In the book titled “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, Zinn points out and compares the different type of treatment that black and Indians were receiving from presidents Jackson, Jefferson, and Madison. To begin with Thomas Jefferson was a huge supporter of slavery. He believed that slavery was part of survival and was something that the American nation needed. In Chapter 4 titled “Tyranny is Tyranny” Howard Zinn emphasizes that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves until the day he passed away. Jefferson supported the idea of equality but when it came to the concept of slavery, he saw the black population as less and unequal. In fact the black population did not agree with the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and a black man named …show more content…
In this letter Banneker expresses to Jefferson that blacks as well as other racial groups are also human and points out the struggle that Blacks have faced throughout history like being unequally treated and being used for slavery. On the other hand Jefferson supported and defended the Native Americans when the white settlers wanted to take over their lands. Later when Jefferson became president, he doubled the size of the land when he decided to purchase the Louisiana territory from the French. In Chapter 7 titled “As long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” Howard Zinn emphasizes the poor treatment that presidents Madison and Jackson were giving to the Native Americans. Madison and Jackson main objective was to remove as many Native Americans from the lands. That way leading to having more power and more territory. After Jackson and Madison presidency terms were over The Indian Removal act was approved by the congress as part of the Jackson
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.
Under the Jackson Administration, the changes made shaped national Indian policy. Morally, Andrew Jackson dismissed prior ideas that natives would gradually assimilate into white culture, and believed that removing Indians from their homes was the best answer for both the natives and Americans. Politically, before Jackson treaties were in place that protected natives until he changed those policies, and broke those treaties, violating the United States Constitution. Under Jackson’s changes, the United States effectively gained an enormous amount of land. The removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s changed the national policy in place when Jackson became President as evidenced by the moral, political, constitutional, and practical concerns of the National Indian Policy.
Initiated by the colonist’s want to further expand their colonies, their land, and their prosperity, many colonists voiced their want for Indian removal. After many proposals by various American leaders, and crucially Thomas Jefferson’s push (Garrison 13), Andrew Jackson’s presidency would be what finalized and enforced the Indian Removal Act. Jackson claimed he had listened to the people, and that his rationale for the removal was in favor of the Indian and
Jacksonian Democracy Between the years of 1775 and 1825, the United States government was hypocritical with respect to their Native American policy. The government, at most times, claimed to be acting in the best interest of the Native Americans. They claimed that their actions were for the benefit of not only their own citizens, but for the Native Americans, too. These beneficial actions included relocation from their homeland, murder in great numbers, rape, and a complete disregard for the various cultures represented by the Native Americans. While the nation was still very young, it issued the Northwest Ordinance. This document told the Native Americans that they should not feel threatened by this new nation because good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians. The United States told the Native Americans, with this document, that they were dealing with a just and humane country. Despite these humane intentions, in 1790, Native Americans pleaded with President Washington about the cruel treatment they were receiving. The Indian chiefs wrote to Washington to inquire as to why they were being punished. They referred to the American army as the town destroyer. Obviously the Untied States was not acting in the good hearted manner and just way it had declared it would in 1787. Americans, as they moved westward, tried to rationalize its brutal treatment of the Native Americans. In 1803, Jefferson set two goals in regard to dealing with the Native Americans. His first goal was to convince them to abandon hunting and become educated in the ways of the white man (i.e. agriculture or raising stock). He said that they would see the advantages of this better life. In reality, Jackson wanted to control the amount of land the Native Americans occupied. He also spoke of leading them to civilization and to the benefits of the United States government. Jefferson presented these goals as being advantageous for them. In actuality, these goals put the Native Americans at a sizable disadvantage. In 1811, an Indian chief
When we look back into history, we are now able to fully comprehend the atrocities the Indians faced at the hands of the historic general and President, Andrew Jackson. It can be seen as one of the most shameful and unjust series of political actions taken by an American government. However, as an American living almost 200 years later, it is crucial to look at the motives possessed by Andrew Jackson, and ask whether he fully comprehended the repercussions of his actions or if is was simply ignorant to what he was subjection the natives to. We must also consider weather he truly had the countries best interest in mind, or his own.
...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.
Perhaps the worst aspect of Jackson 's administration was his removal and treatment of the natives. Specifically, Andrew Jackson forced the resettlement of several native american tribes against the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Indian Removal Act drove thousands of natives off their tribal lands and forced them west to new reservations. Then again, there are those who defend Jackson 's decision stating that Indian removal was necessary for the advancement of the United States. However, the cost and way of removing the natives was brutal and cruel. The opposition fails to recognize the fact that Jackson’s removal act had promised the natives payment, food, and protection for their cooperation but Jackson fails to deliver any of these promises. Furthermore, in “Indian removal,” an article from the Public-Broadcasting Service, a description of the removal of the Cherokee nation is given. The article analyses the effect of the Indian Removal Act, which was approved by Jackson, on various native tribes. “The Cherokee, on the other hand, were tricked with an illegitimate treaty. In 1833, a small faction agreed to sign a removal agreement: the Treaty of New Echota. The leaders of this group were not the recognized leaders of the Cherokee nation, and over 15,000 Cherokees -- led by Chief John Ross -- signed a petition in protest. The Supreme Court ignored their demands and ratified the treaty in 1836. The Cherokee were given two years to migrate voluntarily, at the end of which time they would be forcibly removed. By 1838 only 2,000 had migrated; 16,000 remained on their land. The U.S. government sent in 7,000 troops, who forced the Cherokees into stockades at bayonet point. They were not allowed time to gather their belongings, and as they left, whites looted their homes. Then began the march known as the Trail of Tears, in which 4,000 Cherokee
In 1830, the President of the United States Andrew Jackson issued an order for the removal of the Native Americans, which passed through both houses of Congress. “When Andrew Jackson became president (1829–1837), he decided to build a systematic approach to Indian removal on the basis of these legal precedents.” (William. Pg 5). It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. “Thomas Jefferson was the original instigator of the idea of removing a...
...The Indian Removal Act was all a part of Jackson’s expansion process, and he would stop at nothing until America made the most of its land.
The Indian Removal Act in the short term shaped the Natives culture and society very notably. The Indian Removal Act caused the destruction of Native American tribes, and lead to a loss of tradition and culture. However, it did allow for the Americans to gain the land needed to build their growing country and meet their economic desires. Desires that President Andrew Jackson had pushed for at Congress in his first inaugural speech, and had made an important policy for his presidency, as he viewed the results as beneficial, to “not only the states immediately concerned, but to the harmony of the union”. The harmony of the union was perceived to be gained at the loss of Native culture, as Jackson represented himself as the man of the people,
Andrew Jackson never considered Native Americans as citizens, even when they indicated their rights. In Jackson’s message to Congress, he was misleading in saying that the Native Americans were leaving because of “persuasion” and that the “ . . . emigration should be voluntary”(Document 8). The Native Americans were forcibly moved from their homelands and traveled great distances to reach their new shared territory in Oklahoma. Jackson continued the removal of Natives favoring with the white people’s cry for more land to plant cotton. Jackson benefited by removing the Indians to please the common farmers making him more popular and well liked. Cherokee’s wished to stay on their homelands with “a perfect and original right to remain . . .” (Document 9). Native Americans wanted rights like white men, even some of them grew accustomed to Americans ways of civilization such as farming and owning slaves. Moving to the west would be an unknown territory to them that supplies little necessities like food and water. Each tribe did not want to decrease their population due to the lack of food and water, or even lose their sacred cultures and languages. Native Americans wished to stay...
Despite Jefferson’s vocal opposition of slavery, he still owned hundreds of slaves and profited immensely off of the institution of slavery and Banneker articulated that inherent hypocrisy in his letter. Jefferson supported gradual emancipation, and while that was a step in the right direction, it did not make any kind of significant improvement in the lives of those who were continuing to suffer under slavery. He wanted to “improve” some of the more violent aspects of slavery by reducing physical punishments and improving quality of life, but even then human beings are still being treated as property. Although he was anti-slavery, he still believed that black people were inferior and Banneker used religion as part of his persuasion: “It is the indispensable duty of those who maintain for themselves the rights of human nature, and who profess the obligations of Christianity, to extend their powers and influence to the relief of every part of the human race, from whatever burden or oppression they may unjustly labor under” (Page
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan. First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands. In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...
In 1830, President Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act. This let him negotiate with the Native Americans for their lands. Although the si...
To understand Jackson’s book and why it was written, however, one must first fully comprehend the context of the time period it was published in and understand what was being done to and about Native Americans in the 19th century. From the Native American point of view, the frontier, which settlers viewed as an economic opportunity, was nothin...