Devastation and destruction, the final woes of the Indians in their own lands, and the killers of Spain as well as America who carried the iron death, and death of pen with them. This is a simplified explanation of what happened to the people of Indian decent in during the period that the Spaniards overtook the Southern Americas, and the Americans who stole the land from the natives in the idea of Manifest Destiny. Each generation had their own ideas on how the Indians should be treated, but as history shows each generation chose poorly. The three authors all chose different routes to acknowledge the treatment of the Indians and all three gave compelling evidence towards their arguments whether they are right or wrong. Bartolome de Las Casas, …show more content…
H. Jackson, who wants to find a common ground, and a peace with the Indians. In his claims, similar to that of de Las Casas, Jackson seems to believe that the Indians are misguided almost and misunderstood as they are people of the land proud and strong. He believes that the United States owes the Indians for the cruelty placed upon them and that they were so unjustly treated in a manner that their basic life was impeded, their own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is true if one knows of the damage we placed upon the proud people. He speaks of how the government should atone for its sins against the Indian people and try to make amends with them. H.H. Jackson (1881) says, “Cheating, robbing, breaking promises--these three are clearly things which must cease to be done. One more thing, also, and that is the refusal of the protection of the law to the Indian's rights of property, "of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". He writes this at the bottom of the excerpt and uses religion to finish it off driving home his point, and to pull at the heartstrings of the many religious, Christian, people of the period. H. H. Jackson (1881) then claims, “Till these four things have ceased to be done, statesmanship and philanthropy alike must work in vain, and even Christianity can reap but small harvest.". This conclusion to the excerpt is powerful in a way that it hits every person in some way or another and is a plead that we are humans must fix our …show more content…
H. H. Jackson and de Las Casas both agree that the damages placed upon the Indian people are far too horrendous to be hidden away under cloak by the governments and that the people deserve to know the truth behind it. Where de Las Casas doesn’t seek a retribution for the atrocities, Jackson pleads for them. Jackson believes that the government needs to fix the problems it put forth against the Indian people. In complete contrast, Andrew Jackson tells of how the white man and the Indian are not to different and in the eyes of many this is true. Both white people and Indians were relocated to new lands, taken from the homes of their fathers, and forced to rebuild, this is true, but where we as Americans all fought for our freedom and won, the Indians were sorely out manned and out gunned. The views and ideas were all based upon the views of the world during each respective time. All of whom gave evidence that during their era, they needed to do what was right in the eyes of whomever they believed to be the true deity. In fact, religion has taken such a large portion of all these heinous crimes against humanities by the horns, it could be argued that it was because of religious intent and that perhaps without the idea of Christianity, this may never have
In Jackson’s mind, he expected the Indians to thrive as they did in their current home, except there would be no white men. Three chiefs, each one from the Chippewa, Potawatomi, and Ottawa tribes, came forward to the White House and told about their suffering. They said they were promised land as fertile as Illinois, but received land that a snake couldn’t live on. They could not live in the prairie when they were from the woods. Thousands of Indian people suffered because Jackson heard what they said
opinion. jackson believes that seizing the land of the indians is a natural obligation for
Cave’s idea that Jackson overstepped his legislative power and violated the Indian Removal Act as written is that of Robert V. Remini. Remini argues that Jackson did care for the well being of the Native Americans and their customs and therefore did everything in his power to protect them from the white settlers. While some aspects of this argument can be proven, there is far more evidence to support Cave’s proposal. Remini argues that, “the Indian Removal Act did not order the removal of Indians” and that it was “the President’s noble desire to give the Indians a free choice between staying and removing”. He blames the fraud and deception on the state officials that harassed Indians who refused to leave. But, what Remini fails to mention is that jackson regarded state harassment Indians as a useful means of encouraging removal. Jackson continuously warned and threatened the hesitant tribes to sign the removal treaties, “starvation and destruction await them if they remain much longer..”. There were many witness to fraud, coercion, and corruption were used by Jackson’s supporters to negotiate the removal treaties, accordingly, on many accounts, jackson’s agents resorted to extensive bribery of tribal leaders and frequently threatened leaders opposed to relocation. Another point in Remini’s essay was that Jackson truly showed “genuine feelings of concern for their welfare, particularly the poor among them”, but this argument is completely
In A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, Bartolomé de Las Casas vividly describes the brutality wrought on the natives in the Americas by the Europeans primarily for the purpose of proclaiming and spreading the Christian faith. Las Casas originally intended this account to reach the royal administration of Spain; however, it soon found its way into the hands of many international readers, especially after translation. Bartolomé de Las Casas illustrates an extremely graphic and grim reality to his readers using literary methods such as characterization, imagery, amplification, authorial intrusion and the invocation of providence while trying to appeal to the sympathies of his audience about such atrocities.
It was Jackson’s First Annual Message to Congress, in which he had began to advocate for Indians during his terms. He suggested they move out westward, as a civilized group, and emigrate the land area west of the Mississippi River. (Doc 4). This would allow the expansion of white men looking for land. He has hope to able to move all those Indians out of U.S. Territory to give them a safer region of land to live, away from the potential undesired interaction and destruction with the common white man looking for land. (Garraty 248). There were multiple supreme court cases in which Indians had went against Georgia to challenge Georgia’s laws that lack to acknowledge Indian existence. (Doc 5). First case brought to the supreme court was Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, which was ruled that the Cherokees were an outside nation, not a part of the U.S. (Garraty 249). Jackson did not fully agree with the first case but later, after Worchester v. Georgia, he set down his good foot, and passed the Native American Removal Act of 1830. He forced the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears and denied to view all their court cases.(Garraty 250). The Native American Removal was supported by Jackson’s supporters in congress and it not only pushed Cherokee on this trail, it brought with them Chickasaw, and Choctaw. (Nash 332). The force put these tribes caused many deaths and separations of families. This goes to show how equality was mainly strived for the white man and not “foreigners” who are not a part of this nation (Nash
In his article “Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars”, the author Robert V. Remini believed that Andrew Jackson’s Removal Policy benefited Native Americans. However, in his article he contradicts himself. While speaking of Andrew Jackson’s inaugural address Robert V. Remini points out “Anyone who
Andrew Jackson, The United States seventh president, was possibly one of the worst human beings to be president and treated the Native Indians horribly. He, was a bully and used his position to get acts and petitions like the Indian Removal Act passed, to help push Native Indians around so he could get his own way. The Indian Removal Act in and of itself seemingly doesn’t contain that much power, however it was all the power Jackson needed. The circumstances of Jackson’s character and the debates surrounding the Act also lend and interesting lens to examine what Jackson intentions were. When looking at Jackson and how he managed to relocate the Native it becomes substantially more integral to examine all the documents with a wide scope to see how he even managed the relocation of Natives.
When Americans expanded their country west, they interfered with many American Indian Tribes. In a letter he wrote to congress, he explained “This emigration should be voluntary… (but) if they remain within the limits of the states they must be subject to their laws” (Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress December 7, 1829). Andrew Jackson offered to let the American Indians stay if they followed their laws. But in 1831, Jackson forced the Native Americans out of their homelands starting the Indian Removal. According to a reprinted in Niles Weekly Register, the Cherokee’s said “We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation”. Jackson lied to the American Indians about allowing them to stay. Jackson did not act democratically because he did not allow the American Indians to stay and forced them to move west. Jackson was fair to his supporters, but not to
One of the weaknesses of this book was the way in which a strong opinion of the author frequently came to the surface. The impression given when reading was one of bias in that the Spanish were wrong to come in and refine everything. This was reflected in the fact that periodically within the book, when the Spanish conquistadors did something to the Indians, it was pointed out how inhumane it was. Yet, when the Indians retaliated in some way, it was quickly pointed out how justified they were. The mentioned advantages that the Indians gained through the Spaniards were infrequent and underdeveloped.
When we look back into history, we are now able to fully comprehend the atrocities the Indians faced at the hands of the historic general and President, Andrew Jackson. It can be seen as one of the most shameful and unjust series of political actions taken by an American government. However, as an American living almost 200 years later, it is crucial to look at the motives possessed by Andrew Jackson, and ask whether he fully comprehended the repercussions of his actions or if is was simply ignorant to what he was subjection the natives to. We must also consider weather he truly had the countries best interest in mind, or his own.
I believe when Jackson compared settlers moving for a better life to removing Indians from their homes he was wrong. He was trying to make it seem it was the same things to prove himself, I believe that was because deep down he knew he was wrong but that did not outweigh the benefits he saw. Jackson uses the term “savage” to refer for the Indian people when the only thing that made them savages was that he did not know who they were. He referred to Christian as “civilized” only because those people were like him. Indians have their own cultures and beliefs.
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
1a) The main point in Excerpt 1 is explaining Jackson’s view on how to deal with the Native Americans. He believed that removing the Indians from the nation was the only solution. Andrew Jackson wanted to prevent them from expanding East, since they compromised the safety of the country. He concluded that having the Indians staying in the East would be worse because they would he forced to oblige by the state laws.
For more than 300 years, since the days of Christopher Columbus and the Spanish Government, an attempt of genocide of the Native American Indian has existed. From mass brutal murders and destruction by Spanish and American armies, to self-annihilation through suicide, homicide, and alcohol induced deaths brought about because of failed internal colonialism and white racial framing. Early Explores used Indigenous inhabitants upon first arriving to the America’s to survive the New World and once they adapted, internal colonialism began with attempts to convert the Indians to Christianity, repressing their values and way of life, forcing them into slavery, and nearly exterminating an entire culture from existence.
The beginning of the story, where the reader receives the background information, is Jackson mentioning how “Indians have to work hard to keep secrets from hungry white folk” (1396). By Jackson stating this, the reader becomes aware that Jackson does not trust whites or at least does not think of them as worthy to know the truth. This feeling more than likely comes from history between Native Americans and White immigrants in the early years of America. Jackson is a very proud person, especially with his heritage, and he does not consider what the historical whites did as fair. While explaining the difference in Indians before and after Christopher Columbus arrived, Jackson also mentions how he is “living proof of the horrible damage that colonialism has done to us Skins,” and how he is sometimes scared “of history and its ways” (1397).