Return to revision history
Revision as of 22:40:13, 29 April 2021 by Gerberlb
Revision as of 10:06:17, 21 August 2024 by Shriver.48
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[illegible] unreasonably [illegible] must be permittance is thanks. [illegible] at this request, are they now to be take that they will be treated like [illegible] from them [illegible] if they [illegible] natural [illegible] is leasing before them business [illegible]? So far from aiding them [illegible] removal, by [illegible] is them just wishes. I thereby withdrawing all [illegible] in the way of emigration. The [illegible] the affirmation [illegible] already dissatisfied people by threat of "force" There is no obstacle to their emigration except what can be easily [illegible] conforming to law and with a rigid [illegible] to [illegible]. Why then the determined refusal [illegible]? Can it be possible that "force"  is a thing [illegible] be a [illegible] reliable resort for [illegible] with a [illegible] half [illegible] nation of Indians [illegible] right of [illegible]? [illegible] desire to have an [illegible] nation which, as an [illegible], in 1844. I [illegible] would be governed in all [illegible] by a determination to exact [illegible] from all, [illegible] is to all. I [illegible], them the [illegible] when a [illegible] which will be [illegible] as [illegible] makes [illegible] which from other [illegible]
+
with unreasonably, as I must be permitted to think, refusing to aid in settling their business at their request, are they now to be take that they will be treated like an enemy from them, [or?] worse, driven from their lands & their homes, if they [illeg] any natural [illegible] is leaving before them business is arranged? So far from aiding their peacable removal, by [guiding to?] their just wishes + thereby withdrawing <u>all</u> obstacles in the way of emigration. The [Department?] increases the difficulties + imitates an already dissatisfied people by threat of "force." There is no obstacle to their emigration except what can be easily removed by the Sup<sup>t</sup> in strict conformity to law + with a rigid regard to justice. Why then the determined refusal to do it? Can it be possible that "force"  is thought to be a more reliable resort for Gov. in its intercourse with a feeble half civilized nation of Indians than rights + justice? A sincere desire to have an administration which, as an Elector, in 1844. I [believed?] would be governed in all its acts by a determination to exact justice from all, mete it to all + oppress none, shun the odium consequent upon a course which will be stigmatized as oppressive & iniquitous, makes me, aside from other considerations, anxious to see