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
and believed that the Indians were capable of accepting white civilization. The author felt Jackson, based on his experience, had a major concern for the safety of the nation from foreign enemies rather than internal ones. To some extent, the anti-Indian sentiment that Jackson had been accused of in his early career was instead basically anti-British sentiment. When asked why Jackson said he had many private reasons for disliking Great Britain. He vaguely stated that Britain made him forlorn, wretched, and without a single relation in the world. His time in the frontier manly convinced him that foreign agents were behind the attacks of Indians. Jackson even went so far that on several occasions he defended friendly Indians when white settlers assaulted them. One of his first official acts as major general of the Tennessee militia was to punish the militia officer who instigated or at least allowed the murder of a friendly Indian. However, Jackson did not show cowardice toward Indians, those Indians who committed outrages against the whites were to be punished, but the rights of friendly Indians were to be protected. Another one of the author’s claims of Jackson’s view of Native Americans, in respect to their status as US citizens, was that he wanted Congress to legislate for the Indians as they did for white Americans. Jackson also thought the Indians deserved their land and thought it was up to the government to allow the Indians land for their support, but Jackson did not believe that they were entitled to more, as some of the Indians claimed. Jackson wanted those Indians who were living in the colonies, under proper status as subjects of the United States, to be obliged to submit to American laws. Jackson removed white squatters from Indian lands, which is just another way that he was not oblivious to Indian rights. Lastly, there were only four possibilities for dealing with Native Americans during Jackson’s time and he ended up choosing the lesser evil. First, the Indians could simply have been slaughtered. Second, the Indians could have been rapidly assimilated into white society, which was not possible because most Indians did not want to assimilate. Third, if the Indians were not going to be killed and if they couldn’t be assimilated, then the government could protect Indian lands in the colonies themselves.This was definitely never going to happen considering there was a small standing army which did not have the manpower or the resources to protect the Indian lands. The final possibility was to remove the Indians from the colonies. Jackson looked upon removal as a means of protecting the process of civilization, as well as of providing land for white settlers, security from foreign invasion, and a quieting of the clamors of Georgia against the federal government. The commissioners made the treaties to pay the Indians well for their lands, to make sure that the Indians understood that the government would pay the costs of removal and help them get established in their new homes, to make provision for the Indians to examine the lands in the West and to agree to accept them before they were allotted.
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.
The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians was written by Anthony F.C. Wallace. In his book, the main argument was how Andrew Jackson had a direct affect on the mistreatment and removal of the native Americans from their homelands to Indian Territory. It was a trail of blood, a trail of death, but ultimately it was known as the "Trail of Tears".
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...
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...
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.
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.
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
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...
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...
Print. The. C. Wallace, Anthony F. Long, bitter trail Andrew Jackson and the Indians. Ed. Eric Foner. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.
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).
Andrew Jackson was like no other president before him. The previous presidents had one thing in common, they were all part of the founding fathers or in John Quincy Adam’s case was the son of a founding father. However Jackson was a plantation owner from the west who had no connections with the government. He also had different views from other presidents that made his presidency unique. Two things that separated Andrew Jackson’s presidency from previous presidencies were he reached out to the common people and he was disapproving of the Bank of United States.
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.
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