More handpicked essays just for you.
Indian removal act introduction
Perspective on indian removal
Politics on the topic of the indian removal act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Indian Removal Policy is a very controversial subject in American History. This Policy was very crucial because the passing of the law gave Americans more land for farming and cultivating, but the Cherokee would be forced off the only land they knew. The American Government believed removal was the only option, and the natives were forced to leave their beloved land. The Jackson’s administration's decision to remove the Cherokee Indians to land west of the Mississippi river in the 1830’s significantly continued throughout the previous social, political, and economic policies pursued by the colonies and the United States towards the American Indian tribes. The social policies of the American government are continuous throughout previous …show more content…
agreements, considering the Americans are always unjust with their actions towards the natives. For example, Andrew Jackson, on March 4, 1817, voices his opinion saying, “...treaties with the Indians (are) an absurdity..the Indians are the subjects of the United states”. The American government never intended for assimilation to work, but they used it only to acquire Indian territory. They believed that Indians would never be able to conform into a white society; therefore, the American Government thought assimilation was absurd and unproductive, because it would not help reach their ultimate goal of gaining all Indian land. In addition, in December 1829, Jackson tries to justify the actions towards the natives, by stating his true feelings towards the policy, “Professing a desire to civilize and settle them, we have at the same time lost no opportunity to purchase their lands and thrust them farther into the wilderness…”. Jackson now admits that the goal has always been to gain more land and to get rid of the Indians completely, and that the plan to help them assimilate was never meant to be followed through with. The United States believed that they were helping the Indians get off their land, trying to justify their want for land and agriculture. Continuing off of previous treaties and agreements, the American Government never intended to assimilate the Indians, it has always been to brutally remove them. The political approaches of the American Government toward the Native Tribes have not changed subsequent to the foundation of the US Government. In 1802, the Intercourse Act, meaning to preserve Indian land and territory, was passed by the United States Congress stating that if any citizen enters Indian land, without a passport, they shall suffer the consequences. In contrast, later in 1802, there was an accession between the US Congress and the Georgia State Legislature expressing that Georgia can take ownership of all native areas inside Georgia's limits. The United States Congress negates itself when these acts are passed; their inability to adhere to the first settlement demonstrates their absence of trustworthiness and their unjustness in regards to the Indians. With the obvious interest for more Indian land, the US Government can't keep their settlements reliable. Attempting to "suit" Indian wants and needs, they never carry through without crushing the settlement and turning spirit to their typical, uncalled for ways. The American economic policies remain unchanged as their goal remains the same to obtain all tribal territories from the Indians.
For instance, President Thomas Jefferson, believes, because of the fast societal development, that, “(Indian tribes) should be led to an agricultural way of life, thus lessening their need for land…I trust and believe we are acting for their greatest good.” The United States Legislature attempted to legitimize their lust for land by saying that it was what was best for the Natives, when genuinely that was their only way to deal with their own consciences. These defenses did no benefit, yet just incited inconvenience and infuriated individuals who saw through the deceptiveness of their reasons. Additionally, discussing his plan for removal west of the Mississippi River, Monroe feels that, “...the opinion that the removal of the Indian tribes from the land which they now occupy is of a very high importance to our union, and may be accomplished on conditions and in a manner to promote the interests and happiness of those tribes…” Reiterating some previous ideas, Americans attempt to legitimize their discerning and narrow minded actions by erroneously expressing that their behavior is in the tribe's best interest, when truly it is quite the opposite. Everything Americans did was to benefit themselves, and they were willing to do anything to reach their goal of removing all Indians and taking all of their land. The economic policies and the American need for all Indian land has remained the
same. Overall, the social, political, and economic policies of the United States have remained unchanged, continuing the trend of previous policies; simply speaking, land was a high priority for the United States and they were willing to do anything to obtain more land, even if it wasn’t up for grabs. These arrangements were vital in light of the fact that they examined rights and regulations with respect to land, and they provided insight on American attributes: greed, selfishness, and disdain. These insights given through these policies are a big part of American History today; if these ideas or circumstances had been any different, our entire view on America would be remarkably different.
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.
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
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.
Once the white men decided that they wanted lands belonging to the Native Americans (Indians), the United States Government did everything in its power to help the white men acquire Indian land. The US Government did everything from turning a blind eye to passing legislature requiring the Indians to give up their land (see Indian Removal Bill of 1828). Aided by his bias against the Indians, General Jackson set the Indian removal into effect in the war of 1812 when he battled the great Tecumseh and conquered him.
Prior to 1830 the Cherokee people in the Southern states were land and business owners, many owned plantations and kept slaves to work the land, others were hunters and fishermen who ran businesses and blended in well with their white neighbors, but after Andrew Jackson took office as President, the government adopted a strict policy of Indian removal, which Jackson aggressively pursued by eliminating native American land titles and relocating American Indians west of the Mississippi. That same year, Congress passed the Indian R...
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.”
The removal of Indian tribes was one of the tragic times in America’s history. Native Americans endured hard times when immigrants came to the New World. Their land was stolen, people were treated poorly, tricked, harassed, bullied, and much more. The mistreatment was caused mostly by the white settlers, who wanted the Indians land. The Indians removal was pushed to benefit the settlers, which in turn, caused the Indians to be treated as less than a person and pushed off of their lands. MOREEE
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.
Natives were forcefully removed from their land in the 1800’s by America. In the 1820’s and 30’s Georgia issued a campaign to remove the Cherokees from their land. The Cherokee Indians were one of the largest tribes in America at the time. Originally the Cherokee’s were settled near the great lakes, but overtime they moved to the eastern portion of North America. After being threatened by American expansion, Cherokee leaders re-organized their government and adopted a constitution written by a convention, led by Chief John Ross (Cherokee Removal). In 1828 gold was discovered in their land. This made the Cherokee’s land even more desirable. During the spring and winter of 1838- 1839, 20,000 Cherokees were removed and began their journey to Oklahoma. Even if natives wished to assimilate into America, by law they were neither citizens nor could they hold property in the state they were in. Principal Chief, John Ross and Major Ridge were leaders of the Cherokee Nation. The Eastern band of Cherokee Indians lost many due to smallpox. It was a year later that a Treaty was signed for cession of Cherokee land in Texas. A small number of Cherokee Indians assimilated into Florida, in o...
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.
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