0N February 21, 1828, Elias Bou-
dinot, a full-blooded Indian educated by
Christian missionaries, published the
first issue of The Cherokee Phoenix, a
newspaper addressed to the Cherokee
Nation. This first issue carried, in Eng-
lish and in the Cherokee alphabet in-
vented by the celebrated Sequoyah, the
text of a constitution adopted in July of
the previous year. It seemed to the Rev.
Samuel A. Worcester, the missionary
who had suggested to Boudinot the name
of the newspaper, that The Cherokee
Phoenix was a symbol of the progress of
the tribe. Under the protection of the
United States, the Cherokees had
adopted republican institutions and an
agrarian way of life. Many of the Chero-
kees had been converted to Christianity.
But most of the lands remaining to the
Cherokee Nation lay within the bound-
aries of the State of Georgia, and the
State of Georgia was determined to ex-
ercise its sovereignty. By January of
1832, Samuel Worcester was known to
the world as one of the principals in
Worcester vs. The State of Georgia, the
Supreme Court case in which John
Marshall attempted, unsuccessfully, to
prevent the State from extending its laws
throughout the Cherokee territory. Dur-
ing the fall and winter of 1838, the Cher-
okee Nation was gathered, under the
guns of General Winfield Scott, and
marched westward along paths that
were to be known as The Trail of
Tears." The following years Elias Bou-
dinot, who had counseled reluctant com-
pliance with Georgia's demands, was as-
sassinated by his own embittered people.

The clash between the Cherokee Na-
tion and the State of Georgia was one
which dramatized the problems inher-
ent in the relations between Indian and
white man. The conflict was, in addition,
one which led quickly to a complex
struggle between the State of Georgia
and a Federal Government that was it-
self rent by divisions and disagreements.
The questions raised by the conflict were
perplexing ones. Could the Georgians,
equalitarian and individualistic as they
were, disregard the Supreme Court's in-
terpretation of laws and treaties and still
be considered "democratic"? Could An-
drew Jackson, who refused to enforce
Marshall's decision, lead the people in
pursuit of their "Manifest Destiny" with-
out sacrificing the very ideals which
justified aggressive expansionism? On
the other hand, could anyone expect the
state of Georgia to tolerate an autono-
mous nation within her borders? Were
the Cherokees, themselves the owners of
Negro slaves, worth defending at the
risk of a civil war? Finally, could Indians
and white people ever, to use a term
popular today, coexist?

John Marshall realized the gravity of
these problems: "The legislative power,
of a state, the controlling power of the
Constitution and laws of the United
States, the rights, if they have any, the
political existence of a once numerous
and powerful people, the personal lib-
erty of a citizen, are all involved in the

-v-