1. Morse, Jedidiah, A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States, on Indian Affairs (New Haven, CT: S. Converse, 1822), 92Google Scholar.

2. “J. J. Albert to George Gibson, November 17, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 512.

3. “Vaccination of the Indians, April 4, 1832,” Gales and Seaton's Register, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 2834.

4. Hinderaker, Eric and Mancall, Peter C., At the Edge of Empire: The Backcountry in British North America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 16Google Scholar. Congress initially appropriated $12,000 to the fund. In 1839, lawmakers set aside an additional $5,000 for the program. Congressional Record, 25th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1839, 828.

5. Federal records indicate that at least 17,045 American Indians were vaccinated within the program's first year. Taking into account Indian agents’ imperfect frontier record-keeping, Pearson estimates that closer to 38,745 individuals were inoculated by 1841, based on census data and expenditures by the Indian Affairs Office. Elbert Herring, Report: Vaccination of the Indians, H.R. Doc. 82, 22nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 233; Pearson, J. Diane, “Lewis Cass and the Politics of Disease: The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832,” Wicazo Sa Review 18 (2003): 9–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Wright, Barry, “Migration, Radicalism, and State Security: Legislative Initiatives in the Canadas and the United States c. 1794–1804,” Studies in American Political Development 16 (2002): 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Indian Vaccination Act is all the more interesting given the Constitution's exclusion of “Indians not taxed” from being counted in the apportionment of representatives. “Native Americans who remained within the tribal structure were not to be considered at all in determining the number of representatives to which a state was entitled.… [And] Native Americans who left their tribal communities were not even eligible for naturalization under the general naturalization statute.” The franchise was only extended in 1924. Maltz, Earl M., “The Fourteenth Amendment and Native American Citizenship,” Constitutional Commentary 17 (2000): 555–74Google Scholar.

7. Bruyneel, Kevin, “Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the ‘Gift’ of U.S. Citizenship,” Studies in American Political Development 18 (2004): 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Rockwell, Stephen J., Indian Affairs and the Administrative State in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Frymer, Paul, Building an American Empire: The Era of Territorial and Political Expansion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), 278Google Scholar.

10. Johnson, Emery A. and Rhoades, Everett R., “The History and Organization of Indian Health Services and Systems,” in American Indian Health: Innovations in Health Care, Promotion, and Policy, ed. Rhoades, Everett R. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 75Google Scholar.

11. Sledge, Daniel, “War, Tropical Disease, and the Emergence of National Public Health Capacity in the United States,” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2012): 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 30.

13. Smith, Rogers, “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America,” American Political Science Review 87 (1993): 558CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Schickler, Eric, Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 15Google Scholar.

15. Carpenter, Daniel, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 40Google Scholar.

16. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 33; Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, 33.

17. DeJong, David H., “If You Knew the Conditions”: A Chronicle of the Indian Medical Service and American Indian Health Care, 1908–1955 (Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2008), 30Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., 73.

19. The first congressional public health statute was the National Quarantine Act of 1796, which limited the federal government's authority to impose quarantines without the support of the states affected by the epidemic in question. Two years later, in 1798, lawmakers established the United States Marine Hospital Service to care for sick and disabled seamen, laying the groundwork for what would eventually become the Public Health Service (formally established in 1899). In 1813, Congress passed “An Act to Encourage Vaccination,” which provided for the distribution of smallpox vaccines to states and private physicians through the U.S. Postal Service free of charge. But the act was repealed a decade later after a smallpox outbreak was traced to contaminated vaccine matter that had been delivered by the Postal Service.

20. Dauber, Michele Landis, The Sympathetic State: Disaster Relief and the Origins of the American Welfare State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2013), 24Google Scholar. See also DeLancey, Dayle B., “Vaccinating Freedom: Smallpox Prevention and the Discourses of African American Citizenship in Antebellum Philadelphia,” The Journal of African American History 95 (2010): 296–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, Gaines M., “The Limitations of Federal Health Care for Freedmen,” The Journal of Southern History 48 (1982): 349–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kraut, Alan M., Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes, and the Immigrant Menace (New York: Basic Books, 1994)Google Scholar; Rao, Gautham, “Administering Entitlement: Governance, Public Health Care, and the Early American State,” Law & Social Inquiry 37 (2012): 627–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Resch, John, Suffering Soldiers: Revolutionary War Veterans, Moral Sentiment, and Political Culture in the Early Republic (Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Willrich, Michael, “‘The Least Vaccinated of Any Civilized Country’: Personal Liberty and Public Health in the Progressive Era,” The Journal of Policy History 20 (2008): 76–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Only in the decades after the Civil War did federal and state policymakers begin to provide social welfare programs for distressed women, orphans, the aged, and the sick. These programs typically relied heavily on partnerships with private institutions, both charities and for-profit organizations, to deliver relief. During this same period, Willrich observes that “race stymied smallpox control, as white taxpayers, particularly in the South, balked at paying for vaccine to protect blacks; meanwhile, African Americans rightly mistrusted government vaccinators whose chief aim was to protect the white community.” Willrich, Michael, Pox: An American History (New York: Penguin Press, 2011), 12Google Scholar.

21. Rao, “Administering Entitlement,” 628.

22. Moore, Colin D., “State Building Through Partnership: Delegation, Public-Private Partnerships, and the Political Development of American Imperialism, 1898–1916,” Studies in American Political Development 2 (2011): 33Google Scholar.

23. A notable exception is J. Diane Pearson's excellent dissertation, The Politics of Disease: Imperial Medicine and the American Indian, 1797–1871 (PhD Diss., University of Arizona, 2001). For a thorough account of twentieth-century Indian Medical Service and its successor, the Indian Health Service, see DeJong, “If You Knew the Conditions”; DeJong, David H., Plagues, Politics, and Policy: A Chronicle of the Indian Health Service, 1955–2008 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011)Google Scholar.

24. Between 1789 and 1825 “private bills … [for relief were] increasingly eclipsed by general relief bills that appropriated a large amount of money for the benefit of all persons fitting the eligibility criteria set forth in the bill.” Landis Dauber, The Sympathetic State, 18.

25. For the relationship between “humanity” and “interest” in the context of American slavery, see Tushnet, Mark, The American Law of Slavery: Considerations of Humanity and Interest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), 5–6Google Scholar.

26. Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, 15. See also Schickler, Eric, “Entrepreneurial Defenses of Congressional Power,” in Formative Acts: American Politics in the Making, ed. Skowronek, Stephen and Glassman, Matthew (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 293–315Google Scholar.

27. Saler, Bethel, The Settlers’ Empire: Colonialism and State Formation in America's Old Northwest (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), 8, 178–80Google Scholar.

28. Frymer, Building an American Empire, 12.

29. Jensen, Laura S., “The Early American Origins of Entitlements,” Studies in American Political Development 10 (1996): 360–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar. John, Richard R., “Governmental Institutions as Agents of Change: Rethinking American Political Development in the Early Republic, 1787–1835,” Studies in American Political Development 11 (1997): 347–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rao, Gautham, National Duties: Custom Houses and the Making of the American State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frymer, Building an American Empire; Frymer, Paul, “‘A Rush and a Push and the Land is Ours’: Territorial Expansion, Land Policy, and U.S. State Formation,” Perspectives on Politics 12 (2014): 119–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jensen, Laura S., Patriots, Settlers, and the Origins of American Social Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

31. Atta, John Van, Securing the West: Politics, Public Lands, and the Fate of the Old Republic, 1785–1850 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014), 43Google Scholar.

32. Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. “Federal action at the margins of the nation extended through third parties, guided through the judiciary, and, in the case of taxes assessed indirectly at the nation's borders rather than at citizens’ front doors.” Balogh, A Government Out of Sight, i, 50–53.

34. Saler, The Settlers’ Empire, 20, 169; Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 59–61.

35. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, 42–43.

36. Ibid., 60.

37. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 6.

38. Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York: Norton, 1969), 94Google Scholar.

39. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 326.

40. Ibid., 32–35.

41. See, e.g., Frymer, Building an American Empire, 12.

42. Katznelson, Ira, “Flexible Capacity: The Military and Early American Statebuilding,” in Shaped by War and Trade: International Influences on American Political Development, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Shefter, Martin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Thomas Paine, “On Government of Western Territory,” in Ohio in the Time of the Confederation, ed. Archer Butler Hulbert (Marietta, OH: Marietta Historical Commission, 1918), 8.

44. Frymer, Building an American Empire, 47.

45. “September 5, 1782,” in Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789, vol. 23, ed. Worthington C. Ford et al. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1904–1937), 550. See also Michael Klarman, The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 30, 66.

46. “David Howell to Jonathan Arnold, February 21, 1784,” in Letters of Delegates to Congress: 1774–1789, vol. 21, ed. Paul H. Smith et al. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 381–84.

47. “Ordinance for the Regulation of Indian Affairs, August 7, 1786,” in Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 31 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1904–1937), 490–93.

48. Seven states’ colonial charters laid claim to tracts of western wilderness: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This created an early sectional cleavage between “landed” and “landless” states that the Articles of Confederation would struggle to resolve. See Jensen, Patriots, Settlers, and the Origins of American Social Policy, 126–27; Klarman, The Framers' Coup, 14, 26, 44–45.

49. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 52.

50. As Rockwell recounts, this method of land acquisition structured the treaty agreements of Fort Stanwix (1784), Fort McIntosh (1785), and Fort Finney (1786). See Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 54.

51. Saler, The Settlers’ Empire, 14.

52. “Committee Report on the Southern Department, August 3, 1787,” in Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 33 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1904–1937), 456–59.

53. Saler, The Settlers’ Empire, 7.

54. “James Manning to Jabez Brown,” in Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789, ed. Paul H. Smith et al. (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 344; “Henry Knox to George Washington, June 15, 1789,” in American State Papers: Indian Affairs (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 13.

55. “Report of the Secretary at War: Indian Affairs,” in Territorial Papers of the United States, ed. Clarence E. Carter (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1934), 103–105.

56. “A Report on Indian Affairs, October 15, 1783,” in Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 25 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1904–1937), 680–84.

57. The treaty-making process required a substantial legislative appropriation to cover administrative expenses, payments for territory in the form of cash and goods and services, and diplomatic gifts. In 1776, for example, the Continental Congress allocated $10,000 to purchase gifts for a single treaty council; lawmakers appropriated another $10,000 for a different council two years later. See Prucha, Francis Paul, American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 30–31Google Scholar.

58. “Charles Thomson to the Governor of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio, July 2, 1788,” in American State Papers: Indian Affairs (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1995), 9.

59. In a letter to William Henry Harrison (governor of Indiana Territory), Thomas Jefferson proposed an alternative strategy to gain control of native lands by dint of goods rather than cash. “We shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals run into debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off with a cession of lands.” “Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, February 27, 1803,” in Documents of United States Indian Policy, ed. Francis Paul Prucha (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1975), 22–23.

60. For example, after negotiating the treaty of Portage de Sioux in July 1815, military officials “persuaded [the Omaha] to submit to vaccination [against the smallpox]” as a diplomatic gesture of goodwill. Alice C. Fletcher and Francis A. LaFleshe, The Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1905–1906 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1911), 622.

61. Cohen, Felix S., “Original Indian Title,” in The Legal Conscience: Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen, ed. Cohen, Lucy Kramer (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960), 281Google Scholar.

62. Prucha, American Indian Treaties, 230–31.

63. Hawk, Black, Black Hawk: An Autobiography, ed. Jackson, Donald (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1955), 87–101Google Scholar.

64. Johnson and Rhoades, “The History and Organization of Indian Health Services and Systems,” 74.

65. “H.R. 526,” April 3, 1832, House Bills and Resolutions, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 2.

66. Viola, Herman J., Thomas L. McKenney: Architect of America's Early Indian Policy, 1816–1830 (Chicago: Sage Books, 1974), 48–50Google Scholar. Military physicians were also frequently called upon to provide medical care to Native American diplomatic envoys when they traveled to and from Washington, D.C. Viola, Herman J., Diplomats in Buckskins: A History of Indian Delegations in Washington City (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1981), 153Google Scholar.

67. DeJong, “If You Knew the Conditions”, 2–3.

68. “Representative James M. Wayne, Removal of the Indians, May 24, 1830,” in Register of Debates in Congress, vol. 6 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1824–1837), 1130–31.

69. Sarah M. Broadhead to Cousin in Reynoldsville, September 3, 1813, folder M-4170.1, box 2, Native American Collection, University of Michigan William L. Clements Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan [hereinafter WCL].

70. Starr, Paul, The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 48–49Google Scholar. See also Benjamin Franklin, “Afterward to Every Man His Own Doctor” and “Poor Richard,” in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin Vol. II, ed. Leonard W. Labaree (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961), 155–58, 162–72.

71. As quoted in Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 144.

72. As quoted in Jones, David S., Rationalizing Epidemics: Meanings and Uses of American Indian Mortality Since 1600 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 78–79Google Scholar.

73. Indeed, such was the threat of smallpox that in 1806, the Cherokee hired a civilian physician for $150.00 to vaccinate members of the tribe. Howard, Robert P., “Cherokee History to 1840: A Medical View,” Journal of the Oklahoma Medical Association 63 (1970): 71–82Google ScholarPubMed.

74. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 12.

75. Kelton, Paul, “Avoiding the Smallpox Spirits: Colonial Epidemics and Southeastern Indian Survival,” Ethnohistory 51 (2004): 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “T. Hartley Crawford to J.R. Poinsett, November 28, 1840,” in Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Washington, DC: Jacob Gideon, 1840), 7. Some within the War Department viewed smallpox as an ally in managing native affairs, insofar as it “naturally” eliminated Indian communities. As Lieutenant Richard Coytmore, a commander in Fort Prince George in South Carolina, wrote: “I cant [sic] help being so unhuman as to wish it may spread through the whole nation.” As quoted in Tortora, Daniel J., Carolina in Crisis: Cherokees, Colonists, and Slaves in the American Southwest, 1756–1763 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015), 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77. In 1802, for example, army surgeons at several forts in Ohio Territory vaccinated neighboring Native communities against smallpox, out of concern that an epidemic would endanger soldiers stationed at the military outposts. A year later, in June 1803, President Thomas Jefferson instructed the explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to “carry with you some matter of the kinepox. Inform those of them with whom you may be of its efficacy as a preservative from the smallpox; and instruct and encourage them (i.e., the Indians) in the use of it.” But, it was not to be. As Lewis reported several months later, “I have reason to believe from several experiments made with what [vaccine matter] I have, that it has lost its virtue.” See Jones, Rationalizing Epidemics, 112; Stearn, E. Wagner and Stearn, Allen E., The Effect of Smallpox on the Amerindian (Boston: Bruce Humphries, 1945), 57Google Scholar.

78. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 78–80.

79. As quoted in “Elbert Herring to Office of Indian Affairs, December 1, 1832,” in Message from the President of United States to the Two Houses of Congress (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1832), 175.

80. Ibid., 176. The accounts of Indian agents and army officials are corroborated by the journals and letters of Lewis and Clark. After traveling through the Missouri Valley in 1805, Clark reported that “the Smallpox destroyed the greater part of the [Mandan] nation and reduced them to one large Village and Some Small ones.” Three decades later, another smallpox epidemic would destroy what remained of the Mandan Nation. See Clark, William, The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, ed. Moulton, Gary E. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), 402–405Google Scholar.

81. South Carolina, for example, had a long tradition of capitalizing on disease to gain the upper hand in territorial negotiations with the Cherokee. See Tortora, Carolina in Crisis, 82–83,

82. “W.A. Trimble to John C. Calhoun, August 7, 1818,” in A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States, on Indian Affairs, ed. Jedidiah Morse (New Haven, CT: S. Converse, 1822), 259–60. The cost of providing aid and diplomatic goods to native communities was of serious importance to the federal government, as it had been for the British. Indeed, in 1764, General Thomas Gage wrote to a fellow officer: “I would be glad of your opinion, on what … sort of presents should be given to [the Indians] … we must curtail all our expenses as much as its possible, which I must earnestly recommend to you; for they grow very uneasy at Home about it. I have very strong Letters from the Treasury on that subject.” Thomas Gage to William Johnson, December 16, 1764, folder “Indian Affairs in the Aftermath of Peace,” box 2, Native American History Collection, WCL.

83. “Jedidiah Morse to John C. Calhoun, June 6, 1822,” in A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States, on Indian Affairs, ed. Jedidiah Morse (New Haven, CT: S. Converse, 1822), 9–10.

84. At the time he was appointed to lead the expedition, Morse was a noted geographer, minister, and defender of Native American cultural practices. Letters from abolitionists and missionaries echoed the sentiments expressed in War Department accounts. Corresponding with his cousin, Thomas Dean noted with particular sadness the death of indigenous children from whooping cough and dysentery, as well as smallpox. Thomas Dean to Philaner Hunt, August 12, 1824, folder M-4320.1, box 2, Native American Collection, WCL.

85. “President Jefferson on Indian Trading Houses: A Special Message to Congress, January 18, 1803,” in Documents of United States Indian Policy, ed. Francis Paul Prucha (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 21–22.

86. Jedidiah Morse, A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States, on Indian Affairs (New Haven, CT: S. Converse, 1822), 91–92.

87. “John C. Calhoun to Henry Clay, December 5, 1818,” in The Papers of John C. Calhoun, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1959), 3:345. See also Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 92–93.

88. C. Edward Skeen, “Calhoun, Crawford, and the Politics of Retrenchment,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 73 (1972): 147. See also Barsness, Richard W., “John C. Calhoun and the Military Establishment, 1817–1825,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 50 (1966): 45–53Google Scholar.

89. Belko, William S., “John C. Calhoun and the Creation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: An Essay on Political Rivalry, Ideology, and Policymaking in the Early Republic,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 105 (2004): 171Google Scholar.

90. As quoted in Skeen, “Calhoun, Crawford, and the Politics of Retrenchment,” 144; Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 78.

91. Calhoun's first superintendent, Thomas McKenney, used that title during his time at the Office of Indian Affairs. He would also refer to agency as the Indian Office or Bureau of Indian Affairs. McKenney's replacements often preferred the title of “Commissioner.” Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 93–95.

92. Thomas L. McKenney to James Barbour, January 4, 1828, “Letter from the Secretary of War Transmitting Information of the Inadequacy of the Fund for Defraying the Expenses Attending the Emigration of the Creek Indians,” H.R. Doc. No. 44 (January 7, 1828), 5–6.

93. As quoted in Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 118.

94. As quoted in Rolater, Fred S., “The American Indian and the Origin of the Second American Party System,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 76 (1993): 180–203Google Scholar. See also Satz, Ronald, American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1975), 20–30, 39–56Google Scholar.

95. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 156–57; Remini, Robert, Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars (New York: Viking, 2001), 231–39Google Scholar.

96. Balogh, Government Out of Sight, 210; Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 158.

97. “F. W. Armstrong to John H. Eaton, June 29, 1831,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of the Indians, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 496.

98. “F. W. Armstrong to George Gibson, December 2, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of the Indians, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1834), 401.

99. “Lewis Cass to Samuel S. Hamilton, December 20, 1830,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of the Indians, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 201.

100. John Dougherty to William Clark, August 6, 1831, William Clark Papers, reel MS-95, Kansas Historical Society, Topeka, KS.

101. The consideration and passage of the Indian Vaccination Act (1832) predates the publication of the Congressional Record (1873). Consequently, we must do without a verbatim account of congressional debate and instead piece together a legislative history using the curated summaries of “leading debates and incidents” assembled in the Register of Debates, a commercial publication “intended to supply a deficiency” in the House and Senate Journals, which recorded motions, the outcome of floor votes, and brief descriptions of floor proceedings. Fortunately, we can supplement these records with other archival materials: the personal papers of members of the House and Senate Committees on Indian Affairs, messages from the president to Congress, records of the Office of Indian Affairs and War Department, and contemporaneous journalistic accounts. Of greater concern, little in the archival record reflects the views of Native people themselves. Indeed, while accounts of contagion in Native communities abound, the majority of those that have been preserved were written by white missionaries, Indian agents, governors of Indian territory, and other state actors. With the exception of petitions submitted to Congress and Indian agents, few accounts by Native people were recorded and far fewer preserved by archivists. Consequently, we can make only tentative inferences about Native attitudes toward vaccination or their experiences during the program's implementation phase.

102. Party identity is difficult to track during this period. Following the War of 1812, the first party system dissolved, and it was not until the election of President Andrew Jackson in 1828 that a stable two-party system would begin to reemerge. In the intervening years, partisan identities fluctuated. As a result, scholars of the period have had difficulty pinpointing lawmakers’ party affiliation across multiple congresses. In keeping with the literature, I defer to members’ own self-described party identity at any given time. Members alternately described themselves as Jacksonians, Anti-Jacksonians, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs. Adding to the confusion, it is not unusual to find members calling themselves Jacksonians in one Congress, and Anti-Jacksonians in the next. As John Aldrich writes, confusion reigned until 1840, when “both parties had come close to being fully organized national, mass-based parties.” It is likely for this reason that party identification provides limited analytical traction in explaining legislators’ position on Indian vaccination. Aldrich, John H., Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 45–48.

104. Sigourney, Lydia H., Traits of the Aborigines of Boston (Cambridge, MA: Hillard and Metcalf, 1822), 284Google Scholar. Abolitionists, both white and black, were also strong proponents of vaccination for African Americans. In antebellum pamphlets and periodicals they lauded “vaccination in order to encourage behaviors consistent with citizenship, including intellectual advancement and civic responsibility.” See DeLancey, “Vaccinating Freedom,” 297.

105. Cheever, George B., “The Removal of the Indians: An Examination of an Article in the North American Review and an Exhibition of the Advancement of the Southern Tribes in Civilization and Christianity,” American Monthly Review 10 (1830): 704Google Scholar.

106. As quoted in Mardock, Robert W., The Reformers and the American Indian (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1971), 8–9Google Scholar. The link between abolitionists and Indian reformers was sufficiently strong that Garrison designed the Liberator's engraved heading to depict a slave block with slave auctioneers trampling copies of Indian treaties into dust at their feet.

107. Child, Lydia Maria, The Christian Indian: Or, Times of the First Settlers (New York: Collins and Hannay, 1825), 6Google Scholar.

108. Frymer, Building an American Empire, 123–25. See also Hershberger, Mary, “Mobilizing Women, Anticipating Abolition: The Struggle against Indian Removal in the 1830s,” The Journal of American History 86 (1999): 15–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109. As quoted in Hershberger, “Mobilizing Women, Anticipating Abolition,” 24.

110. “Vaccination of the Indians, April 4, 1832,” 2384.

111. “H.R. 526,” April 3, 1832, House Bills and Resolutions, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 2.

112. “Representative John Bell, Vaccination of the Indians, April 4, 1832,” 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., in Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 25 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1832), 567.

113. “Removal of the Indians, May 15, 1830,” in Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 1st Sess., 994–98.

114. “Removal of the Indians, May 24, 1830,” in Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 1st Sess., 1133–136. See also Bell, John, Speech of John Bell of Tennessee, on Slavery in the United States and the Causes of the Present Dissensions Between the North and the South (Washington, DC: Gideon, 1850), 13Google Scholar.

115. As quoted in Parks, Norman L., “The Career of John Bell as Congressman from Tennessee, 1827–1841,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 1 (1942): 229–49Google Scholar.

116. “Vaccination of the Indians, April 4, 1832,” 2384. Bell also read from a report submitted by the War Department in March 1832 describing the “frightful distemper” of “the monstrous disease.” The account noted that indigenous communities “were dying so fast, and taken down in such large numbers that they had ceased to bury the dead,” and described “their misery [as] so great and so general.” It was the War Department's official recommendation to “have them vaccinated, in order to prevent the desolating ravages of this dreadful disorder.” Lewis Cass, “Small Pox among the Indians, March 30, 1832,” in A Letter from the Secretary of War, H.R. Doc. No. 190, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1–2.

117. “Vaccination of the Indians, April 4, 1832,” 2386.

118. Ibid., 2384–85.

119. Ibid., 2384.

120. “H.R. 526: Vaccination of the Indians, April 10, 1832,” 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., in Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, vol. 25 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1832), 578.

121. Hugh Lawson White, “Cherokee Memorial, February 4, 1835,” in A Memoir of Hugh Lawson White: Judge of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Member of the Senate of the United States, ed. Nancy N. Scott (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1856), 167.

122. As quoted in Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 222.

123. “Indian Vaccination, April 17, 1832,” Gales and Seaton's Register, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 792.

124. Ibid.

125. “Indian Vaccination, April 18, 1832,” Gales and Seaton's Register, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 795.

126. “Indian Vaccination, April 17, 1832,” 792.

127. Ibid.

128. “Indian Vaccination, April 24, 1832,” 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., in Journal of the Senate, vol. 21 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1832), 253.

129. Ibid. For more on Benton's strategy for American expansion, see Jensen, Patriots, Settlers, and the Origins of American Social Policy, 181; Frymer, Building an American Empire, 130–37; Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 127–31; Van Atta, Securing the West, 87.

130. Rockwell, Indian Affairs and the Administrative State, 26.

131. Indeed, throughout the Revolution, southern officials warned their constituents that northern loyalists might send runaway slaves infected with smallpox home to cripple Patriot households. See Fenn, Elizabeth A., Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775–82 (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001), 130–33Google Scholar; Ranlet, Philip, “The British Slaves and Smallpox in Revolutionary Virginia,” The Journal of Negro History 64 (1999): 217–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132. As quoted in Tortora, Carolina in Crisis, 81.

133. Fenn, Pox Americana, 126–34; Tortura, Carolina in Crisis, 85–86.

134. Kenny, Stephen C., “A Dictate of Both Interest and Mercy? Slave Hospitals in the Antebellum South,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 65 (2010): 1–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

135. Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 212.

136. Kerber, “The Abolitionist Perception of the Indian,” 276.

137. Van Atta, Securing the West, 115.

138. Gailmard, Sean and Jenkins, Jeffrey A., “Distributive Politics and Congressional Voting: Public Lands Reform in the Jacksonian Era,” Public Choice 175 (2018): 259–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139. Frymer, Building an American Empire, 140–51. This was a concern that southern lawmakers had long harbored. As Michael Klarman recounts, southern delegates to the Continental Congress “warned that the interest of the northern carrying states was ‘strikingly different from that of the [southern] productive states,’ and he predicted that ‘this government will operate as a faction of seven states to oppress the rest of the union.’” Klarman, The Framers' Coup, 390–91.

140. Andrew Jackson to Lewis Cass, December 17, 1832, Andrew Jackson Papers, Series 1, Vol. 82, Library of Congress Manuscript Division Digital Archive [hereinafter LOCMD], http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/maj.01082_0244_0245, accessed August 1, 2017; Andrew Jackson to U.S. Congress, January 16, 1833, Andrew Jackson Papers, Series 8, Vol. 178, LOCMD, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/maj.08178_0034_0041, accessed August 1, 2017; Andrew Jackson, December 10, 1833, “Proclamation Concerning the Ordinance of South Carolina on the Subject of the Tariff,” Elliot's Debates, vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1836), 582–92.

141. “H.R. 526,” April 3, 1832, House Bills and Resolutions, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 2.

142. Lewis Cass to Indian Agents in Illinois and Michigan, “Vaccination Circular,” May 10, 1832, Letter from the Secretary of War on Vaccination of Indians, H.R. Doc. No. 82, 22nd Congress, 2nd. Sess. 5–6.

143. McLaughlin, Andrew C., American Statesman: Lewis Cass (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1896), 138Google Scholar.

144. Klunder, Willard Carl, Lewis Cass and the Politics of Moderation (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996), 69Google Scholar.

145. Lewis Cass, “Review of Published Works on Indians,” folder 28, box 6, Lewis Cass Papers, WCL.

146. Lewis Cass, “Concerning a System for the Regulation of Indian Affairs,” November 29, 1816, folder 27, box 6, Lewis Cass Papers, WCL.

147. McLaughlin, American Statesman, 138.

148. “George Gaines to George Gibson, June 3, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1834), 686. See also “Henry C. Brish to William Clark, June 6, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 5 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 118; “Henry C. Brish to William Clark, July 16, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 5 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 118–19.

149. “John Robb to William P. Duval, August 21, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 904–905.

150. As quoted in Viola, Thomas L. McKenney, 217–18.

151. Lewis Cass, “Review of Published Works on Indians,” folder 28, box 6, Lewis Cass Papers, WCL.

152. Cass, “Concerning a System for the Regulation of Indian Affairs,” November 29, 1816, folder 27, box 6, Lewis Cass Papers, WCL.

153. Ibid.

154. Isaac McCoy to Lewis Cass, March 23, 1832, A Letter from the Secretary of War, H.R. Doc. No. 190, 22nd Congress, 1st Sess., 3.

155. Lewis Cass to Indian Agents in Illinois and Michigan, May 10, 1832, Letter from the Secretary of War, H.R. Doc. No. 82, 22nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 5.

156. “John Robb to William P. Duval, August 21, 1832,” 905. “Lewis Cass to James B. Gardiner, June 21, 1832,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1835), 847.

157. Lewis Cass to William Marshall, May 15, 1832, Letter from the Secretary of War on Vaccination, H.R. Doc. No. 82, 22nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 6.

158. Vaccination was deemed successful when the incision healed with a pockmark scar. In the early 1700s the preferred method of “variolation” or inoculation involved rubbing the dried pustules of mild cases of smallpox into the skin of healthy subjects to provide a lifetime immunity to the disease. The practice carried far more risk than the use of cowpox. See Fenn, Pox Americana.

159. Gillett, Mary C., The Army Medical Department, 1818–1865 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1987), 15Google Scholar.

160. Ibid.

161. Elbert Herring to Lewis Cass, January 31, 1833, Letter from the Secretary of War, H.R. Doc. No. 82, 22nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 1–2.

162. “Elbert Herring to F.W. Armstrong, April 12, 1833,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1834–1835), 659.

163. Elbert Herring to Lewis Cass, January 31, 1833, 2–3. See also Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824–1881, roll 170, microcopy no. 234, National Archives and Records Service, Washington, DC.

164. Ibid.

165. Lewis Cass to John Dougherty, 1833, Letters Sent by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824–1881, roll 8, microcopy no. 465, National Archives and Records Service, Washington, DC.

166. Some have argued that Cass failed to vaccinate tribes in the northern Missouri River valley because they had either refused to agree to treaty terms favorable to the United States or were of limited importance to native trade. See Pearson, “Lewis Cass and the Politics of Disease.”

167. “Lewis Cass to William P. Duval, March 1833,” in Correspondence on the Subject of the Emigration of Indians, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Duff Green, 1834–1835), 512. In fact, the Secretary proved prescient in his assessment, but at great cost to the northern tribes of the Missouri River valley. After a devastating smallpox epidemic fully eradicated the unvaccinated tribes in 1837, federal lawmakers set aside $5,000 to ensure the vaccination of all native communities scheduled for removal.

168. Katznelson, “Flexible Capacity,” 101.

169. Based on War Department estimates of the indigenous population east of the Missouri River in the 1830s, vaccinations were administered to roughly a quarter of the population ultimately removed to reservations. See Cass, Lewis, “Removal of the Indians,” North American Review 30 (1830): 62–64Google Scholar.

170. DeJong, “If You Knew the Conditions”, 2–5.

171. Frymer, Building an American Empire, 12.

172. Smith, “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz,” 550.

173. Frymer, Building an American Empire, 15.

174. DeJong, “If You Knew the Conditions”, 10–11.

175. Campbell, Andrea, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.