Indian Removal Act Research Paper

Indian Removal Act Research Paper
The Indian Removal act is an act that allows the president of the United States to remove Indians from their land because the United States think that
it is "their land". It consists of appraisals and money being paid forward for the land, like what is now known as eminent domain. However, not
everyone seemed to be happy with this act, as some tribes, particularly the Cherokee tribe, resisted this act. In the "Indian Removal Packet", the
Cherokee Indians wrote an essay explaining why they should not be required to move, in regards to the laws that they were following and also
because they would be going into unknown territory. They believed that they have the right to remain in the land that they were in at the time and that
taking their land away from them is considered "robbery" of their land. The Cherokee Tribe ends with quoting the golden rule, most likely as in asking
how the United States would feel if the roles of this act was reversed on them. This file then goes on to the opinion of how Andrew Jackson felt
regarding this act. For him, he believed that this act was a perfect way for the United States to preserve their own country and to dodge any rejections
from ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This describes the Cherokees being treated like trash and forced to evacuate their land as quickly as possible. It is written that there was no time to
grab any belongings and when the Indians came back for their stuff, they had found their property missing or stolen. Although it had not happened yet,
this sounds similar to the mistake on how the United States treated the Japanese during World War 2. An Indian Missionary named Daniel Buttrick
agreed with the description of how they were treated from the previous article. Many "travelers" were complaining with the limited time and supplies
they had and the harsh weather associated with their
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Indian Removal Act Report
After the removal, Indians began to completely change their culture to live as an American culture. Schools were created and they had their own
newspapers as well as their own governments (Peppas 2013, page 41). They wore the same clothes as Americans (Indian Affairs). Throughout the years,
they have been able to create their own governments and were recognized by the American government.
The Indians had every reason not to trust Americans after all they went through being constantly pushed off their land. They were always seen as two
separate groups and Americans have treated the Indians as less than them until recently. The government began to see that the way the Indians were
treated was wrong and should have never been forced to move. There was never an official apology for the Indian Removal Act and treatment until
2009, "when President Barack Obama signed the Native American Apology Resolution into law" (Peppas 2013, page 43). This was to improve the
relationship with us and Indians today and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They helped with negotiating treaties through the Indian Removal Act (Indian Affairs). They have created laws that affect everyone and gives Indians
more rights. These new acts help in creating better relationships for Indians and Americans and increase trust in each other. When the Indian Removal
Act was in place, whites were in control, but now the Bureau of Indian Affairs is made up almost entirely of Indians (Indian Affairs).
One law to help Indians is The General Allotment Act of 1887 "An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to Indians on the Various
Reservations" (Our Documents). This benefitted Indians by seeing them as individual people instead of tribes as a way to thank the Indians for
changing their culture by providing each head of the house with property of their own (Our

The Pros And Cons Of Indian Removal
The Indian Removal has long been a debated issue. The two sides had radically different viewpoints on the ordeal that helped shape America. The
Indians, naturally, were against their removal from their homelands, and they had two major protest against their removal. The first reason was the fact
that they were there first by thousands of years only for white men to invade and tell them to live somewhere else because the white men were superior
to the natives. The second reason was that the U.S government kept breaking treaties and was forcing out tribes that had gone through the proper
channels for their land. The name Indians is not actually the correct term, but the indigenous population should have been named Native Americans.
The politically... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They were declared a dependent sovereign state and only the federal government had any say so in their affairs. Treaties were signed and land was
sacrificed in order to retain some semblance of independence but the states got greedy and wanted it all. It was the Indians who followed the treaties
and never went after their lost land or left their borders but the Americans continued to encroach on them. The Memorial Of the Cherokee Nation
explained how Indians were tricked into selling land that belonged to the Nation so that Indian territory became American territory despite the people
having no right to sell land given to the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee government fought the breaks in the treaties but the judicial decision was
overruled and the Cherokees were still forced to move. Besides the breaches in the treaties, the Cherokee tribe was one of the five assimilated tribes
meaning they adopted European customs and religions. The Cherokee had become civilized as was the European's goal and they fought their battle
through the legal system not in a war. In this sense, the Indian Removal was unjust and

Indian Removal Act Of 1830
Indian Removal Act of 1830 The Indian Removal Act was signed into law on May 28th 1930 during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Perhaps
best known as the black eye of the administration and overshadowing his presidency's accomplishments, the Indian Removal Act was passed into law
to allow the president to negotiate with Indians to purchase land they occupied and offer them lands west of the Mississippi. The Indian Removal
Act of 1830 could also amount to pure greed and racism, the beginning of the arrogance of Americans in the belief that we deserve to take something
just because we want it. Expansion By the early 1800's with the Constitution firmly in place and the economy recovering, the population was growing.
The settlers desire to expand further West and south met many hazards, the largest of which being the Native Americans that occupied those lands.
Settlers were eager to raise large cotton and tobacco plantations and Native Americans were seen as an obstacle. The Indian Removal Act was the
result of the settlers petitioning the government for more land and protection from the "Savage Indians" to the south and west in present day
Mississippi and Alabama although there were few unprovoked attacks at the time. The need for land to grow more cash crops was all consuming. An
argument could be made that President Jackson held a personal grudge against the Natives, According to Parins, J.W. and Littlefield, D.F. (2011) "He
entered the presidency with a single minded

Indian Removal Act DBQ
The 1830's were years of change and uprooting for the Indian tribes in and surrounding Tennessee. They inhabited beautiful lands and tried their best to
live peaceful lives. When Jefferson came to administration in Virginia, he quickly gathered that he needed to civilize these people, for they did not live
in the same manor he did. He felt he had to punish them for attacking white settlers. When Andrew Jackson became president in 1828, Jefferson's
mentality stood out to him. Soon after he was elected he passed a bill to remove all Indians from the east and move them westward. This law, known
as the Indian Removal Act, was passed in 1830. Jackson fully believed the Indian nations were standing in the way of white progress and they only
way to

The Idea Of The Indian Removal Act Of 1830
Indian Removal Many people today would question whether the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was constitutional or not. While the idea took many
years to develop, it was in fact, a traumatic experience. When prompted to do so, the Indians of their own land were forced to leave everything they
had ever known and walk along what is known as the "trail of tears". This was a one thousand mile trek that took about two months to complete.
According to Steven Mintz' chapter titled, "Indian Removal" thousands of Natives were lost along the long, treacherous walk. Those who refused to
walk were eventually forced to, by being bound together and marched in a double file line down the Trail of Tears. Whether or not it was safer for
the Indians to leave their home, it was torture. They were forced to endure things that no human should ever have to go through. Were the Indians
forced to leave, because the Americans were too concerned with their own being? Many people today question this, as it has happened many different
times in history with many different minorities and groups of people. What makes Americans so much better than anyone else? The first person to
raise the idea of the Indian Removal was Thomas Jefferson. In Peter Onuf's book, "The Mind of Thomas Jefferson", he notes that Jefferson initiated the
idea of the removing process westward. (106). However it was not until Andrew Jackson became president that this process took effect. In the
beginning, the idea of removing the

Role-Play: The Indian Removal Act
In the Indian Removal Act role–play activity, there were a couple strong arguments that got me to side with them as I was part of the Congress. I felt
that the missionaries and the farmers had the most persuasive arguments because they had multiple facts that backed up what they were trying to say.
The other groups had minimal detail on answers and could not answer questions that made their arguments even weaker. The Andrew Jackson group
especially dissatisfied me because they had about five weak answers to questions and had no fact that backed up their answers. Overall, I think the
activity was extremely one sided because the people who wanted the Indians to stay, had much more facts that convinced others to side with their
argument.
In the role–play activity, there were two groups for the Indian Removal Act, two groups against it and a group trying to create peace between both
sides. The missionaries goal was creating peace between the groups and in order to do so, argued against the act. They had the best argument because
they stated in order to have peace, the Indians and the Americans have to stay and work together. The Andrew Jackson Administration had no... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Cherokee did not support their answers well because they just restated how they were Indians, did not want to move and were treated poorly by
the Andrew Jackson Administration. The Andrew Jackson Administration just did not have any responses to answers. When asked if there was any
endurance there would be no harm if the Indians decided not to move, they just stated money would be given if the Indians did move. Lastly, when
asked about when Andrew Jackson stated they would never concern the Indians about their land, the group just made up an answer in order to respond.
These two groups answers dissatisfied me because there was very little detail or fact behind their

The Pros And Cons Of The Indian Removal Act Of 1830
The Indian Removal Act of 1830, championed by President Andrew Jackson, called for the relocation of numerous native American tribes to lands
west of the Mississippi River to land for white settlers. Although the bill was extremely controversial, it was passed, and entire Indian tribes were
forced to move. Due to the hardship and suffering the Indian Removal Act of 1830 caused Indian peoples, as well as the fact that it was unnecessary,
unconstitutional, and immoral, it should not have been passed. Firstly, the negative effects of the bill on native Americans far outweighed the benefits
it might have had for second people. Secondly, the bill violated numerous treaties between the U.S. government and Indian tribes and was thus
unconstitutional. Lastly, the bill was immoral due to the fact that Indian leaders were not allowed a voice in their own future and the inherent racism
involved in the decision.
One of the main arguments opponents of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 voiced was that, at its most basic level, the removal bill was not necessary.
The main purpose of the act was to provide more land for an increasing population of white American citizens; more land, the government believed,
would help expand the American economy. Proponents of the bill, such as PresidentAndrew Jackson (who ratified the act), claimed that the land
occupied by the Indians would be put to better use as part of "our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and all the improvements which art
can devise...". However, while those who supported the bill used nationalistic attitudes to justify their position, others found that removing the Indian
peoples was not necessary to achieve economic growth. As Massachusetts Congressman Edward Everett and others emphasized, it was possible for
white settlers to thrive while leaving Cherokee peoples on the land that was rightfully theirs; it was greed, not necessity, that motivated the people to
demand more land. The removal bill should not have been passed because although the white population benefitted from the removal of the Indians,
this benefit was not worth the hardship the Indians endured as a result. The benefit of white citizens should not have been prioritized over the well–being

Andrew Jackson Indian Removal Act Summary
Andrew Jackson's Presidency and the Indian Removal Act
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States, he won the presidential race for his support of farmers and workingmen. His role as
president led him to pass nine treaties and Indian Removal Act, although everything he passed was not what was promised. There are now questions
about what the removal was, how Jackson got it passed, and is it what the Indians expected it to be? President Jackson got the Indian Removal Act
passed on May 28, 1830, when it was passed it said that the move west would be voluntary and peaceful, although Jackson and his administration had
other plans for the Indians and their land.
This policy first came up during the process of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, although it did not pass until the exchange of land with the
government and Indians. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress on May 28, 1830. This was passed by President Andrew Jackson, and stated
it gave him the power to peacefully and voluntarily give the Indians the option to move from the states east of the Mississippi River to the unoccupied
land west. When this was approved, most did not think the land west of the Mississippi would ever be a part of the country. Since that was believed,
the wester land was promised as permanent homeland for those who moved, but after they moved the government continually made the portion of land
the Indians were promised smaller and smaller. After many of them moved from their

The Trail Of Tears And The Indian Removal Act
The Trail of Tears is an event that has echoed through the years of the cruelty and loss of human life. The desire for more land as settlers moved
west, caused a divide between what the people wanted and the lives of the people that already lived on the land. White squatters would pillage the
tribes land, commit murders, and force natives to sell their possessions by taking hostages. Unfortunately, little was done to stop it. As far as Jackson
was concerned the "states were not responsible to the central government for the justice of their law" (Cole, pg. 113). Congress's view was "todays
criminals are tomorrows voters" (Heildler, pg. 37). The fate of the natives on their land was sealed by President Andrew Jackson in one of the most
horrific events that have happened on United States soil. The signing of the Indian Removal Act started years of suffering and death for the natives that
had lived on this land for generations. The natives were subjected to many hardships during the years of the Indian Removal. The Trail of Tearsbegan in
1830 after the signing of the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act was "a law requiring the native groups living in the southeast to leave the
rich land that they had tilled for generations" (Stewart, pg. 8). The act effected the tribes living in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, and
Florida. It called for the removal of the tribes from their homeland. The tribes were to be resettled in present day Oklahoma. The natives would

The Indian Removal Act By President Jackson
The idea of western expansion was promoted in order to strengthen the reputation and the entirety of the infant country. This was appropriated and
romanticized through texts and documents, such as Manifest Destiny by John C. Calhoun and the message promoting the Indian Removal Act by
President Jackson, which uses various appeals and logical fallacies to persuade the audience on the ideal benefits and optimistic virtues without the
consideration of the Native American demographic. While expanding, the Americans encountered numerous Native Americans that ranged from a
violent interaction to a peaceful treaty of removal in order to satisfy the American's territorial cupidity. Despite America resorting back to its founding
principles to... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Similar to African Americans and women in 1800's (and arguably now), these Amerindians were minorities that arguably possessed no value nor
contribution the cultivation of the United States. Ideas initially encouraged by Christopher Columbus, where he refers to Native Americans as ignorant
savage beasts, has been preserved and acknowledged by the Americans where the belief of inferiority resonates with their perspective of the Native
Americans. Immoral as this notion sounds, the Americans would then enfranchise to urbanization, industrialization, and acquisition of abundant
resources without pondering on the consequences it has on the Native Americans. In 1830, in order to proceed in territorial aggrandizement,
newly–inaugurated President Jackson scribed a congressional message promoting the removal of Indians for the vain benefit of the United States. In
the intermediary of his message, he states a rhetorical question: What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few
thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can
devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?
(Jackson 1) The inclusion of this rhetorical question is to exclude the care for Native Americans as they are perceived as "savages", and place more
stress on the significant

The Indian Proval Act : The Removal Of Native Americans
Indian Removal Act was the removal of tribes Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole nations because it was thought that Indian tribes were
standing in the way of white progress, and their dream of manifest destiny. After a lot of debates in Senate on April 24, 1830, Senate vote 28 to 19 to
pass the Act and later on House of Representatives voted 102 to 97 then, president, Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act because the land
west of the Mississippi was unsuitable for farming and white settlers wanted to move to the Southeast where Native Americans lived which is
present–day Oklahoma and parts of Kansas and Nebraska. They wanted the government to move the Native Americans to the Plains, so the whites
could settle in the Southeast for farming cotton and other crops but when asked the president said it benefited the Indian tribes. Also, Indian territory
had gold and rich farmland fertile for cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. His justification was its progressive and allowed the Native Americans to
keep their way of life. His motivation was to make the white settlers happy and get the rich land of the Southeast. Jackson helped to negotiate nine out
of eleven treaties which deprive the southern tribes of their homeland for lands in the west. At first, many tribes disagree to sign the treaties but later
agreed and moved but Cherokees refused. "While some Indians complied peacefully, the Cherokee, among other tribes, resisted."
Cherokees tribe fought against

Trail of Tears: Forceful Removal of Indians in the US
The forceful removal and exodus of thousands of Native Americans from their lands east of the Mississippi River during the 1830s is often called
the Trail of Tears. This removal of Native Americans from their lands was a result of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which was signed by
then–President Andrew Jackson one year into his presidency and which President Martin Van Buren ensured was carried out.
When Andrew Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, he based his decision of signing the Indian Removal Act of 1830 into law based
on his previous experiences as an Army general, during which he frequently fought against the Creeks in Georgia and the Seminoles in Florida,
campaigns that resulted in the transfer of land from Native Americans to white settlers. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 "gave the federal government
the power to exchange Native–held land in the cotton kingdom east of the Mississippi for land to the West, in the "Indian colonization zone" that the
United States had acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase." While the Indian Removal Act of 1830 required the fair negotiation of treaties between
the federal government and individual Native American nations, and prohibited the President or others from coercing Native Americans from giving up
land, these stipulations were frequently ignored.
The Native Americans that were forced to abide by the Indian Removal Act of 1830 were the Choctaws, Seminoles, Creeks, Chickasaws, and
Cherokees who held

The Pros And Cons Of The Indian Removal Act
Historically, the people of the United States and the Native tribes couldn't live together, they fought because the two sides competed for superiority. The
United States Government sought to put an end to the violent clashes with the American people and the Natives tribes. A resolution was the Indian
Removal Act, with this, the United States became safer, wealthier, and stronger; And the Natives, which they saw as inferior, would leave. This Act
wasn't easy for the Native tribes, they left the land their ancestors had built them, and experienced a long road ahead of them to rebuild again.
In 1830, President Andrew Jackson addressed Congress stating two Native tribes had accepted the terms of the Indian Removal Act. Jackson said he
hoped the two tribes consent would set an example for the other tribes to leave because he thought leaving was an advantage for them. He explained, "It
puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State governments on account of the Indians." The two
different civilizations didn't agree, which lead to violent conflicts that lasted centuries. For thirty years, the United States had tried to come to find a
way to get the two civilizations reach an agreement. The Indian Removal Act became the United States government's solution that ended the violent
encounters. This Act removed the Natives from northern Tennessee, southern Louisiana, western Alabama and the state of Mississippi, which helped
the United

What Was The Impact Of The Indian Removal Act
The trail where they cried. One of four Native Americans died during the forced march to new Indian Territory. In 1830, President Andrew Jackson
signed the Indian Removal Act which said that all the Native Americans living east of the Mississippi River had to move west of the Mississippi
River. This affected the 5 tribes which were called;Cherokee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Creeks, and the Choctaw tribes. The reason President Jackson
signed this act was to make the lands available for white settlers. By signing the Indian Removal Act, President Jackson negatively impacted the health
and welfare of the Native Americans. They had to adopt a "civilized" western culture, were forced to march to the new Indian Territory, and are still
faced ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On May 28, 1830, Jackson signed the Removal Act, which "authorized the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi River in exchange
for Indian lands within existing state borders." (Legends, 1) As incentives to the Indians to sign the Removal treaties, the government promised
financial assistance for relocation and the protection of the United States government forever. (Indian, 2) In 1831, the Choctaw were the first to
leave under threat of United States Army invasion. They were forced to leave on foot without any supplies or food with some in chains.
Thousands of Choctaw died. (Trail, 3) In 1835, the Treaty of New Echota was signed which forced the Cherokee to be removed during the Fall and
Winter of 1838 and 1839. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died. (Legends, 2) In 1836, the Creeks were also forced from their land. 3,500 Creeks did
not survive the journey. This forced march of more than 1,200 miles to the new Indian Territory became known as theTrail of Tearsbecause of the
thousands that died along the way from diseases and starvation. (Trail, 3–4) By 1837, President Andrew Jackson's removal act had removed 46,000
Native Americans from their land, and he already had treaties in place for the removal of more. (Legends

The Effects Of The Indian Removal Act
"The Cherokees are nearly all prisoners. They have been dragged from their houses, and encamped at the forts and military posts, all over the nation"
(Jones 1838). This is an excerpt from a letter Evan Jones, a Baptist missionary to the Cherokees, wrote to the Baptist Missionary Magazine. Jones lived
with the Cherokees for forty–seven years he even translated the Bible into Cherokee. Although when President Jackson pushed the Indian Removal Act
he claimed it would be beneficial for the indigenous people Evan Jones painted a much different picture. The Indian Removal Act was signed into
effect by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, starting a mass migration later referred to as the trail of tears. The American government
compromised their integrity with their self–serving reasons for the Indian Removal Act, coercing signatures on the Treaty of Echota, and the deplorable
treatment of Cherokees upon the Trail of Tears.
The faulty reasoning behind the Indian Removal Act began almost forty years prior to President Jackson signature and ended with racism and a thirst
for gold and land. The Indian Removal Act was not the first policy in place claiming to remove the Native Americans for their own benefit. It was first
stated by Henry Knox on July 2, 1791, in the Treaty of Holston. Later when Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801 he began using more
aggressive tactics for negotiating with the Native Americans such as threats, intimidation, and bribery. Jefferson's

Trail Of Tears: The Indian Removals
"The Trail of Tears– The Indian Removals." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2015. This article begins with how the
Native Americans were the main group that were effected by Andrew Jackson's Presidency. The article then states how the Natives respodedt the
Removal Acts. The Cherokee Indians stuck out during the acts because they used very civilized reaction such as writing a constitution and electing
representatives. Once the American military arrived, the Indians were forced westward, also known as the Trail Of Tears.
Pfleger, Birte. "Jacksonian America." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 25 Oct. 2015. This article begins with statingAndrew Jackson's two reaons about his
decisions in moving out the Native Americans. The article then explain when and what the Removal Acts were and did. In the next secton of the
article, it explains Andrw Jackson's message to Congress about the Indian Removals. In the third sectin, in the article, Pfleger explains gender roles in
the Cherokee Removals. Lastly, the artcle explains how the Cherokee Indians tried to civilize themselves as a way of rebelling against the Removal
Acts. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
PBS, n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2015. This article starts off by stating the problem for the early American settlers, which are the Native Americans, and then
states how Andrew Jackson, the American President at the time, handled the Native Americans. The next couple of paragraphs talk about Jackson's
agreement treaties with the Native Americans and their movement westward. To try to avoid these movement plans, the Natives thought of non–violent
rebellion strategies such as farming and creating a constitution. The next couple paragraphs explains President Jackson's Indian Removal Act and
explains the reactions of the American colonists. Many Indian tribes try to refuse to sign any treaties as long as possible, but eventually forced to by
the American military; The Trail Of Tears among this forceful

The Indian Removal Act Necessary
Section 1: Identification an Evaluation of sources This investigation will explore the question: To what extent was the Indian Removal Act necessary in
the eyes of the U.S. Government? The first source is www.digitalhistory.uh.edu. The origin of this source is valuable because the web site was designed
to support the teaching of American History in K–12 schools and colleges. A U.S. history textbook is included on this web site. The site also includes
a historical overview, and image, links to Digital History textbook chapters, historic maps, bibliographies, classroom handouts, chronologies, film
guides, charts, primary source documents, historic newspaper articles. Digital History offers fact checks, an interactive timeline that links to primary
source documents, and an overview of American history. They also have learning modules; each of which includes recommended documents, films,
and historic images, and teaching resources including lesson plans, fact checks, and activities. The purpose is to give accurate historical references
for both teachers and students. This is valuable, for it indicates that an extended period of time has been examined, and gives a detailed timeline of
events that happened related to my question. However, the fact that the author covers about 70 years of history when my question is looking at about
10 years of time takes away from the detail that could have been added to the events that I'm covering. The second source evaluated in depth is

The Indian Removal Act Of 1830
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a law passed by President Andrew Jackson that provided the funds for the removal of the Indian tribes found in
South. These tribes were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. Slave states, following the lead of Missouri who in the 1820s
forced its Indian population to leave, saw the opportunity to expand their industry in the fielding of cotton by "converting Indian soil into slave soil."
That along with the finding of gold and simply the desire for land in the Southeast was enough reason for them to begin rooting for the expulsion of
the tribes. They believed that because the tribes were "uncivilized" they have no right to the land and were not using it properly.
Despite the fact that former president Thomas Jefferson believed that civilized tribes could be integrated into the United States population, this law was
still widely accepted among southern states. It was also completely ignored that the tribes were already acting in a way that would be considered
civilized. The Cherokee had its own government, laws, and a constitution much like the United States. In response to the law, the Cherokee went to
Congress for help to protect their rights, which the treaties they had with the federal government made certain. There was a case Cherokee Nation v.
Georgia in 1831, but the Chief Justice Marshall made the false claim that Indians were nomads and had no need for their land. He also said that the
Indians were like "wards"

Andrew Jackson And The Indian Removal Act
During Andrew Jackson's presidency, which lasted from 1829 until 1837, he believed in the removal of the American Indians to help avoid
annihilation. During these years, the Indian Removal Act was passed, and was the first major law within the time frame. This act, passed in 1830,
stated that all the Indian tribes residing east of the Mississippi River needed to pack up and move to the west of the river, although the relocation was
only voluntary. Jackson did this in the hopes that they would give in to the pressure, considering that he sided with the land–hungry citizens eager to
take their place. This was because the Americans wanted to settle in the lands occupied by the Indians, therefore requiring them to evacuate– over one
hundred thousand of them. Overall, the passing of this policy affected Jackson's political and social philosophy.
To begin, Andrew Jackson had been planning for the removal of the Indians even before he took office. As stated in Document 3, "It gives me pleasure
to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians
beyond the white settlements is approaching...a happy consummation." During this speech, more specifically Jackson's Second Annual Message to
Congress delivered in 1830, he went on to inform them of the process and current progress of the Indian removal plan and all the benefits that went
alongside it. He then stated that it put an end to

The Indian Removal Act : The Impact Of The Indian Removal Act
One of the defining moments of President Andrew Jackson's career, if not the most significant, was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This was a
controversial bill at the time and the impact from it is still felt today. The Indian Removal Act directly led to the displacement of thousands of Native
Americans; including four thousand deaths during the Trail of Tears, the forced march from Georgia to Oklahoma. While overt racism played a clear
role in relocating Native Americans past the Mississippi, it is possible that other factors were at play. The living conditions in many of the states
were poor for Natives and Jackson hoped that giving them a new location to live could remedy these problems while opening the land up for white
settlers. Jackson was a groundbreaking President in many regards. He was an orphan and did not come from the upper class. He was the first
President to actively campaign for votes and when elected in 1828, he would continue the previous policies for moving Native Americans to the Indian
Territory as he believed this is what the voters wanted. During this time, many Southern states restricted the rights of Indian Nations. Alabama, Georgia,
and Mississippi all stripped Native Americans of their civil rights, abolished the tribal unit, rejected ancestral land claims, and would not allow them to
vote or testify in court. Before the Indian Removal Act, Native Americans signed various treaties with the federal government in regards to keeping
their land.

Persuasive Essay On Indian Removal
Compare and Contrast Essay
The Indian Removal Act took place in 1830 by order of president Andrew Jackson to relocate Native indians to the west. In his speech called "On
Indian Removal", he explains how Indian Removal is beneficial to both the Indians and White Americans. Another writing aboutIndian removal is a
personal story about a young boy being relocated with his clan and traveling on what is known as the Trail Of Tears. Though these two readings
discuss the same topic, they use very different language to get their point across and to describe their view on Indian removal. Between the two pieces
of writing, there are differences in the description of the situation, sentence structure, and tone. The differences in language between Jackson's "On
Indian Removal" and Rutledge's "Samuel's Memory" show that Indian removal was viewed differently by different groups of people, and affected
them in various ways.
The way that the situation is described in the two readings is very different. In Jackson's "On Indian Removal", he says, "These remove hundreds and
almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their
arrival..... How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions!". Here he is
saying that Indian Removal is an opportunity for the Indians to purchase new land and start a new life somewhere else and the

The Indian Removal Act
Native American History In the early 1830's, President Andrew Jackson, authorized the Indian Removal Act. The Cherokee Indians and many other
Indian Tribes were forcefully removed from their homeland in a brutal and inhumane manner. During this hard journey, many Cherokee Indians died,
this journey was called "The Trail of Tears" which was the forced relocation of the Native American, and these tragedies resulted from the enforcement
of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the requirements of the Indian Removal Act.
The Indian Removal Act, of 1830, provided funds for uprooting Five Civilized Tribes, theCherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole with a
population around 60,000 living in North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi (Foner 393). Throughout the whole movement of the Indians,
many of them died during the journey while others died as they were left behind to try and fight for their land. In a case involving Indians in 1823,
"Johnson vs. M'Intosh, the court had claimed that Indians were not in fact owners of their land, but merely had a right to occupancy" (Foner 394).
The chief justice John Marshall claimed that from the early colonial era, Indians had lived as nomads and hunters, not farmers. In Cherokee Nation vs.
Georgia, 1831, Marshall described the Indians as "Wards" of the federal government. They deserved paternal regard and protection but they lacked the
standing as citizens that would allow the Supreme Court to enforce their

Indian Removal Act Of Greed Essay
What is the defining line between greed and financial necessity? How many people need to die for us to be financially satisfied? During 1813,
thousands of natives trudged across rough terrain traveling West to their new home. Thousands of natives die along the way due to America's greed.
At the beginning of the 1830's, nearly 125,000 Native Americans lived on millions of acres of the land their ancestors had occupied and cultivated for
generations. However, at the end of the 1800's there were relatively few natives left. Although our nation would not be the same as it is today, the
Indian Removal Act was not a step in the right direction for Early America. It was morally incorrect because first, we promised that if we moved
them, we would protect them, second, the act of not following through with protections went against what our nation stood for, and third, the Act
caused one of our first financial profits to be linked with a terrible act of greed. The Indian Removal Act was wrong because it is not a The Indian
Removal act was wrong because it is not a good idea for our one of our first ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Critics would counter by saying that this displacement of Native Americans was a minor misdeed needed to further advance America's development.
However, the Indian Removal Act cast a blind eye over the suffering of the Native Americans. According toJeremiah Evarts, a Christian missionary,
stated "The character of our government, and of our country, may be deeply involved...if, in the plentitude of our power, and in the pride of our
superiority, we shall be guilty of manifest injustice to our weak and defenseless neighbors." Jeremiah Evarts words show that the denial of federal
protection of the Cherokee was opposed to the very principles he thought America stood for: our nation's dislike of tyrannical governments that trample
the rights of people who have no

Indian Removal
Indian Removal At the start of the Revolution in 1776 many of the patriots view towards the Indians was that of Thomas Jefferson's, the
paternalistic view. That the Indians were "noble savages, "uncivilized in their present state but if they would adapt to ways of the white society
they could be redeemed. While others felt that they should be treated as conquered people because some of the tribes helped the British in the War,
one of which was the Mohawks. That was one the main reason why most of the tribes choose to stay out of the war. At this point in time the
patriots felt that they were merely trying to provide for their families and start a new life in the new world. But to the Indians they felt that the
patriots were trying to push them off their lands, threatening their families and their way of life. And over time these views towards each other
change with each push westward on the part of the patriots and each conflict of resistance on the part of the Indians. As the new nation grew the
need for more land became evident, as a way of trying to bring resolve the government signed treaties with the tribes. The treaties promised them
protection of the lands they had held if they ceded certain lands. But when it came right down to it treaty after treaty was broken, which lead to more
and more distrust by the Indians. As time passed the views of Indians changed, in the early 1800's whites viewed Indians as "savages" that should be
removed from the valuable land that the

Who Is Andrew Jackson Responsible For The Indian Removal Act
Andrew Jackson Debate Response
Although there have been arguments made in support for Andrew Jackson, his decision to [pass the Indian Removal Acts were completely
unhumanitarian. Andrew Jackson has to be held responsible for the thousands of unnecessary deaths he caused, and he has to be portrayed for the man
he really was: a corrupt leader that lead America into committing mass genocide against the indigenous people of America. This should not be looked
over due to the other "achievements" Andrew Jackson had completed during his life. He committed mass genocide, he was a racist who was driven to
kill and enslave other living, breathing humans, and he killed thousands of Native Americans for land that America had no need for. He needs to be
held at fault for his actions, and they simply cannot be accounted for as humanitarian. Despite Andrew Jackson not being able to predict the outcomes
and consequences of the Indian Removal Act, there is no justifying his actions. Andrew Jackson was the man who openly gave approval to committing
mass genocide for the Native Americans, forcibly removed thousands of Native Americans from lands they had owned for thousands of years prior,
and approved and appointed the individuals in charge of starting the trail of tears. In February 1830, the Indian Removal Act set in place that
potentially allowed the president to grant land that was west of the Mississippi river in exchange for Native American's land within existing state
borders. In theory, this plan would allow the native to earn money if they wished to move, and in return the Americans could acquire more land. The
outcome of this, however, was a bloody massacre. Many of the Native Americans did not want to move, since they have been living there for thousands
of years, longer than the whites have been there. Since many of them did not want to move, the Americans used force in an attempt to push the Native
Americans west in a movement that killed over 4,000 natives. There is no justifying what Andrew Jackson did in order to gain more unnecessary land.
Throughout his life, Andrew Jackson proved time and time again that he was, indeed, an extraordinarily racist man. As a result, his actions against the
Native Americans

Trail Of Tears And Indian Removal Act
Melina West
Fishburn
4th Period Arkansas History
November 6, 2017
Trail of Tears and Indian Removal Act The Trail of Tears was the name that the Native Americans gave the journey where they were forced out of their
homes. During the early 19th century, the United States expanded territory southward. The southern states were home to many Native Americans. This
started controversy with the white settlers. From this controversy sprouted the Indian Removal Act, which forced the Native Americans leave their
homes and go on a long journey. "The Cherokee people called this journey the "Trail of Tears," because of its devastating effects", (PBS).
The Trail of Tears was a significant removal of native Americans, however it was not the only one. As early as 1492 Indians were being forced out of
their homes. When European settlers arrived they often forced Indian village away, seeking treasure. This started with Christopher Columbus. The Trail
of Tears was a very suggestive event because of the amount of indians that were forced out of the southern states. Due to the Indian Removal Act,
70,000 Native Americans were forced into Oklahoma. According to PBS, "The migrants faced hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The president that was in office during the Indian Removal Act was President Andrew Jackson. Before serving in the White House, Jackson was an
army general."After demanding both political and military action on removing Native American Indians from the southern states of America in 1829,
President Andrew Jackson signed this into law on May 28, 1830", (HistoryNet). Americans thought that the Native Americans were uncivilized. The
United States began expanding their land into further into the south. The land was expanded into Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Kentucky, and North Carolina. The problem was that the land was home to five different Native American

Who Is Andrew Jackson Justified In The Indian Removal Act
The Indian Removal Act signed by the president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, caused controversy and the brutal and merciless suffering of
the Native Americans during The Trail of Tears. The beginning of the 1830's was a time when the Native Americans occupied The Deep South. This,
however, was problematic for the white farmers who were in need of farmland in order to increase their production of cotton. Nevertheless, Andrew
Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, coerced the Native Americans to relocate their civilizations to lands west of the Mississippi. A
close examination at the tribes that were compelled to move west would show that they were civilized. Thus, Andrew Jackson was not justified in his
policy towards ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Nonetheless, Jackson did not follow up with this promise. Instead, he had decided to deprive the Natives of their promised and secured land. Hence,
Jackson was not justified in his Indian Removal Act because the Natives had a clear right to their land that was established with the forefathers of the
nation. To add on, the Natives were civilized; however, Jackson had interpreted them as uncivilized which is stated in Document A, also known as
"Andrew Jackson–First Annual Message," dated December 8, 1829. In Jackson's message, he states, "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." This quote conveys the idea that the Natives were "wanderers" and
did not have an established community or place to live. Nonetheless, the Natives were farmers which opposes Jackson's statement, thus proving that it
is false. In addition, Jackson states, "It has long been the policy of Government to introduce among them the arts of civilization, in hope of gradually
reclaiming them from a wandering life. This policy has, however, been coupled with another wholly [completely] incompatible with its success." In this
quote Jackson states how the government tried to civilize the tribes, but it ended in a failure to do so. However, Jackson also states, "...that their
attempts to establish an independent government would to be countenanced [approved] by..." This quote reveals how

The Pros And Cons Of The Indian Removal Act
This historical document is a transcription of President Andrew Jackson's Second Annual Message to Congress. Before his second annual message to
Congress, Jackson had already signed the Indian Removal Act into law. The Indian Removal Act allowed the President to grant lands in the west to
Indian tribes that agreed to give up their lands in the east ("Indian Treaties and the Removal Act"). In his message, Jackson claims that Indian Removal
Act is beneficial to everyone involved. Although Jackson outlines the benefits of speeding up the process of removing Indian tribes from their
homelands, in reality, the Indian Removal Act does not benefit Indian tribes because it only leads to a forced migration, reinforces prejudice towards
the Indians,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In other words, the Indians were capable of becoming civilized and were not completely savage. Thus, it would not be that difficult for the Indian and
white populations to live in peace with each other. Instead of relocating the Indians to less desirable places the government should have left them alone
to improve their lives. In addition, the Indian Removal Act increases the differences between the Indians and the white settlers. Jackson believes that
the removal would benefit the Indians by causing them to "cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community"
("Message to the People"). The contradiction is that Jackson expected the removal to help the Indians become civilized and yet, he sought to separate
them from the white settlers. If the Indians were allowed to live with the white settlers, they would have the opportunity to learn many things from their
white neighbors. Hence, the isolation of the Indians would only push them further away from civilization. Most importantly, the Indian Removal Act
negatively affects the way of life of the Indians. Near the end of his message, Jackson asks, "is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger
attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?" ("Message to the People"). Although there was a common belief that because the Indians
were

Analysis Of Andrew Jackson And The Indian Removal Act
The Americans were expanding West. The Indians were already living in the West. Because of this, there was conflict. America wanted the Indians
removed. Andrew Jackson issued the Indian Removal Act, forcing them to leave. The Authors' perspectives of the Indian Removal Act and Trail of
Tears shapes the reader's understanding of the events because they show us how the events affected the Indians and Americans. The History Channel
Video shapes the reader's understanding of the Indian Removal Act by teaching us that the people in the country were divided over Andrew Jackson's
Indian Removal Act. Some people agreed with Andrew Jackson on the Indian Removal Act, while others, like Congress, disagreed. In the Andrew
Jackson and the Indian Removal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Andrew Jackson's State of the Union speech, he says, "The Indian is unwilling to to follow the laws of the states and mingle with the population. To
save him from utter annihilation, the government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and
settlement." My evidence supports my claim because my evidence is about why Andrew Jackson created the Indian Removal Act. He says that
because the Indians had not followed the laws and got along with the people of the United States, they offered the Indians a new home, and offered to
pay for their removal and settlement. My claim is the reasons why Andrew Jackson created the Indian Removal Act; Indians had not followed the laws
and got along with the people of the United States, so they offered the Indians a new home, and offered to pay for their removal and settlement. These
are alike because they both show the reason why Andrew Jackson issued the Indian Removal Act. The reader can understand why Andrew Jackson did

The Causes Of The Indian Removal Act?
President Andrew Jackson urged the Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Indian Removal Act was also known as The Trail of
Tears. This act gave the government the power to force Native Americans to relocate from their homes and properties to west of the Mississippi River.
The government desired their land. "Georgia tried to reclaim this land in 1830, but the Cherokee protested and took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court decided in favor of the Cherokee, however, the President and Congress forced the Native Americans to give up their land" (Darrenkamp).
Therefore, President Jackson sent General Winfield Scott and armed troops that forced thousands of Indians to move from their native land to modern
day, Oklahoma. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
President Andrew Jackson and the Congress overruled the Supreme Court. A few years later, the Treaty of New Echota was signed. This treaty was
a document concerning the trading of land mass between the Cherokee Nation and the government. "That a sum not exceeding five millions of
dollars be paid to the Cherokee Indians for all their lands and possessions east of the Mississippi river" (Treaty of New Echota, 1835). The treaty got
its name from the capital of the Cherokee nation. In Andrew Jackson's third annual message to the Congress, he speaks of the advantages of all
concerns about the Indian Removal Act. "It is pleasing to reflect that results so beneficial, not only to the States immediately concerned, but to the
harmony of the Union, will have been accomplished by measures equally advantageous to the Indians" (Jackson, 1831). Andrew Jackson viewed that
his relocation of the Indians gave equality to the Indians, States, and the Union. President Andrew Jackson made the mistake of moving the Indians
under the poor conditions in which they traveled. There were alternative options Andrew Jackson could have chosen from. For instance, waited to
relocate the Indians until the weather became warmer versus the cold weather that the Indians traveled in. They needed more supplies to be able
survive the long journey to new Indian territory. The amount of supplies of water, food, horses, wagons, and basic medical items should have been
increased before the move. Andrew

The Cherokee Indian Removal Of The Cherokee
Isabelle Grala 7th Period Walley
Removal of The Cherokee In 1838, the Cherokee Indian Removal Act forced Cherokee and Creek Indians out of Georgia on a 5,045 mile walk all
the way to the farthest west land that the United States had at the time, Oklahoma[1]. This event is now known as The Trail of Tears known for the
many tears shed by the Indians that had to travel on the trail. The main reason for their removal from the premises was because of the gold that was
discovered in the land of the now Hall County or Dahlonega. People have their opinions on whether the Creek and Cherokee should have been
removed, to be honest, I am on the fence about this topic. I can recognize the great injustice that was made to the Indians but I also see that this
action allowed for growth in Georgia and its economy, which contributed to growth for the United States as a whole. If I had to choose, I would say
that the Cherokee Indians should not have been removed from their territory. For one, they were settled in their land before the english came and
were in a way civilized. Two, the Indian Removal Act should never have been approved and was invalid for a few reasons. And finally, it was
immoral to remove them from their land and didn't have any right to do so. The English people, travelled across the ocean to get to a new land that they
called America. They travelled and claimed the land that they wanted, they settled in, they succeeded from their home country, had a revolution,

Indian Removal Act Dbq
What would you do if someone came to your home unexpectedly, and told you that you had to move whether you want to or not? That was the case for
some Native Americans during the time of the Indian Removal Act. This act basically says that the Native Americans would be granted land, in
exchange for their home territory, but many Native Americans disagreed with this act. TheIndian Removal act that took place in 1830 was not justified,
because the Cherokee tribe had to move even though the majority of them haven't agreed to move, the Cherokee tribe helped the United States during
the war of 1812, and the Americans treated the Native Americans unfair.
First, the preponderance of the Native Americans did not want to move. In the article, "Allow

The Causes Of The Indian Removal Act Of 1830
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 moved the natives from federal territory in Georgia to non–federal territory in Oklahoma. Signed by Andrew Jackson,
the act forced natives on what was known as the "Trail of Tears" where many of them died. Though, the views of Americans were changed by the
Natives since the time Jamestown was settled. As the Natives importance to the Americans decreased, they became more of a nuisance. The settlers in
New England were very reliant on the Natives. They were the ones who taught them to hunt and live in these new conditions. Natives were constantly
put aside after the country was able to fend for themselves as seen in the American Revolution. Later on, the court case of Worcester v. Georgia gave
the declaration that Natives were not technically a part of our country and they seemed to be just taking up space. Through these things, it is very clear
that Natives were a problem that our country did not want to deal with.
Many people do not know of the main reasons for the movement of the Native American Tribes. The causes were that President Jackson had very little
positive actions and policies which inevitably caused the "Trail of Tears". The tribes that were required to move were considered the five civilized
tribes, and their names were the Creeks, Chickasaws, Seminoles, Cherokees, and Choctaws. The first action that leads to the migration was the fact that
Jackson did not go through with his promise that the migration would be voluntary. Then he

Consequences Of The Indian Removal Act
The Indian Removal Act was a law signed by Andrew Jackson stating "to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the
states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi," to make room for the white population to grow and become prosperous. This
would mean that the Native Americans would lose their land and be forced to leave the graves of their fathers to walk thousands of miles into their
new territory. Nonetheless, this act would cause thousands of Native American civilized tribes such as the creek,cherokee, chickasaw, and choctaw
tribes to lose their lives and the dangerous journey filled with demise would later be called the Trail of Tears. I believe this act was unlawful, illegal and
unconstitutional due to the fact that Jackson organized it because he despised the Native Americans. He merely saw them as people who could not
adjust to the ways of the "white man" or act in a civilized manner.
Jackson stated in his letter to congress that "the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his
removal and settlement",however, this does not justify tearing the indians of their homes. If you were to put yourself in the position of the Natives you
would come to the realization that they were just people trying to make a simple and honest living. Yet, Jackson loathed them since they did not live a
refined live, instead they followed their own traditions and customs. What Jackson

Indian Removal Act Of 1830
"It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress . . . the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation"
(Jackson, 1830, para.1). With promises of new lands, protection, and monies, President Andrew Jackson portrays the Indian Removal Act of 1830 as
beneficial to Indians, wherein governmental financial gain is incidental. However, when considering land transactions and gold discoveries, the true
beneficiaries are revealed. While strengthening the States' white population, wealth, and power, the Indian Removal Act dispels previous treaties that
ensure Indian ancestral territorial boundaries; and it ultimately facilitates the forced relocation where thousands die of starvation and exposure.
Proponents of the Indian Removal Act (the Act) advocate its benefits to the Indians. For instance, in his message to Congress, PresidentAndrew Jackson
(1830) explains, that as white settlements inevitably progress westward, current policy attributes to the slow annihilation of the Indians, therefore a
speedy removal protects the Indian civilizations from extinction. He goes on to explain that the Act not only provides for this speedy removal, but
provides a purchase of their current territory, endows a new extensive territory, finances relocation, and offers future support and protection; and these
offers should be "hailed with gratitude and joy" (para.4), and any "pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its

How Did The Indian Removal ActBy George W Harkins?
Historically, the white man and the Native tribes couldn't live together, they fought because the two sides competed for superiority. The United States
Government sought to put an end to the violent clashes with the white man and Natives tribes. During 1830, the Indian Removal Act allowed the
president of the United States to negotiate terms of relocation for Native tribes, causing mass migration to the west, and helping the United States
became safer, wealthier, and stronger. This Act wasn't easy for the Native tribes, the land their ancestors had built them was no longer home, forced to
leave and make a sacrifice for another civilization they felt had no respect for them. President Andrew Jackson saw this Act as a win– win for both the
white man and the Natives. On the Contrary, George W Harkins, a leader of the Native tribeChoctaw didn't see the same benefits, as he expressed
when he addressed the American people in 1832.
In 1830, President Jackson addressed Congress stating two Native tribes had accepted the terms of the Indian Removal Act. Jackson said he hoped the
two tribes consent would set an example for the other tribes to leave because he thought leaving was an advantage for them. He explained, "It puts an
end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State governments on account of the Indians." The two different
civilizations didn't agree, which lead to violent conflicts that lasted centuries. Thirty years, the United States had tried to find a way to get the two
civilizations end the violent affairs. The Indian Removal Act became the United States government's solution that ended the violent encounters. This
Act removed the Natives from northern Tennessee, southern Louisiana, western Alabama and the state of Mississippi, which helped the United States
become stronger when they fought off foreign attacks.
The Natives felt oppressed by the white man because they had no say in politics and faced lots prejudice by the American people. The Choctaw
people didn't feel free in their own home, according to Harkins, as he addressed the white man. On behalf of himself and his people Harkins
responded with sadness, "We were hedged in by two evils, and we chose that

Native American Perspective on Indian Removal Act
In May 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which forced Native American tribes to move west. Some Indians left swiftly, while others
were forced to to leave by the United States Army. Some were even taken away in chains. Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States,
strongly reinforced this act. In the Second State of the Union Address, Jackson advocated his Indian Policy. There was controversy as to whether the
removal of the Native Americans was justified under the administration of President Andrew Jackson. In my personal opinion, as a Native American,
the removal of the tribes was not in any way justified.
The removal of the Native Americans was an egocentric move on Jackson's part. Jackson was only able to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Jackson felt the removal of the Cherokees from our land was justified because the government was paying for everything. Money can not compensate
for the blood that was shed by our ancestors.
When some Indian tribes did not leave the land, federal troops came to Georgia to remove the tribes forcibly. Cherokees resisted leaving their land
until the bitter finish. Cherokees were marched by gunpoint which was known as the infamous Trail of Tears. Many died due to the horrid conditions,
including my great grandmother. Any sensible person would have considered the consequences of these actions. Jackson tried to make the trade seem
peaceful and reasonable, but there is nothing sane about the Trail of Tears. "The consequence of a speedy removal will be important to theUnited States
, and to the Indians themselves"(91). If Jackson really cared about our well being, like he claimed, why would he allow the horrific Trail of Tears to
persist? This exhibits Jackson's insincerity and disregard for the inhuman conditions my ancestors had endure.
A main argument Andrew Jackson had was that the Indian Removal Act was only a continuation of a change that was already happened, "The present
policy of the government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process"(93). He then continued to state how the tribes that
previously occupied the eastern states were annihilated to make room for the whites. This was a transparent

Indian Removal Act Research Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Carolina Fox

More from Carolina Fox (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Indian Removal Act Research Paper