in 1830 the state of mississippi assimilated the choctaws and chickasaws to the white population, and declared that any of them that should take the title of chief would be punished by a fine of $1,000 and a year's imprisonment. when these laws were enforced upon the choctaws, who inhabited that district, the tribe assembled, their chief communicated to them the intentions of the whites, and read to them some of the laws to which it was intended that they should submit; and they unanimously declared that it was better at once to retreat again into the wilds.]
if we consider the tyrannical measures which have been adopted by the legislatures of the southern states, the conduct of their governors, and the decrees of their courts of justice, we shall be convinced that the entire expulsion of the indians is the final result to which the efforts of their policy are directed. the americans of that part of the union look with jealousy upon the aborigines, *v they are aware that these tribes have not yet lost the traditions of savage life, and before civilization has permanently fixed them to the soil, it is intended to force them to recede by reducing them to despair. the creeks and cherokees, oppressed by the several states, have appealed to the central government, which is by no means insensible to their misfortunes, and is sincerely desirous of saving the remnant of the natives, and of maintaining them in the free possession of that territory, which the union is pledged to respect. *w but the several states oppose so formidable a resistance to the execution of this design, that the government is obliged to consent to the extirpation of a few barbarous tribes in order not to endanger the safety of the american union.
v
[ the georgians, who are so much annoyed by the proximity of the indians, inhabit a territory which does not at present contain more than seven inhabitants to the square mile. in france there are one hundred and sixty-two inhabitants to the same extent of country.]
w
[ in 1818 congress appointed commissioners to visit the arkansas territory, accompanied by a deputation of creeks, choctaws, and chickasaws. this expedition was commanded by messrs. kennerly, m'coy, wash hood, and john bell. see the different reports of the commissioners, and their journal, in the documents of congress, no. 87, house of representatives.]
but the federal government, which is not able to protect the indians, would fain mitigate the hardships of their lot; and, with this intention, proposals have been made to transport them into more remote regions at the public cost.
between the thirty-third and thirty-seventh degrees of north latitude, a vast tract of country lies, which has taken the name of arkansas, from the principal river that waters its extent. it is bounded on the one side by the confines of mexico, on the other by the mississippi. numberless streams cross it in every direction; the climate is mild, and the soil productive, but it is only inhabited by a few wandering hordes of savages. the government of the union wishes to transport the broken remnants of the indigenous population of the south to the portion of this country which is nearest to mexico, and at a great distance from the american settlements.
we were assured, towards the end of the year 1831, that 10,000 indians had already gone down to the shores of the arkansas; and fresh detachments were constantly following them; but congress has been unable to excite a unanimous determination in those whom it is disposed to protect. some, indeed, are willing to quit the seat of oppression, but the most enlightened members of the community refuse to abandon their recent dwellings and their springing crops; they are of opinion that the work of civilization, once interrupted, will never be resumed; they fear that those domestic habits which have been so recently contracted, may be irrevocably lost in the midst of a country which is still barbarous, and where nothing is prepared for the subsistence of an agricultural people; they know that their entrance into those wilds will be opposed by inimical hordes, and that they have lost the energy of barbarians, without acquiring the resources of civilization to resist their attacks. moreover, the indians readily discover that the settlement which is proposed to them is merely a temporary expedient. who can assure them that they will at length be allowed to dwell in peace in their new retreat? the united states pledge themselves to the observance of the obligation; but the territory which they at present occupy was formerly secured to them by the most solemn oaths of anglo-american faith. *x the american government does not indeed rob them of their lands, but it allows perpetual incursions to be made on them. in a few years the same white population which now flocks around them, will track them to the solitudes of the arkansas; they will then be exposed to the same evils without the same remedies, and as the limits of the earth will at last fail them, their only refuge is the grave.
x
[ the fifth article of the treaty made with the creeks in august, 1790, is in the following words:—"the united states solemnly guarantee to the creek nation all their land within the limits of the united states."
the seventh article of the treaty concluded in 1791 with the cherokees says:—"the united states solemnly guarantee to the cherokee nation all their lands not hereby ceded." the following article declared that if any citizen of the united states or other settler not of the indian race should establish himself upon the territory of the cherokees, the united states would withdraw their protection from that individual, and give him up to be punished as the cherokee nation should think fit.]
the union treats the indians with less cupidity and rigor than the policy of the several states, but the two governments are alike destitute of good faith. the states extend what they are pleased to term the benefits of their laws to the indians, with a belief that the tribes will recede rather than submit; and the central government, which promises a permanent refuge to these unhappy beings is well aware of its inability to secure it to them. *y
y
[ this does not prevent them from promising in the most solemn manner to do so. see the letter of the president addressed to the creek indians, march 23, 1829 (proceedings of the indian board, in the city of new york, p. 5): "beyond the great river mississippi, where a part of your nation has gone, your father has provided a country large enough for all of you, and he advises you to remove to it. there your white brothers will not trouble you; they will have no claim to the land, and you can live upon it, you and all your children, as long as the grass grows, or the water runs, in peace and plenty. it will be yours forever."
the secretary of war, in a letter written to the cherokees, april 18, 1829, (see the same work, p. 6), declares to them that they cannot expect to retain possession of the lands at that time occupied by them, but gives them the most positive assurance of uninterrupted peace if they would remove beyond the mississippi: as if the power which could not grant them protection then, would be able to afford it them hereafter!]
thus the tyranny of the states obliges the savages to retire, the union, by its promises and resources, facilitates their retreat; and these measures tend to precisely the same end. *z "by the will of our father in heaven, the governor of the whole world," said the cherokees in their petition to congress, *a "the red man of america has become small, and the white man great and renowned. when the ancestors of the people of these united states first came to the shores of america they found the red man strong: though he was ignorant and savage, yet he received them kindly, and gave them dry land to rest their weary feet. they met in peace, and shook hands in token of friendship. whatever the white man wanted and asked of the indian, the latter willingly gave. at that time the indian was the lord, and the white man the suppliant. but now the scene has changed. the strength of the red man has become weakness. as his neighbors increased in numbers his power became less and less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once covered these united states, only a few are to be seen—a few whom a sweeping pestilence has left. the northern tribes, who were once so numerous and powerful, are now nearly extinct. thus it has happened to the red man of america. shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate?"
z
[ to obtain a correct idea of the policy pursued by the several states and the union with respect to the indians, it is necessary to consult, 1st, "the laws of the colonial and state governments relating to the indian inhabitants." (see the legislative documents, 21st congress, no. 319.) 2d, the laws of the union on the same subject, and especially that of march 30, 1802. (see story's "laws of the united states.") 3d, the report of mr. cass, secretary of war, relative to indian affairs, november 29, 1823.]
a
[ december 18, 1829.]
"the land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance from our fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our common father in heaven. they bequeathed it to us as their children, and we have sacredly kept it, as containing the remains of our beloved men. this right of inheritance we have never ceded nor ever forfeited. permit us to ask what better right can the people have to a country than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession? we know it is said of late by the state of georgia and by the executive of the united states, that we have forfeited this right; but we think this is said gratuitously. at what time have we made the forfeit? what great crime have we committed, whereby we must forever be divested of our country and rights? was it when we were hostile to the united states, and took part with the king of great britain, during the struggle for independence? if so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty of peace between the united states and our beloved men? why was not such an article as the following inserted in the treaty:—'the united states give peace to the cherokees, but, for the part they took in the late war, declare them to be but tenants at will, to be removed when the convenience of the states, within whose chartered limits they live, shall require it'? that was the proper time to assume such a possession. but it was not thought of, nor would our forefathers have agreed to any treaty whose tendency was to deprive them of their rights and their country."
such is the language of the indians: their assertions are true, their forebodings inevitable. from whichever side we consider the destinies of the aborigines of north america, their calamities appear to be irremediable: if they continue barbarous, they are forced to retire; if they attempt to civilize their manners, the contact of a more civilized community subjects them to oppression and destitution. they perish if they continue to wander from waste to waste, and if they attempt to settle they still must perish; the assistance of europeans is necessary to instruct them, but the approach of europeans corrupts and repels them into savage life; they refuse to change their habits as long as their solitudes are their own, and it is too late to change them when they are constrained to submit.
the spaniards pursued the indians with bloodhounds, like wild beasts; they sacked the new world with no more temper or compassion than a city taken by storm; but destruction must cease, and frenzy be stayed; the remnant of the indian population which had escaped the massacre mixed with its conquerors, and adopted in the end their religion and their manners. *b the conduct of the americans of the united states towards the aborigines is characterized, on the other hand, by a singular attachment to the formalities of law. provided that the indians retain their barbarous condition, the americans take no part in their affairs; they treat them as independent nations, and do not possess themselves of their hunting grounds without a treaty of purchase; and if an indian nation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist upon its territory, they afford it brotherly assistance in transporting it to a grave sufficiently remote from the land of its fathers.
b
[ the honor of this result is, however, by no means due to the spaniards. if the indian tribes had not been tillers of the ground at the time of the arrival of the europeans, they would unquestionably have been destroyed in south as well as in north america.]
the spaniards were unable to exterminate the indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they even succeed in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the americans of the united states have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity; tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. *c it is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.
c
[ see, amongst other documents, the report made by mr. bell in the name of the committee on indian affairs, february 24, 1830, in which is most logically established and most learnedly proved, that "the fundamental principle that the indians had no right by virtue of their ancient possession either of will or sovereignty, has never been abandoned either expressly or by implication." in perusing this report, which is evidently drawn up by an experienced hand, one is astonished at the facility with which the author gets rid of all arguments founded upon reason and natural right, which he designates as abstract and theoretical principles. the more i contemplate the difference between civilized and uncivilized man with regard to the principles of justice, the more i observe that the former contests the justice of those rights which the latter simply violates.]
[i leave this chapter wholly unchanged, for it has always appeared to me to be one of the most eloquent and touching parts of this book. but it has ceased to be prophetic; the destruction of the indian race in the united states is already consummated. in 1870 there remained but 25,731 indians in the whole territory of the union, and of these by far the largest part exist in california, michigan, wisconsin, dakota, and new mexico and nevada. in new england, pennsylvania, and new york the race is extinct; and the predictions of m. de tocqueville are fulfilled. —translator's note.]
situation of the black population in the united states, and dangers with which its presence threatens the whites
why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestiges of it amongst the moderns than it was amongst the ancients—in the united states the prejudices of the whites against the blacks seem to increase in proportion as slavery is abolished—situation of the negroes in the northern and southern states—why the americans abolish slavery—servitude, which debases the slave, impoverishes the master—contrast between the left and the right bank of the ohio—to what attributable—the black race, as well as slavery, recedes towards the south—explanation of this fact—difficulties attendant upon the abolition of slavery in the south—dangers to come—general anxiety—foundation of a black colony in africa—why the americans of the south increase the hardships of slavery, whilst they are distressed at its continuance.
the indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which they have lived; but the destiny of the negroes is in some measure interwoven with that of the europeans. these two races are attached to each other without intermingling, and they are alike unable entirely to separate or to combine. the most formidable of all the ills which threaten the future existence of the union arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause of the present embarrassments or of the future dangers of the united states, the observer is invariably led to consider this as a primary fact.
the permanent evils to which mankind is subjected are usually produced by the vehement or the increasing efforts of men; but there is one calamity which penetrated furtively into the world, and which was at first scarcely distinguishable amidst the ordinary abuses of power; it originated with an individual whose name history has not preserved; it was wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil, but it afterwards nurtured itself, grew without effort, and spreads naturally with the society to which it belongs. i need scarcely add that this calamity is slavery. christianity suppressed slavery, but the christians of the sixteenth century re-established it—as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less extensive, was at the same time rendered far more difficult of cure.
it is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and its consequences. the immediate evils which are produced by slavery were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are amongst the moderns; but the consequences of these evils were different. the slave, amongst the ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, and he was often the superior of the two in education *d and instruction. freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred they were easily confounded together. the ancients, then, had a very simple means of avoiding slavery and its evil consequences, which was that of affranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this measure generally. not but, in ancient states, the vestiges of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished. there is a natural prejudice which prompts men to despise whomsoever has been their inferior long after he is become their equal; and the real inequality which is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality which is implanted in the manners of the people. nevertheless, this secondary consequence of slavery was limited to a certain term amongst the ancients, for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free, that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from amongst them.
d
[ it is well known that several of the most distinguished authors of antiquity, and amongst them aesop and terence, were, or had been slaves. slaves were not always taken from barbarous nations, and the chances of war reduced highly civilized men to servitude.]
the greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the law; amongst the moderns it is that of altering the manners; and, as far as we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients left off. this arises from the circumstance that, amongst the moderns, the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united to the physical and permanent fact of color. the tradition of slavery dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition of slavery. no african has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores of the new world; whence it must be inferred, that all the blacks who are now to be found in that hemisphere are either slaves or freedmen. thus the negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, god alone can obliterate the traces of its existence.
the modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition, but in his origin. you may set the negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the european. nor is this all; we scarcely acknowledge the common features of mankind in this child of debasement whom slavery has brought amongst us. his physiognomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes. *e the moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.
e
[ to induce the whites to abandon the opinion they have conceived of the moral and intellectual inferiority of their former slaves, the negroes must change; but as long as this opinion subsists, to change is impossible.]
it is difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be born amongst men like ourselves by nature, and equal to ourselves by law, to conceive the irreconcilable differences which separate the negro from the european in america. but we may derive some faint notion of them from analogy. france was formerly a country in which numerous distinctions of rank existed, that had been created by the legislation. nothing can be more fictitious than a purely legal inferiority; nothing more contrary to the instinct of mankind than these permanent divisions which had been established between beings evidently similar. nevertheless these divisions subsisted for ages; they still subsist in many places; and on all sides they have left imaginary vestiges, which time alone can efface. if it be so difficult to root out an inequality which solely originates in the law, how are those distinctions to be destroyed which seem to be based upon the immutable laws of nature herself? when i remember the extreme difficulty with which aristocratic bodies, of whatever nature they may be, are commingled with the mass of the people; and the exceeding care which they take to preserve the ideal boundaries of their caste inviolate, i despair of seeing an aristocracy disappear which is founded upon visible and indelible signs. those who hope that the europeans will ever mix with the negroes, appear to me to delude themselves; and i am not led to any such conclusion by my own reason, or by the evidence of facts.
hitherto, wherever the whites have been the most powerful, they have maintained the blacks in a subordinate or a servile position; wherever the negroes have been strongest they have destroyed the whites; such has been the only retribution which has ever taken place between the two races.
i see that in a certain portion of the territory of the united states at the present day, the legal barrier which separated the two races is tending to fall away, but not that which exists in the manners of the country; slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth remains stationary. whosoever has inhabited the united states must have perceived that in those parts of the union in which the negroes are no longer slaves, they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. on the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.
it is true, that in the north of the union, marriages may be legally contracted between negroes and whites; but public opinion would stigmatize a man who should connect himself with a negress as infamous, and it would be difficult to meet with a single instance of such a union. the electoral franchise has been conferred upon the negroes in almost all the states in which slavery has been abolished; but if they come forward to vote, their lives are in danger. if oppressed, they may bring an action at law, but they will find none but whites amongst their judges; and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudice repulses them from that office. the same schools do not receive the child of the black and of the european. in the theatres, gold cannot procure a seat for the servile race beside their former masters; in the hospitals they lie apart; and although they are allowed to invoke the same divinity as the whites, it must be at a different altar, and in their own churches, with their own clergy. the gates of heaven are not closed against these unhappy beings; but their inferiority is continued to the very confines of the other world; when the negro is defunct, his bones are cast aside, and the distinction of condition prevails even in the equality of death. the negro is free, but he can share neither the rights, nor the pleasures, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, nor the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared to be; and he cannot meet him upon fair terms in life or in death.
in the south, where slavery still exists, the negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labor and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although the legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate. in the south the master is not afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the dust at pleasure. in the north the white no longer distinctly perceives the barrier which separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the negro with the more pertinacity, since he fears lest they should some day be confounded together.
amongst the americans of the south, nature sometimes reasserts her rights, and restores a transient equality between the blacks and the whites; but in the north pride restrains the most imperious of human passions. the american of the northern states would perhaps allow the negress to share his licentious pleasures, if the laws of his country did not declare that she may aspire to be the legitimate partner of his bed; but he recoils with horror from her who might become his wife.
thus it is, in the united states, that the prejudice which repels the negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from the laws of the country. but if the relative position of the two races which inhabit the united states is such as i have described, it may be asked why the americans have abolished slavery in the north of the union, why they maintain it in the south, and why they aggravate its hardships there? the answer is easily given. it is not for the good of the negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the united states.
the first negroes were imported into virginia about the year 1621. *f in america, therefore, as well as in the rest of the globe, slavery originated in the south. thence it spread from one settlement to another; but the number of slaves diminished towards the northern states, and the negro population was always very limited in new england. *g
f
[ see beverley's "history of virginia." see also in jefferson's "memoirs" some curious details concerning the introduction of negroes into virginia, and the first act which prohibited the importation of them in 1778.]
g
[ the number of slaves was less considerable in the north, but the advantages resulting from slavery were not more contested there than in the south. in 1740, the legislature of the state of new york declared that the direct importation of slaves ought to be encouraged as much as possible, and smuggling severely punished in order not to discourage the fair trader. (kent's "commentaries," vol. ii. p. 206.) curious researches, by belknap, upon slavery in new england, are to be found in the "historical collection of massachusetts," vol. iv. p. 193. it appears that negroes were introduced there in 1630, but that the legislation and manners of the people were opposed to slavery from the first; see also, in the same work, the manner in which public opinion, and afterwards the laws, finally put an end to slavery.]
a century had scarcely elapsed since the foundation of the colonies, when the attention of the planters was struck by the extraordinary fact, that the provinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves, increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly than those which contained the greatest number of negroes. in the former, however, the inhabitants were obliged to cultivate the soil themselves, or by hired laborers; in the latter they were furnished with hands for which they paid no wages; yet although labor and expenses were on the one side, and ease with economy on the other, the former were in possession of the most advantageous system. this consequence seemed to be the more difficult to explain, since the settlers, who all belonged to the same european race, had the same habits, the same civilization, the same laws, and their shades of difference were extremely slight.
time, however, continued to advance, and the anglo-americans, spreading beyond the coasts of the atlantic ocean, penetrated farther and farther into the solitudes of the west; they met with a new soil and an unwonted climate; the obstacles which opposed them were of the most various character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the south went up towards the north, those of the north descended to the south; but in the midst of all these causes, the same result occurred at every step, and in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more rich than those in which slavery flourished. the more progress was made, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.
