Replies

The Trail of Tears was an abomination, a travesty. Why did it happen and how could it happen? An idea entertained by Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe and laying latent for two score years is swept into the arena in a populist frenzy, not against its intended targets, but against a people it should have protected. The framers designed the Constitution to prohibit exactly these situations and it fell short. It failed by a small margin but it still failed. Where and when it did work, it was ignored. This is why we have a Republic and not a Democracy.

The conception of the Indian Removal Act was in response to the depredations of the Warrior Tribes. There were a lot of twists and turns and political maneuverings for decades as the idea gained and lost justifications. Monroe, an early supporter, turned and recanted as the ramifications became clear. President Jackson, a creation of the Indian Wars and dependent on the frontier vote for his political existence was willing to sacrifice the Cherokee to the mob. He convinced himself that it was an act of compassion.

The Republic functioned as it was designed. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster thundered against the violation of an entire people from the Senate floor. The enabling treaty, the Treaty of New Echota, was ratified by a single vote. That one single pandering vote decided the fate of a People. David Crockett, Congressman from Tennessee, lost his seat for his opposition. The Supreme Court declared the application unconstitutional. Jackson brushed it aside saying’ “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” General Wool, a military man if there ever was one, resigned his command rather than have a part in the sordid mess.

So a Democratic President, acting in violation of the Constitution, committed a breach of civilized behavior that forever sullied his reputation and, unfortunately, that of the country as well. Had the Cherokee been anything other, history may have been forgiving but the Cherokee had little of the individual or collective guilt to justify a forced removal. The Cherokee, a progressive and peaceful people, were wronged.

If the Cherokee had been Cheyenne sending dog soldiers to raid up and down the Eastern Seaboard there would have been no prohibition, constitutional or otherwise, to prevent their removal. It is wrong to paint the Cherokee the same as the Cheyenne and it is wrong to paint the Cheyenne the same as the Cherokee. Jackson gave modern revisionists room to lump actions that were proper and necessary together with actions that were completely unjustified,