Cherokee Phoenix

The General Council of the Cherokee Nation, met at Chattooga, instead of New Echota, partly because

Published December, 17, 1831

Page 1 Column 1b

The General Council of the Cherokee Nation, met at Chattooga, instead of New Echota, partly because the oppressive laws of Georgia would hold them subject to punishment if they were to meet the latter place. The Council appointed three Delegates to attend at Washington City during the present session of Congress. The Message of the Principal Chief, John Ross, to the Council is remarkable for its mildness--but, nevertheless, it expresses a determination on the part of the Cherokees not to be forced from 'the land of their fathers,' at the will of Georgia. And may they be bold in claiming that which the General Government has guaranteed to them? Are their services during the late war to weigh nothing in their favor?--not even in prompting the government to secure to them that which they have a perfect right to--services of the late war out of the question?-- Knox. Rep.


From the Knoxville Republican.

I have read with care the sentence of the Judge in the missionary case, and have seen complimentary notices in some of the papers. What does it all amount to? 1st. The accused are reproached for having perversely sought the contest for political effect. 2d. The desire of our most eminent statesmen to remove the Indians west of the Mississippi--quotations from our 'venerable presidents' are given, much at length--the importance of the subject to our Union. 'To save the Indian from degradation and extermination, to advance him in civilized life, and to form them into regular government, were considerations of a powerful nature to induce removal'--ergo, the further the removal of the white man the better the prospect of civilization. Then comes to be considered the advantages of the United States--what secretaries of state, and of war have said on the subject,--the opinions of Indian agents, and Mr. Adams is condensely(sic) quoted. Our venerated Jackson- Mr. Eaton, 'c. this occupies a column. 3. The Judge, who says, his respect for misfortune rather inclines him to mitigate than increase its suffering, forgets himself, as I think, when he says, 'They care not for the Indians, they want the agency of a strong sympathy, which their helpless condition inspires, to destroy the fair fame of the best patriot of this or any age; and who unfortunately stands in the way of their restless designs.' 'Under the misguided zeal of suffering ignominy for conscience sake, have wooed and won the fair object of their wishes.' 'Wonderful infatuation-it had been hoped that the days of fanaticism in this sober country had long since been numbered.'

Then commences a summary of the benevolent views of the government of 'colonizing' the Indians. The generous wish was favored by Jackson, who was completing what others had begun; and from the picture he draws, one would think the missionaries had kept the poor Indian from an earthly paradise, where 'no christian would thirst for gold.'

Next comes the accusation against the missionaries--that they stirred up the Indians to opposition -set at defiance the laws of Georgia-induced them to insult not only the citizens, but the powers that be; and 4th and last, comes the Judge with his scripture learning, in the dealing out of which he forgot the only passage he should have quoted, 'He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as a light of the morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain;' II Sam. ch. xxiii 3,4. Had the Judge been governed by this passage, or by the Constitution, he had probably sworn to support, he would not have passed over the very thing it was his duty to discuss. He was called upon to investigate the point of jurisdiction--he does not do it--travels out of the record and testimony, and tells at length of the views of the General Government, and of the wishes and interests of Georgia;--judges what is best for the Indian--denounces the missionary as a fanatic--lectures him on scripture, and for conscience sake sends him to prison.

Now let us measure the judge by himself. In the case of the Indian for digging gold the judge rules, that so far relates to this offence, the acts of Assembly is unconstitutional and void, and thereupon the Indian is discharged; he founds this decision on the treaty, if the treaty will protect the Indian in his rights--how does it come that it will not operate to the whole extent--available in part and void as to the residue. The question before the judge was on the same treaty-did it not protect the missionary for not 'being obedient to the ordinances of man,' has he, the judge, been obedient? If the treaty is the law paramount, how dare he disobey it, and insult the prisoner with harsh epithets, for disobeying acts of Georgia, which in his own opinion, are unconstitutional? Those who think that the opinion of the court is a 'moral lecture,' and his scripture much in poin (sic), will find that if he disobeyed the paramount law--because in common with Georgians interested in the question - he has not submitted himself to the ordinances of man for conscience sake,-nor has he ruled over men justly, in fear of God--nor is he as light of the morning without clouds,--nor as the tender grass springing out of the earth, by clear shining after rain.