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 4 of 7)
A month later, Andrew Jackson was elected president of the United States. He would test the Cherokees’ leadership soon enough, but even before Jackson was inaugurated, Georgia presented a more immediate threat, passing laws that annexed Cherokee land and extended state laws to that territory. Within two years, the state would require any whites living among the Indians—such as missionaries—to sign an oath of allegiance to the state or get out.
Ross spent much of those two years in Washington, trying to overturn the new laws. Jackson’s secretary of war, John Eaton, told Ross the tribe’s troubles had been self-inflicted: by adopting a constitution, it had insulted Georgia’s sovereignty. As the months passed and Georgia’s deadline loomed, some 500 Cherokees abandoned their homes and headed west to join earlier emigrants. Major Ridge grew alarmed: the fewer Cherokees who remained, the easier they would be to displace. He set out on a speaking tour intended to calm tribe members inclined to flee. He told large crowds that they had been targeted not because they were weak, but because they were strong and had “unexpectedly become civilized.”
“It is too much for us now to be honest, and virtuous, and industrious,” he noted sarcastically, “because then are we capable of aspiring to the rank of Christians and Politicians, which renders our attachment to the soil more strong.”
When Ross returned from Washington, he joined Ridge’s campaign, rousing crowds with his defiant oratory. He told a missionary friend that his “hopes of success were never greater.”
But more trouble was on the way: gold had been discovered on tribal land in Georgia, drawing a new wave of settlers, and President Jackson was not about to stop them. In February 1830, the tribe exercised its legal right to evict squatters; Ridge, then 60, led a two-day raid in which Cherokees burned settlers’ houses and outbuildings. After Georgia authorities sent a posse after the Cherokees, gunfire rang out through northern Georgia.
The timing could hardly have been worse: at that very moment, Congress was hotly debating the Indian removal bill, a measure Jackson had introduced to establish an “ample district” west of the Mississippi to which the Indians of the South could move. On one hand, he had said in his inaugural address, Indian emigration “should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land.” On the other, he made it clear that Indians could not live as independent peoples within the United States: “surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization” they would be doomed “to weakness and decay.” They had either to submit to state laws or go.
Congress passed the removal bill that May, and by September Jackson had begun negotiating with the Chickasaws, the Choctaws and the remaining Creeks to move west. Within four years they would be under land cession treaties or on the move. Some Seminoles also left in the early 1830s, and others fought the Army in Florida for several years. But Ross refused even to meet with Jackson. Instead, he turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to invalidate Georgia’s removal law.
As the court’s spring session opened in March 1831, Georgia officials roamed the Capitol to rally states’ rights advocates to the idea of stripping the justices of their power to review the acts of state governments. The justices—in an act that historians would say reflected their worry over the talk coming out of Congress—ruled that they lacked jurisdiction over the Cherokees’ claims against Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall offered their only hope when he wrote that “the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable...right to the lands they occupy.”
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