Friday, January 22, 2010
Boudinot's Decision
Unfortunately I missed class last week because I was pretty sick, and so I cannot write on anything we discusses during those lectures. Instead, I want to talk about Boudinot and his decision to sign the deal that forced the Indians out of Georgia. It's terrible that by signing the deal, Boudinot forced thousands of Indians to walk to their death, but what was the alternative? If the Indians had stayed put in Georgie, the militia, which was composed of many thousands of soldiers, would have destroyed the Indians they found still living there. The United States government was not on the militia's side, but they were not going to stop them from killing thousands of defensless Indians. Also, once the massacre finished, the survivors would be forced to pack up and move; that is if they were not used as slaves. Boudinot's heart was in the right place, because after all, he knew that he would be blamed and killed by the survivors once they reached Oklahoma. If he knew he would be killed and hated for the decision he made, then why would he make it unless he honestly thought it was the best option for the Indians? I really think Boudinot thought he was making the right decision, and in the end I think it saved the lives of thousands of people, even though it killed 4 thousand becaue of the trail of tears.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree somewhat with what you are saying. Boudinot was put in an extremely difficult situation and instead of sitting back and letting Native American tribes being uprooted without time to process what had happened, or fight, he took a stand and made a decision. It wasn’t necessarily a good decision, but he at least tried to prevent a massacre that was inevitable. We also have to remember that it wasn’t just him that made decided to sign the treaty with the government. Thirty people should by no means be speaking for thousands and shouldn’t be giving up land that wasn’t theirs to give, but they at the very least gave them time to leave before being pushed out of their lands.
ReplyDeleteGood point about how Boudinot wasn't the only person who made the decision to sign the deal. The thirty other people should also be receiving as much blame/praise as Boudinot received. I also agree with you that its not right for 30 people to decide the fate of 20,000 others, but in this case it didn't seem like having a vote (or any other type of democratic resolution)would have solved the problem. The reason is that a majority of the Indians wouldn't have given a thought to the idea of leaving their land (rightfully so) and would have been very obstinate in their views. This would have led to the inevitable destruction of their people by the Georgian militia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea of "what was the alternative" but I think there are other things to consider as well. Boudinot could have tried to convince more people to sign this treaty. I feel that a lot of what he did was kept underwraps. Also he could have attempted to convince more people to move with him. I feel that while he was smart in understanding that they were never going to be able to stay, he looked at this problem in a very self-centered way. He did not consider anyone else but himself, and I think that is what we are focusing on when we pass judgement on Boudinot. As much as he is "in the right" I don't think he did it for the good of his people.
ReplyDeleteObviously, we can't say what would've or could've happened under different decisions. Many of the members of the Treaty Party were assassinated in Oklahoma, so Boudinot was not the sole martyr of the situation. As I posted on another blog, people forget that when we think of the Treaty Party or the Ross Party (the larger group who opposed the Treaty) we turn the debate into one between competing groups of Indians, forgetting that there is a much larger enemy in the government who worked to divide the tribe down these political lines.
ReplyDelete