More handpicked essays just for you.
Jacksonian era led to indian removal essay
Essay andrew jackson and indian removal act
Introduction on the indian removal act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Jacksonian era led to indian removal essay
The purpose of Andrew Jacksons message to Congress “ On Indian Removal” was to convince Congress that he was saving the Indians, while making the land more available for Americans in Mississippi and Alabama. In contrast, “Samuels Memory” is a personal description of the personal experience of the Indians who were moved to another area from their homes. Andrew Jackson used euphemisms throughout his message to describe the relocation of the Indians. For example, he said that the Indians would be able to peruse happiness in their own way. It is obvious of his real intentions when he stated that the relocation was “to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, and civilized, Christian community.” It’s obvious he had the interest
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.
Andrew Jackson believed that the only way to save the Natives from extinction was to remove them from their current homes and push them across the Mississippi River. “And when removal was accomplished he felt he had done the American people a great service. He felt he had followed the ‘dictates of humanity’ and saved the Indi...
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of America who had a very unique time in office. Jackson advertised as being for the people of the United States but then his actions proved otherwise at later times. While Jackson did things for the people, he was as much of an autocrat as he was a democrat based upon the documents that were formed during his time in office.
Andrew Jackson was a man that people see that he is a good person and others say he is a terrible person. Andrew Jackson can be bad person and a good person it depends what type of person is Andrew Jackson is he going to help out the world or is he going to mess up the world? Democracy is a form of government were the people have a right to assist in the law making process. If Jackson didn’t support the people and wasn’t in the government the bank and the people would be in a huge mess. Andrew Jackson was very democratic and there are political , economic and geographic ways to prove it.
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...
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...
These advocates expected the Native Americans to leave their lands voluntarily. With the promise for land west of the Mississippi there would be no limits to the tribe’s choice of government, assistance, relocation and protection. Jefferson believed that the Indians’ failures were theirs to own and they needed to depend on themselves alone to become numerous and great people. He encouraged them to take the new land and cultivate it, build a home, and leave it to his children. He was failing to tell them that they really didn’t have much of a choice. Boudinot determined that many of the Cherokee people would leave their land if the true state of their condition was made known to them. They were left with only two real alternatives, one to live under the white man’s law or to be forcibly removed to another country. However some American’s worried about the future of the Native Americans. John Ross’s letter to president Jackson believed it was the white man’s duty to relieve the Indians from their suffering. This could only be accomplished by allowing the Native Americans to obtain their land in Georgia under the rights and privileges as free men. Nevertheless no great lands good for farming would be given to the Native Americans and Jackson would sign the Indian removal act. This act would allow the government to exchange fertile land for land in the west, where they would forcibly relocate the Indian
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
“It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.” (Jackson).
Thousands of Indians were forced out of their own homes to find new land to live on. “Of some 11,500 Cherokees moved in 1838, about 4,000 died along the way.” “That any person or persons, whatsoever, who shall chose to emigrate to the Arkansas country and shall sell the improvements he or they shall be in possession of.” Everything that the Indians owned was either taken away or sold. Many people thought that the Indians were treated unfairly. He believed that the colonists and the Indians could not live together, peacefully. To many people this was not a good decision Andrew Jackson could have made. This action can help support the opinion of him being a bad president.
Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, impacting the lives of the Indians. This was supposed to be a peaceful move for the Indians, but has caused many problems, including wars and being forced off their land with consequences. There were protests from both the Indians and whites who did not agree with the Indian Removal Act, but whites wanted more land. The Indian Removal act of 1830 is a turning point in American history because Andrew Jackson was firm on wanting the Indians to move, the event was harsh, and the long-term effects impact us still today.
With all other justifications aside, the people acted as though they were doing what is right by removing the Indians but in reality they had ulterior motives of gaining geographic, and political, wealth and power. The North American lands that the Natives inhabited was extremely valuable in some areas, and since the American population was growing it was an opportunity for the population to expand further and their strength to be in numbers. The wealth of the land is represented through the accounts of Elias Boudinot when he states, “…there are 22,000 cattle; 7,600 horses; 46,000 swine; 2,500 sheep; 762 looms; 2,488 spinning wheels; 172 waggons; 2,943 ploughs” (p 121). This value enticed Americans to further drive the Indians west to take the land and the wealth for their own. After they drove the Natives off this land, they sent them to “a few acres of badly cultivated corn, instead of extensive fields, rich pastures…” (Crawford, p 117). Therefore, it is clear that a driving force for the removal policy was the want for the land they inhabited. Furthermore, on a more political level the land meant the American population could grow without the interference from the growing Native American population. Andrew Jackson supports this with the statement that, “It will relieve the whole State…of
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.
President Andrew Jackson wanted the white settlers from the south to expand owning land from Five Indian tribes, which was called Indian Removal Policy (McNamara). The Five Indian tribes that were affected were Choctaws, Muskogee, Chickasaws, Cherokees, and the Seminoles. In the 1830, the Removal Act went into effect. The Removal Act gave President Andrew Jackson the power to remove Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi river by a negotiate removal treaties (James). The treaties, made the Indians give up their land for exchange of land in the west (James). There were a few tribes that agreed to sign the treaties. The others that did not sign the treaty were forced into leaving their land, this was known as the Trail of Tears.
...interest of his people. However, Andrew Jackson did not see the native tribes as sovereign nations. Would this not mean they were subjects of the United States, making them part of Jackson's "people"? Unfortunately for the Indians, :"his people" seemed to be more the white, voting individual inhabiting the country. Since the natives did not have any kind of market appeal, Jackson saw no apparent need to have them occupy the area. The expansion or land, wealth and power of the white settler was a much larger priority to the president than the rights of a few "savages". However, Jackson undeniably made the point in his early years in office that he felt sympathy for the Indian nations. At what point does Jackson cease advocating for "preserving this much injured race" and shift to the relentless white expansionist looking to expel every Indian out of the country?