Was Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policy Motivated by Humanitarian Impulses? Authors: Anthony F. C. Wallace, Robert V. Remini, A Summary By: History 2111 Summer 2011 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? 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 …show more content…
Jackson’s removal policy did not sit well with a lot of groups; many were uncomfortable about it but agreed it had to be done. President Jackson showed great leadership apart from everything else, and handled the Indian Removal act when no one else wanted to address the growing issue of Indian problem. Most government officials saw little to gain from addressing this and would do nothing. Some historians believe the president’s motivation was clearly out of concern for the Indians customs, their culture and their language, but his first concern was the safety of the military, Indians occupying the east might jeopardize the defense of the United States. In December of 1830 President Jackson would submitted the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek to congress, it would be the first to win Senate approval. President Jackson wanted everything to go smoothly so that the American people would see that he was humane and that this Treaty would benefit both the Indians and the American nation at large. With Jackson located too far away to oversee the actual removal of the Choctaw Nation, they would endure mismanagement, theft, corruption, and inefficiency on a level that would lead to their destruction. Jackson would be deeply offended and the removal of the Choctaw Nation would become one of the worse horror stories of modem era. Anthony F.C
One of Andrew Jackson’s reason behind the Indian Removal Act was so that the United States could achieve their goal of Manifest Destiny, which is the belief Americans had that God meant for their country to be expanded from east to west coast.
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
It has been 186 years since the Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The way other people view Native Americans, particularly the Choctaws and Chickasaws, has changed drastically over time; but how has that changed the way Native Americans view themselves. I plan to explore what it meant to be Native American at the time of Indian Removal and compare it to what it is believed to mean to be Native American today. I plan to look at the cultural attitude that was in place at the time of removal and how the Native Americans reacted and compare it to modern day opinion.
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
When he gained power, Jackson encouraged Congress to pass the 1830 Indian Removal Act. He argued that the legislation would provide land for white invaders, improve security against foreign invaders and encourage the civilization of the Native Americans. He argued that the measure will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites.
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
The essential question of the Jacksonian period in American history should not be focused on slavery, nor on western migration of native tribes (as important, relevant, and controversial as these topics are). It is true that his administration did try to hide and dismiss slavery, and it is also true that in the manner of its execution the policy of Indian removal was a horror. However, the fundamental question surrounding his presidency revolves around how the doctrines of democracy replaced the doctrines of republicanism. Indeed, Jackson had a powerful contribution to American political history. The Jacksonian Era actually changed the goal of the Founding Fathers to put more power into the presidency rather than in congress. His commitment to the federal structure, states’ rights, and a severely limited central government, all accounted for in his policy of Indian removal are Jackson’s greatest contributions and resulted in the development of modern democracy in the United States.
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.
This debate can be seen in some of the writings of historians Robert V. Remini and Anthony F. C. Wallace. Remini wrote “Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, ” and Wallace composed “The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians.” Robert V. Remini contended that Andrew Jackson’s Removal Policy was solely motivated by his humanitarianism, protecting them from annihilation that would be inevitable if he did not intercede. While Anthony Wallace asserts, that is was not humanitarian
When one hears the name Andrew Jackson, there are many feelings that are conjured up by an individual. Some of these emotions include fear, disgust, and comedy. These sentiments are of reason for substantial evidence exists to prove these emotions plausible. Andrew Jackson was the seventh president under the Constitution of the United States of America who presided from 1829 until 1837. However, he was the first president to be impeached. With his controversial presidency, Andrew Jackson implemented many policies that continue to impact the United States in the modern era. His most controversial contribution was the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act prompted the infamous Trail of Tears that killed many Cherokee Native Americans and moved them westward to confined reservations. Of course, to implement such grand policy, Jackson had to unduly convince Congress of those actions. In Andrew Jackson’s speech given February 22nd, 1831 entitled “Message Regarding Indian Relations,” he tries to vindicate the Indian Removal Act, outline the benefits of such legislation, and explain why such it was indeed important. Rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos are effectively utilized by Jackson to persuade Congress to believe in the merits of upholding the Indian Removal Act which then lead to westward expansion and Native American migration from their homelands.
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).
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew
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;
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