Nº. Aasoo ºld. is unt
CLEMéNTS LIBRARY
This book is from the
AMGS SHGARGRU
TMGMORIAL FUND
established by his
~/ grandchildren ,
AMES SHCARER
was a Regent of
the University of
Michigan—from
188o to 1888.
university of Michigan


A WINDICATION
OF THE
(CHTEROKIEE (GT, AIIMS,
ADDRESSED TO THE
TOWN MEETING IN PHILADELPHIA,
On the 11th of January, 1830.


Having lately seen in a newspaper an imperfect report of the arguments,
advanced on the occasion referred to in the title page; the author, in justice
to himself, and the cause, is induced to present them to the public in a less
exceptionable form.
Being among those who advocated the election of our present chief magis-
trate, if he has had any view to the administration, it has been that of a
friend; who would regret that laurels, so nobly acquired in the field, should
lose any of their verdure in the cabinet.
In reply to the charge of fanaticism lately made against the friends of the
aborigines, by a distinguished senator, they might with Hamlet say:-
“Lay not the flattering unction to your soul,"
“That not your trespass, but our madness speaks."

“The United States solemnly guaranty to the Chero-
kee nation, all their lands not hereby ceded.”
- Article 7th–Treaty of Holston.
IN all cases of gross oppression, the privilege of interference
belongs naturally to a bye-stander, who, if unable to ar-
rest it by his corporal strength, ought at least to oppose to it
his moral and intellectual influence, in the way of entreaty or
remonstrance. This privilege, which nothing but overpower-
ing tyranny has ever suppressed in the case of a few, must
equally exist, however great the number of the sufferers, or
of those who have cognizance of their wrongs. If without
resistance, or remonstrance, one human being ought not to
see another outraged, ought a thousand or a million, passively
to witness the immolation of thousands or millions?
But to this broad privilege of interference, a citizen of the
United States need not appeal in order to justify his interpo-
sition between the Cherokees, and those who would deprive
them of their birth-right. As, in defence of the national ho-
mour, every citizen is expected to carry arms, he has ob-
viously a right to protest against any policy by which it may
be implicated. Among those of the inhabitants of Georgia
who would deprive the Indians of their homes, is there one
who would not shed his blood in defence of his own charac-
ter or that of his country Ought not this impatience of cen-
sure to be accompanied by a desire to avoid any proceedings
which may render us deserving of blame? Is it not infinitely
more noble to guard against imputation by abstaining from
crime, than to endeavour by violence, to silence our accusers;
even admitting that, in this way, our ill deeds could be se-
cured against condemnation before the tribunal of mankind,
or the throne of the Almighty?
As illustrating the benefits of democracy, the reputation of
our government is pre-eminently important to the human
family. Upon the issue, in the hope that it may do honour

4.
to the cause, the eyes of the friends of liberty, from all parts
of the world, are directed. -
But shall a government founded on that celebrated exposi-
tion of the rights of man, which accompanied our declaration
of findependence, grossly violate those rights in others, for
which they then contended? If dependent nations have a
right to declare themselves independent, ought not independent
nations to be permitted to remain independent? Can a peo-
ple be viewed as the friends of liberty at home, who are ready
to avail themselves of superior strength to exercise tyranny
abroad? and would it not be tyranny to drive a nation from
their own comparatively cultivated fields, and comfortable
dwellings, to create, if under such disheartening circumstances
they should have energy for the undertaking, a new abode
in the wilderness, whence, judging of the future by the past,
they may expect to be expelled again by our unprincipled cu-
pidity?
Has not the expulsion of the Moors from Spain been uni-
versally considered as tyrannical? Yet the Moors were the
descendants of invaders, and hostile to the Christian Spa-
niards in their feelings and religion. In neither way are the
Cherokees inimical to the people of the United States.
It has been alleged that the Indians are not to be consi-
dered as independent while residing within the chartered
limits of the State of Georgia; but it is undeniable, that,
before the settlement of this country by Europeans, these
nations were at least as much the sovereigns of it, as we
are now, and that the kings of Europe had no more right to
issue grants of American land at that period, than at this
time. Unjust as was the course pursued by the royal go-
vernment, towards the aborigines, it does not appear to have
been intended, that the charters, under which transatlantic
land was granted, should annul the claims of the aborigines.
They were obviously intended, merely to regulate the rights
of the colonists among each other; and to designate the
limits within which, by contract, force, or fraud, they might
respectively render themselves masters of this country.
Are we to imagine that while the Creeks and Cherokees

5
were in the plenitude of their strength, the intention to treat
their title to their native soil as abrogated by the royal char-
ter, was adopted, and yet concealed from them; that this sys-
tem of concealment was adhered to by the colonial and state
government, and afterwards by that of the Union, to be aban-
doned only when the party to be affected should become too
helpless to guard against the consequences?
The pretensions of the European monarchs to the Ameri-
can territory, if practically examined, will be found to have
extended only to an exclusive right to obtain them by treaties,
or by war. Accordingly in every instance settlements com-
menced with negotiations with the natives. It was by means
of a treaty with the Creeks that Sir James Oglethorpe ef-
fected the first colonization of Georgia. It is upon these
principles that the United States have always acted in gain-
ing possession of Indian lands. How then can the State of
Georgia, from the grants of the British government, acquire
rights which that government never pretended to possess, and
consequently never intended to convey? Wherefore should
the right of a single state to lands, ceded by Great Britain,
be greater than those of the United States to territorial acqui-
sitions similarly obtained? Is it consistent that a nation, by
whom the right of their own king to take, without their con-
sent, the minutest portion of their property, was denied,
should, upon the donation of the same monarch, found a title
to the whole landed estate of another nation, who never were
his subjects?
It does not appear, however, that any charter was ever
issued for that part of Georgia which comprises the Cherokee
tract. In common with a much larger adjoining territory,
it was annexed to the province by a royal proclamation.
This proclamation, far from rescinding the Indian title, ex-
pressly reserves for “the use of the Indians” all the lands
“being westward of the sources of rivers which fall into the
sea from the west and north-west.”
As the Cherokee country lies westward of the boundary
prescribed, it follows, that, so far as the royal proclamation
has any virtue, it tends to confirm the title of the inhabitants.

6
The king professes to hold the lands in question as a trustee,
for “the use of the Indians.” Hence if the Legislature of
Georgia are to be viewed as his successors, they can only be
considered as holding the lands under the same tenure.
But all claims built upon the royal grants, or charters, as
against the Indians, the original rightful owners, are evi-
dently void. What other pretensions then can remain, be-
sides the miscalled right of conquest, which is truly the great-
est of all wrongs or robberies; and in defence of which no-
thing can be pleaded but the universality of guilt. Solely
upon this pretence can any claim be advanced to the lands of
the Cherokees. Yet as it is the mean, however nefarious,
through which our country generally, in common with most
others, has been acquired by the ancestry of the present in-
habitants, it is not consistent for those who hold under that
title to dispute its validity.
But if any claim exist to Indian lands, under the right of
conquest, in whom is it vested? At the period of the revolu-
tion Georgia was too feeble to aid materially in the conflict,
however hearty in the cause. The extinction of the claims of
the British government, was effected by the united exertions
of the thirteen colonies; and since that time the Indians have
been subdued by the arms, or measures, of the United States.
The acquisition of Louisiana and Florida, was of incalculable
benefit to the State of Georgia. By extending the national
frontier to the Gulf, or the Atlantic, it put an end to that in-
tercourse between the Indians and foreigners, which has al-
ways been productive of mischief to our new settlements.
The protection thus afforded, had been cheaply purchased by
Georgia, at the cost of half the land within her chartered
limits—What had been her situation, if, unaided by the union,
she had been surrounded by Frenchmen, Spaniards, and hos-
tile savages? Would she ever have become the actual sove-
reign of a great part of the country comprised within her
charter?—It follows, that in taking the lands granted to her
by the British crown so far, and under such limitations as the
arms and negotiations of the general government have been
enabled to obtain them, she is largely againer; and that in

7
striving by violence to secure more, she would display a trea-
sonable ingratitude towards the confederacy of which she is a
member, and a disposition to take an illegal, and unjustifia-
ble advantage of a fallen people: of a people who never were,
and who probably never would have been conquered by her;
nor even rendered so feeble, as to be the helpless victims of
usurpation, independently of the measures of that govern-
ment whose solemn engagements she would violate. And
what would be her plea An ideal sovereignty derived
from a European monarch, which, as a Christian, he ought
to have blushed to assume, and to which, as republicans, we
ought to be ashamed to appeal!
What would Georgia lose by the reduction of her limits,
gigantic as she would still be compared with many of the
other states?—The happiness of the people of a state is not
in proportion to the extent of its territory. Within the limits
to which they respectively lay claim, Georgia contains 58,000
square miles—South Carolina only 30,000. Are the South
Carolinians uneasy at this inferiority? Would it be a motive
with any judicious emigrant for preferring Georgia as the
place of his residence? Were the Indian title acknowledged,
Georgia would in extent still exceed Pennsylvania, or New
York, while her population scarcely amounts to one third of
that in either. - -
The idea has been advanced that conceding the claims of
the Cherokees would impair the sovereignty of Georgia.
This is either a blundering or an uncandid misrepresentation.
The question is not whether Georgia shall have a less perfect
sovereignty; it is whether she shall exercise it over an un-
duly extensive territory: whether three hundred thousand
Georgians ought not to be content to hold for themselves, their
slaves, and their posterity, a larger country than has been
allotted to fifteen hundred thousand New Yorkers, or to twelve
hundred thousand Pennsylvanians. It is to gratify the Geor.
sians in this truly aristocratic propensity, that pleading the
prerogative of kings, whose authority she has spurned, repub-
lican America is to break her engagements.
I will not allow myself to believe that the pecuniary value

8
of the lands, held by the Indians, is the incentive for seizing
them. That such a motive should be allowed to outweigh
justice, humanity, the character of our government and in-
terests of liberty, would indeed be deplorable: but it were
better that the national government should pay ten times the
value of the lands in question, than have them taken forcibly
from their original and rightful owners, in violation of na-
tional faith.
History may furnish many glaring instances, of national
cruelty and oppression; but of an instance so wanton, where
the spoil was to the aggressors of a value so trifling and re-
mote, is there any parallel for that of the threatened seizure
of the Cherokee lands?
A desire has been professed for the removal of the Indians,
founded on an apprehension, that they may suffer intolera-
ble aggressions from the neighbouring whites. But it is for
them to say when the evil, of being surrounded by Christian
white men, shall be greater than those which they may expect,
among heathen savages, and the wild beasts of the wilderness.
If such be the irrepressible, and insatiable covetousness of
the people of the United States, and such the feebleness and
ill faith of their government, what have the Cherokees to ex-
pect? Is it not first to be chased beyond the Mississippi,
next beyond the Rocky Mountains, and finally to be driven
into the Pacific? Is there any permanent asylum for them on
this side the grave?



C2.
Zºº,
Pla
Mºre, Relect
zºº º-ºº:
yº-º-º-º:
**** 7