1830 Andrew Jackson - "Benevolent policy" of Indian Removal, a "happy consummation"

"benevolent policy" +  "happy consummation"  These are not the phrases any of us would use to describe America's Indian Removal policy.  But, in 1830, these are the words Jackson used  when he accelerated the Indian Removal plan by signing two major treaties with the native American tribes of the Choctaw and the Chickasaw. The Choctaw American Indian tribe signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek on September 27, ceding about 11 million acres in present day Mississippi, and the Chickasaw signed the Treaty of Franklin on August 27, ceding their lands in Kentucky and Tennessee (Mississippi land followed in 1832). Jackson celebrated these two treaties as a culmination of what he called a “benevolent policy” that began 30 years ago. It was 28 years earlier, that Thomas Jefferson promised signed the Compact of 1802 and promised to extinguish American Indian land titles in Georgia in exchange for the territories of Alabama and Mississippi. The Compact of 1802 is seen by many historians as paving the way for Indian removal when Georgia signed away the tribal lands without soliciting or securing any approval from the Cherokee nation. 

As bad as the Compact of 1802 sounds, it was believed to be benevolent policy of the federal government. Going back to 1795, the state of Georgia under Governor Mathews signed the Yazoo Land act authorizing the sale of 40 million acres of land that had been granted to the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes to speculators at about 1 ½ cents per acre. The American people were outraged at this and had sympathy for the Cherokee Nation leading Jefferson to step in and agree to take responsibility for settling the Yazoo land claims. The compact of 1802 paid Georgia $1.25 million and promised to at the federal government’s expense and as early as possible obtain peaceful agreement to extinguish all Indian titles to the land. Over the next 20 years small portion of the land was extinguished, but most of it in the rugged mountain countries. The state of Georgia claimed that the land cessions were insignificant and that the United States had missed a good opportunity to provide for the entire removal of the Cherokees. 

By 1822, the state of Georgia was claiming that they had full rights and jurisdiction over all the lands within its chartered limits and were determined to extend their laws over the Cherokee lands. In response, a committee in Congress headed by George Gilmer called for an appropriation enough to extinguish all the Indian titles in Georgia. The appropriation was endorsed by the powerful Ways and Means committee and supported by President Monroe, but when treaty commissioners met with the Cherokee in New Echota, they refused to cede any more land. Despite the declaration by Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the compact of 1802 must be enforced, President Monroe believed that the Cherokee had the right of refusal and that he was without power to remove them forcibly. Georgians were furious and viewed this as an abrogation of the compact. Monroe argued that the federal government had already transferred over 15 million acres of Indian lands to George, but the state of Georgia viewed it as a violation of their states’ rights. 

With Andrew Jackson now in office, Georgia believed they had an advocate for states rights and Indian removal. They could not have been happier with his first annual message that recognized state-control over Indian lands within the borders of a state. While Jackson's words and actions may have been pleasing to Georgia, they were met with much opposition from his political opponents and many of the Northern states. Jackson attacked their opposition by pointing out that Georgia and Alabama had the same constitutional rights as any other state in the Union. He asked Maine or New York how they would react if Indian tribes erected an independent government in their own state. Furthermore, when Georgia enacted laws that would strip the Cherokee nation of their own sovereignty and subject them to the laws of Georgia, Chief John Ross reached directly to the federal government for assistance, but Jackson made it clear that he would side with Georgia and that it was best for the Cherokee nation to relocate. When Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, Georgia had what they needed. In Jackson’s second annual address he wrote that it gave him great pleasure to announce that Congress was ready to remove the Indians from “beyond the white settlements”. Jackson wrote that Indian Removal was finally “approaching to a happy consummation” 

“It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly 30 years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.” 

Today, it is very difficult to imagine how anyone can call Indian removal a benevolent policy. While, I do not intend to defend this policy, it is look at in full context of the times. Like his predecessors from Jefferson to Madison and Monroe, Jackson believed that Indian removal to lands west of the Mississippi was for the best of both races. We can trace this U.S. philosophy back to Thomas Jefferson in 1801 when he first announced his “Civilization Program”. Jefferson’s was hopeful that he could convince the tribes to leave their hunting and nomadic ways to one of husbandry and farming in line with his belief that a culture of farming and densely populated lands was superior and followed God’s natural order over nomadic hunting cultures and sparsely populated lands. This belief was shared by the majority of America and made it acceptable for our government to encourage the removal of Indians to lands west of the Mississippi. Now in 1830, Jackson argued that removal was not to be done for financial gain, but to put an end to all “to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians”. Clearly Jackson is referring to the on-going conflict between the U.S. government and the state of Georgia over the Compact of 1802. 

Jackson also shared with congress several other advantages of removing the Indians including not only the strengthening of the sate of Georgia, but of the Indian nations as well. Jackson suggested that by separating the Indians away from immediate contact with the white settlers and the power of the sates, they could “pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions”. Jackson believed this would stop the decay of their tribes. Unlike Jefferson, Jackson no longer believed that the Indian tribes could be coerced into assimilating western civilization and American democracy. Jackson did not seem to give up all hope though. He suggested that perhaps left on their own, they might eventually “cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community”. By “interesting”, I think Jackson meant it to be “novel”, as in the first of its kind. Of course, this seems to ignore all the progress that the Cherokee nation had already made by this time establishing their own constitution, printing press and other institutions within towns like New Echota. 

“The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the SW frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude.” 

With this new policy, Jackson was completely repudiating Jefferson's Indian Civilization program.   Jackson told Congress that despite his own personal desire to "reclaim" the natives from "their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people", this was not the duty of the federal government.   Jackson stated that the federal government had no right to control other nations nor prescribe laws for them.  Therefore, a "liberal offer" was made to the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations to cede their lands for lands west of the Mississippi River.  Jackson then followed with an extensive argument about why removing the Indians from Georgia and Alabama was both the right thing and the benevolent thing to do.  His arguments reflect those he mad in 1829 and are worth reading as is.

"Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the General Government in relation to the State authorities. For the justice of the laws passed by the States within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this Government. As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a Government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.
With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River. Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests to submitting to the laws of the States in which they now reside. These treaties, being probably the last which will ever be made with them, are characterized by great liberality on the part of the Government. They give the Indians a liberal sum in consideration of their removal, and comfortable subsistence on their arrival at their new homes. If it be their real interest to maintain a separate existence, they will there be at liberty to do so without the inconveniences and vexations to which they would unavoidably have been subject in Alabama and Mississippi. 

Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and Philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortifications of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there any thing in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion? 

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. 

Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from every thing, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection.
These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.
And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. 

In the consummation of a policy originating at an early period, and steadily pursued by every Administration within the present century -- so just to the States and so generous to the Indians -- the Executive feels it has a right to expect the cooperation of Congress and of all good and disinterested men. The States, moreover, have a right to demand it. It was substantially a part of the compact which made them members of our Confederacy. With Georgia there is an express contract; with the new States an implied one of equal obligation. Why, in authorizing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama to form constitutions and become separate States, did Congress include within their limits extensive tracts of Indian lands, and, in some instances, powerful Indian tribes? Was it not understood by both parties that the power of the States was to be coextensive with their limits, and that with all convenient dispatch the General Government should extinguish the Indian title and remove every obstruction to the complete jurisdiction of the State governments over the soil? Probably not one of those States would have accepted a separate existence -- certainly it would never have been granted by Congress -- had it been understood that they were to be confined for ever to those small portions of their nominal territory the Indian title to which had at the time been extinguished. 

It is, therefore, a duty which this Government owes to the new States to extinguish as soon as possible the Indian title to all lands which Congress themselves have included within their limits. When this is done the duties of the General Government in relation to the States and the Indians within their limits are at an end. The Indians may leave the State or not, as they choose. The purchase of their lands does not alter in the least their personal relations with the State government. No act of the General Government has ever been deemed necessary to give the States jurisdiction over the persons of the Indians. That they possess by virtue of their sovereign power within their own limits in as full a manner before as after the purchase of the Indian lands; nor can this Government add to or diminish it. 

May we not hope, therefore, that all good citizens, and none more zealously than those who think the Indians oppressed by subjection to the laws of the States, will unite in attempting to open the eyes of those children of the forest to their true condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or imaginary, present or prospective, with which they may be supposed to be threatened."\

In 1831, President Jackson gave an update on the progress of the "voluntary" removal of the tribes from Georgia and other States.  Congress recently appropriated $500k to aid in the removal, and the Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes accepted the generous offer to move beyond the Mississippi river.

"The internal peace and security of our confederated States is the next principal object of the General Government. Time and experience have proved that the abode of the native Indian within their limits is dangerous to their peace and injurious to himself. In accordance with my recommendation at a former session of Congress, an appropriation of $500K was made to aid the voluntary removal of the various tribes beyond the limits of the States. At the last session I had the happiness to announce that the Chickasaws and Choctaws had accepted the generous offer of the Government and agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River, by which the whole of the State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama will be freed from Indian occupancy and opened to a civilized population. The treaties with these tribes are in a course of execution, and their removal, it is hoped, will be completed in the course of 1832."

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Second Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/second-annual-message-3 [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Third Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-message-3 [Accessed 13 aug. 2019].

En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Dancing_Rabbit_Creek [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].

En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Treaty of Pontotoc Creek. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Pontotoc_Creek [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].

News.google.com. (2019). Calhoun Times and Gordon County News, Calhoun Times and Gordon County News, Aug. 29, 1990, Georgia’s 1802 deal with U.S. gave it basis to expel Indians - Google News Archive Search. [online] Available at: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2213&dat=19900829&id=yyMxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xDoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5612,4334562&hl=en [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].

Okhistory.org. (2019). Chickasaw | The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. [online] Available at: https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CH033 [Accessed 14 Mar. 2019].