Austin Ellis

Assignment #4 – The Removal of the Cherokee

Historically speaking, there were both sides from the perspective of the whites involved

and the Native American Indians too where some were for the removal plan, and some were

opposed against it. This would cause a division and a rift on both sides for the whites and the

Native Americans. One example would be from the Excerpt by William Penn where he states

“That the United States are firmly bound by treaty to protect the Indians from force and

encroachments on the part of a State; and a refusal to protect them against individuals: and that

the Cherokees have therefore the guaranty of the United States, solemnly and repeatedly given,

as a security against encroachments from Georgia and the neighboring states. (Removal of the

Cherokee, 181.” William Penn was amongst a few whites who were opposed against the

removal of the Indians from their natural territory. Contrary to this, President Andrew Jackson

was all for the removal of the Indians and thus has stated “Professing a desire to civilize and

settle them, we have, at the same time, lost no opportunity to purchase their lands, and thrust

them further into the wilderness” (Removal of the Cherokee, 183). Jackson would also even go

so far as to call the Native Americans savages in their habits within this same exact context.

Although some Cherokees were in favor of the removal, as there was division amongst them in

regards to this, others were against it for the sake of raising their families. The proof of this

would be when the Cherokees would later appeal to President Washington on May 19th of 1789

where they state “…We gave up to our white brothers all the land we could anyhow spare, and

have but little left to raise our women and children upon, and we hope you won’t let any people

take anymore from us without our consent” (Removal of the Cherokee, 190).
 According to sources thirteen and sixteen, Elias Boudinot had changed his mind about the

ordeal regarding relocation. Formerly, he was all for the relocation of the Cherokees, but

afterwards, he had a change of heart about the issue and was instead passionately in favor of the

Cherokees either staying in their lands, or at the very least, moving elsewhere in order to be self-

governed. It would also be the re-election of President Jackson, the Supreme Court’s decision in

Worcester v. Georgia, and Jackson’s reaction that would change his mind on the situation. Elias

Boudinot would later go on to say “that although we love the land of our fathers, and should

leave the place of our nativity with as much regret as any of our citizens, we consider the lot of

the Exile immeasurably more to be preferred than a submission to the laws of the States, and thus

becoming witnesses of the ruin and degradation of the Cherokee people” (Removal of the

Cherokee, 197). He also goes on to state “We are sorry to see that some of the advocates of this

system speak so disrespectfully, if not contemptuously, of the present measure of improvement,

now in successful operation among most of the Indians in the United States, the only measures

too, which have been crowned with success, and bid fair to meliorate the condition of the

Aborigines” (Removal of the Cherokee, 193). All of this was written by Elias Boudinot in the

form of revelations to not only appeal to Congress, but to all of the Supreme Court and the

United States to keep the Cherokees in their territories, rather than remove them and force them

into areas that they didn’t belong to in the first place.

Two notable examples that were offered by each side regarding principal arguments were

Henry R. Storrs and David Crockett, both of whom were opposed to the removal of the Cherokee

Native Americans. Henry R. Storrs would go on to say “The papers before the house have

convinced me, that it is chiefly intended and the expected to come in aid of the measures

removing the Indian nations within their limits from the country which they now occupy; and
finding a purpose so unjust to these people, and so mischievous to the reputation of the country,

lurking under it, I cannot give it my countenance or support (Removal of the Cherokee, 187). At

first, Storrs was all for the removal when he thought that the Indians would be moved beyond the

Mississippi for the sake of their own policy, but after papers were presented to him, he changed

his mind. David Crockett would also go on to say “He had always viewed the native Indian

tribes of this country as a sovereign people. He believed they had been recognized as such from

the very foundation of this government, and the United States were bound by treaty to protect

them; it was their duty to do so (Removal of the Cherokee, 187). Crockett would also later go on

to not give the United States any funding for the removal of the Cherokee Indians as well, but

only what he deemed right to his Creator. Governor Wilson Lumpkin, however, would be all in

favor of the removal which states “Therefore, the territory cannot be governed “until we have a

settled, freehold, white population” residing there. Otherwise, the Cherokees, he claimed, would

be able to maintain s regular government only for a few months” (Removal of the Cherokee,

189).

Regarding strengths and weaknesses when it came to Congress, The United States, and

the President, they had the strength and power to pass the Removal Act in 1830. After the

Removal Act passed in 1830, This power would allow them to remove the Indians into the

western territory of the Mississippi which would allow white settlers to both own and inherit the

land afterwards. The only weakness that they would have is that even though many were in

favor of removal, many also were not, such as Henry Storrs, David Crockett, and even the likes

of William Penn (Removal of the Cherokee, 181, 186-187). This would ultimately lead

President Andrew Jackson to pressure Congress to pass the Removal Act in 1830. A central

weakness for the Native Americans in this regard would be their wholesale Removal from the
lands inherited from their forefathers, in which many of them complained about and protested

against. The Cherokee Nation would beseech the United States on July 24th, 1830, by saying to

them “We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to

claim this, without interruption or molestation. The treaties with us, and laws of the United

States made in pursuance of treaties, guaranty our residence, and our privileges, and secure us

against intruders. Our only request is, that these treaties may be fulfilled, and these laws

executed (Removal of the Cherokee, 195). Their strength however was not only their stubborn

resolve not to move, but also the fact that they would be compensated for this land by being paid

for it despite removal.