preview

How Did Andrew Jackson Support The Trail Of Tears Dbq

Decent Essays

Trail of Tears/Indian Removal
As a result of President Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830, thousands of Native Americans were forcefully removed from their tribal lands and transferred to lands west of the Mississippi River. Natives were held at gunpoint as they trekked the 800 mile “Trail of Tears” to the West and because of the harsh terrain and spread of disease, it claimed the lives of almost ¼ of the Cherokee Natives. Promptly after becoming president, Andrew Jackson and Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 due to the assimilation and protection of Natives being too costly. While Jackson’s support of Indian Removal was mostly to benefit America, he reasoned that it would benefit the Natives too. He believed that “to …show more content…

Similarly, a minority of the Natives supported Indian Removal even though the majority did not want to depart from their ancestral homes. Those who supported relocation saw it as the only rational solution to their newfound misery. Document B exhibits a letter written by Elias Boudinot, a Cherokee who supported Removal, to Chief John Ross, a Cherokee who opposed removal. Boudinot argued that the continual suffering of his fellow Natives would only lead to “chains of slavery” and “the sure end of our race if you succeed in preventing the removal of your people.” He instead urged for their removal in order to “rise from their very ashes, to become prosperous and happy.” This conclusion that relocation was their only chance at survival convinced a minority of the Natives to support Indian Removal. On the other hand, while I support Jackson’s concept of Indian Removal, I do not agree with his execution and speedy retraction of promises. Jackson was right to believe that the assimilation and protection of Natives would cost too much and that relocation was an adequate solution to the predicament. However, he did not account for the execution of the plan and the …show more content…

(Littell)” This 19th-century doctrine was used as justification for the continuous movement West and removal of Native Americans along the way. In John O’ Sullivan’s “The Great Nation of Futurity,” he writes of the religious obligations of American people to “establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man.” He infers that the destiny of America is to establish and spread the message of God, thus justifying their expansion. However, I do not believe this statement because in an assumed religious view, why would God want his people to brutally remove and/or kill others if everyone has the same God? This faulty religious reasoning does not support Manifest Destiny therefore neither do I. Furthermore, in John Sullivan’s “Annexation,” he elaborates on his reasoning for the expansion of the United States. As Sullivan defends the annexation of Texas, he supports his claim by insisting on America’s need for more land due to its “yearly multiplying millions” and conclusion that God provided the land through Manifest Destiny. While the need for land may hold true, I do not agree that it was not America’s ordained destiny to expand but rather a necessity in

Get Access