# Samclem - why was the "How many US Presidents have killed someone" thread locked **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 2, 2007, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556 "2007-02-02T16:37:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/81 "2007-02-04T19:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **E-Sabbath** > Hell, there’s a good chance that’s when we taught them how to scalp people. Not really, they developed scalping independently. [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061215.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061215.html) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/82 "2007-02-04T19:57:08Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] But that makes you the ultimate hypocrite, if you condemn an evil and then are willing to benefit from that evil. By accepting the benefits of an action, you’re justifying the action that was taken, and if you really believe the action is wrong, then you have a moral obligation not to benefit from it. [/quote] Not by any definition of “hypocrite” I’ve ever heard. A hypocrite is someone who doesn’t practice what they preach. Benefiting from a wrong, when choosing not to benefit from the wrong wouldn’t right the wrong, has nothing to do with hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > Well, it was Georgia that defied and showed contempt to the Supreme Court, not Jackson. The federal government wasn’t a party in any of them. Wrong: the Supreme Court IS the federal government. What you may mean is that the executive branch failed to carry out its legal obligation to enforce the decisions made by the other branches–in this case, failing to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court. He violated his oath of office, his pledge to defend and uphold the Constitution, in doing so. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/83 "2007-02-04T19:57:48Z")
Re-introduced the concept, popularized it, one of them. One of my ancestors, by the way, was one of the ‘generally’ in the ‘generally’ dead. He survived and walked home, seducing an indian maiden along the way, at around the age of sixty-something. Village records claim he lived till 115. As for what the Mohegans are doing now, well… not too badly over in Foxwoods. Not great, but they’re still around, more or less where they were. Captain: There’s a bit of a difference between a bill of sale and something signed under undue force. I think I’ll let Lib handle it, if he so chooses. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/84 "2007-02-04T20:07:43Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] So Phillipse signed a treaty with the Mohegans/Sint Sinck to get land, and Jackson signed a treaty with the Cherokee to get land. [/QUOTE] He did not sign a treaty with the Cherokee nation. He signed a treaty with a bogus "chief " that he installed and bribed. The Cherokee, on the other hand, were tricked with an illegitimate treaty. In 1833, a small faction agreed to sign a removal agreement: the Treaty of New Echota. The leaders of this group were not the recognized leaders of the Cherokee nation, and over 15,000 Cherokees – led by Chief John Ross – signed a petition in protest. The Supreme Court ignored their demands and ratified the treaty in 1836. The Cherokee were given two years to migrate voluntarily, at the end of which time they would be forcibly removed. By 1838 only 2,000 had migrated; 16,000 remained on their land. The U.S. government sent in 7,000 troops, who forced the Cherokees into stockades at bayonet point. They were not allowed time to gather their belongings, and as they left, whites looted their homes. Then began the march known as the Trail of Tears, in which 4,000 Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease on their way to the western lands. > **[Indian removal](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html)** > [@](#): > > Well, it was Georgia that defied and showed contempt to the Supreme Court, not Jackson. The federal government wasn’t a party in any of them. I’m not sure what you mean by that. The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. They sought protection from land-hungry white settlers, who continually harassed them by stealing their livestock, burning their towns, and sqatting on their land. In 1827 the Cherokee adopted a written constitution declaring themselves to be a sovereign nation. They based this on United States policy; in former treaties, Indian nations had been declared sovereign so they would be legally capable of ceding their lands. Now the Cherokee hoped to use this status to their advantage. The state of Georgia, however, did not recognize their sovereign status, but saw them as tenants living on state land. The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against them. The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia’s extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law. — Ibid ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/85 "2007-02-04T21:17:39Z")
What’s happened to the OP? **ToC** where are you? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2007, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/86 "2007-02-04T21:26:21Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] If I may speak as a “wandering savage”, fuck that blistering pustule-on-a-dead-buzzard’s-ass. [/QUOTE] We have a winner. Love the description. w. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/87 "2007-02-05T02:35:28Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] He did not sign a treaty with the Cherokee nation. He signed a treaty with a bogus "chief " that he installed and bribed. Jackson didn’t “install” Ridge, and Jackson didn’t bribe Ridge. What would be the point of Ridge taking a bribe? He knew that by signing the treaty, his life was forfeit. He signed the treaty because he knew he had no choice…The Cherokee were going to be destroyed. > [@](#): > > The Cherokee were given two years to migrate voluntarily, at the end of which time they would be forcibly removed. By 1838 only 2,000 had migrated; 16,000 remained on their land. And who’s fault was that? Ross had two years to arrange the migration. But he did nothing to prepare for it…just kept on filing petitions to reverse the decision > [@](#): > > The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law. What was he supposed to do? Go to war against Georgia? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/88 "2007-02-05T03:06:40Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] [QUOTE=Liberal] What was [Jackson] supposed to do? Go to war against Georgia? [/QUOTE] Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/89 "2007-02-05T03:26:44Z")
Use the state militia to enforce the law, as was his Constitutional duty as President. (That always kind of confused me: Jackson said the SC had to enforce its decision – no, that’s your job, actually, to carry out the law of the land.) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/90 "2007-02-05T03:53:37Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] Use the state militia to enforce the law, as was his Constitutional duty as President. (That always kind of confused me: Jackson said the SC had to enforce its decision – no, that’s your job, actually, to carry out the law of the land.) [/QUOTE] But even if he did that, it wouldn’t have changed anything. He still would have gotten Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act, and still made the treaties. And Jackson “Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it” or anything like that. That was Horace Greeley’s characterization of Jackson’s attitude. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/91 "2007-02-05T12:05:03Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] But even if he did that, it wouldn’t have changed anything. He still would have gotten Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act, and still made the treaties. [/quote] It would have changed the fact that he was breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution, for one thing. > [@](#): > > And Jackson “Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it” or anything like that. That was Horace Greeley’s characterization of Jackson’s attitude. This is interesting–can you give a cite for this? This quote is commonly attributed directly to Jackson ([here](http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/events/1830_1840.htm), for example). I’ve never heard that it was a paraphrase. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/92 "2007-02-05T13:24:42Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] This is interesting–can you give a cite for this? This quote is commonly attributed directly to Jackson ([here](http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/events/1830_1840.htm), for example). I’ve never heard that it was a paraphrase. Daniel [/QUOTE] I found a more definitive citation some time ago, but I can’t track it down right now. Here’s what I can find now. > [@](#): > > Horace Greeley is the one who misquoted President Andrew Jackson after the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”. (Andrew Jackson, by HW Brands, pg 492) > [@](#): > > The famous newspaper editor Horace Greeley would later report that after Marshall’s decisions in the Cherokee Nation cases, Jackson had responded, “Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” It is debatable whether Jackson actually uttered these words. However, his response to Marshall’s decisions was consistent with that statement. [SOURCE](http://massbar.org/for-attorneys/publications/lawyers-journal/2006/january/in-shaping-the-future-a) Apparently, the authenticity of this quote has been in doubt since early days. However, everyone seems to agree that it accurately represents Jackson’s point of view. w. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/93 "2007-02-05T21:16:58Z")
Interesting–thanks! I had never heard that the quotation was in doubt (and from those cites, I’m not seeing much evidence to refute it–e.g., Jackson’s strenuous denial that he ever said that quote). Given the fact that, as you say, it accurately represents Jackson’s point of view, this is an interesting bit of trivia, but trivia nonetheless. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/94 "2007-02-05T21:35:24Z")
His actual quote was “the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate,” Like Wikipedia points out in its article on Worcester v Georgia, it’s an open question whether or not Jackson had any duty, or even the right to intervene: > [@](#): > > Jackson’s opponents criticized him for failing to act against Georgia, but even if he had wanted to intervene—and he did not—it is questionable whether he had any legal authority to do so (Prucha, p. 212). > > Perhaps fearing the possibility of a showdown between the Supreme Court and the Executive, and realizing the real likelihood of Jackson refusing to adhere to the Court’s pro-Cherokee decision, the Justices did not follow the standard procedure of requiring federal marshals to carry out the decision. In doing so, the Supreme Court implicitly permitted Andrew Jackson to not carry out the decision, thus avoiding the possibility of a political conflict between two branches, while also retaining the pro-Cherokee decision of Worcester as good precedent for subsequent Supreme Courts and subsequent presidents. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/95 "2007-02-05T22:08:47Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] His actual quote was “the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate,” Like Wikipedia points out in its article on Worcester v Georgia, it’s an open question whether or not Jackson had any duty, or even the right to intervene: [/QUOTE] Hmm. That particular Wikipedia claim is not cited; the entire paragraph is cited as in > [@](#): > > Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, volume I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. page 212. Can anyone take a look and see what evidence Prucha offers that Jackson never said the famous quote? Certainly the fact that he said something else is not evidence that he didn’t say the famous words; everyone says more than one thing in their lifetimes. [Let’s look at what Marshall said:](http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/worcester.html) > [@Marshall](#): > > The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. > > They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, the regulation of which according to the settled principles of our Constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the Union. > > They are in direct hostility with treaties, repeated in a succession of years, which mark out the boundary that separates the Cherokee country from Georgia; guarantee to them all the land within their boundary; solemnly pledge the faith of the United States to restrain their citizens from trespassing on it; and recognize the pre-existing power of the nation to govern itself. > > They are in equal hostility with the acts of Congress for regulating this intercourse, and giving effect to the treaties. Jackson swore to defend and uphold the Constitution. By allowing Georgia to act in a way “repugnant to the Constitution,” he was violating his oath of office. By **supporting** such an act, I think it’s fair to call him a traitor. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/96 "2007-02-05T22:52:41Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Can anyone take a look and see what evidence Prucha offers that Jackson never said the famous quote? Certainly the fact that he said something else is not evidence that he didn’t say the famous words; everyone says more than one thing in their lifetimes. [/quote] In that the first mention of the “quote” is by Horace Greeley, 33 years after the events occurred, that’s not much strong proof that he did say it. I can try to find the Prucha book, though. > [@](#): > > Jackson swore to defend and uphold the Constitution. By allowing Georgia to act in a way “repugnant to the Constitution,” he was violating his oath of office. By **supporting** such an act, I think it’s fair to call him a traitor. Well, he’s only a traitor if he “levied war against the United States or adhered to its enemies”. But given that the Supreme Court didn’t authorize marshalls to go to Georgia before it adjourned, and that Congress never passed any laws or resolutions authorizing or instructing Jackson to enforce the Court’s decision, and given that Georgia ended up freeing the missionaries and repealing the law in question anyway, I don’t know that Jackson’s failure to act was as horrible as you seem to suggest. And, maybe you can help me here, but I don’t know…had the issue ever come up before? Was it established in 1833 that the President was obligated to enforce Supreme Court decisions? Had that ever come up before? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/97 "2007-02-05T23:01:25Z")
From “How Great Were the “Great” Marshall Supreme Court Decisions”, Michael Kleinman, 87 Va L. Rev. 1111 (footnotes deleted) > [@](#): > > Finally, in 1832, the Court in Worcester v. Georgia heard an appeal from a criminal prosecution of two Christian missionaries who were convicted of violating Georgia’s new law requiring whites living on Cherokee land to obtain a license from the state. This time, the Court plainly had jurisdiction and the controversy was justiciable; on the merits, the Justices invalidated the state law as inconsistent with the federal treaty. > > ``` > Georgia had made it crystal clear that it would defy the Court's ruling. Whether President Jackson would enforce the Court's decision against a recalcitrant Georgia was highly uncertain. Jackson plainly agreed with Georgia on the merits of Indian removal, and most Democrats saw in the Cherokee litigation the machinations of Jackson's political enemies. Not coincidentally, the lawyers representing Cherokee interests in the Supreme Court were some of Jackson's leading political opponents in 1832. While Jackson may never have uttered the famous words--"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" --there was ample reason to conclude early in 1832 that the President would not coerce Georgia into complying with the Court's ruling in Worcester. Certainly, the Cherokees' lawyers and Justice Joseph Story were not expecting the President to back up the Court. Had Georgia's defiance, with the President's connivance, come to fruition, it would have left the Court, already bruised and battered from its numerous confrontations with the states over the preceding decade, looking impotent and irrelevant. > > Then, the nullification crisis in South Carolina changed everything. The Supreme Court decided Worcester in March of 1832 and then went out of session for the remainder of the year. Until the Georgia court that had convicted the missionaries actually defied Worcester, the Justices would have no occasion to issue a final mandate commanding the state to comply. Thus, technically, there would be no order for the President to enforce until early 1833 (when the Court would begin its next term). A special convention in South Carolina nullified the federal tariff in November 1832. President Jackson responded with a proclamation that rejected the constitutionality of nullification and secession (which South Carolina also was contemplating) and threatened to use military force to compel South Carolina's compliance with federal law. Jackson's decision to take a strong stand against South Carolina forced his hand with regard to Georgia. South Carolinians protested at the hypocrisy of the President insisting that he had no choice but to use military coercion to enforce a federal statute in South Carolina when he showed no inclination to enforce a federal court ruling in Georgia. In the meantime, Georgians worried that events in South Carolina might force the President, for the sake of consistency, to take a tough stand against Georgia, which he otherwise had little inclination to do. Under these circumstances, both President Jackson and state officials in Georgia had a strong incentive to negotiate a settlement of the Worcester case, which would enable Georgia to save face while obviating the need for the President to enforce the Supreme Court's forthcoming mandate. After prolonged negotiations, Georgia's governor released the missionaries from prison, thus mooting the case. Worcester was not defied, and the Court was able to save face. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2007, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/98 "2007-02-05T23:22:57Z")
I have no wish to defend Andrew Jackson’s policies with respect to Indian removal. They were reprehensible in the extreme. However, they were _not_ pursued in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that state laws didn’t apply to Indian tribes. Jackson effectively agreed and negotiated the Treaty of New Echota _between the Cherokees and the federal government_. Indian removal was carried out under color of _federal_ law based on a treaty between an Indian tribe _and the federal government_. It wasn’t in defiance of either Cherokee-related Supreme Court ruling in any way, shape, or form. It so happens that the Treaty of New Echota was fraudulent, as it was signed and ratified by a faction that represented perhaps 1% of the Cherokee Nation. It was sadistic and inhumane, as it forced the Cherokees into a rushed removal that made death and suffering inevitable. It was carried out in so brutal a fashion, with victims herded into railroad cars and starving in disease-ridden refugee camps, as to make comparisons with Nazi Germany inescapable. But it wasn’t in defiance of the Supreme Court. It’s unfortunate that this (probably apocryphal) remark is the first thing that many people remember about the affair. I understand why this is so, because the Supreme Court has iconic status today and Presidents don’t openly defy it. But the remark has little relevance to the actual sins of the removal, and quibbling over it makes the whole sordid affair sound like a mere legal dispute. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/99 "2007-02-06T00:07:31Z")
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig] [The treaty] was sadistic and inhumane, as it forced the Cherokees into a rushed removal that made death and suffering inevitable. [/quote] Nitpick: The Cherokee had two years from the date of the treaty to remove to Oklahoma. They could have done so on their own schedule within that time frame. Some did. Ross and the majority of the Cherokee declined to move. At the end of the two years, they were rounded up. The treaty _as worded_ didn’t necessitate a rushed removal. Nitpick 2: As an alternative to removal, each Cherokee family had the option to receive 160 acres of land and become citizens of Georgia or Tennessee. > [@](#): > > …victims herded into railroad cars… Nitpick 3: Railroad cars? What railroad cars? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2007, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556/100 "2007-02-06T01:04:58Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Nitpick: The Cherokee had two years from the date of the treaty to remove to Oklahoma. They could have done so on their own schedule within that time frame. Some did. Ross and the majority of the Cherokee declined to move. At the end of the two years, they were rounded up. The treaty _as worded_ didn’t necessitate a rushed removal. [/quote] It was the fraudulent character of the treaty that made the two-year time limit especially odious. In other removal treaties, the support of the tribal leadership, however grudging, had in one manner or another been secured. In the case of the Cherokee, it wasn’t, and the leadership saw no reason to coordinate (and hopefully ease the horrors of) a removal to which it hadn’t agreed. > [@spoke-](#): > > Nitpick 2: As an alternative to removal, each Cherokee family had the option to receive 160 acres of land and become citizens of Georgia or Tennessee. Of course, the privileges of state citizenship were at the behest of each state’s legislature, and the pre-14th Amendment federal government had no power to intervene. Indian “citizens” were helpless against such measures as Georgia’s prohibition of Indian testimony in court cases involving white persons. > [@spoke-](#): > > Nitpick 3: Railroad cars? What railroad cars? Per Remini, “In June the first contingent of about a thousand Indians boarded a steamboat and sailed down the Tennessee River on the first lap of their westward journey. Then they were boxed like animals into railroad cars drawn by two locomotives. Again there were many deaths on account of the oppressive heat and cramped conditions in their cars.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/samclem-why-was-the-how-many-us-presidents-have-killed-someone-thread-locked/390556.md?page=6)