Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
consequences of western expansion on native americans
consequences of western expansion on native americans
western expansion impact on native americans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the article review “ How the West was Lost” the author, William T. Hagan explains that in a brief thirty-eight year period between 1848 and 1886, the Indians of the Western United States lost their fight with the United States to keep their lands. While nothing in the article tells us who Hagan is, or when the article was written, his central theme of the article is to inform us of how the Indians lost their lands to the white settlers. I found three main ideas in the article that I feel that Hagan was trying to get across to us. Hagan put these events geographically and chronologically in order first by Plains Indians, then by the Western Indians.
The first point he made was how the Westward expansion affected the Plains Indians. The Plains Indian tribes consisted mostly of the Kiowa, Kiowa Apaches, Comanche, Sioux, and Cheyenne. As the white settlers made their way across the country taking land, the Indians pushed back by raiding settlements and killing the occasional settler. More and more white settlers were pouring into the West in search of gold and silver. As the settlers came into the territories, large herds of buffalo were killed, much of the time just for the sport of it. This had an adverse affect on the Indians since they relied on buffalo not only for food, but also for hides and blankets as well as to make teepees. Another factor was the pony herds; the U.S. Army frequently seized herds and a herd of upwards of one thousand was killed just so the Indians would not be able to use them. The soldiers that were on patrol in the West kept pushing the Indians, driving them away from their hunting and fishing grounds.
The second point that Hagan talked about in the article were the peace treaties. Most Indians did ...
... middle of paper ...
...ing revelation of the greed, covetousness, and desire that dwells in humankind. It really makes you think that almost entire races of people were wiped out just for gold and land. This article by Hagen brought back to me the realization of how the American Indians were treated. I am a non-traditional student, so I have studied what happened to the American Indian in other history classes and I am familiar with much of the information in the article, although I did not know that it happened in such a small amount of time
Hagan’s article was fascinating from a white man’s perspective, but as a student who enjoys history, I would like to study some of this information from the Indians point of view. I am not sure that there are many of those types of articles; nevertheless, I would like to find out what made the Indians retaliate and what they wanted to accomplish.
The article “Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy: A Reassessment” for this assignment, written by F. P. Prucha, shows that even though most people believe that our seventh president, Andrew Jackson, was an Indian hater whose presidency was defined by an anti-Indian doctrine which allowed the “trail of tears”, a mass deportation of the Florida Indians to the West of the Mississippi River, Jackson did not bear personal hatred against Native Americans. The author claims that Jackson as a military man, he had a dominant goal in the decades before he became President to preserve the security and wellbeing of the United States and its Indian and white inhabitants. Jackson was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the Indians and for their civilization
Rodney Stark argues in his book How the West Won that although in the early Roman and Greek world there were many advancements and innovations, there were also many problems. As a Christian historian, he delves more into how Christianity was treated in this time period and how those who believed in God actually brought more advancements to early Western civilization.
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...
...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.
American Indians shaped their critique of modern America through their exposure to and experience with “civilized,” non-Indian American people. Because these Euro-Americans considered traditional Indian lifestyle savage, they sought to assimilate the Indians into their civilized culture. With the increase in industrialization, transportation systems, and the desire for valuable resources (such as coal, gold, etc.) on Indian-occupied land, modern Americans had an excuse for “the advancement of the human race” (9). Euro-Americans moved Indians onto reservations, controlled their education and practice of religion, depleted their land, and erased many of their freedoms. The national result of this “conquest of Indian communities” was a steady decrease of Indian populations and drastic increase in non-Indian populations during the nineteenth century (9). It is natural that many American Indians felt fearful that their culture and people were slowly vanishing. Modern America to American Indians meant the destruction of their cultural pride and demise of their way of life.
Author and Indian Activist, Vine Deloria makes compelling statements in chapters 1 and 5 of his Indiana Manifesto, “Custer Died For Your Sins.” Although published in 1969 this work lays important historical ground work for understanding the plight of the Indian. Written during the turbulent civil rights movement, Deloria makes many comparisons to the Black plight in the United States. He condemns the contemporary views toward Indians widely help by Whites. He argues that Indians are wrongly seen through the historical lens of a pipe smoking, bow and arrow wielding savage. Deloria views the oppressors and conquerors of the Indian mainly in the form of the United States federal government and Christian missionaries. The author’s overall thesis is that whites view Indians the way they want to see them which is not based in reality. The behavior of whites towards Indians reflects this false perception in law, culture and public awareness.
With hope that they could even out an agreement with the Government during the progressive era Indian continued to practice their religious beliefs and peacefully protest while waiting for their propositions to be respected. During Roosevelt’s presidency, a tribe leader who went by as No Shirt traveled to the capital to confront them about the mistreatment government had been doing to his people. Roosevelt refused to see him but instead wrote a letter implying his philosophical theory on the approach the natives should take “if the red people would prosper, they must follow the mode of life which has made the white people so strong, and that is only right that the white people should show the red people what to do and how to live right”.1 Roosevelt continued to dismiss his policies with the Indians and encouraged them to just conform into the white’s life style. The destruction of their acres of land kept being taken over by the whites, which also meant the destruction of their cultural backgrounds. Natives attempted to strain from the white’s ideology of living, they continued to attempt with the idea of making acts with the government to protect their land however they never seemed successfully. As their land later became white’s new territory, Indians were “forced to accept an ‘agreement’” by complying to change their approach on life style.2 Oklahoma was one of last places Natives had still identity of their own, it wasn’t shortly after that they were taken over and “broken by whites”, the union at the time didn’t see the destruction of Indian tribes as a “product of broken promises but as a triumph for American civilization”.3 The anger and disrespect that Native tribes felt has yet been forgotten, white supremacy was growing during the time of their invasion and the governments corruption only aid their ego doing absolutely nothing for the Indians.
“The biggest of all Indian problems is the Whiteman (Basso pg. 3).” The elusive Whitman is not a recent problem for the American Indians. For the Western Apache this problem first came to light in 1853 after the Gadsden Purchase was finalized. The Whitemen invaded the western Apache’s Arizona territory not with peace, but with demands and open hostility. Thus began a brutal thirty year war that led to Apache defeat (Basso pg. 24). The creation of reservations in 1872 was not enough for the Whitemen. They also created an assimilation program for the Western Apache because acclimating one’s self to Anglo American society was a necessity for survival.
AUTHOR: Oswald Spengler, (1880-1936), was a German philosopher who acquired his conservative views from his father, a postal official in Germany. Spengler attended the Universities of Munich, Berlin and Halle in Germany, where he studied natural science and mathematics. In 1903, he wrote his dissertation on a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus, though he failed due to a lack of references. Spengler resubmitted his revised thesis in 1904, earning him his doctorate degree. Shortly after earning his degree, Spengler suffered a mental break down, secluding himself from the world. In 1906, he recovered and began working as a teacher in secondary schools until he received some money from his mother. In 1911, Spengler gathered his inheritance and moved to Munich as a private scholar.
During the West movement of 1830’s and 1840’s, there were many conflicts that American settlers faced. The first problem settlers had to solve was relations with the Native Americans. As the numbers of American settlers grew, the life of Native Americans was greatly affected. The Native Americans tried to maintain their cultural traditions and the peace with white settlers, but they were often forced to move out of their homeland. Then came the Black Hawk War, which was the Native Americans’ rebellion against the United States in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. After failure of this rebellion, Native Americans were forced to abandon their lands and move to reservation even with the Fort Laramie Treaty, which promised the pea...
It had previously been the policy of the American government to remove and relocate Indians further and further west as the American population grew, but there was only so much...
“Pontiac, chief of the Ottawa Indians, is trying to take Detroit, and the neighboring Indian groups join in and help. They have become disenchanted with the French, plus the French aren’t really there anymore. They hate the English. They want their land back. Starting to succeed and the British negotiate and reach a settlement. In order to keep Pontiac happy, no settlement allowed in the Frontier region. An imaginary line is drawn down the Appalachian Mountains, colonist cannot cross it. This doesn’t last long, in 1768 & 1770, Colonists work with the Iroquois and Cherokee and succeed in pushing back the line and send in surveyors. Colonists begin to settle. So, despite this line, colonists push west anyway” (Griffin, PP4, 9/16/15). During the Revolutionary War, “Native Americans fought for both sides, but mostly for the British, thought they stood to be treated more fairly by British than colonists. Those that fought against the colonists were specifically targeted to be destroyed during battles. There were no Native American representatives at the treaty meetings at the end of the war” (Griffin, PP8, 9/21/15). Even the Native American’s thought of their women, because they believed “an American victory would have tragic consequences: their social roles would be dramatically changed and their power within their communities diminished” (Berkin,
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...
In the beginning of this speech, he talks about how the “fight” between the Indians and whites was unfair because of the weapons the whites possessed. Despite this, the Indians still believed they had a chance to defend themselves, unfortunately they were no match for the guns. What initiated this fight was the land, belonging to the Indians, that was taken with no regards to the inhabitants. He wanted to explain that Indians were of no harm to the “white society” and wanted to carry on with their own way of life. He feared that Indians will lose their culture and will become similar to whites in a negative sense. Some similarities he lists include lying and hypocrisy, adulterers, lazy, all talk, and
In Thomas King’s novel, The Inconvenient Indian, the story of North America’s history is discussed from his original viewpoint and perspective. In his first chapter, “Forgetting Columbus,” he voices his opinion about how he feel towards the way white people have told America’s history and portraying it as an adventurous tale of triumph, strength and freedom. King hunts down the evidence needed to reveal more facts on the controversial relationship between the whites and natives and how it has affected the culture of Americans. Mainly untangling the confusion between the idea of Native Americans being savages and whites constantly reigning in glory. He exposes the truth about how Native Americans were treated and how their actual stories were