During the early-mid 19th century, the United States’ economy underwent a major transformation. Characterized by a progression away from regional markets and on to larger national markets, the US economy grew exponentially. Technological advancements in agriculture and transportation allowed different areas of the country to work together. These areas became interdependent on each other’s production. Cotton was the main catalyst in the rise of this ‘Market Revolution’, it was the critical factor in the new trade system amongst the Eastern, Western, and Southern regions of the U.S. To keep up with the production demand of the Cotton Kingdom, a large workforce was required. Captured and brought to America, slaves became the cheap labor that propelled …show more content…
These unfair practices of the Market Revolution are explained below. Because of the immense need to expand cotton production, the US turned to the appropriation of Indian lands to satisfy their needs. In the process of acquiring these lands, Indians were forcibly removed and pushed towards unwanted territory westward. Those Indians who resisted were savagely annihilated by the colonists. The frontrunner of this movement was Andrew Jackson. To the public, Jackson would claim that the Indian removal was “advancing civilization and progress” (Takaki, 81); he made this unwarranted expulsion seem like a benevolent cause, when in reality the removal was depriving Indians of their liberty and happiness. Jackson didn’t view the Indians as equals, instead he depicted them as an inferior kind of humans, a group of “savages”, he did not believe that these men, Indians, were created equal to white men. Jackson would proceed to modify laws in order to make the Indian removal simpler, and would turn a blind eye to those laws, such as the 1802 Indian Tribe and Intercourse Act, which would stall the process. U.S. society became convinced that …show more content…
But federal agents and speculators worked together to take advantage of them and legally take their land. The speculators and agents didn’t believe that the Indians were equal to them and thus should not live in their newly appropriated lands, even though that was their (Indians) home long before the colonists arrived. They argued that in the end “Indians were responsible for their own ruin” (Takaki, 85), even though it was the white man who had set them up for failure. In the same manner, the white man even sabotaged entire Indian tribes. An example is seen in the Cherokee nation case, in which Jackson instructed his commissioners to make a deal with only the pro removal faction of the tribe. They jailed the tribe’s Chief, set up a meeting with a minute section of the members, and ultimately took the tribe’s native land
opinion. jackson believes that seizing the land of the indians is a natural obligation for
While the government may have been thinking for the betterment of their people, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was not a justified action. The settlers bullied and attacked the original inhabitants, the Indians, into giving up their land. Perhaps to the government this may have seemed justified considering it was beneficial to them, but they essentially stole land that was not theirs to take. In an attempt to feign compassion for these original inhabitants, President Andrew Jackson states in his 1829 case to congress that this Act will help the Indians, “…to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community” (Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress, 2).
Andrew Jackson, The United States seventh president, was possibly one of the worst human beings to be president and treated the Native Indians horribly. He, was a bully and used his position to get acts and petitions like the Indian Removal Act passed, to help push Native Indians around so he could get his own way. The Indian Removal Act in and of itself seemingly doesn’t contain that much power, however it was all the power Jackson needed. The circumstances of Jackson’s character and the debates surrounding the Act also lend and interesting lens to examine what Jackson intentions were. When looking at Jackson and how he managed to relocate the Native it becomes substantially more integral to examine all the documents with a wide scope to see how he even managed the relocation of Natives.
When one hears the name Andrew Jackson, there are many feelings that are conjured up by an individual. Some of these emotions include fear, disgust, and comedy. These sentiments are of reason for substantial evidence exists to prove these emotions plausible. Andrew Jackson was the seventh president under the Constitution of the United States of America who presided from 1829 until 1837. However, he was the first president to be impeached. With his controversial presidency, Andrew Jackson implemented many policies that continue to impact the United States in the modern era. His most controversial contribution was the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act prompted the infamous Trail of Tears that killed many Cherokee Native Americans and moved them westward to confined reservations. Of course, to implement such grand policy, Jackson had to unduly convince Congress of those actions. In Andrew Jackson’s speech given February 22nd, 1831 entitled “Message Regarding Indian Relations,” he tries to vindicate the Indian Removal Act, outline the benefits of such legislation, and explain why such it was indeed important. Rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos are effectively utilized by Jackson to persuade Congress to believe in the merits of upholding the Indian Removal Act which then lead to westward expansion and Native American migration from their homelands.
With the unconstitutional Indian Removal Act, Jackson forced more than one native american tribe to move from their land. He had done this because he says he was looking out for them so the white people and natives didn’t fight anymore. The Native American tribes hadn’t done anything wrong but Jackson still forced them to move. The Cherokee tribe was considered one of the “civilized” tribes since they had a president, dressed like normal people in that time, and had a government like our own. The Cherokee tribe had been forced to move because some wealthy lawyers had signed the treaty and Jackson took the treaty knowing that the president wasn’t the one who had signed it (“Treaty of New Echota”). It wasn’t just the Cherokee tribe that had been forced to move but also the Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole,
In the years leading up to the Indian Removal Act, which was the initial cause of the Trail of Tears, the United States was in a shift. The country was seeing an unrivaled influx of European settlers looking for careers and land. This caused population to skyrocket, in fact in the years 1790-1840, the United States saw a 350% increase in population. In other words, the need for fertile land and viable property was high. At the same time, attempts at assimilation of Indians into American society were proving to be futile. Americans saw the Indians as “noble savages”, who were uncivilized but able to be fit for society if they were converted to Christianity and adopted Anglo-European culture and behavior. With the growing need for land and the rise in tension between Natives and fearful white settlers, something needed to be done in the eyes of the American people. These two things combined is what really set up the foreground for what would become the Indian Removal Act. President Andrew Jackson, in
Jackson had been fighting Native Americans for their land before he became a president. In 1788, Jackson and several white settlers tried to force the Cherokee Indians off their homeland in Georgia.2 The Cherokees fought to keep their land from white settlers and they even brought their case to the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution, the United States government must negotiate with the tribe leaders before seizing their land. Many political figures tried to bribe, threaten, or use military force to make tribe leaders sign the treaty so they would leave, however some of them would not budge so easily. Some political
The crops grown on plantations and the slavery system changed significantly between 1800-1860. In the early 1800s, plantation owners grew a variety of crops – cotton, sugar, rice, tobacco, hemp, and wheat. Cotton had the potential to be profitable, but there was wasn’t much area where cotton could be grown. However, the invention of the cotton gin changed this - the cotton gin was a machine that made it much easier to separate the seeds from cotton. Plantation owners could now grow lots of cotton; this would make them a lot of money. As a result, slavery became more important because the demand for cotton was high worldwide. By 1860, cotton was the main export of the south. The invention of the cotton gin and high demand for cotton changed
When Americans expanded their country west, they interfered with many American Indian Tribes. In a letter he wrote to congress, he explained “This emigration should be voluntary… (but) if they remain within the limits of the states they must be subject to their laws” (Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress December 7, 1829). Andrew Jackson offered to let the American Indians stay if they followed their laws. But in 1831, Jackson forced the Native Americans out of their homelands starting the Indian Removal. According to a reprinted in Niles Weekly Register, the Cherokee’s said “We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation”. Jackson lied to the American Indians about allowing them to stay. Jackson did not act democratically because he did not allow the American Indians to stay and forced them to move west. Jackson was fair to his supporters, but not to
The Market Revolution adversely affected the liberty of Native Americans residing within the United States because they were seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic progress. As the Market Revolution ideas of commerce and expansion took hold in the minds of the people, these white citizens shared the view that Native Americans were hindering the goal of expansion. The citizens believed it was their God-sanctioned right to settle the West (Manifest Destiny) and the Native Americans stood in the way. Conflicts with Native Americans have existed in America since the first settlers, but with the increased emphasis on commerce and development brought by the Market Revolution, the relations worsened. In 1823, during the case of Johnson v M’Intosh, the Supreme Court claimed that Native Americans only had the “right of occupancy” on their land, and that they did not own it. In 1830, under Jackson’s administration, the Indian Removal Act was created which tried to move the 5 Civilized Tribes out of their lands.
The growth of the cotton industry impacted America economically and socially. “The domestic slave trade exploded, providing economic opportunities for whites involved in many aspects of the trade and increasing the possibility of
The Market Revolution adversely affected the liberty of Native Americans residing within the United States because they were seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic progress. As the Market Revolution ideas of commerce and expansion took hold in the minds of the people, these white citizens shared the view that Native Americans were hindering the goal of expansion. It was the United State’s God-ordained right to occupy and settle the land westward (Manifest Destiny), and the Native Americans were in the way. The conflicts with Native Americans has existed in America since the first settlers, but with the increased emphasis on commerce and development brought by the Market Revolution, the relations worsened. In 1823, during the case of Johnson v M’Intosh, the Supreme Court claimed that Native Americans only had the “right of occupancy” on their land, and that they did not own it. In 1830, under Jackson’s administration, the Indian Removal Act was created which tried to move the 5 Civilized Tribes out of their lands. Finally, in the Trail of Tears during 1838-1839, 18,000 Cherokee men, women, and children were forcibly removed from their lands and relocated to Oklahoma by federal soldiers. Soon
Robert V. Remini argues that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 was socially motivated by humanitarian impulses, and that Jackson’s actions where driven by the desire to save the culture and populace of the Native
In 1830, congress passed The Indian Removal Act, which became a law 2 days later by President Andrew Jackson. The law was to reach a fairly, voluntarily, and peacefully agreement for the Indians to move. It didn’t permit the president to persuade them unwillingly to give up their land by using force. But, “President Jackson and his government
Being american in the 19th century meant preserving the union and using the land for financial prosperity, which created hostility between Natives and Congress had with the Native’s representation in the constitution. Cotton was America's biggest export during the 19th century as America produced over 400 million pounds of cotton each year. The economic prosperity and stability that came with owning land for cotton production created an “Urge to convert “unused” Indian land into into commercially productive cotton fields” (Wallace PG 191) The American people felt that the Indians deprived them of economic prosperity by ineffectively using land they believed belonged to them. This put the American government in a difficult position as they