Republican Compiler (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania)
November 5, 1833
From the American
Sentinel
Alabama
In our
paper of yesterday, we made a few remarks on the late occurrences in Alabama relative to
the public lands purchases by the United States from the Creek Indians, and referred to
the publication (in the Washington Globe) of the official correspondence between the
Secretary of War and the Governor of Alabama – who seems still resolved to pursue the
current into which he has so rashly launched.
As the subject is one of importance and of general interest – as it is not perfectly
understood, nor the Alabama Creeks sufficiently discriminated from Georgia Cherokees, -
and as we think that the course pursued by the president is that not only sanctioned by
the constitution, but required by the laws, we devote further space and time to the
consideration of the question more in detail than we were enabled to do yesterday.
The United States are owners of large bodies of lands. Their title and their right of possession
are as absolute and just as those of private individuals to their own property. If persons
settle on them without title, they invade the rights of the United States, and they ought
to be removed as an intruder would be from the land of any citizen which he should attempt
to occupy in the same manner. On the 3d of March, 1807, Congress passed a law enforcing
this right. It directed the marshal of the district to remove such settlers; and if he
could not do so peaceably, it authorized the employment of military force. It extended to
all persons taking possession of public lands, attempting to survey them, or setting up a
claim of title. In fact the United States did with this property just what an individual
had a right to do with his in order to repel a forcible intruder.
In March, 1832, the United States purchased of the Creek Indians a large tract of land lying in
the state of Alabama. They thus became the owners of the soil, and as such had a
right under the law just reviewed to keep off all settlers. But in addition to this
by the treaty they stipulated that they would cause farms to be selected out of the
land purchased, and laid off for all the Indians, and they also stipulated with the
Indians that until this selection should be completely made, they would strictly
enforce their own laws and keep intruders off the lands. They thus added to the
obligations of the law as regarded themselves, those of fidelity to the agreements
with the Indians. It happened, at the time of making the treaty, that there were in
different parts of the lands purchased, many persons who had settled there without
right; and the Indians agreed that these persons should remain till the crops they
then had planted were gathered.
The season has passed on. The crops have been gathered. The unauthorized occupiers instead
of removing have committed lawless attacks on the Indians, who await the selection of
farms promised them, the president has directed the marshal to enforce the long established
laws of the land, and to maintain the faith pledged in the treaty. He has determined, if
necessary, to resort to the employment of the Military force to keep these intruders from
lands purchased by and belonging to the United States.
The governor of Alabama opposes the course of the President. What are his grounds? He asserts
that the law of 1807 was meant to apply only to persons who settled on the public lands and then
claimed a title to them. This view is disproved by the law itself which extends to all settlements;
and it is disproved by the whole course of practice under it; it is disproved by the evident
impolicy of such a construction, which would have the effect of securing the best lands to
intruders who should take possession, and quietly maintain it, by avoiding to declare their
intentions.
The governor then asserts that under the constitution, the United States have no greater
power to punish such trespassers than any other landholder. To this it is answered that
they claim no greater. To remove by force a forcible intruder on his property, is a right
belonging to every man; and when to this is added that the maintenance of that right involves
the adherence to stipulations made with the Indians, in good faith, it becomes rather an
imperative duty than a right. But Governor Gayle goes a step further, and takes a ground not
more tenable – that eh state of Alabama having extended its jurisdiction over the territory,
it has a right to create the necessary officers to administer its laws, and that they are to
reside in the territory. It is scarcely necessary after stating this singular argument to
refute it! The U. States do not deny the jurisdiction of the state of Alabama, but does
that give a title to land – a right of forcible occupation and possession to any of its
citizens against the remonstrance’s of the owners who have purchased the soil with their
money: It we owned a township as a farm, in the State of Pennsylvania, would the
jurisdiction which that state now exercises over us, as citizens, authorize a man to come
and settle on our property and refuse to remove, by showing us a commission as a justice of
the peace. The marshal of the United States, the officers administering its laws, the
Indians already there, are undoubtedly liable to be judged for their conduct in executing
these laws, as for executing any others. They are amenable to the proper jurisdiction; but
we cannot conceive any process of reasoning by which this liability, on their part, gives an
intruder a right to remain on the lands of the United States, or justifies the President in
neglecting to enforce the laws and to maintain the national faith.
These are the circumstances of this controversy. We can imagine no possible ground on which
they can be viewed as affecting the reserved rights of the states, and we trust that the
difficulties that have arisen will pass quietly away as the case comes to be more deliberately
considered and examined.
[Submitted by Nancy Piper]
Republican Compiler (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania)
November 5, 1833
From the American
Sentinel
From Alabama
We have received the
following letter, under date of October 18 which gives a painful view of
the state of affairs, and of feeling, in that agitated State:
Nat. Intelligencer
We have arrived at a
solemn crisis in our State at the present moment. You are a aware that
the whole of the Creek nation, was some time since laid off into
counties, and the Judges of our Circuit Courts ordered to hold courts in
them accordingly.
The case alluded to
above is this: At the present term of said Court, held for Russell
county, an indictment was formed against certain soldiers of Fort
Mitchell for the murder of Col. Hardeman Owens, who was shot some time
ago by the command of the Deputy Marshal, Mr. Anstill. The Solicitor of
the Circuit issued subpoenas for the file of men and for Major McIntosh,
who is in command at the Fort, to appear at the Court to answer to the
charge.
The Major refused to
pay any regard to the mandate of the Court and swore that he would not
suffer any of the men to be arrested. The Court issued an attachment for
the Major and men: the Sheriff was ordered by the Major not to touch
him; he returned to the Court next day, and made oath that he could not
take him, the Major, for fear of death.
Upon this, the Court
sent as express to our Governor for military power sufficient to arrest
the Major, and to bring him and men before the Court. The Governor will
undoubtedly do it, as he, as well as the whole country here, are in a
state of excitement against the General Government, and are determined
to support the civil authorities even to the last ditch – Union or no
Union.
[Submitted by Nancy Piper]
Republican Compiler (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania)
November 5, 1833
From
the American Sentinel
Alabama
The protecting arm of
the government, that has been extended toward the Indians of this state,
in compliance with the stipulations of a treaty lately entered into with
them, is resisted by the state authorities on alleged constitutional
grounds. The general government has placed a small
military detachment under the orders of the Marshall, who is instructed
to forcibly dispossess certain intruders upon the public lands who
trespass on the rights of the Creeks, and the Governor of Alabama, has
ordered out the Militia to protect the intruders against the United
States troops, insisting that the Indians should appeal to the
constituted judicial tribunals for redress, and that the summary process
of forcible eviction adopted by the Government against the intruders is
oppressive and unconstitutional.
We give but a brief outline of facts
in relation to this unfortunate collision, and add our sincere hope, that it may be
amicably adjusted, without giving strength to Nullification, or promoting these
disruptions in the Union, which a number of political conspirators are striving to occasion.
--Ib.
[Submitted by Nancy Piper]
Republican
Compiler (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania)
November 27 1832 Florence,
Alabama, Nov. 3
We understand
the principles of the late treaty to be these: The whole Indian
territory is ceded to the United States; not one acre is reserved. The
President is to have the country surveyed as soon as possible, and to
advertise and sell it at public sale in the same manner, and on the same
terms in all respects as other public lands – the sales to be made as
soon as the land can be surveyed. It is stipulated that the Chickasaws
are to select for themselves, a country, west of the Mississippi river,
and if possible, to move away before the first public sale of their
lands. Should they be unable to remove before that time, they are
permitted to retain a tract of land for each family to live on until
they fix upon the place of their future residence. It is expressly
agreed however, that they will remove as soon as they can, and when they
go, those tracts upon which they reside, shall be sold as the other
lands are, but all the Indian territory not now occupied by them, is to
be sold, when surveyed. No persons are permitted to move on the ceded
land, until the sales take place; should any presume to do so, they will
be driven off.
The Chickasaws are to receive the net proceeds arising from the sale of the lands,
deducting all incidental expenses connected with the survey and sale of the same.
Three fourths of all the money derived from the land sales are to be vested in stock
at interest, by the General Government, for the benefit of the Chickasaw nation,
allowing them to use the interest, but never to touch the principal, reserving that
as a fund for the use of the nation forever. The ceded territory is about 100 miles
square, and the number of acres is estimated at 7,000,000. – Gazette.
[Submitted by Nancy Piper]
Republican Compiler (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania)
Tuesday May 4 1830
Florence,
Alabama, Nov. 3
The Mobile Register of the 13th ult., states, from a source entitled
to confidence, that the Choctaw Nation of Indians have sent an agent to Washington with power
to negotiate a sale of their possessions east of the Mississippi. From the most authentic
sources within our reach, the number of this tribe may be estimated at 21,000 souls; the land
claimed by them amount to about one third part of the territory embraced in the geographical
limits of the State of Mississippi, and they occupy a tract in Alabama, lying on the west
bank of the Tombigbee river, about 20 miles wide and about 70 miles long.
[Submitted by Nancy Piper]
