Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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^,