Indian removal

Georgians wanting to expand and longing to have the land to themselves. This brutality and greed then led to the Indian removal from this land. Within these points in history that natives are pushed out of Georgia was led by political and social acts ranging from laws and acts being passed along with whites invading the Cherokees land. In 1802, the state of Georgia forced the removal of Indians from their land but the federal government and state government had to negotiate before this went into

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

Beginning in 1789 with George Washington, the Indians living next to the American people forced federal Indian policies to be created, which ranged from coexistence to removal. These policies under the seven different presidents coincided in ways regarding expansion and removal, but also changed in ways regarding American interaction, civilization, and removal tactics of the Indians. Despite the consistent similarities in federal Indian policies during the years between the Washington and Jackson

In 1830, Indian Removal was passed by Congress and was made into a law by President Andrew Jackson. The bill ordered the eviction of the Five Civilized Tribes from the southeastern area of the United States. Each tribe made decisions to either obey the law and move, or stay and fight. The Cherokee used the American court system to petition for their right to stay in their homes. The Cherokees lost the combat and were forced to move. The trail they took later became known as the Trail of Tears. President

The removal of the Creek Indians in the Indian Removal Act helped the development of the United States but in a cruel and harsh way. Without the Indian Removal Act, most of the land that is America today would be inhabited by indians. Although we were mostly at peace with the Creeks and had trading and housing arrangements, after the Indian Removal act was created, it all went downhill. There were wars, conflicts, and bribes for land and that just made the Creeks fall apart . In 1670, the Creek

he passed the Indian Removal act of 1830, he did this so that Americans could expand West. According to Document F(Andrew Jackson's Annual Message to Congress,1830), it says "...Will unite in attempting to open the eyes of those children of the forest to their true condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or imaginary, present or prospective, with which they may be supposed to be threatened". That shows how Western expansion started and why Indians were kicked out

In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma. A Constant attitude towards indians had been up held by most white westerners, And they had a view that had stuck around throughout the ages. During the eighteenth century, many white americans had considered the indians as "noble savages"; people without real civilizations but people who had an inherented

dinner. Suddenly, Cherokee Indians burst out of the nearby woods and drag you away by your hair. At their camp, they tied you to a wood pole and build a fire around your feet. The last sensation you feel is sweltering heat as a wave of black consumes you. This is a small taste of what it was like back in 1830. Before the United States was as large as it is now, the U.S. kept bumping elbows with its neighbors, the Indians. President Andrew Jackson introduced the Indian Removal Act to give the U.S. some

TWhich group would have supported this depiction of Jackson? As a result of his unfaltering decision to prevent economic nationalism, most notably seen through his war against the Bank of United States, Andrew Jackson drew a heavy amount of opposition from those in favor of a nationalized economy, who viewed him as a tyrannical leader frequently making unilateral decisions based on his personal grudges. Jackson constantly opposed the concentration of power in regards to the economy. This could be

unquestionably negative actions, such as the Indian Removal Act, were done at the time not only in the interest of the citizens of the united states , but in regard (however misguided) to the survival of the Indian nations. It is this