More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of the transcontinental railroad
Transcontinental railroad impact on US
Treaty of fort laramie apush
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of the transcontinental railroad
his map from document 1 shows the amount of land taken from the Native Americans. As you can see the pink area, the land that was taken from 1850-1870, is the biggest. This time period was also when the transcontinental railroad was being built. And part of the agreement when the transcontinental railroad was being built, was that all agreements with Native Americans are void. Meaning most of the land taken was during the biggest part of the westward march of the United States, the transcontinental railroad. Even the land we gave them is not safe. Document 3 tells us about the Treaty of Fort Laramie. In 1868 the United States signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie, giving a large portion of land to Native Americans, no U.S. presence allowed. However,
“The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s was [less] a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790’s [and more] a change in that policy.”
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...
...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.
During the early to mid eighteen hundreds, there was great unrest across the country over territorial expansion. Half of the nation believed that it would be beneficial to the country if we expanded, while the other half were firmly opposed to expansion. Within the century, the United States managed to claim Texas, California, and the majority of Indian-owned lands. Opinions on this expansion were mixed around the country. Polls taken during the time period show that the majority of the south and west supported expansion, while northerns were opposed to it. (Document B) This was because the northerners had different values and beliefs than the southerners of westerners. Both the opponents and supporters of territorial expansion during the time period between 1800 and 1855, had a tremendous influence on shaping federal government policy. However, it can be argued that the supporters of territorial expansion had the largest impact. They were able to sway the federal government to create policies and new laws that were in favor of supporter’s beliefs.
The years 1840 to 1890 were a period of great growth for the United States. It was during this time period that the United states came to the conclusion that it had a manifest destiny, that is, it was commanded by god to someday occupy the entire North American continent. One of the most ardent followers of this belief was President James K. Polk. He felt that the United States had the right to whatever amount of territory it chose to, and in doing this the United States was actually doing a favor for the land it seized, by introducing it to the highly advanced culture and way of life of Americans. Shortly after his election he annexed Texas. This added a great amount of land to the United States, but more was to follow. The Oregon Territory became a part of the United States is 1846, followed by the Mexican Cession in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. At this point the United States had accomplished its manifest destiny, it reached from east to west, from sea to shining sea. Now that the lands it so desired were finally there, the United States faced a new problem- how to get its people to settle these lands so they would actually be worth having. Realistically, it is great to have a lot of land, but if the land is unpopulated and undeveloped, it really isn't worth much. And the government of the United States knew this. One of the reasons that many did not choose to settle there immediately was that the lands were quite simply in the middle of nowhere. They were surrounded by mountains, inhabited by hostile Indians, and poor for farming. Because of these geographical conditions, the government was forced to intervene to coax its citizens into settling the new lands. Basically the lands were not settled because they were available, they were settled because of various schemes the government concocted to make them seem desirable.
This piece is a primary source written directly to the American leader to effectively question social authority over people and physical land. Tecumseh is a Shawnee Native leader who strives to get attention of the newly appointed governor of the former Indian territory to appeal to him that the land does not belong to anyone. He appeals to Governor Harrison by using Christianity as basis for his argument. He claims that the beliefs of the Americans promotes terror and destruction arguing that Christianity is the wrong argument for taking over what once was shared by the Native American community. Since the revolution, the United States yearned to establish a strong military presence to claim power and territory for itself. We see in the Monroe doctrine that removing European influence from Latin America enables the U.S. to claim all the resources that are essential for development. These were the same resources that were abundant in the West, which encouraged Jefferson to design a team to identify more about it to later seize control. Tecumseh makes a logical argument for the future of the native tribes by proposing his own plans.He does not tolerate the violent and bloody way that the whites of the country employ to take control of false identified property. It is Tecumseh’s best decision to write this speech because the destruction and collapse to the native people is an inevitable future, that Tecumseh sees
From 1800 to 1850, there was an increased interest in territorial expansion in the United States. During this time the United States found itself in a position to acquire more land, starting with the Louisiana Purchase all the way to the Mexican Cession. Upon reviewing the documents, it became clear that documents A, I, and H, were against the expansion the the United States while the rest documents were mostly for the expansion of the United States. However, each of the documents were conveying different views from various people spread out over the span of 50 years. Numerous amounts of debates emerged arguing if the United States should obtain the new land, and people’s thoughts on the matter were influenced by the different wars and activist groups, and
I will never disregard September 13, 1759. Do you desire to know why? It happened to be the day I died. But let's rewind a little bit, to the moment I developed the intention of attacking Quebec. Now you might be questioning, why did I aspire to attack Quebec? Well, I was alive throughout the French and Indian war. If I attacked and captured Quebec, I would receive a significant victory and a prominent possibility of dominating North America. I could have a reliable outcome of winning the whole war if all proceeded according to my plan! However, as most things are, that attack did not go as intended. My men concluded that Quebec was remarkably troublesome to attack for physical reasons. The reasons being difficult terrain and rivers surrounding
Other tribal members criticized the treaty and claimed that it was entered under pressure and that those Indians who signed it did so without proper authorization from all concerned. The United States motives behind the Treaty of Fort Stanwix wasn’t only as a means to find more land for the settlers coming into the country, but as a means to an end to raise revenue that could be used to not only provide the funds the government needed to fund pensions for soldiers of the Revolutionary War, but that could also be sold for a profit to help eliminate some of the United States debt that was generated by the war, but ultimately provided available land in the territories for white
For instance, in Section 1, Dawes asserts that the president is “authorized whenever in his opinion any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary” (Dawes Severalty). The government essentially gives itself the permission to redistribute the land if it is economically beneficial for themselves, demonstrating clearly that economic needs supersede a commitment to Indian prosperity. In a similar vein, in Section 10, Congress ensures it retains the “right of way through any lands granted to an Indian… for railroad or other highways” (Dawes Severalty). Congress again permits itself to revoke or intrude on Indian lands if the area could potentially contribute to the national economy and thus develop it through infrastructure. Further insinuating deception of land grants, Section 8 excludes the act from the tribes located in the Indian Territory (Dawes Severalty). Having already been pushed into the Indian Territory, which is a favorable circumstance at this time from the white perspective, Dawes reveals that his end goal is to gain more white land and disproves his supposed motive of improving the lives of all Indians. For the first time, Dawes mentions
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
1 in 7 American people are living in poverty. They are cold, hungry, and they are not getting help from the government. People who have homes view the homeless as bad people and believe that they are too lazy to work (video). In reality, they are working to get a job and provide for their family. Also, the government is also not helping the homeless (video). They’re giving less and less support to the homeless and giving support to the rich population (video). Next, serfs in the middle ages were in the lowest class in their feudal system. They were part of the land. Whoever owned the land was in control of them, but serfs weren’t slaves. Their role in society was to farm. They had to give a piece of their food to their vassal or lord (owner
One of the critical tasks that faced the new nation of the United States was establishing a healthy relationship with the Native Americans (Indians). “The most serious obstacle to peaceful relations between the United States and the Indians was the steady encroachment of white settlers on the Indian lands. The Continental Congress, following [George] Washington’s suggestion, issued a proclamation prohibiting unauthorized settlement or purchase of Indian land.” (Prucha, 3) Many of the Indian tribes had entered into treaties with the French and British and still posed a military threat to the new nation.
It did not take much time after the US obtained this new land that thousands of Chicanos lost their homelands. These Native citizens had already gained the ownership of their property through Spanish or Mexican law, however, due to the fact that United States courts did not recognize these laws these natives were stripped of their land. According to a prominent Chicano activist, Reyes Lopez Tijerina, the United states had unlawfully taken away these citizens’ land. Tijerina debates that, after the Mexican American war the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which promises these native free enjoyment of their property. However, by stripping the land from these natives the United States is going against the promise it made in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of allowing natives to enjoy their land or property. By going against this treaty the United States is going against its own laws, because due to the United States Constitution, article twelve, section two, which states that all treaties created by the United States are the supreme law, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is a law1.
The movement westward during the late 1800’s created new tensions among already strained relations with current Native American inhabitants. Their lands, which were guaranteed to them via treaty with the United States, were now beginning to be intruded upon by the massive influx of people migrating from the east. This intrusion was not taken too kindly, as Native American lands had already been significantly reduced due to previous westward conquest. Growing resentment for the federal government’s Reservation movement could be felt among the native population. One Kiowa chief’s thoughts on this matter summarize the general feeling of the native populace. “All the land south of the Arkansas belongs to the Kiowas and Comanches, and I don’t want to give away any of it” (Edwards, 203). His words, “I don’t want to give away any of it”, seemed to a mantra among the Native Americans, and this thought would resound among them as the mounting tensions reached breaking point.