Indian Removal Dbq

1506 Words7 Pages
In 1830, encouraged by President Andrew Jackson, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which gave the federal government the power to relocate any Native Americans in the east to territory that was west of the Mississippi River. Though the Native Americans were to be recompensed, this was not done fairly, and in some cases led to the further destruction of many of the eastern tribes.
By early 1800’s, the white Americans established settlements further west for their own benefit, and later discovered gold. Furthermore, Georgia's attempt to regain this land resulted in the Cherokee protesting and taking this case to the United States Supreme Court. Even though the court came to the decision of favoring the Cherokee, Jackson ignored it and with
…show more content…
. . would not only shield them from impending ruin, but promote their welfare and happiness. Experience has clearly demonstrated that in their present state it is impossible to incorporate them in such masses, in any form whatever, into our system. It has also been demonstrated with equal certainty that without a timely anticipation of an provision against the dangers to which they are exposed, under causes which it will be difficult, if not impossible to control, their degradation and extermination will be inevitable” (Peters).
While Indian removal as a policy was first envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, and structured by James Monroe, it was Andrew Jackson who fully realized removal, pushing the policy into law. Jackson had long been a supporter of removal. Prior to his presidency, he had commanded military forces in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to crush Indian resistance to white expansion and settlement (Gates). He also negotiated several treaties in the 1810s and 1820s which deprive southern Indian tribes of their eastern land in exchange for land in the west (Moquin). Jackson offered his own justification for Indian removal in December 1829, claiming that the removal was necessary for the preservation of American Indians – essentially claiming that removal was a humanitarian act for the good of the Indian tribes
…show more content…
government did not hold their end of the bargain and did not provide Natives with the supplies promised. As a result, many were forced to migrate due to diseases and starvation. Only about 23% of the Creeks who marched to their new land in Oklahoma survived; Likewise, only 25% of the Cherokee who marched from several southeastern state to Oklahoma survived (Van Doren). Altogether, tens of thousands of American Indians lost their lives to forced migrations.
The Indian Removal Act continues to impact America today in terms of demographics. Scholars still debate about the high extent of the lives lost during the migrations and this affects (Gates). According to the second and third parts of the Marshal Triology (The Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, and Worcester vs. Georgia), the Supreme Court forbid states from negotiating a treaty with the tribes-the tribes were sovereign and could only sign treaties with the federal government (Brennan). The state laws were not to be extended into Indian lands. This gave U.S. control over the treaties and the
Open Document