The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-19


my argument that other reservations made The
honorable senator says the policy OF the government
was that they should 20 stay they pleased Reser
vations were made Tor the purpose OF allowing them TO
stay Bat they permitted TO sell those RESERVATIONS,
without any condition requiring them TO go There was
no stipulation that they should go west and even after
they had sold their reservations they We're at liberty TO
stay IN The country as long as they pleased.
Mr. cASS- They had right TO 60 west u they
Mr.. BELL. They had but there was no condition
that they should go. Not only was their sale connved
at but they were encouraged TO sell their reservations
One Of the grounds alleged for the desaion OF the lower
country OF the Creeks that they sold out their
vaions speedily, and consumed the proceeds Of their
sales and then had nothing subslst upon Not only
had they parted with their money-no only had they
consumed The proceeds OF the sales OF their reservations
but when they once sold their reservations, they had not
loot OF land which they could cultivate ask the hon
orable senator again whether, after the execution OF
such treaty as thus, the government ought moi 10 have
foreseen Inc results or ought not to have calculated al
most inevitably, that the very state OF things which did
arise would take place So much for that.
base this upon the ground Of the anomalous policy
pursued by the government II invited the citizens OF
Alabama and Georgia. and every other State OF the Union,
TO go into the country and settle promiscuousy with the
Indians on space OF greater extent than five millions
OF acres OF all descriptions OF land, and among twenty
odd thousand Indians These Indians had permission 10
sell their reservations and the white settlers had all the
balance OF the territory. Yet treaty made with
stipulation for the removal OF the Indians. and the gov
eminent did not undertake TO remove them They were
left as free TO stay TO go the white OF this
country free 10 change his residence keep his
homestead Not foot of the land was reserved. in.
tended TO be permanently reserved to the Indians do
not mean this TO be in any manner offensive and repeat
again that admit there necessities which may have
presented themselves to the minds OF the members OF the
administration al the time the treaty was made. The
question is now whether il was bad or good policy-no
whether il wise unwise do not raise the ques
ton whether IT was wise unwse Tor them to act IN the
way in which they did do not insist upon that 1t
10 no part OF my argument
happened to throw out yesterday suggestion that it
was most unfortunate policy for the government said
i was unfortunate that the government BY the spula-
tons in this treaty, should have allowed white settlers to
60 in and settle among the Indians. II was not only an
unfortunate experiment for the government but 1t was
still more unfortunate for the white settlers who went in
The consequence OF their going in under the crcum-
stances in which they did the loss OF the property
and The lives of many OF them. The question is as to
ment you please to call 1t, made under the Of
extraordinary political necessity, having tempted the
white settlers in and their properly having been destroyed
by the Indians having produced among the Indians by
multiplication OF the causes OF discomfort gradual
blowing up OF the flame OF hostile feeling on their part,
which actually broke out against the property and lives
with e these ae results - Who are responsible for Them
The question is whether these circumstances did not take
the OF that rule OF public law which dscards
or dsregards any obligation on the part OF government
protect citizens against the outbreaks of their neigh
bors, against mobs, against civil disturbances OF every
description, against destruction, against burnings plum
derngs, and robberies.
That is the ground Of this claim. Ii grew out of a
policy OF the which peculiar to this case
II was not like any which had ever arisen before.
and there will probably be identical with il in all
It's circumstances again, however nearly il may approx-
mate stated yesterday that the principle was an i'm
poranl 10 be settled now; and called the attention
OF senators TO il. have had some experience grow
ing out of this treaty, and the execution of it, which
may hereafter be useful in forming other treaties IN Cal
ifornia and Oregon and with Indians on the western
frontier, upon this side of the Rocky mountains, TO some
extent.
urge, further, that the government advised that
unless supplies furnished 10 these Indians, and
,i,a1
too from these admonitions that they were expected TO
be of sufficient quantes-ihe destitute and starving
condition OF me Indians would necessary iead 70 aepre
not denied the honorable senator from Michigan The
honorable senator, believe, stated that some supplies
were furnished
Mr.. CASS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELL. But they furnished 10 very limited
extent, and were not sufficient The honorable senator
bound 10 admit that OF the very gentlemen sent by
him 10 that country to investigate the ground OF the hos
ilies reported that the admonton not needed and
for what reason Because it was the policy OF the
government TO the removal OF the Indians west OF
the Mississippi. II supposed that was using very
harsh term when | said that the policy starvation.
Now the rusiy commissioner OF the government limit
ted the very thing The honorable senator said, in
portion OF his remarks yesterday that the then admins
raton could not be held responsible for any statement
made by the commissioners agents sent by the govern
ment Why, sir, they sent with full instructions.
They confidential agents OF the government they
received confidential instructions II was not expected
OF course that their reports were to be CONFIDENTIAL be-
One OF the commissioners devoted partisan OF the
government knew him well He reports that il was
not the policy OF the government 10 subsls the Indians
but that the policy OF the government was To coerce their
removal westward Ii he does not say that in terms, IL
necessarily implied from what he does say II is the
missioner out by the honorable himself who
makes this declaration. Ii is not the memorial of the
legislature OF Alabama, but It IL the trusted agent and
commissioner OF the government avowing what has
never been disavowed before, until yesterday, imagine,
when the honorable senator said that he could not be
made responsible for the vague statements OF the commits
sioners, or agents, or whoever they might be.
stated that the government had been advised, during
this period either that supplies should be furnished TO
the Indians, that adequate military force should be
sent into the country The honorable senator to-day
makes two answers TO that charge. tie says there
military force on the borders. Where were they | do
not know where they were. II he means TO say that
there was military force on the borders OF the Creek
country, think he IL mistaken. There may have been
military force in Florida, and there may have been
very small force at point the borders Of the In
dian country. But whence did the admonition come :
From Alabama and Georgia. The government was adj
monshed by the authorities OF those Sates, that unless
military force sent the Indian country, hostiiies
might be apprehended. The government informed
that the condition Of the country such that out
break might be looked for at any moment II there had
been adequate military force there, imagine that
OF the executive, either OF Alabama or Georgia. take II
that the honorable senator is mistaken when he says
there was military force there, True II not the
policy OF the government supply provisions; but the
policy which the articles of this treaty founded
was still adhered to- And what was that poicyi The
persuasion OF hunger and destitaon 10 lead the Indians
west OF the Mississippi The government omitted n this
treaty, compelling their removal The government agreed
that they might remain as long as they chose The great
n he nd rel n no nj