Indian Removal Act Research Paper

1105 Words3 Pages

The Indian Removal Act is considered a black spot in American history with Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, as its villain. However, much of the conceived outlooks on the IRA are false. First, Andrew Jackson, the “evil president” that forced the Trail of Tears where 4 thousand Cherokees died on their trek to Oklahoma, was not even the president during this event. The president that presided over the Trail of Tears was Martin Van Buren. Second, the Indian Removal Act did not grant any president the power to forcefully remove Native Americans from their homeland. This act, in actuality, allowed the US to negotiate treaties with NA and sanctioned further funding for compensations. The Indian Removal was, however, signed …show more content…

Some may argue that the US was valid in relocating Native Americans west of the Mississippi River because the removal was a compromise to avoid future conflict and benefit both the US and the Native Americans. Nevertheless, the actions of the US led to further violence and war, a second relocation, disbandment of Native American tribes, and costs on the United State’s part. The U.S. was unjustified in executing the Indian Removal Act because the actions of the U.S. were unconstitutional. First and foremost, the actions of Indian Removal were unconstitutional and unlawful. According to Danielle Greene from teachers.yale.edu, “The actual provisions of the Indian Removal Act did not actually authorize the forced relocation of the Southeastern Indians, but instead asked for funding to continue to issue land west of the Mississippi [River] to those Indians interested in releasing their tribal lands. At most, the Indian Removal Act permitted the president to exchange lands, not seize desired lands. Also, the act specifically included a clause stating, ‘Nothing in this act contained shall be construed as authorizing or directing the violation of any existing treaty between the United States and any of the Indian tribes’” (Yale National Initiative). This evidence demonstrates that the actual Indian Removal Act …show more content…

However, this claim is false because forced Indian Removal led to increased and continued violence and disputes between natives and the U.S.. NA were never free of state or federal power, which were originally supposed to treat tribes as nations. The Native Americans were later relocated a second time with the Dawes Act of 1887, and, with the help of the Indian Appropriation Act, these actions caused by Indian Removal effectively dissolved the tribes of North America’s indigenous people. The Georgia Encyclopedia states, “The years between the cessation of the First Seminole War and the commencement of the Second Seminole War were not peaceful along the Georgia-Florida frontier. American attempts to relocate Seminole men and women were met with resistance, and warriors began buying ammunition in large quantities in October 1834. In December 1835 small-scale skirmishes again exploded into war” (www.georgiaencyclopedia.org). This text goes to prove that forced relocation led to even more violence and war. These events led to losses on both the U.S.’s and the Native American’s sides. Additional evidence from pbs.org states that, “For the next 28 years [after the Indian Removal Act was signed], the United States government struggled to force relocation of the

Open Document