Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions. I readily discovered the prodigious influence which this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society, by giving a certain direction to public opinion, and a certain tenor to the laws; by imparting new maxims to the governing powers, and peculiar habits to the governed. I speedily perceived that the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the country, and that it has no less empire over civil society than over the Government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that the equality of conditions is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived, and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated.

                                                                                   Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


   While the first iteration of ‘Manifest Destiny,’ was not published until 1845, the wheels of expansionism had begun churning within the federal government, as demonstrated in de Tocqueville’s characterization of the American people. Yet, at a cursory glance, the year 1835 does not invoke much significance in public memory of American history; rather it was a part of the period of growth, sandwiched in between the first three major wars in the United States.[1] Andrew Jackson had been reelected as President for his second term two years prior in 1832. The Industrial Revolution was in full swing, creating jobs and significant population growth in urban areas, and a greater need for land and labor[2] in agricultural areas. The economy was strong, domestic and foreign relations were relatively calm, and by any account, life in the United States was full of opportunity and prosperity… for White men.

   Five years prior to de Tocqueville’s book, in 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the “Indian Removal Act,” opening land cession negotiations between the United States federal government and representatives of Indigenous tribes east of the Mississippi River.[3] With the sovereignty of these tribes at risk, Indigenous leaders rose to the forefront of the debates of Indigenous sovereignty and land possession. William Apess, a Pequot reverend to the Mashpee,[4] led a movement to reestablish Mashpee sovereignty on their ancestral lands in Massachusetts. While John Ridge, a Cherokee leader, initially favored an anti-removal perspective, he ended up leading the movement to sign the Treaty of New Echota, which sold the Cherokee homelands to the American government. This treaty, in effect, condemned the Cherokee to travel the Trail of Tears to reservation land in Indian Territory.[5] These disparate outcomes beg the questions: Why was Apess successful in reestablishing Mashpee sovereignty to the United States government by proxy of the Massachusetts court, while Ridge changed his stance on removal to preserve Cherokee sovereignty, but in Indian Territory? How were Apess and Ridge successful in persuading the United States government officials to support their causes?  

   Indigenous leaders, William Apess, a Pequot man representing the Mashpee in Massachusetts, and John Ridge, of the Cherokee in Georgia, highlighted the inconsistency in Indigenous policy in the eastern United States in 1835 despite the structure of the “Indian Removal Act”. In Apess’s case, the court reestablished Mashpee sovereignty and land ownership in Massachusetts. But in Ridge’s case, the contested Treaty of New Echota and succeeding Trail of Tears, depicted the opposite outcome: Removal. William Apess’s “Indian Nullification” and John Ridge’s editorials in the Cherokee Phoenix, which reveal both his original anti-treaty stance and extreme pro-treaty/sovereignty position, provide crucial details and perspective into understanding the men’s respective experiences with the standardization of Indigenous sovereignty policy in 19^th century United States.