Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-10-04
IFrum the National Iutellisencer.l
THE GEORGIA CONTROVERSY.

The Sd number OF the New L ork IeveW con-
rains lobored essay the subject OF the contro-
,;ersv between the United States and Georgia,
headed" Georgia, and the Creeks which has been
re-cublished in goodly number of our newspa-
pers. and sueciaiiy recommended by the National
Journal of Washington In the opinion oil the
epfqhtened Editors of that patronized Journal,
At The historical sketch which this article contains.
is compiled with great accuracy and evinces much
labor and research &C The observations are re-
xnar!sable for their souadness and dtscFetton The
question between Georgia and the United States
Is f,;y,v and ably stated. 1t will repay the
3er for ts perusal BIZ luoid and accurate ulfoTma-
,i,u which i, conveys on a subject which now oc-
eupies the attentions and agitates the feelings of the
whole Union"
As the subject is of vital importance, on
which no difference OF opinion can well exist, if the
facts and principles belonging to it are clearly
Known and faithfully examined, have thought i,
mich, he useful 10 show 10 the public the true
value of this highly praised article, from the New
York Review.
Individuals may desveto excite prejudice The
ueople seek truth. The Review opens with a
flourish about the character Of this conederacy; its
importance as the great exampiar OF liberal estab-
lisnents its force not physical, but moral; he ne
cessitv of acting up TO its principles ointegrity-
The question proposes to discuss then stated IN
che following terms If it be elnulons ofthe fame
of the partiiioners of Poland the invaders OF Spain,
and the plundercrs of India opportunity TO equal,
and even exceed them, is forced upon the govern
nent of the United States, by the conduct of the
Governor of Georgia, and upon the disposition of
that question, (quere, tohat questionD rests the
future character OF our country f5y the rash and
gnj9stjfajie measures OF the Executive OF that
state, the national government Is compelled TO de
eide upon the ultimate destiny of the Indians ,cith
in its limits; become party to their forcible
removal; or to protect them in the lawful enjoyment
other rightful possessions" A plain man, with.
out the command of all the sources OF information
that are no doubt, open in great city like New
York, may be allowed 10 express some surprise at
this statement. The question between Georgia aud
the United States relates merely TO portion OF the
land occupied by the Creeks, and portion OF the
land occupied by the Cherokees which portions, if
Welded to Georgia, would leave in the possession
Of the Creeksand Cherokees more than sufficient for
their use az herdsmen or agriculturasts, and sui
fciepcy for their supports az hunters. The desti-
ny Of the numerous tribes of Indians in the United
States cannot be affected by the claims of Georgia,
nor has Georgia greater interest than New York
or any member OF the Union in the removal or con-
tnued residence, in their present situation, oftlose
tribes The Govr of Georgia has been here ofore
accused of rash language but the public is yet learn
tina. the Executive Of that state has resored any
rash or uniustiiiabe measures. This statement is,
herelore, inaccurate, inasmuch as II substitutes
rnea ures fo language, and in supposing that there
is an7 co nnoction between the claims of Georgia to
portion ot indisn territory and the ultimate des-
tiny of the Indians within orr limits. To this ac-
urste statement succeeds a sketch of the intention
OF our Revolutionary patriots &C to rescue the Indi
an from extinction, and to elevate him TO the rank
of civilized man., some references TO the treaty
with the Deiavares IN i7TS, & with the Cherokees,
IN 1855. or this sketch it is necessary to remark
tliat tie learned author has not noticed that those
= e.. 81,
ty was discovered were the bloody allies of that
Doyver With whom we contended for indepen-
f,ence Atthe close of the war of the Revolution
our father gave peace TO the Indians and allotted
90 lbom certain divisions Of territory hunting
grounds.
Having developed in his own way the general
policy Of the United States, the author proposes to
confne his attention to the Creeks. Hebegins with
the treaty of 1890, and quotes the treaty of I706.
lie forgets that the treaty Of 90 was succeeded by
Creek war, beginning in 1871 and lasting I'M
III l706. From these treaties, he proceeds 10
the agreement Of cession Of 1902, which he
- pleased to consider the foundation of the
rights OF Georgia to about 25,O0O,000 of acres
81 cr terrtory the consideration for which was the
= .linquishment of her claims to western territory
claimed by the United States as the common pro-
yerty Of The confedersted states.
This part Of the Review deserves particular at
'en,on. The author insinuates that Georgia had
10 title that tie land belonged 70 the whole United
states. Then he asserts that she was bound IN era
'tude, and by public duty. to make cesson 10 the
United States; charges Georgia with being more
Ortunae or less generous than her sister states, in
elaying her cession until 1902 apd offers for adj
ienaion the example Of New York, who, during
lie Revolutionary war, relinquisAed all her back
lends. la answering to these grave charges against
Georgia, +" whose Independence was achieved al
.aost without her - some bitterness might e
excused, but neither the author Of these cslumnies
nor those who lsud his efforts, worth mo-
incnt's anger. The yet living witnesses of the
struggle can testify that Georgia