Hugh
Lawson Montgomery
Hugh Lawson's father was (James Montgomery - son of Hugh
Montgomery b.1747 and Agnes Jane Cunningham) James was married
twice. First to Elizabeth McConnell, by whom he had three sons - 1.
John (said to have died a British prisoner at Battle of Washaws), 2.
Hugh Lawson, b. 1767 and 3. James McConnell.
James second marriage to Susannah Strange bore (John, (?), Virginia, William,
Margaret, Eleanor, and Sarah.
Col. Hugh Lawson Montgomery, second son of James was born in South Carolina in
1767. In 1783 he married Margaret Barkley (Barclay) daughter of John and
Agnes Barkley.
He lived for a time in Jackson Co.,
GA and represented Jackson Co. in the state legislature from 1807-1811.
In the state senate from 1812-1818 and 1823-1825. His name appears first
in the Georgia records, when in 1786, he was employed to survey the line
"between Franklin County and the Cherokee Nation." This line
has always been known as the Hawkins line from the fact that Col.
Benjamin Hawkins, the United States Indian Agent, authorized the survey of the
Government. The original plats made by Hugh Montgomery and bearing his
signature are on file and are almost daily consulted, being recognized as
authority in line disputes, etc.
He was a devout Presbyterian,
bringing Christianity to the Cherokee Nation and is said to have financed the
first missionary to the Cherokees. In 1825, he was appointed by
President Monroe, to be Indian Agent of the Cherokee Purchase. Thus
he acquired the title of Colonel because his appointment came under the War
Department. He served until the Indians were moved West in 1838.
His salary was $1,500 per year and upon retirement was given a tract of 3,000
acres in Chattooga Co., GA where he settled (near the Clemmons Place).
There surrounded by several members of his large family, he lived until Jan 22,
1852. He was buried at Alpine (same county) by the side of his
wife-Margaret Barkley b.1768 d.1848. Also around 1832, his
sons, Dr. Madison Montgomery and Bartley Montgomery and General Hemphill his
brother-in-law and William Montgomery his half-brother, took up their residence
in Vann's Valley, Floyd County GA.
His will recorded in Chattooga
County has been lost along with others, though minutes of the Inferior Court
state that it was offered for probate by three witnesses, John Montgomery, John
Wyatt, and William Smith on February 2nd, 1852. Bartley Montgomery, David
L. Knox, Robert Boyle, Samuel Knox, William Montgomery, James Montgomery, Agnes
Cunningham, G. R. Grant, M. Montgomery for John Hardwick, heirs to Hugh's
landed estate-Lot Nos. 74, 107 and 106, signed over their interest to Madison
on March 20, 1852. The court also authorized Madison and Bartley
Montgomery, Samuel Knox, Robert Boyle as executors to appraise the estate of
Hugh Montgomery and return the signed inventory to the court as prescribed on
April 3, 1852. I have a copy of the minutes and returns of the
proceedings, etc.
Hugh's children were.
1.
Agnes
2.
Barkley (Barclay)(Bartley)
3.
Mary
4.
Cynthia
5.
James
6.
Elizabeth
7.
Jane
8.
Christopher
9.
William
10. Madison
11. Eliza Ann
12. obert
and Margaret (Henderson) Hiett as well as George and Jane (White) Agnew were
charter members of the Alpine Presbyterian Church founded in 1853. These
four people were my paternal great grandparents. There were others: Great
Grandparents, Great Uncles and Great Aunts fifteen (15) in all.
13. Chattooga,
The Story of a County and Its People by Robert S. Baker, page 142-144
14. "The
history books are quick to note that the Alpine Presbyterian Church was older
than this for its 36 members signing the peition to the Presbytery of Cherokee
had in total been meeting in the upper room of an academy built by L. M. Force
and his brothers."
15. Of the
36 Members signing the peition thirteen (13) were Talitha (Hiett) Leath's
family. Talitha Hiett was the mother of Mary Alice (Leath) Roberts.
They were: Talitha's grandparents, parents, a great uncle and his second wife,
six aunts and uncles and Tabitha Henderson, probably Robert Clark Hiett's
sister Talitha Cumi Hiett who married Lawson Henderson.
16. According
to Cook: History of Chattoga County, Chapter 6, Religous Development.
17. "The
religious development of Chattooga County can best be given by tracing the
development oif a few of the large churches of the county. The principal
denominations represented in the county are the Presbyterian, Baptist and
Methodist. However, there are several other denominations
represented. Probably, one of the earliest churches in the county was the
Presbyterian Church at Pleasant Green which was established in 1835. It
was called Enon. From this church, the other Presbyterian churches were
later formed.
18. From this
Pleasant Green church, with the membership of fifteen, was later formed the
Church of Alpine Presbyterian. Rev. William Quillian was the first pastor
of this church in 1835.
19. When the
church of Pleasant Green was organized, all the members of the Presbyterian
Church, in what is now Chattooga County, Georgia, connected themselves with
it. Those members of Pleasant Green, in the neighborhood of Alpine, for
many years worshipped in an upper room built for an academy by Mr. L.M. Force
and his brothers. The Rev. A. B. McCorkle during the time of his
ministration at Pleasant Green, preached in this academy once a month.
The Rev. A. Y. Lockridge, his successor, continued to preach until the place
became too small for the congregation. They then resolved to build a new
house of worship. Robert Boyles and Samuel Knox gave the land on which to erect
a church and a cemetery.
20. When
the building was completed, a petition was sent to the Presbytery of the
Cherokee at its session in March 1853, begging the Cherokee Presbytery at its
next regular meeting to organize a churh to be known as Alpine. This
petition was signed by the following: Samuel Knox, Mary Knox, Robert
Boyles, William Barry Henderson, Mary (Barry) Henderson, Martha Alexander, John
Lyday, Margaret Lyday, John B. Knox, Agnes Knox, N.W. Graves, Sarah A. Graves,
Samuel W. Harris, Mary Harris, James F. Henderson, Jane Henderson, Harriet
Henderson, John Barry Henderson, Nancy Henderson, Lawson Henderson, P. A.
Smith, Mary Smith, Lewis Belote, Amanda Belote, Robert Clark Heitt, Margaret
(Henderson) Hiett, C. M. Barry, Jane Barry, Libitha Henderson, M. S. Hooper,
Robert Biggers, Rebecca Biggers, M. F. Cain, C. C. Boyle, E. A. Knox, Naomi
Cain.
21. At the
meeting of the Presbytery at Bethel in October 1853, the church was ordered to
be enrolled on the list of churches in Cherokee Presbytery. Charles Moore
Barry took his seat as ruling elder on May 20, 1854. The other elders:
Robert Boyles, William W. Graves and John B. Knox. The first deacons were: C.C.
Boyles, P. A. Smith and Lewis Belote.
22. George
Agnew, having been transferred from Pleasant Green, was elected elder.
The church building was erected by John Barry Henderson and Tom Allison, the
greater part of the material was donated by Samuel Knox. Few changers
have been made in the general structure.
23. Names of
the ministers who have served since the establishment of the church are A. Y.
Lockridge from May 1, 1859 to September 1872. During the Civil War, Union men
used the church for a hospital. Then came W. A. Milner who ministered
from Decembe 1875 to November 1896. The pastor's salary rarely exceeded $200 a
year. Committees were appointed to see those members who in any way had
conducted themselves in a unbecoming manner. If they did not rectify
their mistake or promise to live differently they were dismissed from the
church. Succeeding ministers were C. B. McLeod, H. E. McClure, Wm.
Goodard, B. F. Guille, P. S. Burrell, C. B. Rathford, Charles Bailey, Paul
Patrick.
24. People
early identified with Alpine Presbyterian Church: W.W. Graves, John B. Knox, W.
H. Cochran, T. J. Knox, W. F. Mobley, R. T. Hassell, the Agnew family, Lyday
family, Alexander family and the Wyatt family."
25. Chattooga,
The Story of a County and Its People by Robert S. Baker, page 143-144
26. "The
history of any institution involves the lives and contributions of men and
women who dared to give of themselves for a cause. A few names that
posterity should ever cherish in connection with the Alpine Church are:
27. Hugh
Montgomery, agent for the Cherokee Indians in 1832, and his family, all staunch
Presbyterians.
28. Robert Boyles
and Samuel Knox, who gave the land for Alpine Church and the cemetery.
29. John B.
Knox, whose trustful voice was the only instrument to lead the early
congregations, white and black, in the lining hymns and singing them.
30. Aunt
'Tinie' Agnew, a vital force in establishing a Sunday School at Alpine.
31. Rev. John
Lester Edwards, first and only minister who as gone out from this church, was
taken under watchful eye of Presbytery in 1939.
32. Mrs.
Daphene Ransom Long, who offered much help in getting a bus operating to bring
children and adults not attending any Sunday School to Alpine.
33. Miss Helen
Wyatt, a Sunday School teacher for many years.
34. Mrs. Fannie
Agnew Henderson, whose devotion to Alpine Church was evident by her years of
teaching the Adult Class there.
35. Mrs. Pearl
Edwards, who served Alpine Church as a faithful teacher of the Adult Class.
36. Rev. F. E.
Crowe, who for a number of years supplied the pulpit between regular preaching
days.
37. Mr. Carlton
Tucker, who served Alpine Sunday School as Superintendent for many years with a
willing, Christian spirit."
·
Letter from Indian Agent Hugh Montgomery 1817
·
June 1817 , Cherokee country that became Hall County
· In 1817, Hugh Montgomery,
later an Indian agent for the State of Georgia, was paid 16 dollars for a
journey down the Chattahoochee River to what is now Hall, Gwinnett, and Fulton
counties. This was freshly ceded Indian land full of white intruders and Montgomery’s
job was to notify them they had to report to authorities. He mentions seeing
persons listed in a deposition concerning intruding, whom he reported to
governor William Rabun, saying he had advised them to return to Georgia to face
inquiries. He begins:
3rd July 1817
Sir
I have just Returned from the Frontiers & have Down to give
you the names of the white persons (heads of Familys) who I find living on the
Indian lands adjasent to this County Let it be Remembered that I did not vissit
the South west Side of the County, I had no expectation before I set out that
any person had Settled over the appalatchee, when I got to the Hog mountain I
learnt that the persons named in the Deposition sent to you were all in that
Quarter & that they had been all advised to Return before the Depositions
were forwarded to you & had Refused. I had a Right to believe that the
names of all were sent you, I was also informed that most of them had either
moved in or were about to Remove with the exception of a John Camp& a few
others.
He then includes a long list of names of white intruders living
on Indian lands from Suwanee Old Town, down past Stone Mountain to the
Standing Peachtree and perhaps Buzzard's Roost on the river. He has informed
some of them that they are subject to inquiries in the State of Georgia and
some have indicated they will take care of the problem. Most indicated they
will ignore the government.
I then turned up the North west side of the County & the
following are the persons I find on the Indian Lands in that Quarter together
with the Relative Situations in which they live viz between the Stone
Mountain& Chatahoochee River, are Silas McGrady, John Steen, & James
Steen Senr.& Clanton Steenin the Settlement Called Raferses
Settlement& on both sides of Chatahoochee are James Steen Junr. John
Rogers, John Difoor, a man by the name of Bill, two men by the name of
Bagwell, John Woodall William Woodall Thomas Woodall, & another
Woodall given name not known, & Tabitha Harper a widow Parker Collens, Jonathan
Gray, & William Harden above the mouth of Suwanee are William Garner Warren
Young John Tidwell, & Austin Dobbs, at & near the mouth of Big Creek
are John Mires Thomas Dasset, John Dasset, Obediah Light, James Smith
& Robert Smith Junr., at & near the mouth of the Flowery Branch are Bud
Mullins, Robert Smith Senr, & Thomson McGuire at & near the Ferry are
John Lessly, Danl May, Caleb Mosely, Benjn Murry, John Gathard,
John Wilson& Hugh Wilson, on Flat creek are Simon Strickland, Sion
Strickland Irvin Strickland, Lazeras Strickland, Lewis Crow, Sion Crow, &
Richard Litteral, and near the Chestetee are Freeman Averbee Danl. Short, Noah
Langly, John Martin, & Jese Martin & at and above the Shallowford are
William Staker, William Baity, a man by the name Mason, an other by the name of
Hainsan other by the name of Hawkins, & John Wagoner, James Abercrombi a
Senr James Abercrombi a Junr Benjm Morris, Henry Morris, John Diffy, Henry
Barton, Holly Barton, Widow & George Davis. I did not see all of them, but the
greater part of those that I did, promised to Come in, Some few will, Say about
one in ten, the ballance will not.
Now Montgomery changes the tone of his letter, he begins
commenting on the whole idea of white intruders and Indians living together and
the morality thereof:
… there are a great many Shifts which those people make to get
settling on those Lands Some Rent of Indians or Mixed Bloods others Settle Down
on Such place as pleases them & get Some stroling Vagabond Indian to live
or Stay with them, they Call themselves his Croppers, he is to hunt & they
Cultivate the Ground, they find him a Gun & amunition they have the
meat & he the Skins, but it often so turns out that he has two
Haggskins for one Dearskin, & this accounts for the Frontier people
loosing so many of their Haggs as they do -- others (if possible) More
Lax in their Morrels & Still Less Delicate in their taste will Kiss a Squaw
for the privallage of their Land & Range, he then becomes a Landlord he has
his Croppers, Tenants, & Hirelings &c. thus a whole Settlement Claim
under him, and what seems more abominable then all is that others give their
Daughters to the Indian fellows for the privallage of Living in their Country
themselves, of this Last & and worst Class are John Tidwell & Noah
Langly the Former has given four of his Daughters to Indian fellows for Wives
& the Latter two thus a Motly Race are propigating fast verry fast on
the Chatahoochee & its waters –
I Should like to know how far the Individual Indians have a
Right to Rent or Lease Lands, my own impressions are that Indians have not a
principle tittle to any Lands, that theirs is a mere occupant claim, that they
are tenants at the will of the Government, the Treaty Reserves the Lands to
them for their Hunting grounds, it prohibits all Citizens of the U. S, or other
persons from Settling on them with out permits from the Agent of Indian
affairs, those people have no permits they are not Indians altho Some of them
try to look & act like them, & it seems that to get foothold in the
Nation by any of their ways which I have Described has all the effect of taking
the Indian Black Drink, it makes them inimical to every
person who Does not ware a Long hunting Shirt & mockisins or a
Match Coat & Smell like Tainted Dearskins & I think I am
warranted in saying that If the Comrs. fail of success in the present Treaty it
will be in not intirely to the Clamours of those fellows Seconded by a few of
the Mixed Bloods, the spurious product of those Disgracefull & unnatural Matches.
I am Sir very Respectfully your Obt Humbl Servnt H
Montgomery
Cherokee Phoenix and Indian's Advocate
Wednesday, November 25, 1829
Vol. II, no. 33
Page 2, col. 3b
We have seen the documents to which Col. M'Kenney referred in his letter to us.
Let it be distinctly remembered, that the point to be proved is, the great body
of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that the chiefs deter them from
enrolling. In just to Col. M'Kenney we give below all the evidence he has
produced -- the public will judge whether he has made his word good.
Extract of the letter from Colonel Hugh Montgomery to the Secretary of War,
dated Cherokee Agency, 26th September, 1828:
"We (the agent and the sub-agent) then crossed the mountains, visited
several of the villages in what is called the Valley Town. We found that the
runners had been there also ahead of us, and the chiefs prepared with a reply,
which was generally that they liked the country and were determined not to
remove; here we learnt that one man who had talked of enrolling had been driven
out of a company and not suffered to drink with them, and a report had been
circulated that the first man who enrolled was to be killed."
Extract of a letter from Colonel Hugh Montgomery to the Secretary of War, dated
Cherokee Agency, 21st October, 1828:
"I had occasion to mention to you several times the personal hostility
which those people had expressed against Rogers and Maw, on account of their
mission to this country, but had hoped that it would end in empty threats;
especially after the understood that these men were on the employ and entitled
to the protection of the United States Government. But as the times had become alarming
to those who are opposed to the emigration business, and as several had
enrolled, and a considerable number especially in this neighborhood had agreed
to enrol, and we were about to break into some of the most influential
families, they seem to have come to the determination to put Rogers (who was
the most active) down at all events -- and on Friday last, James Speer and
Archy Foreman, two half breeds came to the Agency, where they staid [sic] until
evening, and I suppose learnt that Rogers had gone over to Calhoun. Foreman
crossed the river in the evening, Speers not until dark, when he came into the
house where Rogers was sitting, and without speaking a single word to him,
struck him on the head with a rock, supposed to weigh near four pounds, which
it is thought he took over the river with him on purpose. There were present
two or three white men who endeavored to prevent further violence, but were
kept off by Archy Foreman who they state said that Speer was his brother-in-law
and should do as he pleased. Rogers states that when he came to his
understanding he saw Speers sitting in the piazza, and asked him the cause of
the assault; Speers said he had not given him his satisfaction, but if he would
only name Arkansas or emigrants, that he would. Rogers replied that was his
business and he was obliged to do so, he again struck him on the head with a
large rock. Rogers is badly cut and bruised on the head, but is about again.
This without protection from the Government will put a check if not an end to
the emigration here. The hostility is not confined to Rogers and Maw only, but
to all concerned, and all those who have enrolled to talk of it; several I
understand say they would enroll but are afraid of personal abuse. I have
promised them protection, but fear I shall not be able to perform, as I have no
force at my command.
"I have engaged two of those who have enrolled, viz: Major Walker and
Fishtail, to act on those around this place, but the threats are such that I
fear they will decline."
"Just while writing, Wm. Pettit, a half breed, who enrolled yesterday,
arrived, having been driven from his house before day by a drinking party: he
states they came to this house just before day making hard threats; he caught
up his gun, and made his escape, and has sent for his family."
Extract of a letter from James Rogers to the Secretary of War, dated Calhoun,
Dec. 26, 1828:
"The Cherokees opposed to the emigration of the Indians east of the
Mississippi, held out their enmity towards those emigrating to the west of
it" -- "showing at once, not only the hostility to the white people
living with them, but a contempt for the government of the United States. On
yesterday, I rode about a mile from the Cherokee Agency, and was attacked by
the Path Killer, an Indian, who struck me several times with rocks, and who
avowed his intention to kill me, and anyone who would aid me in my business of
enrolling the Cherokees for Arkansas." "If the government wishes to
carry the exertions that are now making into effect, it will be necessary that
they should send a small force here to protect the persons actually engaged on
the part of the government, as times look very squally here I assure you."
CHEROKEE AGENCY, 3d Jan. 1829.
SIR: On Christmas Day, Major Walker, an emigrant, unfortunately went to an
Indian dance, about 4 miles from this. As soon as he arrived, Archy Foreman,
(the same who was concerned in the assault on Captain Rogers with Speers,) and
others, commenced an assault on him and beat him so that his life was despaired
of, or at least doubted for several days. A physician was called and sent out
to attend him, and I have declined reporting the case, until I found whether he
would live or die. He has so far recovered, as to return to the Agency.
It is thus that those Indians are left to exercise their own pleasure on the
subject of emigration.
Respectfully, your obedient:
(Signed) H. MONTGOMERY.
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
These are then the documents, by which we were to be convicted of falsehood, and
the assertion of Col M'Kenney put beyond a doubt. If they are sufficient, their
design has been effected long ago, and by our own act, for the reader will
these same documents (except the extract of a letter from James Rogers) in the
first number of the present volume of the Cherokee Phoenix. We wish our readers
to turn to them.
Now, (and we say it with proper respect) we had reason to expect something
more. We did not think that any evidence could be brought forward to prove the
point now in dispute, but that letters which we · Andrea Adams' account
·
, http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/WAXHAW/2006-10/1162063656
· Col. Hugh Lawson Montgomery was born near
Camp Creek, Waxhaw SC in the late 1760's. He was the second child of James and
Elizabeth McConnell Montgomery. He was raised and educated in the Waxhaw
Settlement. He lost his older brother John Montgomery in the Battle of Hanging
Rock during the revolution. Hugh married Margaret Barkley in 1788. She too was
from Waxhaw, SC. After the revolution, Hugh Montgomery migrated to Hancock
County, GA. In the 1780's he was employed by Benjamin Hawkins to help run the
boundry lines that seperated Franklin County, GA from the Cherokee and Creek
Indians. These were the lines established in the treaties written in the
Hancock County area. (ie. Shoulderbone Treaty) The problem was the Indian
Cheifs would give up land in the treaties, then Hugh would have to convince the
Indians that their land had been given up. There are many accounts where Hugh
could not convince the Indians to move so he gave them trinkets such as
blankets and boots to get them to move. His treaty lines can be found
throughout Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. By the early 1800's Hugh moved to
Jackson County, GA where his father lived. Hugh lived on the "Walnut"
in Jackson County, GA. There he served as Justice of the Peace and Justice of
the Inferior Court. His younger brother James McConnell Montgomery was the
Jackson County Sherriff at this time. Hugh also served in the Georgia state
legislature and the state senate. Hugh was a member and elder of the Olney
Thyatira Presbyterian Church in Jackson County, GA. With finances from this
church he headed into North Georgia and Tennesse to help spread Christianity
among the Indians. His endeavor was accompyed by ex-Tenn. Gov. Joseph McMinn.
In 1825 the U.S. Senate appointed him as U.S. Federal Indian Agent to the
Cherokee Nation. He then moved with his family to Cherokee Nation, Bradley
County, Tenn. Here he served as the liasion between the Indians and the U.S.
Government. Many of his letters from the Cherokee Nation exist today. He speaks
of the troubles he has with the Indians and in the same token he speaks of the
troubles that the Indians had with the white man. His last job at the agency
was to design a plan to remove the Indians westward. His plan was designed and
he stepped down prior to the actual removal of the Indians. The Trail of Tears
began with his agency. During this time of turmoil Hugh retired to Menlo, Chattooga
County, Georgia. He was buried in the Old Alpine Church Cemetery in 1852.
Col. Hugh Lawson Montgomery was given the title Col. out of respect, not military action. During his day he was in a precarious situation. First he had to take the Indians land away, re-assign them to another piece of land, then he had to protect them from the white intruders that settled on their land. Hugh Montgomery's letters are available on NARA microfilm. (Ref's: University of Tenn Archives, GA Archives, National Archives)
Col. Hugh Lawson Montgomery was the older brother to James McConnell Montgomery that settled Fort Peachtree located in present day Atlanta,GA.
Col. Hugh Lawson Montgomery was given the title Col. out of respect, not military action. During his day he was in a precarious situation. First he had to take the Indians land away, re-assign them to another piece of land, then he had to protect them from the white intruders that settled on their land. Hugh Montgomery's letters are available on NARA microfilm. (Ref's: University of Tenn Archives, GA Archives, National Archives)
Col. Hugh Lawson Montgomery was the older brother to James McConnell Montgomery that settled Fort Peachtree located in present day Atlanta,GA.
had really published would be produced as decisive in the
case, is what we did not conceive.
The above extracts, if they prove anything, prove that the popular feeling of the Nation is decidedly opposed to a removal. Though we have no reason to believe what is said is all true, yet for the sake of placing the matter plainly before our readers, we will admit them as ideas.
1. Col. Montgomery does not say that the Chiefs of the Valley Towns were not acting for the people, when they replied "that they liked the country and were determined not to remove." We do know positively that they did reply in behalf and with the approbation of the people. This we are prepared to prove if it is disputed. Perhaps the best comment on this part of Col. M'Kenney's evidence is the fact, that since the commencement of the emigration business, not one family has enrolled in the Valley Towns. Col. Montgomery says: "Here we learnt that one man who had talked of enrolling had ben driven out of a company and not suffered to drink with them." Is Col. M'Kenney prepared to tell the public that this was a company of Chiefs who drove the man out? No. It was a company of common people in a drinking frolic -- a company of men who are said to be under the sway of the Chiefs, and out of which only one man talked of enrolling. Probably he was drunk, and was driven out by his drunken comrades.
2. In regard to the account of the affray between Rogers and Speers, we would observe, that only one party has been heard. We have only the bare statement of Rogers, who says that he was punished for inducing the Cherokees to emigrate. We have understood that the affair was personal and of a private nature. But supposing the account of Rogers be true, to what does it amount? Does it prove that the great body of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that they are deterred from enrolling by the Chiefs? If it does, anything may be proved. Speers is not a Chief, nor was Rogers an emigrant, but was engaged, in interfering, very improperly, in the concerns of the Cherokees. He would expect no better treatment when he indulged himself in drinking frolics. Speers being a common citizen, the affair between him and Rogers is only another proof that the common citizens of the Cherokee nation are opposed to a removal. William Pettit is said to have been driven from his house -- by whom? By the Chiefs? No. By the people who are anxious to remove. If the statement of Mr. P. is true (and for the sake of argument we will believe him, though a very different story would probably be told by the other party, if they were allowed a hearing) how is the assertion of Col. M'Kenney sustained by it? It does not appear very likely that those who want to go west would turn one of their number out of doors, and persecute him for believing as they do.
3. It appears that James Rogers wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, complaining of a certain man by the name of Pathkiller, whom he calls, an Indian, for attacking him with stones, etc. Col M'Kenney lays this letter before the public to prove that "the great body of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that they are deterred from enrolling by the Chiefs?" Whether it has any bearing on the question the public can judge. Who this Pathkiller is we know not -- that he is not one of the rulers of this nation, we are pretty certain.
In our remarks on the speech of Col. M'Kenney before the Indian Board, we used the following words: We do not, however, wish to believe that his [Col M'Kenney] misrepresentations are wilful -- It may be he is led astray by his "secret agents." Col. M'Kenney replied, in the communication already published, thus: "The principal bearing of my remarks in my address as quoted by you was upon the Creeks, but I know it, so do you know it, the great body of your people want to get away from the evils that threaten them, and go west -- you know it and I know it (and not from secret agent either) that your influence, and the influence of a very few deter the body of your people from making terms." To sustain this very hasty and untenable assertion, a letter of James Rogers is published. Now we are prepared to prove that this same James Rogers was a secret agent of the Government. In a letter to Col. Hugh Montgomery, dated May 27th 1828, Col M'Kenney says:
"I am directed by the Secretary of War, in addition to the above, to any that Capt. Rogers is confidentially employed to go to the Cherokees, and, explain to them the kind of soil, climate, and the prospects that await them in the west, and to use, in his discretion, the best methods to induce the Indians residing within the chartered limits of Georgia to emigrate. As much, if not all his success will depend upon the keeping of the object of his visit a secret, you will by no means make it known."
There is another thing in the letter of James Rogers which is worth of remark. He says of the Cherokees, showing at once, not only the hostility to the white people living with them" etc. Here it is said by Rogers, whose words are received as authority by Col. M'Kenney, if not by the Government, that the Cherokees are hostile against the whites living with them. According to the nature of things then, these whites cannot have any influence over the Cherokees. On the other hand, it is frequently asserted, that the opposition against emigration among the Indians is owing to the influence and bad counsel of whites. The Secretary of War, in a letter to Col. Ward, agent for the Choctaws, dated July 31, 1829, says: "The President is fully satisfied that the opposition produced among the Indians, against emigration is ascribable mainly to the interference and bad counsel of vicious white men who gain a place in the Nation." This is applied to the Choctaws, but the same views have been avowed frequently in regard to the Cherokees. Rogers says, the Cherokees are hostile against the white who live among them, and who of course have no influence. Others say, the white settlers among the Indians produce the opposition against emigration. Col. M'Kenney says, the Chiefs deter the people from emigrating. How are these to be reconciled?
4. The fourth document is similar to the others we have been considering. It does not appear that Maj. Walker was assaulted by the Chiefs or by order of the Chiefs, or because he was an emigrant. If his being an emigrant was the reason of the assault, then it plainly goes to prove that the common citizens of the nation are opposed to emigration.
We would, in conclusion, ask of the candid reader, whether, in the foregoing extracts, it is asserted by Col. Montgomery or Rogers, that the great body of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that they are deterred from enrolling by a very few. This is the point of Col M. to prove. It is true statements are given to prove that there is an opposition -- but this is not the thing -- does the opposition proceed from the Chiefs and from the Minority? That it does not, the extracts themselves abundantly show. Even if it was plainly asserted in the documents, that the majority of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, we do not conceive the question would be decided. A mere opinion of the agent or Rogers on this subject would not be a decisive evidence.
We are sorry the assertion has ever been made. In noticing it we do it not from a spirit of vindictiveness, or for the purpose of being uncivil towards the Gentleman who has made it, but for the purpose of espousing the claims of justice and truth. We wish to treat him kindly and with respect, (begging pardon for all expressions which the strictest propriety will not justify) and in return we hope we will do us the justice to believe, that in differing from him, we are not actuated by interested but by conscientious motive. The civility which he asks of us, we hope he will be ready to give.
The above extracts, if they prove anything, prove that the popular feeling of the Nation is decidedly opposed to a removal. Though we have no reason to believe what is said is all true, yet for the sake of placing the matter plainly before our readers, we will admit them as ideas.
1. Col. Montgomery does not say that the Chiefs of the Valley Towns were not acting for the people, when they replied "that they liked the country and were determined not to remove." We do know positively that they did reply in behalf and with the approbation of the people. This we are prepared to prove if it is disputed. Perhaps the best comment on this part of Col. M'Kenney's evidence is the fact, that since the commencement of the emigration business, not one family has enrolled in the Valley Towns. Col. Montgomery says: "Here we learnt that one man who had talked of enrolling had ben driven out of a company and not suffered to drink with them." Is Col. M'Kenney prepared to tell the public that this was a company of Chiefs who drove the man out? No. It was a company of common people in a drinking frolic -- a company of men who are said to be under the sway of the Chiefs, and out of which only one man talked of enrolling. Probably he was drunk, and was driven out by his drunken comrades.
2. In regard to the account of the affray between Rogers and Speers, we would observe, that only one party has been heard. We have only the bare statement of Rogers, who says that he was punished for inducing the Cherokees to emigrate. We have understood that the affair was personal and of a private nature. But supposing the account of Rogers be true, to what does it amount? Does it prove that the great body of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that they are deterred from enrolling by the Chiefs? If it does, anything may be proved. Speers is not a Chief, nor was Rogers an emigrant, but was engaged, in interfering, very improperly, in the concerns of the Cherokees. He would expect no better treatment when he indulged himself in drinking frolics. Speers being a common citizen, the affair between him and Rogers is only another proof that the common citizens of the Cherokee nation are opposed to a removal. William Pettit is said to have been driven from his house -- by whom? By the Chiefs? No. By the people who are anxious to remove. If the statement of Mr. P. is true (and for the sake of argument we will believe him, though a very different story would probably be told by the other party, if they were allowed a hearing) how is the assertion of Col. M'Kenney sustained by it? It does not appear very likely that those who want to go west would turn one of their number out of doors, and persecute him for believing as they do.
3. It appears that James Rogers wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, complaining of a certain man by the name of Pathkiller, whom he calls, an Indian, for attacking him with stones, etc. Col M'Kenney lays this letter before the public to prove that "the great body of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that they are deterred from enrolling by the Chiefs?" Whether it has any bearing on the question the public can judge. Who this Pathkiller is we know not -- that he is not one of the rulers of this nation, we are pretty certain.
In our remarks on the speech of Col. M'Kenney before the Indian Board, we used the following words: We do not, however, wish to believe that his [Col M'Kenney] misrepresentations are wilful -- It may be he is led astray by his "secret agents." Col. M'Kenney replied, in the communication already published, thus: "The principal bearing of my remarks in my address as quoted by you was upon the Creeks, but I know it, so do you know it, the great body of your people want to get away from the evils that threaten them, and go west -- you know it and I know it (and not from secret agent either) that your influence, and the influence of a very few deter the body of your people from making terms." To sustain this very hasty and untenable assertion, a letter of James Rogers is published. Now we are prepared to prove that this same James Rogers was a secret agent of the Government. In a letter to Col. Hugh Montgomery, dated May 27th 1828, Col M'Kenney says:
"I am directed by the Secretary of War, in addition to the above, to any that Capt. Rogers is confidentially employed to go to the Cherokees, and, explain to them the kind of soil, climate, and the prospects that await them in the west, and to use, in his discretion, the best methods to induce the Indians residing within the chartered limits of Georgia to emigrate. As much, if not all his success will depend upon the keeping of the object of his visit a secret, you will by no means make it known."
There is another thing in the letter of James Rogers which is worth of remark. He says of the Cherokees, showing at once, not only the hostility to the white people living with them" etc. Here it is said by Rogers, whose words are received as authority by Col. M'Kenney, if not by the Government, that the Cherokees are hostile against the whites living with them. According to the nature of things then, these whites cannot have any influence over the Cherokees. On the other hand, it is frequently asserted, that the opposition against emigration among the Indians is owing to the influence and bad counsel of whites. The Secretary of War, in a letter to Col. Ward, agent for the Choctaws, dated July 31, 1829, says: "The President is fully satisfied that the opposition produced among the Indians, against emigration is ascribable mainly to the interference and bad counsel of vicious white men who gain a place in the Nation." This is applied to the Choctaws, but the same views have been avowed frequently in regard to the Cherokees. Rogers says, the Cherokees are hostile against the white who live among them, and who of course have no influence. Others say, the white settlers among the Indians produce the opposition against emigration. Col. M'Kenney says, the Chiefs deter the people from emigrating. How are these to be reconciled?
4. The fourth document is similar to the others we have been considering. It does not appear that Maj. Walker was assaulted by the Chiefs or by order of the Chiefs, or because he was an emigrant. If his being an emigrant was the reason of the assault, then it plainly goes to prove that the common citizens of the nation are opposed to emigration.
We would, in conclusion, ask of the candid reader, whether, in the foregoing extracts, it is asserted by Col. Montgomery or Rogers, that the great body of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, and that they are deterred from enrolling by a very few. This is the point of Col M. to prove. It is true statements are given to prove that there is an opposition -- but this is not the thing -- does the opposition proceed from the Chiefs and from the Minority? That it does not, the extracts themselves abundantly show. Even if it was plainly asserted in the documents, that the majority of the Cherokees are anxious to remove, we do not conceive the question would be decided. A mere opinion of the agent or Rogers on this subject would not be a decisive evidence.
We are sorry the assertion has ever been made. In noticing it we do it not from a spirit of vindictiveness, or for the purpose of being uncivil towards the Gentleman who has made it, but for the purpose of espousing the claims of justice and truth. We wish to treat him kindly and with respect, (begging pardon for all expressions which the strictest propriety will not justify) and in return we hope we will do us the justice to believe, that in differing from him, we are not actuated by interested but by conscientious motive. The civility which he asks of us, we hope he will be ready to give.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
