| Native American Removal and the Trail of Tears (1630-1839) |
|
Sections:- John Cotton & John Winthrop: Early American Views of Native American Land Rights (1630 & 1634)
- Hopewell Treaty with the Cherokee (1785)
- Holston Treaty with the Cherokee (1791)
- Treaty of Cherokee Agency (1817)
- An Act Regarding the Civilization of Indian Tribes (March 3, 1819)
- Abolishing Indian Trading (1822)
- Treaty of Washington (1828)
- Andrew Jackson’s First Annual Message to Congress (1829)
- The Indian Removal Act (1830)
- Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
- Treaty of New Echota (1835)
- General Winfield Scott: Address to the Cherokee Nation (1838)
- Cherokee Removal Orders (1838)
- The 'Trail of Tears'
- Cherokee Act of Union (1839)
|
| Historical Context
From the beginning of European settlement on the East Coast of what would become the United States, American colonists looked for justification to displace Native American populations. The two attachments include examples of this line of thought.
Attached Documents
The first is from a piece written by John Cotton, an influential early Puritan leader, who helped establish the groundwork for colonization and assisted in the development of ownership and property rights as the measure for “possession” of the land. Note also the strong religious references in this piece.
Also included is a letter written in Boston four years after its founding, with future Connecticut governor John Winthrop explaining the difficulties of establishing a self-sustaining, self-governing settlement. Most notably, Winthrop described the colonists' mounting conflict with the Indians and the death of many Native Americans from smallpox as a sign of providence and good fortune.
Questions to Consider
1) Who does John Cotton believe led the colonists to America? What does he cite as evidence?
2) How does Cotton define a "lawful war?"
3) What is his justification for colonists taking "vacant countries?"
4) How does Winthrop claim their right to American soil? How does this compare to Cotton's justification? |
| | | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
Beginning shortly after the founding of the United States, Georgia officials initiated agreements with the Cherokee Indians of the area that eventually eroded the Cherokees' claims to the land. Attached Documents
The opening act in the dispossession of Cherokee lands was concluded at Hopewell, Georgia in 1785. Specifically, the treaty established boundaries for Cherokee hunting grounds, erecting limitations on culturally significant land. Although, in the treaty's conclusion, “the hatchet,” is said to be “forever buried” and peace and friendship re-established, the post-Hopewell realities proved far different.
Questions to Consider
1) What does this document imply about the United States' attitude toward the land "allotted to the Cherokees?" Do you think it was the US's land to give? Why or why not?
2) What might be some of the inherent problems in drawing up a written contract of this sort with the Cherokee? Do you think these contributed to the treaty's eventual failure? Why or why not?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
Six years after the Hopewell Treaty, another landmark US/Cherokee treaty was concluded at Holston manufacturing further boundaries and “extinguishing forever all claims of the Cherokee nation" to land in the stipulated areas. Expanding upon the dispossession guaranteed at Hopewell, the Holston treaty began the progressive erosion of Cherokee land rights on non-hunting grounds. Marked by its aggressive rhetoric, the Cherokees “agreed” to “relinquish and cede” all lands residing outside the established demarcation line and permitted citizens of the United States access to a road running through Cherokee lands, as well as navigation of the Tennessee River.
Questions to Consider
1) What does this treaty effectively do to the Cherokee nation?
2) What are the apparent terms of the agreement? How long were these terms to be observed?
3) What do you think of this treaty? Is it fair? Does it effectively protect the interests of US citizens? What about the interests of the Cherokee? How much say to you think the Cherokee had in the composition of the treaty? |
| | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
This treaty marked the beginnings of a new campaign designed to divide the Cherokee nation with an ever-present eye on the ultimate goal of mass removal. Although extensive land seizure was included as part of the treaty, the nature of the government’s grand strategy could be seen by 1817.
Questions to Consider
1) What advantage would the US gain by dividing the Cherokee nation?
2) For those Cherokee who wished to move west, what did the US offer in compensation for leaving their current lands?
3) What provisions does the treaty promise those who wished to remain in the east?
4) Is this treaty a fair compromise? Why or why not? |
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
On March 3, 1819 Congress passed an Act Regarding the Civilization of the Indian Tribes. This act was intended to prevent any further decline in the Indian population. However, the provisions outlined in this Act had the opposite effect. The President was given authority and funds to take any actions that he saw fit to make the Indians more civilized.
Questions to Consider
1. What do you think are the underlying reasons for this bill?
2. How did this lead to future problems between the United States and Indian Tribes?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
On May 6, 1822 Congress passed and Act to Abolish Trading with Indian Tribes. All excess materials collected through the termination of trade with the Indians were to be at the President's disposal. He was given the authority to sell them as he saw fit, and to use the profits to carry out this act.
Questions to Consider
1. How does this bill foreshadow future relations between the United States and Indian Tribes?
2. How do you think the changes in trading affected the goverment's ability to carry out previous acts regarding the Indians?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
This treaty addressed members of the Cherokee nation west of the Mississippi, guaranteeing them seven million acres of land and a “perpetual outlet” west as far “as the sovereignty of the United States,” extends. Such agreements set the stage for the justification of mass removal.
Questions to Consider
1) What does this treaty promise the Cherokee nation? How long were the terms of the treaty to be observed?
2) Did the US keep their promise? Why or why not?
3) What was promised to the Cherokee in terms of westward expansion? Why would the US offer this?
4) What did the Cherokee have to give up in return for new land?
5) What sort of incentive did the US offer to those Cherokee living in the east to move west? Who determined the value of the property they would leave behind? Was this fair? Why or why not? Compare this to the forced removal of Japanese-Americans from California during WWII.
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
While denying the sovereign right to Native American tribes within state limits, threatening extinction as a consequence for remaining east of the Mississippi, and combining the language of paternalism, Jackson lays out his policy of voluntary removal to areas west of the Mississippi.
Questions to Consider
1) How does Jackson describe the US policy towards the Native Americans? What flaws does he point out in this policy? How does this reflect a change in the government's attitude towards Native Americans?
2) What does Jackson say about the attempt to form independant governments within the borders of the US? What solution does he offer?
3) Does this document seem contradictory? Why or why not? |
| | | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
Passed during Andrew Jackson’s second year in office, the Indian Removal Act set the stage for his administration’s handling of Native American affairs during the remainder of Jackson’s presidency. Removal of eastern tribes to lands west of the Mississippi became the hallmark of Jacksonian Indian policy including, most notably, the 'Trail of Tears,' which actually transpired shortly after Jackson had left office.
Attached Documents
Attachments include an excerpt of a speech by Georgia Senator John Forsyth in favor of Indian removal and relevant portions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
Questions to Consider
1) How is Frosyth using the Indian removal policy in a larger political context in terms of states' rights? What are his motivations?
2) What are the terms of the Indian Removal Act?
3) Under what conditions can the US claim western Cherokee lands?
4) What rights does the US reserve if "there should be such improvements as add value to the land?" How fair is this?
|
| | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled the State of Georgia had no power to pass any law affecting the Cherokee Nation, maintaining the exclusivity of federal jurisdiction. As a distinct political community bound by territorial boundaries and established rights, Worcester, in principle, guaranteed the sovereign claims of the Cherokee nation and the lands within their boundaries. Although a potential watershed moment, the decision sparked intense disagreement between the three branches and crumbled under the weight of Jackson’s objection. Responding to Chief Justice John Marshall’s written decision it was rumored Jackson remarked, “The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Unfortunately for the Cherokee Nation the social principles outlined in Worcester never became a political reality because of later developments.
Questions to Consider
1) What does the court decision state about the sovereignty of the Cherokee nation within Georgia?
2) Who does the decision claim has ultimate authority in this matter? What do you think was Georgia's reaction to this decision? Why? Does this lay any groundwork for what will happen in Georgia 29 years later? Why or why not?
|
| | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
After a winding trail of treaties designed to dispossess the Cherokee Nation of various parts of their land, the Treaty of New Echota, attached below, represented the final blow to traditional Cherokee land rights. Dripping with paternalism, New Echota ceded all land possessed by the Cherokee Nation east of the Mississippi to the United States and reaffirmed the seven million acre and perpetual outlet commitments. Also included as an attachment is a letter by Chief John Ross protesting the treaty. In an impassioned letter to Congress, Ross exposed the illegitimacy of the Treaty of New Echota and described its consequences on the people of the Cherokee Nation. His words echo through the history of treaty negotiations between Native Americans and the government of the United States.
Questions to Consider
1) According to the treaty, what is the motivation for moving the Cherokee west? Do you think this had been planned all along? Why or why not?
2) What were the Cherokee offered in compensation for the eastern lands?
3) What provisions of protection does the US offer?
4) What are Chief John Ross' main complaints about the treaty? Is he justified? Why or why not?
|
| | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
On May 10, 1838, General Winfield Scott delivered an address to the Cherokee Nation in Georgia. He told the Cherokees that they must immediately travel west. He spoke on behalf of the President regarding the Cherokee compliance to the Treaty of New Echota.
Questions to Consider
1) What is the tone of General Scott's address?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
On May 17,1838, General Scott addressed his troops regarding the removal of remaining Cherokee Indians residing in the Southeast. These Cherokees were to be removed in accordance with the Treaty of New Echota. In his address, he outlined the exact procedures to be used in the removal of the Cherokees to the West. The remaining Cherokees were divided into three principle districts, and were to be removed without harshness or cruelty. It was also believed that the remaining Indians could be persuaded to move with the appropriate goods. However, if this did not happen and they were to run and hide they were not to be persuaded back through acts of violence or force.
Questions to Consider
1. Considering the sentiments of Americans towards Indians, do you think that the soilders complied with all of the guidelines prescribed for removal of the Cherokee Indians?
2. If not, why do you think this is so and which ones would have been the hardest for them to follow?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
In 1838, General Winfield Scott arrived in Georgia with approximately 7,000 men to enforce the provisions of the Treaty of New Echota, which prescribed the relocation of the Cherokees in Georgia to what is now Oklahoma. Somewhere between 3,000-5,000 Cherokees died en route in what became known as the 'Trail of Tears.'
Attached Documents
Attachments included a map of the route taken by the Cherokees, a famous painting by Robert Lindneux of the ordeal, and several accounts of individuals who were following the Cherokees on the march west.
Questions to Consider
1) How does John Burnett describe the rounding up of the Cherokee? Does this remind you of anything else from world history? (i.e. WWII Germany)
2) What were the traveling conditions?
3) What happened to Chief John Ross' wife?
4) What does Burnett blame for the Cherokee's suffering?
5) What did Scott's men do to the Cherokee homes?
6) What did the President reportedly say about the journey before it was even complete? |
| | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
In response to their unfavorable treaties with the United states, along with the forced removal form their land, the Cherokee nations of the East and West united. Attached Documents
This “Act of Union” called for the creation of a common government which was considered essential for survival.
Questions to Consider
1) How was this unification expected to help the Cherokee people?
2) Was this act idealist? Why or why not?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Back To Module List Back to Sections |
