1) Senator John Forsyth of Georgia defended his state's recently enacted laws regarding Indian removal during a contentious congressional debate, arguing forcefully that Georgia was sovereign and not accountable to the federal government. 2) The document discusses the debate around the 1830 Indian Removal Act, with proponents arguing states had the authority to handle Native American affairs within their borders, while opponents said removal was unconstitutional. 3) President Andrew Jackson was a strong proponent of states' rights and Indian removal, viewing it as protecting state sovereignty in line with the Constitution. He believed states had complete jurisdiction over Native Americans within their boundaries.

1. “That of a Ward to his Guardian”
Indian Removal and States Rights
Chris Morini
HIST 430 – Senior Seminar: Manifest Destiny
Dr. Threlkeld
17 December 2015

2. Morini 2
In the middle of an intense Congressional debate, Senator John Forsyth of Georgia took
the floor to defend his state. Pressured and scrutinized by his fellow Senators, Forsyth jumped to
the defense of his state and its recently enacted laws: “We are told here, that, should we persist, a
tone of moral feeling will be roused that will make Georgia tremble.” He continued: “Little does
the Senator [of New Jersey] know the character of the State. It is not made of such frail
materials…Threats of force of the United States? The bayonets of the regular army have been
flashed in our faces…we have endured all, without shrinking.” Forsyth concluded with one last
proclamation: “Responsible to no earthly tribunal for the exercise of her sovereign authority,
Georgia is not to be questioned in this body, composed of the Representatives of the States, for
the wisdom, the justice, or equity of her laws.”1 Forsyth’s aggressive and hostile speech to his
fellow Senators came not on the eve of southern secession from the United States, but nearly
thirty years earlier, during the Congressional debate over the Indian Removal Act. Throughout
the extensive debate, the overarching theme was the issue of states rights. Did Georgia have the
legitimacy to remove the Native Americans from within her boundaries? Did Georgia
undermine the supremacy of the United States government and its treaties, or was Georgia, and
all other states, delegated the power to handle Native American affairs within their sovereign
land? The rhetoric of states rights was prevalent in the arguments of the pro-removal Senators,
while anti-removalists argued moral and legal issues surrounding removal made the act
unconstitutional. By narrow margins in both the Senate and House of Representatives, the
Indian Removal Act of 1830 passed and was enacted by President Andrew Jackson in May 1830.
Nearly thirty-years later, South Carolina would be the first state to secede from the Union and
initiate the Civil War. So, in 1830, to what extent did the issue of states rights influence the
debate and subsequent enactment of the Indian Removal Act of 1830?
1 6 Cong. Deb. 325-383 (1830).

3. Morini 3
Most historians consider Indian Removal one of the darkest moments in United States
history. The forced removal of thousands of Native Americans decimated the tribes and their
populations. For example, of the more than 16,000 Cherokees forcibly removed from their land,
around 4,000 died during the “Trail of Tears.” Historians however have disagreed over the
United States’ justification of Indian removal. They argue Indian removal was justified through
economic, social, racial, and political motivations. Those that argue for economic justifications
believe Americans were fueled primarily by greed. Their desire for Native American hunting
grounds fueled the push for their removal from profitable lands.2 There are historians who
consider racial and social justifications one in the same. The ideas that whites were more
“civilized” than and racially superior to Native Americans are construed into a single argument.3
Politically, historians agree that proponents of removal believed it was within the power and
sovereignty of the individual state. Representatives from southern states sought to implement
their right as a state by removing “disobedient” populations from within their borders.4 While
most historians agree removal was a tragedy, they differ in their explanations of the justifications
of the forced removal of Native Americans.
2 See Jason Edward Black, American Indians and the Rhetoric of Removal and Allotment (Jackson: University Press
of Mississippi, 2015); Ethan Davis, “An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal,” The American Journal of
Legal History 50, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 49-100; Mary Hershberger, “Mobilizing Women, Anticipating Abolition:
The Struggle against Indian Removal in the 1830s,” The Journal of American History 86, no. 1 (June 1, 1999): 15–
40; Tim Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American
Nations (Athens:The University of Georgia Press,2002); Michael Morris, “Georgia and the Conversation over
Indian Removal,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 91, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 403–23; Mary E. Young, “Indian
Removal and Land Allotment: The Civilized Tribes and Jacksonian Justice,” The American Historical Review 64,
no. 1 (October 1, 1958): 31-45.
3 See Bethany Berger, “Red: Racism and the American Indian,” UCLA Law Review, no. 56 (2009): 591-656; Jason
Edward Black, American Indiansand the Rhetoric of Removal and Allotment (Jackson: University Press of
Mississippi,2015); Mary Young, “Racism in Red and Black: Indians and Other Free People of Color in Georgia
Law, Politics, and Removal Policy,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 73, no. 3 (October 1, 1989): 492–518.
4 See Tim Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native
American Nations (Athens:The University of Georgia Press, 2002); William Hoffman, “Andrew Jackson,State
Rightist:The Case of the Georgian Indians,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 11, no. 4 (December 1, 1952): 329-45;
William McLoughlin, “Georgia’s Role in Instigating Compulsory Indian Removal,” The Georgia Historical
Quarterly 70, no. 4 (December 1, 1986): 605-32; Jason Meyers, “No Idle Past: Uses of History in the 1830 Indian
Removal Debates,” Historian 63, no. 1 (September 1, 2000): 53–66; Michael Morris, “Georgia and the Conversation
over Indian Removal,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 91, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 403–23.

4. Morini 4
The research I conducted contributes to the discussion of the justifications of Indian
removal, specifically the argument in favor of states rights. There are arguments for economic
and racial motivations throughout my sources, but the justification of states rights is most
prevalent. Given the context of the time period – the United States in the 1830s – racial and
social discrimination against Native Americans was widespread. The politicians who advocated
for Indian removal were bigots and it was present in their speeches that called on the states to
enforce their power over Native Americans and the federal government. Yes politicians were
racist, yes they wanted to utilize Native American land for the benefit of the United States, but
they supported and justified removal as an enforcement of state sovereignty.
The sources used in my research – speeches, transcripts, treaties, laws, and court cases –
are primary sources from the most powerful politicians during the removal debate. The speeches
and transcripts of politicians provide direct quotes that explain their standpoints on the issue of
removal. They display racial undertones and explain their support of the removal of indigenous
populations. Each make specific arguments in favor of states rights and they explain their
justifications. The court cases, treaties, and laws enacted before and during Indian removal
support the arguments from the speeches and transcripts. The Supreme Court and appellate
courts showcase the federal government’s messages to the states and the states’ disregard of
federal authority while treaties and laws were interpreted to support the arguments of the pro-
removal advocates in Congress and the Oval Office.
To successfully utilize the above-mentioned sources and address my topic, this paper is
divided into two sections. The first section discusses the politicians involved in Indian removal.
President Andrew Jackson, Senator John Forsyth of Georgia, and Senator Robert Adams of
Mississippi were instrumental figures in the removal debate. By exploring Jackson’s speeches

5. Morini 5
and actions, we see Jackson advocated for states’ rights and challenged the Supreme Court to
secure the safety of state sovereignty. I analyze the Congressional debate over the Indian
Removal Act and show Senators Forsyth and Adams argued the states, primarily Georgia and
Mississippi, were granted authority over Native Americans from previous treaties, laws, and the
federal government. The second section of this paper studies the legal documents surrounding
removal. More specifically, I look at state appellate courts and the Supreme Court and their
cases surrounding Indian removal. The appellate rulings show the states undermined the federal
government in favor of the states, while the Supreme Court cases were ignored and challenged
by the local and federal governments.
The Indian Removal Act and the debate surrounding the controversial law divided the
federal government. Congressmen on both sides presented their arguments, but it was the
proponents who secured the enactment of the act in May 1830. Proponents argued the “Indian
question” should be answered by the states. They argued Native American populations within a
state’s boundaries were subject to the jurisdiction of the state, not the federal government.
According to proponents, past treaties and laws delegated the power to handle Native American
affairs from the federal government to the local governments. Opponents rejected the claims
made by proponents, but they failed to generate enough sympathy to squander the Indian
Removal Act. Proponents successfully justified Indian removal as an extension of state
sovereignty and as an inherited power of the states.
I
President Andrew Jackson advocated for states’ rights and challenged the Supreme Court
to secure the safety of state sovereignty during the Indian removal crisis. After a successful

6. Morini 6
military career, Jackson was elected President in 1829. He was known as Old Hickory for his
toughness and he took a strong stance against the Native American population in favor of the
states. On December 8, 1929, Jackson gave his first annual message to Congress and spoke of
numerous topics, including the Indian question. Jackson stated, “it has long been the policy of
Government to introduce among them the arts of civilization, in the hope of gradually reclaiming
them from a wandering life.”5 Jackson accurately described the federal government’s attempt to
assimilate Native Americans into the American lifestyle. They attempted to convert them from
an “uneducated,” hunter-gatherer society to an “educated” and reformed agrarian culture.
However, as Jackson noted, the program failed because the federal government repeatedly
purchased lands from the Native American tribes, pushing them farther west and simultaneously
hindered the integration process. Jackson proposed a new plan, what would become the Indian
Removal Act. Jackson believed, “setting apart an ample district west of the Mississippi, and
without the limits of any State or Territory now formed, to be guaranteed to the Indian tribes as
long as they shall occupy it”6 would solve the Indian question.
Jackson’s plan to move Native American tribes west of the Mississippi River was created
to benefit the states, not the Native Americans, although his language appeared to sympathize
with the indigenous tribes. He insisted removal was “voluntary” and that once relocated, the
tribes had sole control over their districts without interference from the United States
government.7 However, shortly before this part of his speech, Jackson justified removal as a
legislation that protected state sovereignty. The Cherokee tribe established its own constitution
and attempted to erect an independent sovereignty within the limits of Georgia and Alabama.
5 Andrew Jackson: "First Annual Message," December 8, 1829. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The
American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29471.
6 Jackson, “First Annual Message.”
7 Jackson, “First Annual Message.”

7. Morini 7
Jackson cited the US constitution: “‘no new State shall be formed or erected within the
jurisdiction of any other State’ without the consent of its legislature.” Neither the state nor
federal government approved of the establishment of a sovereign nation within those state
boundaries. Jackson continued, “There is no constitutional, conventional, or legal provision
which allows them less power over the Indians within their borders than is possessed by Maine
or New York.” Here, Jackson argued previous states prevented Native American tribes from
establishing a sovereign nation within the borders of the state. If these states stopped the tribes
within their borders, then Georgia and Alabama could do the same to the Cherokees. He
finished, “If the principle involved in the obvious answer to these questions be abandoned, it will
follow that the objects of this Government are reversed, and that it has become a part of its duty
to aid in destroying the States which it was established to protect.”8 Jackson argued if the United
States allowed previous tribes to establish sovereignties in other states, like New York and
Maine, then they must permit the Cherokees to do the same. If they did, the federal government
would have failed to act on behalf of the states, which the Constitution required them to protect.
Jackson’s removal plan was proposed in favor of the states, not the indigenous tribes. Southern
tribes attempted to establish an independent nation within the boundaries of the states of Georgia
and Alabama and Jackson cited the Constitution, which protected the states from the
establishment of sovereign nations within its borders without the states’ consent.
In Jackson’s second annual message to Congress his rhetoric surrounding removal
changed after the Indian Removal Act was enacted. On December 6, 1830, Jackson spoke to
Congress and he spoke of the now enacted Indian Removal Act of 1830. When he spoke of the
Removal Act, Jackson said, “The benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for
nearly 30 years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is
8 Jackson, “First Annual Message.”

8. Morini 8
approaching to a happy consummation.”9 Jackson’s rhetoric surrounding removal changed. In
his first speech, Jackson spoke of the federal government’s failed attempts to civilize the Native
Americans, not the repeated efforts of removal. His change in language resulted from the
enactment of the bill. In 1829, he had to convince Congress the Native Americans would benefit
from this new, radical plan that answered the Indian question. Now, in 1830, the Indian
Removal Act was enacted and Jackson focused on the real issue at hand – removing the Native
Americans beyond the Mississippi River.
According to Jackson, the Indian Removal Act benefitted the federal government, states,
and Native American tribes. He stated the advantages promised to the federal government were
the “least of its recommendations” and he indicated the states would benefit the most. Jackson
believed the removal of Native American tribes from the southern states would “strengthen the
southwest frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without
remote aid” and it would “relieve” Mississippi and Alabama of indigenous “occupancy and
enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.”10 Based upon
Jackson’s description of the Removal Act, it was evident why state representatives supported the
bill. Jackson used the term “relieve” to show that the states suffered from the indigenous
populations within their borders. Removal would strengthen and secure the states, while
simultaneously generating wealth and power for the American population within each state.
Jackson also noted it was the duty of the federal government to ensure the sovereignty of
the states regarding the Indian question. He stated the federal government’s duty was to
“extinguish” Indian titles to land in each state. However, it did not force the indigenous
populations to move; if they remained, they must abide by state laws. But, overall, it ensured the
9 Andrew Jackson: "Second Annual Message," December 6, 1830. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,
The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29472.
10 Jackson, “Second AnnualMessage.”

9. Morini 9
sovereignty of the states. Jackson acknowledged, “no act of the General Government has ever
deemed necessary to give jurisdiction” over the Native Americans. The federal government was
not required to deem state jurisdiction necessary because it was a given right as a sovereign
entity. Jackson said jurisdiction was possessed “by virtue of their sovereign power within their
own limits…nor can this government add to or diminish it.”11 Jackson ended his message about
the Indian Removal Act defending the power of the states. He believed the sovereignty and
power of the states was undisputable and no government action could do anything to change that
status. Jackson relinquished federal jurisdiction over Indians affairs to the states in his second
annual message. If he denied the states their right to oversee the indigenous populations, he
would have ignored the constitution and betrayed the states.
Jackson’s first term as president was defined by the promotion of states rights. He spent
four years “proclaiming the compact doctrine of state sovereignty,” but it was during the Indian
removal debate that his support of states rights had great significance.12 Jackson argued the
Articles of Confederation prevented the federal government from interfering with Native
American tribes within the states. Although the Articles were replaced, Jackson insisted the
Constitution did not require the states to surrender their jurisdiction over the Native Americans to
the federal government. Therefore, when the Cherokee pled to the Jackson administration for
protection, Jackson “proclaimed that state sovereignty prevented it from protecting the
Indians.”13 Jackson’s outright support of state sovereignty conflicted with the Supreme Court’s
decision in Worcester v. Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall overturned a previous case,
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and ruled the Cherokees were a sovereign state. However, Jackson
11 Jackson, “Second AnnualMessage.”
12 Hoffman, Andrew Jackson,State Rightist,330.
13 Hoffman, Andrew Jackson,State Rightist,339-40.

10. Morini 10
refused to enforce Marshall’s ruling; instead, he exclaimed, “John Marshall made his decision,
now let him enforce it.”14
Although Jackson advocated for states rights during the removal debate, he restricted the
rights of South Carolina during the nullification crisis. In 1828 and 1832, South Carolina
declared two tariffs enacted by the federal government null and void and threatened to secede
from the Union. Jackson responded and asked Congress to use military force to ensure the tariffs
were enacted. However, before the Force Bill was decided, a compromise tariff was signed and
South Carolina remained in the Union.15 Jackson’s response to the nullification of federal tariffs
contradicted his standpoint on states rights during removal. But, Jackson’s upbringing and
military experience explains his animosity towards Native Americans and why he supported
Georgia. Jackson lived on the frontier of Waxhaws in South Carolina, an area at risk of Native
American raids. It was also at risk of mistreatment by the British during the Revolutionary
War.16 During the Revolution, Jackson’s older brother and cousin died and Jackson himself was
captured by the British.17 He avenged those sufferings during the War of 1812 when he
dispatched the British from New Orleans and saved the nation from British invasion. His
animosity towards Native Americans increased during the First Seminole War, but as President
he finally had “the chance to handle the Indian situation.” His executive power and the public
support of removal in most southern states influenced his promotion of the Removal Act.18 He
supported Georgian legislation against the Cherokee nation and refused to interfere with
Georgia’s handling of its indigenous population. He maintained his advocacy for states rights
14 Hoffman, Andrew Jackson,State Rightist,341-45.
15 Elise Stevens Wilson, “The Nullification Crisis | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History,” accessed
December 16, 2015, https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/age-jackson/resources/nullification-crisis.
16 Morris, Georgia and the Conversation over Indian Removal, 405.
17 H. W. Brands, Andrew Jackson:His Life and Times (New York: AnchorBooks, 2006), 19-28.
18 Morris, Georgia and the Conversation over Indian Removal, 405.

11. Morini 11
because Georgia sought to remove the Cherokee beyond its borders, a policy Jackson promoted
himself. He justified removal as an extension of states rights to ensure Georgian legislators were
not interfered with during removal.
Like Jackson, Senators Forsyth and Adams argued the states, primarily Georgia and
Mississippi, had the authority over Native Americans and they believed the states were granted
sovereignty from previous treaties, laws, and the federal government. Before the Indian
Removal Act of 1830 was enacted, it underwent significant debate in the both houses of
Congress. In the Senate, the act endured nearly two weeks of debate. Both proponents and
opponents of the act took the floor and each side had an outspoken leader. Senator John Forsyth
of Georgia defended Georgia and the act, while Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey
led the opponents of the act. Senator Forsyth defended Georgian laws that were enacted in
December of 1829. Georgian legislators were unhappy with the Cherokee’s continued refusal to
relocate from within the states’ boundaries and instituted a series of laws to force the Cherokees
to move. The laws declared Cherokee territory would be added to Georgian counties, the
Cherokees themselves would be subject to Georgian rule, and all Cherokee laws would be
nullified.19 Forsyth defended this law: “Georgia stands perfectly justified, upon his own
principles…with regard to those Cherokees who reside within her territorial limits.” He
questioned the legitimacy of the treaties signed between the United States and the Cherokees, as
well as those between Georgia and the Cherokees. The treaties, he said, were legitimate if both
the United States and Cherokees mutually acknowledged the other’s independence. According
to Forsyth, the Cherokees became dependents of the United States. He cited the treaty of
Galphinton of 1785: “Indians…within the limits of the State of Georgia, have been, members of
19 Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2005), 63.

12. Morini 12
the same, since the day and date of the constitution of…Georgia.”20 Forsyth defended Georgian
law via the Galphinton treaty, which decreed the Native American populations within Georgia
were members of the state, not the Indian nation. Forsyth’s argument however, occurred before
Worcester vs. Georgia was decided, which established Native Americans as dependents of the
United States federal government.
Forsyth also cited the treaty of Hopewell and the compact of 1802 to defend Georgian
law. The treaty of Hopewell was signed in 1785 between the United States and the Cherokee
nation, while then President Thomas Jefferson and the state of Georgia signed a compact in
1802. The ninth article of the treaty of Hopewell stated, “the United States in Congress
assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and
managing all their affairs in such manner as they think proper.”21 Forsyth explained that this
treaty would negate his argument, but he cited the compact of 1802 as his defense. The first
article of the compact stated Georgia would surrender land to the United States, for $1.25 million
dollars, which would become Mississippi and Alabama. Jefferson also agreed the United States
would “extinguish” all Indian titles to their land and that land would become the property of
Georgia once the Cherokees vacated.22 This compact, argued Forsyth, indicated the United
States “obtained, by treaty, the power to legislate over the Cherokees, and transferred it to
Georgia.”23
Forsyth continued and pointed to New York and Maine; he said Georgia was simply
following in the footsteps of those states. Both New York and Maine, enacted legislation, which
gave the state jurisdiction over the Native Americans within their boundaries. Forsyth pointed to
20 6 Cong. Deb. 325 (1830).
21 Charles Joseph Kappler, Indian Affairs: Treaties (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904), 8-11.
22 “The Articles of Agreement and Cession,” 24 April 1802, in American State Papers, Public Lands 2 vols.
(Washington,1834), vol. 1, 125-26.
23 6 Cong. Deb. 326 (1830).

13. Morini 13
one piece of New York legislation that was “worthy of notice, as an evidence of the undisputed
power of State legislation, and of the necessity for its exercise.” The law proclaimed New York
had the exclusive power to try and punish all persons in the state, including Native Americans.
In Maine, the state legislature enacted a law “for the regulation of the Penobscot and
Passamaquoddy tribes of Indians.” Forsyth used those two pieces of legislation to gain
sympathy for Georgia in the Senate. According to Forsyth, Georgia “proceeded to follow the
example of the other States.” Georgia and its laws were not just protected by precedent; Forsyth
cited article seven in the Constitution, which stated that there was a distinction “between foreign
nations, states, and Indian tribes.” Forsyth also noted two prohibitions in the Constitution
imposed upon the states. The second stated, “No State shall, without the consent of Congress,
enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” The
prohibition does not forbid the enactment of compacts with Native American tribes and Forsyth
interpreted it as a defense of Georgian legislation. Therefore, if a compact between a state and
an indigenous tribe was not forbidden, nor was it a treaty, then the state can enact them “at their
pleasure.”24
Senator Adams of Mississippi took the floor after Senator Forsyth and continued to
defend Georgian law and the Indian Removal Act. He believed the states, “from the declaration
of independence, possessed every attribute of sovereignty.” Adams highlighted the right of the
conqueror, which the United States benefitted from after the end of the Revolutionary War. The
United States declared itself independent on July 4, 1776, defeated the British in 1783, and
enacted a peace treaty that acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States. Adams said, “all
our statesmen and jurists consider that the independent sovereignty of each State in the Union,
respectively, commenced” when the Declaration of Independence was signed. He believed
24 6 Cong. Deb. 336-37 (1830).

14. Morini 14
whatever was gained from the Revolution belonged to the United States, but he did not believe
the United States, as the conqueror, acquired sovereignty and legislation. On the contrary,
Adams believed the sovereignty of the states was certain and that all persons within the limits of
a state were attributes of that sovereignty, which indicated the indigenous tribes in each state
were subject to state legislation.25
Adams also claimed the treaties between the United States and Native Americans
infringed upon the rights and sovereignty of the states and they indicated the federal government
was on the verge of a transformation into a monarchial power. He discussed the treaty-making
power of the United States and said although the federal government has the right to make
treaties it is a limited power. If it were unlimited, the President and Senate could “destroy the
rights of any or every State in the Union.” Therefore, any treaty that would take away the
reserved rights of the states was unconstitutional. Thus, if a treaty was made with an indigenous
tribe within a state (Georgia), the right of the state to legislate over the Indians could be taken
away. What then, Adams argued, prevented the United States from taking away the states’
power to legislate over its foreign citizens or slaves?26 If Georgia were stripped of its right to
legislate over its citizens, the state would protest. Since Georgia was told its legislation over its
Native American population was unconstitutional, its legislators protested in the Senate and the
House of Representatives. Adams was disgusted with the federal government’s “unlimited
power” and he warned “the day is not far distant, when the omnipotence of an American
Congress will be as little startling.” Soon, he believed, the relationship between the states and
federal government would mimic that of Parliament and the colonies on the eve of the
25 6 Cong. Deb. 363 (1830).
26 6 Cong. Deb. 363-64 (1830).

15. Morini 15
Revolution.27 Adams feared the federal government would become too powerful – more so than
it already was in his eyes. The federal government refused to recognize the sovereignty of the
states and Georgia did not sit idly as the federal government waged a so-called “war” against its
rights.
Senators Forsyth and Adams both used and interpreted past legislation to prove the states
had sovereignty over the Native Americans and were justified to remove them from within their
boundaries. Forsyth cited the compact of 1802 and “simply wanted what belonged to
[Georgia].” The federal government promised Georgia it would nullify Cherokee land claims
within its borders, but twenty-eight years later, the Cherokee still possessed its land. Forsyth
also noted Georgia did not protest Ohio when it discarded Indian land claims during the
settlement of the state.28 Georgia proposed its laws because the legislators believed the
government had failed to fulfill its promises, therefore Georgia itself had to take action. Senator
Adams also defended his state of Mississippi and argued they were entitled to the same rights as
the original thirteen states were upon entry into the Union. That included the right to deal with
its own indigenous tribes. He accused Congress of supporting the northern states and said they
wanted to “‘make the South pay.’” He also accused the federal government of enacting
unconstitutional treaties and for becoming too powerful. But, he wanted to entrust President
Jackson with removal authority because Jackson “already committed to removal” and was a
devout advocate.29
The political proponents of Indian removal justified the Indian Removal Act as an
extension of state sovereignty and an implementation of states rights. President Jackson allowed
the states to carry out their distinct actions against local indigenous populations because Jackson
27 6 Cong. Deb. 364 (1830).
28 Meyers, No Idle Past, 60.
29 Meyers, No Idle Past, 60.

16. Morini 16
was pro-removal. In fact, if the Indian Removal Act was not enacted, Jackson “would have
carved out such an act under the guise of executive authority.”30 Jackson was also a states
rightist and believed the federal government should not interfere with a states’ sovereignty. With
Jackson as President, Senators Forsyth and Adams capitalized on the support they garnered from
the Oval Office. The laws proposed by Georgian legislators led to the debate over the Indian
Removal Act. Forsyth and Adams defended their states’ policies and claimed the Constitution
and treaties protected Georgia and Mississippi. Forsyth was also greatly supported in his home
state. The population of Georgia widely supported Indian removal. Citizens believed it was
their “constitutional right, as a sovereign state, to assume jurisdiction over all the inhabitants
living within their borders.”31 The justification of states rights used by politicians to implement
the Indian Removal Act of 1830 is evident throughout their speeches and debates.
II
The most powerful politicians justified Indian removal as an extension of states rights.
Jackson, Forsyth, and Adams argued state sovereignty extended over the indigenous populations
within the borders of a state. In this section, the legal documents of removal – the act itself,
Supreme Court cases, and appellate court cases – are discussed. The Indian Removal Act
declared the federal government the supervisor and administrator of removal, but Jackson
allowed the states to carry out the act unsupervised. The Supreme Court ruled on two landmark
cases, but the appellate courts of Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee challenged and defied Chief
Justice John Marshall’s rulings. Both the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia
30 Morris, Georgia and the Conversation Over Indian Removal, 404.
31 McLoughlin, Georgia’s Role in Compulsory Indian Removal, 606.

17. Morini 17
cases were ignored and overruled by the appellate courts, solidifying the states’ rights claim
argued by Jackson, Forsyth, Adams, and the proponents of removal in the south.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 has only seven sections, but the seventh declares the
President “to have the same superintendence and care over any tribe or nation in the country to
which they remove.”32 This placed the jurisdiction over the Native Americans in the hands of
the federal government, but Jackson wanted to keep that jurisdiction with the states. The states
were able to carry out the act in their own manner and did not face resistance from the federal
government. Had an indigenous tribe or council protested, as they had in the past, they were
turned away. In 1829, the Cherokee Council arrived in Washington DC to discuss a treaty
signed with Georgia, but were swiftly denied by the Jackson administration. They were told by
Secretary of War John Eaton the federal government could not interfere with Georgian
sovereignty: “the arms of this country can never be employed to stay any state of the Union from
those legitimate powers which attach and belong to their sovereign character.”33 The Native
Americans only hope of protection was the Supreme Court, but it, too, was ignored by the local
and federal government in favor of states rights.
The Supreme Court decided on two landmark cases related to removal, but the first did
not protect the Native Americans and the federal and state governments ignored the second. In
1831, the Supreme Court ruled on Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and in 1832 it ruled on Worcester
v. Georgia. Cherokee v. Georgia hindered the efforts of the Cherokees to prevent removal,
while Worcester v. Georgia supported their efforts, but was ignored by the federal and local
governments. In 1831, a delegation of Cherokees brought their case to the Supreme Court. They
argued Georgian law was enacted to destroy their existence. The state of Georgia argued the
32 Perdue and Green, The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents, 116-17.
33 McLoughlin, Georgia’s Role in Compulsory Indian Removal, 629.

18. Morini 18
Cherokees could not sue, as they were not a sovereign entity. The Supreme Court did not hear
the case, but they made a ruling. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled the Cherokees were not a
foreign nation – they were domestic dependent nations. The Constitution identified them distinct
from foreign nations and the states. Marshall ended the opinion of the court and said the
Supreme Court could not help the indigenous tribe: “If it be true that the Cherokee Nation have
rights, this is not the tribunal in those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have
been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can
redress the past or prevent the future.” Marshall did acknowledge the Cherokee and all
indigenous tribes were subject to the laws of the United States34, but Jackson delegated that
jurisdiction to the states. The Supreme Court ruled it could not defend the Cherokee nation, or
any indigenous tribe. The wrongs they suffered were beyond the Court’s jurisdiction and it was
the federal government the Native Americans had to rely on. But, both the federal and state
governments advocated for removal and justified it as an extension of state sovereignty.
In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court reversed Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in
favor of the Cherokee, but Jackson and the states ignored the Marshall’s decision. Samuel
Worcester, a missionary, was arrested in Georgia for living on Cherokee land without
authorization. The Supreme Court ruled Worcester was wrongfully arrested and the law enacted
by Georgia that led to his arrest was unconstitutional. Marshall argued treaties signed between
the United States and the various indigenous tribes, specifically the Cherokees, established their
sovereignty. Marshall reversed his decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and declared the
Native Americans were independent and sovereign nations, not domestic dependent nations of
the United States. Marshall’s opinion also declared the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional and
34 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).

19. Morini 19
they ordered Worcester be released and Georgia terminate its laws against the Cherokee.35
Finally, the Cherokee were heard and supported by a higher power in the United States
government. But, Jackson famously rejected the decision and argued the Supreme Court could
not “coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”36 Georgia also ignored the ruling. Representatives
of Georgia “neglected to appear” at the hearing and Worcester and other missionaries remained
imprisoned.37 Jackson rejected the ruling and in doing so prevented the release of the imprisoned
missionaries. The Supreme Court reversed its initial ruling, but the Cherokee remained isolated.
Jackson and the state of Georgia refused to yield and continued their joint effort to remove
Native Americans west of the Mississippi River.
Georgia and Jackson’s refusal to accept the Supreme Court’s decision inspired other
states to do the same. Whigs in office believed Jackson’s “refusal to use federal power” to
enforce the Supreme Court “opened the door to the dismantling of federal authority through state
nullification.”38 The Whigs’ fears came to fruition: Alabama and Tennessee challenged the
Supreme Court with their appellate courts. In Alabama, the appellate court heard the case
Caldwell v. Alabama in 1831 and the appellate court of Tennessee heard the case Tennessee v.
Forman in 1835. But, before those two cases occurred, Georgia initiated the trend of southern
courts “challenging the principle of tribal sovereignty.”39 In 1830, the Georgian appellate court
heard the case Georgia v. Tassels. George Tassel, a Cherokee, was accused of the murder of a
fellow Cherokee on indigenous land within Georgia’s boundaries. Tassel was tried in a
Georgian courthouse and was sentenced to death for his crime. Tassel and his lawyers appealed
and claimed Tassel was wrongfully tried in a Georgia courthouse. They argued Tassel should
35 Worcesterv. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
36 Cave, Abuse of Power, 1349.
37 Davis, An Administrative Trail of Tears, 62.
38 Cave, Abuse of Power, 1344.
39 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 6.

20. Morini 20
have had an indigenous trial because he was on Cherokee land. The Georgian appellate court
heard the appeal and ruled the state had jurisdiction over Indian affairs. They cited various
treaties and recently enacted law that provided the state of Georgia with the jurisdiction over
Tassels’ trial. Tassels was executed and the case influenced Worcester v. Georgia.40 Tassels’
execution by the state of Georgia challenged the Cherokees’ claim to sovereignty over their
lands. Georgia tried and executed Tassels because the state believed it had jurisdiction over the
indigenous population within its borders. Georgia did not recognize the sovereignty of Native
Americans and argued past treaties and compacts with the United States and Native Americans
provided Georgia with the jurisdiction to handle its Indian affairs.
Alabama challenged Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in the 1831 case Caldwell v. Alabama
in favor of the states. James Caldwell, a white farmer, was arrested for the murder of Fushatchee
Yoholo, a Creek Indian. Caldwell was arraigned and pled not guilty. The single witness pinned
the crime on Caldwell because he said he overheard Caldwell admit to the crime. Caldwell and
his lawyers claimed he shot Yoholo in self-defense, but surprisingly, the jury sentenced Caldwell
to death. Immediately, Caldwell and his lawyers appealed. The key witness, William C.
Thompson, was allegedly brought into the jury room to clarify his testimony, which meant the
jury tampered with the witness. If Thompson’s testimony was tampered with, Caldwell could be
released. But, Caldwell and his lawyers did not challenge the witness; instead they argued
Alabama court did not have jurisdiction over the trial because the murder occurred in Creek
territory. Caldwell’s appeal became the only incident of a person with “legal standing to
challenge Alabama’s legislative attack on Creek sovereignty.”41 Alabama’s appellate court did
not accept Caldwell’s appeal. The three judges who decided on the case agreed with the
40 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 111-24.
41 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 153-56.

21. Morini 21
legislature’s plan to expand Alabama’s territory and economy into Creek lands. Also, the
Alabama media covered Caldwell’s case with the South Carolina nullification crisis and
intertwined the rhetoric of states rights in both stories. The Caldwell case was most important to
judge John Taylor. He said the case would “decide whether the jurisdiction of this state is to be
restricted to about two-thirds of its extent, or to be coextensive with its limits.”42 The appellate
court of Alabama rejected Caldwell’s appeal in favor of states rights. The judges argued
Alabama had jurisdiction over the entirety of the state, including the Creek territory. They
argued against Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and affirmed the states were “the true trustees of
Indian ancestors,” not the federal government.43
In 1835, Tennessee’s appellate court rejected Worcester v. Georgia and reinforced state
sovereignty over its Native American population. John Walker Jr., a highly respected Cherokee,
was shot and killed by James Forman and Anderson Springston. Walker challenged the
Cherokee National Council on its resistance to removal and believed “national migration to the
West” was the only way the Cherokee could survive and be independent.44 Forman and
Springston were accused of his murder and were indicted before a grand jury. Their lawyer,
Spencer Jarnigan, argued Tennessee law, which allowed the state jurisdiction over the Cherokee,
was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case, Worcester v. Georgia, had been decided and
because the federal government and Georgia failed to enforce the decision, Tennessee enacted its
own policy. Tennessee’s legislation was far less invasive of Cherokee jurisdiction; the law only
extended over the Cherokee for murder, rape, and larceny crimes. Nonetheless, Jarnigan argued
Tennessee wrongfully interfered with Cherokee jurisdiction.45 Jarnigan successfully defended
42 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 156-57.
43 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 165.
44 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 199-200.
45 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 204-05.

22. Morini 22
his clients and the judge declared the Tennessee law was unconstitutional. But, attorney general
Samuel Frazier asked for a writ of error and the trial was brought before the Tennessee appellate
court. The court was divided, but chief judge John Catron confirmed the constitutionality of the
extension of Tennessee’s laws. Tennessee refused to follow the precedent set down by the
Supreme Court and the decision represented “the final and fatal strike against the idea of Native
American sovereignty for the Cherokees and the other Southeastern tribes.” The rejection of the
Supreme Court’s decisions by Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee indicated a “states’ rights
interpretation of the Constitution’s Supremacy, Commerce, and Contract Clauses.”46 The
appellate courts of Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee challenged and defied the decisions set
down by the Supreme Court. Each state argued they had sovereignty and therefore had
jurisdiction over the indigenous populations within their borders. Jackson refused to enforce
Worcester v. Georgia and his decision allowed the south to carry out its own legislation. The
states faced no opposition that could successfully repeal its legislations.
The debate over the Indian Removal Act of 1830 divided both houses of Congress.
Proponents argued the United States transferred jurisdiction over the Native Americans to the
states. President Andrew Jackson supported the southern legislators’ cause and allowed the
states to handle their indigenous populations without interference from the federal government.
Jackson himself supported states rights and refused to intervene. He also defied Chief Justice
John Marshall and the Supreme Court to ensure state sovereignty. Senators Forsyth and Adams
led the proponents in the Senate debate over the removal act and argued the states, as a sovereign
entity, could control their indigenous populations. The appellate courts of Georgia, Alabama,
46 Garrison, The Legal Ideology of Removal, 217.

23. Morini 23
and Tennessee challenged the Supreme Court and openly defied its rulings. They ignored the
Court’s decisions in an obvious defiance of the supreme law of the land. The state courts
indicated states had the right to pick and choose which pieces of legislation they would abide by.
On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed into law by Congress and the proponents
successfully justified removal as an extension of states rights.
Approaching Indian removal as an issue of states’ rights changes how some historians
understand removal. Historians have argued economic, racial, and social factors motivated
politicians to support removal, but understanding the real justifications of removal changes those
motivations. During the entire two-week debate in the Senate, the only proponents of removal to
take the floor justified removal as an extension of states rights. Opponents argued against that
justification; they argued it was the federal government, not the states, which could control the
indigenous populations. They argued against removal on other grounds – racist, immoral, etc. –
but they nonetheless challenged the validity of the proponents’ justification for removal. This
political divide caused by removal could be the next step forward in understanding removal.
Whigs and Jacksonian Democrats challenged one another for power in the United States
throughout most of Jackson’s presidency. Some historians argue this divide created the multi-
party system in the United States and the Indian removal debate might be the cause. What about
Jackson’s power as a president? He challenged the Supreme Court and defied the Constitution
on several occasions. Indian removal could be a place to study Jackson’s abuse of his executive
powers. Lastly, the issue of sectionalism was ever present in the removal debate. Thirty years
after the Indian Removal Act was enacted, the United States was engaged in the Civil War; a war
that began because of extreme sectionalism. Did Indian removal cause the divide between the
northern and southern states that would culminate in civil war?

24. Morini 24
Indian removal was one of the major events in the United States during the period of
Manifest Destiny. John O’Sullivan coined the term to explain America’s mission: “to
overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly
multiplying millions.”47 O’Sullivan used the word “overspread” to explain America’s expansion
west. Indian removal encompasses O’Sullivan’s definition and encompasses a major theme of
Manifest Destiny: sectionalism. Slavery divided the nation, literally, in half and the subsequent
Civil War devastated the nation and forced a Reconstruction period of the Union. The debate
over Indian removal divided the nation as well, but it was more than just the northern and
southern states. It divided the federal and local governments, the President and both Houses of
Congress, and the Supreme Court and the appellate courts. It even divided the social structure of
the United States much like slavery did. Indian removal is more than a racial and economic
issue, it is a factor in the division of the nation that culminated in a bloody Civil War.
47 Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right (New York: Hill and Wang,
1995), xi.

25. Morini 25
Bibliography of Consulted Works
Primary Sources
6 Cong. Deb. (1830).
American State Papers, Public Lands. “The Articles of Agreement and Cession,” 24 April 1802.
Washington, 1834.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).
Jackson, Andrew. “First Annual Message.” December 8, 1829, The American Presidency Project
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29471.
Jackson, Andrew. “Second Annual Message.” December 6, 1830, The American Presidency
Project http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29472.
Kappler, Charles Joseph. Indian Affairs: Treaties. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904.
Purdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with
Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1995.
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
Secondary Sources
Berger, Bethany. “Red: Racism and the American Indian.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester,
NY: Social Science Research Network, September 17, 2008.
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1269527.
Black, Jason Edward. American Indians and the Rhetoric of Removal and Allotment. Jackson,
MS: University Press of Mississippi, 2015.
Brands, H W. Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. New York: Anchor Books, 2006.

26. Morini 26
Cave, Alfred A. “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830
(2003).” Historian 65, no. 6 (December 1, 2003): 1330–1353.
Davis, Ethan. “An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal.” The American Journal of
Legal History 50, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 49–100.
Garrison, Tim A. The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of
Native American Nations. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2002.
Guttman, Allen. States Rights and Indian Removal: The Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia.
Glen Rock, NJ: Microfilming Corp. of America, 1973.
Hershberger, Mary. “Mobilizing Women, Anticipating Abolition: The Struggle against Indian
Removal in the 1830s.” The Journal of American History 86, no. 1 (June 1, 1999): 15–40.
Hoffman, William S. “Andrew Jackson, State Rightist: The Case of the Georgia Indians.”
Tennessee Historical Quarterly 11, no. 4 (December 1, 1952): 329–45.
Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
McLoughlin, William G. “Georgia’s Role in Instigating Compulsory Indian Removal.” The
Georgia Historical Quarterly 70, no. 4 (December 1, 1986): 605–32.
Meyers, Jason. “No Idle Past: Uses of History in the 1830 Indian Removal Debates.” Historian
63, no. 1 (September 1, 2000): 53–66.
Morris, Michael. “Georgia and the Conversation over Indian Removal.” The Georgia Historical
Quarterly 91, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 403–23.
Purdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with
Documents. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1995.

27. Morini 27
Rolater, Fred S. “The American Indian and the Origin of the Second American Party System.”
The Wisconsin Magazine of History 76, no. 3 (April 1, 1993): 180–203.
Stephanson, Anders. Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right. New
York: Hill and Wang, 1995.
Stevens Wilson, Elise. “The Nullification Crisis | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American
History.” Accessed December 16, 2015. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-
era/age-jackson/resources/nullification-crisis.
Strickland, William M. “The Rhetoric of Removal and the Trail of Tears: Cherokee Speaking
against Jackson’s Indian Removal Policy, 1828–1832.” Southern Speech Communication
Journal 47, no. 3 (September 1, 1982): 292–309.
Wilkins, David Eugene, and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian
Sovereignty and Federal Law. University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.
Young, Mary E. “Indian Removal and Land Allotment: The Civilized Tribes and Jacksonian
Justice.” The American Historical Review 64, no. 1 (October 1, 1958): 31–45.