The Political Issues Of The Indian Removal Act Of 1830

“By 1837, the Jackson administration had removed 46,000 Native American people from their land east of the Mississippi, and had secured treaties which led to the removal of a slightly larger number ( indian removal policy). In 1830, just a year after taking office, Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation called the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress. It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west.” Jackson saw the indians as paternalistic and patronizing -- he described them as children in need of guidance. He clearly wanted them gone. In this piece of text evidence it says that Jackson pushed the indian removal policy through both houses of congress which shows that he enforces what he wants

The Indian Removal Act of 1830, championed by President Andrew Jackson, called for the relocation of numerous native American tribes to lands west of the Mississippi River to land for white settlers. Although the bill was extremely controversial, it was passed, and entire Indian tribes were forced to move. Due to the hardship and suffering the Indian Removal Act of 1830 caused Indian peoples, as well as the fact that it was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and immoral, it should not have been passed. Firstly, the negative effects of the bill on native Americans far outweighed the benefits it might have had for second people. Secondly, the bill violated numerous treaties between the U.S. government and Indian tribes and was thus unconstitutional. Lastly, the bill was immoral due to the fact that Indian leaders were not allowed a voice in their own future and the inherent racism involved in the decision.

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.

Historically, the people of the United States and the Native tribes couldn’t live together, they fought because the two sides competed for superiority. The United States Government sought to put an end to the violent clashes with the American people and the Natives tribes. A resolution was the Indian Removal Act, with this, the United States became safer, wealthier, and stronger; And the Natives, which they saw as inferior, would leave. This Act wasn’t easy for the Native tribes, they left the land their ancestors had built them, and experienced a long road ahead of them to rebuild again.

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

Jackson mistreated and harmed the Native Americans which was oppressive and undemocratic. In Andrew Jackson’s message to Congress, he lied when he stated that, “This emigration should be voluntary… (but) if they remain within the limits of the states they must be subject to their laws,” (Doc 8). The Native Americans had adapted and begun to resemble a civilized society with town meetings, public education, and an alphabet. Less than six months later, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act and would soon take military force to push the Native Americans west into a reserved territory for them in what is present day Oklahoma (Doc 10). It was very undemocratic of Jackson to lie to the Native Americans and oppress them by forcefully moving them to the reserved Indian Territory. The Cherokee however, did not give up easily and took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their plea to remain on the land of their ancestors without interruption was upheld and clarified that the Cherokee had the right to establish their own nation within the state of Georgia (Doc 9). Jackson ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court and ultimately

There were several motives for the removal of the Indians from their lands, to include racism and land lust. Since they first arrived, the white Americans hadn’t been too fond of the Native Americans. They were thought to be highly uncivilized and they had to go. In his letter to Congress addressing the removal of the Indian tribes, President Jackson

This conclusion that relocation was their only chance at survival convinced a minority of the Natives to support Indian Removal. On the other hand, while I support Jackson’s concept of Indian Removal, I do not agree with his execution and speedy retraction of promises. Jackson was right to believe that the assimilation and protection of Natives would cost too much and that relocation was an adequate solution to the predicament. However, he did not account for the execution of the plan and the

Even preceding his fame from presidency, Andrew Jackson was known for his opposition to American Indians. And although this connotation is assigned to Jackson’s attitude towards the Natives during the decades before he became President, his dominant goal was to maintain the security of the United States. As a military man, he was depicted as a zealous supporter of the removal of the Indians. Once he was in Office, the story goes, he utilized his newly acquired power to extract the Natives from their ancestral homes. One the contrary, during his terms, Jackson proved that upheld the rights of the Natives. However, what is considered to be the most controversial action of his presidency, the removal of the “Five Civilized Tribes” resulted in an abundance of criticism toward Jackson. Although alternatives to this removal were present, some being executed before, the American mindset was simply Natives could nither be assimilated to the “white” society nor requisite protection was possible. The removal, as Jackson concluded, seemed the only possible answer.

Authorizing the president to exchange unsettled land west of the Mississippi for Indian land within state borders, the Indian Removal Act was signed by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. Being pursued for nearly thirty years, the relocation of the Indians was desired primarily for pecuniary advantages and the termination of the contention between white settlers and “dangerous” Native Americans. While some tribes accepted their inevitable fate, many resisted and faced harsh government and social brutality. As a result, Jackson’s presidential administration is tainted by the 4,000 lives lost on the Trail of Tears, the separation of the Native Americans from their ancestral lands and cultural ties, and the condemnation of the Native people

One of the many subjects of critical importance in American history was the relocation of American Indians, known as the Indian Removal. President Andrew Jackson favored the rapid settlement of Western and Southern lands by whites, therefore he wanted to make a drastic change, and he certainly did. In his two terms as president, Jackson worked to implement his vision of a politics of opportunity for all white men (The American Promise, 285). He held the belief that previous efforts to promote the assimilation of Indian peoples had failed. In his 1830 letter to Congress, Jackson announced the benefits resulting from the relocation of the native people, and the “pecuniary advantages” that such movement would bestow on the Anglo American population

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?

Should we act with violence or just have a civil conversation? Do we rely on trust for the sake of ourselves and others or do we see the face of death every time we turn our backs on people with such uncertainty? The indians was one of the most horrific acts of history. The act/law was passed on May 28th, 1830 during the presidency of the 7th president of the United States, Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson came up with law that forced Indian Tribes such as the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminoles, etc, to move west the the Mississippi River to gain their ancestral land. They promised the Indians a more “civilized life” but ended up going in the other direction. The Indian Removal Act was a step in the direction because they chose to solve the action with violence and instead of simply having a negotiation in a conversation. The soldiers, in my state of mind, acted/ overstepped their boundaries. They took advantage of their authority they were given and handled this the way they should not handle anything.

Accordingly, the question, “What is the best explanation for why President Andrew Jackson and the United States continued with Indian removal even after the court deemed the forced removal of and interference in the affairs of sovereign nations unconstitutional?” is viable because it analyzes and examines the arguments and describes the principles the US relied on and practiced as one description and assessment of Jacksonian Democracy and thus explains why they were able to continue with Indian Removal. Indian removal was maintained because of the varying points of view between the three parties: President Jackson (Pro-Removal), the Supreme Court and the Indians. This transformed into a quarrel between the President Jackson and the Supreme Court while the Indians and their views were completely and utterly disregarded. The varying points of view brought up contradictions and created tensions that ultimately created a window for Indian Removal.

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