Example Historiography

“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 dawn of the new American republic saw also the birth of U.S. Indian policy. In observing the bureaucracy of the United States government, one could clearly note the American view of proper dealings with Native peoples. It was the official U.S. policy to deal with the Indian tribes as separate foreign entities, grouping Choctaws, Shawnee, Cherokee and Creek peoples with the Spaniards, English and French. Curiously enough, the Secretary of War, not the Secretary of State, became responsible for Indian affairs. Clearly, the United States saw the Indians as a threat, either real or potential. In addition, the United States saw the Indians as a barrier to new and prosperous lands in the Western territories. An unofficial policy of provocation emerged. Using a multi-pronged assault, Americans would often enter Indian land and commit a crime worthy of retaliation by native peoples. Such an event precipitated Lord Dunmore's War; John Logan, a prominent Indian favored by many white men, was horrified to find his family murdered by white intruders. Vowing revenge, Logan led an attack on white settlements and the event quickly escalated to a full-blown war between the Shawnee and the whites, culminating in an Indian defeat and a subsequent land session. Such

​The nineteenth century marked a period of time of growth and development for the United States. During this time, the U.S. experienced important advances in science, technology, industrialization, and civil rights. This is also the time period where the U.S. began its expansion from east coast to west coast. This is known as the conquest of manifest destiny. Unfortunately, this destiny came at a price. The price paid for this was by the Native American people who were essentially forcibly moved off of their land for the achievement of this goal. A question arises as to whether this was justified and whether there were other ways in which these goals could have been achieved

For several hundred years people have sought answers to the Indian problems, who are the Indians, and what rights do they have? These questions may seem simple, but the answers themselves present a difficult number of further questions and answers. State and Federal governments have tried to provide some order with a number of laws and policies, sometimes resulting in state and federal conflicts. The Federal Government's attempt to deal with Indian tribes can be easily understood by following the history of Federal Indian Policy. Indians all over the United States fought policies which threatened to destroy their familial bonds and traditions. The Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe of Maine, resisted no less

Looking throughout the overwhelming events the American Revolution had on everyone involved, allows us to examine how the governments’ policies toward the Indians changed over time. It shows how the policy changes effected the Indians as well as the Americans’, their attitudes toward each other as the American’s pushed westward and the Indians resisted. Then the actions on both sides which lead up to the final removal of all Indians to west of the Mississippi in 1830’s.

The existence of the Indian nations as distinct independent communities within the limits of the United States seems to be drawing to a close.... You are aware that our Brethren, the Choctaws, Chickasaws and Creeks of the South have severally disposed of their country to the United States and that a portion of our own Tribe have also emigrated West of the Mississippi--but that the largest portion of our Nation still remain firmly upon our ancient domain....Our position there may be compared to a solitary tree in an open space, where all the forest trees around have been prostrated by a furious

To solve the “Indian problem”, they designated “Indian territory” across the Mississippi river. White Americans, more so the ones who lived on the western frontier, feared and resented the Native Americans they would encounter. They saw the Indians as unfamiliar people

This tragic loss of Native American culture is heartbreaking even in today's society. As was ruefully stated by Native American chief Santana, "These soldiers cut down our timber, they kill my buffalo; and when I see that, my heart feels like bursting; I feel sorry." (Document G) Since its inception in 1776, the United States was known as one of the most prominent advocates for freedom and liberty. Its emphasis on liberty and equality results from this nation’s dedication to and founding upon the Christian proposition that all men are created equal by God. Yet if this was truly taken to heart, then why were they so hedonistic against the Native Americans? Tensions between the tribes and the citizens of America drastically increased over the years of Manifest Destiny. Expanding the boundaries of the United States was in many ways a cultural war. While the US fought with the natives, the real power struggle occurred within. "Controversy grew over Texas, its annexation, and its boundaries. Not all Congressmen wanted to add Texas to the US as fear of a potentially large slave territory threatened the balance of Congress" (Background Essay Adapted) The desire of southerners to find more lands suitable for cotton

Ever since the very first colonies were formed, the Native Americans have been forced out of their beloved inveterate lands in order for the Americans to be able to expand their new found territory. Yet, nothing ever changed and the same economic policies continued, bringing nothing but destruction to the Native people. Meanwhile, the political and social policies were dramatically distorted, deceiving the tribes into losing land and cultural values. Jackson’s efforts to remove any and all Cherokee Indians to territory west of the Mississippi in the 1830’s maintained the same economical attitudes as before but changed the social and political policies set by the previous colonies and the United States government towards the Native Americans.

The idea of removal as a solution to the “Indian problem” had been kicked around since the eighteenth century. Policy makers were drawn to it in the 1820s for two reasons: the weaken position of the Native Americans after the War of 1812 made removal possible; and the pressure to open up new lands made this action politically desirable. (9)

The Jacksonian Indian Policy that was supposed to turn the west into an area of self-sufficient, landowning farmer was soon overhauled… In the end, Judge Kent and Andrew Jackson,…helped impose a system of materialism, dependence and impersonal authority over other. Although this applied to white and Native Americans alike, it is once again the experience of the Native American that provides the most excruciating illustration of the effects of westward movement…” It is the Native Americans who had to contend with greedy as well as power hungry individuals in the government. The forced migration of the Natives west was the key Jackson needed to bolster economy and send more settles out into the country to gain more territory and grow the United

In the 19th century, United States was under the European empire supremacy. European held a powerful authority that commands the United States to fight against the Native Indian tribes from the West to extend their territories. However, the EU and US didn’t expect the Native to have abundant resources and population that could outweigh them in this raging battle. The war between the Native tribes and the United States went on for years. The US won the battle in the end. The US forcefully removed the Native Indian out of their own territories, extended their region to Mississippi River and established a treaty that only allowed indigenous people to stay if they obey the US regulations.

However, white settlers were mainly engrossed in the resources of weathly and productive land beneath the Indians. As a consequence, the United State government embarked on a long military operation, marked by incorrect promises made. In addition, broken and unture treaties. Also the threatening remark of military force and supremacist outlook to the Indians from their

From the ethnic cleansing projects of Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830, to the Homestead, the Morrill Acts of 1862, and the General Allotment Act of 1887, enactments of national leaders set out to strip the indigenous of their rights and land while bolstering the authority of the federal government. One of the greatest attacks on indigenous sovereignty occurred in 1871, when Congress severed the treaty-making relationship between tribes and the federal government, effectively breaching the separation of powers

One of the noticeable themes of postmodernism is the distorting of lines between fiction and nonfiction. In the hands of a talented writers, “making it up” and “telling the truth” can exist simultaneously and comfortably beside one another. Writers of this genre know that it is obvious to the reader that they are lying to tell the truth. More exactly, these writers lie openly to tell the truth so that their moral position as storytellers exists in their ability to lie openly and cleverly. A term historiografiction – meaning postmodern mixture of the words historiography and fiction – means the literary treatment of persons or events from the past. Historiografiction is mainly disturbed with character and theme; in contrast, historical fiction is started by plot, setting, details or lifestyle. A traditional historical expectations and neutrality is an important element in the postmodern questioning, and it issues authors to investigate the possibilities of previously immersed character and points of view in real events from the past.