Andrew Jackson's Utilitarian Ethics and Indian Removal Act

1091 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Andrew Jackson's policy essay

During 1829 to 1838, otherwise known as the Jacksonian Era, Andrew Jackson leaded the country with his revolutionary presidency. Jackson gained the support of many Americans by his way of persuading others, while also occasionally attempting to please the people. He was capable of establishing the Indian Removal Act by leading Americans to believe his words, while taking their concerns. Based on the support provided, we can conclude Andrew Jackson’s implementation of the Indian Removal Act in 1830 demonstrates a teleological, utilitarianism ethic. Even though Jackson’s actions may be unethical, they can be justified with this mindset.
Serving as the seventh President of the United States, Andrew Jackson was deemed as the perfect, typical …show more content…

When Jackson pondered what decision was considered right or wrong, he thought about the effects and what would happen. One of the reason he decided it was better for a bigger group of people was because the Indian Removal Act provided protection from the angry, white citizens. Jackson enforced the Indian Removal Act as means of a paternalistic view. Jackson viewed the Indians as young children who need direction and management. Sadly, some Americans perceived this to excuse their indescribable disrespect towards the natives. “Throughout 1836 and into 1837, whites robbed and beat Cherokees almost every day.”(Dwyer year, 36). Because of most Americans view on the impossibility to manifest the whole continent, when a chance surfaced, their mindset would not be altered. Therefore, the removal of Indians would keep them from the destructions of whites. Jackson and his supporters wanted western land and settlement, therefore they would do whatever it meant to get it. Another thing Jackson realized when given all the options on the Indians was his own reputation and thoughts. Andrew Jackson’s ideas about the Indians established from his life on the frontier, his expansionist visions, his commitment to states ' rights, and his intense nationalism. Jackson wanted to please the citizens, especially after gaining their support and winning the election by a landslide popular vote win. Even if this act sent the natives from their homes and from hundreds of years of tradition and generations, Jackson held his allegiance to the American people. Nearly 60,000 Native Americans were involuntary migrated and although that is an enormous number to represent people, that was not near of the United States citizen population of close to 13,000,000. Another reason Jackson may have put the act into place was The Indians would not fit into white society

Show More
Related

  • The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians by Anthony F.C. Wallace

    847 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson And The Search For Vindication Summary

    420 Words  | 1 Pages

    As the author of Andrew Jackson and the Search for Vindication, James C. Curtis seems to greatly admire Andrew Jackson. Curtis pointed out that Jackson was a great American general who was well liked by the people. As history shows, Andrew Jackson had his flaws; for example, he thought the National Bank of the United States was going to kill him but he was determined to kill it first. He resented the Bank because he thought it was the reason for the Panic of 1819. Andrew Jackson was elected to the presidency in 1824 after first being nominated in 1822. He was sixty-one when he was elected the seventh president of the United States.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal 1980 DBQ

    1271 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson Cruel

    341 Words  | 1 Pages

    Andrew Jackson was the 7th president of the United States and represented the common people. He did many things that he believed helped the people of the United States, but in fact were unconstitutional. In my opinion Andrew Jackson acted like a king. Some of the damaging events of his presidency include the bank war, the trail of tears and the nullification crisis.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson A Good Or Bad President Essay

    768 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andrew Jackson was elected by popular vote and became the seventh president of the United States in March 4, 1829.[1] In his presidency, I have known and perceived that he has done few of great actions. But in my opinion, I would not claim that he was either a good or bad president because I learned about his attainments in life, being a president, a fighter in wars, etc.; however, I have also learned some of his unimpressive performance that led to some people who did not find it convenient.

    Read More

  • DBQ on Jackson and the Indian Removal

    1646 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Native American Perspective on Indian Removal Act

    800 Words  | 2 Pages

    The removal of the Native Americans was an egocentric move on Jackson’s part. Jackson was only able to see how our removal would benefit the government but was not concerned at all about our values and culture. “It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Indians” (91). This statement, included in the State of the Union Address, exhibits how Jackson was quick to place blame on the Indians. He was basically saying that if there were any disputes between the general and state governments, it would be because of the Indian’s choice to not leave the land. Jackson was attempting to hold the Indians accountable for a matter that they had no say in. It is evident that Jackson could have are less about the Indian’s home land, where we were birthed and raised our kids. It is clear that the sentimental value of the land did not concern Jackson at all. Jackson felt that he offered us an equitable exchange, but his family was not the one being forcefully removed from their birthland to go to an unfamiliar land. “What good m...

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson: A Man of Contradition

    2209 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...s a great president in his time. He spoke out for the American people and changed U.S. History forever. Not all of his actions were what would be considered moral today, and some were questionable even during his time. Yet, he acted as no other president had done so and wanted to have a government without corruption for the people. Andrew Jackson was born out of hardship and war, but he went on to achieve greatness.

    Read More

  • Indian Removal (Zinn Chapter 7)

    794 Words  | 2 Pages

    Then General, later to become President, Jackson began the later Indian Removal movement when he conquered Tecumseh’s allied Indian nation and began distributing their lands (of which he invested heavily in). Jackson became the leader of the distribution of Indian lands and distributed them in unequal ways. In 1828 when Jackson was running for President his platform was based upon Indian Removal, a popular issue which was working its way through Congress in the form of a Bill. Jackson won a sweeping victory and began to formulate his strategies which he would use in an "Indian Removal campaign". In 1829, upon seeing that his beloved Bill was not being enforced Jackson began dealing with the Indian tribes and offering them "untouchable" tracts of lands west of the Mississippi River if they would only cede their lands to the US and move themselves there. Jackson was a large fan of states rights-ism, hence he vetoed the charter for ...

    Read More

  • Conflict Between Andrew Jackson And The Cherokee

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    To own land, that is the privilege of whom? To Andrew Jackson the Cherokees current homesteads where on his country’s land. For whatever reason at that time some people living in America weren’t treated as good as there white counterparts. Meanwhile the Cherokees principal chief John Ross felt like that land belonged to his people. If you want to get technical he was speaking on the behalf of a tribe that made up a mere one-eighth of his ancestry. Not exactly a full blooded leader. He also was one of the main reason the “trail of tears” was as hostile and brutal as it was on his people. Its ironic, even as hard as Jackson pushed and deceived the Cherokee, the Cherokee people in turn pushed back, but past the point of being rational.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson Essay

    751 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.”

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Andrew Jackson

    820 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress in order to allow the growth of the United States to continue without the interference of the Native Americans. Jackson believed that the Native Americans were inferior to white settlers and wanted to force them west of the Mississippi. He believed that the United States would not expand past that boundary, so the Native Americans could govern themselves. Jackson evicted thousands of Native Americans from their homes in Georgia and the Carolinas and even disregarded the Supreme Court’s authority and initiated his plan of forcing the Natives’ on the trail of tears. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Indians, however Jackson ignored the ruling and continued with his plan. The result of the Indian Removal Act was that many tribes were tricked or forced off their lands, if they refused to go willingly, resulting in many deaths from skirmishes with soldiers as well as from starvation and disease. The Cherokee in particular were forced to undergo a forced march that became known as the Trail of

    Read More

  • The Legacy Of Andrew Jackson

    1363 Words  | 3 Pages

    Andrew Jackson is one of the most controversial presidents. Many regard him as a war hero, the father of the Democratic Party, an inspiring leader, and a spokesman for the common man. While there is plenty to praise about the seventh president, his legacy is tarnished by his racism, disregard for the law of the land, cruelty towards the Native Americans, and ruthless temper. Jackson was an intriguing man who was multi-faceted. One must not look at a singular dimension, and cast judgment on him as a whole. To accurately evaluate one of the most complex presidents, it is crucial to observe Jackson from all possible angles. Prior lifestyle, hardships in life, political ideology, lifestyle of the time, political developments, and his character

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson Document Based Question

    1140 Words  | 3 Pages

    During The Jacksonian Era many different views and ideas were predominant about the United States. The Jacksonian Democrats were a loose coalition of different peoples and interests pulled together by a common practical idea. That idea was that they all were followers of President Andrew Jackson. Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as guardians of the Constitution when in fact they were not. When dealing with politics and ideas within the Democratic Party of the time the Jacksonians proved to be both guardians and violators of the Constitution. Individual liberty is another area in which the Jacksonians were advocates to different sides of the topic at different times. The Jacksonians also proved to be champions for equality of economic opportunity. The Jacksonians demonstrated themselves to be, not the proponents they thought they were, but instead violators of the US Constitution.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson: The People's King

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... one of the stipulations and had to be settled. The removal of the Natives in an effort to protect the American people on the frontier proceeded, and was all the region of present-day Oklahoma, as shown in document L. These actions are viewed as cruel and unjust, but it was the way that would’ve dealt the least damage. Further delaying the issue would’ve soon set into altercations between the various Native tribes and the United States of America. In retrospect, Jackson served to protect the people.

    Read More

More about Andrew Jackson's Utilitarian Ethics and Indian Removal Act

Open Document