Having described four episodes of authoritarianism in American history, we’re turning attention now to people who have stood against the tide.
As the encroachment on Cherokee land evolved in the 1820 and 1830s, there were occasional modest expressions of dissent among national leaders. In the wake of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Henry Clay wrote to Daniel Webster, commenting that the legislation would bring “a foul and lasting stain upon the good faith, humanity, and character of the nation.”
The most strident and coherent opposition came from the Cherokee nation.
Over the course of four decades, the post prominent Cherokee leader was John Ross. Born shortly after the American Revolution, Ross grew up with firm ties both to the European and Cherokee communities. His father was Scottish and his mother, Cherokee, and Ross drew from both traditions in his dress, language, and relationships. Operating a trading post that had been started by his grandfather, Ross became a wealthy merchant, planter, and, in fact, slaveholder.
With a deep respect for his mother’s culture, Ross was distressed to see repeated violations of federal treaties with the Cherokee. He developed expertise in the history of these treaties and, even as a young man, ventured into the public arena to advocate for the territorial integrity of his people.
Ross was part of a group that protested the 1814 Treaty of Fort Jackson, which ended hostilities between Creeks and the federal government, with the result that 23 million acres in Georgia and Alabama were ceded to the United States. Ross found a sympathetic ear in Secretary of War William H. Crawford, but the treaty was implemented as signed.
Ross became the principal chief of the Cherokee nation in 1828. He was active in legal advocacy, representing the Cherokee in the unsuccessful Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and the successful Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In Worcester, (as you may recall from the earlier post), the court found that Georgia laws restricting the relationships between the Cherokee and the federal government were unconstitutional, such that the Cherokee community was vested with the integrity and authority to govern themselves, with their own laws. Andrew Jackson, as you also read, ignored this court decision.
As tensions with the federal government escalated, the Cherokee nation became divided between a faction that was willing to relocate and cede land in exchange for cash benefits, and a faction, led by Ross, that opposed any such arrangements. A small group of Cherokee, without authorization from the larger community, signed the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, agreeing to removal in exchange for $5 million and land in Oklahoma. Ross vociferously opposed the treaty, writing to the federal congress that it would have lasting, disenfranchising effects on the Cherokee community.
Cherokee removal, both voluntary and involuntary, proceeded, with suffering and the loss of thousands of people on the Trail of Tears.
Ross continued as principal Cherokee chief, supporting and advocating for the community that remained, until his death in 1866.
In my previous blog post, introducing the theme of “dissidents and heroes,” I said:
For all the times of darkness, there are points of light. People from all walks of life… journalists, public officials, academics, and ordinary citizens… have resisted authoritarian policies. Sometimes their dissent has formed movements that have changed our history. Sometimes their dissent has not visibly changed anything but underscores the integrity and personal salvation of having a voice.
The journalists who opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts saw the fruits of their efforts within a few short years. Not so for John Ross. Cherokee displacement continued despite his efforts. Even in the absence of visible success, may we draw inspiration from the integrity of his raising his voice on behalf of justice.
Next: Turning the tide of the antebellum south.
As the encroachment on Cherokee land evolved in the 1820 and 1830s, there were occasional modest expressions of dissent among national leaders. In the wake of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Henry Clay wrote to Daniel Webster, commenting that the legislation would bring “a foul and lasting stain upon the good faith, humanity, and character of the nation.”
The most strident and coherent opposition came from the Cherokee nation.
Over the course of four decades, the post prominent Cherokee leader was John Ross. Born shortly after the American Revolution, Ross grew up with firm ties both to the European and Cherokee communities. His father was Scottish and his mother, Cherokee, and Ross drew from both traditions in his dress, language, and relationships. Operating a trading post that had been started by his grandfather, Ross became a wealthy merchant, planter, and, in fact, slaveholder.
With a deep respect for his mother’s culture, Ross was distressed to see repeated violations of federal treaties with the Cherokee. He developed expertise in the history of these treaties and, even as a young man, ventured into the public arena to advocate for the territorial integrity of his people.
Ross was part of a group that protested the 1814 Treaty of Fort Jackson, which ended hostilities between Creeks and the federal government, with the result that 23 million acres in Georgia and Alabama were ceded to the United States. Ross found a sympathetic ear in Secretary of War William H. Crawford, but the treaty was implemented as signed.
Ross became the principal chief of the Cherokee nation in 1828. He was active in legal advocacy, representing the Cherokee in the unsuccessful Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and the successful Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In Worcester, (as you may recall from the earlier post), the court found that Georgia laws restricting the relationships between the Cherokee and the federal government were unconstitutional, such that the Cherokee community was vested with the integrity and authority to govern themselves, with their own laws. Andrew Jackson, as you also read, ignored this court decision.
As tensions with the federal government escalated, the Cherokee nation became divided between a faction that was willing to relocate and cede land in exchange for cash benefits, and a faction, led by Ross, that opposed any such arrangements. A small group of Cherokee, without authorization from the larger community, signed the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, agreeing to removal in exchange for $5 million and land in Oklahoma. Ross vociferously opposed the treaty, writing to the federal congress that it would have lasting, disenfranchising effects on the Cherokee community.
Cherokee removal, both voluntary and involuntary, proceeded, with suffering and the loss of thousands of people on the Trail of Tears.
Ross continued as principal Cherokee chief, supporting and advocating for the community that remained, until his death in 1866.
In my previous blog post, introducing the theme of “dissidents and heroes,” I said:
For all the times of darkness, there are points of light. People from all walks of life… journalists, public officials, academics, and ordinary citizens… have resisted authoritarian policies. Sometimes their dissent has formed movements that have changed our history. Sometimes their dissent has not visibly changed anything but underscores the integrity and personal salvation of having a voice.
The journalists who opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts saw the fruits of their efforts within a few short years. Not so for John Ross. Cherokee displacement continued despite his efforts. Even in the absence of visible success, may we draw inspiration from the integrity of his raising his voice on behalf of justice.
Next: Turning the tide of the antebellum south.