Turning points in Trail of Tears

Continuing the discussion of Trail of Tears, the third episode of PBS's We Shall Remain series:

Just as in After the Mayflower and Tecumseh's Vision, I'm struck by how many turning points there were in Trail of Tears. By that I mean historical points at which the Cherokees could've slowed or stopped the tide of "progress" and perhaps prevented their forced relocation.

In King Philip's and Tecumseh's cases, the Indians were fighting roughly equivalent forces in sparsely populated territories. That made military victory at least a possibility. The same wasn't true in the Cherokees' case. They couldn't have won militarily, but they might've won politically.

Here are some of the key turning points:

Andrew Jackson almost died in a duel before becoming president. Jackson also was the first president to face an assassination attempt. Richard Lawrence fired two pistols at him and both misfired.

If Jackson had died, there might not have been an Indian Removal Act. As Trail of Tears notes, Jackson made that his first priority in office. Moreover, another president probably wouldn't have disobeyed the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia. No president before or since has so blatantly ignored a Supreme Court ruling.

There was substantial opposition to the Indian Removal Act. As Wikipedia notes:Most white Americans favored the passage of the Indian Removal Act, though there was significant opposition. Many Christian missionaries, most notably missionary organizer Jeremiah Evarts, agitated against passage of the Act. In Congress, New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen and Congressman David Crockett of Tennessee spoke out against the legislation. The Removal Act was passed after bitter debate in Congress.The House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 102-97. If only three votes had switched, the tally would've been 100-99 against. If the Cherokees had lobbied harder, or bribed some Congressmen as a last resort, they could've gained the three votes necessary.

If the Ridge Party hadn't signed the Treaty of New Echota against the wishes of most Cherokees, that alone might've slowed down or stopped the removal. The US recognized Cherokee ownership of the land and couldn't take it legally without a treaty.

As with the Indian Removal Act, there was significant opposition to the Treat of New Echota. The US Senate almost failed to ratify it. A website describes the action:Attention now turned to the U. S. Senate, whose approval is required for all treaties. Anti-treaty forces were led Kentucky Senator Henry Clay and Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster. Former President John Quincy Adams, then a member of the House, was an outspoken critic of the treaty as well. Although pro-treaty forces had a number of men leading the effort, the real power behind the treaty was President Andrew Jackson. During the debate on the bill it was pointed out that the treaty had been signed by a faction of the Cherokee Nation and did not represent the desires of the entire nation.

In May, 1836, the Senate began debate on the Treaty. ... Then came the roll call vote. There were 46 Senators present, and passage of a Treaty requires 2/3s of the Senators present to vote in the affirmative.

The tally came in at 31 yeas, 15 nays and the Treaty of New Echota passed by a single vote.If one person had switched votes, the invalid treaty would've stymied Jackson's removal plans.

Then there was the Cherokees' petition. As Wikipedia notes:Ross later drew up a petition asking Congress to void the treaty--a petition he personally delivered to Congress in the spring of 1838 with almost 16,000 signatures attached, nearly as many persons as the Cherokee Nation East had within its territory according to the 1835 Henderson Roll, including women and children, who had no vote.

But Congress had adjourned because two members were fighting a duel. When the members met again they didn't or wouldn't consider the petition. But if they had considered the petition promptly, when passions were running high, it might've been enough to sway the fence-sitters.

Finally, there was Ross's plan to hold out for a better offer. Or in his opponents' minds, to stall. Ross's hope was that Jackson's successor would uphold the Supreme Court decision and halt the removal.

Unfortunately, Martin Van Buren succeeded Jackson and continued his brutal policies. Some notes on his presidency:

Martin Van BurenIn 1836, the Whig Party had just been established. The Whigs' strategy for taking the presidency was to offer three regional candidates, split the electoral college and leave the brokering of the presidency to the House of Representatives as it had in 1824. Against this mixed assemblage, Van Buren had Andrew Jackson's firm support and won just over 50 percent of the national popular vote and a majority of electoral votes.Martin Van BurenIn October 1838 about 15,000 Cherokees began what was later to be known as the Trail of Tears. Most of the Cherokees traveled the 800 mile journey on foot. As a result of serious mistakes made by the Federal agents who guided them to their new land, they suffered from hunger and the cold weather and an estimated 4,000 people died on the journey. The soldiers refused permission for the Cherokee to stop and bury family members and warned them they would be shot if they tried to do this. They were therefore forced to carry the dead bodies until they reached that night's camp. Van Buren claimed in Congress that: "The measures of the Removal have had the happiest effect...the Cherokee moved without apparent reluctance."Domestic AffairsSome Native Americans resisted the removal policy violently, however. In Florida, the Seminole people fought upwards of 5,000 American troops, and even the death of the charismatic Seminole leader Chief Osceola in 1838 failed to quell the resistance. Fighting continued into the 1840s and brought death to thousands of Native Americans. The protracted nature of the conflict had deleterious political consequences too. The Whigs, as well as a small number of Americans who believed the removal campaign inhumane, criticized the Van Buren administration's conduct of the war.So the new Whig Party and its odd plan to run three regional candidates rather than one national candidate let the Jacksonian candidate win a bare majority. If the Republicans or Whigs had united behind one good candidate, they could've defeated Van Buren. It wasn't unreasonable for the Cherokees to hope for this outcome.

Despite all the political and economic forces at work, much of this history depended on the actions of individuals: Andrew Jackson, Major and John Ridge, and a few voters in Congress. With different individuals in place, the outcome might've been different.

To avoid this dependence on fate, the Cherokees probably would've had to act a decade or two earlier. And they probably would've had to accept some sort of compromise. The scenario discussed in 1812: The Rivers of War is one plausible way the Indians could've helped themselves.

Once again, the short version of this long-winded posting is that no, Native defeat wasn't inevitable. The Indians needed only some good luck and foresight to change the outcome.

For more on the subject, see Aftermath in Trail of Tears and Review of Trail of Tears.

Below:  Martin Van Buren, Indian hater.