Chief Joseph and Helen Hunt Jackson are two very important people who both share strong yet different perspectives toward the treachery of the U.S. Government along with the unfair treatment of Indians around the 1800’s. Chief Joseph was born in 1840 in the Wallowa valley of Oregon, and belonged to the Nez Percé tribe, which was made up of some 400 indians. The Government had made many valid promises among the tribes, just to come back and break these words with more conflict and war. All Chief Joseph was in search for was for the chaos among the whites and indians to be replaced with peace, brotherhood, and equality. Stated in the text, “We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men.” In other words, Chief Joseph believed that people …show more content…
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
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.
Cherokee tribes led the way in adopting American traditions and ideals. They created their own schools and drafted a constitution. Some Cherokee people became farmers and slave owners. When they felt they were wronged or being taken advantage of, they filed court cases and sought justice as an American would. Surely all of these things speak to the fact that being a Native American Indian does not automatically make someone a “savage.” Classifying the Natives and savage made it easier for Jackson to justify their expulsion. If he had recognized them as equal citizens he could not have forced them from their
"The McGillivray Moment" and "Chief Joseph Surrenders" are both about struggles the Native American Indians went through in their lives and their encounters with the settlers of North America. The settlers of North America were not courteous to the rights the Native Americans had and to their traditions.
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.
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
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
An extraordinarily ordinary man, a “democratic autocrat, an urbane savage, an atrocious saint” Andrew Jackson provided the means for Americans to better understand themselves (Parton PBS). Over time the perception of Jackson and his demeanor has been changed. As one historian stated, “at one time, [when they looked at Jackson] they saw the frontiersmen, the poor boy made good, the classic self-made man” (Feller PBS). In modern times, Jackson has become a more unsavoury figure; namely due to his reputation for displacing Native American tribes and repurposing their land for American settlements and communities. Still, the debate over who Andrew Jackson was, or perhaps is, can be described as a contemporary one. Nonetheless, his actions, and vociferous reactions, make Jackson a very divisive figure in American politics. Cogently stated by historian “He is an inescapable American, but of what kind?” (Feller PBS).
Some of these individual efforts worsened the outcome for the whole tribe. Jackson’s manipulative ways of handling this situation in office and out of office forced the Cherokee to make hard decisions, and I feel like these decision makers for the Cherokee failed miserably. The reason behind the lack of attack on Jackson is quite obvious, politicians have been acting like politicians well since the very beginning. As selfish and egocentric as his view was, he knew what the was going to do, and being president of this powerful nation not much any one nation could do to stop him let alone the nation of a tribe.
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.”
President Jackson singlehandedly led the destruction of the Native Americans with his aggressive actions and hostile decisions. President Jackson shirked his responsibility to protect the Native Americans of the United States by ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision, promoting legislation to bring about the separation of Native Americans and whites, and his decision to involve the United States Armed Forces against Indian Tribes. If it was not for President Jackson’s actions, the future of the Native Americans would have been different, or at least the American settlers wanted Indian land for many reasons. These reasons include geography and terrain, location, resources, and old grudges. First, the geography was perfect for farmers with fertile land.
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...
John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) was an American politician and political theorist. He was secretary of war, secretary of state and soon resigned to become a senate. Calhoun was the Vice president under both John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) and Andrew Jackson (1829-1832). He was born in South Carolina and graduated from Yale with a law degree. John Calhoun was a very active politician which helps develop the relationship between Jackson and Calhoun.
Looking back at the history of the United States, there are many instances and issues concerning race and ethnicity that shape the social classes that make up the United States today. There are many stories concerning the American Indian that are filled with betrayal, but there is probably none more cruel and shameful as the removal of the Cherokee Indians in 1838. Blood thirsty for money and property, the white settlers would soon use dirty methods to drive the Cherokee out of their home- lands. The United States government played a critical role in the removal of the Cherokee. “Soon the state governments insisted on the removal of the native peoples, who were already out numbered by the white settlers and considered to be uncivilized “heathens,” not worthy of the land they held” (Sherman 126). This was the attitude of the white settlers. Because of the color of their skin, they spoke a different language, and they were not accustomed to the white mans’ way of life, the Cherokee people suffered many great afflictions even unto death.