What Is The Legal Basis Of The Cherokee Expulsion On The Trail Of Tears

Enduring perpetual bludgeoning since its first contact with European society, the Cherokee Nation succumbed to the dominant power in the first half of the nineteenth century. As tensions between the two entities grew, the collective idea of defending tribal culture and land from external institutions defined Cherokee nationalism. The United States’ continuous infringement of Indian sovereignty inspired sentiments of opposition that remained prevalent until the Cherokees abandoned all hope on the Trail of Tears. Stemming from religious and governmental assimilation policies, the law’s bias against the Cherokees in their efforts to keep their borders and culture intact, and political infighting over land secession, Cherokee nationalism encompassed

the spirit of resistance to Western encroachment.
The Cherokee Nation attracted evangelical missionaries who spread the Gospel, established Western values through schools, and bred contempt among their subjects. Recounting her teaching experience with Cherokees, Sally M. Reece suggested, “They have yet a great many bad customs but I hope all these things will soon be done away. They have thought more about the Savior lately. I hope this nation will soon become civilized and enlightened.” While the religious instructors saw merit to their practices, those receiving the schooling protested. One tutor recalled a child telling her, “If white people want more land let them go back to the country they came from.” These accounts demonstrate the disdain for encroachment that formed the foundation for Cherokee nationalism. While years of influence from external organizations embedded the notion that a civilized society conformed to Christian morals, the instigators of these reforms received criticism for their unwelcome presence on indigenous land. Moreover, the English taught in schools allowed them to effectively voice their grievances with their oppressors. Native nationalism also translated to another political body, whose efforts to Westernize the Cherokee possessed a much more despicable purpose.
In an attempt to “civilize” the Cherokees and make their eventual eviction easier, the U.S. unknowingly created a force with the tools and institutions to recognize and address their maltreatment. The Federal Government exercised its legal standing to further the Christian missionaries’ goals of enlightening the savage people. They compelled the Cherokees to reject their long-held beliefs in gender equality and direct democracy in exchange for mainstream American technology, social structures, and constructs, such as slavery. Using the Western-originating printing press, Elias Boudinot of the Cherokee Phoenix declared, “The guardian has deprived his wards of their rights - the sacred obligations of treaties and laws have been disregarded - the promises of Washington and Jefferson have not been fulfilled.” As broken treaties, forced constitutions, and an economic restructuring transformed their way of life, the Cherokee people employed the skills the government bestowed upon them to recognize their toxic paternalistic relationship and unite in resistance. Nevertheless, this bureaucratic invasion expanded beyond the social sphere, physically constraining Cherokee borders through unjust laws and illicit activities.
Federal Indian policy responded to the economic and social interests of a growing White population, contributing to a collective agitation among the Cherokee people. Acknowledging that “philanthropy has been long busily employed,” Andrew Jackson sought to end Native American assimilation policies, favoring their complete displacement instead. He pondered in his 1830 State of the Union Address, “What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic . . . filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?” Defending the Indian Removal Act and later supporting Georgia’s efforts to ignore Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruling that protected Cherokee sovereignty, Jackson defined Cherokee extraction as a nationalistic cause. In an antithesis to the president’s speech, a council of Cherokee women asserted their resentment, stating in a petition to the National Council, “We believe the present plan of the General Government to effect our removal West of the Mississippi, and thus obtain our lands for the use of the State of Georgia, to be highly oppressive, cruel and unjust.” Lashing out against the tyrannical actions of the government, this expression holds special significance, as women in Cherokee society typically remained apolitical after assimilation. Furthermore, it displayed the momentousness of the removal issue and the spread of Cherokee nationalism, drawing out voices from lesser-heard portions of the indigenous population. As the government forced leaders of the Native community to the negotiation table over the terms of their imminent removal, the controversial actions of a few outraged and united the public.
Sacrificing the land that established the basis for Cherokee nationhood, the Treaty of New Echota produced one last attempt to protect the indigenous people from removal.

The process of reaching the agreement, which laid down the legal basis for Cherokee expulsion on the Trail of Tears, incited fierce debate over its lack of transparency and few voices that dictated its terms. On top of criticizing the Treaty Party for failing to consult with its constituents, John Ross, a prominent Cherokee leader and former treaty negotiator, noted, “But when I speak of the principles of white men, I speak not of such principles as acute those who talk thus to us, but of those mighty principles to which the United States owes her greatness and her liberty.” Referencing the nationalistic values of the United States, Ross establishes the mainstream idea among the Cherokee people. He claimed that freedom to dictate oneself and one’s community through democratic vote should apply to all in America, even Native Americans with little power. This final outcry against the forced removal yielded a backlash from the Treaty Party that admitted defeat in preserving the Cherokee

Nation.
Using the past as justification for the Treaty of New Echota’s ratification, the signers abandoned their constituents’ nationalistic values, asserting their defeatist views through compromise.

Elias Boudinot, a member of the Treaty Party, proclaimed, “Instead of contending uselessly against superior power, the only course left, was, to yield to circumstances over which they had no control.” Since relocation seemed inevitable, the viable pathway consisted of surrendering with minimal dignity and benefits, including the promise of a monetary settlement. Claiming to act out of the Cherokees’ best interests, Boudinot lambasted Ross’ false promises of a better deal, writing, “They have been taught to feel and expect what could not be realized, and what Mr. Ross himself must have known would not be realized.” This diversion from the majority view among the indigenous population presents the pragmatic yet pessimistic approach to the dilemma. As a final contribution to the discussion before removal, Boudinot and the signers marked the end of a once-fiery nationalism with their message of

surrender.
The growth of Cherokee nationalism paralleled the unwarranted assimilation policies, legal battles over land invasion, and disagreements over the future of tribal sovereignty that uprooted the indigenous way of life. Voicing their opposition to Western encroachment, the Cherokees adopted the ways of their enemies to effectively resist. While nationalistic views dominated the landscape in response to the rising conflict between the Cherokee people and the United States, the Trail of Tears heralded the end to the tribe’s sense of nationhood, which latched onto its homeland within the American South. As compulsory change and broken promises stained their relationship, the United States abandoned the Cherokee people with a shattered culture in an unfamiliar territory.