More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of President Jackson in Indian removal
Social relevance of lynching
Role of President Jackson in Indian removal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of President Jackson in Indian removal
“Hellhounds” in the Trouble in Mind by Leon Litwack: In this reading the author graphically describes lynching as punishment and deterrence for “high-falutin’” blacks. In page 292, distinctions were drawn between a “good” and “bad” lynching – depending on who executed the sentence and the atmosphere of the punishment. “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native” by Patrick Wolfe In this reading the author argues that genocide and the elimination of the American Native population through colonial settlement are inextricably linked, though are not always the same. Also,during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, Indian tribes located in the Southeast United States were forcibly removed from their homes and ordered to relocate to the
Interestingly, the book does not focus solely on the Georgia lynching, but delves into the actual study of the word lynching which was coined by legendary judge Charles B Lynch of Virginia to indicate extra-legal justice meted out to those in the frontier where the rule of law was largely absent. In fact, Wexler continues to analyse how the term lynching began to be used to describe mob violence in the 19th century, when the victim was deemed to have been guilty before being tried by due process in a court of law.
Wexler, Laura. 2003. Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in America. Scribner; 2004. Print
Zimring first examines the relationship between past lynchings and modern executions. At the regional level he shows past lynchings were most concentrated in the western and southern regions that currently execute the most people. Zimring then explores if this link holds at the state level. He shows that it does, modern executions are highly concentrated in states with histories of high lynching rates and states with historically low levels of lynchings had lower levels of modern executions.
The tragedy of the Cherokee nation has haunted the legacy of Andrew Jackson"'"s Presidency. The events that transpired after the implementation of his Indian policy are indeed heinous and continually pose questions of morality for all generations. Ancient Native American tribes were forced from their ancestral homes in an effort to increase the aggressive expansion of white settlers during the early years of the United States. The most notable removal came after the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Cherokee, whose journey was known as the '"'Trail of Tears'"', and the four other civilized tribes, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, were forced to emigrate to lands west of the Mississippi River, to what is now day Oklahoma, against their will. During the journey westward, over 60,000 Indians were forced from their homelands. Approximately 4000 Cherokee Indians perished during the journey due to famine, disease, and negligence. The Cherokees to traveled a vast distance under force during the arduous winter of 1838-1839.# This is one of the saddest events in American history, yet we must not forget this tragedy.
Unfortunately, this great relationship that was built between the natives and the colonists of mutual respect and gain was coming to a screeching halt. In the start of the 1830s, the United States government began to realize it’s newfound strength and stability. It was decided that the nation had new and growing needs and aspirations, one of these being the idea of “Manifest Destiny”. Its continuous growth in population began to require much more resources and ultimately, land. The government started off as simply bargaining and persuading the Indian tribes to push west from their homeland. The Indians began to disagree and peacefully object and fight back. The United States government then felt they had no other option but to use force. In Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson on May 18, 1830. This ultimately resulted in the relocation of the Eastern tribes out west, even as far as to the edge of the Great Plains. A copy of this act is laid out for you in the book, Th...
American Indians shaped their critique of modern America through their exposure to and experience with “civilized,” non-Indian American people. Because these Euro-Americans considered traditional Indian lifestyle savage, they sought to assimilate the Indians into their civilized culture. With the increase in industrialization, transportation systems, and the desire for valuable resources (such as coal, gold, etc.) on Indian-occupied land, modern Americans had an excuse for “the advancement of the human race” (9). Euro-Americans moved Indians onto reservations, controlled their education and practice of religion, depleted their land, and erased many of their freedoms. The national result of this “conquest of Indian communities” was a steady decrease of Indian populations and drastic increase in non-Indian populations during the nineteenth century (9). It is natural that many American Indians felt fearful that their culture and people were slowly vanishing. Modern America to American Indians meant the destruction of their cultural pride and demise of their way of life.
However, creating a scale of genocides like this with the Holocaust at the top undermines the severity of all other genocides. Some historians have used the term “America’s Holocaust” for the Native American Genocide, but this indirectly invalidates it by inferring that it has to be comparable to the Holocaust to be a legitimate genocide. By considering it the Holocaust of America, it disregards the differences between the two genocides and indirectly erases the Native American Genocide from history. Although equivalent in magnitude and destruction, characterizing the Native American Genocide as “America’s Holocaust” is historically inaccurate and disrespectful.
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 Native 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 the 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 the American settlers wanted Indian land for many reasons. These reasons include geography and terrain, location, resources, and old grudges. First, the geography was perfect for farmers with fertile land.
Wells, Ida B. Southern Horrors. Lynch Law in All Its Phase. New York: New York Age Print, 1892. Print. 6.
In the colonization of Turtle Island (North America), the United States government policy set out to eliminate the Indigenous populations; in essence to “destroy all things Indian”.2 Indigenous Nations were to relocate to unknown lands and forced into an assimilation of the white man 's view of the world. The early American settlers were detrimental, and their process became exterminatory.3 Colonization exemplified by violent confrontations, deliberate massacres, and in some cases, total annihilations of a People.4 The culture of conquest was developed and practiced by Europeans well before they landed on Turtle Island and was perfected well before the fifteenth century.5 Taking land and imposing values and ways of life on the social landscape
During the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson developed the Indian Removal Act, which forced all natives living in the US to be displaced to Oklahoma. Before this act, the natives lived on territory that land-hungry southerners desired. Eager to please his supporters, Jackson decided that the natives needed to be moved, regardless of their rights. Even though this was damaging to the natives, Jackson believed that he was giving them a fair choice: submit to state laws or move. The reasoning behind Andrew Jackson’s decision clearly shows his superior and condescending attitude toward the Indians and their lifestyle.
Southern Horror s: Lynch Law in All Its Phases by Ida B. Wells took me on a journey through our nations violent past. This book voices how strong the practice of lynching is sewn into the fabric of America and expresses the elevated severity of this issue; she also includes pages of graphic stories detailing lynching in the South. Wells examined the many cases of lynching based on “rape of white women” and concluded that rape was just an excuse to shadow white’s real reasons for this type of execution. It was black’s economic progress that threatened white’s ideas about black inferiority. In the South Reconstruction laws often conflicted with real Southern racism. Before I give it to you straight, let me take you on a journey through Ida’s
... middle of paper ... ... This reveals the sense of cultural genocide committed by the U.S. government and it’s military as an avenue for separating American Indians from their original land. The implementation of the Indian Removal policy aimed at clearing land for the white settlers, it was more than a forced assault on Indians with no primary consideration of the rights they held in their title deeds.
Native American’s place in United States history is not as simple as the story of innocent peace loving people forced off their lands by racist white Americans in a never-ending quest to quench their thirst for more land. Accordingly, attempts to simplify the indigenous experience to nothing more than victims of white aggression during the colonial period, and beyond, does an injustice to Native American history. As a result, historians hoping to shed light on the true history of native people during this period have brought new perceptive to the role Indians played in their own history. Consequently, the theme of power and whom controlled it over the course of Native American/European contact is being presented in new ways. Examining the evolving
In this paper, I will argue that the act of genocide as here defined, has been committed by the United States of America, upon the tribes and cultures of Native Americans, through mass indoctrination of its youths. Primary support will be drawn from Jorge Noriega's work, "American Indian Education in the United States." The paper will then culminate with my personal views on the subject, with ideas of if and how the United States might make reparations to its victims.