In the late 18th and early 19th centuries the Cherokees were going through a time of rebirth and regeneration. After the American Revolution the Cherokees confronted with economic depression. They gave up their homes, villages, towns and hunting grounds to white Americans. Many Cherokees adopted customs, beliefs and lifestyles of white Americans; they profoundly assimilated White culture because in this way they hoped could survive as a nation in their homeland.
American Indians were unfamiliar to them and they seemed to occupy land that they white settlers wanted. George Washington had a clever way to solve the problem by civilizing the Native Americans. The southeastern United States, many Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee people embraced customs and became known as the Five Civilized Tribes. Some of their lands were in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida. The whites would have done anything to have their land that they wanted.
Petalesharo’s writing reflected the treatment of Native Americans during the 1800s. Being a Native American himself, Petalesharo was able to give perspective on a point in history typically viewed from a white man’s opinion. The excerpt “Petalesharo” explains how the Native American was able “to prevent young women captured by other tribes from being sacrificed”, making Petalesharo well liked by the Americans (588). Petalesharo gave the “Speech of the Pawnee Chief” infront of Americans to convey the differences between Native Americans and Americans through emotion, logic, and credibility, which showed how the two groups will never be the same, but still can coexist in the world together.
Many people tend to think that Jackson is a monster for the trail of tears. The trail of tears benefited both the Indians and the North American Settlers. The Indian tribes may have had it rough but they were the first ones to have a glance at the new living and North American settlers were able to move into new land. If the trail of tears never happened North American settlers would have had a more difficult time building towns and these towns couldn’t be built then America wouldn’t have been built the way it is
His task was not easy, but he did all his best to stop the racism in the American society. So who Martin Luther King was, and what he did to serve on issue of racial discrimination between black and white Americans? To answer these two general questions shortly, Martin Luther King was a black American, he was one of the most significant honest voices of civil needs movement, and hero of equal rights. Because he chose to end the racialism with principle of nonviolence or peaceful resistance, according to his said "We must learn to live together as brothers or we will perish together as fools". My research will answer these two questions: a) How he impacted the American society?
Both had multiple casualties from malnutrition and disease and had to endure the same hardships. The difference is that the United States did this action out of greed for the Native Americans land that they own east of the Mississippi River. Ethan Davis rights in his article “An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal,” that Congressional Democrats told society that the Removal Act was "a measure of life and death. Pass the bill on your table, and you save [the Indians]. Reject it, and you leave them to perish"(11).
Jackson then hired new people that weren’t trying to go against him. One of which was his friend from New York William L. Marcy. Of course there was the Indian removal the “trail of tears.” This was by far one of the most controversial things that any president has ever done in office. In fact Indian removal was so very important to President Jackson that he had to negotiate in Tennessee.
One being forced out of the only home they ever knew, only for the gain of their oppressors is extremely harsh. In 1830, president Andrew Jackson formulated a cruel plan to do this, announcing his goals to the nation. He believed that all natives were savages, and worth less than white men. Jackson’s speech on American Indian removal possesses several flaws, as he neglects the fact that the Indians were there first, fails to empathize with the native population as he plans to forcibly remove them, and is morally incorrect in his judgement of the Native Americans.
Uproar and protest bubbled over in the states after Scott’s failure to obtain his freedom. His case also fueled the North in their battle with the South, since the big topic of the century was “slavery”. They wanted justice for Dred Scott, to rightfully place his ownership in his own hands, to grant him the freedom to live however he pleased and to not have to walk in shackles. Any human should have that basic right, as it says in the constitution. This landmark of a case stood as a breaking point for social reform; motivation to stop the discrimination that ran throughout the country.
I agree with so much of what you said in your post! I especially agree with the point you made about northern nativism not really developing until the south gave it a reason to. That 's so true and I honestly hadn 't even thought about like that. I also think that there were a lot of questions over American national identity and it was voiced most hysterically when the rise of sectional prejudices cast doubt on the unity of native America itself.
The Reconstruction was unsuccessfull because of some important reasons. First, the South was still aracist part of the United States because they created the Jim Crow Laws, what means that the people who lived and administratedthe South were not intelligent. The second example is that Abraham Lincoln, who started and incentivated the Reconstruction, was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, so it made the Reconstruction process to be less efective. Finally, the last problem was the Solid South, it is a name that the South recieved because it was a solid white, solid racist and solid Democrat, what means that they were not able to support black people. Concluding, all of these examples shows why the Reconstruction was unsuccessfull
Gibson, 1833.” Mahon addressed the federal government’s effort to reunite Seminoles with Creeks as “kindred friends,” but explained this position on White ignorance of Creek-Seminole relations. It is important, though, to emphasize that the difficulty in constructing the fate of the Seminoles relied on treaties written by the White Americans. Oftentimes the Seminoles were also dependent on Blacks both interpreting for, and representing, Seminole Indian interests; leaving speculation of divided
Then later in de Las Casas life he realized the way the Native Americans were being treated and killed was wrong. Bartolome then shared Helen Hunt Jackson’s views and both became activists for the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson thought that if they were set apart from the white settlers this would allow them to eventually become a more civilized, interesting community and they would no longer be savages. Although there are over 339 years from the time Bartolome de Las Casas wrote Brief Account of the Devastation of the Indies and Helen Hunt Jackson wrote A Century of Dishonor not much seemed to change as far as race relations with the Indians. An author’s view of race relations can change or be influenced by a variety of