Daniel F. Littlefield Analysis

Most Americans have at least some vague image of the Trail of Tears, but not very many know of the events that led to that tragic removal of several thousand Indians from their homeland. Indian lands were held hostage by the states and the federal government, and Indians had to agree to removal to preserve their identity as tribes. Trail of Tears is an excellent snapshot of a particular situation and will be eye opening to those who are not familiar with the story of the southern tribes and their interactions with the burgeoning American population. The Trail of Tears has become the symbol in American history that signifies the callousness of American policy makers toward American Indians in 1839 and 1839.

It has been 186 years since the Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The way other people view Native Americans, particularly the Choctaws and Chickasaws, has changed drastically over time; but how has that changed the way Native Americans view themselves. I plan to explore what it meant to be Native American at the time of Indian Removal and compare it to what it is believed to mean to be Native American today. I plan to look at the cultural attitude that was in place at the time of removal and how the Native Americans reacted and compare it to modern day opinion.

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

Although the horrors of the American Civil War and Reconstruction within Indian Territory were fresh. Yet, the presence of Indian Territory changed drastically between 1865 and 1889, because of the “Second Trail of Tears”, the unrest of the Southern Plains tribes of western Indian Territory, and the impact of U.S. Polices on Indian Territory.

Currently, when the losses suffered by the Cherokee Nation as a result of their forced removal are discussed, there is a focus on the loss in numbers. However, Russell Thornton’s “Cherokee Population Losses During Trail of Tears: A New Perspective and a New Estimate” clearly presents a new, suitably researched perspective that argues the focus should not be only on those that died, but also on those that never lived. Thornton is a professor at UCLA in the Anthropology department. He has a number of degrees related to this study, including a Ph.D. in Sociology and a postdoctoral in Social Relations from Harvard, and specializes in Native American studies. He is clearly appropriately acquainted with this field, and his knowledge of the subject matter is evident in this piece. However, he also cites a number of papers and books by other authors, so as not to rely purely on his knowledge.

In the early 1830s, approximately 125,000 Native Americans thrived on millions of acres of land in Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Alabama. In the next 10 years, a scarce number of natives lingered anyplace in the Southeastern United States. In 1838 and 1839, the Cherokee nation was brutally forced to give up its rightful land and travel on foot to designated “Indian Territory” in modern-day Oklahoma. Upon this involuntary journey, thousands of Indians faced exhaustion, disease, and famine. This heartbreaking event became known as the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears is important to the history of the United States because it is the wickedest human civil rights tragedy to ever fall upon the Native American population, and it was the beginning of the destruction of an entire people.

“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.

Currently, when the losses suffered by the Cherokee Nation as a result of their forced removal are discussed, there is a focus on the loss in numbers. However, Russell Thornton’s “Cherokee Population Losses During Trail of Tears: A New Perspective and a New Estimate” clearly presents a new, suitably researched perspective that argues the focus should not be only on those that died, but also on those that never lived. Thornton is a professor at UCLA in the Anthropology department. He has a number of degrees related to this study, including a Ph.D. in Sociology and a postdoctoral in Social Relations from Harvard, and specializes in Native American studies. He is clearly appropriately acquainted with this field, and his knowledge of the subject matter is evident in this piece. However, he also cites a number of papers and books by other authors, so as not to rely purely on his knowledge.

Many historians argue that the Indian Removal Act was not justified. “Members of Congress argued that Jackson violated the Constitution by refusing to enforce treaties that guaranteed Indian land rights.” (Cheathem, 452). In 1791, America signed a treaty with the Cherokees with the intent on “civilizing” them into the traditions of America. By the 1820’s, most Cherokees were “living in log cabins instead of houses made

In the 1800’s tensions were rising between the whites and Indians over land. One of the Indian tribes called the Cherokee would be forced to leave their land due to a law passed by Congress called the Indian Removal Act, which detailed the relocation of Indian tribes to a new territory. Because of the law being passed, The Cherokee nation decided to make a strong case to the United States court for keeping their land in Georgia and North Carolina. In their plea to the government, the Cherokee people focused preserving the land of their ancestors and reminding the United States government, they were an independent nation whose rights should be protected under the law.

“What the Removal Bill did not do was as significant as what it did. It did not define precisely the constitutional rights of any tribe that had been removed. It did not make mandatory the allocation of funds for tribal assistance if Congress wanted the money for anything else. It specified no machinery for carrying out the removal. Also, it made no mention that in 1828 gold had been discovered on Cherokee land at Dahlonega, Georgia, and it drew no lines between state or federal rights” (Jahoda 41).

One tribe, the Shoshone, were promised “everything necessary to comfortable living” in exchange for fulfilling their side of the Indian Removal act [Document 8]. They remained civil even when adjusting from originally thriving in “every foot of what you proudly call America” to being “content with the little patch allowed”. They were originally promised seed, farming tools, food, and cattle during the arrangement, but the United States did not carry out their side of the bargain; killing their game, stealing their furs, and using the Shoshone meadows to feed their

John Ridge, his father Major Ridge, and his cousin Elias Boudinot were part of the treaty process that would relocate the Cherokee Nation called, “The Treaty of New Equota”. It is evident in the book that John Ridge was in favor of signing the treaty because he thought that he would be protecting the rights of the Cherokee people. It becomes clear that the Cherokees are going to be moving, it was just how they will be moved that made all the difference. The book talks about the Americans thirst for land and how the gold rush in Georgia would eventually force the Cherokees out.

Most Americans have at least some vague understanding of the Trail of Tears, but not many know about the events that led to that tragic removal of thousands of Indians from their homeland. Indian lands were held hostage by the states and the federal government. The Indians had to agree to removal to maintain their tribe identities. Trail of Tears is an excellent example of a particular situation and will be eye opening to those who are not familiar with the story of the southern tribes and their interactions with the rapidly growing American population. The Trail of Tears has become the symbol in American history that indicates the callousness, insensitivity, and cruelty of American government toward American Indians in 1839 and 1839.

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