sophistry can elude his scrutiny; no array of plausible arguments, or of smooth but hollow professions, can bias his judgment; and he has at his disposal most abundant means of executing his decisions. In many forms, and with awful solemnity, he has declared his abhorrence of oppression in every shape; and especially of injustice perpetrated against the weak by the strong, when strength is in fact made the only rule of action. The people of the United States are not altogether guiltless, in regard to their treatment of the aborigines of this continent; but they cannot as yet be charged with any systematic legisla tion on this subject, inconsistent with the plainest principles of moral honesty. At least, I am not aware of any proof, by which such a charge could be sustained.

Nor do I, in these preliminary remarks, attempt to characterize measures now in contemplation. But it is very clear, that our government and our people should be extremely cautious, lest, in judging between ourselves and the Indians, and carrying our own judgment into execution with a strong hand, we incur the displeasure of the Most High. Some very judicious and considerate men in our country think, that our public functionaries should stop where they are; that, in the first place, we should humble ourselves before God and the world, that we have done so much to destroy the Indians, and so little to save them; and that, before another step is taken, there should be the most thorough deliberation, on the part of all our constituted authorities, lest we act in such a manner as to expose ourselves to the judgments of Heaven.

I would have omitted this topic, if I thought that a majority of readers would regard its introduction as a matter of course, or as a piece of affectation, designed for rhetorical embellishment. In my deliberate opinion, it is more important, and should be more heeded, than all other considerations relating to the subject; and the people of the United States will find it so, if they should unhappily suppose themselves above the obligation to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.

I close this introductory number, by stating what seems to be the present controversy between the whites and the Indian tribes of the southwestern States: I say the whites, (that is our country generally,) because certain positions are taken by the government of the United States, and certain claims are made by the State of Georgia, and certain other claims by the States of Alabama and Mississippi. The Indians do not admit the validity of any of these positions or claims; and if they have a perfect original title to the lands they occupy, which title they have never forfeited nor alienated, their rights cannot be affected by the charters of kings, nor by the acts of provincial legislatures, nor by the compacts of neighboring States, nor by the mandates of the executive branch of our national government.

The simple question is: Have the Indian tribes, residing as separate communities in the neighborhood of the whites, a permanent title to the territory, which they inherited from their fathers, which they have neither forfeited nor sold, and which they now occupy?

For the examination of this question, let the case of a single tribe or nation be considered; for nearly the same principles are involved in the claims of all the Indian nations.

The Cherokees contend, that their nation has been in possession of their present territory from time immemorial; that neither the king of Great Britain, nor the early settlers of Georgia, nor the State of Georgia after the revolution, nor the United States since the adoption of the federal constitution, have acquired any title to the soil, or any sovereignty over the territory; and that the title to the soil and sovereignty over the territory have been repeatedly guaranteed to the Cherokees, as a nation, by the United States, in treaties which are now binding on both parties.

The government of the United States alleges, as appears by a letter from the Secretary of War,* dated April 18, 1829, that Great Britain, previous to the revolution, "claimed entire sovereignty within the limits of what constituted the thirteen United States;" that 'all the rights of sovereignty which Great Britain had within said States became vested in said States respectively, as a consequence of the declaration of independence, and the treaty of 1783;' that the Cherokees were merely permitted' to reside on their lands by the United States; that this permission is not to be construed so as to deny to Georgia the exercise of sovereignty; and that the United States has no power to guarantee any thing more than a right of possession, till the State of Georgia should see fit to legislate for the Cherokees, and dispose of them as she should judge expedient, without any control from the general government.

This is a summary of the positions taken by the Secretary of War; and, though not all of them expressed in his own language, they are in strict accordance with the tenor of his letter.

In my next number, I shall proceed to inquire, What right have the Cherokees to the lands which they occupy?

No. II.

The Cherokees have the same rights as other men-They are not hunters-They have sold much good land to the United States-Original extent of their country-Its present extent The mere claims of one party cannot affect the rights of another partyNecessity of examining treaties.

In my first number I prepared the way to inquire, What right have the Cherokees to the lands which they occupy y? This is a plain question, and easily answered.

The Cherokees are human beings, endowed by their Creator with the same natural rights as other men. They are in peaceable possession of a territory which they have always regarded as their own. This territory was in possession of their ancestors, through an unknown series of generations, and has come down to them with a title absolutely unincumbered in every respect. It is not pretended, that the Cherokees have ever alienated their country, or that the whites have ever been in possession of it.

If the Cherokees are interrogated as to their title, they can truly * See Appendix.

say, "God gave this country to our ancestors.

We have never been in bondage to any man. Though we have sold much land to our white neighbors, we have never bought any from them. We own the land which we now occupy, by the right of the original possessors; a right which is allowed in all countries to be of incontestible validity. We assert, therefore, that no human power can lawfully compel us to leave our lands."

If the Cherokees are correct in their statement of facts, who can resist their conclusion? We might as well ask the Chinese, what right they have to the territory which they occupy. To such a question they would answer, "" God gave this land to our ancestors. Our nation has always been in possession of it, so far as history and tradition go back. The nations of Europe are comparatively of recent origin; the commencement of ours is lost in remote antiquity."

What can be said to such a statement as this? Who can argue so plain a case?

It has been alleged, that the savage of the wilderness can acquire no title to the forests, through which he pursues his game. Without admitting this doctrine, it is sufficient to reply here, that it has no application to the case of the Cherokees. They are at present neither savages nor hunters. It does not appear that they ever were mere wanderers, without a stationary residence. At the earliest period of our becoming acquainted with their condition, they had fixed habitations, and were in undisputed possession of a widely extended country. They were then in the habit of cultivating some land near their houses, where they planted Indian corn, and other vegetables. From about the commencement of the present century, they have addicted themselves more and more to agriculture, till they now derive their support from the soil, as truly and entirely as do the inhabitants of Pennsylvania or Virginia. For many years they have had their herds, and their large cultivated fields. They now have, in addition, their schools, a regular civil government, and places of regular Christian worship. They earn their bread by the labor of their own hands, applied to the tillage of their own farms; and they clothe themselves with fabrics made at their own looms, from cotton grown in their own fields.

The Cherokees did not show themselves unwilling to sell their lands, so long as an adequate motive was presented to their minds. During every administration of our national government, applications were made to them for the purpose of obtaining additional portions of their territory. These applications were urged, not only, nor principally, by the consideration of the money or presents which they were to receive in exchange, but often, and strongly, by the consideration that they would become an agricultural people, like the whites-that it was for their interest to have their limits circumscribed, so that their young men could not have a great extent of country to hunt in; and that, when they became attached to the soil, and engaged in its cultivation, the United States would not ask them to sell any more land. Yielding to these arguments, and to the importunities of the whites, the Cherokees sold, at different times, between the close of the revolutionary war and the year 1820, more than three quarters of their original inheritance.

That the reader may have some definite idea

of the territory in question, he should pursue the following delineation by the aid of a good map.

It would seem that the Cherokees possessed land extending to the following limits, if not beyond them, viz: From the mouth of Duck river, in Tennessee, on the west, to the waters of French Broad, in North Carolina, on the east; and from the head waters of the Holston, in Virginia, on the north, to some distance down the Oconee, in Georgia, on the south; comprising, beside what is now the Cherokee country, more than half of the State of Tennessee, the southern part of Kentucky, the southwest corner of Virginia, a considerable portion of both the Carolinas, a small portion of Georgia, and the northern part of Alabama. This tract probably contained more than 35,000,000 acres, of which a large proportion is extremely fertile, and some of it not inferior to any land in North America, or perhaps in the world. The country is also generally healthy, and the climate delightful. Of all this vast and beautiful tract, watered by numerous rivers, which find their way to the ocean, some of them circuitously by the Mississippi, and others more directly to the gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, the Cherokees now retain less than 8,000,000 acres, of a quality far below the average quality of that which they have sold. Georgia claims 5,000,000 acres of this remnant, as falling within the map of that State. Alabama claims nearly 1,000,000 of the residue. The portions which, in the general division, will fall to Tennessee and North Carolina, seem hardly worth inquiring about; for, if the other portions are given up, or taken by force, there will be no motive for retaining these.

To every application made for their lands within the last ten years, the Cherokees have said, "We are not disposed to sell any more. We have betaken ourselves to an agricultural life. We are making progress in civilization. We are attached to our schools and our Christian teachers; to our farms; to our native rivers and mountains. We have not too much land for our own comfort, and for affording us a fair chance in the experiment we are making." This language has been repeated in many forms, and with every indication of sincerity and earnestness.

The assertion of the Cherokees, that their present country is not too large for a fair experiment in the work of civilization, is undoubtedly correct. The wisest men, who have thought and written on this subject, agree in the opinion, that no tribe of Indians can rise to real civilization, and to the full enjoyment of Christian society, unless they can have a community of their own; and can be so much separated from the whites, as to form and cherish something of a national character. If the limits of the Cherokee country were much smaller than they are, this would be impracticable.

Thus stands the case; and it is now my intention to inquire how the government of the United States has regarded the Indian title, and how it has been regarded by the several States in the vicinity of the Cherokees.

Before this inquiry is commenced, however, it is proper to say, that the title of one party cannot be safely decided by the mere claims of another party. If those claims are founded in justice, they ought to prevail; if not, they should be set aside. Now whatever doctrines

the government of the United States may have held and promulgated on this subject, they cannot be binding upon the Indians, unless acknowledged by them to be binding, or unless founded in the immutable principles of justice.

Let us suppose the kings of Great Britain had issued an annual proclamation, from the time of the discovery of America to the peace of 1783, claiming all the lands in North America between 30 and 50 north latitude, and declaring that all the nations, tribes, and communities, then residing on said lands, were subject to the laws of Great Britain, and that the title to all these lands was vested in, and of right belonged to, the crown of that realm; and let us further suppose, that the government of the United States had issued an annual proclamation, from the date of the declaration of independence to the present day, applying the same doctrine to our advantage, and declaring, that all the Indian nations within the limits prescribed by the peace of 1783, were subject to the laws of the United States, and that the lands, of which they were in possession, belonged of right to the United States so long as the Indians did not acknowledge the binding nature of these claims, the mere claims would have amounted to nothing. It was the practice of the king of England, during several centuries, to declare himself, (as often as he issued a proclamation on any subject whatever,) king of Great Britain, France and Ireland. Was he therefore king of France? What if he were now to declare himself king of Great Britain and China? It would be a cheap way, indeed, of acquiring a title, if merely setting up a claim would answer the purpose.

By what right do the people of the United States hold the lands which they occupy? the people of Ohio, for instance, or of Connecticut? By the right of occupancy only, commenced by purchase from the aboriginal possessors. It would be folly to plead the charters of kings, or the mere drawing of lines of latitude and longitude. The powers of Europe have indeed acknowledged our right to our country. But what if they had not? Our right is not at all affected by their claims, or acknowledgments. The same doctrine is applicable to the condition of the Cherokees. They have a perfect right to their country, the right of peaceable, continued, immemorial occupancy ;and although their country may be claimed by others, it may lawfully be held by the possessors against all the world.*

The Cherokees need not fear, however, that their rights are in danger, as a consequence of any principles sanctioned by the national legislature of the United States. The co-ordinate branches of our government have not yet declared, that Indians are tenants at will. On the other hand, the whole history of our negotiations with them, from the peace of 1783 to the last treaty to which they are a party, and of all our legislation concerning them, shows, that they are re

• Some shallow writers on this subject have said, that "the Cherokees have only the title of occupancy;" just as though the title of occupancy were not the best title in the world, and the only original foundation of every other title. Every reader of Blackstone knows this to be the fact. As to the past, the Cherokees have immemorial occupancy; as to the future, they have a perfect right to occupy their country indefinitely. "What can they desire more?