Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A different history for Native Americans and white settlers
Summary on the cultural conflict between Native Americans and Europeans
Native Americans during westward expansion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Yes, In the passages, Robert Morgan makes the claim that was supported the land because the land is the most popular thing that Morgan talked about in the passage.the passage states that Morgan wanted to expand the western expand The passage also stated that people wanna to cross the land without fighting. Therefore, people were trying to fight back there land to get back to the land.My people some of them have run away to the hills and have no blankets and no food. On the other hand, one could argue that Robert Morgan wasn't right on his claims because people were talking about more of the land than to talk about the western expansion. The other part of the claims was people couldn't have cross the border without their permission, or it was war time. Although the people did not want to have war they just wanted their land. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. The early 17’s to early 18’s, the Rainy Mountain and America was the most part of land that was in the western expansion.Their country was large. We were contented to let things remain as the Great Spirit Chief made them. They had the most. The people in both of the stories are Kiowa Indians and Lewis, Clark. Lewis and Clark was going to the mandan mountains, which was the land to get to the western …show more content…
The indians are trying to past thought to have or create and new nation that would expand the land even more.The land was a big part of the issue because the indians had less land, the white men people was trying to take over their land and explore more with it. Although, the land was a big part of the issue because the indians had less land, the white men people was trying to take over their land and explore more with
There are many ways in which we can view the history of the American West. One view is the popular story of Cowboys and Indians. It is a grand story filled with adventure, excitement and gold. Another perspective is one of the Native Plains Indians and the rich histories that spanned thousands of years before white discovery and settlement. Elliot West’s book, Contested Plains: Indians, Goldseekers and the Rush to Colorado, offers a view into both of these worlds. West shows how the histories of both nations intertwine, relate and clash all while dealing with complex geological and environmental challenges. West argues that an understanding of the settling of the Great Plains must come from a deeper understanding, a more thorough knowledge of what came before the white settlers; “I came to believe that the dramatic, amusing, appalling, wondrous, despicable and heroic years of the mid-nineteenth century have to be seen to some degree in the context of the 120 centuries before them” .
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.
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 the 1830's the Plains Indians were sent to the Great American Deserts in the west because the white men did not think they deserved the land. Afterwards, they were able to live peacefully, and to follow their traditions and customs, but when the white men found out the land they were on was still good for agricultural, or even for railroad land they took it back. Thus, the white man movement westward quickly began. This prospect to expand westward caused the government to become thoroughly involved in the lives of the Plains Indians. These intrusions by the white men had caused spoilage of the Plains Indians buffalo hunting styles, damaged their social and cultural lives, and hurt their overall lives.
The Indians thought of land very differently to the white man. The land was sacred, there was no ownership, and it was created by the great spirit. They could not sell their land to others, whereas the white people could fence off the land which belonged to them, and sell it freely to whoever they wanted. The Europeans didn't think that the Indians were using the land properly, so in their eyes, they were doing a good favour to the earth. To the Indians, the land was more valuable than the money that the white man had brought with him, even though it didn't belong to them.
The West: From Lewis and Clark and Wounded Knee: The Turbulent Story of the Settling of Frontier America.
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
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 its fertile land. Next, the location was perfect for trade. It was close to the Mississippi river where trading ports were located. Third, there were many resources such as gold, fertile soul, and water. Finally, the American settlers had old grudges with the Native Americans due to the fact that they sided with the British during the Revolutionary War and slaughtered many American colonists. Due to many reasons, the American settlers wanted Indian land for their own gain.
Westward expansion was the greatest method to achieve the grouping of the natural resources found and use them as needed. To gain access to the western part of the country the white settlers had to pass through the Native Americans. While pushing westward the white culture clashed with the plain indians and their culture. As a result of this clash bloody battles surged and the white settlers were victorious and the government restricted the Native American lands to small portions. The government supported assimilation, which was the plan to unite the Native American culture with the white one.
Even though there are a couple well fought reasons on why the manifest destiny wasn't justified I strongly believe that it was. Even though many of the natives died and there land was taken, I think they should be able to do this since they spend a lot of money for new land that no longer should belong to the natives. It helped encourage the use for transportation and the transportation industry and offered many, many acres of farming land that consisted of many resources. This is why I believe that the manifest destiny was
It did not take much time after the US obtained this new land that thousands of Chicanos lost their homelands. These Native citizens had already gained the ownership of their property through Spanish or Mexican law, however, due to the fact that United States courts did not recognize these laws these natives were stripped of their land. According to a prominent Chicano activist, Reyes Lopez Tijerina, the United states had unlawfully taken away these citizens’ land. Tijerina debates that, after the Mexican American war the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which promises these native free enjoyment of their property. However, by stripping the land from these natives the United States is going against the promise it made in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of allowing natives to enjoy their land or property. By going against this treaty the United States is going against its own laws, because due to the United States Constitution, article twelve, section two, which states that all treaties created by the United States are the supreme law, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is a law1.
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:
A lifetime earlier, Robert Owen was seeking to change the world in a superficially similar way to Hobson. From humble beginnings, Owen would later revolutionise industry in Britain and initiated the first steps towards much of the labour reform seen today. A utilitarian socialist, Owen emphasised the malleability of a person’s character by their environment and believed that the implementation of humanist laws and policies could change the character of workers and indeed entire industries.
In 1831 Robert Morgan wrote the article”There is No True History of the Westward Expansion.’’ Robert Morgan’s article was not only incu-siderant but also was in deep detail . Thus being wrong he was just stating his opinion “In the hyperbolic braggadocio of the backwoodsman such attitudes were good for laughter, and the viewers could indulge themselves in the satire while remaining a safe distance from attitudes and actions in which they were all complicit, such as the belief they were justified in killing Indians and taking their land”(P2L3-6).
Many people today know the story of the Indians that were native to this land, before “white men” came to live on this continent. Few people may know that white men pushed them to the west while many immigrants took over the east and moved westward. White men made “reservations” that were basically land that Indians were promised they could live on and run. What many Americans don’t know is what the Indians struggled though and continue to struggle through on the reservations.