The removal of Native-Americans from their homes to the region east of the Mississippi is one of the most tragic and controversial episodes in American History. It affected the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee people. This tragic event killed approximately 2,000 to 6,000 of the 16,543 Cherokee Indians who were forced to move during the winter of 1838. There were many legal and moral arguments for and against this policy. In this paper I will point out the reasons why the argument against Indian removal was a more convincing argument.
The strongest legal arguments in favor of the Native Americans were the dispute over land rights. The Native Americans lived here in the United States long before anyone else. Their belief in
…show more content…
the inheritance of the land is expressed in the Niles weekly register, which states “The land on which we stand, we have received as an inheritance from our fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our common father in heaven.” By definition, ownership is said to be original, where the owner has brought the property into human control for the first time, as by occupying land or capturing a wild animal, or derivative, where the owner acquires from the previous owner as in a sale. Therefore, the Native Americans maintained ownership of lands in which they did not either sell or lose in treaties that were signed. The removal of Indians from their homes would not only immoral but illegal. Despite having legally acquired this land, the American settlers did not honor and often ignored the Indians claims to the land. They did not see the Indians as equals and quite oftenly referred to them as a “barbarous people.” This belief is highlighted by Francis J. Grund, a German-born American journalist and author who wrote “The American aborigine, with but very few exceptions, never possessed the soil on which they trod any more than the air which they breathed. They never cultivated it to any extent, nor had they, individually, any distinct title to it arising from actual labor. They held it in common with the beasts of the forest, and it was useful to them only as it afforded them the means of prey.” The Indians claim to this land was legal through inheritance. They never ceded, nor ever forfeited the rights to this land. It is best stated in The North American Review column, which states “Have you a lawful possession of a country within known boundaries? If this question can be answered in the affirmative, the whole matter of title is forever at rest.” The answer was affirmative, therefore, I rest my argument in the dispute of land rights in favor of the Native Americans. Another argument that was in favor of the Native American was the argument stating that the tribes could not become civilized enough to coexist with the white settlers.
This was proven false by the Cherokee Indian tribe. The Cherokee Indians adapted to a more civilized way of life. They lived in villages, created a republican government, developed large farms, and raised herds of cattle. Many white settlers did not believe this was possible as written in the North American Review which stated that “The peculiar character and habits of the Indian nations, rendered them incapable of sustaining any other relation with the whites, than that of dependence and pupilage. There was no other way of dealing with them, than that of keeping them separate, subordinate, and dependent, with a guardian care thrown around them for their protection.” The settlers believed that the white civilizations that surrounded the Indians would destroy their way of life and ultimately lead to their extinction. But the Cherokee Indians proved them wrong. They did not only survive while being surrounded by the white settler but they grew in numbers. Showing that the “barbarous people” could actually adapt and contribute. The relocation of the Indians west of the Mississippi because they are unable to coexist and thrive was not a good enough argument as again I side with the Native …show more content…
Americans. One argument that I do think favours the removal of the Native Americans is the argument for the dedication to the development of the country, economy and its interests.
Manifest destiny was a popular belief during this time period that the United States was destined to expand across North America. The Americans wanted the rich and fertile lands that were held by the native tribes to increase crop growth and enhance the economy as well as strengthen the defense of the southern frontier against invasions, greatly improving national security. As Andrew Jackson said in his second annual address to congress in 1830 “By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.” As noted before, the American settlers did not believe the Indians were civilized people and any Indian communities bordering on areas desired for expansion were considered obstacles. Therefore, civilized settlements of the United States overruled and nullified the rights of the Indians community to allow for further expansion. But what made the American settlers believe that the Indians could not contribute in trade and
relations with the United States? The Americans did not give the tribes rights and freedoms necessary to flourish. The Americans dismissed them much like the African slaves and were out to fulfill their own objective, To make America a wealthy and prosperous country. In conclusion, the removal of the Native Americans was not legally or morally sound. The tribes created better points in their arguments than the Americans settlers did. Arguments that proved that they legally possessed the lands that they lived on, could develop into a civilized community and thrive next to the white settlers. Although this argument was better, it did not hold the same weight as the pro removal arguments. As with the African American slaves, they were seen as an inferior race that had no moral or legal rights in America.
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...
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...
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
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...
In May 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which forced Native American tribes to move west. Some Indians left swiftly, while others were forced to to leave by the United States Army. Some were even taken away in chains. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, strongly reinforced this act. In the Second State of the Union Address, Jackson advocated his Indian Policy. There was controversy as to whether the removal of the Native Americans was justified under the administration of President Andrew Jackson. In my personal opinion, as a Native American, the removal of the tribes was not in any way justified.
In the 1830’s America was highly influenced by the Manifest Destiny Ideal. Manifest Destiny was the motivating force behind the rapid expansion of America into the West. This ideal was highly sponsored by posters, newspapers, and various other methods of communication. Propaganda was and is still an incredibly common way to spread an idea to the masses. Though Manifest Destiny was not an official government policy, it led to the passing of the Homestead Act. The Homestead Act gave applicants freehold titles of undeveloped land outside of the original thirteen colonies. It encouraged Westward colonization and territorial acquisition. The Homestead Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862. To America, Manifest Destiny was the idea that America was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic, to the Pacific Ocean. Throughout this time Native Americans were seen as obstacles because they occupied land that the United States needed to conquer to continue with their Manifest Destiny Ideal. Many wars were fought between the A...
There was one obstacle to the settlers to expand into the lower South. The obstacle was the Indian tribes such as the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw, and Seminole nations (Indian Removal 1). According to the white settlers, the nations were in the way of the white’s progress. The whites wanted this land because they needed it to grow cotton, which was making a huge profit (Indian Removal 1). With money on the settler’s minds, the settlers asked the government to gain the Indian Territory. Andrew Jackson agreed with the settlers and pushed for the Indians removal (Indian Removal 1). For instance, in 1814, Andrew Jackson made military forces defeat parts of the Creek nation (Indian Removal 1). The Creek nation lost twenty-two million acres in Georgia and Alabama (Indian Removal 1). When the United States found out that the Seminoles were holding fugitive slaves, the United States decided to take more land as the Seminoles punishment (Indian Removal
At the time Andrew Jackson was president, there was a fast growing population and a desire for more land. Because of this, expansion was inevitable. To the west, many native Indian tribes were settled. Andrew Jackson spent a good deal of his presidency dealing with the removal of the Indians in western land. Throughout the 1800’s, westward expansion harmed the natives, was an invasion of their land, which led to war and tension between the natives and America, specifically the Cherokee Nation.
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
The early 1800’s was a very important time for America. The small country was quickly expanding. With the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition, America almost tripled in size by 1853. However, even with the amount of land growing, not everyone was welcomed with open arms. With the expansion of the country, the white Americans decided that they needed the Natives out.
Towards the development of the United States of America there has always been a question of the placement of the Native Americans in society. Throughout time, the Natives have been treated differently like an individual nation granted free by the U.S. as equal U.S. citizens, yet not treated as equal. In 1783 when the U.S. gained their independence from Great Britain not only did they gain land from the Appalachian Mountains but conflict over the Indian policy and what their choice was to do with them and their land was in effect. All the way from the first presidents of the U.S. to later in the late 19th century the treatment of the Natives has always been changing. The Native Americans have always been treated like different beings, or savages, and have always been tricked to signing false treaties accompanying the loss of their homes and even death happened amongst tribes. In the period of the late 19th century, The U.S. government was becoming more and more unbeatable making the Natives move by force and sign false treaties. This did not account for the seizing of land the government imposed at any given time (Boxer 2009).
The Removal Act of 1830 paved the way for the hesitant and generally—journey of ten of thousands of Native Americans to move more westward. The very first removal treaty was signed after the Removal Act of 1830. This treaty made Choctaws in Mississippi ceded land east of the river. The U.S. government would give money in exchange for land in the east of the river for land in the west. The Choctaw chief quoted to Arkansas Gazette that in 1831 Choctaw Removal was a Trail of Tears and downfalls. The treaty signed in 1835 was known as the Treaty of Echota, which resulted in the removal of the Cherokees on “The Trail of Tears.” The Seminoles decided not to leave also as the other tribes left peacefully. The Seminoles resisted leaving their homeland. In winter of 1838-39, fourteen thousand were marched one thousand two hundred miles through Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas. Roughly estimated four thousand died from lack of food, exposure and disease. The government soldiers would appear without notice at a Cherokee front door and order the people inside the home, men women and children, to immediately evacuate and take only what each could carry. They were forced marched to thoughtlessly assembled barriers like cattle and le...
In the 30 years after the Civil War, although government policy towards Native Americans intended to shift from forced separation to integration into American society, attempts to "Americanize" Indians only hastened the death of their culture and presence in the America. The intent in the policy, after the end of aggression, was to integrate Native Americans into American society. Many attempts at this were made, ranging from offering citizenship to granting lands to Indians. All of these attempts were in vain, however, because the result of this policies is much the same as would be the result of continued agression.
The Cherokee marched through, biting cold, rains, and snow. Many people died during this trip from starvation, diseases, exposure, and vagaries of unknown terrains. Those who recounted this journey in later years spoke of a trip that was filled with tears borne of immense suffering and deaths during this trip and thus the name Trail of Tears. Modern scholars and champions of human rights have described this event as one of the most notorious genocides during the 19th Century. This paper will therefore attempt to prove that, the Cherokee community suffered human right atrocities from the American government shortly before and during the Trail of Tears.