She went en masse for Jackson, of course.
When he came in, she proceeded at once to extend her jurisdiction over the Cherokees in very deed.
They remonstrated—pointed to their broken treaties, and urged the President to perform his sworn duty, and protect them, but in vain.
Georgia seized a Cherokee accused of killing another Cherokee in their own country, tried him for and convicted him of murder.
He sued out a writ of error, carried the case up to the U. S. Supreme Court, and there obtained a decision in his favor, establishing the utter illegality as well as injustice of the acts of Georgia in the premises, the validity of our treaties with the Cherokees, and the consequent duty of the President to see them enforced, any thing in any State-law or edict to the contrary notwithstanding, was explicitely affirmed.
But President Jackson decided that Georgia was right and the Supreme Court wrong, and refused to enforce the decision of the latter.
So the Court was defied, the Cherokee hung, the Cherokee country given up to the cupidity of the Georgians, and its rightful owners driven across the Mississippi, virtually at the point of the bayonet.
That case changed the nature of our Government, making the President Supreme Judge of the Law as well as its Chief Minister—in other words, Dictator.
‘Amen! Hurrah for Jackson!’
said the Pharisaic Democracy of Party and Spoils.
We could not say it after them.
We considered our nation perjured in the trampling down and exile of these Cherokees; perjury would have lain heavy on our soul had we approved and promoted the deed.
On another occasion, when Silas Wright
was nominated for Governor
of the State of New York
, the Tribune broke forth:
The “notorious Seventeen” —what New-Yorker has not heard of them? –yet how small a proportion of our present voting population retain a vivid and distinct recollection of the outrage on Republicanism and Popular Rights which made the “ Seventeen” so unenviably notorious!
The Editor of the Tribune is of that proportion, be it small or large.
Though a boy in 1824, and living a mile across the Vermont line of the State, he can never forget the indignation awakened by that outrage, which made him for ever an adversary of the Albany Regency and the demagogues who here and elsewhere made use of the terms “Democracy,” “ Democrats,” “Democratic party,” to hoodwink and cajole the credulous and unthinking —to divert their attention from things to names—to divest them of independent and manly thought, and lead them blindfold wherever the intriguers' interests shall dictate—to establish a real Aristocracy under the abused name of Democracy.
It was 1824 which taught many beside us the nature of this swindle, and fired them with unconquerable