Comparison Of Andrew Jackson And The Indian Removal Act

827 Words4 Pages

Point of view or perspective could differ when it comes to describing an event or a person. If we take the case of Andrew Jackson the 7th US president who is often referred to as the “people’s president” there are mixed opinions. I believe he was a president for only some of the people as lots Creeks lost their lives and land for him to succeed. So in a land where the constitution says “all men are created equal,” the Creek Indians must not have been viewed as men such if Mr. Jackson was a man for the people. In 1830 Andrew Jackson formed The Indian Removal Act.( Hall pg 395) The United States Government made it mandatory for Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw to leave their lands in the south, and relocate west of the Mississippi River (Hall pg 395). Many Native-Americans became ill and died. (Hall pg 395) Some died of the immense length of their journey, many of the Natives died from malnutrition as well as a complete lack of food.(Hall pg 395) The Indian Removal stated that all Indians had to walk to the Mississippi River, it did not matter how old you were or young, …show more content…

He was a no holds barred president and he was going to succeed. He was firm strong and tough, a war hero against the British in 1812 and again against the Indians. (Hall pg 395) The Jackson presidency was said to be an age of a more democratic America. This was a president for the ordinary man. Andrew Jackson’s belief in equality, however left out many, including the Native Americans and that was the fly in the ointment so to speak. It is quite easy to see that he could not simply ignore the Indians as he built the great nation. These are the original folks who knew the land well. They were humans and they would continue to multiply. The idea of a reservation would restrict their movement and give some sort of control as the country forged. (Hall pg

Open Document