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 first point Wallace uses to support his thesis is how Jackson’s financial interest in the land affected the removal of Natives. The land that was most sought after included the Muscle Shoals, which was land that the Cherokees had acquired many years ago. But because the land was now seen as “prime cotton acreage,” …show more content…
Wallace explains that the economic reasons can be largely attributed to the Industrial Revolution that was occurring in Great Britain. A major player in this revolution was the steam engine and how it changed the economy. Wallace does a good job of going into detail about how the industrialization that occurred affected Americans. Another thing that was seen as one of the most important pieces of the revolution in Britain was cotton, due to its importance in the textile industry. Wallace explains that cotton was being sold all over the world, thus creating a heavy demand for its production in America. This strengthens his argument. One statistic stated that America was producing two-thirds of the world’s cotton at this time. Then he explains that not only was cotton needed, but cotton goods were also becoming a booming industry. One thing that got in the way of this production was a tariff that existed to drive up the cost of British goods in America. This caused resentment in the South especially, because they used cheap clothing from Britain for their slaves. This, coupled with not obtaining Indian land, was disrupting the union. Finally, the Removal Act was passed and some of the South’s anger was resolved. One weakness of this point is that Wallace fails to explain the impact of tariffs and how they would eventually lead to the nullification crisis. He mentions them, but does not …show more content…
Wallace informs the readers of the struggle Chief John Ross faced. Ross was an educated white man who was only part Cherokee, but still lived on their land and became a very influential man. Previously, the government had told the Natives that if they “civilized” themselves then they would be safe on their land. This meant adopting Christianity, having a constitution, and other things that would make them common white men. Ross had fought with Jackson against the Creek Indians, this being a major reason for his later influence over the Cherokee Nation. He owned his own a plantation, slaves, and held Methodist services. Yet, when Jackson kicked natives off their land, he looked at Ross and the rest of the Cherokees as savages. They were kicked off their land and traveled on what would become the Trail of Tears. Even after losing his wife during the move, along with the loss of thousands of Cherokees, Ross kept his morale high and fought for the perseverance of his nation. Wallace makes a very profound statement, saying that “It was not he ‘savagery’ of the Indians that land-hungry whites dreaded; it was their civilization” (Wallace). The explanation of the true reasons that Americans didn’t want Natives on their land is a very strong argument in this point. One weakness would be how Wallace does not offer any other viewpoints. He only
President Jackson claimed that it was in the best interest of the States, the citizens, growth of the Southwest and of the Indians for Indians to be relocated west. One of President Jackson’s main point was that “it will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; and allow them to pursue happiness in their own
To coincide with Jackson’s fears and inability to trust the Indians, Remini provides an excerpt of a speech delivered by Shawnee Chief Tecumseh to the Creek Indian tribe in 1811 (Remini, p.1). Remini quotes the Indian chief saying, “Burn their dwellings-destroy their stock-slay their wives and children that the very breed may perish” (p.1). Hence, it is evident that the Indians aimed at dealing with the whites in a ruthless manner, a fact that warrants the United States’
(University of Richmond,1) It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind,developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection-stated President Andrew Jackson at his second State of The Union Address. He is prophesying about the promise and potential that the Indian Removal Act holds. Passed on May 28,1830,The Indian Removal Act allowed the US government to exchange unsettled lands west of the Mississippi River for Indian lands within the boundaries of southern states like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. This was necessary because the jurisdiction was conflicting between the state government and the Indians.
Confirming the Indian Removal Act was a step in the wrong direction because it was unconstitutional, formed even worse relationships with the natives than we already had, and it made Andrew Jackson seem to be a terrible president. The ratification of the Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional on Andrew Jacksonś part. The Cherokee had managed to bring their case to the Supreme Court (Worcester v. Georgia) and the Supreme Court was in their favor. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee had an ¨unquestionable right to their lands¨. Andrew Jackson ignored this and continued to pass the Indian Removal Act, disregarding the system of Checks and Balances. Some people may argue that the natives aren’t civilized enough to have that much land, so it made more sense for America to take over that land to make use of it, rather than to be politically correct.
Andrew Jackson saw whites as superior people compared to indians. In the Indian removal act it goes on to state all the ways they will get rid of the Indians and how it will go about. It says in the act that all of the Indian land is now
The Native tribes in America have interacted with the Americans ever since they first arrived as English colonies and . The English Colonies which are now the United States of America have followed developing policies towards American tribes that depict the gradual but definite ultimate removal of the Indians. The decision to remove Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi in 1830 by the Jackson Administration was a significant change in social and political policy towards the tribes, but a continuation of economic policy. By acknowledging the tribes as subjects of the United States, the Jackson administration changed previous U.S. political policy towards the tribes. In the film “Massacre at Mystic” On May 26, 1637 when the English
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
I was very displeased by the information I learned this week. Native Americans, being the true residents of America, have been treated terribly throughout history. From the enslaving of innocent Native American tribes to receiving low value land, American Indians have not received respect or compassion. The pretentious white men who took over when “discovering” America completely destroyed many Native cultures and beliefs due to selfishness and ignorance.
This first seminar was successful due to the insightful comments and output every person brought when conveying our thoughts on Jackson’s actions and the Indian Removal Act. The inception of the seminar began with Maria straight out stating how Andrew Jackson was to blame and he het congress enact the bill. This was the center of our conversation for a good 15 minutes before we switched to examine why Andrew Jackson may have been forced and obligated to enact the Indian Removal Act. Sam discussed how Andrew Jackson had to “ultimately choose,” between his own citizens and the Native Americans. And he was not the only one that wanted this Act, but a majority in congress supported it, which is the reason it passed.
Throughout the book we discover the life of a young man who "learned to fear and hate Indians from an early age," Jackson always remembered his childhood. When the Native Americans joined with the British to wage war against the Americans it was clear that "In his mind, and the minds of most frontiersman, the Indians were just used by powers like Britian to gain an advantage over the American colonists. Remini thinks Jackson is at fault for his desire to speed up the process of moving Natives. " He lacked patience, and by his pressure to move things along quickly he caused unspeakable cruelties to innocent people who deserved better from a nation that prided itself on its commitment to justice and equality."
The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians written by Anthony F.C. Wallace is the story of the Native Americans being forced to move west in America in the 19th century. Wallace begins by introducing the desire for Native American land in the U.S. and ends with the aftermath of the Removal Policy and the legacy that still lives today. The book is organized into four chapters; The Changing Worlds of the Native Americans, The Conflict over Federal Indian Policy, The Removal Act, and The Trail of Tears.
President Jackson was far from done, he passed the Indian removal bill, which was arguably the cruelest law passed by the United States government. It called for exchanging Indian territories in the East for the land west of the Mississippi River. Many people, including American citizens, themselves, objected to the Indian Removal Act. A deeply Christian man by the name of Frelinghuysen, questioned the statement of the American nation having native ‘brothers’. The Indian Removal Act proved how the United States government stole the land that the Cherokees called home.
The white settlements expanded west, they threatened to take over Cherokee land in the southern U.S. The historical question is trying to tell if the Cherokee should leave or stay in their territory. People might disagree with this because the Cherokee’s do not want to leave their homes and want to stay to fight. People think they should stay because it’s their land and it should not be taken away from them and how they should stay to fight for their territory.
As the Shawnees were attempting to reunite in the Ohio Valley, they found themselves displaced and had to defend their territory from western expansion. The Shawnees placed all their trust in the British, which didn’t turn out positive for them, for when the British ceded all lands west of the Appalachian Mountains, which endangered the lives of the Natives. “For the
For Jefferson, assimilation was best for Native Americans; second best was removal to the west. He felt the worst result of the cultural conflict between European Americans and Native Americans would be their attacking the whites. Thomas Jefferson’s views of Indians reflect those commonly found in eighteenth cen-tury America and they set the stage for nineteenth century American Indian policies in-cluding the forced removal of Indians from their homelands. Jefferson, the icon of free-dom and personal liberty established the national policy towards Native Americans that would last for over one hundred years. He began what would destroy cultures and re-sult in the reservation system.