Indian Removal Dbq

America, since it’s establishment, has been considered the land of the free. However, throughout history, the accuracy of that statement must be questioned. Between the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the extended slavery of Blacks, the true capacity of American savagery was exhibited. Despite the prosperous and beneficial results economically and in terms of expansion, their depravity didn’t come without moral and social consequence. After seeing America's brutal capabilities exhibited in the forced removal of the Indian tribes, as well as in the enslavement of Africans, other countries’ positive views of America diminished.

Background Indian removal act

“The removal of American Indian tribes from lands east of the Mississippi River to

what is now the state of Oklahoma is one of the tragic episodes in American history” (The Effects of Removal on American Indian Tribes sheet). When Andrew Jackson was elected to presidency in 1829 (http://www.usa-presidents.info/jackson.htm), the first thing on his agenda was to supply the demand of new land to the exponentialy growing American people. The white settlers wanted to make new, modern settlements and farm in the area that the 5 civilized tribes were living. As a result, President Jackson pushed the, “Indian Removal Act”, an act that gave him the authority to discuss terms of removal of the indian tribes. The plan was that the Indian tribes would give up their land east of the Mississippi and move further out west. One of the Five Civilzed Tribes, that Jackson was trying to evict, the Cherokkes took action against their forced removal- they went to court. The case reached the supreme court and in a “historic decision” (video http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears), the court went in favor of the Cherokees.

The Supreme Court recognized that this was breaking treaties made in the past, and that the act itself was blatantly unconstitutional and thus and ruled against it. That didn’t stop President Jackson from moving on with his plan. Andrew Jackson said in a statement in reaction to the courts decision: “John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it”. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html). He recognized that although the Supreme Court had made their decision, they had no way to enforce it. On May 28, 1830, the act became law and the forced removal was set into action. Although intended to be a bloodless, and voluntary migration, it turned out to be quite the opposite. Tribes who resisted and fought back were subject to even worse treatment than those who were subservient right from the start. (http://thomaslegion.net/indianremovalact.html#sthash.K5OUNp55.dpuf) After already having to abandon their entire lives and everything they had worked for, the tribes faced brutal conditions on what is now called, “The Trail of Tears”, a 1,200 mile trek to

Oklahoma. “Their travels were marked by outbreaks of cholera, inadequate supplies, bitter cold, and death from starvation and exhaustion” (worksheet). It is estimated that over 5,000 cherokees and 3,500 Creeks perished on the trail. (http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/trail-of-tears). Although many Americans agreed with Jackson’s actions and legitimately believed that it was benefitting the Indian tribes, even the Supreme Court recognized how morally wrong it was. A clear low point in American history, and a tragic event that we should be embarrassed of, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 showed the world just how savage America could really be.
Background Slavery
Slavery in America started as early as 1619 when colonists recognized the potential prosperity of a newfound crop, tobacco.

When colonists realized that they needed extra help in farming the crop, they “turned to African slaves as a cheaper, more plentiful labor source than indentured servants” (http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery). Overtime as technology advanced, the need for slaves became only more apparent as the farmers needed assistance in using their machinery and working in the fields. Over the course of just the 1700’s an estimated 6 to 7 million slaves were imported from Africa. (http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery). Before even arriving on the ship to the New World, Africans were often branded with steaming hot metal and chained together. The conditions on the ship only got worse. “According to Equiano, "The closeness of the place, and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us. This produced copious perspirations, so that the air soon became unfit for respiration, from a variety of loathsome smells, and brought on a sickness among the slaves, of which many died."” It is estimated that close to 20% of the people on the ships died due to the atrocious conditions they were forced to withstand. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p277.html). For those who survived the treacherous journey, mere misery awaited them in America. They

would be sold to slave owners who treated them brutally and for the most part, provided them with horrible living conditions. Although the conditions of life varied for slaves, there was an overarching theme of abusiveness, racism, and deprivation of basic human rights, that was experienced by all slaves. In many cases, slaves were subject to rape and domestic abuse. Africans as a people were seen as less than human, and a clearly inferior race to the white men. Only after years of revolts, and the strengthened abolition movement, was slavery officially abolished in America in 1865. (http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=9&title.raw=13th+Amendment+to+the+U.S.+Constitution%3A+Abolition+of+Slavery).
Different American views on indian removal act
American opinions on the Indian Removal act and the forced removal of the tribes varied to both extremes. There was many oppositions to this act; Christian missionaries who had been working hard to assimilate them into American life and convert them to christianity were particularly against the idea. Having spent time, resources, and money in an attempt to acculturate the Indian tribes, the missionaries fought against Congress about the act. (worksheet) Other humanitarians understood the corruption of this act. In a quote from the article, “Critical Review of the Indian Removal Act Process” from a newspaper titled, “American Advocate”, it says, “The poor Indians come to the U. States and say, You have promised over and over to protect us from all intruders-we no claim your protection in our utmost need. The President tells them he cannot protect them”(Critical Review). Even Americans understood how ethically wrong this was. It’s hard to consider America the “land of the free”, when we are denying freedom to people we have promised it to, and forcefully removing them to their rightfully owned land. Some understood how the government, but more importantly, Andrew Jackson, has no right to be kicking them out of the land they were promised protection over. Many believed that we are surpassing the very boundaries that we set ourselves. The fact that the Supreme Court even understood how this would be breaking out treaties shows just how wrong this act was. Although, those who felt that way were vastly outnumbered by the opposing view. Most Americans had believed in the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’, the thought that it was America’s destiny to expand out west. People who were so set on the belief that we were meant to stretch out west, turned a blind eye to the immoral actions taking place, but justified it with the idea that it is America’s fate to expand and everything in their way is meant to be stopped or moved. Many people also thought it was inevitable. So obsessed with the extension of the country, the indians were merely an obstacle in America's way.
The debate over slavery and it’s ethicality may be the most debated topic of our nations history. While Southerners felt that slaves were nothing more than property, and that their right to own slaves was protected in the constitution, Northerners, particularly abolitionists, felt that slavery should be outlawed immediately. Proslavery defenders also used the bible as a way to defend slavery. Many would say that including Africans in this marvelous Christian life really benefitted them. They refused to see that they tore these people from their entire lives and took utter and complete control of whatever was left of their lives. Unlike the S
outherners, Northerners saw the conflict as a moral issue. Many abolitionists also recognized that at the time, many other countries how outlawed slavery, and used that as proof to show they are falling behind in societal norms. As Southerners merely saw the economic aspect of slavery, many Northerners understood that it is so much more. Abolitionists recognized that “All forms of class oppression have induce some kind of servility and feelings of inferiority in the oppressed; failure to induce these means failure to survive a system of oppression” ( The World the Slaveholders Made) . Slaveholders had created a society and a way of life that did not value the lives of Africans but saw them the same as any other piece of property, and that justified their monstrous actions. It is this difference of perspective that ended up resulting in an inevitable civil war. In a relatively young country, unity is a key element. Having the country literally split into two sides shows the utter lack of harmony in America’s early years. As a country who prides themselves on being an example for other countries to follow, America is going against all of her values of liberty and thus worsening her image in the eyes of foreign countries. How was America supposed to defend herself against foreign powers when she can’t even avoid war within her own land? How can America be respected as a nation who is said to value freedom above all else when they are depriving their own inhabitants of just that?
Different American views on slavery
North vs. South
economical aspect
reasoning for each side (more in depth about North)
how they justified it
importance, or lack of, in unity
Abolitionists
"Theodore Parker's Letter on Slavery"
Pennsylvania Freeman - Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, January 13, 1848
Liberator - Massachusetts, Boston, March 17, 1832
land of the free?
America the Powerful
Since the dawn of her establishment, America has been a force not be be reckoned with. Although, like any new country, she had faced hardships internally and with foreign powers, through strength and assertment of power, by the mid-1800’s America had proven herself as a capable and dominant nation. A Washington Post article from the mid-1800’s states, “A new understanding seems to have come upon us, an understanding of our strength. And with it, a new feeling -- we want to show our strength. We are face-to-face with a strange fate. The taste of empire is in the mouth of the people.” (http://m.learningenglish.voanews.com/a/american-history-us-influence-begins-to-extend-far-beyond-its-shores-97970094/115892.html). Almost drunk with our own power, many Americans weren’t thinking of the consequences of their actions but merely focused on “show[ing] our strength”. Americans had a sense of entitlement and felt they could do anything they wanted without facing the consequences. It was because of that that many Americans weren’t worried about how their actions were viewed by other countries, and didn’t see the importance of their views. America was blind to the fact that their actions such as the forced removal of the Indian tribes and the continuation of slavery, a practice which had been long removed in so many other countries, were cruel and seen as negative in the eyes of many other nations.
Although many Northerners, particularly abolitionists, understood the cruelty and inhumanity of slavery, as a nation, slavery existed in America for an extended period of time. As a country, we were far behind many other countries that had abolished slavery years before. Many others were skeptical of how we could continue to allow such barbaros treatment of human beings. Many nations had previously banned slavery by laws and treaties. (http://www.npg.si.edu/col/amistad/). As early as the 18th century, movements to abolish the “buying and selling of human beings” in Britain arose. (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/abolition.htm). In 1807, slave trade was deemed illegal in Britain. In 1833, the “Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act” (http://spartacus-educational.com/Lslavery33.htm). Although significantly before America, by the time Britain abolished slavery, many other countries had already done so. In 1761, Portugal had abolished slavery it it’s mainland. That’s over 100 years before America. Slavery was abolished in the French colonies as early as 1794. Denmark ended Slavery was abolished in Spain and her colonies in 1811. Even Uruguay and Argentina freed their slaves in 1842 and 1843 (respectively). (http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/localhistory/journey/american_connection/slavery/timeline.shtml) Other countires couldn’t help but wonder why America was so significantly late in the abolishment on slavery. Those thoughts impacted the way other countries viewed America and went about with their relations with her.