.MTA1NQ.NzA4NjA

From Newberry Transcribe
Revision as of 04:35, 25 April 2020 by imported>CastleCourt
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1839 Apr. 23.- John Ross, Principal Chief & Superintending agent for Cherokee Removal, address Brevet Brigadier Genl M. Arbuckle, Commanding at Fort Eibron, Cherokee Nation; dating from Illinois. - By the complaints of the Cherokees lately removed, of their sufferings from the want of sufficient provisions, he is constrained to make this appeal. Besides the scantiness of the ration allowed under the United States government contract with Glasgow & Harrison, much inconvenience has resulted to the Cherokee from the irregularity of the agents employed to carry out the contract. It was stated that the contractors were only required to furnish 1 pound of fresh beef, 3 half pints of corn, and four qts of salt to every 100 pd of beef; or if preferred by them, 3/4 unclear of salt pork or bacon might be substituted, provided the Indians would receive it. Beef at the season of their arrival was found to be very poor and was considered as very unwholesome. The Cherokees therefore demanded pork or bacon. The contractors refused to comply with their demand, saying their contract did not force them to supply any rations but those of beef; - they offered, however to commute the ration by paying for it one dollar a month in money. - The question of subsistence had been fully discussed with Gen: Scott, and referred to the war department previous to removal; and it was then decided that the Cherokees should at least for a time, be subsisted with provisions in kind, until they could amply provide for themselves and satisfactory arrangements would be made with them through Capt: Collins. - From the exorbitant prices of provisions in the West, the offered commutation for money would be wholly inadequate; they must starve upon it. If beef only was to have been furnished, why would any condition have been inserted concerning pork? And was it right for the contractors to refuse a substitution of good & wholesome provisions in place of bad and unwholesome ones, merely because none but the bad & unwholesome ones are to be got at such prices as suit them? - Mr Richard Taylor, a conducter of the late emigration, is introduced to Gen: Arbuckle as the bearer of this letter Gen: Arbuckle is assured that unless a change is made in the quantity and quality of the rations, and in the