Georgia Historical Society

Racism in Red and Black: Indians and Other Free People of Color in Law, Politics, and Removal Policy Author(s): Mary Young Source: The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3, SPECIAL ISSUE COMMEMORATING THE SESQUICENTENNIAL OF REMOVAL 1838-1839 (FALL 1989), pp. 492-518 Published by: Georgia Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40582014 . Accessed: 07/03/2014 13:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Georgia Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Georgia Historical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racismin Red and Black: Indians and Other Free People of Color in GeorgiaLaw, Politics,and RemovalPolicy By Mary Young A NTEBELLUMGeorgia was an Americansuccess story. In -Zjl 1860, the state's592,000 whitesenjoyed a per capita in- come twicethat of the averagePennsylvanian or New Yorker. Though she rankedonly fourth in cottonproduction, Georgia rankedfirst in the Southin cottontextile output, and enjoyed the bestrailroad system in the lowerSouth. She was proud to claimthe title,"The EmpireState of the South."1 These notableaccomplishments rested, as Georgiahistorian Numan V. Bartleyhas observed,on a consensusGeorgians reached by the 1820s to rely for theirprosperity on "white cotton"produced "withblack labor, on land that had been takenfrom red people."2But acquiringthe land and control- ling the labor in the Old South took a struggle.It involved aspiringGeorgians in conflictsboth among themselves and with outsidersover the conductof race relationsin theirtriracial society. We may begin the storyof those conflictswith Georgia's frontierexpansion after the defeatof the Englishand their hostileCreek allies in 1814 and 1815. Their signal military victoriesshould have enabledthe federalgovernment to fulfill the promiseit had made in 1802, thatin returnfor Georgia's giftto the nationof whatis now and Mississippi,the nationwould purchasethe Indian titleto all the land within Georgia'schartered limits. Instead, the government'swartime and postwarpurchases from the Creeks and theirnorthern

'Numan V. Bartley,The Creationof Modem Georgia (Athens, 1983), 16; Kenneth Coleman,ed., A Historyof Georgia (Athens, 1977), 160-73 2Bartley,Modern Georgia, 15.

Ms. Young is professorof historyat theUniversity of Rochester. The Georgia Historical Quarterly Vol. LXXIII, No. 3, Fall 1989

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 493 neighbors,the Cherokee,left those tribes still in possessionof millionsof acres, includingpotentially half the good cotton land in thestate. Worse yet, William Harris Crawford, a Geor- gia politicianof presidentialstature, used his brieftenure as secretaryof war in 1816 to suggestthat southeastern Indians who did not choose to migrateto freedombeyond the Missis- sippi Rivermight instead settle down on suitablylimited 640- acre individualhomesteads, abandon the hunt for plow agricul- ture,and, if the paternalassistance of federalagents proved insufficientto civilizethem, marry frontier white people who woulddo thejob. Crawford'ssuggestion of intermarriageand amalgamationbetween red and whitesocieties probably had its originin someof the more visionary speculations and programs of the venerableJefferson - but the speculationsalone were too much for manyGeorgians.3 Crawford suggested that In- dians mightmake healthiermates than the "foreigners"who were flockinginto the countryand marryinginto its families. A couple of monthsafter his reportwas published,the Mil- ledgevilleGeorgia Journal editorialized: "A frontierman, who has no inclinationfor an Indianwife, and who has read withequal surprizeand indignation,Mr. Crawford'sproposition . . . for civilizingthe Indians would respectfullysuggest to the HonorableSecretary a modification of his plan. . . . Let himadvise that no foreignerin the future shall have refugein our countrywho will not accept of an Indian spouse. . . . Ridiculousas thisscheme may appear, it is notwithstandingmore practicable than Mr. Crawford's."Fron- tier people, the editorialistcontinued, were "too well ac- quainted withthe disgustinghabits and vices of the Indians and have sufferedtoo muchfrom their perfidy and cruelty,to thinkof an alliance so unnatural- if any Georgianhas been knownto formsuch a connection,his vices which expelled him fromcivilized society, would disqualifyhim fromimproving the conditionof the savages."4

3Bernard Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction:Jeff ersonian Philanthropy and theAmerican In- dian(Chapel Hill, 1973) examinesthe Jeffersonian ideology. ^GeorgiaJournal (Milledgeville), June 9, 1816.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 494 Georgia Historical Quarterly

In 1816,during his brieftenure as secretaryof war,Geor- gianWilliam H. Crawfordsuggested that those Indians who did not choose to migratewest might settle on individual homesteads. Portraitcourtesy of Hargrett Rare Bookand Manu- scriptLibrary.

Less thana monthlater, the Journal published a letterfrom ReturnJ. Meigs, federalagent to the Cherokee since 1801. Describingthe rapid progressof agriculture,stockraising, and weavingamong the tribe,their "civilized" mode of dress,and theirexceptional cleanliness, Meigs attributed one Cherokee's refusalto marrya whitesuitor to "his"uncleanly appearance. "Naturehas giventhem the finestforms; and can we presume thatGod has notwithheld from them correspondingly intellec- tualand mentalpowers of mind.. . . There is nothingin nature yetdiscovered, to give these people a distinctive,intrinsically distinctivecharacter from the greatcharacter of Man." Indeed theywere worthy "in a fewyears of beingblended or incorpo-

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 495 ratedwith us as partof our risingempire."5 Noting this letter, the editorreported the brutalmurder of a wagoneron the federalroad throughthe CherokeeNation. "Such is the state of civilizationamong the Cherokee." Crawford'samalgamationist proposal rose to haunt him again duringhis 1824 campaignfor the presidency.6Mean- while,however, Georgians responded even more violentlyto an experimentin amalgamationistpolicy close to home.In July 1817, nationalauthorities signed a treatywith the Cherokee offeringindividuals of thetribe the alternatives of either taking individualreservations covering their farms in Georgia,Ten- nessee,Alabama, and NorthCarolina, or removingwest to Ar- kansasat federalexpense. This treatywas lessa productof Jeffersonian idealism than of utilitarianmathematical calculation. The commissionersas- sumedthat game-rich Arkansas - free,they hoped, from white intrusion- wouldattract a majorityof thetribe. The "civilized" minorityof theten or twelvethousand Eastern Cherokee, even at 640 or moreacres foreach head of a family,would end up holdingonly a tinyfraction of the thirteenmillion acres they claimedin Appalachia.Most of the "civilized" Cherokee in 1817 were productsof intermarriagebetween whites and Indians. Meigs, who advocatedsuch liaisons,thought nearly half the Cherokeeto be of thischaracter; he grosslyoverestimated the extentof intermarriage,and federal officialsestimated the "civilized"at no morethan a fewhundred. In fact,311 regis- tered for reservations.On the other hand, not many more heads of familieschose to emigrate,and the Cherokee re- mained in possessionof approximatelyten millionacres - of whichnearly seven million lay in Georgia.Meanwhile, a couple of dozen Cherokee réservéesclaimed good land whichthe state,ignoring their claims, distributed by lotteryto its white citizens.Georgians were not pleased by this experimentin amalgamation.7 5ReturnJ. Meigsto Dr. SamuelMitchell of New York,May 4, 1816,ibid., July 17, 1816. 6Ibid.,May 4, September28, 1824. 7Thebest treatment of theexperiment with reservations is WilliamG. McLoughhn, "Experimentin CherokeeCitizenship, 1817-1829," in McLoughlin,The Cherokee Ghost Dance: Essays on theSoutheastern Indians, 1789-1861 (Macon, Ga., 1984), 153-92. For Meigs'sviews, see Meigsto Pathkiller,et al.,July 4, 1818,National Archives, Microfilm M-208,reel 7.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 496 Georgia Historical Quarterly

A correspondentof theGeorgia Journal, who identified him- selfonly as "G," commented:"Truly it mustafford great plea- sure,that the timeis fastapproaching when Georgia shall be representedin Congress by BillyBlacksnake, or some other civilizedson of the forest.Besides, our meeknessis so fastap- proachingto servilitythat an intermixturewith our red brethren is necessaryto giveus a littlemore vivacity of character."8 "G" attributedthe smallCherokee cession in Georgia,com- pared withmuch largeracquisitions in neighboringstates, to theVirginia dynasty's desire to restrictGeorgia's weight in Con- gress."And in order to circumscribeher limitsforever as to goodlands, we willdrive the Indians fromevery other quarter in upon her frontiers,then preach to her gloriousplans of civilizationamong the children of the forest (one thirdof whom we havejust killedup to get themoff our lands,and thoseof the 'brave Tennesseans')and thus effectuallydeprive her of ever becominga stateof thatweight and consequence,which her soil and limitswould otherwiseenable her to become.The Georgiansare a weakand feminine people, and willnot discover our policy." The Georgiansrediscovered their masculinity first in deal- ing withCherokee réservées - both in theoryand in practice. Bryan,another correspondent, approving the sentimentsof "G," pooh-poohedthe efforts of governmentagents like Meigs to "civilize"the Indians. Educated and convertedIndians re- mainedferocious in warand idlydrunken in peace. "Theyare yeta miserabledegraded race, no wherereceived by the white manas his equals, eitherin a moralor physicalpoint of view. An intermixturewith them is yetdishonorable."9 The author citedthe example of WilliamMclntosh, a mixed-bloodchief of the Creeks,who had foughtwith whites against both hostile Creeks and Seminóles.His cousin,George M. Troup, was a leading politicianof Georgia's"aristocratic" party. The chief- tainwas also a planter,ran a celebratedinn at theIndian Spring in the Creek Nation,and sent his childrento academies in

8"G"to the Editor,Georgia Journal, April 27, 1819. mid.,August 17, 1819.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 497

Georgia'scapital at Milledgeville.10Yet,Bryan asserted,even thiswidely respected friend of thewhites could findno respect- able whitematron who would consentto bestowher daughter upon him. "And thiswill be the case untilit shall please God to bleachthe Indian's skin. . . . The prejudicesof the whites againstthe color of bothIndians and negroesare . . . absolutely incurable."The civilizationof the one, or the emancipationof the other,must wait until such prejudicescould be subdued- forever,the writerhoped. Georgianscountered the federalexperiment in intermix- tureby forcingthe nationalgovernment to buyout the claims of the réservéesin Georgia.But in the long run,the onlyac- ceptablesolution was federalpurchase of all tribalclaims and the removalof the Cherokeesand Creeksbeyond the Missis- sippl. Simultaneouslywith theiragitation over and threatsof amalgamation,Georgians were pondering issues raisedby the organizationof the AmericanColonization Soci- ety.That societyproposed the removalof yetanother racially unacceptableminority - the free blacks.Taken together,the Creekand Cherokeepopulations of Georgiaprobably outnum- beredthe freeblack population by more than ten to one.11But the connectionof the colonizationmovement to questionsof slaveryand emancipationmade ita volatileissue.12 In theminds of manyGeorgians, the "problem" of thefree black population was clearlyanalagous to the"problem" presented by "civilized" mixed-bloodIndians. Bryan,for example,in a letterto the Journal,reported his conversationwith a missionaryabout to undertakework with the Cherokee. He askedthe man whether he wouldhave hisdaughter marry one of thesons of a wealthy

'«On WilliamMclntosh, see ibid.,March 28, 1814;July 10, 1816; March10, Sep- tember1, 1818; February8, 1820;and MichaelD. Green,The Politics of Indian Removal: CreekGovernment and Society in Crisis(Lincoln, Neb., 1982). nIra Berlin,Slaves Without Masters: lhe tree Negroin theAnte-öeUum òoutn (rsiew York,1976), 46, estimatesthat there were 1,763free blacks in Georgiain 1820,and 2,486 in 1830. Since the Creek and the Cherokeeboth lived in Georgia,Alabama, Tennessee,and NorthCarolina, one cannotspecify the exact number in Georgia,but a reasonableestimate for 1820 wouldbe 10,000from each tribe. 12Forthe ColonizationSociety, see PhilipJ. Staudenraus,lhe AfricanColonization Movement,1816-1865 (New York,1961).

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 498 Georgia Historical Quarterly mixed-blood,James Vann and he responded "Not for the world!"... hiscolor would still form an insuperableobjection." Bryanthen informedthe missionarythat until intermarriage was acceptable,Indians would "rejectyour religion, your arts, and yoursciences. It is thissense of inferioritywhich weighs upon the mindsof thefree negroes of New York and Pennsyl- vania, and makes them what theyare, the pests of civilized society."13 In Georgia,free blacks were not just "pests";their example alone, and the darkerprospect of theirinfluence on thosestill enslaved,threatened disorder if not insurrection. Commenting on a protestof freeblacks of Philadelphiaagainst colonization, the GeorgiaJournal editorialized on September16, 1817: Slaveryis a mostintolerable curse, and we shouldnot care howsoon it was abolished,could it be doneconsistently, with our safety;but we are decidedlyopposed to partialemancipa- tion- it shouldbe no longertolerated among us, unless we are preparedto sharethe tragic fate of St. Domingo; cruel as such conductmay appear, self-preservation sternly admonishes us, to send fromthe country,without delay, every free person of color- 'peaceablyif we can, forcibly ifwe must.'

The editorialproposed "a gradualdiminution of our slavepop- ulation" and their replacementby industriousGerman re- demptioners.The correspondentsof theJournal differed over the evaluationsboth of slaveryand of colonization.Some ar- gued thatthe hiddenagenda of the societywas the emancipa- tionof the slavesrather than the removalof freeblacks, and found thataim subversive.Others argued thatslavery was a mildinstitution profitable to slave and owneralike.14 Yet on August 24, 1819, theJournal reprinted from the NationalIntelligence a strongcritique of the "peculiarinstitu- tion.""God almightysaw fitto frame,in the plenitudeof his wisdom,creatures of diversecapacities, some to plan withthe brain,and othersto executewith the hand, without either being

i3GeorgiaJournal, August 17, 1819. l4Ibid.,September 17, 1817, June 1, 1819; ibid.,"Thoughts of a Yankee," August 10, October5, 1819; ibid."From the National Intelligencer: Limner," October 12, 1819.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 499

Governor , Georgia's foremostproponent of Cherokee removal, was equally forcefulin his opposition to the manumission of black slaves. Portraitfrom Wilson Lumpkin,The Removal of the Cherokee Indians fromGeor- gia, 1827-1841, Vol. 2 (New York:Dodd, Mead fcfCo., 1907. the slaveof the other.. . . Because the worldhas been so long unjust,must we agreethat it will or oughtto continueunjust?" Mostattacks on ,however, focused on thepicture of the slave as "domesticenemy," and on projectsfor reducing risk,which included extending the ban againstimportation of slavesinto the statefor sale to a ban on importationfor any reason. To counterthe special threatof the freeblack, stern restrictionson emancipationshould accompanyattempts to haltthe entryof freeblacks into the stateand encouragetheir migrationfrom it.15

l5Ibid.,September 29, October 13, 27, 1818.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 500 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Politicianswho wereenthusiastically involved in the move- mentfor Indian removalshowed equal enthusiasmfor restrict- ing emancipation and encouraging colonization. Wilson Lumpkin,the self-styledarchitect of Georgia'sultimately suc- cessfuleffort to expel theCherokee, argued strenuously in the GeneralAssembly in 1824 againstgranting a master'spetition to freea slave preacher.Had not the recentuprising of Den- mark Vesey in been instigatedby black preachers?"Rude and degraded" slaves, Lumpkinaverred, were not dangerous."But licenseby yourvote intelligent mis- sionariesto travelfrom one sectionof the countryto another, to visit,in theimposing character of ministers,our plantations and quarters,and the horrorsof St. Vincentand the horrors of Domingo may again startlefrom their midnight slumbers and too fatalsecurity, our unguardedcitizens." Were masters allowedto emancipateat will,"You caston societya multitude of beings,too servilefrom established habits to enjoyliberty, too idle to submitto voluntarylabor, and too undeservingto obtain employmentif they had the dispositionto seek it." Amongslaves, hope of emancipationmight produce a "fearful restlessness."Once theColonization Society went into effective operation,however, "Then would he be among the firstto soundthe tocsin of universal liberty." Meanwhile the legislature rejectedthe petitionfor emancipation.16 Manyof Georgia'sdistinguished men belongedto the Col- onizationSociety. In October 1823,William H. Crawfordwas one of seventeennational vice presidents, together with Daniel Websterand HenryClay. In Georgia,the Putnam County aux- iliaryincluded James Camak, editor of the GeorgiaJournal, TomlinsonFort, a distinguishedMilledgeville physician and Clark partyleader; Rev. Dr. Moses Waddell, presidentof FranklinCollege at Athens;the renowned Baptist leader, Rev. JesseMercer, of HancockCounty; the distinguished jurist, Au- gustinS. Claytonof Clarke County;and the philanthropic politicianDuncan G. Campbell,of WilkesCounty.17

l&Itnd.,November 27, 1824. "Ibid., October 14, 1823.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 501

The ReverendDr. Moses Waddell,presi- dent of FranklinCollege in Athens,was among the manydistinguished Georgians who belongedto the AmericanColoniza- tion Societyand supportedfree black re- moval from the state. Portraitcourtesy of HargrettRare Book and ManuscriptLibrary.

Campbellwas an attorneyand legislatornoted for his at- tachmentto the cause of publiceducation. He was the firstin the GeneralAssembly to introducea bill forhigher education of women.18President Monroe chose thisman of distinctionto purchase Cherokee reserves, and to negotiate with the Cherokeefor the cessionof theirlands in Georgia.Campbell foundthat the Cherokee Council had resolvedin October1822 to cede no more land.19After several failed attempts to meet Cherokeeleaders at a timeand place of hischoosing, Campbell finallyaccepted their invitation to attenda Councilat Newtown, their"seat of government,"in October 1823.20There he and his co-commissionerfrom Georgia, James Meriwether,in- formedthe Cherokee,"If the Presidentpractices toward you the kindtreatment of a fatherit becomesyour duty to return the obedienceand gratitudeof children."They explainedthat

18RobertM. Willingham,Jr., "Duncan Green Campbell," in KennethColeman and CharlesStephen Gurr, eds., Dictionaryof GeorgiaBiography (Athens, 1983), 155-56; Stephen F. Miller, The Benchand Bar of Georgia:Memoirs and Sketches,2 vols. (Philadel- phia, 1858), 1: 136. 19"Resolutionof the CherokeeNational Legislature, October 23, 1822, National Archives,Microfilm M-208, reel 1. 20JohnRoss, et al., to Commissioners,April 25, 1823,Duncan Campbell to Joseph McMinn,May 18, 1823,ibid.; Walter Lowrie and WalterS. Franklin,eds., American StatePapers, Class II: IndianAffairs, 2 vols., (Washington, 1832-34), 2: 465.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 502 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Georgia'swhite population had grownby nearlya thirdfrom 1810 to 1820, by whichit numbered344,773. Yet Georgia's possessionsdid notgreatly exceed thoseof thetwelve thousand Cherokee."This differenceis too greatever to have been in- tended by the great fatherof the Universe,who must have giventhe Earthequally, to be the inheritanceof his whiteand red children."The Cherokeereplied that "it is evidentthat this principlehas never been observedby nations,or by individ- uals," since all civilizedcountries allow men to monopolize moreland thanthey can cultivate.21 Campbellmanaged to buy nearlytwo dozen reserves,but theCherokees remained adamant in theirrefusal to cede more nationalterritory. The paternalcommissioners used not only argument,but attemptedbribery in dealingwith what they re- garded as an "avaricious"tribal leadership. William Mclntosh, theirCreek friend, served as go-between,and one of themore embarrassingepisodes in thatfrustrating negotiation was John Ross's exposureof Mclntosh,and the friendlyCreek's expul- sion fromthe CherokeeCouncil.22 Campbelland Mclntoshhad betterluck at theCreek Coun- cil of Indian Springsin February1825, where Mclntosh, chief of CowetaTown, tookupon himselfand hisassorted followers in Georgia to sell all the Creek possessionsin thatstate. Not long thereafter,his cousin,Governor George M. Troup, per- suaded the chiefto givea ratherhalf-hearted and ambiguous consentto stateauthorities' surveying the cessioneven earlier than the treatyprovided. In response, Mclntosh's Creek enemiesinvoked a law passedby several of theircouncils, mak- ing cessionof theirland a capitalcrime, and murderedMcln- toshand hisclosest associates. They also succeededin persuad- ing the Adams administrationto revoke the treatyon the groundthat a largemajority of theCreek tribal leadership had never agreed to it. That revocation,along with a series of operaticand well-publicizedconfrontations between Governor Troup and the envoyssent by Adams to look intothe Creeks' quarrels,provided just the rightmaterials for Georgia'sfirst

2lIbid.,465-72. 22Campbellto McMinn, October 27, 1823, National Archives,M-208 reel 9.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 503 popular gubernatorialelection. "Troup and the Treaty"gave theincumbent governor a stunningvictory at thepolls. Though the Senate nullifiedthe treaty,Troup's belligerenceand his popularityforced the nationalgovernment into negotiations thatby 1827 leftsome Creeksin Alabama,some in the Creek NationWest, and none in Georgia.23 Despitewell-documented evidence of fraudin his negotia- tionsat Indian Springs,Duncan Campbellwas a hero in Geor- gia. Legislativeresolutions and Fourthof Julytoasts affirmed the state'sgratitude to him. Had he wished,Campbell might have been his party'snominee to succeedTroup in the gover- norship.On his death in 1829, the legislaturecarved a new countyout of a portionof theCreek cession near theCherokee borderand named it CampbellCounty.24 Despite Georgia's ultimatevictory over the Creeks, the 1820s saw a sharpeningof the controversybetween state and nationalgovernments over Indian removal.During the same period,congressmen quarreled over the admission of Missouri to theUnion, and a proposalto appropriatefunds from public land sales to supportthe work of the ColonizationSociety. Georgiansremained enthusiastic about removal as a solutionto theirfree colored problem as wellas theirIndian problem,but became less sanguineabout the prospectsof Africancoloniza- tionand morehostile and defensivein theirresponse to criti- cismof slavery. In June 1823, the GeorgiaJournal proposed a new scheme to acceleratecolonization, since the currentproject for remov- ing freepeople of colordid notappear to be working.Perhaps the stateshould levy a specialtax on her freecolored in habi- tantsso thatthey could pay fortheir own colonization.25Such personsalready paid a poll tax far in excess of the tax white citizenspaid; but in factthe statenever used the proceedsof

23The best secondary account is Green, Politicsof Indian Removal.For the rhetoric, see GeorgiaJournal, 1825, 1826, 1827, passim. See also William M. Strickland,"The Rhetoric of Cherokee Removal from Georgia, 1828-1832" (Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University,1975), on the broader question of Georgians' rhetorical strategies. 24Seenote 18. 25GeorgiaJournal, June 3, 1823.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 504 Georgia Historical Quarterly any tax to exportblacks. Although they never objected to the paymentof millionsof dollarsin federalfunds for the removal of Indians,Georgians responded to proposalsto use federal funds for Africancolonization with intense hostility."Our propertyis to be seizedby the general government and appro- priatedto the purchaseof our negroes."The targetof Geor- gia's hostilitywas not just the federal government,but the apparentresponsiveness of that governmentto "the philan- thropistswho profess to be willingto takethe Indiansand neg- roes into theirbosoms. . . ." Againstsuch threats,Governor Troup was justifiedin invitingGeorgians to "stand to their arms!"26 Federal power in the hands of fanaticalphilanthropists threatenedthe foundationof Georgia's social order. Free blackswere fewerby far than the citizensof the Creek and Cherokeenations; their removal would not delivermillions of acresof valuableproperty into the hands of thestate for distri- butionto its citizens.Legally, if not in practice,free blacks in Georgia owned no real propertyat all. But if federalpower could make Indians citizens,what might those "fanaticks" do next?"Are the negroesof the SouthernStates, free or bond, citizens?"asked a Journalcontributor labeled "Socrates"in 1825. "The people of the SouthernStates say no. If the Con- gress can convertone portionof the inhabitantsof a state, calledIndians into citizens, then by the exercise of a likepower she can convertanother portion of theinhabitants of thesame statecalled negroesinto citizens."27 Correctly,Indians shouldaccept the statusthat Swiss jurist Emer Vatteldescribed as "inhabitants."These are "a kind of citizensof an inferiororder and are unitedto society,without participatingin all itsbenefits." Jews, schismatics, and gypsies in some places have been so treated."The slavesand freene- groesof the UnitedStates certainly fall under this description, and so ... do theIndians withthe limitsof Georgia." In other words,the onlycitizens of Georgiawere white:

26Ibtd.,July5, 1825. 27Ibid.,August 30, 1825.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 505

Georgia Governor George M. Troup (1823-1827)was an activesupporter of the Treatyof IndianSprings and opposed the federalefforts to revokethis treaty with the Creeks. Portraitcourtesy ofHargrett Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary.

The whitepeople of the United Statesdeclared independence, and thisdeclaration enured, and was intendedto enureto their own exclusivebenefit, however incongruous it mayseem with certainexpressions in thatdeclaration. ... It was thewhite people whoadopted the federal constitution. . . . Withall theimportant transactions,negroes and Indianshad nothingto do. . . . Some moonstruckmoralists may whine about . . . injustice.. . . Let them whine,but let us be whitepeople still.

Assertingthe rightof Georgia to subjectIndian inhabitants to her laws whenshe would,Socrates went on to assert,again quotingVattel, "'Those nationsthat inhabit fertile countries but disdain to inhabitthe land, and chose ratherto live by plunder,are wantingto themselves,and injuriousto their neighbors,deserve to be extirpated,as savage and pernicious beasts.'This descriptioncomes little short of our Indians."Even iflocal Indiansdid notoblige by resortingto plunder,the fed- eral government'sfailure to fulfillthe Compactof 1802 gave Georgiathe right"to occupy,survey and appropriate,and set- tle all the unappropriatedland withinher reservedlimits, treatyor no treaty."28This signalchallenge to federalauthority

2»Ibid.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 506 Georgia Historical Quarterly and Indian possessionin 1825 appeared in themidst of heated controversyover the Treaty of Indian Springsand a lively gubernatorialelection. But it provedin manyways prophetic of Georgia's approach to her Indian inhabitantsduring the followingdecade. Despiteviolent talks of "extinction,"a favorite term for de- scribingthe fateof rebelliousblack or red people,many Geor- gians took an interestinglypaternalistic view of both races. They were childrenin a stateof "pupillage."Only in separate communities- in the West or in Africa,far distant from whites- could free blacks or Indians aspire to full maturity. Onlythere might they become independent, enjoy equal rights, and aspireto thoseoffices and employmentsthat would instill prideand industryin theircharacters. Even thosefederal offi- cials who held to the tenetof Indian improvability,and those spokesmenof the ColonizationSociety who hoped thatAfro- Americans(in Africa)might grow up to be men,regarded com- plete separationof the races as a sine qua non of such ac- complishments.29 In the Indian case, the paternalistapproach faced frustra- tionboth in law and in fact.By federallaw, Indian tribeswere independentnations, enjoying treaty guarantees of theirter- ritorialintegrity and rightsof self-governmentwherever their territorialclaims might be located.In fact,the Cherokeetribe respondedto the multipleand conflictingpressures for their improvementand theirremoval by establishinga formal,cen- tralizedgovernment. In July 1827, the tribecompleted this taskby adoptinga constitutionpatterned on thoseof the fed- eral governmentand the surroundingstates. Needless to say, thisconstitution infuriated Georgians, who tookit as a signal to extendtheir own competingjurisdiction over the Cherokee and, as ofJune 1830,to outlawthe exerciseof Cherokeegov- ernmentalauthority in Georgia.Under the administrationof AndrewJackson, who believed that treatingwith Indians as sovereignnations was ridiculouslyanachronistic and thatstates' rightsof jurisdictionover theirterritory and its inhabitants

™Ibid.,October 25, 1820.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 507 wereunquestionable, the Georgiansgot awaywith it. Even an 1832 Supreme Court decision in the ' favor fell stillborn. The Cherokees'success in becominga "civilized"tribe won them manysympathizers among theirown missionariesand among northern evangelical and Quaker communities. Jackson's opponents, both in Georgia and in Congress, exploitedthat sympathy,but theyproved no matchfor the presidentand his partisansin Georgia. For Georgians,the racial composition of theCherokee elite evokedboth wrath and dismay.Intermarriage between whites and Cherokeeshad not,in fact,required official sponsorship. Shortlyafter the ,the sons and grandsonsof Scotch traders,Irish and Englishsoldiers, and crownofficials came to politicalpower and wroughta politicalrevolution among the Cherokee.Many of these men were themselvesslaveholding planters,tavern and ferry-keepers,English-speakers, well-edu- cated,and wealthy.Their ascendancydid notgo unchallenged bytraditional Cherokee leaders, but manyfull blood Cherokee also took officein the newlyformalized government, hoping thatit mightprove more capable than the traditional,town- based and informalgovernment had been in opposingpres- suresfor land cessionand removal.30 So faras theGeorgians were concerned, the Cherokee elite representeda corrupt,avaricious aristocracy, wedded to pos- sessionsand office,and dedicated to preventingtheir more innocentbrethren, the "real" Indians, from following their true interest,emigration to a land wheregame would be plentiful, and trespassersfew.31 Georgia's legislativeprogram for the

30Fora statisticalestimate of theracial composition of theCherokee elite, see Wil- liamG. McLoughlinand WalterConser, Jr., "The Cherokeesin Transition:A Statisti- cal Analysisof the FederalCherokee Census of 1835," Journal of American History 64 (December 1977):678-703. For the culturaland politicalrevolutions among the Cherokeeand therole of theelite in these,see McLoughlin,Cherokee Renascence in the NewRepublic (Princeton, 1986); and MaryYoung, "The CherokeeNation: Mirror of theRepublic," American 33 (Winter1981):502-24. 31 Quarterly Wilson H. Lumpkin, The Removalof theCherokee Indians from Georgia, 1827-1841 (New York,1907) developsthis analysis very fully. See also GeorgeTroup toJohn C. Calhoun,February 25, 1824,Georgia State Archives, Governor's Letterbook, Micro- film1196; GeorgeGilmer to the GeneralAssembly, December 11, 1829, in Georgia Journal,December 10, 1829.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 508 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Cherokeewas aimed notsimply at assertingthe state's jurisdic- tion over all her inhabitants,but at deprivingthe Cherokee aristocracyof theiroffices and emoluments,and eventuallyof theirmeans of livelihoodas a class.The enactmentof Georgia's programfor her Indian inhabitantsrequired nearly a decade of development,and occasionedbitter disputes and conflicts withinthe state.Only those men whobecame attorneys for the Cherokeevocally and publiclydenied the state'sright of juris- diction,but many legislators and governorsquarreled as to how thatright should be exercised. As men of color, Indians of course could not vote,hold office,or serveon juries. Could theytestify in court?A law of 1826, enacted in responseto the legislature'sbitterness over certainfederal investigations of the Creek Treatyof Indian Springs,forbad non-English-speaking Indians fromoffering testimony.32The lawsextending the state's jurisdiction over the Cherokee initiallyexcluded Indian testimonyaltogether, in cases to whicha whitewas a party.33 The exclusionreflected both pragmatic and ideologicalmo- tives.As the MilledgevilleStatesman and Patriot,a Jacksonian paper,editorialized in responseto GovernorForsyth's propos- als of November1828, for extendingthe state'sjurisdiction: "The certaintyof theirbeing subjected, after a particulardate, to laws whichnot onlydisqualify them for office but also in- capacitatethem fromclaiming equality with their next-door neighborsin thecommon affairs of life,would probably render the Cherokeesboth willing and anxiousto movewestwardly. . . . The plan is at all eventsmore equitableand humanethan to dispossessthem at the pointof a bayonet."34 PresidentJackson, sensitive to both his northernand his southernconstituency, advised Georgia congressmenthat it wouldbe good policyto makeIndians competent to testifyand to leave the questionof theircredibility to whitejudges and

32GeorgiaActs of the General Assembly, Reports of theCommittee on theState of the Republic,December 8, 1826; ibid.,December 26, 1826. ™lbid.,December 20, 1828; December19, 1829. The law of 1829 exceptedcases involvingwhites who lived within the Cherokee Nation. "Statesmanand Patriot (Milledgeville), November 8, 1828.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 509 jurors. A strongelement in the Georgialegislature, Governor GeorgeGilmer (1829-31), and theTroup partypress agreed.35 When the statehouse in December1829 attemptedto pro- vide that Indians could act as witnesseswhere the presiding judge believedthem to knowthe obligation of an oath,twenty- twomembers of thatbody signed a resolutionto theeffect that admittingIndian testimonywas "calculatedto corruptthe streamof justice at itsfountain/head and to prostratethe sacred rightsof personalliberty, personal security, and privateprop- erty,at thefeet of savageignorance and barbarity."The Georgia Journaldemurred, citing Sir WilliamBlackstone. All witnesses of whatevercountry or religion,if not infamous,should be receivedif theyhad the use of reason. DeprivingIndians of the rightto testifyhad led whitesto "plunder"them with im- punity.The petitionersreplied that they relied on Coke, who rejected"infidels" as witnesses.Apparently, the state senate agreed withSir EdwardCoke, sincethe prohibitionremained. (Everyapprentice lawyer studied Coke and Blackstone,respec- tivelythe leading seventeenth and eighteenthcentury commen- tatorson Englishlaw.) Yet one of the majorityin the house assertedthat most frontier representatives had votedto admit Indian testimony,finding it importantnot to give the impres- sion of "unnecessaryharshness" to theCherokee. "Perhaps we should neitherextend to themthe rightsof free personsof colour,but extendto themthe rightsand protectionssimilar to those enjoyedby aliens."36Many Cherokee,after all, were Christians.So, of course,were many free blacks and slaves.Yet whena criticpointed out thatthe GeorgiaJournal had perhaps included such persons in editorializingthat "Indians and everyoneelse, not notoriouslyinfamous, should be permitted to giveevidence in all cases,"the editorreplied that of course he intendedto exclude "the colored population.And so we supposedwould be understood."37 Apparentlysome free men of color mightbe freerthan others,for the issue continuedto surface.Governor George

^GeorgiaJournal, August 15, December19, 1829;January 2, 1830. ™Ibid.,December 19, 1829;January 2, 1830. ""Ibid.,November 17, 1830.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 510 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Gilmer,who believedin paternalprotection for the helpless, continuedto recommendthat Indians be permittedto testify on theirown behalf.Supporters of WilsonLumpkin, Gilmer's opponentin thefall 1831 elections,made the mostof Gilmer's paternalsuggestions. On September15, 1831,the Georgia Jour- nal's correspondent,"Indian Hater,"asserted that the Indian "obeysno mandatebut the nod of his chief;he has no motive for action but the impulseof his passions',his wantsand his habitsafford perpetual temptations to riotand robbery,and murder;his very religion bids him, not to sparethe tender mother and helplessbabe quivering beneath his bloodytomahawk. . . . Tell me then,what notion has thismonster of the obligationsof an oath?"38Lumpkin won the election. Nonetheless,the legislatureduring Lumpkin's administra- tiondid finda role forIndian testimony.The discoveryof gold in CherokeeGeorgia in 1829 not onlyattracted thousands of whitetrespassers in need of law, it also emphasizedthe value of thatterritory to the state.To identifyand protectthe gold lots the legislaturein 1830 authorizedthe governorto take immediatepossession of the mines,initiate a surveyof theter- ritory,and distributethe land bylottery.39 Gilmer ordered sec- tionalsurveys immediately, but delayed the division of sections into 160-acrefarm lots and 40-acre gold lots in hopes that Georgia mightnot be required to take over Cherokee land untilthe tribehad made a treatywith the United Statesau- thorizingsuch a takeover.In December 1831, the legislature ordered the governorto send out the districtsurveyors by April,and GovernorLumpkin expedited both survey and lot- tery.40By the fallof 1832,fortunate beneficiaries of thelottery could take possessionof all Cherokeeland exceptthe lotsthe Cherokeeactually occupied. To protectthe Cherokees'occu- pant rights,the legislaturein December 1832, providedthat personswho forcedthem from their property forfeit any claim to theirlot and pay a heavyfine. Justices of the inferiorcourt foreach countrywere to employagents to protectCherokee

ssIbid.,September 8, 1831. 39GeorgiaActs, December 2, 21, 1830. 40/6id.,December 22, 24, 1831.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 511 rights,and in these cases Cherokee testimonywas to be ac- cepted.41There is no evidencethat this paternal protection ac- tuallyafforded the Cherokeemuch practical relief. Whateverits paternalpretensions in protectingthe rights of "innocent"and "ignorant"full bloods, Georgia's legislature took a sternline in circumscribingthe "pretensions"of the Cherokeeelite. These werethe persons whose dominating "av- arice"was responsiblefor the numerous failed negotiations for a removaltreaty, and if theycould be dislodged,their sup- posedlysubservient people wouldfollow. Hence thelegislature beganby outlawing their exercise of officeunder the Cherokee constitutionand laws,and thenproceeded to denythem access to their"surplus" lands by lotteryingthem off to whiteGeor- gians. By the fall of 1833, withthe electedleadership of the Cherokeestill refusing to makea treatydespite mounting pres- sure fromtrespassers and mountingcriticism within the tribe, the legislativeonslaught went into high gear. Not onlydid the legislatureprescribe the grantingout of lots belongingto people (likeJohn Ross,Joseph Vann, and John Martin,key membersof theCherokee government) who had takenreserva- tionsin 1817 and 1819; theyalso grantedout lotsbelonging to everyonewho had ever enrolledfor emigration and sold im- provementsto the United States,but failed to remove.This includedhundreds of people who mayhave been speculating a littleon the willingnessof the governmentto buy individual properties,or maysimply have changedtheir minds. The 1833 lawsalso forbadeCherokee planters to selltheir improvements to anyoneother than the UnitedStates or claimantsunder the Georgia lottery,and provided that their occupancy rights would fallforfeit if theyemployed anyone, black or white,to assistthem in agriculture.42Wealthy Cherokee, like other weal- thyGeorgians, did not worktheir own plantations. When none of thesestrategies proved effective in produc- ing a removalagreement, Georgians in the fallof 1835 simply providedfor issuing grants to all theland in CherokeeGeorgia, leavingthe Cherokee less than a yearto vacatetheir property.43

"Ibid., December 29, 1832. 42Ibid.,December 20, 1836. 43Ibid.,December 21, 1835.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 512 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Major Ridge (above),his son John,and Elias Boudinotled theTreaty Party which negotiated the Treaty of New Echota withthe federalgovernment in 1835.Portrait from Hargrett Rare Book and ManuscriptLibraries.

At thispoint, a smallbut able minorityof the tribe,under the leadershipof John Ridge, Major Ridge, and Elias Boudinot, signed the Treatyof New Echota. That treaty,together with subsequentacts of the ,gave the Cherokeeuntil May 23, 1838,to getout of Georgia.The treaty was invalidin the sense that no Cherokee governmentever accepted it. But ratificationby the United StatesSenate was sufficientto send morethan a thousandGeorgia militia under the commandof the U.S. Army'sWinfield Scott to evictthe Cherokeefrom Georgia between May 25 and June 15, 1838, and send themalong the .44

44Agood accountof the Ridge partyis ThurmanWilkins, Cherokee Tragedy: The RidgeFamily and theDecimation of a People(Norman, Okla., 1986,cl970). Their own

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 513

This tale of oppressionmay seem grislyenough, but the factremains that by comparisonto otherfree people of color, the Cherokeein Georgia were a privilegedpeople. And one mustremember that on an individualbasis, other free people of color could be expelled fromGeorgia at any momentan inferiorcourt of any countydecided to refuseto renewtheir yearlyregistration. Individual whim could do the trick;no treatywas required.45 Georgians'attitudes toward free red people and freeblack people weresimilar in importantways. Most Georgians refused to accept themas social or politicalequals simplybecause of theircolor. Both groupswere at varioustimes stigmatized as ignorant,depraved, indolent, and savage.Both evoked fear of internalsubversion. Georgians believed that both they and free blacks and Indians would be betteroff if those indigestible people of color wouldjust get out of the state. But in fact Georgia- unlike Ohio, for example- never undertookthe wholesaleexpulsion of free blacks.There was littlevaluable propertyto be gained;there was usefullabor to be lost.Georgia contentedherself with keeping the number of freeblacks small, and thatnumber under comprehensive and effectivecontrol. The controlsthe stateexercised over all blacks,free and slave,increased dramatically just at the periodwhen the Gen- eral Assemblyundertook to governthe Cherokee. In 1829,the GeneralAssembly devoted considerable attention and debate to the extensionof controlsover the Cherokeeand theirgold lands. Yet near the end of the session,they discovered a more terrifyinglyimmediate task of controllingtheir black inhabi- tants.From a whitesteward on a shipin Savannahharbor, sixty copies of David Walker'sAppeal to the Colored Citizens of the World had foundtheir way into the hands of a blackpreacher in the versionmay be foundin Theda Perdue,ed., CherokeeEditor: The Writingsof Elias Boudinot(Knoxville, Tenn., 1983). The pointof viewof the Ross party,who denied the treaty'slegitimacy, is developedin Gary E. Moulton,John Ross: CherokeeChief (Athens,Ga., 1978). 45Onthe statusof freeblacks and pertinentlegislation, see Berlin,Slaves Without Masters,passim', Ralph B. Flanders,"The Free Negroin AntebellumGeorgia," North CarolinaHistorical Review 9 (July1932): 250-72; Ralph B. Flanders,Plantation Slavery inGeorgia (Chapel Hill, 1933); Julia Floyd Smith, Slavery and Rice Culture in Low Country Georgia,1750-1860 (Knoxville, Tenn., 1985); and W. McDowellRogers, "Free Negro Legislationin Georgiabefore 1865," Georgia Historical Quarterly 16 (March1932):27-37.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 514 Georgia Historical Quarterly city.News reached the governor, who communicated it, quietly but urgently,to the legislature.No whitecitizen of Georgia needed to be paranoid to findWalker's message a threatto safetyand property.Walker, a freeblack dealer in old clothes on BrattleStreet in Boston,offered the prophecythat a just God would surelyrise up and punishthe perpetratorsof the worstsystem of oppressionknown to human history- Amer- ican slavery.Whether He would use the slavesas His instru- ments,Walker could not certainlypredict. But the freeblack author denied both black inferiorityand black docility,and chided his black brethernfor refraining from the murderof whitesout of considerationsof humanity. The legislaturein December1829, made it a penal offense to teach a black (freeor slave) to read or write,and levied a fineon anyonewho mightemploy a blackprinter. It made the circulationof literatureadvocating insurrection a capital crime. During the springof 1830, when Democraticpolitician and publisherJohn Polhillfound copies of Walker'spamphlet in the Milledgevilleoffice of his co-editor,Elijah Burritt,of the FederalUnion, he took the problemto influentialwho took Burrittto law; and theformer New Englanderleft his wife and childrenand fledto Connecticut.46 Free blacks on ships comingfrom the Northdistributed latereditions of theAppeal, though the legislature took extreme pains to quarantinefree blacks in the seaportsand to penalize otherswho might fraternize with them. The relevantrestrictive law specificallyexempted American Indians fromits penal- ties.47 The law prohibitingteaching colored people to read and writecarried no such specificexemption, but Georgia au- thoritiesnever attempted to preventmissionaries and theiras-

46Auseful edition of the Appealand an account of itsreception in Georgia is Herbert Aptheker, ed., "One ContinualCry"; David Walker'sAppeal to theColored Citizens of the World(1829-1830). Its Settingand Its Meaning. Togetherwith the Full Textof the Third- and - Last Editionof theAppeal (New York, 1965). James C. Bonner, Milledgeville:Georgia's AntebellumCapital (Athens, 1978), 60-63, contains an account of Burritt'sexile and describes rumors of slave uprisings and the local response; see also GeorgiaJournal , February 2, March 6, 13, July 17, and August 7, 1830; Statesmanand Patriot,January 2, 1830; Georgia ActsDecember 22, 1829, December 12, 1833. 47GeorgiaActs December 22, 1829; GeorgiaJournal, March 13, 1830.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 515 sistantsfrom teaching Indian childrenin theirschools. Indians could notvote, hold office,serve on juries,or - in mostcases - testifyin court in Georgia. They could, however,own real property.Georgia legislationof 1833 restrictedthe amount, use, and conveyanceof thatproperty, but it neverrequired an Indianto go througha whitetrustee in orderto ownor manage his or her property- or to do mercantilebusiness - as it did freeblacks. Indians were not restrictedas to occupation;no 9 P.M. curfewor prohibitionson largeassemblies impeded either theirall-night dances or theirProtestant camp meetings. Unlike freeblacks, they obeyed laws directedat whites,faced trialin court withwhites, and went to the penitentiarywith whites. Slaves'courts, and slaves'punishments - whippingand brand- ing- weregood enoughfor free blacks. I thinkthese differences tell us somethingimportant about nineteenth-centuryAmerican race relations.Racial attitudes to- wardblacks and Indianswere similar in crucialways that made integratingeither into Georgia's slave societyon a basis of equalityimpossible. John Ross refusedto face this fact; the darker-skinnedmembers of the TreatyParty did face it; and theyconcluded, rather like the Georgians,that John Ross and his elite followerswere not "real" Indians if theysupposed it possibleto livewith Georgians as neighbors.48 Yet because social and politicalrelations between Indians and whitesin Georgiaremained very different from relations between whites and blacks in the state, color prejudice, ethnocentricdenigration of thecultural peculiarities of thecol- ored,and theconviction that the races would both be betteroff apartdid not producethe same behavioralresult, or the same socialand legal statusfor the denigratedraces.49 48See,for example,Elias Boudinot,chairman, "Memorial of a Council Held at RunningWaters," H.R. Doc. 91, 23d Cong.,2d sess.,November 28, 1834,1-10: "With- out law in theStates we are notmore favored than the poor African.. . . [worse]for theinterest of his masterprotects him from personal injury." See alsoJohn Ridge to Lumpkin,May 18, 1835,Indian Letters, Georgia State Archives. Both Ridge and Ross wereslaveowners, and theirconstitution and laws prohibitedblacks from becoming citizensof theCherokee Nation. See Theda Perdue,Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society,1540-1866 (Knoxville, Tenn., 1979). 49GeorgeM. Fredrickson,"Toward a Social Interpretationof the Developmentof AmericanRacism," in NathanI. Huggins,Martin Killson, and DanielM. Fox,eds., Key Issuesin theAfro-American Experience (New York,1971), 240-54, emphasizes the distinc- tionbetween prejudice, an attitudeor feeling,and discrimination,a description of

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 516 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Indianshad valuableproperty Georgians wanted. However bombasticallythey might assert their "state rights," Georgians nonethelesscourted the opinionof a sympatheticfederal ad- ministrationand did not wantto embarrassits efforts to make a treaty.That administration,in turn,depended in part on northernvotes. It wouldsimply not do to treatIndians in a way thatverified what the criticsof slaveryand of Indian removal were sayingabout the avariciouscruelty of the slavemasters' republic.To rebutthe "canting fanaticks'" failure to appreciate the paternalkindness of Georgians'motive toward the lesser breeds,one had occasionallyto appear to be kind. Georgia's GovernorGilmer rationalizedremoval both to his political friendsand to his Indianfriends by insisting that the best status Indianscould hope forin Georgiawas thestatus of freepeople of color.50Yet he riskedhis politicalfuture by recommending thatIndians be permittedto testifyin court.Had Georgiaactu- allytreated Indians as she treatedfree blacks, the result would have been both politicallyembarrassing and psychologically threateningto thefragile structure of benevolent paternalism. Furthermore,the Georgianswere inhibited, and in conflict withone another,because of theiringrained respect for prop- ertyrights. Whatever their assertions of theirright of eminent domain,they were reluctant simply to dispossessthe Cherokee in order to exerciseit. When the legislaturefinally voted in 1835 to grantout lands the Cherokeeactually occupied, the behavior.On thequestion of racialattitudes and racialpolicy in theUnited States see Fredrickson,The Black Image in theWhite Mind. The Debate on Afro-AmericanCharacter andDestiny, 1817-1914 (New York, 1971); WinthropD. Jordan,White over Black: Amer- icanAttitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill, 1968); and withspecial em- phasison Indianpolicy, Robert F. Berkhofer,Jr., The White Mans Indian:Images of the AmericanIndian From Columbus tothe Present (New York, 1978); and ReginaldHorsman, Race and ManifestDestiny: The Originsof American Racial Anglo-Saxonism (Cambridge, Mass.,1981). I am inclinedto agreewith Horsman that the capture of thegovernment bypeople who had alwayshad racistviews, rather than a declinein "environmentalism" or the developmentof "scientificracism," accounts for the successof the Indian re- movalpolicy. I wouldalso arguethat "environmentalists" and believersin Indianim- provability,like Return J. Meigsand ThomasL. McKenney,were also paternalistswho believedIndians should not have theoption of rejectingremoval once whitesdecided itwas good forthem. I thereforedisagree with William G. McLoughlin'sinterpretation in CherokeeRenascence, of theinfluence of scientificracism on removalpolicy. 50Gilmerto John Rogers, March 10, 1831,Georgia State Archives, Governors Let- terbook,Microfilm, 1197. See also Troup to Calhoun,February 28, 1824,American StatePapers, Class II: IndianAffairs, 2:475-76.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racism in Red and Black 517 debateon the measurewas sharp.51Senator Nisbet of Morgan Countymoved to delaythe removal of theCherokee until they ceded theirland. "It is said, thatif we do not act,a treatywill not be made. I care not if a treatyis not made, if it requiresa breachof faithto make one." Afterthe defeatof Nisbet'smotion, Senator Patterson de- cried the measure:"They have givenus the brightestempire in theworld. We have takentheir lands, their mountains, their streams;and have giventhem our vices.We talkof givingthem a fairequivalent, but posteritywill condemn us as unjustand untrue... we have gone farenough - I tremblefor my coun- try,when I rememberthat God isjust." And, in fact,Georgians delayed the dispossessionof the Cherokee until a treaty sanctionedit. Furthermore,two judges of theCherokee circuit, both con- vincedthat Georgia had a rightto governthe Cherokeeand that the tribe'sremoval would benefiteveryone, nonetheless frustratedthe administration of statelaw in importantparticu- lars. Judge AugustinS. Claytonfreed Canatoo, a Cherokee arrestedfor mininggold in the area the legislatureand the governorhad definedas thestate's, because he did notbelieve an Indian could trespasson his own property.Judge John J. Hooper, one of Clayton'ssuccessors, accepted bills of injunc- tion againstthe dispossessionof the réservéesbecause he be- lievedthat as landowners,they had a commonlaw rightto trial byjury in any case involvingtitle to real property.The mere decisionof the state'sagent that as réservéesthey were dispos- sessedipso facto was not enough.52 An instructiveindication of theCherokee's political and so- cial advantageover free blacks is theattitude of Georgia'slead-

51Thedebate is reportedin theGeorgia Journal, December 11, 1835. ^The role of lawyersand judges in attemptingto protectIndian propertyrights illustratesMark Tushnet's contention that simply having a legal traditionand a legal professionmediates the direct expression of economicinterest in law and itsadminis- tration.The AmericanLaw of Slavery,1810-1860: Considerationsof Humanityand Interest (Princeton,1981), 31. For Clayton'srole, see FederalUnion (Milledgeville), September 8, 1831;J.W. A. Sanfordto Gilmer,September 16, 1831,Sanford Letterbook, Georgia StateArchives and thereply, September 19, Governor's Letterbook, microfilm, 1197; CherokeePhoenix, December 10, 1831. On Hooper, see Georgia,General Assembly, House of Representatives,Documents Relative to theJudicial Administration of theHon. JohnW. Hooper (Milledgeville, 1835), 7-38; GeorgiaJournal, November 28, 1834.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 518 Georgia Historical Quarterly ers- and federalofficials - towardthe mixedblood Cherokee leadership.There wereproportionally many more people with whiteancestors among Georgia'sfree blacks than among the Cherokee.53No whiteperson argued thatfree mulattoes were not "really"negroes. Yet almosteveryone argued thatJohn Ross,who was one-eighthCherokee by inheritance,and mem- bers of his Councilwho wereone-quarter Cherokee, were not "real" Indians. They had wealth,they had power,they put their"pretensions" of equalityinto practice.They frustrated not only the Georgians'practical ambitions, but theirpater- nalistassumptions that people who werenon-white must be by nature,as wellas in law,subordinate to and controlledby white men. If some uppityCherokee were not so controlled,they simplycould not be Indians. An instructivecontrast may be foundin the careerof one of thefew free black men in antebellumGeorgia whose life has escaped theobscurity of most.Wilkes Flagg, a six-foot,"copper colored" slave belonging to Dr. Tomlinson Fort of Mil- ledgeville,earned his freedomand thatof his wifeby working overtimeas a blacksmith.He acquired a small fortune- $25,000 by 1860- by his smithwork and by lending,through Fort as his guardian,small sums of moneyto whitemen in Milledgeville.Flagg was also an accomplishedheadwaiter, and no statedinner from the thoseof WilsonLumpkin to thoseof GovernorJoseph E. Brown,was complete without his presence. Fort,an activeDemocrat, enjoyed discussing political questions withhis protege.After the war,Flagg recoupedhis fortunes, built the firstblack Baptistchurch in the city,established a colonyon his farm,and pressedfor the educational and moral improvementof the freedmen.But he caused a schismwithin his own churchwith one piece of advicehe gave to his fellow freedmen:Stay out of politics.54

53CompareMcLoughlin and Conser,"Cherokee in Transition,"pp. 678-703,which estimatesthat about 10 percentof the Cherokeesby 1835 had whiteancestors; and Smith,Slavery and Rice Culture, 194, who estimates that of 3,500free blacks in Georgia in 1860,2,004 weremulatto. 54Bonner,Milledgeville, 212.

This content downloaded from 192.153.34.30 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:45:08 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions