Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-03-20

usa.es oil the contracting parties, and natural JUS
tice," sc.
9Th. The fifth article regulates the trade between
the contracting parties, in manner entirely equal
9Th. The sixth article is ont,cd To peculiar a,tcn-
ton, as il contains disclaimer of designs which
were nj that time ascribed to the United States by
their enemies, and from the imputaton OF which
Congress then peculiarly ANXIOUS TO free the Co
V"rnment. Ii Is in these words: Whereas the
enemies of the United States have encleavored, by
every arcc IN their power to possess the Indians
IN general with an opinion that it is the design of the
States aforesaid to eNtirpae the Indians, and take
possession of their country: To obvate such false
suggestion the United States do eagage to guaranty
To the aforesaid nation OF Dclawares and their heirs
all their territorial rights in the fullest and most
ample manner, as it hath been bounded by former
treaties, rs long the said Delaware nation shall
abide by, and hold fast, the chain OF friendship now
entered into"
The parties further agreed, that other tribes,
friendly to the interest of the United States, may be
invited 10 form Il State whereof the Delaware ma
ton shall be the head, and have representation in
Congress.
This treaty, in its language and in its provisions,
Is formed, as near may be, the model of trea-
ties between the crowned heads of Europe
| The sixth article shows how Congress then treat
cd the injurious calumny of cherishng designs I'M
friendly to the political and civil rights of the In
| dians.
| During the war of the Revolution, the Chcrokees
took part with the British. After its examinations
! the United States though DESTROYS of peace did not
! feel It's necessity so strongly while the war con-
tinucd. Their political situation being changed
they might very well think it advisable to assume n
| higher tone, and to impress the Cherokeos the
same respect for Congress which was before felt for
the King OF Great Britain This NAV account for
the language of the treaty of iiopcwell. There is
the more reason for suppoSing that the Cherokee
chiefs were not very critical judges of the language,
from the fact, that every one makes his mark: no
chief was capable of signing his name. 1t is pro
babie the treaty was interpreted to them.
The treaty IS Introduced with the declaration, that
"Ihe commissioners plcnipocntiary of the t. States
| give peace to all the Cherokecs and receive them
into the favor and protection of the United States of
America, on the following condition."
When the United States gave peace did they not
also receive it, Were both parties DESTROYS of il?
If we consult the history Of the day. does it not in
form us that the United States at least anxious
| to obtain II as the Chcrokccs? We NAV ask further:
| Did the Cherolces come To the seat of the Ameri-
can Government to solicit peace; or, did the Amer-
can commissioners go TO them to obtain it? The
| treaty was made at IIopewell-not at New York
The word "givc" then, has real importance at
tached TO it.
Tho first and second articles stipulatc for the
mutual restoration of prisoners, are of course equal
The third article acknowledges the Cherokees to
he under the protection of the g. States of Amcrica
and of no other Power.
The stipulation is found in the Indian treaties gen
orally. twas introduced into their treaties with
| Great Britain; and may probably be found i'll those
with other European Powers. Its origin NAV be
traced TO the nature of their connexion with those
powers; and its true meaning is discerned in their
relative situation.
The general law of European sovcrcigns. respect
ing their claims in America, limited the intercourse
of Indians in great degree to the partclar poen-
tate, whose ultimate right of domain was acknow-
lodged by the others. This was the general state of
things in time of peacc.-Itw was sometimes changed
IN war The consequence was that their supplies
were derived chiefly from that nation and their
trade confined TO it. Goods, Indispensable to their
comfort, in the shape Of presents were received
from the same hand. What was of still more i'm
portance, the strong hand Of Government was inter
posed to restrain the disorderly and licenous from
intruSions into their country, from encroachmenfs
on their lands, and from those acts of violence which
were often attended by reciprocal murder. The In
dams perceived in This protection, only what was be-
ncficla 10 thcmsclves-an engagement to punish ag-
gresslons on them. Ii involved practically no claim
to their lands, dominions over their persons 1t
merely bound the nation to The British crown, as Il
dependant ally, claiming the protection of power
tul friend and neighbor, and receiving the advana-
gcs of that projections without involving surrender
of their national character.
This is the true meaning ofthc stipulation; and is
undoubtedly the sense in which it was made.-
Neither the British Government, nor the Cherokees
ever understood it otherwise
The same stipulation entered into with the Uni
ted States, is undoubtedly be construed in the
same manner. They receiTo the Cherokee nation
into their favor and protection The Cherokces
acknowledge themselves to be under the protection
of the United States, and of no other Power Pro-
lection does not imply the destruction of the pro-
tcctcd. The manner in which this stipulation was
understood by the American Government, is cx-
planned by the language and acts Of our first Pres
dent.
The fourth article draws tho boundary between
! the Indians and the citizens of the United States
But, i'll describing this boundary, the term "allot-
ted and the term Stunning ground" are used.
/ Is 1t reasonable 10 suppose, that the Indians who
could not write, and most probably could not read
who certainly were critical Judges of our Ian
guagc, should Distinguish the word "allottcd" from
\ the words "markcd out" The actual subject of
contract the dividing line between the two ma
tons, and their attention may very well be suppos-
ed to have been confined TO that subject When, i'm
fact, they were ccding lands to the United States
and describing the extent of their ccssion, it may
very well be supposed that they might not under
stand the term employed, as indicating that instead
OF granting they were receiving lands. If the term
! would admit of no other sgnilicaon which is not
conceded, its being misunderstood is so apparent,
! results so necessarily from the whole transaction,
that it must think, be taken i'm the sense i'm which
it was most obviously used
So with respect to the words "huntinr grounds :"
Hunting at that time the principal occupation of
the Indians, and their land was more used for that
purpose than for any other 1t could not, however,
be supposed, that any intention existed of restrict
/ ing tie full use of the lands they reserved.
10 the United States, it could be matter of no
concern, whether their whole territory was devoted
to- hunting grounds, or whether an occasional vii
age, an occasional cOTn-eld, interrupted, and gave
some variety to the scene.
These terms had been used in their treaties with
! Great Britain, and had never been misunderstood.