(University of Richmond,1)
It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind,developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection-stated President Andrew Jackson at his second State of The Union Address.He is prophesying about the promise and potential that the Indian Removal Act holds.Passed on May 28,1830,The Indian Removal Act allowed the US government to exchange unsettled lands west of the Mississippi River for Indian lands within the boundaries of southern states like Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.This was necessary because the jurisdiction was conflicting between the state government and the Indians.With all the values and rules that the United States hold, a question has to be answered: Was The Indian Removal Act Justified? Due to the benevolent policy of the government, the protection of the Natives,and the improvement of general welfare, it should be
…show more content…
First, It cleared up Georgia and Florida which helped farmers have lands for farming cotton. With the boom of cotton growth in the southern states,the economy was boosted massively.Second, the population of the US was increasing and there was an urgent need for more land.The 1830 census shows that there were 12,866,020 people living in the United States,who needed more space.There were only about a 100,000 native Americans spread around their territories.Finally,It was the responsibility of the Government. According to Andrew Jackson, “It is, therefore, a duty which this government owes to the new States to extinguish as soon as possible the Indian title to all lands which Congress themselves have included within their limits.”(State of The Union Address,1829) When the US bought over Georgia and Florida they had to get rid of any indigenous people or intruders. All in all,this act really was necessary for the development of our
So down below this will explain in depth why the indian removal act of 1812 is not justified Well, for starters we actually killed them using muskets and swords killing the men who tried to stop them. as well as we killed them with diseases that we had and we starved them because we killed animals for sport and we introduced new animals to the ecosystem. and intern were killing their way of life now they may have killed some of us but that is like saying a burglar runs into your house kills your family and then is trying to kill you.
Do you like getting kicked out after working hard and establishing a great community. On May 28, 1830 Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act. This act states that all the indians will have to move from their land that they had first into unknown land that is supposedly a huge hunk of the Louisiana just for them with fertile soil and a water source. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was terrible and unjustified; indians had already build up an amazing society, they were there first, and the americans have already messed with the indians. For starters, the Indians have built up a respectable town.
The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the
An Indian Removal Act was signed into law by president Andrew Jackson in 1830, it authorized the president to grant unsettled lands in the West in exchange for Indian lands within the state borders. Some Indian tribes accepted and followed the relocation policy peacefully, but many resisted. During the period after the Civil War, millions of people moved from farms and cities in the East and Midwest, and immigrated from European and Asian countries, to the cheap land and fields with gold and riches in the West to improve their lives with a greater possibility of success. The completion of transcontinental railroads to the west after the Civil War opened up vast areas of the West for settlements and economic development. This huge westward movement, which was a result of the Civil War and Reconstruction, affected the Native Americans catastrophically.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was justified because the Cherokee scalped many Americans during the 1700s and 1800s, their leaders already agreed to move, and we gave them even more land than
American history is our hope for the future because it is important to the United States government to learn from past mistakes, and citizens need to understand the value that freedom provides to the american society. But most importantly Americans need to understand what the U.S. Constitution is and how it has affected America. One of the many mistakes that America has made is the Indian Removal Act. On May 28, 1830 President Andrew Jackson signed into law that all Native Americans west of the Mississippi River must be removed, and sent to what is known as the state of Oklahoma. Their forced march from southeast to the west was devastating.
Would you remove an abundance of Indians from their homes for money? That is what the Indian Removal Act did. Hundreds of Native Americans were taken from their homes. Andrew Jackson and John Ross had a debate on if they should get rid of the Indian Removal Act or if they should keep it. The Indian Removal Act was a step in the right direction.
First, The indian removal act was to move the indian tribes that were occupying land onto western reservations. The indian tribes tried to go to court to fight against the act using the government. The supreme court agreed with the indians, that they did not have to move, but President Jackson made them move anyway because he believed that the supreme court could not support its ruling. President Jackson went against the Supreme Court so that he could sell the land for more money after the indians were relocated. The evidence in this paragraph was taken from the document “President Jackson and Indian Removal.”
The Indian Removal Act of (1830) granted the creation of districts west of the Mississippi River, onto which eastern Indian tribes would be moved. Some tribes moved west willingly, but others, such as the Cherokees, were forcibly marched west on the “Trail of Tears”. When Andrew Jackson became president (1829–1837), he and other members of the government believed that the trade and intercourse act had failed to aeropathy deal with the Indian problem so he decided to build an efficient approach to the “Indian removal act”. To achieve his purpose, “President Jackson encouraged the Congress to accept the Removal Act of 1830. The Act established a process whereby the President could grant land west of the Mississippi River to Indian tribes that
Andrew Jackson’s policy of Indian Removal was not justified because the Indians had rights to own the lands and the U.S. did not follow their democratic ways towards the natives. One example from the text is, “the state of Georgia, in her attempt to extend her laws over us…in direction opposition to the treaties” (The Cherokees Appeal to Congress). Based on this information, I realized the U.S. government was disobeying the “supreme law of the land” or treaties, as of John Marshall (Chief Justice of Supreme Court) had stated and was no different on how Britain had unfairly treated the Americans before. Also, the text supports this idea by stating “This is the land of our nativity, and the land of our...birth. We cannot consent to abandon
The Indian Removal Act was signed in 1830 by President Andrew Jackson to remove the Cherokee Indians from their homes and force them to settle west of the Mississippi River. The act was passed in hopes to gain agrarian land that would replenish the cotton industry which had plummeted after the Panic of 1819. Andrew Jackson believed that effectively forcing the Cherokees to become more civilized and to christianize them would be beneficial to them. Therefore, he thought the journey westward was necessary. In late 1838, the Cherokees were removed from their homes and forced into a brutal journey westward in the bitter cold.
The Indian Removal Act authorized Jackson to give the Indians land west of the Mississippi in exchange for their land in the states, but could not force them to leave. He violated and broke commitments that he even negotiated with them. He tried to bribe the Indians and even threatened some of them. Alfred Cave organizes his article thematically and is trying to prove
Around the 1820s, whites worked to increasingly survey and squat tribal lands. Indians often experienced great injustice from whites. Furthermore, in 1830 President Andrew Jackson issued for the Indian Removal Act, which granted him the ability to "exchange public lands in the West for Indian territories in the East" (255). Further evidence, Jackson's excerpt stated that, "It will relieve the whole state of Mississippi and the Western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power" {Doc E}. With this
The Indian Removal Act was passed during Andrew Jackson’s presidency on May 28, 1830. This authorized the president to grant land that was west of the Mississippi River to Indians that agreed to give up their homeland. They believed that the land could be more profitably farmed by non-Indians.
The indian removal act was a document created by Andrew Jackson, and the indian removal act stated that “called for the removal of the ‘Five Civilized Tribes’ – the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole”(Atrocities Against Native Americans). in the years 1830 through 1838