Newspaper Page Text
aom.” The pious Ernesti called the
gospel the “he., r t of Christ.”
Clauding gays, as quoted by Tholuck,
“I re-^rj w ith the greatest pleasure in
St. John. There is something in him
so altogether wonderful—twilight, and
night, and through them, in the dis
tance x the.sudden,.glanciug^li^htnin^
cloud the great full moon. There is
Mich a softened melancholy—(schwcr-
muthigos)—something so lofty and full
of forboding that we can never be wca
ry of it. * * * •* I un
derstand not all 1 read; but often 1
seem to myself to npprehend dimly the
meaning of John as it floats far olf bo-
fore me, and even when in total dark
ness, I have still the conviction of a
great and noble mind, which I shall one
day understand, and therefore am I so
eager to receive every new explanation
of St. John’s gospel.”
We cannot forbear to quote here
conclusion, il passage from Mr. Adams
in the (Quarterly Observer,
speaking of the s
He is
ostle Joint.
of which was apportioned among the 1 the United States, express or implied,
States according to "the white, black, I to adopt arfy expedient to hasten the
and mulatto population,” excluding In-(extinguishment of their title, which
dians; and during the confederation, 1 would not be op.en, fair and honorable;
according to the “value of the land in not even when it could be done
each State granted or surveyed for any “n««^nnb
person,” excluding the wild lands.
While Virginia paid eight hundred
thousand dollars, and Massachusetts
■—j_.j _™.i tVimmand,
Georgia paid sixty thousand only.
Immediately after the preliminaries
of peace, Georgia undertook to fortify
her claim, and passed an act declaring
that the boundary of Georgia “docs,
and did, and of a right ought to ex
tend to the Mississippi,” resting the
right to such an extent of boundary
upon her charter, and the articles of
confederation. The charter had been
given up long before, and therefore no
claim cloud be sustained under that;
and it is clear the confederation settled
nothing in relation to the title to these
lands. Georgia, in her constitution of
1798, after setting forth her boundary
as in the act of 178.3, declares that
“ull the territory without the present
« i - . , - . temporary line, and within the limits
His writings arc charafitm .J?“ by I a f ore ;"!d. (that is, between the Indian
the invariable attendant of the highest
genius, simplicity. In the introduction
of his gospel, we hardly know whether
to admire the greatness of the truths,
or the proofthey give, by the simplicity
with which they are expressed, of a
superior mind. They are like the fir
mament.
Look at a few passages in the first
chapter of the gospel of John. In
Him was life and the life was the Light
of men. Thai was the true Light rollick
tightclh every man that cometh into the
world. Every Christian, however
humble, receives some idea from these
words; hut to those who can penetrate
ihcir depths of wisdom, the impressions
are as different as those of the astrono
mer and the peasant. Ygt there is no
disply of mystery there; so that we
feel that the mind which was so consti
tuted, that, with the Spirit of God di
recting its natural powers, it could ex
press itself in this manner, was of no
inferior order, and that it was not
feeling merely which gave it pro-omi-
nenee. Then consider the book of
Revelation, and we shall not wonder
that the author was a man whom Jesus
loved.
13 r -=
SPEECH
Of the lion. £>.: *•«: G. Hates, Repre
sentative from Aluchusetss, deliver
ed in the House of Repi'chC'dalives, on
the. hilt for the removal of the Jndians,
May 19, 13.13.
CONCLUDED.
At this stage in the progress of iny
remark.., allow me to advert to the ori
gin of the claim on the part of Georgia,
with a view to a consideration of the
settlement of it in 1802.
I have already remarked, that, at
the commencement of the revolution,
• he Indian boundary in the different
States was the boundary of their ordin
ary jurisdiction, and included the lands
which had been purchased of the Indi
ans, as the aboriginal proprietors of
thom. In the progress of the war, a
question urose as to the wild lands
west of the boundary, and east of the
Mississippi. Some of the States, hav
ing no particular title to these lands,
being severed from them by other in
terjacent States, had, nevertheless, a
doep interest in this question. An ex
tract from the Journal of Congress, in
1731, will show how this matter was
viewed by one side, at least, at that
tinto. It is by way of recital. “Where
as the territory (of the United States)
comprehends a large extent of country
lying w.ithout the lines, limits, or ac
knowledged boundaries of any of the
United States, over which, or any purt
of which, no Stafo can, or ought to ex
ercise any soverei» n » legislative,
jurisdictional.faculty, tn.° 6anic having
been acquired under tho co nfederation,
and by the joint and united efforts ol
ull: And whereas several of the .States
acceded to tho confederation under . tbc
idea that a country unsettled at tho
boundary id!* ■“>"?»
anti of right, the (>.
citizens of this State.” Ry tn
peaceably,” unless on “reasonable
terms”—for a fair equivalent—not ot
all events and hazards;—not an obliga
tion absolute, but conditional. And if
the Chorckces refuse to sell and to
leave their country, he United States
arc under no obligations to Georgia,
other than to keep up a standing offer
of reasonable terms to th« Cherokecs.
This certainly isdlie case,T we subject
the compact to any rule oi right rea
son, by which contracts wit> individu
als are governed. The lana wa3 not
hers before. The compact is an inad
mission ol it. It is not to becime hers
until the event happens that is to make
it hers; and .that is the extinguishment
of the Indian title. Conforimbly to
this view both parties acted, ft* the
twenty-six years next succeeding the
compact. If Georgia be now right,
the intercourse law of 1802, wiiich v a s
in force when her compact was maun,
was a direct invasion of her sovereign
ty. Did she.usk for its repeal? No,
sir. Her courts enforced it, and have
done so ever since. The treaties then
existing were. aU. he? urgent
citizens ol tins State." Jiy tn® - T' P 1 *"
article authority is given to sell to the ff 8Um l>»>on, an invasion of her sover-
coinmenccment of tfiis war, claimed by
, fn wrested from tho
the British crown,
common enemy, by the blood and trea
sure of the thirteen Stales, should be
considered ns a common property,”
therefore, Resolved-, &.c. Nothing was
done by Congress upon this proposi
tion. The other States, however,
peded their right to these lands, under
cetaPin limitations and reservations not
materia.' to bo stated, to becomo a com
mon fund U. r tho of the United
States.* (Gcoi^ 111 b e,d on < a, *>' J c,a,im!d
ns her own, the inf 016080 a °d variable
tract of land lying bei.’ vecn the Atlan
tic and the Mississippi, a , oa ^ °t which
now constitutes the Stales o/ Alabama
and Mississippi. This was gaif’ od b y
the wur of tlio revolution, fhc oxpbJ
•New VorU roiled in 1*81, Virginia, in 1784,
MaifsacliiMcC.'i, in l7S.i, Connecticut, in 17KU,
Hotilh Carolina, in 1787, Nprtll Carolina, in 1789.
tioorgia, in 1802,
United States the land lying west of
the Chatahoochc, and to procure an
extinguishment of Indian claims to the
land east of that river. The boundary
of the ordinary jurisdiction of Georgia
—“the temporary line”—is here re
cognized in her constitution, and the
Cherokee country a9 lying without that
boundary, as also the right of the Cher-
okees thereto. The purpose of Geor
gia was to establish in herself the right
of pre-emption, as adverse to the light
claimed by the United States.
After twenty years dispute upon this
subject, in 1802, commissioners mutu
ally appointed by the United States of
the one part, and Georgia of the oilier,
settled this much agitated and long dis
puted subject. Georgia ceded to the
United States the land west of the
Chattahoochc, now Alabama and Mis
sissippi, the United States paying her
one million two hundred and fifty thou
sand dollars, and taking it subject to
certain other claims, and among them
the Yazoo claim, for which we have
States' ceded to G^orgra inT'tauiiyififi
oast of said river, or the line of cession,
whatever it was, and west of the Indi
an boundary, or the boundary of her
ordinary jurisdiction, and engaged to
extinguish the Indian title to it “as
early as the same could be peaceably
0 , J( -ined O.i reasonable terms.” The
words ot cJ.ssioil wetc, the United
States cede to tnC State of Georgia
whatever claim, right ov tliSy Diay
have to the jurisdiction or son l't a, ‘V
lands,” describing them. It is an as
signment, or release of the right which
the United States had to the jurisdic
tion and the soil. Now, sir, what was
that? Not a right to dictate laws to
the Cherokess; not a right to cancel
their laws and customs; not a right to
invade, cut up, and distribute their
country at pleasure. No, sir; the U-
iiited States never claimed, nor had,
nor exercised thht right. All our obli
gations to the Cherokees by treaties,
laws, and long established intercourse,
were incompatible with it. Not the
federative obligation we were under to
protect the Cherokees. That was, in
no sense, a jurisdictional right, but an
obligation, growing out of treaty stipu
lations—u trust, personal and confiden
tial, to he exercised by the United
States, and not assignable or removeu-
ble, but by the consent of the Cliero-
koes. Nor wus it intended to be “ced
ed;” for it has been recognised Iii ten
successive treaties, since the cession,
as still existing in tho United States.
It was a trust, for assuming which the
United States received an equivalent—
for which they were paid. It conferred
no favor, but imposed an obligation—
one, therefore, that Georgia would not
have been willing to receive if tho U-
mted States could have transferred it.
What was it, then? Simply and solely
t ,) e right of pre-emption. This was all
t || 0 “claim, light, or title,” the United
Stales to the “soil.” And the
ri°-ht to p.“ otcc tthat right of pre-emp
tion—to'defa. nd '*» ne °4 be, in any
way in which it ™S bt bo assailed—was
all tho claim, right or tdl « th « Umted
States could, or did °f attempt
to assign, to Georgia. this whole
country was then subject tn , tbe * aoian
titlo, possessed by tho Indian nations,
under tho government of the li. d,a, J
laws, such as they were, and fully an.
absolutely, with the limitations I have
n.'tined, and thoso not at all affecting
their sovereignty. In this condition of
tilings tn° United States stipulated with
Georgia to extinguish the Indian titlo.
When? Wliei? 11 could be done peace
ably—-by treaty, tfot force-—by cession,
'ot usurpation—with <bo lre6 con< * en *.
M«»t , a g a i ,ls t the will of In’.*’ Cherokees.
Herq , waB stipulation on i J >ult °*
eignty, interdicting tire governor from
passing a line within her own jurisdic
tion—from entering or leaving the city
of Savannah, for example. Did she
require that they should be modified or
annulled? Not only no stipulation was
made on this subject, when it was un
der examination by the commissioners,
but ho request even. And until very
lately, she has acquiesced in them, and
in ton other successive treaties of the
same character, made since, taking the
fruits of them without an intimation to
the Indian nations that they were void,
or that they were parting with thejr
land for nothing. Now, sir, I say this
question—this long disputed, and, if
you please, vexed question—is settled;
is not open to re-examination by Geor
gia. Iftliere be force in law, or force
in treaties, or force in contract, this
question is settled, and Georgia is
bound and estopped on this subject.
But, admitting the right of pre-emp
tion to those lands to he in Georgia,
without restriction or limitation, by vir
tue of the compact of 1802, and that
us see how she may do it under tVio
compact, by which she claims the right
to do it. Ibis is supposing her not
bound by the laws or treaties of the
United States, but by the act she af
firms and under which she claims.
One article of that compact wasj that
the ordinance of 1787, “in all its parts,
should extend to the territory contained
in the act of cession,” except in one
particular, not material here to be con-
„jderi?d. One part of that ordinance
of 173/ )vaS, that “the utmost good
faith should al’.voV, 3 bo observed to
wards the Indians, their land? and pro
perty should never be taken front triw':i
without their consent; and in their pro
perty, rights and liberty, they never
should lie invaded or disturbed, unless
in just and lawful wars, authorized by
Congress, but laws founded in justice
and humanity should from time to time
lie made, for preventing wrongs being
done to them, and fof preserving peace
and friendship with them,” Another
part of the compact wus, that, whenev
er any new States, that might lie form
ed out of the territory so ceded, should
be admitted into the Unioa, “it should
be on equal footing with tho original
States, in all respects whatever.
This article in 8hc ordinance of 1787
in relation to the Indians, is declarato
ry of the rule of justice and policy to
which all the States are subjcqt, and by
which they are to be governed; as the
new States arc to come into the Union
“on equal terms igjth the old States in
all respects whatever,” entitled to the
same privileges, and subject to the 1
same duties. When, therefore, the
old States, require of the new “to make
laws to prevent wrongs being done to
the Indians,—that good faith shall nl-
wnys be observed, that tlieir property,
rights and liberty shall not be invad
ed,” it is an admission that they are
under the same obligations. Indeed,
these are such principles of natural jus
tice as bind all men, whether declared
or not. They, at least, arc not uncon
stitutional principles. Now, sir, can
any thing bo more clear than that
Georgia here admits that the Indians
have land—have property—have rights
—have liberty? that, in the enjoyment
of tlidm, they are never to be invaded
nor disturbed? or, if nt all, only in just
K nd lawful wars, authorized by Con-
? This is wlmt Georgia concedes
nftiirms of the Indiuns west of
gres.
to, una „ ,
the lino « cession —a line that
through the Cd erokec Motion. This is
wlint she imposes ii l nan Iho new States
as a fundamental law ol tlieir being,
subject to which they eftme into the
Union. If true of tho natives of Alu-
bumu and Mississippi, is it not true
ulso of the natives belonging to the
same nution on tho cast ns well as on
the west side of the lino of cession? of
Georgia as well as of Alabama and
Mississippi? Docs this compact make
a distinction among tho people of tho
same tribe} or between the lands they
have seen from the mountains or pass
ed in the chase, and those they have
cultivated? The Cherokees have not
only this land, property, and liberty,
and these rights here spoken of, but. in
these they are nover to he invaded nor
disturbed by any State; never, except
in a war declared'by Congress. IIow
then can Georgia cxtinguisli tho Indian
title, take possessian of the Indian
lands without their consent, unless she
violates her own compact, as well us
the laws and treaties of the United
States? But has she not disturbed the
Cherokees nation, and invaded their
property, rights and liberty? If by an
act to make “all the laws, ordinances,
orders and regulations of a nation,” as
if they had never been; if to subjoct
the people of it to alien laws, and, at
the same time, to exclude in auy suit
the evidence of the luws, usages and
customs upon which their property,
rights, and liberty all rest as upon their
basis, and without which there can be
no property, or distinction of property,
or ri«rhts ? or liberty,—be not uisku'iilig
and invading their property, rights and
liberty, will you tell me, sir, what is?
If this is not something more than
making laws, founded in justice and
humanity, to prevent wrongs being
done to them, what would be?
Mr. Speaker, there is not an act of
Georgia, since Oglethorpe first planted
his foot upon the site of Savunnah,
when duly considered; there is not a
resolve, ordinance or law of Congress;
there is not u treaty of tho United
States with the Indian tribes, that does
not tend to establish the fact, that the
Indians are fhc proprietors of the lands
and hunting grounds they oJuim, sub
ject only to the restriction upon their
right of alienation. Vou might have
put the question to avery man in this
nation, or child on the frontier, and lie
would havu) told you so, until the legis
lation of tire States, uided by interest,
instructnd Rim otherwise. What then
becomes of tine tenancy at will—at suf
ferances n#aborted by Georgia? Not
one act, Jaw or treaty that docs not es
tablish tne fact, that the Cherokees are
sovereign. Sir, when were they ojli-
■Tnisor in w/ictL m.iu
quered? Produce the proof. But
were there something in the shapo of
evidence, it would be controlled by u
single, undisputed, admitted fact—here
is the nation, until this invasion of it,
still sovereign. There is no tradition
that lias not been lost in its descent,
that it was ever otherwise than sover
eign. The pyramids, of Egypt, upon
their own broad and solid foundations,
arc no better proof of themselves, than
the Cherokee nation is of its sovereign
ty. Sir, the emblems* of it were spark
ling in the sun, when the white men,
who now inhabit Georgia, and all who
e ver did, were in the loins of tlieir Eu
ropean ancestry ; and the bird that bore
these emblems aloft in the upper skies
—the region that clouds never darken
ed—was not more the king of birds,
than the Cherokees were the lords of
the country in which they dwelt, ac
knowledging no supremacy but that of
the Great Spirit, and awed by no power
but his—absolute, erect and indomita
ble, as nny creatures upon the earth
the Deity ever formed.
But it is said the constitution forbids
the “erection of a new State within tho
jurisdiction of another State,” and
therefore the Cherokee government
cannot be tolerated. Before I exam
ined tho subject, I wus embarrassed by
this consideration. But it will be found
that this article was drawn with great
caution and forecuat, and for the very
purpose of saving these little sovereign
ties of the aboriginal inhabitants. In
the first place, as has been clearly
'shown in this debate, they are not a
“Statef’ within the meaning of tho
Constitution. In the next place, they
are not a “new Stato.”, They were
sovereignties when the Constitution
\«as adopted. Therefore the existence
and toleration of them wus then as
much a violation of tno Constitution as
it is now. 'According to the Georgia
doctrine, the government of the United
States Was then bound to do what it is
now doing; that is, to put an end to tho
Chorokee nation. In tho third place,
if a “new State,” it is not a State
formed “within the jurisdiction” of
Georgia. The Constitution does not
say, in the often repeated phrase, with
in the “chartered limits,” or “geo
graphical limits,” ofGeorgia. No such
thing. The Indian boundary is the
limit of tho jurisdiction of Georgia.—
The other lines indicate the extent of
country to which she claims the right
of pre-emption, and, by every new pur
chase, of adding to her territory, and
thus extending the limits of her juris
diction.
hcij
These equivocal terms were r ,
ed, and the word “jurisdiction wi
stituted by the framers of the
tution, extending to the Indian
ry only, and being so consider
Georgia herself, down to the tj,
this dispute. Now, I take it npo'
self to say, that, after the adopt
the Constitution, there was no p t
for affirming that the Cherokeea
within the jurisdiction of Gcoq
What the views of the fa
that instrument were in relation
remnants of once mighty nations
not say. Probably they lookei
ward to (he time when they woo
away or mingle with the c
white population, or pass oft"
other form. Certain I am it w,
their intention that “in tlieir proi
rights or liberty they should
iuvnded or’disturbed.” This oti
costers said ii\ 1787, and placed
record: and Georgia said the sai
1802. The Cherokee nation »
therefore, a new State, formed
the “jurisdiction of Georgia.
I do not remark upon the
gia.Hat
ism
ver
sta|
an<
ildre
II g«
r i
,rld,
iBior
th
they
iffs a
l
c
erfe
vitc
tuft
Llishec
evil
istlo
f the
bunt
bers I
ifai
sdef
■usiv*
jure u
•The feathers of ;he Eagle.
upon me impH
meat made in the Cherokee forj
government; for any man of sensei
see that that can make no diflcrenc
Tho more perfect the system, the
ter; and the less (ho trouble fiom|
It has been said also, that the
cd States have not extinguishedthJ
dian titlo to the lands in question!
agreed nt the cession. I have alr|
remarked upon the conditions of|
obligations then entered into; and!
a full answer to this complaint to
that the United States havo extingJ
cd the title until the Indians have
fused to cede another acre, and
they have been always ready and
ling, and are now ready to do it, if!
Indians will consent to it.
nati
)ay-
lilent
tom t
irmet
lope
Ml«
br al
> the
tl
thati
)gU<
sto
Into
|cre
Mi
oil
Then, again, it is said that the ii
position to sell is the result of the
ization of the Cherokees, and that
has been brought about by the ay
of the government. The answer
is, that the United States were ui
obligations to do what they have di
prior to the compact of 1802; and
was known to Georgia, and she tool
stipulation subject to this obligal
which she distinctly recognised ia
own compact.
Again, it has been argued ag;
some of the treaties guarantying
country to the Cherokees,
“inst claims, of the Slate of Gi
were prejudiced” thereby, central
the Constitution. This is begginj
question; for Georgia has no
claim” to the Cherokee country,
therefore none is prejudiced. Geo|
has no right, constitutional or anj
er, that is incompatible with the
gogcinents you have made to the l|
an nations, or that is invaded by
law you have passed “to pro
wrongs being done to them, or to
sorve peace and friendship with the]
Sir, you cannot take a step
argument towards tho result contci
for by the friends of this bill, will
blotting out a treaty, or tearing n
from your bond. I give to the bill
connexion which it has in fact, whi
or inay bo said to tho contrary,
the laws of the States to which it is
sidiary, and with the decision
President, that the Indians must
mit or remove. Now, sir, I say
are bound to protect them where ti
ure, if they claim it at your hands;
you violafo no right of the States in
ing it, and will violate the rights of
Indian nations by not doing it;
when the United States, in considi
tion of the cession of land made by
Cherokees to this government, guarl
tied to them the “remainder of
country forever,” you meant sometl
by it. Sir, it is in vain to talk U[
the question; impossible patiently
discuss it. If you have honor, i‘
pledged; if you have truth, it is ph
ed; if you havo faith it is pledged;
nation’s faith, and truth, and hon|
And to whom pledged ? To the wei
the defenceless, the dependent. Fii
Anglorum in fiedere chgimus, they
to you. Selecting your faith and
other,—you would not have it
wise,—we reposed our trust and coi
dcnce in you, and you alone. And,
what pledged? Wherever you o|
your eyes, you see it, and wheretj
you plant your loot upon the earth, y|
stand upon it. And by whom pledg 1
By a nation in its youth—a ro[
boastful of its liberty; may it never
unmindful of its honor. Sir your
cision upon this subject is not to
rolled up in tbo scroll of your journ*
and forgotten. The transaction of f
day, with the events it will give rise
will stand out upon tho canvass in
future delineations of this quarter
the globe, putting your deeds of gl
in the shade. You will see it eve]
where—on the page of history, in 11
essay of tho moralist, in the tract oft
jurist. You will see it in the vision
the pont ; you will feel it in the ating
tho satirist: you will encounter it in 1
indignant frowns of tho friends of lih c |
ty and the rights of man, wherever d®
int
ha
tv,
f th
it int
ol v
ifth.
id i
®P
iefo
othl
epublj