An administrative trail of tears: Indian removal

American Journal of Legal History

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 49-100

  Davis, Ethan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953898278     PISSN: 00029319     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ajlh/50.1.49     Document Type: Article

References (355)

1. See generally GRANT FOREMAN, INDIAN REMOVAL (2d ed. 6th prntg. 1972).
2. See Jerry Mashaw, Recovering American Administrative Law: Federalist Foundations, 1787-1801, 115 Yale L.J. 1256 (2005).
3. 6 REG. DEB. 97 (1830).
4. Id.
5. Id. at 995.
6. Id. at 996.
7. An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi, ch. 148, 4 Stat. 411, § 1 (1830).
8. § 3.
9. § 5.
10. § 5.
11. Ronald Satz, Rhetoric Versus Reality, in CHEROKEE REMOVAL: BEFORE AND AFTER (William L. Anderson, ed. 1991).
12. 6 REG. DEB. 374 (1830).
13. STUART BANNER, HOW THE INDIANS LOST THEIR LAND: LAW AND POWER ON THE FRONTIER 217 (2005).
14. 6 REG. DEB. 374 (1830).
15. Ironically, supporters of the Removal Act resisted an amendment that would have limited Jackson's power to bribe tribal chiefs, on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional interference with the president's treaty power.
16. See 6 REG. DEB. 382 (1830).
17. See An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi, ch. 148, 4 Stat. 411, § 1 (1830).
18. 6 REG. DEB. 311 (1830).
19. Id. at 1027.
20. Id. at 356.
21. Id. at 355.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 380.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 382.
26. Id. at 355.
27. Id. at 381, 383.
28. That decision-Worcester v. State of Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), is discussed further infra at pp. 13-15.
29. It may be that the Supreme Court's Worcester decision partially explains why the Cherokees resisted U.S. coercion until 1835.
30. 6 REG. DEB. 12 (1830). Another lawmaker said: "I know that there is nothing on the face of these [state] laws which proposes to exert any direct force for the removal of the Indians. But, under the existing condition of things there, the moral effect of these measures will as effectually accomplish this end as your army could do it."
31. Id.
32. U.S. CONST, art. 1, § 8 ("The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce ... with the Indian tribes.").
33. In 1830, decades before the Court began construing Congress's Commerce power more broadly, this argument carried some force. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8. If Congress could not regulate quintessentially intrastate commerce, then why should it have the authority to regulate intrastate Indian affairs?
34. 6 REG. DEB. 336 (1830).
35. Andrew Jackson, Special Msg. to Cong. (Feb. 22, 1830).
36. Id.
37. Andrew Jackson, 2d. Ann. Msg. (Dec. 6, 1830).
38. See U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3; 6 REG. DEB. 96 (1830). This argument was vulnerable to the rejoinder that Indian nations were not "states." They enjoyed no congressional representation and residents were not taxed.
39. See 6 REG. DEB. 1010 (1830).
40. Andrew Jackson, Special Msg. to Cong., Feb. 22, 1831.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46. Id.
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Id.
50. Id.
51. Andrew Jackson, 2d. Ann. Msg. (Dec. 6, 1830).
52. 6 REG. DEB. 1016 (1830).
53. Id. at 13.
54. Id. at 14.
55. Id. at 13.
56. Id. at 336.
57. Id. at 999.
58. Id.
59. Id. at 1000.
60. Id. at 1002.
61. Id. at 6.
62. Id.
63. Id. at 999.
64. Id. at 1000.
65. Id. at 1001.
66. An Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes, and to Preserve Peace on the Frontier, ch. 13, § 5 (1802).
67. Id. § 12.
68. Id. § 15.
69. 6 REG. DEB. 9 (1830).
70. Id. at 13.
71. Id.
72. Id. at 1029.
73. 6 REG. DEB. 1010 (1830).
74. U.S. CONST. Art. II, § 2.
75. 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
76. Id. at 432-33.
77. 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
78. 31 U.S. at 539-40.
79. Id. at 541. A related issue, unresolved in the early 1830s, was whether the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extended to review of state criminal cases. The Judiciary Act referred to "any final judgment or decree in any suit."
80. Id. at 566. Although Chief Justice Marshall did not expressly address the point, Justice McLean's concurrence in Worcester concluded that the word "suit" did not imply a distinction between civil and criminal cases.
81. Id.
82. Id. at 548-49.
83. Id. at 550.
84. Id. at 556.
85. Id. at 554.
86. Id. at 555.
87. Id. at 557.
88. Id. at 559.
89. Id. at 561.
90. Id. at 593.
91. RONALD N. SATZ, AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY IN THE JACKSONIAN ERA 49 (1975).
92. Id.
93. Andrew Jackson, Fifth Ann. Msg., Dec. 5, 1833.
94. Id.
95. Id.
96. See SATZ, supra note 86, at 11, 47-50.
97. 11 REG. DEB. 289 (1835).
98. See id. at 290-94.
99. Id. at 294.
100. Id. at 297.
101. Id. at 298.
102. William Penn, Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians, WESTERN RECORDER, Feb. 9, 1830.
103. Id.
104. Id.
105. William B. Calhoun et. al, Circular Letter, WESTERN RECORDER, Mar. 9, 1830, at 38.
106. Id.
107. SATZ, supra note 86, at 67.
108. Id. at 69.
109. Andrew Jackson, Special Msg. to Cong., May 6, 1830.
110. Id.
111. Id.
112. See FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 22-30.
113. SATZ, supra note 86, at 68-70.
114. 6 REG. DEB. 1014(1830).
115. S. Doc. NO. 23-512, pt. 2, at 251-52 (1830).
116. Id. at 252-54.
117. Id. at 256.
118. Id. at 256.
119. Id. at 255-56.
120. Id., at 257
121. ("[N]either [Jackson] nor Congress possess authority to prevent the States from extending their jurisdiction over you, and throughout their limits.").
122. Id. at 257.
123. Id. at 257.
124. Id. at 67.
125. Id.
126. FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 27-28.
127. S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 2, at 261-63 (1830).
128. Id. at 261.
129. Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, U.S.-Choctaw, art. III, Sept. 28, 1830, 7 Stat. 333.
130. Id. at art. XVI.
131. 21 SEN. EXEC J. 126 (1830).
132. Id. at 128.
133. Id. at 134.
134. Id. at 159-62.
135. Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, supra note 123, preamble. That the Senate focused on the treaty's preamble suggests it was aware of the treaty commissioners' hardball tactics. Why then did the Senate nonetheless vote to ratify? Unfortunately, the debate over the striking of die preamble was not recorded. Given the need for a two thirds vote, it seems possible that anti-removal senators struck a deal with Democrats. The Jacksonians needed two thirds and the Whigs did not want explicitly to endorse Jackson's state sovereignty argument.
136. 21 SEN. EXEC. J. 162(1831).
137. William Penn, What Are the People of the United States Bound To Do In Regard To The Indians?, WESTERN RECORDER, Dec. 21,1830, at 0-1.
138. Id.
139. Decision of the Choctaws To Abandon Their Country, CONN. COURANT, May 4, 1830, at 2. This editorial was written before the formal signing of the treaty, but after the Choctaw national council had agreed to negotiate.
140. Rev. Cyrus Kingsbury, Prospects of the Choctaws, WESTERN RECORDER, May 31, 1831, at 88.
141. Treaty with the Chickasaw, U.S.-Chickasaw, art. II-VIII, XIV, Oct 20,1832,7 Stat 381.
142. Id. at art. XII.
143. Id. at art X.
144. 22 SEN. EXEC. J. 285-86 (1832).
145. Id. at 290-91.
146. 22 SEN. EXEC. J. not numbered (1832).
147. Id. at 294-95.
148. 22 SEN. EXEC. J. 317-21 (1833).
149. To protect the Indians, Senator Moore proposed setting aside one hundred of the 2500 land reservations provided by the treaty for "Indians or persons of mixed Indian blood alone." His amendment to the treaty was rejected by a vote of twenty-five to two.
150. 22 SEN. EXEC. J. 321 (1833).
151. Treaty with the Creeks, U.S.-Creek, art. I-II, Mar. 24, 1832, 7 Stat. 366.
152. Id. art. II.
153. Id. art. XII.
154. Id. art. V.
155. Id. art. I-VII.
156. Id. at art. XII.
157. Id. at art. XII.
158. 22 SEN. EXEC. J. 232 (1832).
159. Id. at 233.
160. Id.
161. Id. at 234-35.
162. James Gadsden to Lewis Cass, Mar. 17, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 3, at 263.
163. Treaty with the Seminole, U.S-Seminole, May 9, 1832, preamble, 7 Stat. 368.
164. Id. art. VII.
165. SATZ, supra note 86, at 101-02.
166. Treaty with the Seminole, supra note 156.
167. 23 SEN. EXEC. J. 338(1833).
168. Id. at 385-86 (1833).
169. See, eg., CHEROKEE REMOVAL: BEFORE AND AFTER, (William L. Anderson, ed. 1991);
170. STUART BANNER, How THE INDIANS LOST THEIR LAND: LAW AND POWER ON THE FRONTTER 210-26 (2005);
171. BRIAN W. DIPPIE, THE VANISHING AMERICAN: WHITE ATTITUDES & U.S. INDIAN POLICY 57-58 (1982);
172. FOREMAN, supra note 1;
173. THE CHEROKEE REMOVAL: A BRIEF HISTORY WITH DOCUMENTS (Theda Perdue & Michael D. Green, eds. 2d ed. 2005);
174. SATZ, supra note 86 (1975).
175. This is all amply documented in SATZ, supra note 86, at 97-100.
176. Treaty of New Echota, U.S.-Cherokee, Dec. 29, 1835, art. VIII, 7 Stat. 478.
177. 24 SEN. EXEC. J. 532 (1836).
178. Id. at 545.
179. Id. at 546.
180. It appears that agent salaries were paid out of appropriations to the Indian Department, while all other costs of removal were specially appropriated.
181. 6 REG. DEB. 2326-27(1832).
182. The problems that plagued the Choctaw emigration are detailed infra at Parts III-IV.
183. 6 REG. DEB. 2328 (statement of Rep. Sevier).
184. H. Doc. No. 02-171, at 2 (1832).
185. Id.
186. Id.
187. Id.
188. Id.
189. Id.
190. See A Bill to Carry into Effect Certain Indian Treaties, 22d Cong., 1st Sess. (May 14, 1832).
191. See A Bill Making Appropriations to Carry Into Effect Certain Indian Treaties, and for the Removal of the Indians West of the Mississippi, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., (Jan. 12, 1833).
192. 6 REG. DEB. 2809 (1834) (statement of Rep. Vinton).
193. Id. at 2808.
194. Id. at 2809.
195. Id. at 2810.
196. Id. at 2811.
197. 12 REG. DEB. 1459 (1836) (statement of Sen. White).
198. 12 REG. DEB. 1460 (1836) (statement of Sen. Calhoun).
199. See Parts III-IV, infra.
200. 12 REG. DEB. 4502 ( 1836).
201. 12 REG. DEB. 4503 (1836).
202. 12 REG. DEB. 4502 ( 1836).
203. 12 REG. DEB. 4561 (1836).
204. 12 REG. DEB. 4561-62 ( 1836) (statement of Rep. Hardin).
205. 12 REG. DEB. 4503 (1836) (statement of Rep. Owens).
206. See, eg., S. Doc. 23-512, pt. 1, at 826-27.
207. See 31 J. CONT. CONG. 491 (1786).
208. 2 Stat. 402 (1806).
209. This, and more, is recounted in SATZ, supra note 86, at 151-53.
210. THEODORE W. TAYLOR, THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 34 (1984).
211. HERMAN J. VIOLA, THOMAS L. MCKENNEY: ARCHITECT OF AMERICA'S EARLY INDIAN POLICY: 1816-1830, at 96-97 (1974).
212. Id. at 95-96.
213. Id. at 99.
214. Id. at 101.
215. Id. at 102.
216. Id. at 103.
217. Id. at 95.
218. Id. at 106.
219. W. at 110.
220. The Office of Indian Affairs participated in the removal to some degree, but it seems that Gibson had primary authority. As the Commissary General put it in a letter to Congress: Much of what is connected with the preliminary steps in 1830 and 1831, will, it is presumed, appear in that part of the correspondence furnished by the office of Indian affairs, where will also appear much of what strictly appertains to Indian removal since that period. It has been somewhat difficult to separate the action of the two offices in regard to this matter; and the letters to the Department of War and the office of Indian affairs, were frequently filled with subjects of various character; some relative to Indian removal, and others to the multifarious operations of our Indian relations. But the great mass of the correspondence, relating to the policy and practical operations of the Government, in regard to the removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi, as based upon the act of Congress of May 28, 1830, has been furnished by me.
221. See George Gibson to United States Congress, Oct. 31,1834, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 3.
222. SATZ, supra note 86, at 70.
223. Id.
224. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY: UNITED STATES ARMY, AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY 150 (Maurice Matloffed. 1969).
225. Id. at 151.
226. Id. at 155.
227. Gibson to Eaton, Dec. 27, 1830, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 6.
228. Gibson to Stephenson, Dec. 27, 1830, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 6.
229. Gibson to Eaton, Feb. 28, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 7.
230. Hook to Ryan, June 20, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 13-14.
231. Gibson to Ward, June 30, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 20. Colquhoun's appointment was due to political patronage. In April he explained to Gibson that he had been visited by misfortune, for the "freshet has swept off my mill-dam." Colquhoun begged for an appointment; "Accumulated misfortunes have nearly crushed me, and the only hope left is, on those of my friends who have it in their power to aid me."
232. Colquhoun to Gibson, Apr. 6, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 547.
233. Gibson to Stephenson, May 28, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 13.
234. Hook to Ryan, June 20, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 13-14.
235. Gibson to Ward, June 30, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 20.
236. Rector owed his appointment to Congressman Sevier from Arkansas, who wrote to Gibson on his behalf. See Sevier to Gibson, Aug. 21, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 855. After Rector received his appointment, he complained to Sevier about the pay and the benefits. Sevier relayed Rector's complaints to Gibson: "Can't you allow Colonel Rector transportation when travelling? Or can't his expenses be paid by Government, as are the expenses of the assistants of General Gaines? And, lastly, will not the Government furnish him for his use, when in service, a horse?"
237. Sevier to Gibson, Dec. 10, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 858.
238. Gibson to Rector, July 26, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 28.
239. Gibson to Clark, July 26, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 29.
240. Hook to Randolph, July 2, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 21-22.
241. Id.
242. Id. at 22.
243. Hook to Colquhoun, July 5, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 23.
244. Gibson to Taney, July 25, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 27.
245. Gibson to Taney, Aug. 6, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 29.
246. Gibson to Gaines, Aug. 13, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 30-31.
247. Id.
248. Brown to Gibson, May 30, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. I, at 450-51.
249. Id. at 451.
250. Colquhoun to Gibson, Feb. 9, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 601.
251. Brown to Gibson, May 30,1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 450-51.
252. Gibson to Congress, Footnote, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 32.
253. This paragraph draws from SATZ, supra note 86, at 75-76. Clark's resignation was also prompted by another miscommunication, this one involving transportation by wagons. Clark had been under the impression that the removal would proceed via steamboat. When Gibson informed him that at least some Indians would emigrate via land, Clark protested his lack of experience: "No one can form a proper estimate of the difficulties that will attend the removal by land, and subsistence on the route, who has not been in this country, and made himself acquainted with them. I am free to confess that I do not feel competent to the task."
254. Clark to Gibson, July 30, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 562.
255. Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, supra note 123, art. XVI.
256. Gibson to Taney, July 25, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 27.
257. FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 49.
258. SATZ, supra note 86, at 78. On November 30, 1831, Captain Brown informed Lieutenant Ryan that he could issue an additional pint of corn to each emigrating Choctaw without waiting for permission: "In the mean time [while waiting for formal authorization] you will make occasional issues of an additional pint of corn for each of the emigrants... you will be governed by your own discretion and the necessity of the case." Brown to Ryan, Nov. 30, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 424.
259. On December 15, Brown wrote to Gibson: "[T]he mercury has been down to Zero, and for ten days past has averaged about twelve freezing degrees ... So much, and so severe cold weather, has never before been experienced in this section of the country, and if it is with you, in proportion to your northern location, you must have a Siberian winter of it." Brown to Gibson, Dec. 15, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 427. Making matters worse, the Indians were "generally very naked, and few moccasins are seen among them." Colquhoun to Gibson, Dec. 10, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 593.
260. Colquhoun to Gibson, Dec. 10, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. I, at 593.
261. See FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 56-62.
262. Cross to Brown, Dec. 28, 1831, Correspondence of the Office of Indian Affairs.
263. Brown to Gibson, Jan. 11, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 429.
264. Gibson to Kerr, July 21, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 126.
265. The Emigrating Choctaws, RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCER, Mar. 3, 1832, at 634.
266. ANGIE DEBO, THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CHOCTAW REPUBLIC 56(1934).
267. H. DOC. No. 23-116, at 11 (1832).
268. Id. at 17.
269. Id. at 11.
270. Id. at 10 (1832).
271. Id.
272. Id.
273. H. Doc. No. 22-171, at 2 (1832).
274. Id. at 17.
275. See H.R. 747, §§ 4-6. (Feb 19, 1835). Section 6 of the House Bill would have codified the practice of commutation discussed supra.
276. ARTHUR DEROSIER, THE REMOVAL OF THE CHOCTAW INDIANS 149 (1970);
277. SATZ, supra note 86, at 78.
278. Regulations Concerning the Removal of the Indians, May 15, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 343 [hereinafter Removal Regulations].
279. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, §1 I.
280. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § II, art. 1.
281. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § II, art. 2. This allocation of authority created confusion in the relationships between the principal disbursing agent (Captain Brown) and the disbursing agents scattered in the field. Would the disbursing agents report to the principal disbursing agent or to the special agent? Were principal disbursing agents junior to special agents? In a frustrated letter to Gibson, Brown demanded that they report directly to him.
282. See Brown to Gibson, Feb. 7, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 496.
283. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § II, art. 4.
284. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § II, art. 3.
285. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § II, art. 5.
286. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § III.
287. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IV, art. 1.
288. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IV, art. 2, 4-5.
289. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IV.
290. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IV.
291. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IV. As it turned out, the discretion to choose between beef and pork was useful. Captain Brown reported that "the great mass of the Choctaws" preferred beef to pork. Brown to Gibson, July 3, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 458.
292. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § VI.
293. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § VIII.
294. Conductors (civilians) would be paid only "where an officer of the army is not present." See Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IX.
295. See Removal Regulations, supra note 261, § IX.
296. See Montgomery to Gibson, Jan. 5, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 772 ("One serious disadvantage realized this year has been the great dissimilarity of opinion had by die different agents in relation to the true meaning and proper construction of die existing regulations ....").
297. Gibson to Colquhoun, May 5, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 82.
298. Hook to Page, Aug. 10,1832, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 137.
299. Gibson to Gardiner, Oct 10, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 174.
300. Gibson to Seawell, Oct. 17, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 176.
301. Hook to Armstrong, Sept. 5, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 156.
302. Hook to Pepper, June 15, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 276.
303. Removal Regulations, supra note 261, §IV, art. 3 (emphasis added).
304. Hook to Armstrong, Sept. 5, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt 1, at 156-57.
305. Hook to Armstrong, Oct. 1,1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 171.
306. See Colquhoun to Gibson, May 10,1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1. at 607.
307. Gibson to Brown, Mar. 27, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1. at 235.
308. Gibson to Armstrong, Apr. 4,1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1. at 238.
309. Gibson to Armstrong, Apr. 13, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 243. Irritated removal agents had first proposed this not irrational idea. William Armstrong had made arrangements in October of 1832 to remove 2,500 Indians, but only 600 ended up emigrating with the Army. The result was much needless expenditure and annoyance. Armstrong blamed the Indian chiefs, suggesting to Gibson "[i]f the government do agree to give any [commutation fees], I must be pardoned for wishing it but little."
310. Armstrong to Gibson, Feb. 25, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt 1, at 406.
311. Clark to Gibson, July 23,1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt 1, at 439.
312. Rains to Gibson, Apr. 5, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 841.
313. FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 69.
314. Hook to Brown, Aug. 21, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 144. Brown, responding to Hook's letter a month later, reassured the Commissary General Üiat "[i]n relation to combinations among bidders, such cannot have effect with me. The course adopted, and which I have pursued for fifteen years, that of reserving the privilege of rejecting bids deemed high, cuts up all combinations."
315. Brown to Gibson, Sept. 20, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23512, pt. 1, at 478. A year later, Brown categorically rejected any suggestion that contractors had successfully bilked the government: "I deny that any [combination] in the remotest degree has succeeded with me. The abstract of bids, and the contracts designated as taken diereon, will show conclusively that no combinations have succeeded."
316. Brown to Gibson, Oct. 16, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 535.
317. DEROSIER, supra note 260, at 152. At one point, a removal agent suspected that a key bridge had been destroyed in order to detain the Indians, thus prolonging the demand for food.
318. See Brown to Gibson, June 28, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 454-55.
319. Kerr to Cass, June 14, 1832,in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 719.
320. Page to Gibson, Feb. 14, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 796.
321. Gibson to Armstrong, Apr. 10, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 512, pt. 1, at 241-42.
322. Gibson to Armstrong, Oct 25, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 182.
323. Gibson to Gratiot, July 2, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 107.
324. See Gibson to Gardiner, June 28, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 102.
325. Gardiner to Cass, June 2, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 687-88 ("[The Indians] become very uneasy on the subject . . . [t]hey were fearful some of their children might be drowned, and that all, young and old, would be in danger of being scalded to death, 'like the white man cleans his hog.'").
326. Reynolds 8c Gaines to Eaton, Feb. 7, 1831, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 673-74.
327. Gibson to Gardiner, June 28,1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 102.
328. Id.
329. Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, supra note 123, art. III ("[A]s many as possible of [the Choctaws] not exceeding one half of the whole number, shall depart during the falls of 1831 and 1832; the residue to follow during die succeeding fall of 1833 ....").
330. FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 75.
331. Id.
332. See Armstrong to Gibson, Oct 13, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 386;
333. FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 73-74.
334. Colquhoun to Gibson, June 20, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 617.
335. Colquhoun to Gibson, May 10, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 607-08.
336. Armstrong to Gibson, Sept. 10, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 378.
337. Armstrong to Gibson, Oct 10, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 387.
338. FoREMAn, supra note 1, at 76.
339. Id. at 77-79.
340. Id. at 82.
341. Armstrong to Gibson, Oct 13, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 386-87.
342. Colquhoun & Simonton to Gibson, Oct. 25,1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 628.
343. Armstrong to Gibson, Dec. 2, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 401. Armstrong himself, and his wife, also contracted cholera, although both eventually recovered.
344. See Armstrong to Gibson, June 14, 1832, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 410.
345. Rev. Loring S. Williams, Cholera Among the Choctaws, N.Y. OBS. & CHRON., Jan. 26, 1833, at 14.
346. See Rev. Loring S. Williams, The Choctaws, BOSTON REC, Jan. 30, 1833, at 16.
347. Brown to Gibson, Nov. 14,1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 538.
348. FOREMAN, supra note 1, at 102.
349. SATZ, supra note 86, at 87. The sale of the Choctaw lands in Mississippi, however, netted the government $8,095,614.89.
350. Almost sixty years later the Choctaws received a check for the difference. See SATZ, supra note 86, at 96.
351. Correspondence between Gibson and the field agents reveals increasing desperation in the fall of 1833, as the remaining Choctaws obstinately refused to leave. See, eg., Armstrong to Gibson, Oct. 11, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 415 ("Such was the opposition to their emigrating, that I was fearful at one time that we should not have one good party.");
352. Lane to Gibson, Sept. 24, 1833, in S. Doc. No. 23-512, pt. 1, at 745 ("All means have been tried save force. They have violated die treaty with a full knowledge of all the possible consequences.").
353. Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, supra note 123, art. III.
354. See supra Part II.
355. Jerry Mashaw, Administration and "The Democracy" : Administrative Law From Jackson To Lincoln, 1829-1860, 117 Yale L.J. 1568, 1684 (2008).