with the Choctaw nation.—
I care not whether there is any ex
press admission in any of them, that
the Choctaws are an independent na
tion. The Treaty, ex vi termini
proves that. It is entered into for
the very reason, they consent to bind
themselves, one to the other.
.Whether the arguments of the In
dian Chief above quoted prove tlieir ti
tle to their lands, or not, the U. S. can
not deny their title, for they have ad
mitted it by Treaty, and that before
the State of Mississippi had a being.
Now let us see whether that State,
at its sovereign pleasure, can trample
those Treaties under foot, and our
Government look on without power
to help. The Constitution declares
that “the Constitution and all Trea
ties made, or which shall be made
under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby.” And
again—“The Judicial power (of tiie
United Stales) shall extend to all
treaties made.”
Let, then, the laws be made, which
our Secretary speaks of, and see
whether the General Government
have no power to prevent tlieir exe
cution.
i will now show by the American
Secretary himself, that the United
States have the power to interfere,
or else the Secretary could not, with
any face, give the following pledge.
Soys he, “Beyond the Mississippi,
the Government possess the power j to
protect you] and will exercise it.
There your enemies will be our ene
mies.” Why will the Government
possess the power there? Is
it because it will have promised to
protect them, and its engagements are
obligatory? So has it promised them
heretofore. Treaty alter Treaty has
contained promises express oriniplied
The ground on which this pledge is
given in this—That beyond the Mis
sissippi, the promised land, to which
the Choctaws are invited to go up, is
U. States’ Territory, and under its
laws and jurisdiction, being without
the limits of a State, and consequent
ly we can protect them.
Let tins proposition be tested.
Whenever the Territory beyond
the Mississippi, now fast filling up,
shall have become settled by a cer
tain number of while persons, they too
will have a right to draw around this
new habitation of the Indians, certain
lines,-'called “State limits,” and have
a right to he admitted into the Union
as a separate, independent State,
just as Mississippi did, and consequent
ly, have the same powers which she
now has over the Indians. It cannot
be replied that conditions may be im
posed on the new proposed St#e,
which will protect them.—Nothing of
that. The light to admission is ab
solute, and is seemed by the Consti
tution, and Congress cannot impose
conditions. This question was set
tled on the admission of Missouri, in
which case Congress decided that
they could not protect the negroes
from slavery, for the right of admis
sion was absolute, and could not be
restricted or clogged by any law of
Congress, and that Missouri could not
be shorn of any of the attributes of
sovereignty, exercised by the then
existing Stjitcs.
I confidently assert^ then that the
United States have the power to pro
tect the Indians, in their present pos
sessions, or the promise of future pro
tection, now solemnly given, is illuso
ry and vain.
If the view which I have taken of
this subject places our government in
a dilemma, I cannot help it. Mourn
on account of it I can—I do—It is hu
miliating to perceive rhy country
descending from the “vantage ground”
on which she has hitherto stood in
view of the world; and deeply afflict
ing to my heart to contemplate the
distress brought upon a remnant of
brave, intelligent beings, just emerg
ing from superstition, andbogining to
taste the sweets of domestic and civil
ized life; and more than all, to know
the glad sound of the Gospel. My
GOD! avert the blow, and let it not
fall on their defenceless heads, lest
the heathen should learn to curse
that God whom we daily supplicate
for blessings to descend upon our
children, and our children’s chil
dren; and in His wrath He come forth,
and of them take vengeance for the
blood with which pur guilty land will
be stained! A*t£s<
FOREIGN.
New York, Dec. 1.
The packet ship Brighton, Captiin
Sebor, arrived this morning from
Londoh. By this arrival, the Editors
of the Commercial Advertiser have
received from their attentive c<h>
respondent, files of London papers to
the evening of October 31st, and 'in
clusive, & a shipping list of the saute
date.
Jlffairs of the East.—The prevailing
opinion is, that though the treaty is
ratified, the Porte will find much di
fficulty in fulfilling it, because of the
exhauStod state of its funds. The
Reis Eflendi has long since given tihe
English and French Ambassadors to
understand that his master looked to
those nations for pecuniary assistance;
but the replies were vague and un
satisfactory.—Advices from Constan
tinople, Sept. 28, state that tl»e
Sultan is about sending, or has sent,
an Ambassador to St. Petersburgll,
to negotiate for a modification of some
of the articles of the Treaty. This
mission is confided to’Halil Pacha;
and an article in the Messenger des
Charnbres of Oct. 28, snys it seem&
to hold out soitoe hopes of salvation,
its object being to prove to the em
peror of Russia that it is impossible
for the Porte to pay the c/'tribution.
Great reliance is placed on the gene
rosity of the EmperOr, arid it is hoped
that'he will renounce th$ Indemnity of
10,000,000 of ducats, and that he will
order the evacuation ofjthe Turkish
territory next sprihg. General Muffling
it is said, from Constantinople, has
given every body there such a high
opinion of the emperor of Russia,
that nobody doubts the success of
Halil Pacha’s Mission. Among bther
presents which the Sultan has sent to
St. Petersburgh, by the Ambassador,
are a cloak of Ermine, with an agraf
fe of diamonds, for the Emperor, and
ten Turkish shawls, adorned with
pearls and brilliants.
The very fact of the Sultan’s send
ing such a mission, shows how much he
has been humbled. Hitherto the re
presentative of Mahoriiet has never
sent an Ambassador to any court. It
was enough for him tb condescend to
receive a minister from any nation of
Christian dog§. j
A letter from Berlin, of October
16, copied from the Algerncine Zjei*
tung, if published in the London
Courier of the 30th, and commenced
upon as probably coming from a Ger
man State Functionary. It states
that the present state of Turkey., as
represented by an eye-witness, is
most melancholy. In Reraelia, those
who have heretofore called them
selves Christians, believing that the
Russian power was to be permanent,
had rejoiced at the appearauce of the
Russians, .whom they considered as
their deliverers. On the Russians
withdrawing, these people will agaiu
fall under tho dominion of the Sultan,
rvho will put his head-quarters at
Adrianople, .and erect scaffold*, no
doubt. Some confidence, howover,
is entertained, that Russia will not
abandon thtin to the Vengeance of the
Porte; hut will strictly enforce the
stipulations' of the Treaty in favor of
the Christian population. The ruin
and dissolution of the Turkish drmy
arid empire, is considered as without
parallel. The regular! threw away
their arms in whole bodies. The
irregular troops fled with their arms.
Near Constantinople a body Of twen
ty-five thousand fugitives had^sseim-
bled, whom the Sultan would net ven*
ture tb admit to the city. In the
villages and towns the women were
seen running with cries or terror
about the streets, to Save their chil.f
dren.
The Timos, of October 27th, con-'
tain! the “Separate diet.* as the be
fore unpublished Treaty between Iho
Turks and Russians, is called*-
This act relates to the re-enactment of
the Treaty of Akerman, especially
with reference to the Principalities
of Moldavia and Wallaehia. The
first clause proposes the necessity of
giving “to the administration of these
provinces a more durable basis, and
one more in harmony with their
true interests.” By this article
the two Hospodars are to enjoy tlieir
dignities for life, instead of seven
years. They are to govern within
their respective principalities, as they
and their Divan may think proper^,
without the shadohr of interference
from the Porte, 6r nuy of its o0y cr
The Porte Surrenders evfery ( i,*; ’
on the left bank of the Dan*.’,,*
cities, fojtresse*—eve^,