Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Affects of European colonization on the Native Americans
Affects of European colonization on the Native Americans
Affects of European colonization on the Native Americans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Reasons Given for Native American Removal Throughout American history there are patterns of injustice, inequality, and cruelty. This thread began when the Europeans discovered their new world was already inhabited by others, the “Native Americans”. Although they both tried to live in peace with each other, the Europeans thirst for power and domination of the new land led to the unjust, and cruel removal of the “native” people from their home. This idea originated under the rule of President Jefferson, and his removal policy, which he believed was the, “only was to ensure the survival of the Indian culture” (Intro. p 28). While the President, and the people, told themselves they were simply helping the Native Americans, they had ulterior motives …show more content…
Their religion, since it was not Christianity, was not “correct”, and their “uncivilized” mannerisms were a threat to the stability of the new America. Among these reasons, Native American Voices, by Steven Mintz, explains the “justification” given for the removal of the Native Americans, most notably: political differences, philosophical reasoning, biological inequalities, and geographic dominance. The political aspect of this removal is present not only through President Jefferson, but through the states and peoples perspective that the Native Americans are too uncivilized to conform to their government and that their presence is a threat to the stability of the nation. In the beginning, the government policy established a treaty based relationship in which they would, “treat the red man as an equal” (Whipple, p 109). This policy did not last long, and the government began to undermine their agreement with the Native Americans and attempted to eliminate them from the land in order to ensure they would not be challenged politically. The Native Americans had embraced the United States government and culture but still tried to establish and maintain their own political and cultural stance, as they …show more content…
With all other justifications aside, the people acted as though they were doing what is right by removing the Indians but in reality they had ulterior motives of gaining geographic, and political, wealth and power. The North American lands that the Natives inhabited was extremely valuable in some areas, and since the American population was growing it was an opportunity for the population to expand further and their strength to be in numbers. The wealth of the land is represented through the accounts of Elias Boudinot when he states, “…there are 22,000 cattle; 7,600 horses; 46,000 swine; 2,500 sheep; 762 looms; 2,488 spinning wheels; 172 waggons; 2,943 ploughs” (p 121). This value enticed Americans to further drive the Indians west to take the land and the wealth for their own. After they drove the Natives off this land, they sent them to “a few acres of badly cultivated corn, instead of extensive fields, rich pastures…” (Crawford, p 117). Therefore, it is clear that a driving force for the removal policy was the want for the land they inhabited. Furthermore, on a more political level the land meant the American population could grow without the interference from the growing Native American population. Andrew Jackson supports this with the statement that, “It will relieve the whole State…of
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.
Under the Jackson Administration, the changes made shaped national Indian policy. Morally, Andrew Jackson dismissed prior ideas that natives would gradually assimilate into white culture, and believed that removing Indians from their homes was the best answer for both the natives and Americans. Politically, before Jackson treaties were in place that protected natives until he changed those policies, and broke those treaties, violating the United States Constitution. Under Jackson’s changes, the United States effectively gained an enormous amount of land. The removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s changed the national policy in place when Jackson became President as evidenced by the moral, political, constitutional, and practical concerns of the National Indian Policy.
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 American Indians were promised change with the American Indian policy, but as time went on no change was seen. “Indian reform” was easy to promise, but it was not an easy promise to keep as many white people were threatened by Indians being given these rights. The Indian people wanted freedom and it was not being given to them. Arthur C. Parker even went as far as to indict the government for its actions. He brought the charges of: robbing a race of men of their intellectual life, of social organization, of native freedom, of economic independence, of moral standards and racial ideals, of his good name, and of definite civic status (Hoxie 97). These are essentially what the American peoples did to the natives, their whole lives and way of life was taken away,
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...
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...
... one of the stipulations and had to be settled. The removal of the Natives in an effort to protect the American people on the frontier proceeded, and was all the region of present-day Oklahoma, as shown in document L. These actions are viewed as cruel and unjust, but it was the way that would’ve dealt the least damage. Further delaying the issue would’ve soon set into altercations between the various Native tribes and the United States of America. In retrospect, Jackson served to protect the people.
The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. The act authorized him to negotiate with the Native Americans in the Southern Non- Native Americans supported the act heavily. Christian missionaries opposed this act was future President Abraham Lincoln, future New Jersey Theodore Frelinghuysen and Congressman Davy Crockett spoke against the legislation. It later was passed by Congress. Due to the Indian Removal Act the current Native American population is very low. --The Removal Act of 1830, section I, in The American Indian and the United States, A Documentary History, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn, vol. 3 (New York: Random House, 1973) 2169"That in the making of any such exchange or exchanges, it shall and may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them and if they prefer it, that the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same: Provided always, Those lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same." (http://www.columbia.edu/~lmg21/BC3180/removal.html).
Through all stages, a conflict existed between the Indigenous peoples and the United States. Under the illusion of forging a new democracy, free of hierarchies and European monarchies, the United States used the plantation labor of enslaved Africans and dispossessed massive numbers of Native peoples from their lands and cultures to conquer this land.15 Many Americans continue to experience the social, political, cultural and economic inequalities that remain in our 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.
There were several motives for the removal of the Indians from their lands, to include racism and land lust. Since they first arrived, the white Americans hadn’t been too fond of the Native Americans. They were thought to be highly uncivilized and they had to go. In his letter to Congress addressing the removal of the Indian tribes, President Jackson states the following:
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.
Trying to persuade Congress to agree that the removal would not only benefit settlers but would be beneficial to Natives he delivered the impression that anyone would take the opportunity. He proclaimed that the natives were savages and might pose a threat to settler and it would just be the best thing for everyone if they were just moved (Jackson President). The settlers that were leaving as the Natives were doing so on they're own will the Natives did not want to leave they were harshly forced
the removal acts were not only unjust but it should constitute as genocide. It’s no secret that in the early 1830s the natives of America weren’t exactly welcomed by most although over time most did their best to adapt to the European American cultures around them and often converted to Christianity, people began to open up a bit more so much so that when Jackson did present the Indian removal act there was push back “thousands of northern white women signed a petition arguing that the Cherokee should not be removed from their land”(vander velede, section 11, slide vocab) and as if his people protesting wasn’t enough he also received push back from the supreme court. “After the Indian removal act only narrowly passed congress, an 1832 supreme court ruling declared it unconstitutional.”( keenan, 2 ) These people had just as much right to be on their land as anyone else it is a part of what America stood for and still stands for
Can you imagine strange men invading your land, forcing you to convert to their way of living or being killed? Then after adapting, being forced to leave your home forever? This is exactly what Thomas Jackson required of the Indians after passing the Indian Removal Act. In the Removal Act, he portrayed the migration to their new home, the reserves, to be a positive thing. The Indians were led to believe they would be escorted to their new homes free of charge. Jackson also reassured them that his forefathers left their lands and had created a new life in America. By the Indians leaving their ancient lands, Jackson would be able to develop the forests and fields into cities for larger populations and increased safety from future invasions. The