The Cherokees vs. Andrew Jackson
John Ross and Major Ridge tried diplomatic and legal strategies to maintain autonomy, but the new president had other plans
- By Brian Hicks
- Smithsonian magazine, March 2011, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 7)
Ridge’s embrace of change was initially unpopular among his tribesmen, but few questioned his loyalty. In 1807 he had helped kill the powerful Cherokee chief Doublehead for selling tribal hunting grounds for personal profit. And in 1808, when white U.S. Indian agents enticed principal chief Black Fox into proposing that the tribe move west, Ridge had been the first to protest. “As a man he has a right to give his opinion,” Ridge declared before the Cherokees’ ruling council, “but the opinion he has given as the chief of this nation is not binding; it was not formed in council in the light of day, but was made up in a corner—to drag this people, without their consent, from their own country, to the dark land of the setting sun.”
By 1813, Ridge had seen enough of politics to understand the diplomatic advantage to be gained from joining the Tennesseans against the Red Sticks. The Cherokees might even have realized that advantage had it not been for the militia leader they fought under: Andrew Jackson.
As a boy in the 1770s, Jackson had listened to stories of Indian violence toward settlers, and with no apparent understanding of their motives, he developed prejudices that he—like many Americans of his day—held throughout his life. He routinely called Indians “savages” and people of mixed heritage “half-breeds,” and he was unshakable in his conviction that Indians should be removed from the South. When news that the Red Sticks were attacking settlers reached him in Nashville, he asked: “Is a citizen of the United States, to remain under the barbarous lash of cruel and unrelenting savages?”
In March 1814, Jackson tracked the Red Sticks to Horseshoe Bend, a peninsula formed by the Tallapoosa River in what is now Alabama, and launched a frontal assault on their breastworks. His troops might have been repulsed had the Cherokees not crossed the river and attacked from the rear. Caught between two attacking forces, the Red Sticks lost nearly 900 warriors in what proved to be the decisive battle of the war.
That day, a Cherokee named Junaluska saved Jackson from an attacker, prompting the Tennessean to declare, “As long as the sun shines and the grass grows, there shall be friendship between us.” But in the peace treaty he negotiated with the Creeks, Jackson confiscated 23 million acres of land in Alabama and Georgia—some of which belonged to the Cherokees.
In 1816, the Cherokees’ principal chief, Pathkiller, sent a delegation to Washington to reclaim that land. The delegates, who included Ross and Ridge, made quite an impression while mingling with the city’s elite. Ridge sang a Cherokee song so raunchy his interpreter declined to translate it. (“It’s just like a white man’s song,” Ridge joked in his limited English, “all about love and whiskey.”) Even so, a reporter from one newspaper, the National Intelligencer, wrote that “their appearance and deportment are such to entitle them to respect and attention.”
Because of his fluency in English, Ross became one of the Cherokees’ lead negotiators, and he proved more than a match for Secretary of War William Crawford. “It is foreign to the Cherokee principle to feign friendship where it does not exist,” Ross said, implying a contrast with Washington bureaucrats. “You have told us that your Government is determined to do justice to our nation and will never use oppressive means to make us act contrary to our welfare and free will.” The treaties the Cherokees had signed generally required them to give up large tracts of land but guaranteed their rights to whatever remained. Now they wanted those rights enforced.
After more than a month of back-and-forth debate, Crawford finally relented: the United States would restore the bulk of the land the Cherokees claimed. In return, the Cherokees agreed to sell a small tract in South Carolina for $5,000 (the 2011 equivalent of $78,800) to the state government.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (22)
+ View All Comments
you need to learn how to spell.
Posted by Dennis on November 1,2012 | 01:54 PM
I find this a little un help ful. no affence.
Posted by jacee on October 10,2012 | 01:43 PM
This is very helpful! Thank you very much!:)
Posted by Sulema on October 3,2012 | 07:35 PM
"Memory is a veil that blurs historical reality, and filters the past through a flimsy cloth for the wearers preferences, or the dictates of fashion." ~ Caudill / Ashdown
Posted by Patrick on February 24,2012 | 11:39 AM
I strongly believe that our Natives have the right to say if they are moving west or not .If the Louisiana territory was given to the natives as a gift from the ansistors it is not any ones place or is pro-removal to remove them off their own territory.Remember the Cherokees were allies with Andrew Jackson so their is no reason for the ungratefulness of him to remove them off their own land. To the Cherokees this land were their god ,life, spirit and anything else that was important to them about the land.Though I'm not a Native American i feel the pain and suffering to the Cherokees you and your tribes will never be forgotten.
Posted by Natalie Cox on February 12,2012 | 01:56 PM
I found Brian Hick's book both informative and insightful. I am a direct descendant of James Vann, and although he's not always viewed through the most positive light in this book, I am sure what was said about him is true. I am so pleased to have come across a piece of my heritage. The Cherokees are portrayed with dignity and respect throughout the book and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
Posted by Deonne Reese on November 14,2011 | 04:55 PM
John Ross was my great great grandfather. I do not accept your spurious allegation that he might have been an ignoble traitor to the Cherokee people. It is obvious that the Cherokee people, no dolts they, held him in high esteem.
I share your view of Andrew Jackson, and you have provided me with a better than verbal castigation way of dishonoring the criminal. I am grateful to you for that. No more will I carry or accept $20 bills!
Posted by Phyllis Ross Bishop on November 2,2011 | 10:10 AM
PART II
That is what Ridge did, I believe. He saw that Ross was impotent in the face of American power. Indeed, they were ALL impotent! But if a bulldozer is coming, you can elect to stand "bravely" to the end, hoping it will change course...or you can get out of the way.
Ridge has every credential needed to confirm his loyalty to the Cherokee people. None can question that. So why the rupture between him and Ross? Because (I think) Ridge realized that the Cherokees WOULD be removed. Just like the Choctaws, Creek, Chickasaws, and Seminoles. It was GOING to happen. The Cherokees could preempt this by agreeing to move willingly, under their own power, at their preferred pace...or they could delay until General Winfield Scott forced them to do it on the terms of the U.S. government.
Ridge's actions were nothing less, I don't think, than a senior officer's call to "Abandon Ship!" while the captain stares blankly ahead, in denial.
Both are Cherokee heroes to me. Ross, because he did all that was possible to stop removal; Ridge, because when he had done all he could, he wisely realized that it was not enough, and in seeking to spare the Cherokee nation, he signed the Treaty of New Echota.
In a very real sense, Ridge died for his nation. He was killed for seeking to make the inevitable palpable. The Cherokees were on their way west whether anyone recognized it or not. Ridge simply understood that truth before it was too late.
I can understand why schools might want to latch on to Ross and victimization. But Ridge should be noted for showing the mature virtue of ADAPTATION. He was willing to bend when there was no other choice. Ross should be noted for being courageous in the face of certain defeat. It was not the best for his nation, but that is still something we can all respect.
Posted by Aaron Scott on June 13,2011 | 02:10 PM
PART I
From my readings of history, a couple of things strike me about the "history" being taught on the Cherokee Reservation.
First, while it is completely possible that 4000+ Indians died on the trail, that is NOT what the records of the time indicate. In fact, one of the missionaries who walked along with the Cherokees confirms a lesser number of deaths. HOWEVER, this does not mitigate the great wrong done to the Cherokees. They should not have had to walk the Trail of Tears at all.
Second, there is a part of me that applauds Ross' hopefulness in the face of all that had come before. He apparently kept thinking that sooner or later the U.S. government would come to their senses, see that the Cherokees had embraced Christianity, cultivation, civilization, law, literacy, and the such.
But on the other hand, Ross, had the advantage of being 7/8 white, of having perhaps more exposure to whites than did his compatriots. That being the case, it was an enormous mistake to dismiss or fail to recognize the gathering, unstoppable storm that was coming against the Cherokee Nation. It might be said that he was the Cherokee equivalent of Britain's Neville Chamberlain, for Ross offered hope when, in reality, there was little. For all of his good intentions and the many good things he did, he failed to accept the inevitable.
There is a nobility to standing your ground even in the face of overwhelming odds, and for that Ross is to be credited. But that nobility was no match for the wisdom that Ridge and others showed.
While the U.S. seems quite adept at playing the game of making agreements with those who are not the duly elected leaders of their nation, in this case it might be argued that Ross had defaulted on his leadership. An analogy would be a sinking ship whose captain is becomes immobilized or impotent in the face of imminent disaster...and so a senior officer starts giving the orders.
Posted by Aaron Scott on June 13,2011 | 02:09 PM
Do you have a something in your website on the background of the authors/historians who write these articles? I think this would be a valuable addition.
Posted by Judy Seydel on May 15,2011 | 10:24 AM
My recently published book, The Taking of American Indian Lands in the Southeast (McFarland & Company), covers the same subject matter (that is, the Trail of Tears) and sets out the history of treaties which transferred ownership of virtually all the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida from the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole) to white settlers.
Posted by David w, Miller on April 21,2011 | 11:05 AM
While I am not descended from either John Ross or Major Ridge (as far as I know), I have noted (here and elsewhere) that it is quite difficult for the descendants of these two men to hear negative criticism of their ancestors' actions more than 175 years ago. Because I discovered 20 years ago that my ancestors were affiliated with one or both of these men, I read as many Cherokee History books as I could find. The one thing that stood out to me was that historians are not always "objective." In fact, each historian that I read could not resist taking sides in the feud that existed back then between the "John Ross" faction and the "Treaty Party" faction (led by Major Ridge, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot and Stand Watie). Some historians concluded that John Ross was a hero and Stand Watie (Major Ridge's nephew) was the villian, while others concluded that Stand Watie was the hero and John Ross was the villian. The truth is probably that both of these views are wrong. Andrew Jackson was the true villian.
By the way, my great-great grandparents were slaves to John Ross' daughter Jane Ross who married a Return Jonathan Meigs (grandson of Cherokee Indian Agent of the same name).
Posted by Charles Meigs on April 10,2011 | 08:02 PM
For those who are interested in more current and revisionist information about the "Trail of Tears", I suggest that they read a 33 page article "Cherokee Emigration: Reconstructing Reality", which appeared in the "Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. LXXX, No. 3, Fall, 2002. This article, based largely on primary documents available in the DC National Archives, points out that the early "histories" of the Removal were not written by objective researchers. These early "historians" concocted a scenario of confinement of the Cherokee in "stockades" and high death rates. A more recent but yet unpublished survey of documented deaths find ca 1,100 died during this period. Many were children who died of childhood diseases. There were ca.49 medical doctors, hired by the U.S., stationed at the various encampments and some who accompanied the various migrant groups.
Posted by Lathel Duffield on March 24,2011 | 11:34 AM
American Indians have been put through a lot. The story on John Ross and Major Ridge in the March edition was about two great leaders of the Cherokee people who worked through the governmental system to try to find peace and security for their people. This article brought out the betrayal and the divisiveness by the American Government which was a shameful part of our history. We as a nation can look to other countries and applaud the war crimes tribunals that put on trial the likes of Slobodom Milosevich, but continue to honor Andrew Jackson on our currency. If Jackson did today what he did in the 1830’s, he would he would be tried for crimes against humanity. More than a third of the 16,000 Cherokee put on a forced march to Oklahoma died. The least we could do is take Jackson of the twenty dollar bill and replace him with an American Indian hero.
Posted by David Price on March 15,2011 | 05:13 PM
+ View All Comments