Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
They must be removed and granted only a reasonable amount of territory.
Editorial Against Indian Removal
I regret to say that our potentially great nation is being sullied by the way that it has approached the question of Indian removal from the Great Desert. Largely to escape the oppression of a Royal Crown that failed to respect the autonomous rights of individuals, the Founder of this nation sought a new form of government that respected individual rights. Now, it is the American people who have been guilty of oppression. Practically, since our first settlers explored the land of opportunity, they have wronged this continent's native peoples. In some cases, this was accomplished by trickery; in others it was by force; in still other instances, we have pledged our word in formal treaties only to renege on their provisions deliberately and with impunity at the native Indian's expense. When the Indians reacted in the same way that we applaud ourselves for doing in conjunction with our historic Revolutionary victory, we have taken their attempts and rightfully defending what was theirs (even before we "gave" it to them) as a convenient excuse to slaughter them and decimate their remaining populations.
The people of this nation have no choice but to honor the contractual obligations into which we entered freely; indeed, we and not the Indians drafted the treaties ceding what we now refer to as the "Great...
Now that we have retroactively determined that those same lands are more valuable than we realized, we have exploited every conceivable trick to undo those provisions; where that has failed, we have simply overpowered the Indians by military action.
The territory at issue is rightfully that of the Indian peoples. In fact, their claim to the land is stronger and more justified today than it was before we explicitly negotiated the rights to it away in treaties that we drafted because we believed them to be in our interest at the time. If we are genuinely a nation of constitutional principles and values, we must demonstrate that now in connection with the proposed wrongful removal of the Indians from the territories that we expressly awarded them by treaty and by our good faith word.
References
The Authentic History Center. (2010). Noble and Ignoble: The Development of Two
Savage Stereotypes: 1665-1860. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from:
http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/native/caricatures/
Gjerde, J. (Ed.). (1998). Major Problems in American and Ethnic History: Documents
Removal Act of May 28, 1830 was an act by both Houses of Congress of the U.S., which provided for an exchange of lands with the native Indian tribes residing in any of the states or territories and for their removal west of the Mississippi River, their traditional land, to the prairies. It was signed by then President Andrew Jackson into law. The eviction of these Indian tribes from a
The Injustice of the Indian Removal Act 1830 Introduction The Indian Removal Act signed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 was meant to establish peace in the nation and to give the Native Americans their own territory where they could practice their own activities, traditions and culture without interference from the American government. However, the Act resulted in the forced migration of thousands of Native Americans from their traditional homelands to a region
President Andrew Jackson had long pursued an aggressive approach to Native Americans before 1838-9, when 4000 Cherokee died during the forcible removal program dubbed later the "Trail of Tears" Five tribes in the Southeastern United States had been dubbed "civilized" because of their willingness to assimilate: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. The informal and formal agreements between Native Americans and the federal government began to fall apart due to increasing
Indian Removal How valuable is history if it is truly written by the victors of war? What remains of the historical account are only tiny fragments of what the true and whole story encapsulated. What we are left with are scraps of stories that are fragmented and skewed to the current power structures that run the institutions. Understanding this skeptical attitude is extremely important when judging an historical account. The purpose of
He was viewing them as little children who required guidance. He tended to believe that the policy of removal had great benefits to the Indians. Majority of the white Americans were thinking that United States was not capable of extending past Mississippi. The removal was capable of saving the Indian nationals from the white's depredations (Foreman 1932). The removal could make them to govern themselves peacefully It was assumed that the
The Congress eventually followed suit by enacting the Indian Removal Act which was greeted by the newly elected President Andrew Jackson. Americans should feel no regret for the disappearance of Indians from the face of the earth, Jackson argued. "Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers," he said to Congress in his State of the Union