The Pros And Cons Of The Indian Removal Act

Robert V. Remini shows that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act benefits the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson made notice of the issue with the Indians in his inaugural speech on March 4, 1829. He declared that he wanted to give humane and considerable attention to the Indian’s rights and wants in respect to the government and people. Jackson knew that meant to get rid of all remaining tribes beyond the Mississippi River. He (Jackson) believed that the Indians would be better off in the west; without the influence from the white man or local authority. Jackson hired two Tennessee generals to go visit the Creeks and Cherokees to see if the Indians would leave voluntarily. In that, those who did not leave would be protected by the

opinion. jackson believes that seizing the land of the indians is a natural obligation for

Jackson declared his first statement of removal on December 8, 1829. His motivation behind this was to persuade Congress to pass the act to start his plan to remove all Indians from the white pioneers desired territory. In this, he addressed that the movement of Indians from this land must only be by their own personal choice because, “it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land”. Although, Jackson’s own draft of of his 1829 message to congress contains no reference to voluntary removal, this would not be the first time he lied to the Native Americans. The Jackson administration concluded that the treaties that Jackson previously made with the Indians were merely “a stately form of intercourse” that were most useful in gaining their agreement without opposition. These treaties mainly entailed regulations on peacemaking and the ownership of land. While they were viewed as vital to the indians, but to Jackson and his colleagues they were nothing more than meaningless documents. He only created these treaties to trick the Indians into thinking they have power in the United States government just so that he can later manipulate them into

While the government may have been thinking for the betterment of their people, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was not a justified action. The settlers bullied and attacked the original inhabitants, the Indians, into giving up their land. Perhaps to the government this may have seemed justified considering it was beneficial to them, but they essentially stole land that was not theirs to take. In an attempt to feign compassion for these original inhabitants, President Andrew Jackson states in his 1829 case to congress that this Act will help the Indians, “…to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community” (Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress, 2).

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.

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

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

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

The Indian Removal Act, inspired by Andrew Jackson; the 7th president of the US and the enhanced ambition for American settlers to find more land in the southwestern regions of North America. The Indian Removal Act enabled Jackson the power of negotiating removal treaties with Indian tribes east of the Mississippi. Among these tribes were: Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaws and Seminoles. Very few authenticated traits were signed. The Choctaws were the only tribe to agree without any issues. All other attempts resulted in War and blood shed for both white settlers and Indians. The conflict with the U.S. and Indians lasted up until 1837. In 1838 & 1839 Jackson forced the relocation of the remaining Cherokee Indians;

The Indian Removal Act took place in 1830 by order of president Andrew Jackson to relocate Native indians to the west. In his speech called “On Indian Removal”, he explains how Indian Removal is beneficial to both the Indians and White Americans. Another writing about Indian removal is a personal story about a young boy being relocated with his clan and traveling on what is known as the Trail Of Tears. Though these two readings discuss the same topic, they use very different language to get their point across and to describe their view on Indian removal. Between the two pieces of writing, there are differences in the description of the situation, sentence structure, and tone. The differences in language between Jackson's "On Indian Removal" and Rutledge's "Samuel's Memory" show that Indian removal was viewed differently by different groups of people, and affected them in various ways.

In 1828 after an unsuccessful run at president in 1824, he was became president. At his inaugural address he asked for a removal act, to relocate southern Indians to the west of the Mississippi. According to Alfred A. Cave, Andrew Jackson stated in that speech “This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land.” . This was far from what actually happened. In 1830 the removal act was passed and the process began to remove the Southern Tribes. The reason why this passed is that the people of America did see Indians as having no right over the land, since they were uncivilized and savages. The Indians did not like that the American government was implementing these treaties. One by one tribes would agree to move west for a set price and a promise of land to be allotted to them. Some saw Andrew Jackson as being unfair and unjustified. Alfred Cave stated that Governor Wilson knew Andrew Jackson understood that “Indians cannot live in the midst of a White Population and be governed by the same laws. As for the Cherokee, who still refused to sign a removal treaty, starvation and destruction await them if

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

One of the defining moments of President Andrew Jackson’s career, if not the most significant, was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This was a controversial bill at the time and the impact from it is still felt today. The Indian Removal Act directly led to the displacement of thousands of Native Americans; including four thousand deaths during the Trail of Tears, the forced march from Georgia to Oklahoma. While overt racism played a clear role in relocating Native Americans past the Mississippi, it is possible that other factors were at play. The living conditions in many of the states were poor for Natives and Jackson hoped that giving them a new location to live could remedy these problems while opening the land up for white settlers.

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

Action was necessary and accepted as rational by the American people because of their unsustainable racism and greed for land to expand their settlements. The intent was not to burden the Native Americans, but “Jackson fully expected the Indians to thrive in their new surroundings, educate their children, acquire the skills of white civilization so as to improve their living conditions, and become citizens of the United States”(Remini 213). In order to become citizens of the United States the Indians were expected to conform to the societal normalities of the white citizens. Jackson put the removal act in place to diffuse conflict and encourage Native Americans to accept the American way of life as their new culture. The idea was to act in the most humane manner that would help both sides, not necessarily to disregard the Indians heritage or way of life.