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
Robert V. Remini shows that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act benefits the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson made notice of the issue with the Indians in his inaugural speech on March 4, 1829. He declared that he wanted to give humane and considerable attention to the Indian’s rights and wants in respect to the government and people. Jackson knew that meant to get rid of all remaining tribes beyond the Mississippi River. He (Jackson) believed that the Indians would be better off in the west; without the influence from the white man or local authority. Jackson hired two Tennessee generals to go visit the Creeks and Cherokees to see if the Indians would leave voluntarily. In that, those who did not leave would be protected by the
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 most destructive law” to the American Indians which barely passed May 28, 1830 was known as the Indian Removal Act, and later was known as the Trail of Tears. In 1803 President Thomas Jefferson brought up to Congress that all American Indians “be encouraged to move voluntarily from their lands east of the Mississippi River.” For some time, many American Indians began their new venture and voluntarily started to move. President James Monroe also agreed with Thomas Jeffersons’ ideas and convinced Congress to move on with the process.
“It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes.give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants.” (Doc #4). Jackson declares in his First Inaugural Address that the Native Americans will be recognized along with their rights. His sympathy here is misleading, as his words contradict his actions. The Indian Removal Act violated the natives’ right to own property, and their right to state sovereignty, pushing them out of their homelands for the benefit of white landowners and miners.
This land had large herds of buffalo and was viewed by the white man to be “too rough” for them to settle in. Calhoun had proposed relocation as the only “permanent solution” to “the Indian problem.” The US government, by the time of the Andrew Jackson's presidency, offered Native Americans a very limited number of options: acculturation, relocation, or extermination.
Andrew Jackson in his state of the union address of 1830 had the pleasure to announce his long fought battle in favor of removal had began coming to existence. Humanity and Philanthropy were two of his main points for why this has been such a strenuous task put upon the nation by the natives. “Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to advert it.”(127) Jacksonbrings up the point regarding Americans moving west and humanity not weeping at the fact that they leave but are rather joyful due to the freedoms of “body and mind”(128) America grants. Jackson even goes far as asking the American public “How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace removing to the west on such conditions?”(128) Jackson also discussed the removal procedure and about how the government can be fair and liberal if they agreed to the laws of the states from which they are present or how the government can be harsh if the alternative for removal isn’t accepted by the natives.
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
It was said in May of 1838 by John G. Burnett that It looked like Cherokees were being dragged out of their homes and being “loaded like sheep and cattle into six hundred and forty-five wagons”. He also said that most did not have shoes on or blankets. On the flip side Andrew Jackson in March 1837 said that he was “blessing them with civilization”. He also called the native Americans an “ill-fated race” and and “unhappy race”. He said that they would receive “ paternal care of the General Government” we know that today he only created the Indian Removal Act for his own greed, he did it for the sole reason that he found gold in Georgia where the Cherokees’ lived. Andrew Jackson also saw the Native Americans as a threat to the expansion of the U.S.
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.
On may 28, 1830 the Indian Removal Act was passed by the congress and was signed by the current president at the time Andrew Jackson. The Indian Removal Act authorized the president to grant unsettled lands west of Mississippi in exchange for the Native Americans land. This forced Native American tribes to march their way west of Mississippi. Some tribes left in peace but most of the tribes resisted. In 1835 the agreement to, Treaty Of New Echota allowed Jackson to order Cherokee removal. Some Cherokee leaders signed the treaty and left but people under the leadership Chief John Ross resisted until they were forced to move to a new location 1838. Their forced journey to their new location was called the Trail Of Tears. Ever since, Native Americans have been living in reservation lands and the government has taken notice but don’t know if they should give them land or money. The government should be giving Native Americans land instead of money because the reservation lands are not
Cave’s idea that Jackson overstepped his legislative power and violated the Indian Removal Act as written is that of Robert V. Remini. Remini argues that Jackson did care for the well being of the Native Americans and their customs and therefore did everything in his power to protect them from the white settlers. While some aspects of this argument can be proven, there is far more evidence to support Cave’s proposal. Remini argues that, “the Indian Removal Act did not order the removal of Indians” and that it was “the President’s noble desire to give the Indians a free choice between staying and removing”. He blames the fraud and deception on the state officials that harassed Indians who refused to leave. But, what Remini fails to mention is that jackson regarded state harassment Indians as a useful means of encouraging removal. Jackson continuously warned and threatened the hesitant tribes to sign the removal treaties, “starvation and destruction await them if they remain much longer..”. There were many witness to fraud, coercion, and corruption were used by Jackson’s supporters to negotiate the removal treaties, accordingly, on many accounts, jackson’s agents resorted to extensive bribery of tribal leaders and frequently threatened leaders opposed to relocation. Another point in Remini’s essay was that Jackson truly showed “genuine feelings of concern for their welfare, particularly the poor among them”, but this argument is completely
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
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.
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
Throughout Jackson’s presidency, Jackson was prone to making questionable decisions. One of Jackson’s most monumental blunders was when he decided to relocate tens of thousands of innocent Native Americans. Jackson was a huge fan of the idea of Americans moving westward to unsettled areas. The Native Americans occupied the areas that Jackson wanted to transform into American cities. That did not halt Jackson from doing what he desired. Jackson displayed his egocentric behavior and called for the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Jackson wanted to move the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole nations from their southeastern homes to Oklahoma. The Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole nations all somewhat cooperatively deserted their homes at the request of the Americans with little fight. These nations forfeited their land, homes and possessions to walk the Trail of Tears, an 850-mile path from the southeastern states to Oklahoma. American soldiers forcefully kept the Natives moving without breaks. Throughout the trek, thousands of Natives died from sickness and starvation. One tribe, the Cherokees from Georgia,