Beginning in 1787, the federal government was trying to establish authority over policy regarding the Indians. The new government argued that the Indians were sovereign nations and all land sales and treaties should go through the federal government. As Washington saw it, congressional action, according to those who wrote the constitution, was to be superior to state law and Congress was to have exclusive authority to deal with Indian tribes.
Then, in 1790, the Georgia state legislature announced the sale of 24 million acres of land which they had acquired from the Creek Indians to three private companies, collectively called the Yazoo Companies. President George Washington and his Secretary of War, Henry Knox saw this as a blow to federal sovereignty and to the assumption that Indian policy was to be American foreign policy, not state policy. Among the Yazoo companies, was the Yazoo company of Virginia headed up by none other than "Patrick Henry". In April of 1790, George Washington sent a letter to each of the Yazoo companies including Patrick Henry disapproving of these actions.
Ultimately, the Yazoo land act of 1790 fell through, but in 1795 Governor Matthews of Georgia signed into law a bill authorizing the sale of 40 million acres of land that had been granted to the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes by the federal government. Once the details of the sale was revealed, public outrage was widespread and people protested to federal officials and Congressmen. The new Governor of Georgia, Jared Irwin signed a bill in 1796 nullifying the Yazoo Act. The state then burned all copies of the bill except for the one that had been sent to George Washington. In January, 1796, President George Washington, speaking about the Yazoo Land Act stated "These acts embrace an object of such magnitude and in their consequences may so deeply affect the peace and welfare of the United States".
In his 1791 George Washington was already aware of these actions, and in his annual address to congress he warned of the dangers from state interference with Indian policy:
"In vain may we expect peace with the Indians on our frontiers so long as a lawless set of unprincipled wretches can violate the rights of hospitality, or infringe the most solemn treaties, without receiving the punishment they so justly merit."
Did George Washington just call Patrick Henry an unprincipled wretch? Maybe not directly, but he was among those who violated the rights of solemn treaties with the Indians.
Later in President Washington's address, he clearly stated the role of federal government with respect to treaties made with the Indian nations. George Washington insisted that the Indians be treated with impartial justice. Occupying their lands should be regulated and equal trade should be promoted. In addition, the United States should encourage any attempts to civilize the Indians. Attempts to enlighten the Indian race was considered honorable and in line with sound government policy.
"It is sincerely to be desired that all need of coercion in future may cease and that an intimate intercourse may succeed, calculated to advance the happiness of the Indians and to attach them firmly to the United States.
In order to this it seems necessary -
A system corresponding with the mild principles of religion and philanthropy toward an unenlightened race of men, whose happiness materially depends on the conduct of the United States, would be as honorable to the national character as conformable to the dictates of sound policy."
- That they should experience the benefits of an impartial dispensation of justice.
- That the mode of alienating their lands, the main source of discontent and war, should be so defined and regulated as to obviate imposition and as far as may be practicable controversy concerning the reality and extent of the alienations which are made.
- That commerce with them should be promoted under regulations tending to secure an equitable deportment toward them, and that such rational experiments should be made for imparting to them the blessings of civilization as may from time to time suit their condition.
- That the Executive of the United States should be enabled to employ the means to which the Indians have been long accustomed for uniting their immediate interests with the preservation of peace.
- And that efficacious provision should be made for inflicting adequate penalties upon all those who, by violating their rights, shall infringe the treaties and endanger the peace of the Union.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29433
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1077
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazoo_land_scandal
http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Yazoo_Land_Fraud
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1077
http://oursoutherncousins.com/COL.%20ROBERT%20WATKINS%20&%20Eliz.%20WALTON%20&%20children.pdfhttp://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/history/article/revolution-early-republic-1776-1800/yazoo-land-fraud
No comments:
Post a Comment