Category: Cherokee Removal

To what extent was Jackson inconsistent in his ideology? Explore Jackson’s positions on nullification, Cherokee Removal, and the Bank of the United States.

Andrew Jackson was inconsistent in his ideology throughout his administration. His positions on nullification, Cherokee Removal, and the Bank of the United States were key examples of his inconsistency. Jackson was against the Ordinance of Nullification because the tariffs were constitutional. However, he failed to listen to the common man as he preached by ignoring the complaints of the Southerners. Although he was a propentnt of slavery, he did not side with the South Carolinians, even though they disliked the tariffs because the decrease in profits threatened their power over slaves. He was inconsistent on his position towards slavery by siding against it through his opposition of nullification. While he believed in state rights, he declared Federal superiority over the legislatures and demanded they accept the tariffs. He additionally threatened the states with military force to ensure their compliance. Jackson contradict his beliefs in the limitation of executive power by forcefully silencing the state governments. Previously, Jackson had preached union with friends and to reward supporters, yet he sided with politicians held no respect for him, and vice versa. This alienated Calhoun, which went against his unity ideal. The Southerners who had supported him because of his “common man” image felt betrayed. Throughout the nullification ordeal, he strengthened executive power through the military Force Bill of 1833, therefore threatening the balance of the three branches. This contradicted his goal to limit presidential power. His actions proved that he onlt listend to certain regions of power, not the “common man”

Jackson was against the Bank of the United States for similar reasons as the republican, Jefferson. The bank helped promote an industrial society, and his opposition to it contradicted his “laissez faire” and democratic ideology. This was because he wanted to stop the growth of industrial society in exchange for an agrarian society, which was a republican ideal. Through providing the means for innovation and property ownership, the Bank represented the means for a more democratic society. His opposition stunted the rise of the middle class and led to the Panic of 1819, hurting many citizens.

Although he was considered the man of new opportunity, Jackson constricted the rights of women, blacks, and Native Americans. He ignored the pleas of the Cherokee and women supporters to stop the indian removal. He additionally undercut the Supreme Court’s ruling, contradicting his pledge to enforce the power of the Supreme court with commoners. Jackson wanted to limit presidential tyranny yet he used his presidential power to overrule everyone. Even if many Native Americans had adapted to Amrerican society, he only saw them as obstacles to the prevalence of the superior civilization. Although advertised as the “man of opportunity” and the “common man”, it became clear that this only referred to white men. He was a Democrat who became a tyrant, a defender of political and economic rights for all people but the Natibve Americans.

How did democracy change? Did “mass participation” improve American democracy?

Jefferson democracy, old democracy, meant government for the people, a yeoman ideal, state power, and only the elite in power. Jackson’s administration changed democracy into government by the people, mass participation, expansion of suffrage, and a “laissez faire” ideology. New democracy extended rights to all white men of any social standing. Civic duty was emphasized. Social class no longer limited political involvement. People of means no longer led for the commoners, they were given the right to rule for themselves. Mass participation improved democracy because it included more people. The inclusion of less educated citizens led to the support of education through democractic ideals. This did, however, lower the respect of visiting Europeans when they saw the less sophisticated politicians. This new democracy supported rights and suffrage movements over time.

How was the Whig party an alternative to Jackson and the Democrats?

The Whig party was an alternative to Jackson’s Democratic party because it was created to oppose Jackson’s king-like conduct. Followers were against the spoils system and the undermining of elected legislators. Similar to the Federalists of 1790 that fought the Democratic-Republicans, they wanted men of ability and wealth to lead. Unlike Jackson, they celebrated entrepreneurship and embraced the Industrial Revolution. Whigs supported moneyed capitalists and condemned Jackson’s crusade against nullification. The Southern Whigs wanted a stratified society because the richer yeoman resented the fact that the lower planters had equal political power. This political party focused solely on the rising middle class while Jackson changed the region of power he listened to. Contrary to the Democrats’ efforts to get rid of the Protective tariff and the National Bank, the Whigs supported both. Jacksonians represented the lower class, common man. They praised the individual’s mind. Meanwhile, the Whigs were the nationalists and industrialists. The difference in follower types was the key reason on why their policies drastically differed.

Refer to the documents on pgs 336-337 to answer a, b, and c.

Citing from the documents, and using your understanding of the era, briefly explain how the status of education was defended in ONE of the following regions: – New England – Mid-Atlantic States -The South

The Mid-Atlantic state of Pennsylvania defended education on the basis of democracy and pride. Thaddeus Stevens claimed that having an uneducated society is humiliating in the nineteenth century while the United States is competing with European nations. It would be “degrading to a Christain age and a free republic”. Being partly a republic, Americans deserve to have sufficient information not only to accumulate wealth but “to direct wisely the Legislatures, the Ambassadors, and the Executive of the nation”. Pennsylvania emphasized the importance of education by declaring it a duty of the government for the welfare of its citizens.

Citing from the documents, and using your understanding of the era, briefly contrast how the status of education was defended in ONE the other two regions from the list above.

The New England states defended education through the American ideals of freedom. An article in the “North American Review” declared eduction as the “palpable rights which are recognized by all free states” to promise the success of the people. Similarly to Pennsylvania, they defended eduction with American ideologies. In order for people to rise and become self-made entrepreneurs, they needed personal security and intellect. Only the educated could defend their rights and understand when to dispute injustices. “This would be freedom” because they would be able to understand politics.

How did the various conditions of education in America impact the changing concept of democracy?

The support of education raised the benefits of democracy. Voting was done efficiently to support beneficial projects. Injustices were more properly corrected. The increase in intellect led to in depth debates on policies based on what benefited different social groups and political parties. The common people could check the aristocratic population. Democracy was tied to the Industrial Revolution through the freedom to experiment and hold property. The Industrial Revolution was only possible through the rise of innovation through education. Education increased civic engagement, strengthening democracy through mass participation. Anti-democractic movements could be countered by the educated middle class. It additionally increased the likelihood of success for political movements through proper writing in pamphlets and cases against dictatorships.

As part of this written homework, I must explore and talk about the major themes and issues in at least two of the iCollege documents. The documents I chose are; African Americans Petition for Freedom, The Cherokee Removal Through The Eyes of a Private Soldier, written by John G. Burnett, and finally Frederick Douglass’s speech on The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro. All three of these documents show the reality about how white Americans treated people that were other races.

Since the English arrived during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), while they were more interested in raiding Spanish cities and treasure fleets in the Caribbean, they were granted to entitle and colonize what land they got in the New World, but they had to do it at their own expense. But since they had little to no support from the crown, both their ventures failed. (Forner,49-50). By the 1600’s, the life in England was below the poverty line. The government was struggling dealing with the social crisis. Another solution was to encourage the unruly poor to move to the new world. (Forner,52). It chose the new world as a unique place of opportunity, where also criminals could enjoy a second chance, and be the lord of 200 acres of land. (Forner, 53). Between 1607 and 1700 more than half a million people left England. The English people who went to North America, unlike the Spanish Conquerors were there just to claim land and make it better for their interests. They also started to make slaves work on their plantations to increase their production and income. Slavery has been in the society since nearly the entire span of human history.

Although slavery wasn’t started in north America, it has been around since the roman empire, and probably before that. (Forner, 98). There is evidence that in North America, the slave owners treated them, and referred to them in remarkably similar language as savage, pagan, and uncivilized. Even going as far as to compare them to or just called them animals. (Foner, 98). In the 4th of July, 1777 the independence was established and one of the primary rights was the right of freedom; it wasn’t like that for the African Americans. In the African American petition for freedom, 1777 it’s described how cruel they have been treated from the people who have power; in violation of laws of nature and off nations and in defiance of all the tender feelings of humanity. Slaves felt that white Americans condemned them to slavery for life. They asked in the document for the same rights that white people have in the constitution. African Americans felt that every person must have the same rights in the land of liberty.

There is not much difference between the way African Americans and Indians were being treated. In the document named “The Cherokee Removal Through the Eyes of a Private Soldier”, It describes the suffering of the Cherokee when they were forced to walk to the west of the United States. In the document the soldier exposes the Cherokees as helpless without warmth on the cold weather, without blankets, enough food, having to suffer through storms, also dying because of the cold weather. The soldier mentions that the white race was the cause of all of the suffering that the Cherokee went through. Government agents paid no attention to the rights of the Indians. “Men were shot in cold blood, lands were confiscated”. In the year of 1828, an Indian boy sold a gold nugget to a white trader, and then government agents came and confiscated their lands, killed people, and took away their rights due to their hunger for gold. Washington, D.C., had decreed that they (the Cherokees) must be driven West and the lands be given to the white man, and in May, 1838, an army of 4000 regulars, and 3000 volunteer soldiers under command of General Winfield Scott, marched into the Indian country and wrote the blackest chapter on the pages of American history.

It caused the biggest crisis in Native American Indian history, since the English were only there for their interests, not caring about how they would affect the Indians’ life.

Starting in the late eighteenth century and ending in the mid nineteenth century, there was a major crisis for Native American tribes as they weren’t being treated as they should have been by the United States. With the US still expanding West with no stopping in sight, it severely concerned the Native Americans because they were slowly losing their homeland that they had inhabited first. In 1763, Chief Pontiac, head of the Ottowas, finally decided it was time to take a stand and defend his people. The British were already attempting to reduce the Native American tribes to dependence, so much that the Native Americans had already attacked the frontier on numerous occasions.

One major issue the Native Americans had with the United States was the fact that they weren’t as worried about the tribes’ well being as much as theirs. Pontiac states “When I ask him for something for our sick, he refuses, and tells me that he has no need for us.” Another huge problem that occurred was the English wanting twice as much from the Native Americans for goods as the French once did. Pontiac sets a goal to strike the frontier until all Englishmen have been annihilated and prevented from ever resettling the land again. Pontiac picked a force of 60 men and the rest of the village, to follow suit, to attack British posts. The tribes successfully destroyed nine of the eleven British posts. This event is well known as Pontiac’s Rebellion in today’s time.

Fast forwarding to August 20, 1810, Shawnee warrior Tecumseh gave a very significant speech directed towards Governor Harrison. This speech was so important because it was one of the first attempts by the Native Americans to make the United States to feel pity on them. Tecumseh blamed the Americans for the numerous executions of village chiefs that sold Indian land to them. Tecumseh expressed his feelings about the subject by telling Harrison “I now wish you to listen to me. If you do not it will appear as if you wished me to kill all the chiefs that sold you this land”. The Native Americans eventually refused to accept gifts from the US as they were afraid they would automatically owe land to them. They were scared that the US would consider those gifts a form of official trade for land. One of the final points made to Harrison was “If you will not give up the land and do cross the boundary of your present settlement it will be very hard and produce great troubles among us”.

In 1827, the Cherokees adopted their own constitution and declared themselves as an independent nation. They believed that they had power and jurisdiction over their own land. Andrew Jackson, president of the United States at the time, thought the idea of Native Americans having their own independent nation was absurd. He hated it so much that he sent the Georgia guard to Cherokee territory to not protect American minorities and squatters, but to also intimidate the Native Americans as well. Americans discovered that there were enormous amounts of gold in Cherokee territory in 1829. This ultimately led to what is known as “The Great Intrusion”. 10,000 American miners invaded Cherokee land seeking gold.

When the Cherokee nation addressed the people of the United States in 1830, they wanted the United States to fulfill their peace treaties. They wanted them fulfilled so that they could safely live in their homelands without worrying about intruders. The Cherokees claimed that they did absolutely nothing wrong to deserve to be removed from their home territory. In essence, they told the United States that if they would treat them right they would do the same. Shortly after this address, President Jackson enacted the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This act wasn’t directly enforced but more of a voluntary act in a sense. The goal of this act was to relocate Native Americans to the West side of the Mississippi River to give way for Americans to settle on new land. Most tribes agreed to relocate whereas the Cherokees were so conflicted by this that they filed a lawsuit against Georgia in 1831. The real convincing factor for Native Americans to vacate the land was the fact the government threatened to cease protection of the tribes. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Cherokee Nation v Georgia case.

Seven years later, in 1838, American troops invaded Indian territory with the goal of literally forcing them out of their own homeland. Troops herded 18,000 Cherokee into temporary camps similar to concentration camps. Out of the 18,000 Cherokee, a staggering 4,000 died from starvation or disease on the way. This is famously known as “The Trail of Tears”. While this was going on, the United States declared war against Seminole tribes in Florida in hopes of reclaiming their slaves that fled to that specific area. By the end of the war in 1842, three thousand Seminoles were forced out. This war costed the United States twenty million dollars and twenty thousand American casualties.

Nearly a century later, the Native Americans lost their homeland to the American settlers. They had many reasons why they didn’t deserve to lose their territory and fought a long, trying battle to keep their territory.

In the first half of the 1800s, the United States was experiencing enormous growth. Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, the acquisition of the Texas, California and Oregon areas all helped to expand the U.S. into a nation that spanned the continent from “sea to shining sea.” This massive expansion did not occur peaceably however. Of particular difficulty were the five civilized Native American tribes of the south east. The most civilized of these tribes, known as the Cherokee, had become westernized to the point of having an elected government, written constitution, and a written language. They had their own towns and shops and even owned slaves. By 1839, the bulk of the Cherokee tribe had been removed to designated Indian territories west of the Mississippi river in accordance with the Treaty of New Echota, in what became known as the “Trail of Tears” period. This essay will investigate the background and justification behind the federal policy of Indian removal, especially as it pertains to the Cherokee Indians and the validity of this argument by looking at the history of the Cherokee tribe and its relations with state and federal governments.

Beginning with the colonization of the eastern coastal areas of what became the United States, the Native American population in these areas started being pushed into the interior by the encroaching new comers. The European settlers used a variety of techniques to displace the Indians with hostile takeover and treaty agreements being the favorites. The Cherokee were no exception. V.O. King notes that between 1785 and 1866, the Cherokee “executed thirty-five treaties with the United States, by which they ceded fifty-six thousand square miles of territory” This was due to a strategy developed by President Thomas Jefferson who as early as 1803 “suggested the exchange with the Indians of their lands on the east of the Mississippi for equal areas on the west, lying within the Louisiana Purchase.” In the years after the American Revolution, Americans began to push westward with renewed vigor. This westward movement was spurred on by both the availability of cheap land through the government selling off the public domain and by the feeling of Manifest Destiny. The first obstacle to this westward movement was the Native American tribes who had been living on this land for centuries. Friction between the new comers and the Indians resulted in small scale wars started by both sides.

The Cherokee had suffered severely during the Revolutionary War because of their allegiance to the British crown. To show their support, they attacked various American held forts in the south in 1770s. These military actions by the Cherokee were repulsed and led to counter attacks by American armed forces. As a result, “Cherokee power was broken, crops and villages destroyed, and warriors dispersed.” The Cherokee really had no military power left after the war and thus the option of armed resistance against encroaching settlers was not viable.

The new American government had to decide what to do with the Indian problem. There were really only three choices, annihilation, westernization or removal. The first choice was decided against for various reasons. Westernization of the Indians became an early alternative championed by George Washington who sought to integrate them into American society. William McLoughlin comments that “from the Indians the Americans wanted two things – peace and land.” He goes on to note that the plan of President Washington, as presented to congress in 1789, was based on the idea “that the Indians could and should be civilized to the point of becoming ‘incorporated’ or integrated as equal citizens.” Thus began the Cherokee’s movement towards westernization.

Due to the continued loss of Indian land, the Cherokee found that hunting was becoming increasingly difficult and thus their need for meat became great. Following Washington’s policy, the chief federal Indian agent among the Cherokee, a man named Dinsmoor, began giving aid to the tribe. Mcloughlin notes that Dinsmoor helped to “persuade the Creeks and Cherokees to abandon hunting for farming” which wasn’t hard due to the tribes continuing lack of hunting as a source of food. Dinsmoor then proceeded to hand out “plows, spinning wheels, cotton cards and looms at government expense and employed white women to teach spinning and weaving to Indian women.” The end result of this federal aid was that of a jump start effect on the Cherokee tribe starting them on their way towards a society that would have many of the same attributes as its American neighbors. Eventually the Cherokee overcame their traditional notion of farming being woman’s work and adopted it on a wide scale. The Cherokee also started to own light textile production assets. Some Cherokee even became richer than their American counterparts through their own commercial enterprises.

In 1821, a Cherokee leader named Sequoyah developed a written language for the Cherokee people based on their language. This made the Cherokee tribe the only North American Indian tribe in history to have a written language. The tribe caught on quickly and within just a week of learning, individuals could use it to convey information perfectly. Mcloughlin notes that “Sequoyah’s invention provided a new means of self-expression among the Cherokee.” By 1825, most Cherokee could read and write in their native language. Sequoyah’s advancement helped to instigate further western style advances as well.

In 1828, Cherokee in New Echota established the first ever Native American Newspaper called the Cherokee Phoenix. The newspaper was distributed in both the English and Cherokee languages. Another great milestone in the Cherokee’s move towards western society was the translation of the bible into the Cherokee language by the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix named Boudinot. Mcloughlin comments that these advancements helped the Cherokee to cross the “great dividing line between a primitive (pre-literate) and a civilized (literate) society.” Mary Young comments that by 1830, through Washington’s plan of westernization, “the Cherokee had schools, churches, plantations, slaves, and a written language, newspaper, and constitution.” By all accounts, Washington’s plan of westernizing the Indians was at the very least proved possible by the example of the developing Cherokee tribe.

Danial Howe notes that in an official report on the nations Indian tribes for the U.S. government, Jedidiah Morse reported that the five civilized tribes were “progressing economically and educationally and advised that they be left alone.” His report was issued in 1822 but did little to sway the hostile feelings directed towards the various Indian tribes by their white neighbors. “White settlers bitterly resented the Natives’ presence; besides occupying good cotton land, they traded with free blacks and sometimes provided a haven for runaway slaves.” One use the report did fulfill was to invalidate the main justification for removal that prevailed at this time. “In the past, whites had justified taking aboriginal lands on the grounds that the Indians were not fully utilizing them.” With this justification gone, proponents of Indian removal moved towards legally deposing the Indians without caring about any sort of justification. Greed for land and resources as well as general racism governed most people’s thoughts whenever Indian removal was brought up.

There was much motivation to implement Indian removal by the whites. One of the main causes for this motivation was that of Manifest Destiny, the feeling that God had ordained a new and expansive nation to spread from coast to coast. This idea was shared by many Americans at that time and thus helped smooth down any small pockets of resistance to the idea of Indian removal. Another big motivation to implement removal was the immense growth the cotton industry was experiencing at this time. Advances in the manufacture of cotton such as the Cotton Gin as well as the existence of a growing world demand for the product helped to make the industry boom. Prucha notes the “seemingly endless demand for cotton to feed the new mills in England and the Northeast” as an indication of this growth. It was becoming more and more profitable to grow cotton using slave labor. Plantation owners as well as others looked greedily at the land occupied by the Cherokee Indians which was perfect for growing cotton.

Perhaps the biggest motivation came with the discovery of gold in the Georgian mountains in 1828 and the subsequent “gold rush” 1829. The only problem was the fact that most of the gold was discovered on Cherokee tribal land. This obstacle did not stop the flood of fortune seekers looking to strike it big. They disregarded the fact that they were trespassing and went to work. With Americans pouring into Cherokee land, the Georgian state government was under great pressure to remove their Indians altogether. Howe comments that “at times during the Georgia gold rush, neither the Cherokee Nation, the state authorities, nor the federal government could enforce law and order.” The situation was a chaotic one with tens of thousands of lawless miners in the area.

The state of Georgia had long coveted the lands held by the various Indian tribes living within its borders. As for back as 1802, the State of Georgia realized it would be a legal nightmare to try and remove the Indian tribes themselves. The state government’s solution was to make a deal with the federal government. In effect, Georgia relinquished its claims to the area that now makes up part of Alabama and Mississippi. In return for this, the federal government promised the eventual relinquishment of all Indian land titles within the state of Georgia. This became known as the Compact of 1802.

By the late 1820s, Georgia was becoming increasingly worried that the federal government would not make good on its promise. As pressure grew and demand for the lands held by the Indians increased, the state of Georgia “accused the federal government of bad faith in failing to live up to its part of the bargain.” Georgia proceeded to threaten the federal government so that if they did not fulfill the compact, Georgia would extend state law over all the Indians and that’s exactly what they did. Prucha notes that the “state took the law into its own hands. Its line of action was to extend the authority of the state and its laws over the Cherokee lands, in effect withdrawing the Cherokee territory from the status of Indian country, bringing the lands under Georgia’s control.” This action prompted the start of great legal battle dealing with the problem of an Indian Nation’s sovereignty.

In 1785, the U.S. government signed a treaty with the Cherokee nation. This treaty, known as the Treaty of Hopewell, defined the border of the Indian nation and acknowledged the right of Indian law over all within the nation so that if any U.S. citizen committed a crime within the nation “such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him or not as they please” Ironically the treaty goes on to stipulate that “The hatchet shall be forever buried, and the peace given by the United States, and friendship re-established between the said states on the one part, and all the Cherokees on the other, shall be universal.” Also interesting is the fact that treaty confirms the right of the U.S. government to regulate trade with the Indians and that the Indians existed “under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.”

Problems arose for the state of Georgia when the Cherokee Nation decided to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, after attempts to plea for help to congress and the president went unanswered, to contest the loss of law over their own territory. They hired, arguably, two of the best constitutional lawyers in the nation, John Sergeant and William Wirt. Wirt “had been attorney general under Monroe and Adams.” The lawyers “sought an injunction against Georgia’s encroachment on the Indian territory in violation of the tribe’s treaty rights.” They argued that the Georgian law was invalid for the Cherokee nation was a sovereign nation under its own jurisdiction with only the U.S. government having any sort of power over them. This would also be their basis for bringing the case to the Supreme Court which has jurisdiction in matters between States and other nations. Wirt also pointed to the various treaties made between the federal government and the Cherokee and how they demonstrated the Indian nation’s sovereignty. The case now known as Cherokee vs Georgia was a miserable failure. “The justices voted 4 to 2 to sidestep the issue.” Their reasoning was summed up by Chief Justice John Marshal when he explained that the Cherokee were not in fact a sovereign nation but more of a “domestic dependent nation.” Thus without sovereignty, the Cherokee could not bring cases before the Supreme Court for the court would have no jurisdiction in the matter.

After the case of the Cherokee vs. Georgia case was thrown out, the state of Georgia was quick to test its new power of jurisdiction when they convicted a man named Corn Tassel of a murder committed within the Cherokee Nation. Before his punishment could be carried out, the Supreme Court “called for arguments on appeal.” The state of Georgia blatantly ignored the Supreme Court and carried out a death sentence on Tassel. The Supreme Court did nothing to punish this disobedience. Howe surmises that this was the case because of a recent movement to repeal the Supreme Court’s ability to hear appeals from state courts. “Although defeated, the bill seems to have intimidated the Court, for it took no action on the contumacious behavior of the Georgia authorities.”

After the state of Georgia had assumed control over the Cherokee Nation, the state decided to flex its muscles a bit. Since the revolutionary war, there had been a surge of religious missionaries moving into the Indian territories. These missionaries set up schools and churches and ministered to the local Indian population. They taught children to read and taught them the ideals of the Christian faith. The missionaries were sometimes even sponsored by the U.S. government in an effort to help with the struggle of westernizing the Indians as talked about before. The state of Georgia did not like seeing missionaries with the Indians for the state knew that “Christian missionaries were among the most effective opponents of Removal.” A westernized Indian tribe would be all but impossible to remove. Thus, the state of Georgia “determined to interrupt this educational process and expel the missionaries” This they did by a state law in 1831 which stipulated that no whites could live in Indian Territory without a license.

Another problem arose for the State of Georgia when two Christian missionaries, named Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler, refused to leave the Cherokee nation and were arrested by Georgian State authorities for not having a license in accordance with the new state law. This event finally brought the case of Indian sovereignty before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia. The court ruled in favor of the Indian tribe. John Marshal delivered the opinion of the court when he “declared unconstitutional the extension of state law over Cherokee lands.” While a monumental decision, the State of Georgia refused to accept the ruling since the state had “consistently denied the Court’s right to hear the case at all.” With the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively ignored, the only federal authority that could have affected the release of the two missionaries was President Jackson. Jackson however was completely against the idea of the idea of Indian sovereignty that he refused to act on the matter. He is famously thought to have said “John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!” Thus, even though the decision was a great victory for the Cherokee, it was effectively nullified by the States refusal to implement the ruling. The situation was finally defused when Georgia released the missionaries and repealed the part of the law that outlawed whites within Indian territory. The state still asserted its right to law over the Cherokee.

Finally, the way was paved for the complete removal of the Cherokee Indians. Both the Jackson administration and the State of Georgia were great proponents of the idea of total removal. The unofficial justification for total Indian removal was that it was a humanitarian action on the part of a benevolent nation. The idea here was that in the face of an ever advancing and hostile western population, the only way the Indians could retain their culture and autonomy was if they simply got out of the way. Jackson showed this principle in an address to congress when he said that to save the “red man” from this “or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.” While a good majority of the U.S. population supported Indian removal based on the above argument, they never the less supported the rights of the Indians. John Ehle notes that over “six thousand people signed a petition to congress, supporting the Cherokee cause.” The general population was, for the most part, against involuntary removal of the Indians. To set the legal precedence for removal, President Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This act allowed for the voluntary and compensated removal of Indian tribes possessing land in the east to special territories west of the Mississippi River at U.S. government expense.

The Cherokee nation remained defiant of the overwhelming pressure against them and continued to hold their ground as best they could. Eventually however, the tribe split into two distinct groups under this pressure. The majority of the Cherokee tribe followed Chief John Ross who remained committed to remaining on the tribes ancestral lands while a small minority led by John Ridge and Elias Boudinot decided “it would be better to sign a removal treaty and try to salvage something from the wreckage.” It was this minority that signed the Treaty of New Echota. The treaty offered the Cherokee tribe new land in present day Oklahoma and 5 million dollars in exchange for the removal of the tribe to that area. The treaty was received with frustration by the majority of Cherokee who protested that “the treaty signatories lacked authorization.” Even though the treaty was not signed by official representatives of the Cherokee people, and opposed by well-known men such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, “the U.S. Senate consented to ratification on May 23, 1836.” Since a majority of the Cherokee Indians opposed the treaty, there were many who refused to relocate in accordance with the treaty. Thus, the U.S. Army was called in under General Winfield Scott to forcibly remove them.

The period known as the Trail of Tears period began with the rounding up of the squatting Cherokees, who refused to relocate voluntarily, and their placement in detention camps while they waited to be removed. The actual removal came in the fall and winter of 1838-1839 which led to many deaths along the way. Young sums up the situation effectively when she says that “in 1838, volunteer militia under federal command expelled approximately 16,000 Cherokee from their lands. They rode, walked, sickened, and died along the Trail of Tears.”

In the end, the U.S. government, in compliance with the State of Georgia, did a complete turn away from initially seeking to westernize the Cherokee Nation to advocating and eventually implementing their total removal. Again, Young effectively sums up the situation when she notes that “if, as Jackson’s opponents believed, Cherokee improvement demonstrated the improvability of all Native Americans, and if the president’s policy of Indian removal fatally damaged that progressive Nation, then the Cherokee migrants’ symbolized the tragic destruction by the United States of its own cherished work.” Who can say whether the main motivation for removal was to protect the Indians from the whites or simple greed for land on the part of the whites? At any rate, it is the opinion of the writer that whether or not removal was the right choice, its implementation was incredibly faulty and full of disregard for the rights and humanity of the Cherokee tribe.

According to the article, “Cherokee Petition Protesting Removal, 1836”. Along time before, the idea of Indian removal (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/theshort-and-long-term-effects-of-indian-removal-act/) has its origins rooted earlier in the eighteenth-century. A form of Indian removal was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson. However, Native Americans resisted the violent attack of American settlers. Other worker to adapt to American culture and defend themselves using particularly American weapon like lawsuits and petitions. the removal of Cherokee Indians happened during 1838, when the United States military required some 15,000 Cherokees from their homes in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to relocate them into Indian territory in the Western. The Cherokee people were forced out of their land because of the settler’s greed for everything and anything the land had to offer. Many Cherokee even embraced the civilization program, abandoning their own beliefs so that they may be accepted by white settlers. Unfortunately for the Cherokee though, the settlers would never accept them as an equal citizen. The Cherokee Nation argued that U.S. Indian removal policies were illegal because they violated previous treaties and were not made with the official consent of the Cherokee Nation. In addition, the policies violated American ideals, such as respect for other people’s rights.

First of all, the reason of removal Cherokee is illegal that U.S. Indian did not following the treaty. After revolution, the United States government adopted a diplomatic policy toward many America Indian tribes. They formed several treaties that recognized the sovereignty of American Indian tribes. Indian land claims and treated Indian governments as separate nations within the territory of the United States. Manifest Destiny was the idea that America was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic, to the Pacific Ocean. Throughout this time Native Americans were seen as obstacles because they occupied land that the United States needed to conquer to continue with their Manifest Destiny ideal. Many wars were fought between the American’s and the Indians. After the purchase, planters from the Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia entered Florida. However, the influx of settlers into the Florida territory was temporarily halted in the mid-1830s by the outbreak of Second Seminole War (1835-1842). Cherokee lived along the eastern part of the Tennessee River thriving in the bottomlands from Virginia southward, and built their houses in villages, which were separated by daylong walks. Their houses were made of wood and stone, fields planted, nuts and berries gathered, game cued, and tobacco was smoked. The Cherokees predominantly relied upon hunting as their sole source of food and lived peacefully. Their hunting grounds extended from the Mississippi River to the Blue Ridge Mountain and from Central Georgia all the way north to Ohio River. The act of removal was performed by Andrew Jackson who led the campaign to negotiate to remove Indian. Basically, he wants to reduce available land for runaway slaves. Nonetheless, the United States government began to make treaties with Cherokee and other tribes to allow them to remain on their land and guaranteed peace and the integrity of Indian territories, primarily to assure that the lucrative fur trade would continue without interruption know as the “Trail of Tears”. After the Revolutionary War the Cherokee nation placed itself under the protection of the United States and agreed to specified boundaries for its territory by the Treaty of Hopewell in 1785, which was written under the Articles of Confederation. Later the opponents of Indian Removal Act would try using the Treaty of Hopewell to nullify any acts of removal. The first treaty with the Cherokee under the Constitution of the United States was signed in 1793. However, the American government began to break the policies towards Indians. The basic problem was how to get the Indian territory. The American administration viewed four possibilities for the Indians. First, extermination was often favored but impractical. Second, isolation was equally impossible. Third, citizenship many believed the Indians should become citizens, but the Indians refused this. Fourth, removal was at first rejected by the Indians but became the only alternative. The Washington administration continually entertained the notion that once the Indians were proficient in agrarian sciences, they would be able to cede their lands in the east and move westward. Certain Cherokee refused to assimilate into “white” agrarian way of life and voluntarily immigrated to the western regions of the country. These Cherokee were a minority, for most Cherokee stayed in their homelands and worked toward a more civilized way of life.

United States was a failure to meet obligations to the Indians. Morgan is a professional freelance writer who has written various articles and blog posts that appear on a range of websites. After several years of writing fantasy fiction, she decided to write about the real world she faces every day. During her years of writing professionally, however, she has covered a wide range of topics. The purpose of America’s Westward Expansion (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essayexamples/westward-expansion-2/) is to provide a very ‘native American friendly’ view of the manifest destiny ideal. This article, though very one-sided, had great value to me. In it the author stated that the famous phrase “manifest destiny” was coined by a journalist in 1844. This information enlightened me about the fact that the idea of manifest destiny (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/how-manifest-destinyjustified-the-expansion-of-the-us/) existed and was being executed for many years before it was actually given a name. This was not something I had ever given thought to, however, I had the misconceived notion that the word came before the definition, which is a false statement when pertaining to any topic. Though it presented some very interesting information, this website was limiting in the fact that it only presented information that was very biased and was very opinion based.

The Indian Removal Act (1830) is an excerpt from The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History which was written and edited by Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green. Theda Perdue is a professor of Southern Culture whose research focuses on the Native peoples of the south-eastern United States. She is the author or co-author of seven books including Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700-1835 (1998), which won the Julia Cherry Spruill Award for the best book in southern women’s history and the James Mooney Prize for the best book in the anthropology of the South. More recently, she has published ‘Mixed Blood’ Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South (2003) and, with co-author Michael D. Green, The Columbia Guide to American Indians of the Southeast (2001) and The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears (2007). The excerpt Indian Removal Act (1830) is used to get the exact facts that were used against the Native Americans by the Americans. This was very valuable because instead of being an article that was biased either towards the Americans or the Native Americans, this article provides basic facts that are not skewed either way. It simply states the facts of the Indian Removal Act that was put in place by the United States congress. This unbiased form, however, does provide a limitation. It does not show or tell how this act affected the Native Americans or the Americans.

In the 1800’s the Native American’s land was invaded and they were forced to evacuate and live on reservations. Due to the fact that Native American were labeled as “hostile” during the Indian Wars, many of them were massacred by the Union Army. The reservations that the Native Americans were put on were not a solution for the problem because the Americans were not satisfied with having the Native Americans there either. White men took over Indian Territory and reservations and settled on it. Events such as the Indian Wars, the Trail of Tears and others show the many obstacles that the Native Americans had to overcome and how indiscriminately they were killed by white men. In the 1830’s, because white men considered them to be a threat to peace, the Federal government had the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole tribes removed from their native land. The land they were moved to was called “Indian Territory,” which is modern day Oklahoma. The Indian Wars, a series of bloody battles, began many years after the end of the Civil War. It ended in 1890 with the massacre at Wounded Knee. In various battles the Native Americans were lead by Chief Joseph, Crazy Horse, and Sitting Bull while the Americans were led by Generals Sherman, Custer, and Gabon. The Native American tribes, which were wrongfully labeled as “hostile”, were moved under cruel conditions to their new locations. Even after they were relocated, the Americans were still not appeased. More land was still being taken from the Native American tribes just because the Americans wanted to fulfill a “destiny” they had.

The idea of Manifest Destiny almost caused the eradication of an entire group of people. Though Manifest Destiny was supposed to be for the betterment of the United States, it hurt another civilization in the process. In my opinion, this was completely unnecessary and was incredibly selfish. If one country rises above the others and everything else is in shambles below it, nothing is really gained. It makes more sense for everything to be even and for everyone to be able to contribute to making the world a better place. The fact that the American’s were not appeased even after the Native American’s were relocated makes no sense. This entire situation was also handled very poorly. Firstly, the United States should have implemented the Manifest Destiny ideal only on land was not previously occupied. This land that the United States attempted to take over was not just land to the Native Americans. It was extremely sacred to them and they believed that they had a special connection with it. The next big problem that was made was that when the American’s were not getting their way, they decided to take force and manipulate the Native Americans until they got what they wanted. This is not the way to get what one wants without conflict. If the Americans had used a little more compassion when dealing with the land issue with the Native Americans, maybe a few wars could have been avoided and many lives could have been saved. Though Manifest Destiny aided America in its quest for land gain, it greatly hurt the population of Native Americans and the resources they used to remain alive. I firmly believe that the betterment of one group of people is not worth the destruction of another.

Approximately 125,000 Southeast Indians lived farmed and prospered on ancestral land ranging in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and Florida. December 1829 President Andrew Jackson requested federal monies to remove Southeast Indians (Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek) displacing indigenous tribes west of the Mississippi River. Vice president and secretary of state Martin Van Buren supported the uprooting of Indians stating that its a subject of great importance and deemed priority among presidential policy goals “First, the removal of the Indians from the vicinity of the white population and their settlement beyond the Mississippi.” (Hershberger, 1999) Legislation under President Jackson effectuated the exploitation and land cessions from Indians to white markets, by arguing two reasons for justification. The first: It was unaccepted to permit the free independent Indian Nation to live along or near the border of a state and secondly southeastern Indians needed to move west of the Mississippi far from white infringement leaving them inclined to extinction as whites relentlessly invaded their land and destroyed Indian life and culture (Hershberger, 1999).

Though strong opposition the House voted in favor of the Indian Removal Act, signed into law May 28 1830, by a slim margin of 102 to 97 sanctioning Jackson negotiation with tribes to trade their occupied land for land beyond the Mississippi River. Northeastern representatives strongly repelled all the while Northwestern delegates remained divided. However, to be expected the Southern representatives voted with the administration. $500,000 of federal funding was appropriated and a corp of federal removal agents assembled to facilitate the removal of southern Indians by constructing supply depots along the road leading west providing supplies and provisions. According to a letter from Andrew Jackson to John Pitchlynn: Choctaw Nation interpreter, advisor, and meditator. Jackson mentions he’s aware of the friendship and begs that Pitchlynn tell the Choctaws their prosperity happiness & peace depend solely on their cooperation. Jackson expressed that he believed Indians couldn’t assimilate to “live under the laws of the States.” (Pitchynn,1830) and if all liberal terms offered were refused tribes were “Liable for whatever evils & difficulties may arise.” (Pitchlynn, 1830) Ultimately the Choctaw Nation was removed in 1831.

A clause included in the Indian Removal Act guaranteed ‘nothing in this act contained shall be construed as authorizing or directing the violation of any existing treaty between the United States and any of the Indian tribes.’ (Cave, 2003) One can say without Jackson’s promise and guaranteed clause granting lawful protection for Indians who choose not to relocate, the removal act wouldn’t have passed the House of Representatives. Legislators and Representatives severely doubted Jackson’s honesty and integrity, fearing the unfair treatment of Indians. Not only did Jackson refused to honor the obligations negotiated in treaties by his predecessors he blatantly disregarded treaty agreements made within his administration. Under new negotiations, Indians were guaranteed federal protection from White squatters before land survey completion (Carlson, 2006). However, the Jackson administration along with Southern Politicians sought after their agenda. Motives for Western expansion were fueled by expanding slavery beyond the South to the West. With hopes to preserve their rights to remain on their land, the Creeks faced a devastating blow after the failure of the 1832 Treaty of Washington. In lieu, the Preemption laws of 1830 permitted squatters to pry reserves (lived on federal owned land) gain rights to purchase up to 160 acres for a low price through land fraud. Aware of the lands value white squatters flooded the region seizing the opportunity by illegally taking residence on Creek Indian (1836) lands: burning homes, destroying crops, looting towns. As land fraud worsened Indians suffered from crop shortages resulting in starvation a group of Lower Creeks defended themselves against white encroachment. As news of the Creeks efforts to reclaim what’s rightfully theirs sparked the beginning of the Second Creek War. The war quickly spread throughout Florida Georgia & East Alabama (Havemen, 2018). The Second Creek War gave Jackson all the ammunition he needed forcibly removing the Indians of their homeland West. Creeks were captured imprisoned and transported via steamboats suffering from anorexia nervosa to new Indian territory shackled by John W.A Sandford and Company (Havemen, 2018). Some Creeks fought their captures choosing suicide rather than face uncertainty of life in a strange land. Some escaped fleeing to the swamps of Alabama and Georgia while others attempted to overthrow their captors “determined to escape or die trying.” (Havemen, 2018) Despite their efforts, 3500 of 15000 Creeks didn’t survive the long haul to Oklahoma.

Two landmark Supreme Court cases challenged the removal of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Cherokee land comprised of modern-day southwest Virginia, the Cumberland Basin of Tennessee, Kentucky, the Carolinas, northern Georgia, and Alabama. The sovereign Cherokee Nation fought to retain their homelands in the state of Georgia from swarming white squatters in search of gold. Georgian Legislature annexed all Cherokee land of the state dismantled the Cherokee government and re-distributed the majority of their land to white citizens. Missionaries Worcester & Butler worked with the Cherokee Nation to help defend their sovereignty and resist imposing Georgia laws. In return, Georgia legislature passed a law that outlawed “White persons” from living with the Cherokee without state granted permission. Worcester & Butler along with eleven missionaries refused to leave and were persecuted under Georgia law “Residing within the Limits of the Cherokee Nation.. Without taken an oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia.” Worcester & Butler argued that forcing Cherokees to abide by Georgia state law was unconstitutional because only Congress can make treaties and deals with Indian tribes. March 3 1832, the Supreme court sided (5-1 ) with Worchester & Butler, Chief Justice John Marshall decreed the Cherokee nation was a ‘Distinct community.. over which the laws of Georgia were null and void and ordered that the missionaries be released” (Hershberger, 1999) Worcester & Butler remained imprisoned until they promised to stop helping the Cherokee nation resist Georgia laws. In response to this decision Jackson didn’t force the state of Georgia to comply, either the Cherokee Nation leave or fall in line. Though the Supreme Court’s decision was ignored Worcester v Georgia (1832) held great importance because it clarified the relationship Indians had with both state and federal governments despite living along the border of the States tribes governed themselves and carry out their laws.

In 1835 the Treaty of New Echota was ratified in the Senate merely passing by one vote, removing the Cherokee Nation from the state of Georgia ceding Cherokee land in exchange for compensation. The Treaty of New Echota was negotiated by a minority Cherokee leader Major Ridge who claimed to represent the Cherokee when in fact he spoke on behalf of a small faction which viewed relocating west inevitable advocating for removal (Calrson, 2006). The majority of Cherokee people felt betrayed deeming the treaty fraudulent because Cherokee Chief John Ross didn’t authorize Ridge and few others approvals to sign the treaty. Despite thousands of Cherokee citizens efforts to petition February 1836 the Cherokee National Council voted against passing the treaty urging Congress to void the agreement, unfortunately, their efforts weren’t successful the Cherokee people were divided. Under the Treaty of New Echota Cherokees relinquished 7 million acres of ancestral land in exchange for $5 million and land in present-day Oklahoma. Many Cherokee members refused to leave and some evaded removal dwelling in the hills of North Carolina, Florida Seminoles remained in the Everglades and some members of the Choctaw Tribe remained in Mississippi (Carlson, 2006).

Two years after the ratification of the fraudulent treaty, Cherokee resistance ceased, President Martin Van Buren issued a two-year extension approximately only two thousand Cherokees left voluntarily. On May 24 1838, Cherokee people were subjected to military rule. By continuing to live on land belonging to white citizens according to the secretary of war Cherokees were a direct violation of the law. Thus giving way to the Trail of Tears (1838) Led by General Winfield Scott the United States Army deployed 7000 soldiers capturing sixteen thousand Cherokees imprisoning them in stockades Fort Hetzel & Fort Butler. The federal government also hired steamboats which transported Cherokees over nine hundred miles down the Mississippi to the Arkansas River to Fort Gibson (McLoughlin, 1989). Those who did not board filthy steamboats were forcibly marched along the “Trail of Tears”. Shabby overcrowded stockades lacked adequate shelter & water known as the “sickly season” the summer season was the worst time to travel west. What began as early as spring lasting through September contaminated drinking water further spread epidemic outbreaks: Smallpox, cholera, dysentery, and malaria were all too common among travelers resulting in mass deaths. Missionary Reverend Evan Jones letters and journals account for his experience as he accompanied the Cherokees from Georgia westward on the Trail of Tears “They were driven before the soldiers, through mud and water, with whooping and hallowing like droves of cattle. No regard was paid to the condition of helpless females, Several infants were born on the open road under the most revolting circumstances.” (McLoughlin, 1989) Indians were dragged from their homes not allowed to gather their belongings and take what little money they had, the land was sold before their very eyes, cattle and horses sold for little value, Indians were treated like cattle dehumanized and persecuted. More than 5000 Cherokees died during their journey west Cherokees were deprived of their liberty stripped entirely of their property a peaceful unarmed, unoffending people became victims of unfathomable barbarity.

Trekking over 5,043 miles covering nine states less than a year 1 year after the Indian Removal Act went into effect March 1839 the weary ill Cherokoees reached their new home. The federal government obliged to provide rations until they could grow their first crop but greedy private contractors robbed Cherokee of rations handing them scraps of what they were promised moldy corn, wheat and rotten meat (McLoughlin, 1989). The federal government assured tribes that new chartered land would remain solely theirs land yet the fight was not over Indians still rivaled with white settlements. Disease and sickness struck Indians death resulted from exhaustion over-exposure and malnutrition caused by trekking through harsh inhumane weather conditions.

In 1841 the Whig Party held control of both houses and Congress, once in favor of removal former President John Quincy Adams had a change of heart President and declined to chair the House Committee on Indian Affairs. Adams recounted the Jacksonian era as ‘Among the heinous sins of this nation, for which God will one day bring them to judgment.’ (Carlson,2006) concluding the injustices of the past were irreversible and shall forever tarnish American history.