Was Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policy Motivated by
Authors: Anthony F. C. Wallace, Robert V. Remini,
A Summary By:
A summary comparison of views regarding the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Was it an act of humanitarianism intended to help and save the Native American culture from the white settlers, as Robert V. Remini has argued? Or was his intent to destroy the tribal culture and to get rid of the Native Americans, as Anthony F.C Wallace has argued?
Robert V. Remini argues that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 was socially motivated by humanitarian impulses, and that Jackson’s actions where driven by the desire to save the culture and populace of the Native…show more content… Jackson’s removal policy did not sit well with a lot of groups; many were uncomfortable about it but agreed it had to be done. President Jackson showed great leadership apart from everything else, and handled the Indian Removal act when no one else wanted to address the growing issue of Indian problem. Most government officials saw little to gain from addressing this and would do nothing. Some historians believe the president’s motivation was clearly out of concern for the Indians customs, their culture and their language, but his first concern was the safety of the military, Indians occupying the east might jeopardize the defense of the United States.
In December of 1830 President Jackson would submitted the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek to congress, it would be the first to win Senate approval. President Jackson wanted everything to go smoothly so that the American people would see that he was humane and that this Treaty would benefit both the Indians and the American nation at large. With Jackson located too far away to oversee the actual removal of the Choctaw Nation, they would endure mismanagement, theft, corruption, and inefficiency on a level that would lead to their destruction. Jackson would be deeply offended and the removal of the Choctaw Nation would become one of the worse horror stories of modem era.