Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress Page: 543
iv, (742 columns), 123, vii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
543
GALES & SEATON'S REGISTEtl
544
H, of R J
The Creek Treaty of 1804.
LFeb. 10, 1825.
mantling its ratification and the payment of the arrears,
shows that there was either error or fraud, and of course,
that Mr. Jefferson, when lie says he entirely approved
the treaty, was mistaken; that, in fact, he did not approve
it, and that his objections must have been so strong as
to prevent his even submitting' it to the Senate. But,
when we ask for the evidence of this mistake, in a wit-
ness so well qualified in every way to give the most cor-
rect testimony, we are told that the price of the land
was more than was ever before given for any Indian title.
Sir, I think we. had better not press this subject, lest we
should find how very inadequate even the highest prices
,jve have ever given, would be to the value of what we
bought. But there were reasons in this case that might
have made the purchase a cheap one, even at a much
higher price. We must either have sent a stronger mi-
litary force to dispossess the settlers, or purchase from
the Indians at their own price. At any rate, the pre-
sumption arising from this circumstance, is much too
weak to counteract the positive proof.
But why did not the Indians insist on the ratification ?
Sir, we might ask this question of the contracting party,
if the contracting party were a civilized nation, regular-
ly organized, and having its minister resident at our seat
of Government. But with what force can it be urged
against a horde of ignorant savages, trusting to our honor
for the regularity and validity of the contracts we made.'
What did they know of your Senators and your ratifica-
tions? They only looked to the stipulations made by
your commissioners—they knew that they were to yield
up their land to the white settlers, who had taken it—
and they did so ; they received part of the consideration
which we were to give, and performed the whole of
what they stipulated to do—they gave all. Sir, if this
ti'ansaction had been made even with a civilized nation,
the want of a ratification could never be objected to
them, after they had suffered us to remain in possession
for twenty years. What force, then, can it have, when
urged against men utterly ignorant of the forms of di-
plomacy, or even the meaning of the term ?
Suppose it a case between individuals, in which, on a
contract for the sale of lands, part of the purchase w as
paid, and possession delivered, and kept for twenty
years; what tribunal on earth would refuse to enforce
the contract, if made by an attorney, because the prin-
cipal had not raiiSed it in form? But a ratification in
<leed is full as binding—the payment of the money—the
retaining of the possession—the settlement of peace
with the nation—were all implied ratifications; and the
act of the President and Senate, latterly, is an express
one. Besides, if not binding on us, it cannot be on
them; and would we be willing now to surrender the
}and, 80,000 acres, on receiving our #5,000.
Mr. L. believed then, this case was so Car from justi-
fying Ihu extraordinary exercise of constitutional power
to refuse the appropriation—that it was on the contrary
one in which humanity, justice, and honor, concurred,
in demanding the execution of the treaty.
The question was now about to be put, when
Mr. CAMPBEl.L, of Ohio, (chairman of the commit-
tee on Private I.and Claims,) rose, to inquire at what
time the Chcrokees had applied for the ratification of
the treaty, and whether they had asked, at an early day,
for the annuity stipulated. The case, as presented, was
certainly a very singular one. He was inclined to be-
lieve that there had been among the Indians, two par-
ties—the old men who were in favor of the treaty, and
the young men, who were opposed to it. It was very
possible that the Indians themselves did not expect it
would be ratified; but, if the treaty came on to this
city, and was hex-e accidentally mislaid until last year,
lie supposed Congress ought to carry it into effect. The
gentleman from Georgia lays great stress on the price,
which he says was six times larger than that, paid to
other Indians, but, if be would examine the treaty, he
would find that there is one clause in it, which appears
to give larger limits in the grant than those which he
has described.
Mr. COCKE, of Tennessee, (chairman of the Commit-
tee on Indian Affairs,) said that his situation enabled
him to answer the inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio.
He had had frequent conversations with the Cherokee
chiefs who attended at this citv last winter : and it was
then that they first applied to have the treaty ratified.
Mr. FORSYTH said, that he had taken pains to ascer-
tain the fact concerning which the gentleman from Ohio,
(Mr. Campbki.1,) had just inquired, and it did not ap-
pear that the Indians had ever made any complaint
about the non-payment of their annuity, or had ever ap-
plied to have the treaty ratified. It appears, indeed,
that the treaty was sent on here; but another part of
the document will show that there was a correspond-
ence on the subject with the agent of the Cherokees ;
that the Indians were satisfied, and gave a larger cession
of land, *.o prevent the complaints of the people of
Georgia. [Here Mr F. quoted the documents to show
that, in 1804, 63,000 acres were ceded, that in 18X2, no
complaint had been made, but an extension of the boun-
dary line was granted, which he insisted was a proof
that the Indians considered the $5000 as a full payment
for the land.]
It had been said by the gentleman from Delaware,
that the non-payment, and the non-ratification, were the
fault of the United States. This position, said Mr. F., I
positively deny. The Indians never asked the ratifica-
tion ; they never complained of the non-payment of the
annuity. Their agent was here again and again; he
must have been acquainted with the intentions of the
President. He never applied ; but the moment he dies,
the nation applies for the ratification of the treaty. Mr.
F. concluded by summing up the points of the argument,
and briefly recapitulating' his reasons against the appro-
priation.
Mr. M'l.ANE briefly replied to Mr. Camtjur.i., whose
inquiry, he said, would be proper, if the question was
now on granting interest; their demanding or not de-
manding the annuity might affect such a question, but
certainly had nothing to do with the principal debt.
He asked if their not applying would be a good argu-
ment, supposing the treaty had been ratified in 1805.
He dvelt with earnestness upon their helpless and hu-
miliated condition, and strongly insisted on the obliga-
tion of the Government, both from their justice and
magnanimity, to fulfil the treaty. While he was up, he
would make one request, to which he desired ihe atten-
tion of the House. It must be perceived by all, that the
gentleman from Georgia has been laboring- to show that
Mr. Jefferson did not do, what Mr. Jefferson himself
says that he did; and that Mr. Jefferson did not think
as Mr. Jefferson himself expressly says that he did. Mr.
Jefferson says that the treaty " had his full approbation;"
tlv! gentleman from Georgia says that it had not. And
how does he show this ? lie tells us, that if Mr. Jeffer-
son was so much interested, how could it happen that
tbe treaty slumbered for so many years? Sir, there is a
very good reason why the United States should have
Slumbered over this treaty. Their object was accom-
plished. The intruders were driven off the land. The
Indians had given it up. It was quietly in their hands.
But, sir, if the intruders had remained, or the Indians
had refused to surrender the lands, you would have then
found the United States proceeding with a quick step.
But both the Indians, the intruders, and we, slept.
Whose fault was it ? Sir, it was ours. The gentleman
objects to the price; but, sir, the United States were
not purchasing land, they were purchasing the peace
and tranquillity of the Southern country. We all know
what is the character of these squatters or settlers, or
by whatever other names they are called ; that they can-
not he dispossessed but by force ; an armed force was
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress, book, 1825; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30752/m1/276/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.