http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html No because: 1) The land is rightfully theirs and they should not be pressured or tricked into selling or exchanging it for other unsettled and less desirable territory Being tricked by signing illegitimate treaties Even though living under requirements of state, white settlers would make life difficult and that would pressure the Indians that stayed, to leave 2) They have strong historical, cultural and familial ties to the land (willing to fight and die to keep their homelands) They believe that they have the right to live on the land that was their fathers “Has a right to live on the land of his fathers, in the possession of his immemorial privileges, and that this right had been acknowledged …show more content…
I believe this is unjust and that the original inhabitants should be allowed to remain on their ancestral homeland. In addition, displacing the Indians and forcing some of them into western reservations with limited resources on the reservations is inhumane, and will lead to their slow demise. While many believe that it was white settlers such as Christopher Columbus that found the “New World”, it was actually the Native Americans that were the original inhabitants of this land, where their brothers have died, their mothers have died, children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren. Within the Indians Should Be Allowed to Remain in Their Homeland (1830), it states, “On the soil which contains the ashes of our beloved men we wish to lie-on this soil we wish to die...Indian was the sole lord and proprietor of these extensive domains”. The Indians are prepared to fight and die on the soil that their brothers have died on, where the remains and roots of their ancestors run deep within the land and its values. If these tribes were to leave their homelands, other various Indian nations have already occupied the “inviting areas” of the west, thus they would be viewed as intruders. Unfortunately, the lands that are not already occupied lack the necessary articles such as badly supplied wood and water to which no Indian tribe can …show more content…
While the treaty was intended to be peaceful, there was resistance from the southeastern nations, thus leading Jackson to forcibly removed them. One way or another the Indians were not staying. The Choctaws were the first to sign the Treaty, though some stayed in Mississippi, agreeing to the terms of the state, WGBH and PBS Online stated, “But though the War Department made some attempts to protect those who stayed, it was no match for the land-hungry whites who squatted on Choctaw territory or cheated them out of their holdings”. Even though the members of the Choctaws that stayed and obeyed the requirements given in the Treaty, the “land hungry whites” made their lives so miserable and tortuous, they eventually left with the rest of their tribe. Finally the Cherokees were actually tricked into signing the Treaty of Echota which was an illegitimate treaty and sparked a massive outrage within the tribe as well as even more resistance to the Removal Act than before. The U.S. Government gave the Cherokees “two years to migrate voluntarily, at the end of which time they would be forcibly removed. By 1838 only 2,000 had migrated; 16,000 remained on their land. The U.S. government sent in 7,000 troops, who forced the Cherokees into stockades at bayonet point. They were not
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...
Throughout Jackson's two terms as President, Jackson used his power unjustly. As a man from the Frontier State of Tennessee and a leader in the Indian wars, Jackson loathed the Native Americans. Keeping with consistency, Jackson found a way to use his power incorrectly to eliminate the Native Americans. In May 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act. This act required all tribes east of the Mississippi River to leave their lands and travel to reservations in the Oklahoma Territory on the Great Plains. This was done because of the pressure of white settlers who wanted to take over the lands on which the Indians had lived. The white settlers were already emigrating to the Union, or America. The East Coast was burdened with new settlers and becoming vastly populated. President Andrew Jackson and the government had to find a way to move people to the West to make room. In 1830, a new state law said that the Cherokees would be under the jurisdiction of state rather than federal law. This meant that the Indians now had little, if any, protection against the white settlers that desired their land. However, when the Cherokees brought their case to the Supreme Court, they were told that they could not sue on the basis that they were not a foreign nation. In 1832, though, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokees were a "domestic dependent nation," and therefore, eligible to receive federal protection against the state. However, Jackson essentially overruled the decision. By this, Jackson implied that he had more power than anyone else did and he could enforce the bill himself. This is yet another way in which Jackson abused his presidential power in order to produce a favorable result that complied with his own beliefs. The Indian Removal Act forced all Indians tribes be moved west of the Mississippi River. The Choctaw was the first tribe to leave from the southeast.
The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress in order to allow the growth of the United States to continue without the interference of the Native Americans. Jackson believed that the Native Americans were inferior to white settlers and wanted to force them west of the Mississippi. He believed that the United States would not expand past that boundary, so the Native Americans could govern themselves. Jackson evicted thousands of Native Americans from their homes in Georgia and the Carolinas and even disregarded the Supreme Court’s authority and initiated his plan of forcing the Natives’ on the trail of tears. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Indians, however Jackson ignored the ruling and continued with his plan. The result of the Indian Removal Act was that many tribes were tricked or forced off their lands, if they refused to go willingly, resulting in many deaths from skirmishes with soldiers as well as from starvation and disease. The Cherokee in particular were forced to undergo a forced march that became known as the Trail of
... the unwilling tribes west of the Mississippi. In Jackson’s letter to General John Coffee on April 7, 1832, he explained that the Cherokees were still in Georgia, and that they ought to leave for their own benefit because destruction will come upon them if they stay. By 1835, most eastern tribes had unwillingly complied and moved west. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was created in 1836 to help out the resettled tribes. Most Cherokees rejected the settlement of 1835, which provided land in the Indian territory. It was not until 1838, after Jackson had left office, that the U.S. Army forced 15,000 Cherokees to leave Georgia. The hardships on the “trail of tears” were so great that over 4,000 Cherokees died on their heartbreaking westward journey. In conclusion, the above statement is valid and true. The decision the Jackson administration made to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River was a reformulation of the national policy. Jackson, along with past Presidents George Washington, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson, tried to rid the south of Indians This process of removing the native people was continuous as the years went on.
Many tribes resisted this policy. Wars were fought as a result. The Sac and Fox Indians in Wisconsin and Illinois reoccupied their lands after having been forced to move west of the Mississippi. They were defeated. The Seminole Indians refused to sign a treaty to give up their lands. They, too, fought and lost a bitter war to remain on their land.
Back in 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. This act required the government to negotiate treaties that would require the Native Americans to move to the west from their homelands. Native Americans would be moved to an area called the Indian Territory, which is Oklahoma and parts of Kansas and Nebraska. Some tribes that were to be moved are Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw. All of the other tribes had relocated in the fall of 1831 to the Indian Territory besides the Cherokee who did not relocate until the fall of 1838.
...(Perdue 20). It gave them two years to prepare for removal. Many of the Cherokees, led by John Ross, protested this treaty. However, in the winter of 1838-1839, all of the Cherokees headed west toward Oklahoma. This removal of the Cherokees is now known, as the Trail of Tears was a very gruesome event. During the trip from the southern United States to current day Oklahoma, many of the Cherokees died. Shortly after their arrival in Oklahoma, they began to rebuild. They began tilling fields, sending their children to school, and attending Council meetings (Perdue 170).
The federal government proceeded to find a way around this decision and had three minor Cherokee chief’s sign the “Treaty of New Echota” in 1835 giving the Cherokee lands to the government for 5.6 million dollars and free passage west. Congress got the treaty ratified by only one vote. Members of their tribes murdered all three chiefs who took part in the signing of the treaty. After this event there was not much the Cherokee’s could do and were forcibly moved west on what they called and are known today as the ‘Trail of Tears,’ which became a constitutional crisis in our history. In this instance the lack of cooperation between the branches of the government was the downfall for the Cherokee nation. The way the Cherokee’s were forced west caused losses of up to twenty percent of the nation. This figure is only a guess and scholar’s think it was more a third of the nation was lost. The ‘Trail of Tears’ was also a morale issue in the United States, later having an impact on our history the way other Native American races in general are treated in the future.
The removal of Indians from their lands can never be wiped away from the pages of history. By far the events surrounding The Indian Removal Act of 1830 is one of the darkest episodes of our nation. The men in charge of America during the 1820s and 1830s were expansionists, with no regard for whom they were expanding upon. We can not undo the mistakes of the past, the Cherokee will never be able to regain their lands nor the rightful peace and respect they deserve, not only as men, but as the original American ancestors.
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
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).
This removal caused the Cherokee to divide. Some Cherokee agreed to move so the government made a treaty that the Cherokee signed. Not all Cherokee wanted to move. Most wanted to stay in their homelands and those that wanted to stay were led by John Ross, a Cherokee leader. It was the beginning of May 1838, when the U.S. Army forced the Indian tribes out of their homelands.
The movement westward during the late 1800’s created new tensions among already strained relations with current Native American inhabitants. Their lands, which were guaranteed to them via treaty with the United States, were now beginning to be intruded upon by the massive influx of people migrating from the east. This intrusion was not taken too kindly, as Native American lands had already been significantly reduced due to previous westward conquest. Growing resentment for the federal government’s Reservation movement could be felt among the native population. One Kiowa chief’s thoughts on this matter summarize the general feeling of the native populace. “All the land south of the Arkansas belongs to the Kiowas and Comanches, and I don’t want to give away any of it” (Edwards, 203). His words, “I don’t want to give away any of it”, seemed to a mantra among the Native Americans, and this thought would resound among them as the mounting tensions reached breaking point.
Some may argue that the US was valid in relocating Native Americans west of the Mississippi River because the removal was a compromise to avoid future conflict and benefit both the US and the Native Americans. Nevertheless, the actions of the US led to further violence and war, a second relocation, disbandment of Native American tribes, and costs on the United State’s part. The U.S. was unjustified in executing the Indian Removal Act because the actions of the U.S. were unconstitutional. First and foremost, the actions of Indian Removal were unconstitutional and unlawful. According to Danielle Greene from teachers.yale.edu, “The actual provisions of the Indian Removal Act did not actually authorize the forced relocation of the Southeastern Indians, but instead asked for funding to continue to issue land west of the Mississippi [River] to those Indians interested in releasing their tribal lands.
Some people may say that the natives moving were fine, but really it it wasn’t really not because it is sacred grounds. The natives have been on that piece of land way longer that the white men, but the white men just toss the natives out of their land. The natives had to move from Seminole to all all over the eastern part of the US, like Florida and around Mississippi and Louisiana. Which then they had to start over on everything, for example their crops and homes. Plus they weren’t use to the weather conditions and the food resources.