It inaugurated an "age of the common man. Andrew Jackson himself emphasized the connection between the well-being of whites and the removal of Native Americans beyond the Mississippi. Jackson made this clear in his State of the Union address for
The Presidential Election of The use of that neutral sanitized term obscures both the motivations and effects of the policy. When Native people died out, moved away, or forfeited their rights, the European title became absolute. In order to cement their title, colonial governments recognized the legitimacy of tribal governments by entering into treaties with them, something only sovereign nations do.
Treaties that regulated trade, cemented alliances, and provided for the cession of land became a cornerstone of US Indian policy. In the s, however, some politicians, most notably Andrew Jackson, began to question the practice of making treaties with, and thereby recognizing the sovereignty of, Indian nations.
This change of heart accompanied an intellectual shift in the United States and Europe. Cultural disparities, policy makers had thought, stemmed from education and opportunity, not inherent differences.
The United States appointed agents to live among the tribes, hired farmers and artisans to teach the Indians skills, and provided funds for missionaries to establish schools and churches. These efforts had barely gotten underway when objections arose.
By the s, new ideas about human differences as immutable had begun to emerge on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, for example, the Congress of Vienna in had tried to redraw the national boundaries of post-Napoleonic Europe to reflect the supposed innate differences among people.
The assumption that distinct cultures reflected racial differences began to take hold in the United States, and policy makers increasingly believed that American Indians could not be assimilated.
Once an Indian, they believed, always an Indian. Furthermore, their differences meant that Indians and whites could not live together. The decisions that some Indian nations made seemed to support the tenets of Andrew jackson and indian removal 1980 Nationalism.
Some tribes, such as the Shawnees in southern Ohio, experienced a revitalization that dramatically conveyed their preference for their own culture.
Many tribes, on the other hand, welcomed the education and practical skills that missionaries and agents brought, but expressed little interest in Christianity or assimilation.
The Cherokees, for example, developed commercial agriculture, operated toll roads and ferries, adopted a writing system, published a bilingual newspaper, and instituted a constitutional government that took Georgia to court when the state infringed on its tribal sovereignty.
The Cherokees and other tribes adopted aspects of European culture while preserving many of their own practices and beliefs, and they defended their right to make decisions for themselves. The dissolution of their nations and assimilation into the United States were not on their agendas.
Native peoples east of the Mississippi confronted demographic changes that made their positions increasingly untenable. The original thirteen states had transferred their western lands, granted in colonial charters, to the United States. Indians lived on much of this land, and the intrusion of white settlers led to unrest and violence, especially north of the Ohio River where an alliance led by the Shawnee brothers Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh resisted encroachment before meeting military defeat in They failed to stop US expansion, and bythe number of states had risen to twenty-two.
Older states feared loss of revenue and political power as new states emerged, and those with American Indian populations eyed Native lands. Georgia, home of the Creeks and Cherokees, led the charge to dispossess Indians. The sentiment was widespread that people as fundamentally different as Indians and Europeans could not live next to each other and that the Indians had to go.
Eliminating property requirements for voting, increasing the number of offices directly elected, and other democratic reforms in this period made removal a potent political issue that demagogues used to inflame voters who either lacked land or wanted more.
In Americans elected Andrew Jackson president. Jackson did not succeed in convincing legislators to abandon treaty-making; instead he cynically used treaties to expel five large southern tribes. Given the disdain with which Jackson regarded Indian treaties, it is not surprising that some of this money went to bribe chiefs to sign removal treaties.
Treaty commissioners appointed by the United States also negotiated with unauthorized parties, circumvented established protocol, and lied, cajoled, and threatened in order to achieve land cessions.
The President used the Indian Removal Act to target southern tribes, many of whom lived on prime cotton-growing land. Ina rump council of the Choctaw Nation agreed to removal after the full council refused. Two years later the Chickasaws surrendered their land east of the Mississippi River only to discover that there was no land west of the river for them, and they were forced to merge with the Choctaws.
Having signed a removal treaty, the Creeks became victims of such violence from white Americans that whites feared retaliation, and the United States removed the Indians as a military measure. While Seminole leaders were touring land in the West, their escorts pressured them into signing a treaty that they repudiated upon their return home.
And when the Cherokee Nation refused to sell, commissioners convinced a small, unauthorized faction to sign a removal treaty. Indians did not submit to these high-handed and duplicitous dealings without a struggle. Under a provision in their treaty, thousands of Choctaws chose to remain in Mississippi, and when their agent refused them the land to which they were legally entitled, they squatted on public land or became tenant farmers until finally getting a reservation in the twentieth century.
Creeks who had avoided the military roundup tried to become invisible, but many ended up illegally enslaved by white planters in Alabama.
Others settled on a small tract of land that the United States held in trust and survived as a Creek community.Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal As the scholarship on the North American Indian has flourished over the last three decades, the role of Andrew Jackson in what historian Michael Paul Rogin called their "subjugation" has become a major topic of interest.
The Andrew Jackson Papers is one of twenty-three presidential collections in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. The Jackson archival collection contains more than 26, items dating from to Included are memoranda, journals, speeches, military records, land deeds, and.
In the s, however, some politicians, most notably Andrew Jackson, began to question the practice of making treaties with, and thereby recognizing the sovereignty of, Indian nations.
This change of heart accompanied an intellectual shift in the United States and Europe. Andrew Jackson to Chickasaw Chiefs, August 23, (Correspondent) Andrew Jackson (Author) Created / Published August 23, Subject Headings - Address to chiefs urging then to move west to perserve their tribal identity Indian Removal Act: Primary Documents in American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress).
Mar 28, · Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal ( Dbq) Essay Tyler Pape P. 3 APUSH Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal ( DBQ) Andrew Jackson’s presidency from to the decision to remove the Cherokee Indians to land west of the Mississippi River was made.
Indian removal was a forced migration in the 19th century whereby Native Americans were forced by the United States government to leave their ancestral homelands in the eastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi River, specifically to a designated Indian Territory (roughly, modern Oklahoma).
The Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson, who took a hard line on Indian removal.