...Mississippi, Kentucky, and North Carolina. In 1830, President Jackson helped pass the “Indian Removal Act.” The act gave the president the power to negotiate treaties with the Indian tribes that lived east of the Mississippi. The removal was supposed to be peaceful, but some of the southeastern tribes resisted and Jackson forced them to move. Out of the Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Cherokee it can be argued that the Cherokee had it the hardest. The Cherokee were tricked into signing the Treaty of New Echota. Led by Chief John Ross, the Cherokee signed a petition protesting the treaty, but the Supreme Court ignored them and ratified the treaty in 1836. The government gave the Cherokee two years to migrate, and by 1838 only 2,000 of 18,000 of the tribe members migrated. The government sent in about 7,000 troops that forced the Cherokee to move and march thousands of miles without giving them time to gather any of their belongings. This was known as the Trail of Tears which led to around 4,000 Cherokee people dying from cold, hunger, and disease. The state of Georgia passed five laws that restricted Cherokee authority over their land. One of the laws required all whites living in Cherokee Indian Territory to obtain a state license to live there. Samuel Worchester was a missionary who lived in Georgia, he was also postmaster of the Cherokee capitol New Echota, and he opposed Cherokee removal. He refused to obtain a state license for living there, and he was arrested and convicted...
Words: 443 - Pages: 2
...American Revolution since 1783, the British merchants and the government agents supplied weapons to the Indians. They did this in order to ensure that if a war broke out, the Indians would fight for them. Conflicts between the American settlers and the American Indians led to many civil wars. The government agencies put forward a policy of Indian removal of the American Indians from the areas where the Europeans were settling. During ninteenth century, the federal governemt was under the pressure by the settlers to expel the American Indians from their areas. Under the Indian Removal Act of 1830, they offered the American Indians the choice of giving up their tribal membership and forced relocation in exchange of payment of lands, or move towards the west. In this process, series of wars were faught in Florida. They were never finally defeated by the settlers. The United States gave up on the reminder. During that time, Jefferson had inaugerated the...
Words: 564 - Pages: 3
...plantations. In the 1830’s, Andrew Jackson’s administration passed the Indian Removal Act; therefore causing the Cherokee Indians to travel to the west of the Mississippi river resulting in thousands of deaths. When the Indian Removal Act was set into place there was a drastic change in the political policies; however, the Cherokee tribes economic and social policies remained consistent. Many Native Americans assimilated to an American lifestyle by changing...
Words: 1241 - Pages: 5
...The Indian Removal act was not only a symbol in American History but really devastating. The Native Americans that lived in the 1800s especially the 1830s have endured the worst things possible and we didn’t have too because of our own selfish needs. But that’s not all how and why did the Indian Removal act have caused the war and there is more to talk about. Claim The Indian Removal act was important, it was significant to American History, and led to the Civil War. Reason The Indian Removal act was significant to American History because it allows Native a Americans to own that land and keep it from harm, and it led to the Civil War because of fugitive slaves. The Indian removal act was important because it led to the eviction of over...
Words: 693 - Pages: 3
...Indian Removal Act of 1830 Essay By: Hayden Yackeren Although many people thought the Native Americans were the Americans allies, they weren’t always. They took the side of our enemies during wars that changed history. One war in particular, 620,000 lives were brutally taken from their friends and family, and the Cherokee were a big part of that. Later, we took over their land and told them to stay and abide by our laws, or move to a reservation. Most Indians went to the reservation, which was bigger than where they previously resided, but the Cherokee were a stubborn tribe who didn’t want to do either. The movement to get the Indians out was called the Indian Removal act of 1830. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was justified because the Indians got to keep a majority of their...
Words: 850 - Pages: 4
...the Indian Removal Act of 1830, it depicts the circumstances regarding towards the persecuted Indian tribes by the authorities of the United States when they were confronted with the enactment under compulsion. The prejudice endorsed by the U.S. towards the native Indian tribes inaugurated with the tenet of manifest destiny in the beginning of the 19th-century. The ideology primarily shapes the justification for the U.S to gradually expand their territory westward. However, the united states would have to be dealt with some...
Words: 988 - Pages: 4
...his stubborn support of Indian removal provoked controversy not only in the Indian tribes, but also among the American community. Jackson's refusal to respect the independence of the Cherokee tribe, allowed the state of Georgia to assert its jurisdiction over the Cherokees. With Andrew Jackson's assistance, Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed which authorized the relocation of eastern Indian tribes to lands west of the Mississippi River. President Andrew Jackson was the main supporter of the removal of Indian tribes in order to give their lands to whites. Cherokee Nation was forced from its land, mainly as a result of the discovery of gold within their territory. Both the white Americans and the Cherokees had various opinions on Indian removal - some opposed and many supported it with a range of different arguments. Insatiable craving for foreign soil remained the primary cause, even though many people believed that the removal of Indians was the only way to save them from the extinction. While the Indians lived in close proximity to whites, they died as a result of...
Words: 1330 - Pages: 6
...When analyzing “Andrew Jackson’s Speech to Congress on Indian removal” there are several different lenses that you can read and view the story through. One reoccuring critical literary theory throughout the text is post-colonialism. Andrew jackson in a message to congress is explaining the dilemma of relocating native americans is an obvious win win for both america and the natives. While explaining his methods and reasons many glimpses of a post colonial mindset come though as the main idea of his speech. He often uses derogatory stereotypical remarks. For example the cherokees were forced to muddle through the west by the american gov. on a route that would eventually become the trail of tears. Many died and others were left without family,...
Words: 303 - Pages: 2
...The international community has not legally admonished the United States for genocidal acts against Native Americans, yet it is clear that examples of genocidal acts and crimes against humanity are a well-cited page in U.S. history. Notorious incidents, such as the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre, and the massacre of the Yuki of northern California are covered in depth in separate entries in this encyclopedia. More controversial, however, is whether the colonies and the United States participated in genocidal acts as an overall policy toward Native Americans. The Native-American population decrease since the arrival of Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus alone signals the toll colonization and U.S. settlement took on the native population. Scholars estimate that approximately 10 million pre-Columbian Native Americans resided in the present-day United States. That number has since fallen to approximately 2.4 million. While this population decrease cannot be attributed solely to the actions of the U.S. government, they certainly played a key role. In addition to population decrease, Native Americans have also experienced significant cultural and proprietary losses as a result of U.S. governmental actions. The total effect has posed a serious threat to the sustainability of the Native-American people and culture. Ideological Motivations Two conflicting yet equally harmful ideologies significantly influenced U.S. dealings with Native Americans. The first sprang from...
Words: 3071 - Pages: 13
...There has been much controversy about whether Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill or should be replaced. Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill because of many reasons. He deserves to stay on the $20 bill as a symbol of the Era of the Common Man. Some of these reasons include the destruction of the Second Bank of the United States, the prevention of nullification of South Carolina, and the Indian removal act. The Second Bank of the United States was created in 1816. It was the successor of the First Bank of the United States, and it was “America’s premier financial institution,” as stated in the document ‘Old Slickery. Jackson aimed to destroy the bank because it enabled the rich to get richer, while the poor stays poor. According...
Words: 781 - Pages: 4
...Andrew Jackson’s historical legacy is one covered with controversy, with historians and others taking the position of either high praise, or high negativity with no medium - people either like him or loathe him, there’s no in-between. Following Jackson’s death in 1845, he has acquired several accolades that could be used to determine whether he had an impact on history during his presidencies. Firstly, he appears on the $20 bill, one of only a few influential historical figures who have also made it on the American currency - the fact that he shares such an exclusive position alongside the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, all indisputably influential and important figures in American history, means that he must have had a successful presidency. Secondly, he ranks fifth in the all-time most influential presidents list, which is high praise indeed considering there has been 43 other presidents. This essay will aim to examine the positives and negatives of Andrew Jackson’s presidencies and whether he is deserving of his historical legacy which places him fifth in the all time most influential presidents. Jackson was the first man of so called ‘low birth’ to be elected as President. Jackson, having failed to win the 1824 election despite winning the plurality of the popular and electoral vote, and infuriated by Clay and Adam’s ‘Corrupt Bargain’, came back stronger for his running in the 1828 election. By this election, white men of all backgrounds...
Words: 1902 - Pages: 8
...a representative of all the people. Andrew Jackson played a large part in shaping our democracy today. (Andrew Jackson, 2013) Andrew Jackson played a vital role in the shaping of the United States modern democracy. Many opponents of Jackson believe that he should not be on the $20 dollar bill because of his decisions towards Native Americans and the fact that he owned several hundred slaves. Although these are true facts regarding Andrew Jackson I don’t feel as though they are reason enough to remove him from the $20 dollar bill. We have to think about the time frame that Andrew Jackson was elected president in. During this time slavery was not against the law and was not uncommon. Yes, Andrew Jackson played a large role in the Indian removal act but again this was not uncommon during the era that Andrew Jackson was President. Is it right to say a President was a bad president because he was following the social norm of his time? Although Andrew Jackson had several controversies surrounding his Presidency he still was considered to be a successful...
Words: 375 - Pages: 2
...The condition and ulterior destiny of the Indian tribes within the limits of some of our States have become objects of much interest and importance. It has long been the policy of Government to introduce among them the arts of civilization, in the hope of gradually reclaiming them from a wandering life. This policy has, however, been coupled with another wholly incompatible with its success. Professing a desire to civilize and settle them, we have at the same time lost no opportunity to purchase their lands and thrust them farther into the wilderness. By this means they have not only been kept in a wandering state, but been led to look upon us as unjust and indifferent to their fate. Thus, though lavish in its expenditures upon the subject, Government has constantly defeated its own policy, and the Indians in general, receding farther and farther to the west, have retained their savage habits. A portion, however, of the Southern tribes, having mingled much with the whites and made some progress in the arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an independent government within the limits of Georgia and Alabama. These States, claiming to be the only sovereigns within their territories, extended their laws over the Indians, which induced the latter to call upon the United States for protection. Under these circumstances the question presented was whether the General Government had a right to sustain those people in their pretensions. The Constitution declares that "no...
Words: 633 - Pages: 3
...miles of land, would you agree to move away from home? For most of the Cherokee during the earlier 1800’s, the answer to this question was a firm no. During that time period, the United States government had been attempting to move Native American tribes west into their newly purchased Louisiana Territory. Previously, the Cherokee had sided against them in many wars, and had expressed violent attacks against them. The government wanted to move them off of their Georgia land. This caused the Indian Removal Act to be created. The president, Andrew Jackson at the time, suddenly had the power to negotiate treaties with Native Americans that would move them into Indian Territory. While many...
Words: 1448 - Pages: 6
...some negatives as well. Jackson removed Native Americans from their homeland by signing the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which created the “Trail of Tears,” vetoed the National Bank (B.U.S), and was pro-slavery. Although a common man himself, Jackson became successful as president. This was one of his biggest motives to support the common man, rather than the wealthy, whom he believed shouldn’t have all of the power. One of the reasons Jackson removed Native Americans was because he didn’t consider them as American citizens. How democratic was Andrew Jackson? Before we answer this, let’s find out what democracy truly means. By definition, democracy is a form of government made up of the equality and voice of the people. To Jackson, democracy meant the all branches & agencies of government must listen to and follow the wishes of the people. So was Andrew Jackson democratic, undemocratic, or both? Perhaps he was democratic in some ways and undemocratic in others. Andrew Jackson was a supporter in Indian removal. However, he also had a soft spot; he adopted a Creek Indian boy named Lyncoya. Jackson didn’t consider Indians as American people; this somewhat made it easier to remove Native Americans from their homeland. Not only this, but he made it voluntary to leave, but if they were within limits of the states, they must be subject to their laws. (Document 8). Jackson also removed Indians from the land of their fathers/people. He didn’t even consider that they might not be familiar...
Words: 331 - Pages: 2
