Untitled Document

Justin offers this synopsis of the overall dispute (taken largely from the NY petition): In terms of what was at stake legally, and constitutionally for the United States, it was basically a violation of federal law. Thomas Jefferson signed laws in 1802 which guaranteed these Indian nations sovereignty, and protected them from infringement upon their lands and rights. They were acknowledged as independent and were free to carry on their traditions. However, years later, these laws were not being enforced, and mass violations were occuring at an alarming rate. Georgians were surveying and annexing land to local counties, taking Indians who refused to move off the land and putting them in jail, and basically violating every right these native americans were guaranteed through treaties and law. What was at stake was the violation of federal law by the country itself. The state governments were sanctioning these actions, and no support for the Iindians was coming from the White House.

Jason offers us a systematic comparison of the arguments:

Reasons why it is legal to take the Indian land in Georgia
1. The Indians fought on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War. By the United States winning that war, they rightfully gain all of the land won from the British. Among that land are the portions of Georgia where the Cherokee live. They are a conquered people and conquered people should not keep sovereignty over the land.
2. Under the Articles of Confederation, "The Congress shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians." This clause shows that the founding fathers never intended for treaties to be made with the Indians. Treaties are made between nations and even between states, but the Cherokee nation, according to this clause, is not a true nation and therefore treaties cannot be made with it by the federal government. Any attempt by the federal government to use a fragment of a State's population in order to extend their authority is a violation of State's rights. The Cherokee are subjects of America, and America has taken on the duty to manage their affairs. If this management means that they must move from their lands in the best interest of the country, than this interest outweighs any treaty made with the Cherokee people.
3. The Cherokee land is a part of Georgia, and by not allowing Georgia to manage lands that are located within its own borders, the United State's government is infringing upon state's rights. Georgia was one of the original colonies. While almost all of the other colonies have taken over sovereignty of their whole state and have either banished the Indians or incorporated them under their government, Georgia lags behind. They do not have the sovereignty of some of their lands, and as a result they are not gaining representatives in Congress as quickly as new states like Ohio are. Indian treaties have been made by the federal government, however, these treaties are infringing upon the rights of state governments and should not be honored without consent of the state.
4. Within the Cherokee nation there are a number of people who are only part Cherokee, but who live in the Cherokee nation in order to avoid the laws of the US government. They have grown rich off the Cherokee and are exploiting them. They are the ones who have created the petitions, for if the Cherokee are moved, they are the ones who will suffer the most.
5. The state has a right to make Indian tribes members of the states. If they cannot expel them, then they can subject them to their laws. The state should have sovereignty throughout all of its borders, including sovereignty over the Cherokee. The constitution clealr states that, "the powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The only power the Congress has over Indian affairs is the power to regulate commerce. Since there is nothing prohibiting Georgia from taxing the Indians and maintaining sovereignty over them, then it should be Georgia's right to do so. This right, in turn would help boost Georgia's population and representation. Instead Georgia is trapped witha whole bunch of Cherokee living within their borders that serve as no benefit to them. They actually pose a threat to those people living on the borders of the Cherokee nation. The United States treaties protecting the Cherokee's sovereignty hurts Georgia. Reasons why it is NOT legal to take the Indian land in Georgia
1. The Cherokees were promised the following, 1. The Cherokees shall continue to exist as a distinct political community, under the protection of the United States; 2. That they shall enjoy the undisturbed possession of their lands; 3. That the power to manage "their affairs" shall be exercized "for the benefit anf comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuires and oppressions." Booting the Cherokees from their land is not something done for their benefit. The United States government can take some sovereignty over the Cherokee's affairs provided it be to protect them, but they are not allowed to exploit the Cherokee for their own gains.
2. The Cherokee may be conquered people, but once treaties were made in order to obtain peace, that war is over. We cannot gradually infringe upon these treaties by saying that we discovered their land and conquered them, for by doing this we have not given them the chance to defend themselves. That would be like France telling Germany today that since we conquered you in World War I we have decided to take more from you than just Alsace Lorraine. We want Berlin now. Georgia also argues that the treaty made with the Cherokees by the United States has infringed upon their rights, however, the treaty was originally made for Georgia in order to protect them from warring Cherokee tribes. By making peace with the Cherokees the US government was able to get more land provided that they allow the Cherokee to peacefully keep some of their land. If the United States refused to sign this treaty, then Georgia would be at war with the Cherokees and the Cherokees might have actually won.
3. There is an article in the Articles of Confederation that no state shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States unless invaded by enemies. If the Cherokees do not make war on Georgia, than Georgia has no right to make war against the Cherokees unless by permission of the US government.
4. The Constitution states that, "treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land," and "any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding." By ratifying the Constitution, Georgia consented to the Indian treaty of Hopewell which guaranteed the Cherokee their lands. If they did not want the Cherokees to have these lands, then they should not have ratified the Constitution.
5. A 1796 Georgia law states in reference to vacant lands within chartered limits that, "the territory therein mentioned is hereby declared to be the sole property of the State, subject only to the right of the treaty of the United States, to enable the state to purchase, under its preemptive right, the Indian title to the same." This law not only claims that the Indians have a title to their land, but it also mentions that they must purchase that land if they want to take it and furthermore that the United States has a right to treaty regarding the Indians in the state of Georgia. This law subjects Georgia's handling of Indian affairs to the United States government.
6. Georgia seeks the benefit of Indian treaties, that being protection from Indian raids and new land ceded to their state, but they fail to live up to their end of the bargain, which is the Cherokee's claim to the land and freedom from seizure.

Here is how Benjamin characterized the two sides:

- Senator Forsyth believed that the amendments that were being proposed in regards to the Cherokee were unsatisfactory
- He believed that the Cherokees should not be acknowledged as an independent nation.
- He believed that the laws of the land as well as the treaties should be upheld by the US
- The states should have the final say in Cherokee matters
- White blood should not be shed for Cherokee matters
- Georgia has all the right to deal with the Cherokee in the manner that they want
- Georgia should exercise absolute power over the Cherokees, and to take their - land at all hazards--even by violence, if other means should fail
- Georgia should rule Cherokee affairs - Mr. Sprague said that the land that the Cherokee live on has been lived on by them much longer than any one else
- The US has the right, according to past treaties, to rule Cherokee affairs, not Georgia
- The Cherokee should be a distinct political community ruled by the US
- They should enjoy undisturbed existence on their land
- The US should not be violating its treaties
- No state is allowed, by the Constitution to engage in war without consent of Congress

Frank also offered a detailed summary of the pro-Georgia side of the controversy: The debate starts with Senator John Forsyth making his point supporting the right of the State of Georgia to relocate the Cherokee. His first point is that the new amendment proposed to protect the Cherokee provides that the States of New York, New England, Virginia, and all the Mid-Atlantic States are free to deal with the Indians within their borders, but the United States government has control over the Indians in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas. This would be discriminatory and illegal.
The next issue that Forsyth makes is over the validity of calling the Cherokee the Cherokee Nation and saying that they are a separate and independent nation from the United States and separate from the laws of the State of Georgia. To this Forsyth says that the Cherokee Nation has no right to call itself a nation independent from the United States and the State of Georgia. He points to the fact that the State of Georgia in fact conquered the Cherokee Nation. In the treaty of DeWitt's Corner, formed on May 16, 1777 formed with South Carolina and Georgia it says that, the Cherokee Nation acknowledged that the troops, "during the last summer, repeatedly defeated their forces, victoriously penetrated through their lower towns, middle settlements, and valleys; and quietly and unopposed, built, held, and continued to occupy, the fort at Esenneca, thereby did effect and maintain the conquest of all the Cherokee lands eastward of the Unicaye mountain; and to and for their people, did acquire, possess, and yet do cede the said lands to the said people." Here Forsyth is saying that the Cherokee were conquered by the militias of Georgia and South Carolina and therefore ceded all lands and rights to the States of Georgia and South Carolina. Also in another treaty signed in 1785 'the United States give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into favor and protection'. Forsyth says that if the Cherokee Nation were independent of the United States, then would this speech be used when signing a treaty with the Cherokee? The above makes it sound like the Cherokee are under the control of the United States as of this treaty in 1785.
Lastly, Forsyth has proven that the Cherokee are not an independent nation and are to be held to the laws of the United States and whatever state they preside in. Now to show that the State of Georgia can do what they want, as long as it is legal and constitutional, to the Cherokee, Forsyth shows that the United States has granted sovereignty over the Cherokee to Georgia. He turns to the treaty of Hopewell which says that the United States does, 'cede to the State of Georgia, whatever claim, right, or title, they may have to the jurisdiction and soil of any lands, lying within the United States and out of the proper boundaries of the States of Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina'. So, Forsyth is saying that the United States granted Georgia control over all peoples and lands within the State of Georgia, including the Cherokee since they are not a nation of their own.

Rich puts the debate in this frame: In debating the issue of Cherokee Removal, the two sides butt heads on the validity of the treaties as well as the intents of them. John Forsyth, of Georgia, views the treaties which are cited by his opponents as detrimental to the growth and prosperity of his particular state. Forsyth also cites several treaties which verify his position of the states 'rights over those of the Indian. Two treaties, Galphinton and DeWitt's Corner (1785, 1777) both solidify the point of states' rights over those of any created by the Federal Government. These two, among others, were signed while the Articles of Confederation was the law of the land, thus distingushing them from any other treaties signed at other points in time (and are legitimate). Forsyth also points to the treaty of Hopewell which, according to his "interpretation," relinquished jurisdiction to the states (from the federal government) concerning Indian affairs. This claim is disputed by Peleg Sprague, a representative from Maine. He questions the actual interpretation of the treaty as well as its original intent. Forsyth claims that what the state of Georgia is doing is justified by the the Articles of Confederation which maintains that affairs such as Indian [matters], is left to the states descretion (within their limits). Sprague views the Cherokee conflict in another light. While not wholly siding on that of the Indians, he does in fact say that the United States is obligated to abide by and are obliged to uphold the previous decisions. The bill in question is asking the government as well as its people to renege on the previous treaties signed, some of which were highlighted in the petition from NYC, and to do whats "in the best interst of the country". Sprague asks whether or not the nation in good conscience can ignore the previous "legitimate" treaties merely to gain some land which was already guarenteed to someone else. Peleg Sprague brings up the question of where the loyalties of the federal government should lie to Georgia or the Indians. He concludes that the word of the United States is much more important than a little bit of prosperity. IN the treaties signed by the U.S., guarentees such as the seclusion of the indian nations as a seperate entity (seperate from U.S. regulation). Territories/boundaries were to be unaffected by anything much less some overzealous congressmen from Georgia. So the two sides were divided by one who felt morally obligated to uphold the treaties which were agreed to on good faith opposed to those who felt that the treateis cited were not as "legitimate" as the ones which they abided by (and were more beneficial to themselves) so it was ok to "create" a new treaty.

Holly writes: Both sides had very different views of the Cherokee. Georgia Senator John Forsyth had a more negative view of the Cherokee. He felt that the state of Georgia should have power over the Cherokee and did not view them as an independent nation. He seemed to feel that the Cherokee were not capable of surviving successfully without having every aspect of their existence regulated by Congress. He refers to the condition of the tribes to be "deplorable." He felt that all of the Cherokee land should be taken from them by the Gov. and that they should be credited for it but not with much. It seems that he wanted to mold and shape them into what he calls "civlilzed" citizens of the U.S., rather than let them lead independent lives. He refers to them as a "hapless" race and also compares them to "wild animals" in an analogy that he uses. Forsyth goes on to call the Cherokee a "useless and burthensome" population. Forsyth does seem to want to help the Cherokee in some ways but his ideas do not seem to be in the best interest of the Native Americans.

Maine Senator Peleg Sprague, seems to be more concerned with the Cherokees well being and also with the protection of the U.S. Constitution and Treaties. He seems to agree with the Treaties in that the Cherokee should have possession of their lands, should not be disturbed and should be recognized as a political community. It seems that Sprague is in favor of a more friendly relationship with the Cherokee rather than a dominating one in which Forsyth seems to support.

Jay comes to a similar conclusion: The Legal, and Constitutional issues that I found at stake throughout this debate were numerous. The Senator from Georgia had a complete diregard for the rights of the Cherokee, and for the treaties that were formerly enacted. He stated his obvious hate for the Cherokee, and stated that, he would rather see the blood of a red man, and not that of a white man. It was promised to these people that they would be left alone, not intruded or surveyed, but the people of Georgia insisted on defying these laws. It seems to me that Georgia, as a whole was trying to act independently from their own Nation. Georgia was willing to break a legal contract, and that seems to be the biggest issue here at stake. It appears that these two parties have complete opposite views, simply, The man from Georgia despises the whole existence of the Cherokee, and the gentleman from Maine feels compassion, and the duty to keep faithful to the Cherokee.

Ryan points to the element of threat: A treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Indians allowed for the Cherokee Indians a guarantee punishable by law [i.e., enforceable at law] to stay on those lands they did not cecede to the United States. In a petition the State of Gerorgia is being criticized for not following the law of the treaty. This was the scene back in 1830 when the Cherokees were being forcefully moved out of their territory. The two sides to this debate came from a Georgia Senator (Forsyth) and his Maine opposite (Sprague). Forsyth argued that Sprague and those against him were trying to convince the government that Georgia's expansion should be halted and furthermore that he hinted that they would rather slice the throats of a whiteman entering the Cherokee nation so they could preserve this Cherokee relation. The Senator from Maine's view of the issues is that the United States had a responsibility to uphold the rights that our country and its founders promised them. Georgia is vehmently opposed to this and will take great lengths to excommunicate the Cherokee to better their own Statehood.