In the course of the winter, certain Chiefs of the Cherokees, who are now at Washington as delegates from their tribe, addressed a note to the President of the United States, in which they inform him that they cannot cede any more of their lands, and request him to recommend to Congress that provision be made by law for making such an adjustment with Georgia as would induce her to release the United States from the obligation of making any more purchases from the Indians.

The Secretary of War, in reply, informed them that it was incompatible with the nature of our government to suffer independent tribes to reside within our territories; and after stating the probable consequences to themselves of continuing to reside in the vicinity of the white people, offered to purchase their lands and pay a fair price in money, or give them other lands in exchange on the west of the Mississippi. The Delegates rejected this proposal in a tone of lofty indignation, appealing to the faith of treaties, and declaring that "all the money in the coffers of the Treasury would be no inducement for the nation to exchange, or sell their country.'

This correspondence was immediately transmitted to the Governor of Georgia, and a communication of his opinions and wishes on the subject was requested by the Secretary of War. In reply, Gov. Troup expresses his satisfaction at the efforts of the United States to carry into effect the convention of 1802; and urges the necessity of telling the Indians at once, the consequences of refusing to cede their lands; namely, that the United States must assist the Georgians in taking possession of the Indian lands by force, or must oppose the Georgians in this enterprise, and thus bring on a civil war.

This letter was followed by a remonstrance from the members of Congress from Georgia, to the President, in terms of very little courtesy. He is rebuked for suffering Indian Chiefs to be addressed, as if they were the Representatives of a State: the policy of the General Government is intimated to be "dishonorable and hypocritical;" and he is told that "it is necessary that these misguided men should be taught by the General Government that there is no alternative between their removal beyond the limits of the State of Georgia, and their extinction!" The whole difficulty of removing them from their lands is ascribed "to the pretended guarantee of their possessions," and "the lessons received from their masters in the arts of civilized life," as if civilization were a crime !

A statement of facts was next made by the Secretary of War, to the President, who communicated all the papers to Congress.

The Delegates of the Cherokees then addressed a memorial to the House of Representatives (April 15,) in which they repeat and enforce the opinions expressed in their letter to the President. As a reason for refusing to remove to the barren wastes of Arkansas, they state that they "have now turned their attention to the pursuits of the civilized man-and that agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, and education, are all in successful operation" among them.

The subject was referred in the House of Representatives to a select committee. which made a report on the 15th April, by Mr. Forsyth, [A member from Georgia.] In this report, the President and Secretary of War are charged with an intentional neglect of duty, and with gross inconsistency of conduct. The authorizing missionary establishments among the Cherokees, and suffering instruction to be given to them in the arts of civilized life, is construed into a proof of bad faith on the part of the Government; inasmuch as it leads the Indians to become attached to the soil, and thus renders their final removal more difficult. It is added (in direct terms) that unless they are speedily removed "the United States may be under the fatal necessity of seeing the Cherokees annihilated, or of defending them against their own citizens."

The Remonstrance of the Members of Congress from Georgia, addressed to the President of the United States, makes a sarcastic inquiry, as to the light in which the Cherokees are to be viewed by the government, and then says-"If as an independent nation, to be treated with all the forms of diplomatic respect, the negotiation with them should be transferred to the Department of State, and will no doubt be preceded by a proper examination into their authority to speak for the Cherokee tribe on matters affecting their prosperity and EXISTENCE. If to be viewed as other Indians; as persons suffered to reside within the territorial limits of the United States, and subject to every restraint which the policy and power of the general government require to be imposed upon them, for the interest of the Union, the interest of a particular state, and THEIR OWN PRESERVATION, it is necessary that these misguided men should be taught, by the general government, that there is no alternative BETWEEN THEIR REMOVAL BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND THEIR EXTINCTION! The government of the United States will deceive them, (the Cherokees) GROSSLY, if they are led to believe that at this day, THEIR consent is necessary to the fulfilment of ITS obligations to the State of Georgia. Their will must yield to the paramount duties of the general government, to itself and to each member of the confederacy.

In reference to this "Remonstrance" of the Delegates from Georgia, the Cherokee Chiefs, in a letter to the Editors of the National Intelligencer, have the following remarks:-" We were not ignorant of the nature of the Convention of 1802. We know every one of its promises. If, however. these are to be violated, and the fell war-whoop should ever be raised against us, to dispossess us of our lands, we will gratify the Delegation of Georgia, in their present earnestness to see us removed or destroyed by adding additional fertility to our land, by a deposite of our body and our bones: for we are resolved never to leave them, but by a parting from them and our lives together. How the Christians of America, and of the world, will view their attempt upon our rights-this effort to force a kind and just President to violate the faith of treaties, and dip his fingers in our blood, it is not for us Indians to say; but our cause is with God, and good men, and there we are willing to leave it. We mean nothing disrespectful to any one; but justice and truth require that we should say this much, on the occasion to which we have referred."

The reader has now before him the facts of the case, and the feelings of the parties. Among men of intelligence and candor, there can be but one opinion as to which of the parties has justice on its side, or which band of Delegates appears to the best advantage in the dispute. In the following article the subject will be reviewed.

REVIEW OF THE DEMAND AND MENACE OF GEORGIA.

In the preceding article we have seen the demand and the menace of Georgia, relating to the Cherokees. To exhibit these in a more clear and impressive light, we will imagine the circumstances of the case to be reversed:-Suppose then, that in the year 1802, a convention was made between the United States and the Cherokees, in which the former stipulated to extinguish at their own expense, for the use of the CHEROKEES, AS early as the same can be peaceably obtained on reasonable terms, the title of the white people of Georgia to the lands lying within that State :-- that since the date of the convention, the United States purchased of the Georgians for the use of the Cherokees 15,744,000 acres,-that besides this. in a bloody war with the Georgians, the United States robbed them of 7,000,000 of acres, which they transferred to the Cherokees :-That during the last winter, certain Chiefs of the Georgians, as delegates from their tribe, addressed a note to the President of the United States, in which they inform him, that they cannot cede any more of their lands. This being made known to the Cherokees, their delegates published an angry Remonstrance, in which they tell the President of the United States that the " misguided" Georgians "should be taught by the General Government that there is no alternative between their removal beyond the limits of the State of Georgia, and their EXTINCTION!”

Would not such a demand and such a menace from the Cherokees, deserve the epithets, barbarous and unjust? Would it not very justly be said, that the promise of the United States to the Cherokees was in its nature and its terms conditional ; and that the United States are under no obligations to extinguish the title of the Georgians to their lands, unless it "can be peaceably obtained on reasonable terms?" and would it not be added that, under existing circumstances, the demand for the removal of the Georgians, and the threat of war and extermination, justly deserve the detestation of civilized men, and are dishonorable even to savages!

We have reversed the circumstances of the case, in full belief that the Cherokees have as good a right to the lands in dispute, as the Georgians have to the lands they now occupy.

It is needless to enter into a labored argument to prove that the Georgians have no rightful claim to the lands of the Cherokees. This is obvious from the facts which have been exhibited. We shall, however, remark, that in 1802, when the convention was formed between the United States and Georgia, each party must have known that by a treaty of prior date, the United States had become bound to protect the Cherokees in the enjoyment of the very lands now in question. Of course it must have been uncertain to both parties whether a time would

ever come, when the Cherokee lands could be obtained "peaceably and on reasonable terms." Consequently, until the Cherokees are willing to dispose of their lands, Georgia can have no better claim to them, than if no such convention had ever been made-and no better than she has to the lands of zouth Carolina, or any other state in the Union. As the United States had no right to the land in question, it was impossible for them to convey any right to Georgia by the convention. A promises to buy B's farm for C as soon as he can obtain it "peaceably on reasonable terms." Does this promise convey to Ca right to B's farm? May C threaten that he will kill B and all his family, unless he will remove from his inheritance?

It is not without regret and mortification that we record in the Friend of Peace the sanguinary sentiments of the Governor of Georgia, and the Delegates in Congress from that State. We cannot but regard such language from men of their rank, as a reproach to the nation. If such sentiments were general and popular in our country, how would it be possible to vindicate ourselves from the stigma of barbarism? What sentiments more barbarous are to be found among any tribe of savages in North America! We are however not dispos

ed to impute such sentiments or feelings to the Georgians indiscriminately. It is not doubted that thousands of good people in that state have been grieved in reading the letter of their Governor, and the Remonstrance of their Delegates. Even with regard to these public men, it is less painful to consider their language as the ebullition of transient passion, in an unguarded moment, than as the fruit of habitual malignity; and we cannot but hope that on reflection they will see the turpitude of their menace, and retract their indiscretion.

age

We had often beard of the murderous language of "back woodsmen," who regard the killing of an Indian as no more blameable than killing a buffalo; and we had read of the Conestago and Muskingum massacres, in which friendly and christian Indians were inhumanly murdered without respect to or sex. But we had never heard of any language more justly censurable, than that which has been employed by the Representatives of Georgia; nor of any deed more deserving of universal reprobation, than that which they boldly threaten to perpetrate. Compared with this the crimes of common pirates are venial offences; and all the acts of assassination and private murder that have ever occurred in the United States are light, when laid in the balance against the menaced "extinction" of the Cherokees.

Should the Georgians attempt to execute their threatening, there will be little occasion to ask, who was the aggressor in the war? Nor can there be any doubt which party should be protected by the United States. Had there been no treaty with

the Cherokees, the general government could not aid the Georgians to execute their menace without involving the nation in the blackest guilt, and everlasting reproach.

What is the Georgia menace short of a flagrant breach of the peace, adapted to provoke hostilities on the part of the Cherokees, and to encourage unprincipled Georgians to commence the work of extermination. Hundreds of wars have been waged on more frivolous grounds than is contained in this cruel threat. In civilized society a menace of similar import, from a powerful planter against the family of a less powerful neighbour, would justly expose the threatener to be imprisoned, or bound to good behaviour.

In favor of these menacing gentlemen it will perhaps be pleaded, that they did not mean to execute the sanguinary threat, but only to intimidate the Cherokees, and thus dispose them to sell their lands. Admitting this explanation, the threat is still antichristian, and murderous in its tendency-repugnant to every feeling of philanthropy and benevolence Suppose an exchange of circumstances, what would the Georgians think of such a menace from their red neighbours? Would they not regard it as barbarous, and beneath the dignity even of savages ? Nay, would they not regard it as just cause of war?

The Leaders in Georgia seem to have mistaken the age in which they live. Such sentiments and feelings as they have uttered, might have been popular in the ages of ancient barbarism; but it is believed that the people of the United States at this period, are too enlightened to give their approbation of measures which would have disgraced Cortes and Pizarro, the exterminators of the Mexican and South American Indians.

There is one thought which perhaps has not occurred to the gentlemen who have been disposed to raise the war whoop against the Cherokees. In the state of Georgia there were at the last census 149,612 slaves-at the present time probably more than 150,000. Should the white people of that State engage in a war with the Cherokees for their "extinction,' it is possible that the slaves will embrace the opportunity to obtain their liberty, and unite with the Cherokees to exterminate the white people of that state. In such a case, how just it would be in Providence to suffer the Red Men and the Blacks to teach their white brethren, that for them "there is no alternative between their removal beyond the limits of the State of Georgia and their extinction!" Let the Georgians inquire, whether they are prepared to have the same measure meted to themselves, which they have threatened to mete to the Cherokees? Let them consider the import of the terms "their extinction !" and ask, whether they can reasonably expect a more favorable measure than they are disposed to give. To massacre, or exterminate a tribe of human beings amounting to several thousands,