the nature of representation: the cherokee right ... - Boston University

2005] THE NATURE OF REPRESENTATION 109
reported the signing of the New Echota Treaty with even stronger language: “I have
not time to give you any of the details of this arrangement, they are so liberal as to
give entire satisfaction to every Cherokee of all parties in the Nation, with whom I
conversed, with very few exceptions.” 100
Although the treaty terms were held up as liberal, the Treaty’s inability to garner
full or even substantial support of the Cherokee people, forces the idea of the
treaty’s liberality to confront the dispute over Cherokee leadership. Ben Currey,
the Superintendent of Cherokee removal, described the group that signed the Treaty
as “that patriotic band headed by John Ridge, who were instrumental in eliciting
from the Executive of the United States these liberal terms.” 101 The authorized
commissioner in the negotiations, John F. Schermerhorn, wrote in a journal during
the negotiations at New Echota that he believed the Cherokee had no “way to save
themselves from degradation and final ruin, if not extirpation, but by accepting the
liberal overtures of the Government.” 102
The Cherokees did not accept the “liberal overtures” as such without justifiable
skepticism. Two years before the New Echota Treaty was signed, the editors of the
Cherokee newspaper, The Cherokee Phoenix, wrote:
The Secretary then speaks of the “liberal terms of the propositions, and are
satisfactory to the American people, and would be so to the Cherokees were
they to exercise their own judgment.” Upon the admission of the people of
the U.S. to the benefits of these propositions to the Cherokees were they
accepted, we shall render no objections. But before the government could
supra note 45, at 181.
100
Letter from William. H. Underwood to Mr. Gathright (Jan. 1, 1836), in SOUTHERN
BANNER, Jan. 14, 1836, at 2. The Federal Union newspaper includes further description
along a similar line of liberality: “[T]he agent of the Federal Government has received
the assent of the Cherokees to a treaty, on the basis of that offered to them by the
president, during the last winter, with a few additional clauses for their benefit.”
Cherokee Treaty, THE FEDERAL UNION, Jan. 15, 1836, at 3. Books with the proposed
treaty “will be presented to the Cherokees, individually, for their assent, and signature;
and as the terms are very favorable, it is believed that they will be embraced by a very
large proportion of the tribe.” Id. Of The Federal Union, theCherokee Phoenix wrote:
If there has been a reaction in favor of a treaty, it must be found in the fiction of his
own brain, we saw none in the Council. We have said heretofore no truth can be
found in these Georgia papers on the Cherokee case, especially, in one that
advocates the principles of a ROBBER.
THE CHEROKEE PHOENIX, July 27, 1833, at 2.
101 Letter from Ben Currey, Superintendent of Cherokee removal, to John Ross (Apr.
19, 1835), in MEMORIAL AND PROTEST OF THE CHEROKEE NATION, 24th Cong., 1st Sess.,
93. 102 A journal of the proceedings of the Council held at New Echota, Georgia Dec.21-
30, 1835, with the Cherokee people by John F. Schermerhorn, Commissioner on the part
of the United States to treat with the Cherokees east, in TREATY WITH THE CHEROKEE
INDIANS, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., 20-27 at 22.