Was Andrew Jackson Justified In The Indian Removal Act

Jackson was a democratic republican who was voted into office in 1828. During the election against john quincy adams , he appealed to the people through the common man. Because he was born in North Carolina , he presented many ideas that would benefit the common man. He also used the spoil system in order to gain supporters. The spoil system enabled people to get a position in government as long as they voted for him.

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States of America, was elected to presidency in the country’s 1828 elections. It was however on June 28, 1830, that Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act and in turn, allowed the relocation of Indians in areas far from the white settlements. The new law gave Jackson power to provide the voluntary relocation of Indians to the trans-Mississippi West. In “Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars” Remini gives insight in the relationship Jackson had with the Native Americans. Whilst Jackson is portrayed as a slave owner and racist, Remini explains the man’s logic with regard to the hierarchy of men in the United States.

A Shameful Part of American History The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was America’s first attempt to legally remove Native Americans from their land. This primary source was created by the Senate and House of Representatives, and it was backed by President Andrew Jackson. Passed on May 28th, the act allowed the for the relocation of Natives west of the Mississippi River. This order was a result of Manifest Destiny which was the belief that it was the United State’s God-given right to expand westward.

The lack of respect through the spoken word of Jackson proved to be racist to the Indians. Andrew Jackson wanted to obtain the land from the Native Americans,and he wanted to keep on pushing them westward until they were annihilated or just disappeared somewhere where they were not in the way of white men. It’s quite obvious through his statements that Jackson cared very little for the Indians. If you don’t respect someone, then you can’t possibly care for them. Andrew Jackson, a leader for our nation, went around calling the Native Americans “red men”, “savages”, and people with “rude institutions.”

The results of assimilation demonstrate another method of removing the Natives from their territory, and in a process that was fabricated to fit the government’s best economic interest. On the other hand, removal could be seen as a change in the economic policy because it differs from the goal of assimilation. This proves to be incorrect when understanding that assimilation’s main purpose was to obtain more land for the US, which was also the reasoning behind Jackson’s removal of the Natives. Therefore, the identical US economic policy prevailed due to the country’s ongoing desire to take Native American

Trail of Tear In the 19th century, the U.S. decides to expand it territories into the homelands of the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole (also known as the “Five Civilized Tribes”). Destroying the homes of the natives all for growing cotton. Such an unlawful act for a selfish reason. Starting with Andrew Jackson and the Indian removal act leading to tension rising between the tribes. Contributing to the to the split of the cherokees at pea ridge and the battle of Wilson's creek.

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 Indian Removal Act is going to be controversial bill that is going to help President Andrew Jackson complete two things which was pay the national debt of with Indian Land Sales and most importantly move the Native American out of East, especially Georgia, to open new land for eager white settlers. In a letter from Alfred Balch to Andrew Jackson on January 8, 1830, Alfred said that about the possibility of the removal act, “The removal of the Indians would be an act of seeming violence. But it will prove in the end an act of enlarged philanthropy.” He went on to write, “…cannot exist in a state of Independence, in the vicinity of the white man.”

Although this act was harsh, to some it overshadows the good that Jackson did. In the source: Letter from Elias Boudinot, Cherokee Indian, Elias says, “Removal, then, is the only remedy, the only practical remedy. Our people may finally rise from their very ashes, to become prosperous and happy, and a credit to our race.” The quote is from a Cherokee Indian agreeing that the removal might be the best thing for the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson is a hero because he worked to bring more democracy to the

Wallace explains the different reasons why the Indians were removed from their land without blaming it on Jackson. He does this by pointing out the growth of the Industrial Revolution, the high demand for more cotton, and the promise that was made to purchase the Native American land in Georgia by the federal government. This all adds to the historical period by show different points of view of topics we thought for sure were only one way. All of them show how it’s not just one factor that makes things happen, but multiple factors that influence events. This

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.

Andrew Jackson’s sentiment towards the Native Americans was certainly not a kind one. Manifest destiny was a popular belief among Americans, including Jackson, and he would go to the extent of forcing Native Americans out of their homes to reach their “ordained goal”. He believed in the expansion of southern slavery which is why he pushed for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi, which makes it the more disgraceful. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 said that it will allow American government to offer in-state territories to the Indian’s for their western land. This wasn’t the case when the U.S. went in and drove the Indians out by force.

Both show an event in history in very different lights, showing the world that words have the power to make something into something it’s not. In his speech, Jackson makes the Indian Removal sound like a great idea, why Rutledge shows the horrors that his ancestor and their people had to endure during this horrible period in history. One very obvious difference in the texts is bias. Bias is a very important thing to consider in documents, especially when considering why something bad may be shown in a good light.

The Genocide: Trail of Tears/ The Indian removal act During the 1830s the united states congress and president Andrew Jackson created and passed the “Indian removal act”. Which allowed Jackson to forcibly remove the Indians from their native lands in the southeastern states, such as Florida and Mississippi, and send them to specific “Indian reservations” across the Mississippi river, so the whites could take over their land. From 1830-1839 the five civilized tribes (The Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, and Chickasaw) were forced, sometimes by gun point, to march about 1,000 miles to what is present day Oklahoma.

Throughout the 19th century Native Americans were treated far less than respectful by the United States’ government. This was the time when the United States wanted to expand and grow rapidly as a land, and to achieve this goal, the Native Americans were “pushed” westward. It was a memorable and tricky time in the Natives’ history, and the US government made many treatments with the Native Americans, making big changes on the Indian nation. Native Americans wanted to live peacefully with the white men, but the result of treatments and agreements was not quite peaceful. This precedent of mistreatment of minorities began with Andrew Jackson’s indian removal policies to the tribes of Oklahoma (specifically the Cherokee indians) in 1829 because of the lack of respect given to the indians during the removal laws.