Bridgette Adesuwa Omon Olumhense
DBQ #2
The time period between 1789 and the mid 1830’s was quite ambiguous. With the British gone and the United States now in her building stages, an attiude needed to be taken towards the Native Americans, specifically the Cherokee Indians. The administrations before Jackson treated the Cherokee Indians with a somewhat docile, amiable hand, however much was left to be desired on the side of the United States. Many did not want to share the newly freed land with those that were not their own. Underneath the façade of friendship was manipulation, guarded ethnocentrism and racism. While it may seem unjustified, Jackson’s decision to relocate the Cherokee Indians was a less subtle affirmation of the political,
…show more content…
The original relationship with the Indians was positive, but more was happening than what was on the surface. The Indians were being manipulated from the beginning, and given less than what was taken from them. It was believed that Indians should have the right to their own nation, and should not have their rights taken away from them. (Document B) However, at the time of Washington’s Administration after the war, The Indians were given less than half the land they had before American Independence through the treaty of Holston. (Document A) The friendship extended to the Native Americans was more pretentious than genuine. The Treaty of Holston implicitly stated the idea that the Natives, specifically the Cherokee Indians, were to be led to “a greater degree of civilization” (Document C) and the United States had the potential to benefit off the nation. In a political view, the United States has become recently independent, and wanted the land to themselves. Having the Indians there was hurting their cause. Manifest Destiny wasn’t a prominent thought, but the land so viciously fought for by the Colonists was supposed to be only theirs. In this way, it was believed “guiding” the Native Americans to more of an agricultural lifestyle was beneficial to the United States since then the Indians would not need as much land. (Document F) Of course, the façade of friendship and boundaries was kept with …show more content…
In the eyes of officials, the Cherokee had knowledge and were more civilized than other “savages” (Document M). The Cherokee were the favored tribe because they not only had schools, but were able to teach the children of the tried traditional gender roles and chores (Document J). The Cherokee had their own alphabet by the 1820s (Document K) and some half-breed Cherokee had even climbed the social ladder to the point of owning slaves (Document L) The Cherokee and the U.S were on fine terms until resentment and nativism disintegrated the bond. Even though the Cherokee were so advanced, white officials still believed the Native Americans to be inferior and less of a race compared to them. It was still the burden and duty of the white men to civilize the Natives at all costs necessary (Document I). Moving the Indian Tribes west of Mississippi was already a thought in the times of Monroe, who believed that it was important to the union. (Document N) However, due to all the advancements in Cherokee life, it would be hard to manipulate the Cherokee into moving west to give the U.S more land. The case of Worchester v. Georgia ended up in the Cherokee’s favor, stating that Georgia law had no place in the treaties and the Cherokee Nation, (Document P) but Andrew Jackson would not enforce it, not only because he felt he didn’t have to, but no one in Georgia would rise to protect the Cherokee from destruction.
In 1742 the chief of Onondaga of the Iroquois Confederacy knew that his land that the people shared would become more valuable than it has ever been. (Doc B)The reason for this was because the “white people” also known as the Americans wanted the land of the chief. The feelings of the Chief result in complaining to the representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia,
George Washington believed that the only way and the best way to solve this “Indian problem” is to just simply “civilize” the Native Americans. The goal for this civilization campaign was to make all of the Native Americans just like the white Americans as possible. They would teach them and encourage them to read and write in English, convert to Christianity, and adapt to the European life style. But the Americans didn’t care how “civilized” their native neighbors were, they still wanted their land and they will do whatever it took for them to get the land.
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
Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and The Trail of Tears There have been many dark times in our History as Americans. Among them is the Trail of Tears,brought upon by Andrew Jackson, which exiled the Indians from the American south and resulted in the death of thousands on the way to Oklahoma. Before this trying time there was speculation within the supreme court whether to treat the Native tribes as a sovereign foreign nation or as a dependent entity within the United States. I will discuss how these decisions came to be, the reactions to said decisions, and the aftermath of these rulings which inevitably leads to the Trail of Tears.
“One can never forget the sadness and solemnity of that morning of that morning… Many of the children rose to their feet and waved their little hands good-by to their mountain homes, knowing they were leaving them forever.” - John G. Burnett, US military interpreter during the Trail of Tears. In one of the blackest marks made in history by the United States, the Trail of Tears was the brutal removal of the Cherokee and many other tribes from their homes. While the Supreme Court had ruled that the Cherokee Nation had the right to the land, Andrew Jackson had forced nearly 1,600 Native Americans to march to Oklahoma from Georgia and surrounding areas instead, ignoring the court ruling. The Indian Removal Act was a step in the wrong direction for our
The white people view the indians as “savages” and instead of trying to see eye to eye with them , they just think they are better than them as humans. But the funny part is the Indians helped the white settlers when they first came to the land, and the indians just wanted peace between the two sides, but all they got in return was an order telling them that they had to leave because the whites needed their land so they can expand their community and further more better their lives and their children’s
Jackson made the logical decision by moving the Indians because of the constitutionality of the matter, the land he provided for them, and the options he offered in regards to moving. First of all, Jackson was forced to deal with the Indians living in Georgia because of the Constitution. It states, “No new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state without consent of its legislature” (Doc A). This phrase clearly prohibits the formation of any state within the state of
Andrew Jackson also has said some questabile things about the Cherokee, Has enabled them to pursue happiness in their own rude way or to cast off their savage habits. In the background of this doc it says that it would be beneficial to all but in this doc it only beneficial to the whites.
This can be seen in the 1832 Supreme Court majority opinion on the Worcester v. Georgia case favored the Indian’s side displaying them as their own country and were not subject to the rule of the United States. Jackson would go on to ignore Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and continue to remove Indians, pushing them towards the West. This was a direct violation of the Constitution, but through it Jackson opened lands for the common man aiding them (Document E). In context, Andrew Jackson approved the creation of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which enabled for money to be spent on expediting federal negotiations with Indians to remove them. Additionally, the Black Hawk War which lasted from 1831 to 1832 displayed to American’s the hostility go the Indians and the need for their removal.
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.
In 1830 President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, forcing the Cherokees in Georgia to relocate to other Indian lands in the west. In addition, the state of Georgia expanded its state laws over the Cherokees (Lecture 14). John Ross, the
There is no doubt that the history between Native Americans and the government is one not to be proud of. It also goes to show that the United States never sat down and asked Native Americans what they wanted; if communication was conducted there would have been little conflict between the two. This overall theme is apparent in the 19th Century policy of Indian Removal and 20th Century’s Relocation and Termination policies. The main goal of the 19th Century policy of Indian Removal was to remove Native Americans from what was thought to be desired land. These policies were allowed to happen due to Native Americans being thought of as less than human.
On July 17, 1830, the Cherokee nation published an appeal to all of the American people. United States government paid little thought to the Native Americans’ previous letters of their concerns. It came to the point where they turned to the everyday people to help them. They were desperate. Their withdrawal of their homeland was being caused by Andrew Jackson signing the Indian Removal Act into law on May 28, 1830.
‘What worried the states men in the mother country was the likelihood that, if Virginians had occupied Kentucky, Indians would attack them, and the British might have to come and rescue at great cost to the imperial treasury” (5) The 1758 Treaty of Easton, which gave the Indians all the land west of the Appalachian, did not help their cause. Holton alludes to many other instances where the colonists wanted to expand but was consistently overlooked by the imperial government. The Indians caused the British to fear another war. Essentially, Holton makes it seem like the British were more on the side of the Indians then they were for their own colonists.
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.