More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect on native Americans'lives
The effect on native Americans'lives
Explain Andrew Jackson's Perspective on the Native Americans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Michael Rutledge and Andrew Jackson add so much depth to the Native American history. However they have very different views, and very different approaches on the subject. Michael Rutledge is telling a story that is meant to be entertaining and Andrew Jackson is presenting a speech meant to be persuasive and professional. So they will have very different tones, sentence structure, etc.
In Michael Rutledge's story "Samuel's Memory" he uses very vivid descriptions that make the story ever more compelling and engaging. However in Andrew Jackson's adress to Congress was more forceful upon the "Indian Removal act." He used many strategic concepts to convince people that the removal of the Native Americans was a good thing. He used more of a political
Throughout Jackson's two terms as President, Jackson used his power unjustly. As a man from the Frontier State of Tennessee and a leader in the Indian wars, Jackson loathed the Native Americans. Keeping with consistency, Jackson found a way to use his power incorrectly to eliminate the Native Americans. In May 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act. This act required all tribes east of the Mississippi River to leave their lands and travel to reservations in the Oklahoma Territory on the Great Plains. This was done because of the pressure of white settlers who wanted to take over the lands on which the Indians had lived. The white settlers were already emigrating to the Union, or America. The East Coast was burdened with new settlers and becoming vastly populated. President Andrew Jackson and the government had to find a way to move people to the West to make room. In 1830, a new state law said that the Cherokees would be under the jurisdiction of state rather than federal law. This meant that the Indians now had little, if any, protection against the white settlers that desired their land. However, when the Cherokees brought their case to the Supreme Court, they were told that they could not sue on the basis that they were not a foreign nation. In 1832, though, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokees were a "domestic dependent nation," and therefore, eligible to receive federal protection against the state. However, Jackson essentially overruled the decision. By this, Jackson implied that he had more power than anyone else did and he could enforce the bill himself. This is yet another way in which Jackson abused his presidential power in order to produce a favorable result that complied with his own beliefs. The Indian Removal Act forced all Indians tribes be moved west of the Mississippi River. The Choctaw was the first tribe to leave from the southeast.
Born March 15, 1767 on the Carolina frontier, Andrew Jackson would eventually rise from poverty to politics after the War of 1812 where he earned national fame as a military hero. Jackson won the popular vote in the 1829 election and became the seventh United States President. As President, Jackson sought out to be a representative of the common man. Jackson remarks in his veto message of July 10, 1832 that, “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” Andrew Jackson put in place the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This act forced Natives off their homelands and onto the lands west of the Mississippi River. They encountered a journey, called the Trail of Tears, where they traveled by foot to what would be their new homes, which transformed the lives of thousands of Native Americans. The President’s intentions were to move all Natives west of the Mississippi River to open up the land to American settlers.
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of America who had a very unique time in office. Jackson advertised as being for the people of the United States but then his actions proved otherwise at later times. While Jackson did things for the people, he was as much of an autocrat as he was a democrat based upon the documents that were formed during his time in office.
Andrew Jackson was a man that people see that he is a good person and others say he is a terrible person. Andrew Jackson can be bad person and a good person it depends what type of person is Andrew Jackson is he going to help out the world or is he going to mess up the world? Democracy is a form of government were the people have a right to assist in the law making process. If Jackson didn’t support the people and wasn’t in the government the bank and the people would be in a huge mess. Andrew Jackson was very democratic and there are political , economic and geographic ways to prove it.
...convince us Indians that our removal was necessary and beneficial. In my eyes, the agreement only benefited Andrew Jackson. It is apparent that Jackson neglected to realize how the Indian Removal act would affect us Indians. When is the government justified in forcibly removing people from the land they occupy? If you were a Native American, how would you have respond to Jackson? These questions need to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not Jackson was justified. After carefully examining these questions and considering both the pros and cons of this act, I’m sure you would agree that the removal of Native Americans was not justified under the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was not able to see the damaging consequences of the Indian removal act because of his restricted perspective.
Andrew Jackson had amazing leadership. He had made a potential disaster with a state seceding from the nation, to him just making a point. He had said at the end of his speech about the crisis, “I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws – to preserve the Union by all constitutional means – to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of recourse to force.” This quote shows if things were going to continue the way they were, some serious measures would have to be taken. Instead, he showed them his views on it and tried to squash the issue before it escalade. That shows the what a true leader really is.
Jackson remained in the military after the war. Late in 1817,he received orders to subdue the Seminole Native Americans, who were raiding across the border from Spanish Florida itself. He captured its bastions at St. Marks Pensacola and arrested, tried, and executed two British nationalists whom he charged with abetting the Native Americans.
The Indian removal was so important to Jackson that he went back to Tennessee to have the first negotiations in person. He gave the Indians a couple simple alternatives. Alternatives like to submit to state authority, or migrate beyond the Mississippi. Jackson Offered generous aid on one hand and while holding the threat of subjugation in the other. The Chickasaws and Choctaws submitted quickly. The only tribe that resisted until the end was the Cherokees. President Jackson’s presidency was tarnished by the way the U.S. government handled the Native Americans. Although financially, and economically Jackson truly was a good leader, some people view him in a negative way because of the “Indian Removal Act.”
President Jackson singlehandedly led the destruction of the Native Americans with his aggressive actions and hostile decisions. President Jackson shirked his responsibility to protect the Naïve Americans of the United States by ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision, promoting legislation to bring about the separation of Native Americans and whites, and his decision to involve United States Armed Forces against Indian Tribes. If it was not for President Jackson’s actions, the future of the Native Americans would have been different or at least
In 1830, President Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act. This let him negotiate with the Native Americans for their lands. Although the si...
Jackson tries to persuade the audience by sounding formal when he’s really trying to mask the truth. While Rutledge is harsh but truthful and to the point. In “On Indian
Andrew Jackson and Congress played a vital role for the devastation for many Native American tribes. President Jackson was the seventh president of the United States, was a major general for the U.S. military, and became a hero in the war of 1812. Although he made all of these accomplishments, he tarnished his reputation for many Americans, particularly Native Americans in the Cherokee tribe. Andrew Jackson and Congress encourage to make the Treaty of New Echota, which was a treaty to that forced the Cherokee nation out of their land and to another area west of the Mississippi. After analyzing both letters of two people in the Cherokee nation, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, one can conclude that the Cherokee was single handedly divided by the Treaty of New Echota, which was promoted by many Congressmen and President Jackson.
He was the first president to be born in a log cabin, to be an orphan by the age of fifteen, and to be hardened by decades of military campaigns (195). In his first term he exercised the use of veto power more than all previous presidents combined (196). He ran the government the same way he ran his army (196). Andrew Jackson resolved the issue of breaking up the Union and was able to postpone it for another 30 years (197). He also moved all of the United States deposits from the Second National Bank and put them into state and local banks (198). Another thing he did while in office was to begin to move the Indians to Oklahoma (199). In 1830, the General Removal Act was passed (199). The next act passed was the Removal Act against the Choctaws (200). By 1833 nearly 11,000 were removed, and in 1838 nearly all Chickasaws were removed (200). In December 1985 the Cherokee Nation signed a treaty to move west, and in 1838 they walked the Trail of Tears, where 4,000 out of 18,000 died (201). Andrew Jackson’s policies moved 45,690 Indians across the Mississippi (201). This was his most controversial legacy
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were two very influential figures in American political history. Even though they both were in two different eras, they shaped the American government and the way people think about it. They both have similarities, but they do have differences as well that includes political rights, religious rights and even economic rights.
To some people Andrew Jackson is remembered as the, metaphorically speaking, “People’s King” and is accused of dictator-like political moves. However, Andrew Jackson was quite the contrary, he was exalted amongst the people for being the new era of democracy: instilling a political revolution, the protection of the American people, and social equality among the masses. Therefore, Andrew Jackson was a precedent of democratic rule in the United States.