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 …show more content…
The arguments were based majorly on legal and moral considerations. The legal arguments, which opponents advanced, were stronger than those of proponents of the Act. Morally, the arguments seemed to be equally strong. However, upon consideration of the entire arguments, numerical strength favored those of opponents. Also, all the arguments by proponents, except one, were objectively controvertible while those of opponents were not. As such, opponents had stronger
The white men were trying to force the Cherokee out of their own land. The white men made the Indian removal act to force the Indians out no matter what. The historical question means, should the Cherokee leave or stay and if they stay they will lose all their ways but if they leave they could have their own land. People might disagree because they feel the Cherokee owned the land before any white man would have even known that land existed. My answer to the question is for the Cherokee to leave and just not bother with the men trying to make them change their ways.
I think there are four main connections that can be made between this piece and the U.S policies in 1830, and all four points are about the four distinct groups present in the piece. The group on the far left is putting up a cross, which symbolizes both how Europeans moved west to spread Christianity and also symbolizes that the actions taken were made in the name of Christianity. In 1830 people, including Jeremiah Evarts were still trying to convert the Native Americans; despite trying to convert the natives, Evarts was firmly against the Indian Removal Act. I think that the piece above represents the conflicting nature of Evarts argument that the natives were people; however, they still needed to assimilate to a certain degree before they
The Indian Removal Act started in the 1830’s. The indians occupied millions of acres of land in the United States. The two opposing debates formed off of three questions: If the indians were moved, would the effort to civilize the indians be useless? Does the land occupied by the tribes belong to them, or does the land belong to white Americans? How could they prevent the extinction of Native American tribes?
READING QUESTIONS Day 128: Native Americans and the New Republic: Q. Why did the Americans want the natives to peacefully conform to their new American ways? A. Q. What did the Indians want to do when the Americans asked them to peacefully conform to their civilized ways? A. The Indians wanted to keep their Indian culture and traditions, while still civilizing themselves.
During the early to mid 1800s, the colonization of “Indians” and subordination of “women’s rights in the American society,” was very essential to those in authority. They were perceived as a mere means to an end by promises of a better life in exchange for “land and work.” Although locals complied, those in offices took advantage by using antagonistic tactics in achieving wealth, power, and ownership. However, these actions lead to “The First Seminole War, The Monroe Doctrine, Andrew Jackson’s leadership, The Indian Removal Act, The California Gold Rush, The Seneca Falls Convention, and the Birth of the Republican Party.” Although some Americans have been perceived as heroes, their actions have said otherwise about their character.
During the “Gilded Age” period of American history, development of the Trans-Mississippi west was crucial to fulfilling the American dream of manifest destiny and creating an identity which was distinctly American. Since the west is often associated with rugged pioneers and frontiersmen, there is an overarching idea of hardy American individualism. However, although these settlers were brave and helped to make America into what it is today, they heavily relied on federal support. It would not have been possible for white Americans to settle the Trans-Mississippi west without the US government removing Native Americans from their lands and placing them on reservations, offering land grants and incentives for people to move out west, and the
From a historical point of view cultural assimilation happens when a person or a group loses its native culture to the dominant group in their society. On the other hand, cultural pluralism takes place when smaller group within a larger society are able to maintain their culture and belief in which are accepted in the wider society. The process of assimilation is slow and gradual because it take some time to for a person or groups to fully make an adjustment into their new society. In history, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed by Congress under the administration of President Andrew Jackson. The law states that the president can authorize to negotiate with southern Native American tribes for their removal to federal territory west
The Indians did establish schools, develop written language and laws and even became sedentary farmers. Even though they had done all this to become a citizen they were still not recognized. They gave up hunting to adapt the European-American culture. The policy was designed to remove the Native Americans by the American government. The Indian Removal Act was not just created in the 1830’s but was culminated in the nineteenth century.
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 United States gave the Indians time to move west and those that had not done so by choice were forced. The removal of the Indians was a long going issue for The United States, that no one knew just how to deal with. “Some officials in the early years of the American republic, such as President George Washington, believed that the best way to solve this “Indian problem” was simply to “civilize” the Native
Under influence of president Andrew Jackson, the congress was urged in 1830 to pass the Indian Removal Act, with the goal of relocated many Native Americans in the East territory, the west of Mississippi river. The Trail of tears was made for the interest of the minorities. Indeed, if president Jackson wished to relocate the Native Americans, it was because he wanted to take advantage of the gold he found on their land. Then, even though the Cherokee won their case in front the supreme court, the president and congress pushed them out(Darrenkamp).
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.
Jose Romo History 101 Wednesday breakout session Primary Source paper #2 Question # 1 October 28th, 2015 "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. First, the primary source documents in "The
The Indian Removal Act forced the Native Americans to move away from their ancestral homes. Gabrielle Tayac, Edwin Schupman, and Genevieve Simermeyer noted, “Native peoples have created thriving societies along the shores of numerous rivers that feed into the beautiful and environmentally rich Chesapeake Bay. They lived in connection to the seasons and the natural resources of the region” (“Chesapeake Natives: Three Major Chiefdoms”). Prior to the arrival of the colonists, the Native Americans built and maintained successful communities in their ancestral homes for generations.