Andrew Jackson Supreme Court Case

The Market Revolution occurred during the early nineteenth century where America was economically transforming. Road and canals were being created and that changed how people could distribute their products easier and father than before. New machinery was being used which helped developed new technologies. So how was the Market Revolution related to the Indian removal? During this time period Andrew Jackson was elected president of the United States in 1828.

Andrew Jackson a man that had been saved by 500 Cherokee’s and their allies at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814 authorized the Indian Removal Act. Supreme Court ruled for Georgia in the 1831 case, but in Worcester vs. Georgia, the court affirmed Cherokee sovereignty. The U.S. government

It is a sad and angry time for the Cherokee people, but we mustn’t fight back any longer, instead I believe it is best to follow Major Ridge to the new home awaiting us in the West. Our stance in court against the Indian Removal Act has been ignored due to the threat of mutiny the Southern States are mustering up against the Federal Government. John C. Calhoun has challenged Federal Law for his state’s own interest and ultimately at our cost due to the fact that our land was used as a bribe in order to stop the continuation of the mutinous movement of the South. President Andrew Jackson, the man we fought the Creek Tribe so bravely against has selfishly turned his back on our people and our rights to our old beautiful land. Our Chief John Ross

Per, Mintz and McNeil in the article “Indian Removal” the authors were trying to give us an example of why the supreme court and the executive branch did not work well with the systems of checks and balances by writing,” The supreme court ruled, the states could not pass laws conflicting with the federal Indian treaties and that the federal government had an obligation to exclude white intruders from native lands”(Mintz McNeil). This is saying, that the supreme court has made a verdict on the Indian tribes and the government has the duty to exclude whites from the land, but president Jackson still kicks the Native Americans out. This proves that, when the supreme court made their verdict to decide if the Native American lands were open to the whites, then the supreme court decided, whites were not allowed into native lands but the President did not listen to the supreme court and Jackson decided to make his own rules and kick the Native Americans out of their lands. Another example is, that president Andrew Jackson sort of encourages Georgia to defy the supreme court and kick out the Native Americans, when author Tim Garrison wrote,” Georgia ignored the supreme court's ruling… and continued to press the

The decision of the Cherokee removal led to misplaced families, 4,000 murders committed by the United States government, and lowered the Native Americans into a new place of powerlessness. The conclusion of the Cherokee removal that the Jackson administration had come to was an unstoppable one. Nevertheless, the Cherokees were determined to block the Indian Removal by becoming civilized in the Americans’ eyes, building their own nation, and eventually bringing court cases and filing complaints when their people were ignored.

In 1829, Americans elected Andrew Jackson as their president in the midst of their dispute, having a leader determined to rid their newly forming country of all Indians. This mindset originated from the idea of “Manifest Destiny,” the belief conjured by John O’Sullivan influencing thousands to work towards the United States’ future of taking over the entire continent of North America. It was thought that simpler races were incapable of advancing as a society. With that as motivation, the discovery of gold under the earth that the Cherokee lived on had been the big push to clear the lands as well, either by the Indians’ own will or forcefully. In 1830, the “Indian Removal Act” had been passed by Congress to peacefully negotiate the relocation of Indian territories, but when thousands of Indian tribes declined, they became angry and took drastic measures like killing. Originally, the Supreme Court had defended the tribes. It was declared that the treaties they had made separating nations gave the U.S no right to impose their power in Cherokee boundaries. However, they had no intention of enforcing the idea leaving the land hungry people to continue with the removal. This lack of action not only became a feud between the Indians and the U.S, but some of their own people as

Andrew Jackson was convinced that he was helping the Natives by forcing them out of the land they have thrived on for many, many years. He believed that by doing this, the Native Americans will “enable them {Native Americans} to pursue happiness in their own way” (Document A). This statement is not true because the Natives were already content and secure on the land they resided on. By removing them, he took away their happiness. Native Americans treat their land as if it is their own child, so the Indian Removal Act was very depressing for them. Jackson also said that by removing the Indians, it will prevent a war between the two groups. This is a false argument because instead of preventing a war, it actually sparked many wars between the two groups. While this was very saddening for the Natives, it was very good for American citizens. By conquering this land, it allowed the states “to advance in population, wealth, and power” (Document A). It allowed the Americans to gain gold and let them expand America as a whole. The Cherokees did not want to be removed from their land. In Document B, the Cherokees state that they want to “remain on the land of their fathers” because they feel that

When the Cherokee Nation sued Georgia state they believed they were going to get justice. In some part during the ruling it was in their favor, they were named to be part of the United States and were Americans not Indians. The supreme court which was mostly ruled by Chief Justice John Marshall; had decided that they had no rights to any of their lands. They also denied them to self-govern because their lack of jurisdiction and they had no court power. Which the Cherokee people were against because they wanted to have full control of their land. It was their land they wanted to be able to do anything they wanted with it and set their own rules ruled. John Marshal disagreed with what they wanted to do and ruled his way. Which then led to Worcester V. Georgia. The verdict in this trial was that they could take away Cherokee land at any given time. They had made it clear that the land of Cherokee was not part of the United State; even though it should had been part of US territory. At the end, they could be forced to relocate and this

An article from the Presidential Administration Profiles for Students refers to the act as “One of the most tragic acts of the 19th century.” Although most historians see the Indian Removal Act as a civil rights issue, some see the issue as an abuse of power. Alfred A. Cave, author of “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830”, is a professor of history at the University of Toledo. According to Cave, the Indian Policy of Andrew Jackson was corrupt because he used his position of power to invalidate the means of the Act. Cave believes, although many historians recognize Indian Removal to be a large policy in Jacksons presidency, “very few acknowledge that the process as it was carried out by the Jackson administration violated

The removal of Native-Americans from their homes to the region east of the Mississippi is one of the most tragic and controversial episodes in American History. It affected the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee people. This tragic event killed approximately 2,000 to 6,000 of the 16,543 Cherokee Indians who were forced to move during winter of 1838. There were many legal and moral arguments for and against this policy. In this paper I will point out the reasons why the argument against Indian removal was a more convincing argument.

Many people had called what he did extending his grasp (In terms of power). Many government processes that were performed were fair. The ones that went against Andrew Jackson’s beliefs were the ones that he did his best to stop, whether fair or not. Andrew Jackson was a believer in Native Americans and African Americans having no rights. During Jackson’s first term, he wrote to Congress saying that he wished to designate a spot west of the Mississippi for the Indians that were currently inside the states. Later during his second term, the Cherokee Nation was asked by the people of Georgia to move out of their fertile land and into lands such as present-day Oklahoma. The Indians refused and took the case known as the Georgia vs Cherokee to court. After going to multiple courts, the case was given to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled the Indians innocent and that they were allowed to stay. Jackson believed that the majority of Georgia wanted the Indians out so he kicked them out anyway using a piece of legislation known as the Indian Removal Act. The Cherokee Nation was outraged and said they won the case and wish to stay in the land of their forefathers. However, they were forced to walk the Trail of Tears into an area filled with poor soil and a meager water supply. Although the majority of the people in Georgia

In the Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Indians vs. Georgia, two decisions in 1831 and 1832 discussed that the Cherokee Indians must be protected for as long as they live in Georgia. The state of Georgia saw the Indians as unwanted inhabitants on their land and wanted them ousted entirely. Even though it was ruled that Georgia had no right to remove the Cherokees because of previous treaties made with the Us government, Jackson’s nationalism and views on states’ rights resulted in a policy that eradicated any danger to the unity of America. On the other hand, Jackson did empathize towards the Native Americans. He offered them money to help grant them their own land.

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.

In the 1830s, The Indian Removal Act was passed, which forced Native tribes such as the Cherokee to move to the west of the Mississippi River. President Jackson’s actions of the Indian Removal Act lead to the trail of tears, where many Native Americans died along the way. This paper will analyze and explain the different perspectives of the Indian Removal Act.

Should we act with violence or just have a civil conversation? Do we rely on trust for the sake of ourselves and others or do we see the face of death every time we turn our backs on people with such uncertainty? The indians was one of the most horrific acts of history. The act/law was passed on May 28th, 1830 during the presidency of the 7th president of the United States, Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson came up with law that forced Indian Tribes such as the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminoles, etc, to move west the the Mississippi River to gain their ancestral land. They promised the Indians a more “civilized life” but ended up going in the other direction. The Indian Removal Act was a step in the direction because they chose to solve the action with violence and instead of simply having a negotiation in a conversation. The soldiers, in my state of mind, acted/ overstepped their boundaries. They took advantage of their authority they were given and handled this the way they should not handle anything.