subject now to be considered." Before
attempting to decide Worcester vs. The
State of Georgia, Marshall reviewed the
events which had led to the case before
him. This is, roughly, the method a-
dopted in this collection of documents.
Except for Ulrich Bonnell Phillips' "Ex-
pulsion of the Cherokees," which pro-
vides a concise historical framework, the
readings are grouped so that the conflict
develops chronologically along the lines
drawn in the 1820's and 1830's by the
participants in the conflict.

Taking office in 1829, Andrew Jack-
son, himself a symbol of the American
frontier and its new political importance,
changed the emphases of the Indian
policies of John Quincy Adams, his pred-
ecessor in office. Jackson's first Annual
Message, from which "The Condition
and Ulterior Destiny of the Indians" is
taken, marked a new era. That Georgia
realized this is clear from the next selec-
tion, the Georgia Law of December 19,
1829. Meanwhile, Wilson Lumpkin,
Georgia's representative on the House of
Representatives' Committee on Indian
Affairs, went to work on legislation au-
thorizing further Indian removal. The
bill reported to the House ( February 24,
1830) touched off an acrimonious de-
bate in both houses of Congress. Sen-
ator Theodore Frelinghuysen--like
Adams, of an old American family--
made the most noted speech against re-
moval, but Edward Everett and other
New Englanders joined him in opposing
Lumpkin's bill. In the House, Lumpkin
himself pled Georgia's case. Born in Vir-
ginia, reared on the Georgia frontier,
leader of the small-farmer or "Clarke"
faction in state politics, Lumpkin seems
to provide clear evidence respecting the
attitudes toward Indians of some fron-
tiersmen. The following selection, how-
ever, is from a speech by the man who
has rivaled Dan'l Boone for the title of
American Frontiersman--the Honorable
David Crockett of Tennessee. No one in
America was further removed in charac-
ter and in habits from the Everetts: and
Adamses and Frelinghuysens, and
Crockett's remarks add a certain com-
plexity to an already complex situation.
Lumpkin's bill passed.

The Cherokee Indians speak for them-
selves; their "Memorial" to Congress in-
dicates that they were well able to do
so. In their appeals, they were supported
by a number of missionaries, some of
whom had spent a decade or more
among the tribe. Through these mission-
aries and through The Cherokee Phoe-
nix, the Indians were able to reach a
wide audience.

The appeals of the Cherokees and of
the missionaries were in vain. Jackson's
second Annual Message was less con-
ciliatory than his first had been. The In-
dians turned to the courts. John
Marshall's decision in The Cherokee Na-
tion vs. Georgia is printed as the next
selection. The decision was a disappoint-
ment to the Indians, but it did not in-
dicate that Marshall's Court approved of
all that the Georgians had done, nor, as
Justice Thompson's dissenting opinion
makes clear, did all of "Marshall's" Court
agree with the Chief Justice in his deci-
sion. The State of Georgia pressed for-
ward its claims and demanded that all
whites residing in Indian territory be
licensed by the State. The Rev. Samuel
Worcester, who had signed the "Mem-
orial" and established himself as
a leader of the missionaries, refused
to secure such a license. He was arrested
and, eventually, found guilty by
Georgia courts. At this point, Mar-
shall interposed and overruled the
Georgia law and declared it void.
Andrew Jackson is reported to have said,

-vi-