I don't think anyone is contending that the Choctaws had much choice about signing the treaty. Indians in many states in the southeast had already been legally deprived of their civil rights by the individual states--Alabama, Georgia, etc. For example, an Indian could not testify in court against a white person; hence, white folks could steal his property, assault him, etc., at will. So there wasn't really much choice. And it should be remembered that many Choctaws were not in Mississippi but in Alabama along the Tombigbee River. The point is that the federal government made treaties with the Indians that were not properly administered by individuals within the states and localities because of incompetence and greed. It is at this point that we find first asserted in a legal context the principle of "states' rights" with regard to the supposed right of the state to disregard federal treaties and decisions by federal courts. The Choctaws who remained in Mississippi (and elsewhere) were likely mostly of mixed blood or married to whites. The treaty specified that they could become citizens and provided land for them that was to be allocated to them before the cession was generally available for settlement by the whites. These people stayed where they were based on these assurances. However, the federal government failed to live up to its promises. And there was effectively no recourse for these people. Kitty