Rhetorical Analysis Of Monroe's Motivated Sequence

As a rule, the Native Americans are perhaps the most overlooked sector of the population of the colonies. This war completely varied their knowledge of their land and its value. “We know our lands have now become more valuable,” (Document B). No more would they be fooled by

In his transcript, Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’, Andrew Jackson is elucidating his excitement and motivation since the Indian tribes’ removal from America was emanating from a “happy consummation (p.1) He underscores the benefits of this removal to the interests of Americans as well as their whole country for future generations. He speaks quite superficially; conversely, ‘Samuel’s Memory’ depicts a very opposing perspective such a removal. Therefore, the two works employ very conflicting languages: Andrew employs complex and compound sentence structures while Michael’s are simple, Andrew uses victorious tone while Michael uses bitter tone and Andrew brings out ceremonial mood while Michael portrays emphatic/sorrowful mood. However, they both show their prowess in diction to achieve their varied tones and pass their respective messages effectively. This essay seeks to explore Michael’s “Samuel’s Memory” and “Andrew’s Message to Congress on ‘Indian Removal’”, compare them on the context of diction and contrast them on the basis of tone, sentence structure, and mood.

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.

In “ Samuel’s Memory” the purpose of the story to inform people on what truly happened to Indian’s during the Indian Removal Act and show what they caused to their families, friends, and homes. These effects of the Act were crucial and caused a lot of pain all around. Including, “ ...the snow and ice seem to hound us, claiming our people one by one. North is the color of blue, defeat and trouble”. The point of this story was to give a victim’s point of view and say what really happened. On the other hand, Jackson’s speech’s purpose was to justify the act. He wanted people to think that what they were doing wasn’t bad but helpful to both sides of the act. To support this he says, “ ...enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions”.Through this speech his goal was to gain supporters and persuade people to believe it was okay and the best solution.

Andrew Jackson, the man on the twenty dollar-bill, is a highly respected commander and an individual who should not be reckoned with. In Hickey’s Glorious Victory, he is regarded as the “People’s President” and is arguably one of the best leaders to have ruled this nation (Hickey, 48). Despite his success as president, he is tangled in many contradictions. For example, he is known to be racist to the Natives, but adopting a native orphan; he is also known as a slaveholder, but he also welcomed free African Americans to join his army; he is a general who lectured his superiors and ignored orders, while simultaneously demanded unquestionable obedience from his men. Although some individuals question the appropriateness of Jackson’s face on the twenty-dollar bill, his achievements during presidency and in the military preserved the cohesiveness of the American people through his leadership and unrelenting resilience.

The author thought it was a good idea to give the Indians a new home. And make them become more civilized and cast off their savage habits, and it makes us thing that it actually happened, because nowadays the Indians don’t have those savage habits they used to have, now they are civilized people. The date of the argument is December 13, 1830, an age when Indians were still mad at Americans for stealing their land, and also they had a very different culture as they do today. The place was probably in Washington, because it was a meeting where only important people, like the President, where present, and what I imagine is that Jackson were trying to convince the other members of the joint, to do what he was

Andrew Jackson’s Address to Congress on ‘Indian Removal’ is explaining his excitement and encouragement in the fact that the removal of indian tribes from the United States was coming from a ‘happy consummation.’ He talks of how this is very beneficial to Americans and the country. However, ‘Samuel’s Memory’ by Michael Rutledge, shows a very different perspective to this removal. Both Stories are showcasing the same event but the language used creates a different feel to it. ‘Indian Removal’ and ‘Samuel’s Memory’ are both two different messages written by different people talking about their experiences with the Indian tribes being in the United States.

Jackson, Andrew, the first one become a president as ordinary of the United States, who had overcome all the difficulties challenge in his early life, and attributed his success by himself to become a ‘brave son of Tennessee’ as miraculous, as impossible. He had a very intricately past: captured by the British in 1781, squandered his inheritance in gambling house and brothels, practiced law, speculated in land, and opened stores to sell goods from Philadelphia… But, the “blood” of his “fore father,” makes him became the “Old Hickory”, and against the diseases in the war with the Creek. Thus to say, that People respect him because his success, but his harsh policies with Indian also bring him a lot of condemn. In the article, “Jackson: Metaphysician

That the Natives and Indians were treated unfairly and badly, and killed traveling to the new land. The last resource tells us that Jackson was going to help the Indians and Natives, and they will be better treating in the new land they are given. That they are at risk of being killed and if they move the Indians and the Natives will be safe. These text help the reader understand both sides of the situation. The perspective was good and bad of the Indian removal act and the Trail of tears. The good reasons were that the government would protect them in the new land. That they would be saved from annihilation, also their first year would be paid for. The bad reasons were that on the trail of tears was killing many of the Natives and Indians in the harsh weather of winter. The Indian removal act was also bad in sources one because it was pushing Indians and Natives out of the land that America offered them. The land that America fought for, for the Indians and Natives. The resources helped the reader understand the pros and the cons of the Indian removal act and the trail of tears. The Indian Removal act and the trail of tears is significant to the U.S history because the first This text shows the poor treatment of the Natives by the U.S and teaches us not to repeat. The power of the President is expanded/ made bigger. Set the precedent for the

​In Jackson’s address to Congress in 1830, his assumptions in regards to the Indians were exaggerated in comparison. The Indians were described as being “the wandering savage” and the new settlers were the “settled, civilized Christians”. He also supposed by rhetoric that the “wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children?” (Past, 188).

Unfortunately, for Native Americans their experience since initial contact with White Europeans has been a constant struggle. The very existence of Native American’s culture, religion, language, and land, and their form of political organizations have been threatened since the White Europeans began colonization in the regions indigenous to the Native Americans. Evidently, the White European’s misunderstanding of the American Indian has been a motivating factor in the poor treatment administered towards them. Not to mention, the various tribes had warfare amongst themselves, which perhaps gave the Europeans a reason to believe they were violent people and ignore any feeling of guilt for partaking in warfare with them as well. Upon arrival,

Throughout history, American settlers, explorers, military personnel, and governmental entities have come into contact with Native American people as America sought to expand its control over claimed and unclaimed territories. These interactions ranged from developing strong and amicable relations with Native populations, to armed conflict. As relations progressed, both Indian and non-Indians developed positive and negative perspectives and opinions of one another that impacted relations and communications between the two sides in different ways. Unfortunately, more often than not, fighting ensued and armed conflict resulted in the seizure of Indian territories and the forced removal of Indian tribes to reservations as America expanded its foothold in North America. Furthermore, such conflict at times created prominent events that to this

The history of the Native Americans and the white colonist that would become the United States of America have always been a disaster for the Native Americans. The land greed of the whites had driven the tribes of the East west, and destroyed the culture of the Midwestern Plains tribes. Near constant war with the Native American finally appeared to come to a peaceful solution. The Native Americans resisted the American way of life because they did not understand it, education was the key to civilizing the Native Americans. The government’s broken promises and the cruelty of the white settlers were symptoms of the greater Indian problem. The Indians refused to stop being Indians, despite the efforts of Washington and missionaries to teach

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

Imagine getting a place or an object that is treasured taken away or allowing higher authority to decide when and where someone or something belongs. During the nineteenth century, Native Americans had to give up the things that they cherished the most. White settlers did not accept the fact that leaving their valuables and traditions behind was like taking away a part of themselves. A similar situation took place in the story, “What You Pawn I’ll Redeem” as Jackson Squared set a goal to enable himself to obtain his grandmother's regalia that was taken by a pawnbroker. By acknowledging the importance of the rituals held by Jackson Squared, the “State of the Union Address” demonstrates the lack of acceptance, appreciation, and civility by President Jackson to the significance of the Natives’ traditions and possessions.