Compare and Contrast Essay
The Indian Removal Act took place in 1830 by order of president Andrew Jackson to relocate Native indians to the west. In his speech called “On Indian Removal”, he explains how Indian Removal is beneficial to both the Indians and White Americans. Another writing about Indian removal is a personal story about a young boy being relocated with his clan and traveling on what is known as the Trail Of Tears. Though these two readings discuss the same topic, they use very different language to get their point across and to describe their view on Indian removal. Between the two pieces of writing, there are differences in the description of the situation, sentence structure, and tone. The differences in language between Jackson's "On Indian Removal" and Rutledge's "Samuel's Memory" show that Indian removal was viewed differently by different groups of people, and affected them in various ways.
The way that the situation is described in the two readings is very different. In Jackson’s “On Indian Removal”, he says, “These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival….. How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions!”. Here he is saying that Indian Removal is an opportunity for the Indians to purchase new land and start a new life somewhere else and the
The Indian Removal Act was an act that removed native americans from their land because the US wanted it. The supreme court specifically told Jackson to not move the native americans off the land, but Jackson still did. Even though the native americans and the US had an agreement, the US still decided to remove the native americans so they could have the land. The native americans were moved off their land and moved west. This lead to the Trail of Tears.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830, championed by President Andrew Jackson, called for the relocation of numerous native American tribes to lands west of the Mississippi River to land for white settlers. Although the bill was extremely controversial, it was passed, and entire Indian tribes were forced to move. Due to the hardship and suffering the Indian Removal Act of 1830 caused Indian peoples, as well as the fact that it was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and immoral, it should not have been passed. Firstly, the negative effects of the bill on native Americans far outweighed the benefits it might have had for second people. Secondly, the bill violated numerous treaties between the U.S. government and Indian tribes and was thus unconstitutional. Lastly, the bill was immoral due to the fact that Indian leaders were not allowed a voice in their own future and the inherent racism involved in the decision.
On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed. It stated that the Native American were to be removed from the Southern states (Indian Removal Act). The act ended the Native American’s right to live in the states under their own traditional laws (Indian Removal Act). They were given the options to assimilate and acknowledge the United States’ laws or leave (Indian Removal Act). They were forced to leave their land, their homes, everything they ever knew or face the consequences. They were forced to go to a land that they knew nothing about, and hope that they would be able to survive where ever they ended up. When the Cherokee were forced to leave, out of the 18,000 that left 4,000 died on the way (Primary Documents) As a result of all of the death on the trail, it was named the Trail of Tears (Primary Documents).
“I fought through the civil war and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever knew”, remarked a Georgia soldier who had participated in the removal of Indian Natives during the mid-1800’s. As a result of the Indian Removal Act, Indian natives have been perceived as mistreated and cheated throughout history. The Indian Removal Act was passed during the presidency of Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. This act granted authorization to the president to exchange unsettled lands west of Mississippi for Indian lands residing in state borders. Initially, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed to expand the Southern United State for farmland and to aid the government in furthering our development as a nation. With this plan in mind, the government provided money to establish districts in the west of the Mississippi River for the Indian natives, ensured trade and exchange in those districts, allowed Native Indian tribes to be compensated for the cost of their removal and the improvements of their homesteads, and also pay one years’ worth subsistence to those Native Indians who relocated to the west.
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.
The Indian Removal Act was very controversial during its time, receiving influence from individuals, local, state and mostly by the federal government. This act gave the president, Andrew Jackson, the authority to make transactions with Indian tribes in the Southern region of the United States. The Indian Removal Act was a deal made by President Andrew Jackson with the Indian tribes, forcing them to leave their occupied land, which happened to be federal territories west of the Mississippi River. President Andrew Jackson’s primary method in Indian Removal was his speech to Congress regarding his opinions on the act, which included many positive outcomes that would happen if the Indians were to leave the territory. He claimed that this act would not only benefit the United States as a whole, but it would also benefit the Indian people. This benefit was called “Manifest Destiny” or the idea of the United States expanding its territories from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. This expansion would benefit the country not just economically, but agriculturally as well. However, “Manifest Destiny” was only an idea, and in order for this idea to become a reality, the governments had to take action. This action in entirety was the removal of the Indian tribes from the southern regions, making them travel through very harsh conditions so that Americans could settle in their former homeland. Overall, the American government wanted to rid the
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.
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
The Indian Removal Act signed by the president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, caused controversy and the brutal and merciless suffering of the Native Americans during The Trail of Tears. The beginning of the 1830’s was a time when the Native Americans occupied The Deep South. This, however, was problematic for the white farmers who were in need of farmland in order to increase their production of cotton. Nevertheless, Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, coerced the Native Americans to relocate their civilizations to lands west of the Mississippi. A close examination at the tribes that were compelled to move west would show that they were civilized. Thus, Andrew Jackson was not justified in his policy towards
To begin with, both stories seem to showcase the same event but they employ different tones in developing the message. The two stories ‘Samuel’s Memory’ and ‘ On Indian Removal’ are two varied messages drafted by various authors concerning their experiences regarding the Indian Tribe’s presence as well as removal in America. Michael employs a bitter and pitiful tone to portray the Indian removal from the American lands as an unfair and heartless action which demonstrates like of social and racial diversity. “None of them care about me or my people. All they ever saw was the color of our skin. All I see is the color of theirs and I hate them.” (p.4) He appears to hold that removing Indians from U.S was an unfriendly and callous action. He shows his bitterness as he points that Indians are merely chased and not given time to take their possessions. On the other hand, Indian Removal’ employs victorious tone as the author attempts to illustrate that the removal of Indians is a timely and a triumph for the Americans as the state will win back the land and
Before, Andrew Jackson became the seventh president he was a general. He won many wars other wars not so much. Andrew Jackson became the seventh president of the United States on 1829. He served between the years of 1829 to 1837. He became president when he won against John Quincy Adams in the Electoral College votes and in the popular votes.
In the 1830’s America was expanding its border and completing manifest destiny. The one thing standing in the way of Americans moving west was the Native Americans. President Andrew Jackson had a dilemma on his hands. Jackson wanted to create a plan that would make everyone happy. But in the end, Jackson had the Native American removed from their land and led to the “Trail of Tears” where many Native Americans would lose their lives. Looking at the articles by F.P Prucha, Mary E. Young and Alfred A. Cave each one says that the Indians needed to be removed from their land for a different reason.
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
One of the defining moments of President Andrew Jackson’s career, if not the most significant, was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This was a controversial bill at the time and the impact from it is still felt today. The Indian Removal Act directly led to the displacement of thousands of Native Americans; including four thousand deaths during the Trail of Tears, the forced march from Georgia to Oklahoma. While overt racism played a clear role in relocating Native Americans past the Mississippi, it is possible that other factors were at play. The living conditions in many of the states were poor for Natives and Jackson hoped that giving them a new location to live could remedy these problems while opening the land up for white settlers.
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