Boudinot Controversy

Why Boudinot became disillusioned is unknown. Perhaps it was the government’s refusal to enforce the Cherokee Nation’s victorious court cases, or perhaps it was the death threats he had received from Georgians. In any case, Boudinot went on to become an infamous historical figure, because he signed the Treaty of New Echota on December 29, 1835. The treaty, often called the “Minority Treaty,” because it was endorsed only by a small number of middle-class Cherokees, allowed the United States to remove the Cherokees to the west (Perdue, Cherokee Editor 26). After the Treaty of New Echota was signed, a petition was signed by 15,000 anti-removal Cherokees in an attempt to stop the Senate from ratifying the treaty. In addition, numerous non-Cherokees, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, wrote letters of support. In the end, the attempts to stop the removal were unsuccessful, and the treaty was authorized in 1836. The Treaty of New Echota allowed for the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation in 1838 (Perdue, Cherokee Editor 30).

After the Trail of Tears, on June 22, 1839, Elias Boudinot and several other Minority Treaty Party members were assassinated. Boudinot had left for Indian Country with his family before the forced removal took place. When the rest of the Cherokee Nation arrived after the removal, Boudinot was working on the construction of a home for himself and his family. Members of the Cherokee Nation that had gone on the Trail of Tears were traumatized and depleted. Four thousand Cherokees lost their lives on the Trail. Many people were calling him a traitor and a murderer. On June 22, 1839, Boudinot was killed by a group of Cherokees. On the same day, the other members of the Treaty Party were killed. The group of Cherokees that carried out the assassinations did not think of themselves as murderers. According to two separate Cherokee laws, they were justified. One law, the “law of blood,” allowed for capital punishment in cases where lives were taken. Another law forbade Cherokees to turn over tribal lands; if they did so, the penalty was death (Perdue, Cherokee Editor 30-31). Though Boudinot and other members of the Treaty Party couldn’t have foreseen the death toll that the forced removal would cause, they did turn over tribal lands to the U.S., and they made the decision on their own, without consulting the rest of the Cherokee Nation.

Many scholars have studied Boudinot’s history in an effort to find the reason for his actions. Below are some of the conclusions that scholars have reached on the issue.

Explanation 1: Think About the Good Things He Did

In a magazine article, George E. Foster, seems to suggest that we overlook the Treaty of New Echota. He argues that Boudinot had good intentions:

Whether he and his comrades did betray their countrymen for gain cannot now be determined, but it hardly appears possible that one who had served his people so faithfully should at the late day have done so with traitorous intent. Indeed, a careful reader of history must feel that, while Boudinot acted not according to the will of the many, that he did what he thought to be for their future welfare...Let the mantle of charity surround his memory; let us not believe him a traitor to the people whom he had so long served; let us revere his memory for the great work he performed. (Foster 67-68)

Explanation 2: He Was a Victim

Theda Perdue suggests that Boudinot was a victim, and he really had no other choice:

The transformation of indigenous cultures and the adoption of Western values and lifestyles by individuals within those societies often have…been agonizing experiences. For many native peoples, such as the Cherokee elite, physical survival has seemed to dictate cultural destruction and the rapid adoption of Anglo economic, ethical, and moral customs. Leaders who perceive this to be the case face a difficult choice: fight to the bitter end or accommodate the intruders and promote the acculturation of their people. Those who choose to struggle against overwhelming odds often posthumously become heroes, even to the enemy, by appealing to the romantic element in Western culture. On the other hand, Native leaders, like Boudinot, who embrace Western “civilization” frequently suffer repudiation in their own time and condemnation by later generations. Boudinot received an English education in the Moravian then American Board mission schools; he converted to Christianity, married a white woman, edited a newspaper, and, finally, under pressure from whites, signed the treaty by which Cherokees relinquished their homeland. Throughout his life, Boudinot maintained that the preservation of his people depended solely upon abandonment of their own taditions, culture, and history. (Perdue 3)

Explanation 3: He Was Desperate

Bethany Schneider sees Boudinot as a man who wanted to redefine sovereignty to save the Nation, “to forge, to invent, a people separable from land” (175). When Boudinot tried to air his views in the Cherokee Phoenix, John Ross limited Boudinot’s options. Feeling silenced, he took drastic actions:

Explanation 4: Excessive Hubris

Steve Brandon suggests that the answer lies in Boudinot’s Cherokee name, Galagina. In Cherokee spiritual traditions, Deer serves the role of a trickster in some stories. If Boudinot identified with tricksters because of his name, he may have been trying to mask his true identity. Tricksters are often arrogant. They also create, often through drastic means. If Boudinot identified himself as having a role similar to a trickster, then he could have allowed his pride to be his downfall and tried to think for his people. However, that kind of action goes against everything Cherokees believe about community. As Brandon points out, “Tricksters are dangerous creatures with whom to identify” (174).

We may never know the real reason for Boudinot's actions. Boudinot is an extremely complex and difficult historical figure. He is not easily classified as "good" or "bad." He was very human with human strengths and weaknesses.