|
Post by bobdurham on Apr 26, 2008 18:13:49 GMT -5
I just went to a library sale and found a copy of History of Tennessee by William Robertson Garrett and Albert Virgil Goodpasture, a revised edition published by the Brandon Company of Nashville in 1903. Thought some might get a kick out of their short biography of David Crockett:
326. David Crockett Opposes Jackson. -- When President Jackson ordered his Secretary of the Treasury to remove the government deposits from the United States Bank, he added, "I take the responsibility." This saying became famous because it expressed a sublime moral courage. In the same line, and hardly less celebrated, is the motto of Col. David Crockett, "Be sure you are right, and then go ahead." Crockett was the most amiable, but at the same time the most independent and courageous of men. Born and reared in East Tennessee, he spent his early manhood in the middle portion of the State, annd finally moved to West Tennessee, which became the scene of his remarkable bear hunts and inimitable electioneering campaigns. The sum total of his schooling amounted to four days. But he early manifested a heroic spirit. He worked a whole year for no other wages than a clear receipt against a small debt his father owed his employer, in order that he might have the pleasure of seeing the joyous surprise and gratitude of his father when he presented it to him at the end of the year. He was never able to follow the leadership of General Jackson. In 1827 he entered Congress as a Republican, but his hostility to Jackson soon landed him in the ranks of the opposition. He was defeated for reelection in 1831, but was again elected in 1833. During his term he made his "Tour to the North and Down East," an account of which he published. He also wrote a "Life of Martin Van Buren, Heir Apparent to the Government and the Appointed Successor of General Andrew Jackson." These books were widely read for their quaint humor, and were effective Whig campaign literature. Defeated for Congress again in 1835, he went West to join in the Texas war of independence, and thrilled the country by his heroic death at the Alamo. He was one of the Tennessee Congressmen who, in December, 1834, called on Judge Hugh Lawson White to become a candidate for President.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 27, 2008 15:55:53 GMT -5
"thrilled the country by his heroic death at the Alamo"?? What's with that?
It is, actually, a fair sum up of his anti-Jackson history -- he really did find tat he was "never able to follow the leadership of General Jackson," and for what he saw as good reason.
He didn't write the Van Buren book, although it went out over his name. The "Tour" book was based on his notes and speeches from the tour, but compiled and written by someone else. Crockett suggested that his name be left off as author, but the publishers wanted to use it to help sell the book.
AW
|
|
|
Post by oldredfox on Jul 1, 2008 15:30:33 GMT -5
Here's something I've wondered about, and I don't recall it being addressed anywhere. Was Congressman Crockett's defense of Indians genuine, or was it primarily to antagonize the Jacksonites?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 1, 2008 16:15:18 GMT -5
Jim and I have been doing a lot of research into Crockett's career using his own letters, political circulars and newspaper reports. Our conclusion is that his defense of the Cherokee was sincere. Crockett has a pattern of sticking up for the poor and disadvantaged, and for those suffering injustice. He was already at odds with the wealthy land speculators, who he saw as shoving the poor occupant ("squatter") farmers off their land in his Congressional district. The Cherokee removal was clearly a blatant land grab and a gross injustice and Crockett saw that.
Crockett also had mixed experiences with Indians at home, fighting them in the Creek War, but also living peacefully side-by-side with them (some Indians once helped save Crockett's life when he suffered a serious attack of malaria while in the wilds on a hunting trip). In Congress he took some actions to help Indians and nominated an Indian to serve as agent to the Seminoles.
Crockett did become staunchly anti-Jackson, especially in his final years in Congress, but he was far from the only former-Jacksonian to do that. Jackson's exapansion of executive power, particularly his veto of the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States, offended many in politics. Crockett felt that Jackson had gone back on many campaign promises, includng his promise not to seek a second term. They differed on credit policies and, while he had (or has) the image of a champion of the common man, Jackson was not. I'm no Jacksonian scholar, but from what I've read I get the feeling he has that image because his era saw the opening of democracy to the rank and file Americans, who began weilding electoral power with their votes. This scared the daylights out of many conservatives and the wealthy interests, who had dominated public office up till that time. Many early American leaders did NOT favor popular democracy and sought to filter the "passions" of the public through things like indirect elections (the electoral college; the election of Senators by state legislatures, rather than the public; property requirements for holding public office, etc.). Jackson feared "the mob" as much as any of them and Crockett saw that; he also saw it as a guarantee that the poor and disenfranchised would stay that way if things didn't change.
His anti-Jackson stance was much deeper than symbolic gestures, like voting against Indian removal. Also, if you read his speech opposing that policy it is fairly tepid compared to the one Fess Parker gave on screen. His main objections to it were that no one had explored the lands west of the Mississippi, where the Cherokee were to be exiled, and the government ought to ensure that it was a habitable place where the Indians could prosper. Second, he thought it would cost the government too much to carry out.
Also remember that much of Crockett's negative image as a politically ignorant and inept buffoon came from the highly partisan press of the time; pro-Jackson papers tried to help Democrats' efforts to unseat Crockett by suggesting to his constituents that he was not capable of representing them competently. For Crockett, it was a double whammy, since the press also was promoting his growing image as a backwoods wild man, who could wade the Ohio with a tugboat under his arm. The fictional "Davy" character was already taking form and, while folks in Crockett's district may have found it appealing, it also could be used by Crockett's enemies to reenforce their efforts to paint him as incompetent.
AW
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jul 3, 2008 7:02:09 GMT -5
It seems IMHO that it would have taken a lot of courage for David to speak out against the removal of the Indians whatever his reasons. His constituents almost certainly would have favored their removal; anything that opened up more land for settlement would have been a good thing in their eyes. He did what he thought was right at a risk of losing the next election. "Be sure you're right . . ."
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 3, 2008 8:48:24 GMT -5
Indian Removal was passed in Congress in May 1830; Crockett had won reelection the previous year, despite the best efforts of the Jacksonians to unseat him. Crockett had not hesitated to buck the party or his state delegation (led by Polk) when an issue was important enough to him, especially his poorer constituents' desire to obtain legal title to their land. He seemed to have concluded that government was controlled by a minority of wealthy interests, who would always succeed at the expense of the poor.
I think he saw Indian Removal for what it was -- a blatant, racist land grab. Land was "all" in many ways at the time and the Cherokee owned huge tracts of fertile land; once gold was discovered on Cherokee land, it was curtains for them.
I believe that Crockett was voting according to his conscience and saw the Cherokee as being put upon in the same way as the poor he represented. However, his speech did not appear in the official Register of Debates and many have concluded that he somehow got it pulled, or that he never gave the speech at all. Most speculation concludes that he sought to keep the vote secret from his constituents, who (as Bob correctly points out), favored Indian removal and had little regard for Indians. But Crockett spoke openly about his vote and called Indian Removal a "wicked" policy. He may not have been the most politically astute guy in Congress, but he wasn't naive enough to believe he ever could have kept that vote a secret. His opponents jumped all over it, but Crockett seems to have believed it would not cost him his seat. In fact, he was defeated in the next election (1831), but it's not clear that his vote played a big role in that election and, in any case, he was elected again in 1833.
AW
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 3, 2008 15:19:12 GMT -5
Crockett's stance on the issue of Indian Removal is the singular legislative issue which elevates his status among his Congressional contemporaries and reinforces his legacy as a man of integrity. There were others who spoke out against the Indian Removal bill, like Theodore Frelinghusyen, for example. But the New Jersey Senator had not battled Indians; Crockett did, of course. To be sure, that makes Crockett's stance even more intriguing. And admirable.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 3, 2008 16:45:44 GMT -5
Indeed, Crockett was in good company in his vote against Indian Removal, although he was the only member of the Tennessee delegation to oppose it. The bill was passed by the Senate on April 23, 1830 by a vote of 28-19 and in the House of Representatives on May 24 by a vote of 102-97, where a change of only 3 votes would have defeated it. Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act the same day.
I should correct something I wrote earlier; Crockett did not oppose the bill because of its cost; he said he would vote for necessary funds if the Cherokee agreed to go in writing through a formal treaty or agreement, but not against their will.
Remember, this was also cast as a state's rights issue; Georgia wanted full jurisdiction over the Cherokee, as well as their land, and passed laws that subjected the Cherokee to Georgia law, rather than the Cherokee's one legal code. Among other things, Crockett objected to Georgia's having tried and hung an Indian for a crime committed on Cherokee land, while at the same time prohibiting Indians from giving testimony in its courts.
He also saw this as another abuse of executive power by Jackson and a violation of existing treaties.
AW
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jul 3, 2008 17:09:34 GMT -5
Seems I read somewhere that the Supreme Court made a ruling that the forcible removal of the Cherokee who didn't go willingly was against the Constitution but President Jackson said something like -- 'what can they do to stop it?' Result -- the Trail of Tears! Am I completely off-base on this?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 3, 2008 21:06:34 GMT -5
The alleged quote from Jackson is "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." But it's unlikely he actually said that since there was nothing really to enforce.
The action against the Indians was perpetuated by the State of Georgia, which refused to acknowledge Cherokee sovereignty and claimed jurisdiction over their land. The Federal government, under Jackson's leadership, refused to interfere with Georgia. The Feds. had earlier promised to remove the Indians in exchange for land ceded by Georgia, which eventually became the states of Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia wanted the Feds. to make good on that promise.
The Removal Act didn't compel the Indians to move; it only authorized the President to offer them new land in the west if they would relinquish theirs. But, when the Indians refused to go, Georgia initiated a relentless policy of harassment aimed at forcing them to leave -- a policy that Jackson encouraged.
Two Supreme Court cases attempted to resolve the situation. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee were not a sovereign nation, but could not be placed under state law. Instead, they were “domestic dependent nations,” over whom the U.S. functioned as a guardian and whose territory was part of the United States. Marshall's decision was a bit wishy-washy, since he fell short of finding Georgia's Indian laws unconstitutional.
Georgia ignored the Court (as did Jackson) and passed a law requiring whites to get a license from the state in order to enter Cherokee land. The law was intended to keep missionaries, who were helping the Cherokee, out of their territory. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court found Georgia's law unconstitutional and ordered Georgia to reverse its decision regarding the missionaries.
Years of legal action followed, to no avail, and by 1839 the Cherokee were forced to move. There also was an internal split among the Cherokee between those who wanted to stay and those who wanted to give up and move. Some Indian leaders were being "greased" with bribes, including choice tracts of land in the new territory and some of these "sell outs" were later killed by other Cherokees.
Although the issue was the subject of legal rangles and debate, there's little doubt that this was a land grab based on racism and carried out with brutality by the Federal government, despite legal rulings. It's a black page in our history, and as Bill says, Crockett's open opposition to it distinguishes him from many Americans of the time and enhances his stature. We remember Crockett for his stand at the Alamo, but he was a hero long before that.
AW
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jul 4, 2008 8:44:19 GMT -5
I saw a program on the "History Channel" just this week and it talked about the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia. According to the program, a large gold strike was discovered on Cherokee land. And the only way to secure the gold was to claim rights to the land and remove the Cherokee.
It also revealed the Supreme Courts ruling to side with the Cherokee and how Jackson ignored their decision.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 4, 2008 9:02:59 GMT -5
The gold strike was real. And Georgia passed laws prohibiting the Cherokee from mining the gold (on their own land!), while opening it to whites, who hauled away all they could carry.
Jackson's flippant attitude toward the Court's rulings was an example of what Crockett (and others) regarded as abuses of executive power. Another was his veto of the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States and his withdrawal of Federal funds from the Bank, which pretty much sealed its doom. Jackson transferred the money to "pet banks," which were banks that supported him and his policies, which smacked of cronyism. Among other things Jackson was obsessed with was paying off the public debt, which meant cutting funds for internal improvements to roads and waterways, which were very important to Crockett's district. His fiscal policies led to a tightening of credit, something else that was crucial to surviving on the frontier.
Jackson may have been viewed as a champion of the "common man," but his policies didn't fit that image. He got his way because he always managed enough votes in Congress to support him, and because he continued to enjoy enormous popularity, regardless of his policies.
AW
|
|