More handpicked essays just for you.
Lack of protection for the Indians during the Indian removal act
What was the impact on native americans about the indian removal
Arguments for the indian removal act topics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
First, Andrew Jackson viewed the Indians as inferior to white men because of their different culture and beliefs. While giving a speech to Congress, he boldly explains how the Indians, “under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, [could] cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community”. All of the changes he wants to make to the Indians are to make them more similar to the common white man. He believes that their current culture is below his own and wants to change them. Because they have different beliefs, he calls them savages, which
…show more content…
In his mind, “they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests to submitting to the laws of the States in which they now reside.” Not only is this condescending because of the implication that the U.S. government should have complete control over the Indians, who are not even citizens, but it also shows how Jackson believed the U.S. to be superior because he believed they should have that power over the Indians. Both of these options given benefit the United States, not the Indians. They can either be forced out of their home in order to maintain some rights or be oppressed by the United States’
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.
Hunt Jackson was one of the very few whites to sympathize with the mistreatment of the indians. felt strongly had very contrasting approach. Stated in the excerpt, “... among these three hundred bands of indians one which has not suffered cruelly at the hands either of the government or of white settlers.” Simply put, the lives of all indians had been affected due to the lies and broken promises made by the government. In order for the lives of Indians to change, cheating, robbing, and breaking promises must cease. Hunt Jackson differentes the argument compared to Chief Jackson when it comes to the prescription of what needs to happen to the Indians. It was supported that not all Indians at the same time should be given freedom. Owing to the fact that almost all Indians were a “barrier to civilization”, for Western civilization was unknown as a daily practice. In addition, there is much distrust that can be viewed and sights of possible danger toward the whites. All in all, Chief Joseph and Helen Hunt Jackson shared common beliefs toward the fact that Indians deserve equal treatment, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, while Helen hunt Jackson opposes the idea of full citizenship to all indians, Chief Joseph finds it a necessity to be at peace and
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.
And that in itself is deserving of merit. The book also has its flaws. From my perspective, Remini could have incorporated primary sources from chieftains, as well as Indian administrators, within the text to give the added opposing perspective of Jackson. Albeit, Remini incorporates quotes from Chieftains, many come from secondary sources (e.g., General Coffee or John Eaton’s accounts of correspondences with Indians). Although Remini claims not to be exonerating Jackson, he makes the case that Jackson did what he thought was the only realistic measure to saves the Indians of the southeast and western frontier from “annihilation” (244). From Jackson’s perspective, he believed he had done the Indians a “great service” (246). History would prove the inverse to be
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.
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...
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
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...
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...
One reason why Andrew Jackson was not democratic was because of his mistreatment of the Native American. Today, the population of Native Americans are significantly less than when Jackson served as the leader of the free world. From the early 1830’s until 1840, Jackson forced 5 separate Indian tribes onto a small piece of land (Doc L). A likely reason for this sudden move
The Cherokee Indians, the most cooperative and accommodating to the political institutions of the united states, suffered the worst fate of all Native Americans when voluntarily or forcibly moved west. In 1827 the Cherokees attempted to claim themselves as an independent nation within the state of Georgia. When the legislature of the state extended jurisdiction over this ‘nation,’ the Cherokees sought legal actions, not subject to Georgia laws and petitioned the United States Supreme Court. The case became known as Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia in 1831. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall denied their claim as a republic within Georgia, he then deemed the Cherokee as a ‘domestic dependent nation’. One year later through the case of Worcester vs. Georgia, the Cherokee’s were granted federal protection from the molestation by the state of Georgia. Through the Indian Removal act in 1830 President Andrew Jackson appropriated planning and funding for the removal of Native Americans, Marshall’s rulings delayed this for the Cherokee Nation, and infuriated President Jackson. Marshall’s decision had little effect on Jackson and ignoring this action the president was anxious to see him enforce it.
...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 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.”
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...