Indian Termination Pros And Cons

Native American Indians was discriminated just like other nonwhites, the New Deal relief program by the Government did not benefit them as well. American Indians were the victim of violence their land was stolen from them many was killed the surviving Native Americans were denied equality before the law and often treated as wards of the state, and placed in reservations and force to learn Americans traditions and values. Their tribal land was lost to government sales. It was not until the 1930s laws stop America from forcing American Indians to practice their culture. The law gave tribes increasing tribal economic and political

Indian habitation immobilizes the advancement of population, wealth, and power, and the Removal Act will in turn correct these derailments. Andrew Jackson, who I support fully, made several important points about the aboriginal population and the importance of relocating them. It is essential to have minimal contact between the Indians and the white settlers, remove them from

Could you imagine the government coming to your family 's property you have had for years and taking it and making everyone walk a 1000 miles? Well thats is what happened to the Native Americans. They were drove from there property beaten and killed. Then made them walk over a 1000 miles to their new place that was awful. There was no food or water or anything while the government took there land and made fun of them. The government people also raped thousands of the Cherokee women. And also killed many of them as well. Now the Holocaust on the other hand had a tremendous drop in population as well. Accept it was towards a different race. It was led by a man name Hitler and he hated the jewish society. So he developed his own clan. They had one mission and it was to destroy all Jews that they possibly could. There were between five and six million Jews killed during the Holocaust. So they did succeed in there one mission they had. So in both the Holocaust and the Trail of Tears there were well over a million people killed in both of these disasters.

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.

4,000 Native American Cherokees died on the dreadful, around 1,000 mile journey to the Oklahoma territory. The United States forced them to move out west. But why wasn’t the U.S government justified to do this? There were two main reasons the Indian Removal Act was wrong.

In order to control even more the natives, another Indian Appropriation Act was passed in 1871. It said that Indian tribes were no longer seen as an indepedent nation but that all Indians were just individuals, like everyone. But also that they were "wards" of the federal government. This obviously made the natives less powerful, because as a tribe, they were numerous so they had more power and they could have treaties with the government. But with the act, it did not work anymore. Indeed this was a way to control them even more, they took away from them some power that they had, plus putting them on reservations by force, they were truly "wards" now. As a consequence, since they were no longer tribes, it was easier for the government to take

After imposing political and military action on urging the Native American Indians from the southern states of America, President Andrew Jackson decided it was time to enact the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Indian Removal act of 1830 proclaimed that all Native Americans living east of the Mississippi River were to be forced to move west of the Mississippi River where the region of the Louisiana Purchase remained. This land set aside for these Native Americans was known as the “Indian colonization zone”. Because some of the Indian tribes refused to leave their homelands, “As a result, wars broke about between the U.S. Government and Indian Tribes”(xbox360). The Indian Removal Act was originally created to have the Native Americans vacate

Native Americans who emigrated from Europe perceived the Indians as a friendly society with whom they dwelt with in harmony. While Native Americans were largely intensive agriculturalists and entrepreneurial in nature, the Indians were hunters and gatherers who earned a livelihood predominantly as nomads. By the 19th century, irrefutable territories i.e. the areas around River Mississippi were under exclusive occupation by the Indians. At the time, different Indian tribes such as the Chickasaws, Creeks, and Cherokees had adapted a sedentary lifestyle and practiced small-scale agriculture. According to the proponents of removal, the Indians were to move westwards into forested lands in order to generate additional space for development through agricultural production (Memorial of the Cherokee Indians). 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

The removal of the Indians was a long going issue for The United States, that no one knew just how to deal with.

White residents of the United States clashed with the Indigenous people on land, food, and rights, without a permanent compromise. In 1829, President Andrew Jackson proposes to move all Indigenous people within America’s current territory to reservations. After being pursued for nearly thirty years, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes agreed for their removal. This would allow whites to live their civilized lives as the Indigenous people cast off their savage habits in remote reservations. President Jackson’s Case for the Removal Act shows that those of power and majority decide the terms of segregation.

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.

Imagine having to walk over 1200 miles because someone else wants you land. In 1820 five Native American tribes the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek Indians were invaded by all of the white people who came to the U.S from Europe, and the white men got very settled. Ever since the white men showed up to the U.S. there was conflict with the Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act is when southern Indian tribes formed their removal of the Natives and forced them to leave all of there stuff. I believe that the Indian Removal Act is a step in the wrong direction because we were not treating the Native Americans like human beings, it went against the constitution, and jackson wanted to build a wall to separate.

As a part of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Native American people were forcefully assembled and made to endure one of the longest walks from Georgia to Oklahoma on what has become known as the Trail of Tears. President Andrew Jackson’s motives for movement of the Native people to a new territory was to eliminate the Native race by stripping the victims of their vital resources needed for basic survival. After 178 years of expansion and growth in the United States of America, the circumstances for Native Americans remain unchanged. President Jackson’s sentiments have permeated the present society in issues associated with the physical and emotional fight to decolonize. Decolonization is both the individual and communal effort to regenerate

The United States of America is a country known for freedom. It is so widely valued that the Constitution lays out the different rules and laws that gives freedom to its citizens. This Constitution protects the right of each citizen; one of the most popularly known amendments is the one stating the protection of “life, liberty and property.” So, if America is a country based off freedom and these rights, why is it that the native culture to this country are the ones whose “life, liberty, and property” are taken away the most? Most can guess which culture is in the previous question: Native Americans. In cruel and forceful ways, Native American’s have moved from their land for generations. Most people know how all of this started when the founders

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) is a case that involves the Sioux Nation and the United States government, and it regards the United Stages Government authority to reneged a treaty and reclaimed land given to the Sioux Nation Of Indians, and if congress violated the separation of powers clause when it amended the Indian Claims commissions in 1978.