Andrew Jackson Ethical Analysis

He achieved this by purposely neglecting the true horrors behind the removal of the Indians. Andrew Jackson portrayed the Native Americans as less than equal. The purpose of Jackson's speech was to justify his motives in moving the natives and to also convince congress that it was both beneficial to the Natives and the Americans. The source has value because it gives some insight into Jackson’s effort behind his motivation. Based on his purpose of speech, it can be learned that the relationship between the Natives and Americans was only beneficial for certain necessities.

What if hypocritical, selfish Americans took your rights, along with your land? Albert Gallatin, an American Senator from 1845, is a primary source that talks about the account of Manifest destiny (the belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable,) as a negative. Indian Chief John Ross was stripped of his freedom as well as his land. Alexander Hamilton, one of the United State’s own founding fathers, bashed Thomas Jefferson on his decision, mentioning quote, “lucky coincidences and unexpected circumstances and not the result of any wise or thoughtful actions on the part of Jefferson’s administration.” Manifest destiny was an extremely negative event in the history of the United States. Alexander Hamilton, one of the United State’s own founding fathers approached Manifest Destiny negatively, in an article in the newspaper,“New York Evening Post” titled: “Purchase of Louisiana” in July 1803.

He condemned slavery as an abuse of the rights of man. He defended American Indian culture and stated that only their environment needed to be changed to make them equal to white men. On the other hand, Jefferson was influ-enced by the predominant views of many historians on race and he never ceased to believe that a color line was drawn by Nature between the races and that this line dic-tated their rights and liberties. For the black population – which was obviously on the wrong side of his imaginary line – this meant that they would have to be removed from American soil once freed and for the Native Americans this meant that only as long as they fulfilled all the preconditions of entry to the “Garden set aside by God”, would they have a right to

The main difference that we see between both racial ethnic groups is that white Americans believed that they could strip Native Americans from their culture and civilize them while “nurture could not improve the nature of blacks” (67). Although some Native Americans did try to live under the laws of white Americans, they were eventually betrayed and forced to leave the

Andrew Jackson was chosen for president for the smart decisions he made during the war. Andrew Jackson was to be thought to be a great leader for this country. However, some people didn’t think he made the right choices for the country. A person tried to assassinate him but failed and has misfired. Andrew Jackson went against the Supreme Court and did something that wasn’t in his command.

In President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress on December 6,1830, it was said “Cherokee nation occupies its own territory and no Georgia citizens have the right to enter” (Worcester). The Indians had the right to keep their land but president Jackson took their land away. The Indians also had their rights being violated by the government in other ways. In America History of our Nation their rights were also being violated because the government had a law signed forcing the Creeks to give up most of their land (page 357). Their rights were again being violated, showing another reason why the Indian Removal Act should not have been

“America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America,” declared President Jimmy Carter. America is a country famous for supporting human rights. America is considered a cultural ‘melting pot’ or ‘salad bowl.’ Racial discrimination is frowned upon in this country. However, America once did the very thing it is disdainful of.

Mexican American War “...May the boldest fear and the wisest tremble when incurring responsibilities on which may depend on our countries peace and prosperity…” -James K. Polk. What our 11th president meant by this is that we need to maintain good relations to bring success as this is the opposite of what Mexico wanted. In 1845, many Americans believed in manifest destiny which was the belief that the United States was destined to stretch from coast to coast. As this idea scattered through America, citizens of the U.S. spread with it. Americans going west ran into Mexican territory, where settlement was cheap.

Sujan Neupane Rodolfo C. Villarreal History 1302 02/24/2017 “Native Reactions to the Invasion of America” by James Axtell In his article called “Native Reactions to the Invasion of America”, James Axtell discusses a very important problem of the American history – the treatment of Native Americans by the newcomers. Although Axtell does justify the position of the Natives in many cases, he does not believe that the newcomers were the only cause of the cultural schism between themselves and the locals. On the contrary, he believes that the schism and decline of the local culture was often caused by the choices made by the Natives themselves. Axtell claims that there were several ways in which Indians reacted to the coming of the whites,

Chief Joseph represents the views of the Indian people who are being forced off their land. The Indians point of view is much different from the American government and people. The Indians wanted peace and to remain on their land. “From where the sun now stands I will fight no more against the white man.” While the American people felt it was their destiny to expand and progress forward they were crushing the people who had lived on the land. Throughout history it is hardly ever mentioned how ethically wrong Americans treated the Indian people.

For example, Henry Knox, Secretary of War in 1789, wrote to President George Washington that, “The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war” (Document B). Which means that the Native Americans were protected of their rights of staying on American land, since they were the first to be on the land, and they could only be removed if they agreed or lost by war. However, the US government would trick Native American Tribes to agree to unfair treaties and this would be major mistakes that were being made, because it was still unfair to them, but was constitutional since they were willing to agree to these treaties. Soon after Andrew Jackson, achieved his political goals of expanding into the west.

To realize the indecisive dictations that the Indian tribes have been exposed to, it is essential to assimilate that the Marshall Trilogy was another factor that contributed to the negligence portrayed to the natives. Chief Justice John Marshall became associated with the jurisdictions that were enforced against the Indian civilization and their authority of land. There were three Supreme Court cases where Marshall was corresponded to dictate a decision in regards to Indian tribe’s possession of land an no one else’s. The first case by the name of Johnson v. M’Intosh occurred in 1823 where the Court determined that despite the fact that Indians were lawful inhabitants of the land, their tribes had no authority to vend their lands or do anything on their own without the federal government’s consent. The verdict stated that Indian lands were claimed by the federal government; therefore Indian’s sovereignty over their territories was restricted, although existent.

The NYT article refers to the controversy about renaming the memorial and building a shrine commemorating the death of Native Americans in the Battle of Little Bighorn. “Senator Malcom Wallop, Republican of Wyoming, became an outspoken opponent of the name change, calling the proposal ‘a prime example of political correctness’ and an act of ‘revisionism’” (NYT 37) It seems that ideas such as westward expansion and imperialism have taken a negative toll after the 1960’s, but yet defenders of colonialist/imperialist history find some type of way to defend it. Political correctness is the orthodox patriotism of the post

In this PBAT essay I am going to prove that the United States government did not make good promises to the Native Americans. They did not stay true to their principle of natural rights which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The declaration of independence states some of these principles which are, “all men are created equal”, “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. These principles were supposed to be beneficial for the people by the time they are born, and even those who aren’t citizens of the United States which could never be taken away as long as they live. Historically the United States government has not stayed true to their promises

It’s hard to defer whether or not John Adams was an effective president because, although many historians believe that Adams was correct in not expanding the naval war with France into a conflict which saved many people’s lives, there were things that he established and believed that completely contradicted the newly established constitution. This could’ve put America into jeopardy. These things included the belief that the executive branch should stand above politics, his agreement to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the fact that mostly of the people in the United States, including his own party, turned away from his ideas, which definitely did not make him the most effective president. Much of Adam’s isolation reflected a well conceived