The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-25

! 'NsANs
Not content ~ih the fame which may attach him con-
dior f"pas 20 borrow the language Of Lord Bacon quoted
py the learned and eloquent from Massachusetts,
lMr EsEarrr he Is emuouz OF The le of CON-
daof II hpleyer other rewards
ne may receive from his eountrymen il they should initiate
the policy o. the ancient Greeks and Romans besowing
honorary crowns citizens who distinguished selves
IN the service Of their country, the honorable senator will
be entitled, one but ten civic crowns hone die
honorable senator viii not be offended anything have
said ON this point III
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Certainly not Laughter
Mr. BELL come now 70 further objection urged bv
against the bill Of the ast that the provision
affecting the emgant Indian tribes do aude toitmere
y objection of presenting nsuperable obss
Gle the passage OF this bill unless shall be found contain
different provision Mr. President has it 10 TIM,
that liberty disregard treaty stipulations
with the Indian tribes because they weak and feeble
peope--unable resist power--any more han we
would treaty obligations with The powerful atoms
of the earth Can we, as government people, on
such pfinciple--set aside at discretion and arnpe
under foot the explicit and solemn guarauteesi
know that is the sentiment of any honorable senator
here but SIR the Nebraska bill Of last session al
though the Indian tribes and their lands included within
boundaries of the proposed Territory expressly
excepted from the operation of that BILL the honorable chair
man of the Committee Territories will remember ,hat
denounced that bi if il should pass, disgrace tho
national character an and deliberate violation Of
the public faith In order TO demonstrate the justice ofthat
denuncaton must go into brief review Of the policy of
Indian removal.
This policy suggested in 1908 by Mr.. Jefferson.
His plan was those members of the several tribes
then residing Of the Mississippi who preferred seek
their subsistence by the chase suitable country with
in the limits of the United States of the Mississippi
and protect those who disposed cultivate the
civilized life in their possessions OF the Mississippi,
and also encourage them in their efforts to improve their
condition That policy frustrated by the confctng
obligations contracted between Georgia and the United
in her compact, by which Georgia ceded her western
territory The plan suggested by Mr.. Jefferson conse-
quenty enlarged and The adopted the policy Of
removing entire tribes 10 the The treaty Of 1917
based, in part upon this new policy In 1926 Mr. Calhoun
hen Secretary Of War; in report made upon that subject
first suggested the importance of systematic policy In
m all ~
the Mississippi The country west of the Missouri and
Arkansas by him pointed proper be selected
and apart the tribes which might be induced 10 emf
CRATE and he recommended that there ought to be the
strongest and solemn that the country given
to them should be theirs, permanent home for them
selves and their poserty without being disturbed by the
encroachneDts Of our citizens"
But the policy WINS not then settled upon permanent
basis. The difficulties and enlbarrassnens in which the
government involved with Georgia, and by the OBJ
structons nerposed the execution of the policy OF
mova by two ofthe southern beshe Cherokecs and the
Creeks.caused the whole subject be examined and dis
cussed in every part of the country gave rise 70 great
agitation and excitement. Perhaps but few senators here
have any conception of tie intensity Of the interest and
feeling which awakened particularly at the North, by
the discussion of the questions connected with this policy
The tables of the two houses Of Congress groaned under
memorials and circumstances presented from day 10 day
during the session Of against the policy ofremoy
adopted and insisted upon by the administration And 30
continued for months The ferceness Of the struggle and
the obstacles be the settlement OF the qucs-
ton knows better than the from Michigan,
Mr. CAss1 But in March, 1880, the policy of Indian
mova received the sanction OF both houses OF Congress- ana
became the law of the land BY the act of 1880 the Pres
expressly authorized treating with the Indians
for the exchange Of their lands for lands west Of the
Mississippi "soenny the tribe nation with
which the exchange (migh be) made that the United
States viii (woud forever and guarantee them and
their heirs and the country exchanged with
them.n
The arguments by which the policy of Indian removal
sustained will be found in official documents
the speeches Of members of Congress- and IN the public
journals of the day.
The grounds upon which the argument was maintained
for the removal of the Indian tribes taken from the
early MS well as the more recent history of the country 1t
that all experience had that
long the Indians remained in with and surrounds
ed by white population they were sure TO contract all the
munities and that long they remained that condl
ton their early extinction inevitable; that their only
escape from this destiny depended upon their removal
country where they would be protected by the
from al the evils and annoyances which they thus
exposed IN all future time. The country which they
were invited to be Indian country forever
as long as they existed tribes; the white
never to ntrude upon their lands form settlements around
them; territorial State governments
elude them within their boundaries In their new homes
they were to be free be governed by their laws and
CUSTOMS unless they thought proper change them
70 be nerfered with by the government but for pro-
lection " the enjoyment of their privileges.
This further argument urged in support of the policy
the West the conditions held them would
again be moestcd and harssed by applications for
eessions OF their lands, to country; for
the sagacious chiefs always knew that people
could seldom Withstand the influences which their Great
Father could bring to bear upon them when he wished
treat with them any subject.
These were the arguments by which the policy Of Indian
removal was sustained by Congress- and which, in tmc
reconcied the whole country its adoption These
also the Arguments and held the
Gus Indian tribes residing the States Of the Mss
spp TO induce them cmgrae the West will appear
from the talks held with them from the instructions
misstoners appointed to with them and, part from
inc shpuatons contained in the made with them
In some of those treaties the Indians required that guar
antee against the establishment Of any territorial State
government to include their lands ehoud be specifically
stipulated N the treaties made with them One treaty
taning such guarantee ratified by the Senate sufficient
TO show tho policy Of the government and its obligations
TO al the essigant tribes Well cir, under the persuasion
and encouragement held the Indians by promises
insurance. and guarantees have twelve
fifteen different tribes entered into treaties and removed
10 the territory assigned and dedicated them west of the
Missouri Arkansas Some eight or ten Of those tribes
numbering at this time, eight ten thousand souls received
ellotmens Of land OF Missouri mos, Of them occupying
the territory embraced in the Nebraska bill Of the
SION and the Territory Of Kansas proposed TO be organized
by the bill now under consideration.
And how did the provsonsbf the bill Of the last session
stand IN relation 10 the obligations and Of the
government assumed ard given in tho execution Of the pol
icy OF Indian removal That bill proposed organize and
establish territorial government including within bound
aries all the emgrant tribes of State Of Missouri
and forthwith 10 authorize the settlement OF unoccupicd
lands and thus surround the scveru Indian tribes with
whro population and consequently to bring upon them all
the evils which they had the States whence
they emigraiod Ii for these reasons that objected
and denounced the measure.
There another objection which might have taken
the Nebraska bill Of the last session. hat which did be-