A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I, Part 9

Author: Hill, L. B. (Luther B.)
Publication date: 1908
Publisher: Chicago : Lewis Pubishing Company
Number of Pages: 645

USA > Oklahoma > A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I > Part 9

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

Towson, then paymaster general; aban- doned June 8, 1854.

Fort Holmes, on the left bank of the Canadian river. Work commenced on this fort in June, 1834, but it was never com- pleted or occupied by U. S. troops.

Fort Arbuckle (old), at the confluence of the Red Fork (or Cimarron river), 70 miles northwest of Fort Gibson, was estab- lished June 24, 1834; named in honor of Col. Matthew Arbuckle, 7th Infantry ; abandoned November 11, 1834.

Camp Arbuckle, on the right bank of and one mile from the Canadian river, was es- tablished August 22, 1850, and abandoned April 17, 1851.

Fort Arbuckle, 4 miles south of Washita river and 76 miles northwest of its junction with Red river, was established April 19, 1851, and abandoned June 24, 1870.

Fort Washita, near the False Washita, in the Chickasaw district, was established April 23, 1842, and abandoned May I, 1861.

Fort Cobb, at the junction of Pond creek

opposition to the firm and spirited remonstrance ceded the country aforesaid to the Chero- kee Indians." At the same time, says the com- mittee's report, the line of Arkansas was "brought back" and permanently fixed (near Ft. Smith). "The garrison, however, has not been brought back with the line. The troops intended for the protection of the citizens of Arkansas are still stationed at Fort Gibson, in the midst of the Cherokee nation. . The garrison, situated where it now is, can afford but little protection to the citizens of Arkansas. . . . As the present

western boundary line is fixed by treaty and probably will never be extended further west; and as the policy of the government has been and will be to settle various tribes of Indians permanently on that frontier; and as, on that account, there will ever be a necessity to keep up a garrison there for their protection, the committee have no hesita- tion in recommending the removal of the garrison from Fort Gibson to some eligible point on the Arkansas river, near the western boundary of Arkansas."

Digitized by

Google

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

and the Washita river, was established Oc- tober 1, 1859, and finally abandoned March 12, 1869.

Fort Cobb was selected by Major W. H. Emory. His report to the war department, October 3, 1859, says: "I have selected the site for Fort Cobb, west of the Texas Indian reservation. . . . Fort Cobb is accessible by a good road from Belknap and Camp Cooper [in Texas] made by the reserve Indians; also by a road, excellent

in dry seasons, made by my command, from Fort Arbuckle, and I expect to open a better communication than the last directly with Fort Smith, by intersecting the ridge or Whipple road to the north of this post."

Camp Radzminski, on Otter creek, at the base of the Wichita mountains, was estab- lished September, 1858, and abandoned December 6, 1859; named in honor of Ist Lieut. Charles Radzminski, 2d Cavalry.

Digitized by

Google

CHAPTER VI

REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS

The policy of concentrating the Indians in the western wilderness acquired from France originated, as we have seen, during Jefferson's administration, almost as soon as the Louisiana Purchase had been con- summated. The practical features of the Indian policy as maintained by our govern- ment till after the Civil war were, however, first definitely indicated in the Cherokee treaty of 1817, were more completely out- lined in 1825 by Monroe and Calhoun, and further defined in the Indian Intercourse act of 1834. The policy embraced the fol- lowing objects: 1. The removal of the tribes beyond the limits of white settlement and the jurisdiction of state or territorial governments; 2. assignment of lands in perpetuity ; 3. seclusion from the whites; government by tribal organization and In- dian customs, under the supervision of the United States, and to the end that the In- dians might eventually be prepared for par- ticipation in the privileges and responsibili- ties of full citizenship.

The plan of Indian colonization beyond the Mississippi which formed the general basis for the action of subsequent admin- istrations, is contained in the report of Secretary Calhoun, accompanying the mes- sage of President Monroe (January 27, 1825). It contemplated the formation of two general reservations-one in the north- west for the Indians of Algonquin and Iroquois stock, and another in the south- west for the Appalachian Indians. The latter was the only one ever established Vol. 1-4

with approximate boundaries, but the line between the racial stocks was never pre- served, Algonquins and Iroquois being mingled with the Appalachian tribes in Indian Territory almost from the earliest migrations.

Secretary of War Calhoun's recommenda- tion that the Indians be concentrated on the west side of the Mississippi in two grand reservations, received the approval and support of President Monroe during the session of 1824-25, and he asked the necessary appropriation to begin the work. A bill to that effect passed the senate by unanimous vote. Furthermore, the senate approved the treaties with the Kansas and Osage tribes, negotiated by General Clarke in 1825, which ceded all the vast country west of Missouri and Arkansas, thus pro- viding the region to which the eastern tribes might be removed. Benton, in his "Thirty Years' View" (pp. 28-29), says that the recommendation of Mr. Monroe and the treaties of 1825 were the begin- ning of the system of total removal. He also claims that the removal of the Indians was involved with the slavery question. The cession of lands and removal of the tribes were of vital importance to the future welfare of several states and territories, but the states and territories thus to be relieved were slave-holding. "To remove the In- dians would make room for the spread of slaves. No removal could be effected with- out the double process of a treaty and an appropriation act-the treaty to be ratified

Digitized by Google

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

by two-thirds of the senate, where the slave and free states were equal, and the appro- priation to be obtained from Congress [the house], where free states held the majority of members. It was evident that the exe- cution of the whole plan was in the hands of the free states; and nobly did they do their duty by the south. Some societies, and some individuals, no doubt, with very humane motives, but with the folly, and blindness, and injury to the objects of their care which generally attend a gratuitous interference with the affairs of others, at- tempted to raise an outcry, and made them- selves busy to frustrate the plan; but the free states themselves, in their federal ac- tion . . cordially concurred in it, and faithfully lent it a helping and efficient hand."

The influence of the slavery question in the location of the Indians west of the Mis- sissippi has been stated by Rev. Isaac McCoy1 ("Baptist Indian Missions," p. 323), who in the latter part of 1827 was in Washington as an advocate of the measure for the organization of an Indian territory, then before Congress. He says: "Among objections to the formation of an Indian territory was one on the part of the non-

1 Isaac McCoy was perhaps the most noted of Indian missionaries. A pioneer of the Baptist church in preaching the gospel through the west, he was for years on the frontier of civilization, first in the Northwest Territory and from 1828 to the close of his life was engaged in the promo- tion of missions among the western Indians, spending much of his time in the Indian Terri- tory. He had begun preaching in Indiana terri- tory in 1805, became Indian missionary in 1817 and in 1842 was appointed first corresponding secretary and general agent of the American In- dian Mission Association at Louisville. He died in 1846, aged sixty-two. With a consuming earnestness in his labors for the advancement of the Indians, he was catholic in spirit and broad in the judgment needed to handle the vexatious affairs of the Indians. His sincerity and un- selfishness cannot be doubted. He was a devoted

slaveholding states, relative to the forma- tion of new states in the west. . . . In the formation of an Indian territory in the west, a portion of the country north of this line [the Missouri compromise line] would be assigned to the Indian tribes, and, con- sequently, the number of non-slaveholding states would ultimately be curtailed. A majority, however, seemed not opposed to tribes removing west upon the same paral- lels of latitude which they respectively oc- cupied on the east of the Mississippi river. The two parties which are necessarily formed in our government upon the sub- ject of slavery have continued from that time to this [1839] to manifest great te- nacity for what each esteems its rights; the non-slaveholding states opposing every measure which they suppose would intro- duce southern Indians on to their side of the line compromised, and the southern states as warmly opposing the filling up of the country on the south side of the line with Indians from the north. The Indians, when located in the west, were not expected by either party to become citizens of the United States, and it was contemplated that white citizens would be excluded from the Indian territory."?

friend of the Indian, and at the same time that devotion did not carry with it the narrowness in political views from which many of the mission- aries and self-appointed friends of the Indian suffered. For this reason his views on the Indian question, all the result of personal observation and working contact, have a special value as a wholesome mean between the bias of government bureau reports and the untempered advocacy of those who discussed the Indian theoretically or from purely humanitarian standpoint. In 1839 he completed his "History of the Baptist Indian Missions: embracing remarks on the former and present condition of the aboriginal tribes; their settlement within the Indian Territory, and their future prospects," which was published at Wash- ington in 1840.

' Benton, in his "Thirty Years' View," con- stantly discusses the removal of the Indians from

Digitized by Google

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

In the case of Worcester vs. State of Georgia (U. S. Sup. Court Reports, Vol. VI, p. 515) Chief Justice John Marshall stated the legal possession of Indian tribes who had been guaranteed lands and resi- dence within the borders of the United States. His opinion, delivered in 1832, de- clared that the right of discovery could not affect the rights of those already in pos- session as aboriginal inhabitants, that while the discoverers obtained the right of pur- chase, that right did not include a denial of the right of the possessor to sell. The opin- ion was then applied in detail to the con- test between the state of Georgia and the Cherokee Indians, from which the case had originated. Marshall declared that all the legislative and treaty acts of Georgia proved her acquiescence in the principle that the Cherokee Nation possessed a full right to the lands they occupied; that their territory was separated by treaty from that of any state within which they might reside; and that within their boundary the Indians pos- sessed rights with which no state could in- terfere, and that the whole power of regu- lating intercourse with them was vested in the United States.8

The opinion thus summarized by the highest court of the United States was de- livered in the nature of a final judgment on the conflict that had been going on for

the southern states in its bearing on the slavery problem. In his efforts to preserve the harmony of the Union, he seeks every possible reason to prove to the south that the north had not pursued a determined policy of depriving the southern states of their slaves. He says (Chap. CLIV) : "To all the relieved states the removal of the tribes within their borders was a great benefit- to the slave states transcendantly and inappreci- ably great. . Northern votes, in the sen- · ate, came to the ratification of every treaty, and to the passage of every necessary appropriation act in the house of representatives. Northern men may be said to have made the treaties, and passed the acts, as without their aid it could not have

years between the white settlers of Georgia and adjacent states and the native Indians over the possession of lands that had been ceded to the latter and defined in numerous treaties beginning shortly after the Revo- lutionary war. The judicial opinion above expressed has a primary interest in this dis- cussion not because it summarizes the prin- ciples of policy which thereafter governed Indian relations with the whites, but rather as a statement of the abstract theory which, during the history of the changing destiny of the Indian country, was assumed, by one party, as the legal shield that protected the Indians against the encroachments and in- trusion of the white people. At the time this opinion was handed down by the su- preme court Andrew Jackson was president of the United States, and one of the most aggressive of the advocates of territorial expansion, being quite in sympathy with the movement even then in progress for the American occupation of Texas, and for the extension of American dominion over the Oregon country. Moreover, Jackson was from Tennessee, had led the western army against the Creeks, had been active in the seizure of the western Floridas from Spain, and for these reasons was naturally allied with those who were steadily seeking to force the Indians from lands which were in the direct line of white settlement. Thus,

been done, constituting, as they did, a large ma- jority in the house, and being equal in the senate, where a vote of two-thirds was wanting. . And thus the area of slave population has been almost doubled in the slave states, by sending away the Indians to make room for their expan- Bion; and it is unjust and cruel-unjust and cruel in itself, independent of the motive-to charge these northern states with a design to abolish slavery in the south."

' The history of the Cherokees is given, from authoritative sources, by C. C. Royce ("Cherokee Nation of Indians," Fifth Annual Report Bureau of American Ethnology, 1883-84).

Digitized by Google

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

between the practical forces that have been called "progress of civilization," and "west- ern expansion and development," and those theories held by the more conservative por- tion of Americans (the majority of whom were never in close contact with the actual conditions) who held that the rights of the Indian tribes were paramount to the claims of white settlers, the conflict was begun with President Jackson and Justice Mar- shall as the respective leaders of the op- posing policies; and in this as in other matters of politics they were bitter enemies, so that, after the decision in the above men- tioned case, Jackson is said to have re- marked: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

The history of the Georgia case, one of the issues of which was the decision of the supreme court above noted, involves the typical events in the removal of the Indians from east of the Mississippi to the country designed for the tribes in the Louisiana Purchase. As told elsewhere, the "hunter" Cherokees had in 1808 expressed a desire to remove to a country where they could continue their habits of life unobstructed by the confinement of state boundaries and the jurisdiction of white population. This had resulted in the first removal of a por- tion of the Cherokees to Arkansas, a few parties having emigrated voluntarily in the course of the next few years. But the causes that promoted the final removal of the Indians from the southern states origi- nated in more or less definite promises of the federal government to extinguish the Indian titles to lands lying within state boundaries, the agreement with Georgia be- ing of particular interest. April 24, 1802, Georgia had ceded to the United States lands lying south of Tennessee and west of the Chattahoochee river, and in return, in addition to a cash payment, the United

States had agreed to extinguish the Indian title whenever the same could be done on peaceable and reasonable terms. With this contract as a basis, Georgia-and adjoining states took similar action-were persistent in their demands that the Indian lands should be vacated. In view of the slow progress of the negotiations with the Chero- kees in particular, who inhabited some of the best portions of Georgia, the latter state in time coupled with its demands threats that if the federal authorities did not re- move the Indians the state would take mat- ters in its own hands and expel the In- dians. South Carolina in 1810 had asked Congress to extinguish the Cherokee titles in that state, the result of which was the Cherokee cession to South Carolina, made by the treaty of March 22, 1816, followed by the treaty of July 8, 1817, by which the Cherokees exchanged, for lands in Arkan- sas, their lands in North Carolina and a portion of those in Georgia. In the nego- tiations for the latter treaty there devel- oped an opposition of a large number of the Cherokees to disposing of their eastern lands, and the signers of the treaty em- braced only part of chiefs and headmen. Immediately after the conclusion of the treaty, and while several thousand Chero- kees were preparing to move beyond the Mississippi, there arose the factional di- vision among the Cherokees that continued a source of irritation and strife for many years. Those who favored emigration were subjected to much persecution before they had left their old homes, and it became necessary for the government to take meas- ures to protect the emigrating parties.

About this time the white settlers of Georgia and adjoining states, perceiving the determination of the greater part of the Cherokees to remain, grew more urgent that the Indians be removed. All efforts

Digitized by Google

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

to convince the Indians that their best wel- fare lay in emigration were in vain. In- stead of being able to secure a general ces- sion of Cherokee lands, the commissioners had to rest content with the treaty con- cluded February 27, 1819, by which the United States obtained lands in area pro- portionate to the number of Cherokees who had gone west after the treaty of 1817.

Georgia now charged the federal gov- ernment with bad faith, since only a small part of the relinquished Indian titles were located in Georgia, whereas Tennessee had gained a large area of free land by the recent treaties. The Cherokees, on the other hand, took a determined stand upon their rights, and in reply to the commis- sioners sent to treat for their lands said : "We beg leave to present this communica- tion as a positive and unchangeable refusal to dispose of one foot more of land." When the failure of these negotiations became known in Georgia, Governor Troup of that state addressed a communication to the sec- retary of war (February 28, 1824), in which he declared that Georgia was deter- mined at all hazards to become possessed of the Cherokee domain, that if the Indians persisted in their refusal to yield, the con- sequences would be that the United States must either assist the Georgians in occupy- ing the country which was theirs by right, or, in resisting the occupation, to make war

" The arguments advanced at this time by a committee of the Georgia legislature relative to Indian land tenure should be noticed, since they have been repeated in various forms in more re- cent years in the history of Indian Territory. The committee asserted that anterior to the Revolu- tionary war the Cherokee lands in Georgia be- longed to Great Britain, and that the possession by the Indians was permissive only, their title being temporary and they being mere tenants at will, the tenancy being subject to termination either by force or negotiation at the pleasure of the superior power. Upon the close of the Revo-

upon and shed the blood of brothers and friends. President Monroe responded to this threatening language in a message to Congress, in which it was shown that since the date of the compact of 1802 the gov- ernment had succeeded in extinguishing the Indian title to over fifteen million acres within the boundaries of Georgia, obtained by treaties with the Creeks and Cherokees; and, further, that the compact of 1802 did not invalidate the Indian title, and that the United States could not use force in re- moving the Indians when it was stipulated that it should be done "peaceably and on reasonable conditions."

Matters were now approaching a climax. The order of the president to remove all intruders from the Indian lands was suf- ficient to rouse the Georgians to armed re- sistance, and in order to maintain the dig- nity and power of the federal government, it became a problem, without precedent in the history of the nation, how far the United States might go in enforcing a law the violation of which had within a single state been prescribed by a legislative act of that state. The danger of the situation was increased by the act of the Cherokee con- vention at New Echota, July 26, 1827, in adopting a constitution which declared their sovereignty and independence as one of the distinct nations of the earth."

In 1828 the treaty with the western

lution, Georgia assumed all the rights and powers in relation to lands and Indians in question previ- ously belonging to Great Britain, and was now at full liberty and had the power and right to pos- sess herself, by any means she might choose, of the lands in dispute, and to extend over them her authority and laws. A final appeal was now made to the federal government to open negotia- tions with the Cherokees on this subject. Should the Indians still refuse to negotiate, they were solemnly warned of the unfortunate consequences likely to follow, as the lands belonged to Georgia, and that she must and would have them.

Digitized by Google

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Cherokees was negotiated, providing for their removal from Arkansas to their new homes in the Indian country, and at the same time offering inducements for the con- solidation of the eastern bands with those already in the west. The agent of the east- ern Cherokees was instructed to use all means within his power to effect the re- moval, especially of those living in Georgia. At the same time the general government changed its policy with regard to removal. Either by the logic of the arguments ad- duced that removal meant the ultimate wel- fare of the tribes concerned, or by the exi- gencies of the relations with a single state, the government was forced to abandon its position in maintaining the federal au- thority over state laws, and adopted the easier plan of removing the Indians from the danger zone. President Jackson's views on the subject were found to be very differ- ent from those entertained by his predeces- sors. A delegation of eastern Cherokees went to Washington early in 1829 and ap- pealed to the government for protection against the extension of Georgia's juris- diction over their reservation. To this re- quest the president replied that they "must yield to the operation of those laws which Georgia claims and has a right to extend throughout her own limits," or else remove beyond the Mississippi, "carrying along with you that protection which, there situ- ated, it will be in the power of the govern- ment to extend."

Successive efforts to negotiate with the eastern Cherokees had failed, and the gen- eral government and the state of Georgia were now combined in devising expedients to compel the acquiescence of the Indians in the demands for emigration. Annoyed and harassed by official delegations, in con- stant fear of hostile encroachment from the

advancing white settlers, and with all prog- ress and improvement suspended by the uncertain status of their tenure of lands, the Cherokees remained obstinately in their old homes, relying upon the justice of their claims and upon the strong sympathy which was expressed in many quarters of the United States for this unfortunate people.

Determined to test the constitutionality of the hostile legislation of Georgia, appli- cation was made at the January term, 1831, of the United States supreme court, by John Ross, as principal chief of the Chero- kee Nation, for an injunction against the state of Georgia. The application was based on the theory that the Cherokee Na- tion was a sovereign and independent power in the sense of the language of the second section of the third article of the constitu- tion of the United States, providing for judicial jurisdiction of cases arising be- tween a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

At the January term of the supreme court, 1831, Chief Justice Marshall deliv- ered his opinion in the Cherokee case, in which the status of the Indian in the body politic is considered.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I, Part 9

Author: Hill, L. B. (Luther B.) Publication date: 1908 Publisher: Chicago : Lewis Pubishing Company Number of Pages: 645

Author: Hill, L. B. (Luther B.)
Publication date: 1908
Publisher: Chicago : Lewis Pubishing Company
Number of Pages: 645