Delaware Indian Removal

In the article by Anthony F. C. Wallace, “The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America,” the reasons for America's need for Indian land is discussed. The purpose of this article is to explain the Indian removal that occurred under Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The thesis of this essay states that Americans kicked the Natives off of their land to fulfill a selfish desire to expand the cotton industry.

The new world was presented with so much hope of growth and prosper. When England’s charters sent out men, they had hoped to bring back treasures of gold and silver. England had hope to become a superpower that had greatly surpassed their competitors through the mentality of bullionism. The race to the promise land was a lot more difficult than first idyllic. Each and every colony that was attempted had failed. It was not until Jamestown that a colony had any chance of surviving much less thriving.

Early relationship between both colonies was characterized by fascination and altruism; however, this relationship was superseded with enmity. In Jamestown, the settlers believed that the Americans were adept people living in highly developed societies. The Indians' achievement, of developing an intricate civilization, made colonization feasible in English ocular perceivers. The settlers kenned how reliant they would be on native crops for their pabulum. On the other hand, Powhatan and his men optically discerned the incipient English settlement as great opportunity for them to exploit. The Natives believed that the Europeans are “edgy, rapacious, and remotely maladroit.” Sure enough, the settlers in Jamestown kenned little about farming and found the environment baffling. It was conspicuous that the colonists needed the avail of the Natives. Despite their inexperience the English dominated the Indians. From “the beginning the Virginia Company indited that the relationship would ineluctably become bellicose: for you Cannot Carry Your Selves so towards them but they will Grow Discontented with Your habitation.” In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Puritans, at first, established a good relationship with a Native American tribe called the Pequots. These quandaries were compounded by the Puritans' incrementing conviction that the Indians' claims were invalid, because God had bestowed

John Ross once said "Brothers: The tradition of our Fathers . . . tells us that this great and extensive Continent was once the sole and exclusive abode of our race. . . . Ever since [the whites came] we have been made to drink of the bitter cup of humiliation; treated like dogs . . . our country and the graves of our Fathers torn from us . . . through a period of upwards of 200 years, rolled back, nation upon nation [until] we find ourselves fugitives, vagrants and strangers in our own country. . . .” (1830). In may of 1830 the Indian Removal act was passed, From then on indian life was never the same. Removing the indians from their land was unconstitutional and was not justified.

Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land. On the other hand, Cynthia J. Van Zandt argues that despite military disputes among the two bodies, trade alliances between the groups continued. Van Zandt further claimed that relational failure stemmed from conflict among various Europeans nations advocating for dominance over the New World. The overarching purpose of the argument is to determine

With the arrival of Anglo-Americans, Native Americans lost much more than just their land. Tribes were forced onto reservations, stripped of their culture, wealth and place in society, with no hope of regaining what they owned unless by complete assimilation. For the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, many Anglo-Americans continually pushed for Native Americans to abandon their cultures and “savage” ways. However, despite the many attempts to force Natives into Anglo-American culture, many Native Americans found ways to negotiate with the demands of the Anglo-Americans through mainly social, economic and legal means.

The Dakota agreed to sell their territory for cash and annuities. This treaty was instigated by the first governor of the territory, Alexander Ramsey, and Luke Lea, Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. The United States wanted the agreement with the Natives to gain control of agricultural lands for more settlers. In this Treaty, the Dakota ceded nearly 24,000,000 acres of land in south and west Minnesota, along with some land in Iowa and the Dakota Territory. Many Natives agreed to this to ensure the continuation of their livelihood, given the outcome of previous treaties with the United

xIs it wrong to kick someone out of their own home when they didn’t do anything wrong? The Cherokee was in that same situation. The Cherokees’ situation was just like taking a cell phone ,which is dear to a human, away. They were kicked off their own land. They had done nothing too bad, but the Georgians wanted them to leave. The Supreme Court even allowed them to stay, but the new settlers still wanted them out. The Indian Removal isn’t justified and the Indians should have stayed in Georgia because it was their own land, staying would help their health, and only a few signed the treaty.

The late 19th century, a period including Reconstruction, the Industrial Era, and “manifest destiny,” was marked by the freeing of slaves, imperialism, immense economic growth, and the rise of big businesses. (pg. 579, pg. 619, pg. 625, pg. 630) This was an age of “prolonged peace,” where many Americans sought to change their lives and their country for the better. (pg. 579) Industrial growth resulting from the North’s need to “supply the massive Union armies” presented various opportunities to make enormous fortunes. (pg. 619-620) However, this period also involved a considerable amount of violence, ranging from racial and labor conflicts to brutal wars overseas. (pg. 646-654)

When most people think of the beginning of North America they think of the first successful settlement, Jamestown, but this was not the actual first attempt in the New World. The settlement at Roanoke was the first attempt to colonize the New World in 1587. The colony on the island Roanoke is often referred to as the “Lost Colony” because of its unusual disappearance. The disappearance of the colony Roanoke, is one of the most significant events known to archeologist, historians, explorers and enthusiasts as America’s longest ongoing historical mystery. The colony of Roanoke Island had shaped the foundation of North America with the first American born, helped the English learn from their mistakes by successfully creating a settlement and became

Signed on August 25th 1737 was one of history 's most disreputable treaties in the records of native-white relations. The agreement involving the Founder of Pennsylvania 's sons and the Delaware or Lenape was determined by “as far as a man could walk in a day and a half”. Unlike their father, William Penn, who had earned his reputation for being fair and respectful towards the natives, Richard, John and Thomas Penn had a different mindset. After his death, his sons faced problems with their father’s debt. In order to pay off the loans, the Penn brothers and their agent James Logan made an agreement with Lenape leaders known as The Walking Purchase. By this they would claim the land measured by the “walk” and sell it to the colonists for

The Walking Purchase is undoubtedly the most famous example of how the noble precedent set by Penn was promptly set aside by “Brother Onas” after his death. In some ways, the dishonesty and trickery used by the Penns in order to gain more land seem worse than the more blatant tactics used to dispossess Native Americans in other parts of the country, because the Penns were taking advantage of the fact that the Delawares had come to expect a certain level of fair treatment and honesty from

The French and Indian war (1754-63) resulted in political, economic and ideological relations between British and its American colonies.

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,

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice" Charles de Montesquieu. These words by Montesquieu seem to fit not only the American Revolution but also the Cherokee Removal. The actions of some of the Cherokee people that refused to give up their ancestral land may support the “uncivilized barbaric savages” claims of the Americans of European ancestry; however, the primary source documents in "The Cherokee Removal" demonstrate a different interpretation of the Cherokee people and their struggles as well as vindicate their actions.