Cherokee Policy Paper
Andrew Jackson was one of the most controversial presidents due to his affiliation with the Trail of Tears and the devastating aftermath that emerged. Nations, like President Jackson and the US, establish their decisions with the basis of social, economic, and political policies. Consequently, Jackson’s contribution to the removal of the Cherokee Indians, an act that has been compared to ethnic cleansing, impacted these three principles. The Jackson Administration’s proposal to remove the Cherokee Tribe west of the Mississippi River resulted in a continuation of the previous social and economic policies, but changed the political policies conducted by the US towards the tribes.
The removal of the Cherokees threatened …show more content…
For instance, the aftermath of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, which unfairly seized millions of acres of Native American land, brought upon white expansion,“speculators, farmers, and planters proceeded to take Indian’s land ‘legally,’ while absolving themselves from responsibility for Indian removal”(Towards the Stony Mountain, 91). The use of the treaty enabled the US to extract Native land without feeling guilty because it was done legally. They insist they are not responsible for removal due to the Treaty being passed; nonetheless, this was just another form of Indian removal committed in a misleading approach. Moreover, President Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Andrew Jackson reveals his plan to assimilate the Cherokee into farmers, leading to an agricultural way of life, which would diminish their need for land(Assimilation Doc. 2). Considering the fact that this would have an outcome of boundless vacant land, it is apparent that the US was not disclosing the complete truth behind the proclamation. The results of assimilation demonstrate another method of removing the Natives from their territory, and in a process that was fabricated to fit the government’s best economic interest. On the other hand, removal could be seen as a change in the economic policy because it differs from the goal of assimilation. This proves to be incorrect when understanding that assimilation’s main purpose was to obtain more land for the US, which was also the reasoning behind Jackson’s removal of the Natives. Therefore, the identical US economic policy prevailed due to the country’s ongoing desire to take Native American
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In an article entitled “Indian-KIller Andrew Jackson Deserves Top Spot On List of Worst U.S. Presidents” by Gale Toensing, it is described that the infamous Indian Removal event known as the “trail of tears” involved more than 4,000 Native Cherokee deaths.(Doc 4 Par 3) With this number in mind, it is apparent that the amount of fatalities was a planned result and could easily be classified as a type of War Crime today. Along with this, it was later discovered that Jackson and his cabinet had not even followed the guidelines nor the regulations when dealing with “the Indian problem”. In history.com’s “Basic History of Indian Removal Policy”, it is explained that “It did not permit the president[…] to coerce Native nations into giving up their land. [...] The law required the government to negotiate removal treaties fairly, voluntarily and peacefully.
The government tried to force assimilation on Native Americans as well as an attempt to “kill the indian, save the man.” These ideas and policies are similar to those popular during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson developed a sense of ‘paternalism’ towards indians and believed he was saving them by forcing them to live out west of the Mississippi river away from white culture. The difference was that Jackson did not believe in assimilation of indians into white culture, he believed they should be kept separate. With the help of the Federal government removing indians from land west of the Mississippi, Americans were
In 1830 Andrew Jackson passed the “1830 Indian Removal Act” (2) though senate. Out of the five major Native American groups that were affected by this legislation, only the Cherokee decided not to run or give up, but rather fight in the courts. This led to the most referenced court case in the supreme court history. This court case is a mile stone in the United States History due to, the events leading up to the court case, the Supreme Court ruling represents, and what became of the court’s decision.
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.
The Genocide: Trail of Tears/ The Indian removal act During the 1830s the united states congress and president Andrew Jackson created and passed the “Indian removal act”. Which allowed Jackson to forcibly remove the Indians from their native lands in the southeastern states, such as Florida and Mississippi, and send them to specific “Indian reservations” across the Mississippi river, so the whites could take over their land. From 1830-1839 the five civilized tribes (The Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, and Chickasaw) were forced, sometimes by gun point, to march about 1,000 miles to what is present day Oklahoma.
Congress passed the treaty in order to relocate the Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands in the west. Although, the act did not order the removal of the Indians, it did allow the president to negotiate land by exchanging treaties with tribes living within the boundaries of the states ” (2008-2015). This shows that the government did not have the right to do what they
The U.S. government restricted the American Indians to a reservation. Then took their lands. “The government forcibly “purchases” nine million acres from the reservation. ”(3) They made the American Indians sell their widespread homelands.
The president during the enforcement of the Indian removal act, Andrew Jackson, thought that the indigenous people were less civilized and moral than the settlers, although many of the tribes had adapted to the European lifestyle. He did not believe that the more “civilized” people should live alongside the indigenous people. When congress passed the Indian removal act in 1830 that stated that it was legal to force indigenous people off of their land, he fully enforced it, pushing tribes west. When there was an auction of Cherokee land, he claimed he couldn 't do anything to stop it, but he didn 't truly want to. The indigenous people wanted to coexist in peace, as Red Jacket stated, “‘You have got our country but are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us….
The US Congress, in 1830, voted on the issue of what rights Indians had to land and independence in North America, continuing a discussion older than the American colonies. In America, a land of immigrants, the question of whose rights were primary, and on what basis, was centuries old. According to their traditions the Indian communities of the Cherokee people had lived in their homeland in southeastern North America for centuries.1 Little interested in Indian traditions, officials of the State of Georgia were waging a campaign to expel the Cherokee from within the borders the state had negotiated with the federal government in 1802. With the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, Georgia had gained an ally in the White House who also had a program
The United States sent armies into the Native American lands, mistreating the Native Americans, and caused trouble against them by sparkling conflicts and wars. “It is not, of course, to be understood that the government of the United States is at the mercy of Indians; but thousands of its citizens are, even thousands of families. Their exposed situation on the extreme verge of settlement affords a sufficient justification to the government for buying off the hostility of the Savages, excited and exasperated as they are…by the invasion of their hunting grounds and the threatened extinction of their game.” (Document 4) The United States government introduced policies for Native Americans to have a better life, but in fact, they kept them in
The Indian Removal Act authorized Jackson to give the Indians land west of the Mississippi in exchange for their land in the states, but could not force them to leave. He violated and broke commitments that he even negotiated with them. He tried to bribe the Indians and even threatened some of them. Alfred Cave organizes his article thematically and is trying to prove
The Cherokee, a small tribe of Indians, has been forced to move from their homeland after John Ridge met secretly US official to sign a removal treaty for the selling of Cherokee’s land. Ridge and almost 2000 Cherokee migrated to Oklahoma while the vast majority of the population ignored the illegal treaty and remained on their lands. When the deadline of removal past, the general Winfield Scoot arrived in Georgia with seven thousand soldiers with the orders to remove the Cherokee. And this action was the decline of the Cherokee. After reading the book about writing by John Ehle about the Cherokee nation, we can try to analyze the impact of this removal in the Cherokee’s live.
The removal of the Cherokee, or more commonly known as the “Trail of Tears,” was a defining American event that left an incredible historical impact. The Cherokee and other Native American tribes were being moved westward by the American government for various reasons such as disputes with white settlers, the desire for the gold on the Cherokee lands, the desire to civilize them and other reasons. However, it was far from a simplistic dispute between whites and Native Americans. There were many whites, including President Jackson, as well as some Cherokee, who supported the policy to move the Indians west. Opponents of the removal also included both whites and Cherokee.
The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the
Throughout the 19th century Native Americans were treated far less than respectful by the United States’ government. This was the time when the United States wanted to expand and grow rapidly as a land, and to achieve this goal, the Native Americans were “pushed” westward. It was a memorable and tricky time in the Natives’ history, and the US government made many treatments with the Native Americans, making big changes on the Indian nation. Native Americans wanted to live peacefully with the white men, but the result of treatments and agreements was not quite peaceful. This precedent of mistreatment of minorities began with Andrew Jackson’s indian removal policies to the tribes of Oklahoma (specifically the Cherokee indians) in 1829 because of the lack of respect given to the indians during the removal laws.