Andrew Jackson 's Indian Removal Policy

One of Andrew Jackson’s reason behind the Indian Removal Act was so that the United States could achieve their goal of Manifest Destiny, which is the belief Americans had that God meant for their country to be expanded from east to west coast.

Robert V. Remini shows that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act benefits the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson made notice of the issue with the Indians in his inaugural speech on March 4, 1829. He declared that he wanted to give humane and considerable attention to the Indian’s rights and wants in respect to the government and people. Jackson knew that meant to get rid of all remaining tribes beyond the Mississippi River. He (Jackson) believed that the Indians would be better off in the west; without the influence from the white man or local authority. Jackson hired two Tennessee generals to go visit the Creeks and Cherokees to see if the Indians would leave voluntarily. In that, those who did not leave would be protected by the

When he gained power, Jackson encouraged Congress to pass the 1830 Indian Removal Act. He argued that the legislation would provide land for white invaders, improve security against foreign invaders and encourage the civilization of the Native Americans. He argued that the measure will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites.

The Indian Removal Act was very controversial during its time, receiving influence from individuals, local, state and mostly by the federal government. This act gave the president, Andrew Jackson, the authority to make transactions with Indian tribes in the Southern region of the United States. The Indian Removal Act was a deal made by President Andrew Jackson with the Indian tribes, forcing them to leave their occupied land, which happened to be federal territories west of the Mississippi River. President Andrew Jackson’s primary method in Indian Removal was his speech to Congress regarding his opinions on the act, which included many positive outcomes that would happen if the Indians were to leave the territory. He claimed that this act would not only benefit the United States as a whole, but it would also benefit the Indian people. This benefit was called “Manifest Destiny” or the idea of the United States expanding its territories from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. This expansion would benefit the country not just economically, but agriculturally as well. However, “Manifest Destiny” was only an idea, and in order for this idea to become a reality, the governments had to take action. This action in entirety was the removal of the Indian tribes from the southern regions, making them travel through very harsh conditions so that Americans could settle in their former homeland. Overall, the American government wanted to rid the

In the years leading up to the Indian Removal Act, which was the initial cause of the Trail of Tears, the United States was in a shift. The country was seeing an unrivaled influx of European settlers looking for careers and land. This caused population to skyrocket, in fact in the years 1790-1840, the United States saw a 350% increase in population. In other words, the need for fertile land and viable property was high. At the same time, attempts at assimilation of Indians into American society were proving to be futile. Americans saw the Indians as “noble savages”, who were uncivilized but able to be fit for society if they were converted to Christianity and adopted Anglo-European culture and behavior. With the growing need for land and the rise in tension between Natives and fearful white settlers, something needed to be done in the eyes of the American people. These two things combined is what really set up the foreground for what would become the Indian Removal Act. President Andrew Jackson, in

Politicians believed the U.S should conquer western lands which prompted the Indian Removal Act in 1830 by Andrew Jackson.The Act enabled the president to make a deal with Indian tribes in the Southern United States to move to federal land by the Mississippi River in exchange for their territory. The indians tribes had no choice to accept, they were forced to leave their homelands and walk

“I fought through the civil war and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever knew”, remarked a Georgia soldier who had participated in the removal of Indian Natives during the mid-1800’s. As a result of the Indian Removal Act, Indian natives have been perceived as mistreated and cheated throughout history. The Indian Removal Act was passed during the presidency of Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. This act granted authorization to the president to exchange unsettled lands west of Mississippi for Indian lands residing in state borders. Initially, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed to expand the Southern United State for farmland and to aid the government in furthering our development as a nation. With this plan in mind, the government provided money to establish districts in the west of the Mississippi River for the Indian natives, ensured trade and exchange in those districts, allowed Native Indian tribes to be compensated for the cost of their removal and the improvements of their homesteads, and also pay one years’ worth subsistence to those Native Indians who relocated to the west.

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

The Indian Removal Act, inspired by Andrew Jackson; the 7th president of the US and the enhanced ambition for American settlers to find more land in the southwestern regions of North America. The Indian Removal Act enabled Jackson the power of negotiating removal treaties with Indian tribes east of the Mississippi. Among these tribes were: Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaws and Seminoles. Very few authenticated traits were signed. The Choctaws were the only tribe to agree without any issues. All other attempts resulted in War and blood shed for both white settlers and Indians. The conflict with the U.S. and Indians lasted up until 1837. In 1838 & 1839 Jackson forced the relocation of the remaining Cherokee Indians;

Andrew Jackson was justified in enforcing the Indian removal act. He wasn’t justified because the native americans weren’t given the proper care. Also, they didn’t want to move. Finally, everything was taken from them. Native Americans didn’t want to move and Jefferson should've respected their decisions.

Before the passing of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, lands west of the Mississippi River were Indian territory. Americans were not to settle on those lands or invade into the Indian’s space. Andrew Jackson was interested in having these Indians removed from this land to use it for American expansion. At first he explained that by removing indians from this land whites would be less likely to experience any dangers that these people could bring. Also he felt that Americans could better populate the land and create cities and towns to make the land more useful. With the settlements of powerful cities and towns, Jackson believed, that the land would be less likely to be invaded and if invasion was to be brought into the and there would be

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?

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.

In 1830, congress passed The Indian Removal Act, which became a law 2 days later by President Andrew Jackson. The law was to reach a fairly, voluntarily, and peacefully agreement for the Indians to move. It didn’t permit the president to persuade them unwillingly to give up their land by using force. But, “President Jackson and his government

Action was necessary and accepted as rational by the American people because of their unsustainable racism and greed for land to expand their settlements. The intent was not to burden the Native Americans, but “Jackson fully expected the Indians to thrive in their new surroundings, educate their children, acquire the skills of white civilization so as to improve their living conditions, and become citizens of the United States”(Remini 213). In order to become citizens of the United States the Indians were expected to conform to the societal normalities of the white citizens. Jackson put the removal act in place to diffuse conflict and encourage Native Americans to accept the American way of life as their new culture. The idea was to act in the most humane manner that would help both sides, not necessarily to disregard the Indians heritage or way of life.