Please agree or disagree with the following statement.:
" Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. presidents."
*You must provide specific examples and support from Zinn (cite page number).Also, feel free to use other resources as well (textbook, previous video clips, etc.) to support your argument.
*To receive full credit thoughtfully and succinctly respond to a least one classmates response.
Andrew Jackson's rise to power as the President of the United States marked the beginning of the end of the Indian's way of life. Before his rise to power, previous presidents usually avoided bringing America directly into clashes against the Indians.
ReplyDeletePrevious presidents usually either encouraged the Indians to abandon hunting and take up agriculture, such as Thomas Jefferson (Zinn pg. 126) or John Quincy Adams (textbook pg. 259). While state governments did hinder the government's attempt, such as Georgie (Textbook pg. 259), the presidents themselves did not clash directly with the Indians unless provoked first by Indian raids.
However, this policy changed with Andrew Jackson. As a president that relied on the popular support of the people, most of which were farmers seeking western land, he needed to ensure their support and challenging state policies to remove the Indians for farm land would have damaged his support. As a result, Jackson entered his presidency with his hands quite literally tied and unable to interfere even if he wanted to.
Unfortunately for the Indians, Jackson actively sought to remove the Indians. He encouraged white settlers to move into Indian land as squatters (Zinn pg. 128-129) so he could use them as an excuse for why the Indians need to leave their land. Not only that, but he established the Indian Removal Act to remove all of the Indians westward to "Indian Reservations", for all Indians occupying land favorable to Americans. This established the procedure of moving Indians off their land, whenever the land becomes valuable, ignoring all previous treaties up to that point.
Under Jackson, the presidency not only actively supported the removal of Indians, but established the exact method to do it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Andrew Jackson's Indian policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous US presidents. It did seem as if Andrew Jackson had a stricter Indian policy. For example, on page 127 of Zinn, it states that in 1814, during the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, he fought against 1000s of Creeks to seize their land. He became a hero for raiding Indian lands and taking away Florida. During his presidency years, the Indian Removal Bill was passed and Jackson agreed with it. He ignored the Indian cries about the Georgia legislature wanting to take over Indian affairs and land.
ReplyDeleteWhen Jackson was president, he allowed states to pass laws to extend their rule over Indians in their territory. On page 133 of Zinn, the author writes that the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act was passed by Congress in 1802. It stated that land could not be seized unless there was a treaty with a tribe. Jackson ignored this. During Jackson's presidency years, it seemed as if he cared about kicking the Indians out the most out of all the other previous presidents. It seemed as if he was one of the greediest for land out of the seven. For example, on page 222 of The American Pageant, Jefferson didn't even want to take Louisiana Territory at first because he thought it was unconstitutional. Jackson would have no second thoughts.
According to Dale Van Every, on page 135 of Zinn, he asserts that before Jackson became president, the Indians and whites were living in peace. They were developing a friendship as they could visit one another's houses. While the other presidents’ biggest focus was being neutral or enforcing the embargo acts, one of Jackson's biggest focuses was Indian removal.
Huawei makes a great point. We both have similar opinions about how Jackson actively wanted to remove the Indians. I liked how Huawei included the Indian Removal Act and he put more details into it. This act gives more evidence to Jackson's stronger Indian policy. On page 126 of A People's History of the United States, it did say that Thomas Jefferson promoted the "future removal of the Creeks and the Cherokee from Georgia." He did think that by removing the Indians, the Americans would be able to prosper in agriculture, manufacturing, and civilization just like what Huawei said. However, the other presidents didn't seem to want to deal with the Indians as much as Jackson did.
Andrew Jackson’s Indian policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous US presidents. In previous years, the American government’s view towards Indians has been fairly neutral. Presidents have tried to avoid war with the Indians and have treaded fairly lightly on their grounds. The heavy-footed policies of Jackson, unfortunately, changed this very quickly.
ReplyDeleteThe violent approach towards conquering Indian lands actually began a few years before Jackson’s presidency, but was still largely caused by Jackson. The War of 1812 was not just a war against England for free trade but also one for expansion into Indian territory. (Zinn, 127) President Jackson’s later attempts at “Indian Removal” could be viewed as a continuation of the conquest set out by Jackson during his military days. In 1829, the start of Andrew Jackson’s term, farther-west farmers were not willing to suffer the pains and inconveniences of Native American integration and wanted the Indians gone so they could expand their farms. Gaining the support of the West would have been a dramatic political gain for Jackson. With a previous score to settle and a bunch of western voters for the taking, kicking the Indians farther west was too tantalizing of an option for Andrew Jackson to resist.
The second Jackson was elected President, southern states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia began to extend their rights over Indians. These extensions removed the tribe as a unit of power and denied them all rights. (Zinn, 133) Although the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act passed in 1802 denied the states the right to this kind of action, Jackson let it slide because it saved him a lot of effort. White Americans were strongly encouraged to move west onto Indian lands even before the land was ceded. This left much of the actual removal part to the everyday citizen. All the government had to do was follow behind the settlers and sign a treaty with the tribe once they grew tired of their new neighbors. It was an ingenious plan, dissimilar to any plan of prior presidents.
Jackson’s brand new policy toward the Indians was cruel but methodically and very well thought out. Everything fell into place around this new plan and—at least for white Americans—went smoothly. This new policy marked the end of the neutral era towards Indians and the beginning of one filled with a lot of hardship for the Indians.
I agree with the opinions made by Kristina Mai. Her comparison between Jefferson’s second thoughts surrounding something unconstitutional and Jackson’s lack thereof was very persuasive because Jackson and Jefferson were thought to have similar views and ideals. The only point I disagree with her on is that the other president’s didn’t want to deal with the Indians as much as Jackson did. I think many presidents wanted the Indians gone in one way or another, but were just not willing enough to use force to get them out so quickly. I think most of the other presidents up until Jackson wanted the Indians gone, but not as bad as Jackson did.
I agree with the statement that Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. presidents. Andrew Jackson was known for the most aggressive enemy of the Indians (Zinn pg. 127) Jackson developed a promising rewards in land if any other party , creeks, Cherokees, or whites, take property of the Red Sticks, then they get to keep the property for themselves. (Zinn pg. 127) In 1814, Jackson was known to be a national hero after the war he fought called "The Battle of Horseshoe Bend." The defeat of the Creeks allowed Jackson to gain half the land of the Creek nation. Jackson was able to supply the cotton kingdom with a vast and valuable acreage. (said by Rogin, pg. 128 in Zinn) In 1814, Jackson developed a treaty that granted the Indians ownership of land. However, he persuaded white settlers to move into Indian lands, and told the Indians if they kick the white settlers out they would be wiped out. What made the white settlers to settle on Indian lands more was when Jackson was elected president. (Zinn pg. 133) When he was elected president, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi began to pass laws that allowed the states to rule the Indian territory. Jackson removed many Indians from their land, in order to gain what he wanted. For example, in 1829, when gold was discovered in the Cherokee territory, Jackson sent federal troops to remove the Indians. (Zinn pg. 134)
ReplyDeleteBacking up on what Steven said, to the Indians, Jackson’s Indian Policy had a negative effect on them, but to the American settlers it created the pathway of a new cotton kingdom, which improved industrialization. Jackson created hardship on Indians because they were forced to leave their territory and share their land with white settlers, or they would be wiped out. I also agree with Steven that past presidents did want the Indians to leave but did not have that strength to push forward and do it, as much as Jackson.
In response to Kristina Mai, on page 126 it did not say that Jefferson supported future removal. In fact, Zinn specifically stated that Jefferson in 1791 said, "that where Indians lived within state boundaries they should not be interfered with, and the government should remove white settlers who tried to encroach on them." This again backs up the statement that up until Jackson, no presidents actively sought to expel the Indians.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. presidents. Previous presidents, like John Quincy Adams, negotiated with Indian nations for the acquisition of land, and like George Washington, won land tracts as negotiated through treaties. Unlike his predecessors, Andrew Jackson brought about a harsher method of dealing with Indian tribes.
ReplyDeleteThe nation's population was growing, and growing fast. To support this increase of people, food must be grown to sustain them. There was land in the West, uncleared and unplowed, but there was one problem. Native Americans lived on these lands. Previously, white man would negotiate land with the tribes, but attempts by Tecumseh (Textbook pg. 230-231), to unite the tribes have made the white man turn to more dirty tactics to gain land.
Andrew Jackson manifests these tactics. When some Creek Indians attacked Fort Mims, Jackson retaliated by ravaging a Creek village and killing its inhabitants. This show of force was designed to put Creek in their place. (Zinn pg 127) In the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, Jackson gained more than half of the Creek territory, from both the Creek belligerents and the Creek allies. Though allied Creek leaders protested, Jackson still took the lands on the base that Americans "bleed [their] enemy on such cases to give them their senses." (Zinn pg 128) America was willing to gain land for expansion, even if it meant going back on their word. This has occurred many times before; to the extent that it makes the Tribes look gullible.
In addition to physical actions to gain land from Indians, Jackson employed psychological tactics upon Natives. Using their fear that the tribes gained of whites during previous wars, Jackson was able to negotiate treaties with the Creek to make them move West. (Zinn pg 128)
Andrew Jackson's desire to gain land for expansion came at a great cost. Countless Native Americans were forced to relocate their way of living and culture miles to escape the expanding America.
In response to Steven's post, I completely agree with what he said about the political aspect of expanding West. Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act might have given him a second term in office. The election of 1832, where he won a majority of the people's support, can attest to this fact.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson seemed to be the fruits of the revolution during the early 1800s. He not only produced revolutions socially and economically, but also politically, especially in the category of Indian relations. Before Jackson, the U.S. presidents usually took a stance of moderation on the subject of Indians. Whether it was the increasing greed of the Americans, or just Jackson’s ignorance, during his presidency this moderation fundamentally shifted into outright forced removal.
ReplyDeleteSecretary of War to George Washington said, “The Indians being prior occupants, possess the right of the soil.” Even Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson said in 1791 that the boundaries of Indian borders should not be interfered with and that white settlers advancing on the Indian territory should be removed. When Jefferson bought Louisana, he proposed that the Indians could move there, but he did not force them like Andrew Jackson did.
Andrew Jackson seemed to dislike the Indians. In the military campaign that led to the Florida Purchase of 1819, Jackson went above and beyond and even burned Seminole villages along with Spanish forts. When the Indians in Georgia and Alabama tried to blend into American culture, even adopting practices such as slavery, he stated, “I informed the Indians…that their attempt to establish an independent government would not be countenanced by the Executive of the United States, and advised them to emigrate beyond the Mississippi…” He also refused to enforce the court order by John Marshall that ruled in the Cherokees favor.
Whether it was because of the increasing land hungry white southerners, or the individual thinking of Jackson, a large change occurred in Indian policy when Jackson was accepted into office. Zinn even states, “As soon as Jackson was elected President, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi began to pass laws to extend the states’ rule over the Indians in their territory.”
Steven Colson says, “This new policy marked the end of the neutral era towards Indians and the beginning of one filled with a lot of hardship for the Indians.” This is a completely true statement, and one that perfectly answers the question. Steven also states in his response that the War of 1812 was a way for the white settlers to get their hands on Indian land, and also brings up the negligence of Jackson when there were acts that favored the Indians(Non Intercourse Act). I admire how he provides a clear and well developed response that provides abundant information.
I would like to add that I agree with Huawei when he puts that the Indians should not be interfered with, but on page 126, it did say that “Jefferson now committed the federal government to promote future removal of the Creeks and the Cherokees…” Although Zinn wrote about this, it is true that Jackson actively wanted the Indians to settle west the most.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson definitely created a “shift” from previous presidents’ Native American policies however the term “fundamental” leads me to disagree with the statement. By definition, fundamental is regarded as an essential component of a system or structure and of great significance. In my opinion the term fundamental uses a positive connotation when in reality the Indian policies of Jackson were anything but positive. Yes the Indian Removal Act instated by Jackson was to expand the nation’s land mass but the treatment of Native Americans was absurd and not a sexy part of our history. Jackson decided to use a forceful tactic on the Native Americans throughout his presidency as well as before his presidency. While Jackson created a shift from previous presidents’ policies, America could still have prospered without the forceful approach to Indian relations hence my position of Jackson’s policies not being a “fundamental shift.”
ReplyDeleteJackson created a shift even before his presidency at the Battle of Horeshoe Bend(page 127), where Jackson was regarded as a war hero in the War of 1812 but he disobeyed the instructions of the white house. If Jackson had obeyed congressional orders, the shift many not have had to occur in such a violent manner. But regardless, when Jackson became president the pressure of pioneers increased on the national government, (page 126) and with the increasing pressure Jackson acted impulsively and without the thought of a peaceful proposition to the Indians. The Indians wrote letters to the president in a desperate attempt to salvage their already crowded habitats. But Jackson bitterly disregarded the letters and went with a forceful route to eject the Indians from the lands due to his greed of obtaining more lands. Richard Drinnon demonstrated Jackson’s absolute ignorance when saying, “quite marvelous ignorance of Indian life.” It was noticed that Jackson did not even consider the value of a human life no matter what the race or sex was instead he wanted to feel powerful and to obtain that feeling he thought it necessary to be more violent rather than intellectually figure out the issue. Jackson had the opportunity to encourage the nation to move westward rather than wade in the lands of the Native Americans. He had the influence of the country and could have avoided the “violent shift” that occurred because of his ignorance.
Also the decision to force the Indians west of the Mississippi created an everlasting issue until nearly all Indians were decimated. The removal of the Indians was a temporary fix but would soon create constant battles when expanding westward. If the Indian policies had been handled in a more tactful way the issue may not have occurred so abruptly or violently as the shift that occurred during Jackson’s presidency.
Jackson’s Indian policies were definitely a change from previous presidents’ policies but the shift was most certainly not a “fundamental shift” or an “essential component” but rather a thoughtless solution to tackle a pressure ensued by the expanding nation.
Although Huawei recognizes the possibility of Jackson wanting to obtain the support from the land hungry pioneers, I believe that it was not Jackson’s overall motive. Jackson had made many irrational decisions based off of personal opinion. If you recall in the American Pageant textbook and also in a video clip we watched in class, Jackson had actually turned off many supporters with his proclamation against the South Carolina nullification which was led by previous supporters of Jackson. Also seen in his many vetoes based on his personal opinion and the disapproval of the bank, Jackson’s motive was not to retain his original supporters but to implement his own selfish opinions on how the country should be ran.
"Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. presidents."
ReplyDeleteJackson’s policies towards Indians were much more aggressive and brutal than those before him. As opposed to Jefferson, who believed that “Indians within state boundaries should not be interfered with, and that the government should remove white settlers who tried to encroach on them” and Knox, “The Indians being the prior occupants, posses the right of the soil,” (Zinn, 126) Jackson’s harsh Indian Removal Act, along with other anti-Indian acts, seem unnecessarily violent in comparison.
Jackson was determined to remove Indians from American soil at all cost necessary – after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend he signed a treaty which took land from Creek Indians who had fought against him and those who had supported him (Zinn, 128). But as if unfair land seizure isn’t enough, Jackson also went against Supreme Court rulings that ruled in favor of the Indians and their supporters, as in Worcester v. Georgia, refusing to enforce the court order to release Samuel Worcester, an Indian supporter and missionary (Zinn, 141). Then, in 1838, the result of Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, the Trail of Tears, decimated Indian’s hopes for survival and crushed their tradition and connection to the land they had lived on for generations before.
Jackson singlehandedly transformed the treatment of Indians during his time as president: never before had such unfairness towards the Indians took place, going as far as to refuse to listen to the rulings of the Supreme Court, Jackson’s determination to rid the country of Indians was a turning point in the government’s policies towards Indians.
In response to Steven:
Steven makes a good point that Jackson’s campaign to crush the Indians didn’t begin when he became president, but actually began during the War of 1812 when Jackson tried to assist in the expansion of the US. Also, this point can be backed up by the determination seen in Jackson to continue the expansion into Indian lands during his presidency. Also, as Steven points out, the plan that Jackson followed was well thought out, but very cruel and destructive.
I disagree with this statement. he was not the only president to start getting ride of the Indians he was just the first to do it on a large scale and able to pull it off.
ReplyDeletethe main reason why this statement to me is faulty is because there have been presidents before like Jefferson and Monroe and other who have tried to get ride of the Indians or just push them back. Under Monroe administration they made several treaties that gave up Indian land and started pushing them closer and closer to the Mississippi river. One such existence is when Jackson went into Florida to "retrieve slaves form the Seminoles. which finally ended in the territory once belonging to them now belongs to the U.S.. Another example is after Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory. zinn on page 126 says, "he thought the Indians could move there. He proposed to Congress that Indians should be encouraged to settle down on smaller tracts and do farming; also, they should be encouraged to trade with whites, to incur debts, and then to pay off these debts with tracts of land. ".. . Two measures are deemed expedient. First to encourage them to abandon hunting... - Secondly, To Multiply trading houses among them ... leading them thus to agriculture, to manufactures, and civilization...."." Zinn is showing how Jackson was not the only who wanted the Indians to move. Jefferson actually proposed a bill to congress to in theory Ask them to move into the newly purchased territory. Jackson after did not implement new ways to deal with the Indians he just actually enforced the old ones used by other presidents.
No disrespect to Rachel but I do not fully agree with hers. although Jackson did do although things he was not completely new ideas he just enforced them a little bit more and acted a little bit to remove the Indians from the territory.
While the Jackson administration did administer a harsh and unforgiving policy toward the Native American nations of the West, they continued the general trend of disrespectfulness and carelessness expressed by United States Presidents of years past; Jackson's Indian policy did not represent a fundamental change from the Indian policies of previous Presidents, but it did deviate from previous policies slightly.
ReplyDeleteSince the early days of colonization, westward expansion has been a part of the American "manifest destiny," the idea that whites would eventually occupy the whole of America today. In the early 19th century, westward expansion was on the wax. By the time Jefferson became President in 1800, there were 700,000 white settlers west of the Appalachian mountains (Zinn 126). Jefferson "committed the federal government to promote the future removal of the Creek and the Cherokee from Georgia." (Zinn 126). Clearly, then, general American regard toward the Native Americans was negative, and the goal of the Jefferson administration was to remove them from their lands in order to procure valuable commercial and farming territory. However, while Thomas Jefferson wanted Indians gone because of agriculture, commerce, markets, and money, Jackson exercised a somewhat brutal policy toward the Indians. He defeated the Creek Indians in 1814 at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, which kindled his anger toward Indians. (Zinn 127). Jackson led the bloody invasion of Florida without the consent of the government, and burned Seminole forts and murdered Native Americans in cold blood for the sole purpose of gaining their land. (Zinn 129). Jefferson's policy toward Indians was less severe, but he still longed for their removal in order to obtain their so coveted farm land. He exemplified the idea of manifest destiny through his purchase of Louisiana from the French in 1803. While Jackson employed a more savage tactic of conquest toward the Indians than previous presidents, Jefferson still pushed the Indians away from their homes for the sole purpose of bolstering the American economy.
Nicole Lemon asserts that "Andrew Jackson definitely created a "shift" from previous presidents' Native American policies, however the term "fundamental" leads me to disagree with the statement." Jackson simply continued the string of broken promises toward the Indians, who were repeatedly promised to never be bothered again by whites "as long as grass grows or water runs." Jackson was simply more harsh with his enforcement of negative policy, and did not fundamentally depart from the principles of previous presidents.
Jackson's Indian policy was a definite shift in policy because he was much stricter with the Native Americans and didn't always hold true to his promises. He often broke treaties and ignored the decisions of Congress.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as Jackson came into his presidency Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi passed laws to give states rule over the Indian territory. Later in 1802 the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act was passed saying that only federal government had power to make treaties with Indian tribes and only they had rule over them. Jackson ignored the act and supported the states decisions. (p.133)
In 1814, Jackson signed a treaty with the Creek Indians which gave them land in the west. This treaty gave the Indians separate lands and brought them into Jefferson's idea of "civilization". From 1814 to 1824 Jackson encourages white squatters to settle on Indian lands. When the Creek Indians complained to the government they were told they the government could do nothing to get the squatters off of the land and that the Creeks should either cede there land or be wiped out. (p.128-129)
Jackson was willing to over look the laws of the nation in order to keep the Native Americans from prospering. His hatred for the Indians was clearly shown when he made his way through Florida killing the Indians in his way. The shift of American Indian Policy was definite and became much more harsh under Jackson's rule.
I agree with the posts about the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. Jackson gained over half of the Creek territory but still went for more. All of this was really to show the how weak the tribes were. Jackson became a national hero for slaughter people he just didn't like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. presidents, because he was the president to fully make a huge difference with the "moving" of Native Americans. He was definitely the largest "enemy", as Racheal says, of the Indians. I think that because of his disrespectful view towards the Indians, he was extremely motivated to remove the Indians from what he thought should be his land.
ReplyDeleteEven on page 124, a sentence within the first paragraph reads "The Indian, not needed - indeed, and obstacle - could be dealt with by sheer force.." shows that Indians were viewed as nothing but a hassle and just things in the way of the expansion of the United States. Jefferson was dedicated towards the removal of the Creek and Cherokee from Georgia.
Although my opinion is different from Phils, i have to say that he does make some good points in that Jefferson was not the first President to act towards the removal of the Indians. He just made the largest impact.
I agree that Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. president. According to pg 126 of Zinn, Jefferson encouraged the Indians to practice farming, and to trade with the whites. He also, after purchasing Louisiana territory, thought that the Indians should move there. George Washington, also, tried to follow a policy of conciliation.
ReplyDeleteJackson, on the other hand, took half the land from the Creeks, who had fought with Jackson during battle. (pg 128 of Zinn) This shows that Jackson gained the trust of some tribes, promising them land, or government friendship, and then when those tribes weren’t needed, Jackson would take, or kill them. Jackson, along with despising the Indians, figured out a plan to eliminate them. In his treaty of 1814, each individual Indian was given their own piece of land. This caused bribing among the Indians, as well as competition, which was a new concept to them. (pg 128 of Zinn) Along with the many Indians that were eliminated, like the Sac and Fox Indians, “70,000 that were living east of the Mississippi river were forced to move westward.” (pg 130 of Zinn)
I agree with Kristina’s statement about how Jackson seemed to care more about kicking the Indians out than the other presidents before him, and that he was the greediest for land. Also, adding to her statement, Jackson seemed to spend a lot of time thinking of a plan to getting them to leave their land, like introducing them to competition, and getting them to fight over land in his treaty of 1814.
Before white settlers set their feet upon the soil of the New World, Indians lived in their communities undisturbed. However, as more and more settlers ventured into the Americas, Indians were moved from place to place to free up land for agriculture, building, and whatever else the new settlers wanted. Although United States presidents before the era of Jackson tried to allow Indians to live on the land of their fathers, pressure from the frontiers caused the presidents to push the Indians back. However, Jackson's Indian policies were on a completely different level than his predecessors'. Jackson's Indian Policies were more brutal -- they completely disregarded the rights of Indians -- and forced the complete removal of several tribes; because of these mandatory migrations, numerous Indians were killed on their travels west of the Mississippi.
ReplyDeletePolicies of previous presidents had been more tolerant and less adamant about the location of Indian tribes. During George Washington's presidency, Henry Knox -- his secretary of war -- advised him that the Indians had the right to their soil since they lived on it before the Americans did. This, however, was only after they had attempted -- and failed -- to push the Indians out of their land after the Revolutionary War. Still, Washington's policy allowed Indians within the boundaries of states to have the right to their land; it also stopped white settlers from stealing their land away. But a shift took place after Washington. Although Jefferson had previously admonished that Indians should be allowed their land, he put forth laws to remove the Creek and Cherokee from Georgia. After the Louisiana Purchase, he allowed Indians to move into the unsettled territory. Despite Jefferson's removal of Indian tribes, his policy was no where near as detrimental to the Indians as Jackson's. (Zinn 125)
Jackson had harbored harsh relationships with the Indians from his day as a general, and this dynamic continued on during his presidency. At the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814, he killed eight hundred out of one thousand Creek Indians. Helping him win this battle were the Cherokee Indians, who he promised governmental friendship. After the battle and the consequential treaty, Jackson not only seized the lands of the aggressive Creek Indians, but the ones who had served on his side as well. He also later encouraged white settlers to take over Indian lands and gave Indians an ultimatum: cede the lands or die at the hands of white settlers. (Zinn 127-129) As he became president, his cruelty toward Indians deepened. After the Indians had assimilated to the culture of the United States, Jackson created the Indian Removal Act. This act forced the removal of 70,000 Indians who lived east of the Mississippi (and continued during the presidency of Van Buren). Always an advocate of states' rights, Jackson gave the states jurisdiction over the Indians in their territory. The tribe was no longer a legal unit and could not hold meetings. The Indians were forced to pay taxes and serve in the military. All of these new burdens accompanied a slap in the face to the Indians -- Indians could not testify in court, sue, or vote. Despite federal laws preventing Jackson from accomplishing all this, he ignored the laws and continued with his policies. (Zinn 133)
Treaties with Indians often promised that after this next move the Indians could live in their territory forever. But that was not the case. The settlers’ land greed grew, and the Americans saw the Indians as their enemy. Van Buren believed that the removal of the Indians had the "happiest effects" (Zinn 148), but this could only be said by the white settlers. On the other hand, the Cherokee Indians -- the same Indians who helped at the Battle of Horseshoe bend and had been promised governmental friendship -- underwent a forced migration where hundreds of their people died on the way west of the Mississippi -- the Trail of Tears. (Zinn 147)
As Emily pointed out, Jackson also ignored the verdicts of Supreme Court cases that had not been ruled in his favor. This added insult to injury, since Jackson already took away the lands and rights of the Indians. In a case where Marshall ruled that the Indians had a right to their land and that Jackson could not remove them, Jackson merely told Marshall to try enforcing his law. Jackson did not let any law get in the way of his Indian policies, which contributed to the large shift from the previous president’s policies to his.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson, known for his political policies, economic decisions such as the tariff of 1828, and opposition towards the Bank of the United States, was also largely known for his aggression towards Indian tribes. Although Jackson was harsh and cruel towards the Indians, it was not always like this. Several Presidents before Jackson had his same belief regarding Indians, but it was Presidents such as Washington and Jefferson that had different and kinder approaches towards Indian policies and set the foundation for these policies to be altered in the future.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Revolutionary War, most Indian tribes living in America had fought with the British in hopes of removing the Americans from their land. However, once the British lost and left the country, the Indians remained alone and continued to fight. George Washington, his Secretary of War, Henry Knox, and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, tried to create peaceful relations with the Indians. Even Henry Knox was stated for saying, “The Indians, being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil.” But as the American population grew, these friendly relations began to take a turn.
Jefferson, wanting to reach a friendly deal with the Indians, proposed to Congress that Indians should be encouraged to settle down on smaller land areas in the recently purchased Louisiana Territory, where they can begin farming and trade with whites. But this newly added land filled up fast, and was purchased by several rich speculators, including George Washington, Patrick Henry and John Donelson – father-in-law of the soon to be President, Andrew Jackson.
Jackson’s thirst for land for his fellow white man largely influenced several of his political decisions regarding Indian Removal. Washington and Jefferson first began friendly relations with the Indians, but it was not until John Adams and the several presidents after Jefferson that led up to Jackson that the change in these friendly relations began to take a turn for the worst.
Phil brings up a valid point regarding Presidents attempting to remove Indians even before Andrew Jackson’s Presidency. Jackson, a radical at best, was exactly what Phil stated, the only one able to pull it off. However, he was the only president to virtually massacre the Indians and forcibly remove the Indians whereas Presidents before him such as Jefferson and Monroe had only tried to push them back towards the Mississippi River. It was Andrew Jackson’s hatred towards the Indians that made him the most well known.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson's view on Indian Relations differed from the previous presidents' views, in the sense that to previous presidents, the Indians were simply an inconvenience, but to Jackson, they were enemies.
ReplyDeletePresident Jackson was influenced by his upbringing and this shaped his views on Indian Relations. Jackson was a commoner, he was born on the frontier where battle with Indians was a constant hardship. He was also a land speculator. By being a land speculator, he developed a hatred of the Indians because they were living on the land that he wanted. He went so far as to have his troops to burn down a Creek Village, killing men, women, and children (Zinn p. 127). He continued on the path of destruction and glory, until he won the Presidency.
Once he reached the Presidency, he shifted Indian policy from annoyed tolerance, to out right hatred. As soon as he was elected President, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi began to pass laws to extend the states' rule over the Indians in their territory (p 133). They also encouraged white settlers to move onto land that was already inhabited by peaceful Indian tribes.
This was in contrast to previous Presidents who didn't relish having Indians around, but rather made shakey peace with them in order to prevent bloodshed.
I agree with what Faiza said about the shift in Indian policies between presidents.
ReplyDeleteThe previous presidents had always allowed a certain acceptance of the Indians. Even if the people themselves didn't. This is the reason why Jackson had a totally different view. He was a born "Hickory", he was the champion of the common man. He saw the fights between white settlers and Indians on a frequent basis. So it is no surprise that Jackson wanted the Indians out of "his" land.
The shift in policies was extreme, but can be explained by the president's upbringing.
I agree that Jackson’s Indian Policy represented a shift from the Indian policies of previous US presidents, but I would not say it was a fundamental shift, seeing as previous presidents were also eager for the Indians to leave so the Americans had more land.
ReplyDeleteThe presidents before Jackson, such as Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams persuaded the Native Americans to move out, but were willing to negotiate with them. For example, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson stated that the boundaries of Indian borders should not be interfered with and that Americans should be removed from Indian territory. Jackson, on the other hand, encouraged white settlers to move in and settle Indian land while telling the Indians that “the government could not remove white settlers, so [the Indians] had better cede land or be wiped out] (Zinn 129).
In fact, from the very beginning, Jackson was “the most aggressive enemy of the Indians” (Zinn 127). He killed 800 Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814, and after the battle, every treaty he signed with the Indians pushed them farther and farther out of their land; eventually, he had moved into Florida, encountering the Seminole Indians, whose people and villages he mercilessly destroyed—“arguing it was a refuge for escaped slaves,” when in reality he just wanted more territory. He even ignored the Natives who had modeled their culture to that of the United States and forced the removal of 70,000 Indians east of the Mississippi with the Indian Removal Act. He then gave the states jurisdiction over the Indians living in their territory, forcing them to pay taxes, serve in the military and disallowing them to hold meeting testify in court, sue or vote. Even though there were federal laws stating that “federal law would operate in Indian Territory, not the states”, Jackson continued to support state action. (Zinn 133)
Even the Cherokees, who according to Van Every made a “stupendous effort” to resemble the white people, who went as far as to adopt slavery, ended up with their lands taken, government abolished, meeting prohibited. Eventually, Jackson sold their land, burned their homes, shut down schools, and promoted alcohol in churches--while the Indians followed a policy of nonviolence. (Zinn 137-139)
Their efforts to stop the American invasion fruitless, the Indians were forced to embark on the Trail of Tears in 1838. As they moved west, people died of heat, drought, sickness and exposure—4,000
Cherokees died. Yet in December 1838, Van Buren announced that the removal of the Cherokee Nation “had the happiest effects”.
Ceril states that "Jackson employed psychological tactics upon Natives. Using their fear that the tribes gained of whites during previous wars, Jackson was able to negotiate treaties with the Creek to make them move West." I believe that was a cruel and cunning tactic used by Jackson to remove the Indians, especially considering that he repeatedly broke the treaties he made with the Indians--making it impossible for them to win no matter how hard they tried.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the history of the United States, the presidents before Jackson had to think on how to deal with the Indians who were pressured into fighting white settlers who would settle onto Indian lands and force Indians to move west or farther south (in the case of Native Americans living in the southeast). Though American Presidents have taken lands from Indians by treatises, Thomas Jefferson proposed to Congress after the Louisiana Purchase that rather than directly taking land from Indians, the U.S. should “settle down to farm, and be encouraged to trade with white settlers, which would make them incur debts, which would have to be paid off with tracts of land (Zinn p126).” Presidents before Jackson did not want to fight the Indians head on and directly take their land, but rather encouraged that the settlers should leave the Native American’s lands alone.
ReplyDeleteWhen Jackson took office however, he didn’t hesitate to force Native Americans out of their fathers’ lands and passed on the Indian Removal Act to Congress (American Pageant p266) so that he could open up the southern lands of the East to whites. Even though the Americans encouraged the Indians to assimilate into western cultures and convert to Christianity, Jackson still saw Indians who were taking up valuable space in the south and to increase tensions, encouraged squatters to settle on Indian lands (Zinn p133). Jackson made his position clear to Congress that he was not going to be affected by the forming of an independent government by the Indians and that the Indians would have to move west or comply with the state laws (Zinn p138). Shortly after, Congress narrowly passed the removal bill, which again showed tensions between the North and South because the North did not support the removal of the Indians. Even when the Cherokees appealed to the US by the use of court in Worcester vs. Georgia, Jackson decided that Marshall’s order was invalid (Zinn p141) and decided to use his presidential powers as a chief commander to crush all resistance of the Native Americans and force them to march.
Jackson’s policies of Indian removal definitely were different from the Indian policies of earlier presidents. Jackson had a much more forceful approach to dealing with the Indians because from the start of his life he had made trips out of Nashville for land deals with Indians (Zinn p 126). Also, while earlier presidents decided to allow settlers to flow in to Indian lands, and allow events to pass by, Jackson decided to speed up the process greatly and eventually became a hero for fighting against the Indians for what he believed was a just cause.
An idea brought up by Brianna that the US during presidencies such as Washington’s had easier relations with the Indians while the later presidencies experienced tensions when dealing with the Native Americans. One of the reasons this occurs is because of the population growth of the United States. When Washington was president, Jefferson believed that the US should let the Native Americans stay in their homelands, but by the time Jefferson became president, the national government was pressured by its people and Jefferson became less lenient towards allowing Native Americans to stay on their lands, even though years before he had promoted allowing them to stay on their lands. The later presidencies had to deal with a growing population and the pressures for land also caused later presidencies look to Indians lands for their solutions.
Andrew Jackson's Indian Policy represented a fundamental shift from the Indian policies of previous U.S. presidents.
ReplyDeletePrevious people were tolerant toward Indians. Henry Knox said: "The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil." (Zinn pg 126). Thomas Jefferson, said in 1791 that where Indians lived within state boundaries they should not interfered with, and that the government should remove white settlers who tried to encroach on them. (Zinn pg 126). Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the nation with the Lousiana Purchase and he allowed Indians to settle in the unsettled areas. Jefferson, however, commited the federal government to promote future removal of the Creek and Cherokee from Georgia. Aggressive activity against the Indians mounted in the Indiana Territory under Governor William Henry Harrison. (Zinn pg 126)
Andrew Jackson was different. After he defeated the Creeks in the Battle of Horshoe Bend, he and his friends started buying up Creek lands. He encouraged white squaters to move into Indian lands, then told the Indians the government could not remove the whites and so they had better cede the lands or be wiped out (Zinn pg 128-129).
Jackson proposed the Indian Removal act of 1830 which removed all Indians and forced them west. This march was called the Trail of Tears.
As soon as Jackson was elected President, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi began to pass laws to extend the states' rule over the Indians in their territory. Thse laws did away with the tribe as a legal unite, outlawed tribal meetings, took away the chief's powers, made the Indians subject to militia duty and state taxes, but denied them the right to vote, to bring suits, or to testify in court. Indian territory was divided up to be distributed by state lottery. Whites were encouraged to settle on Indian Land. (Zinn pg 133) Andrew Jackson even ignored John Marshall's ruling of the Supreme Court and Jackson said that he would like to see Marshall try to enforce it. This challenged the Supreme Court and gave more authority to the President.
However, federal treaties and federal laws gave Congress the power to pass The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act in 1802. There would be no land cessions except by treaty with a tribe, and said federal law would operate in Indian territory. Jackson ignored this, and supported state action. (Zinn pg 133)
Van Buren even said " It affords sincere pleasure to apprise the Congress of the entire removal of the Cherokee Nation of Indians to their new homes west of the Mississippi. The measures authorized by Congress at its last session have had the happiest effects."
I agree Jacy Anne Cesar and her explanation on Jackson's influence on the Indians. She explained that later in history the settlers will get more greedy and take more land away. She talked about how Jackson still went with his plant to remove Indians even if it was against the Supreme Court.
For many years before Jackson's presidency, Native Americans were always avoided, but weren't handled by policies. Although Presidents previous to Jackson were eager to get rid of Indians, Andrew Jackson's presidency represented a shift in Indian policies.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Washington and Secretary of War Henry Knox attempted to push the Indians out of their land after the Revolutionary war, they did not succeed. Even with the Indians mostly staying where they were, during Jefferson's presidency, white settlers in the West outnumbered the Indians 8 to 1 (Zinn 126), and many were not too keen on sharing any space with these Natives. When Jefferson doubled the size of the U.S. with the purchase of the Louisiana territory, he made way for even more settlers to take over the Natives' land, and more conflict between the two groups.
In Jackson's days as general, he was very against the Indians. When fighting in the War of 1812, Jackson became a national hero at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, where his men killed 800 out of 1,000 Creek warriors. Although he did make governmental friends with the Cherokees, he seized much of the Creeks' land, and when the war ended, he even bought some of the land himself. (Zinn 127-128)
When Jackson became President, the Indian Removal Act was called "the leading measure", and was most important to Congress. (Zinn 130). Jackson's administration's strong objection to Indians resulted in much Indian suffering. Jackson even," encouraged white squatters to move into Indian lands, then told the Indians the government could not remove the whites and so they better cede the lands or be wiped out." (Zinn 128-129). All of this soon led to the Trail of Tears, where 1 in 4 Native Americans died en route to their new government-issued small, ill-fit piece of land.
Although during Jackson's presidency, Indian policies were made official, the bad treatment of Indians started beforehand. The conflict over Indian land resulted in much suffering, mainly on the Indians' side, while most Natives didn't even believe in ownership of land.
Jacy makes an interesting point by saying that the new burdens of taxes and military service were accompanied by a "slap in the face to the Indians- Indians could not testify in court, sue, or vote." These things show the shift that happened after Jackson was elected president. This supports a very valid argument that Jackson's presidency represented a shift in Indian policies.
In 1791, Washington's Secretary of War, Henry Knox, stated that "The Indians, being the prior occupants, posses the right of the soil." (Zinn 126) This belief was fairly common in the early years of America, but as the need for land grew across the nation, the people's opinions of the Indians began to change. In the time between Washington's presidency and Jackson's in 1829, Indian policies gradually changed as the nation evolved. However, when Jackson became president in 1829, policies with the Indians were at their most cruel. Jackson's policies were not completely different than those of the previous presidents, but were certainly much harsher on the Indians.
ReplyDeleteJackson had an extremely negative attitude toward the Indians. This attitude arose mainly after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814, where he led the U.S. army in war against the Creek Indians. Jackson took much land from the Creeks after his victory in the battle, and when the Creeks protested, Jackson stated, "the great body of the Creek chiefs and warriors did not respect the power of the Unites States." (Zinn 128) This conflict began the tight tensions between the Indians and the people of the U.S., which later led to Jackson's Indian Removal Act in 1830, which evicted all Indians east of the Mississippi and forced them west. From this act rose the Trail of Tears, the devastating journey the Indians made in which many died from exhaustion and disease. Jackson's policies toward the Indians were extremely harsher than any previous president before him, though Jefferson did also treated the Indians unfairly.
Before Jackson's presidency, in 1801, Thomas Jefferson became the third president of the United States. During his time in office, westward expansion increased greatly, putting pressure on the Indians west of the Appalachian Mountains. In 1803, though, Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, which provided land for the Indians to settle on. He encouraged them to establish trading posts and farming so that the white settlers could benefit from their presence. Jefferson's main goal was to "[lead] them thus to agriculture, to manufactures, and civilization." (Zinn 126) The Indians did not want to change their way of life, so Jefferson's policies angered them slightly. However, the anger that arose from Jefferson's policies were miniscule compared to the policies of Jackson in years later to come.
As the United States grew more into a nation of manufacturing and civilization, attitudes toward the Indians intensified negatively, but Jackson's attitude was the peak on the mountain of cruelty. Unlike Washington and Jefferson, Jackson believed Indians had no right to own land in the United States and thought they harmed the nation more than helped it.
Bianca makes a very good point when she states that to the other presidents, the Indians were an inconvenience, but to Jackson, they were enemies.
ReplyDeleteWhen the other presidents forced the Indians to set up trading posts and farms, they were attempting to help the Indians and to civilize them. However, their real intensions were to help the nation's economy with fur trade and agriculture. This act was disrespectful to the Indians, but it did not come close to the disrespect with which Jackson would treat the Indians. Jackson's Indian Removal Act did not just destroy the culture of the Indians, it literally destroyed a majority of them. The Trail of Tears was the journey that Jackson forced the Indians west on, where countless Indians died. The previous presidents did not harm the Indians in such large masses, they only interfered with their lifestyles.
When Andrew Jackson came into power following the election of 1828, it was not the New England shipbuilders or the Georgian plantation owners who would feel the greatest effect of his regime, but rather the Native Americans who had been living in the country for centuries. Throughout the history of the US, the white colonists had slowly been pushing the Native Americans further and further west as the demand for land grew along with the nation. Jackson acted as a catalyst, causing a reaction that was revolutionary and tragic.
ReplyDeleteJackson's first display of aggression towards the Indians was seen during the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Zinn 127), in which he destroyed a Creek Indian village, eventually resulting in massive land gain for the US. Any hope that this was a fluke caused by the desperation the War of 1812 put Jackson and the US into was demolished when he came into the presidency, beating Henry Clay in 1828.
Upon Jackson's election, many southern states, including Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama passed laws allowing them to govern over Indian lands. Jackson did later pass a law known as the "Indian Trade and Intercourse Act" (Zinn 133), which forbade this behaviour. The act, however, went largely unenforced. Jackson took the nation from being fairly neutral regarding the Indians, to a war for land, fought through laws that the Native Americans had no say over.
Phillip claims that Jackson was little different to previous presidents such as Jefferson or Monroe who had also obtained Indian lands during their presidency. Although this may be true, a major distinction between Jackson and previous presidents came when John Marshall ruled Jackson's eviction of the Cherokee from Georgia unconstitutional, but Jackson continued with it knowing Marshall could do nothing to stop him and his army.
I neither agree nor disagree with the idea that Indian Policy changed when Andrew Jackson came into power. Before his presidency, the leaders of America were quite neutral to the Native Americans and tried to avoid conflict, but they never protected the rights of the natives. If a Native American was to have their land taken or their rights were broken, they would receive no support form the American government claiming that they were uncultured and practiced the wrong religious values. Andrew Jackson only actively persecuted against the Indians.
ReplyDeleteThe first active persecution of the Native American by Jackson was the War of 1812 as he hoped to expand trade into Indian Territory. (Zinn, 127) During his presidency, he passed the Indian Removal Act which was another form of active resistance. He even went to the point of ignoring the Indian trade and Intercourse act. (Zinn, 133) This new act opened up new sources of farmland for the American citizen. But to appeal to the American people, Jackson said that he was moving the natives in the hopes of preserving their traditions and way of life. (Pageant, 266) Each and every action by Jackson was carefully thought out for the purpose of removing the Native Americans for the benefit of the American people, quite similar to previous presidents. The main difference is that Jackson actively removed the Indians, while in previous years, the government took a passive stance towards the natives and gave the American citizen the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with Huawei’s idea that Jackson actively sought the removal of the Indians. And throughout his post he explains every detail behind Jackson’s active approach. The removal of the Indians, hypothesized Thomas Jefferson, would improve the economy and the well being of America. So Jackson acted accordingly, not only for his country but also for his supporters.
Andrew Jackson marked a turning point in American treatment towards red man. Others before him were more tolerant such as Henry Knox who stated on page 126, "the indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil." But Jackson's background foreshadowed his removal of the indians. He was a land speculator, merchant, and slave trader (page 127). As Jackson took office in 1829, things got worst for the Indians because of much empty promises and the cruelest ways to deal with them. When indians refused to give up land they were called red sticks and were immediately removed. There was a wide range of ways to remove these Indians, such as letting white settlers attack their lands; and the only thing Jackson would do is say that they could not stop them from invading on Indian land. Jackson's ideology of Indians as an object in the way of The United State's path won him a lot of support and won him a lot of support when he was reelected as president in 1832. Everytime a treaty was signed with Jackson, he would push and push the Indian tribe into a smaller part of their land and eventually take it from them. When certain villages refused to surrender, Jackson would order the villages destroyed (page 129). If they didn't listen to Jackson, then they would be obliterated, if they did listen to him they would eventually be obliterated. His tactics of corruption of indians, fake treaty and plunder proved very effective in the removal of Indians from their land, and was the opposite of Jefferson's preached, "Indians lived within state boundaries and should not be interefered with (page 126)." Jackson found loop holes in this phrase from a founding father and made excuses saying the Indians attacked first and did not honor their treaty anymore, and attacked ruthelessly with a large army. After his reelection he speed up the removal of Indians after his reelection. Again he signed another empty treaty with the Indians. On page 142, 5 million acres were given up to the United States to remain on their few land left, and those who stayed and did not move west were in federal protection of Alabama. Immediately again we see the white invasion of Creek lands. The end result was the same, by the end of it they were forced to move west or face harsher prosecution which the only thing harsher was death. As the Indian Tribes moved west, private contractors arranged for their journeys. Hardly no food or any necessary supplies were given to the Indians. They died of diseases and famine. This journey was soon called the trail of tears because of the harshness of the journey. The only remotely valueable thing given to them were decaying old boats for them to use to cross the mississippi river. Those who stayed east of the mississippi revolted there was nothing left except for prosecution and all parts of their little existing freedom was taken from them. War with the Indian tribes lasted a long time and costed $20 million and 1500 american lives (page 146). It is obvious that they wanted to carry this on and not give a penny to the Indian tribes. In the end, Jackson lived up to the quote "For the American people," he didn't tolerate any types of objects in his way and did whatever methods necessary to gain America more power and resources.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hua Wei that Jackson was the only president who directly clashed with the Indians. Seeing how Jackson had the bigger army and the most power, it is easy to give into that type of power. With great power comes great responsiblity, but Jackson obviously abused it. Seeing how he could easily overcome the Indian tribes and remove them, yet did not want to make it obvious that he was rutheless as a human being, he gradually degraded them as human beings and eventually eliminated all traces of them. It was literally like taking candy from a baby.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson presented a very different way to handle Indian Removal in America. His motives, procedures, and treatments were more cruel and extreme than any of his predecessors.
ReplyDeleteJackson wanted to remove the Indian tribes because of his desire for America to be successful (Zinn, 127). Planters in the South longed for more fertile lands after tobacco crops left their lands stripped and useless. This desire led to the push of settlers into Indian lands and caused the death of many Native Americans as well as destroying their once successful and prosperous communities. Never before had a president caused so much despair for so few reasons.
The way in which Jackson removed the tribes was more harsh than any of the other presidents. He was determined to acquire the new land and would do whatever it took to get it. Force and bribery were two strategies Jackson employed during his removed of the Indians (127) He also turned Indians on each other by granting them individual land in which they fought each other for (128). Jackson attempted to destroy the Indian nations, tearing them apart from the inside and out.
Unlike other presidencies, Jackson's full attention was focused on Indian Removal. the reasons and ways of this movement during Jackson's presidency were by far the most exteme and brutal of any United States President. The fundamental shift in policies was prominent and created long lasting tensions.
Rachel brings up a good point when stating that previous presidencies, such as Thomas Jefferson, attempted to incorporate the Native Americans into the society instead of forcibly removing them from their lands. This established better relations with the Indians, where as Jackson focused solely of kicking them out completely and cutting all connections with them.
Andrew Jackson went against all the previous president’s standards for negotiation with the Indians and even went against a Supreme Court ruling. Presidents before Jackson had always made treaties; the fairness of these treaties is debatable, with the Indians. The US government always treated the Indians as a separate nation and would buy their land. With no intension of selling their land to Jackson and Jackson having no intent to buy it from them, the Indian removal act was set in motion. Jackson’s following was comprised mostly of western frontiersmen who wanted the Indians gone so that they could move westward unhinged. These frontiersmen not only wanted the land for themselves they wanted it free. The Indians had even begun to adopt many of what the American considered civil customs and the Cherokees had even adopted a constitution in 1827. These “civil” tribes surely should be treated as separate bodies of government and should have their land bought from them instead of stolen, but Jackson did not see it in the same light as his predecessors. Jackson only wished to please his western frontiersmen hunger for land. The issue was brought to the Supreme Court’s attention by the Cherokees. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor and proclaimed that the Indians had the right to their own land. Jackson ignored the ruling and proceeded to force the removal of the Indians to their new permanent homes, which only lasted for about fifteen years. Thousands of Indians died on these journeys. Not a single cent was given to the Indians and not a single treaty was signed by them. Americans never really treated the Indians with much respect and always created unfair bargains, but no other president had treated the Indians with such complete disregard.
ReplyDeleteThough President Jackson's Indian Policy was the first government mandated removal of Indians, it is not all that different from previous administrations and their opinions on the matter. His success at relocating Indians on such a mass scale is what sets this Act apart from the others.
ReplyDeleteJackson first began his crusade against the Indians in the War of 1812, as he hoped to conquer new lands and spread trading grounds through the largely unchartered Indian Territory.(Zinn, 128) Once he rose to power after his successful battles in the war, he passed the Indian Removal Act, and ignored many treaties and acts passed to protect these Indians in the process. (Zinn, 132) The purpose of this act was to allow more land for the American farmer to cultivate his wealth on, and to bring the people on board to this heinous act, Jackson stated he believed moving the natives would be an attempt to preserve the natives and their rapidly dilapidating cultures. Instead of taking a passive route in Indian affairs, Jackson took a step ahead of his predecessors by winning battle against them, rallying the Americans behind his cause, and passing acts to ensure the removal of the Indians for the American farmer's benefit.