The Indian Removal Act of 1830: History and Trail of Tears

Early U.S.-Indian Relations and Treaty Policy

The Indian Removal Act of May 28, 1830 was an act passed by both Houses of Congress of the United States, 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 into law by President Andrew Jackson.

The eviction of these Indian tribes from a land they called their own was part of the broader course of Westward expansion by European Americans. These tribes lost their lands through purchase, war, disease, or extermination, and many of these losses were formalized by treaty. They fought so fiercely for their rights that the Treaty of Greenville of 1785 had to be signed to end the bloody Indian wars in Ohio (Goodman, 2003). That agreement recognized their right to the land "as long as the woods grow and waters run."

The Constitution of 1789 empowered Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations, individual states, and the Indian tribes (Public Affairs Division), in recognition of their sovereign status. For the first forty years under the new republic, treaties were signed with them and usually followed a consistent pattern: the signatory tribe withdrew to a reservation in return for supplies, food, and an annuity from the federal government. The colonial governments generally cooperated with Native American groups to avoid full-scale and costly wars — conflicts that would drain resources otherwise needed for developing the colonies.

Secretary of War Henry Knox formulated the first formal Indian policy, the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, which provided for the maintenance of peace with the native peoples. Knox believed that these tribes would eventually adopt European manners, language, culture, and ways of thinking (Meyers, 2000). President Washington recognized Indian sovereignty and promised them economic assistance, education, and protection. Washington's successors generally maintained this approach to dealing with the natives, though not all of them fulfilled his promises of education, assistance, and protection.

As more and more Europeans immigrated to the New World and the population — specifically of Georgia — grew, settlers in that state pushed the tribes further into the frontier (Golden Ink). By 1825, the Lower Creek had been completely removed from the state, but the Cherokees continued living in their cherished homeland until 1828. It was around this time that gold was rumored to have been discovered in the mountains of North Georgia. President Andrew Jackson came to believe that the only solution to the "Indian problem" was the removal of all Native tribes east of the Mississippi. The Removal Act of 1830 was his precise solution, and it completely transformed the United States' relations with the Indians — from cooperation, assistance, and protection to forced removal (Meyers, 2000). President Jackson's government agreed to pay for improvements the tribes had made on their lands, to help them move west, to provide subsistence for one year, and even offered protection against trespassers while guaranteeing their title to the exchanged land.

The Indian Removal Act: Congressional Debates

The passage of the Removal Act was first very hotly contested in newspapers, public meetings, Congress, and the courts. These debates centered on the legality, morality, and justice of the removal. It should be recalled that a first attempt at removing the tribes had been undertaken after the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory in 1803, which provided for the transfer of Indian tribes to new territories beyond the Mississippi. Indian tribes moved, but the exchange of lands did not actually occur until 1817. Because of these repeated disruptions, there were increasing clashes between Americans and the Cherokees (Meyers, 2000).

The recommendation for passage came from Hugh L. White, Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs. In providing a historical review of Indian affairs from the colonial period to the adoption of the Constitution, he argued that, in light of the doctrine of discovery, the Indians had no legitimate title to uncultivated soil. He stressed that the first settlers considered the Indians to be savages and that therefore the settlers had a valid claim over the land in the name of civilization. White further argued that the Indians had surrendered their independence for protection under the British Crown, and that the United States had subsequently conquered the Indians who had been allied with Great Britain — rendering them a non-sovereign people subject to the governance and will of the U.S. government.

Pro-Removal Arguments in Congress

White also claimed that, under the U.S. Constitution, the central government could never sanction the formation or existence of an independent nation — such as the Cherokee Nation — within the territorial limits of Georgia. In his view, the Cherokees' only choice was subjection to Georgia's laws.

John Forsyth of Georgia presented the Europeans' and Americans' right of discovery as the basis for claiming title to lands, regardless of their occupancy by Indians. He argued that the U.S. government had virtually ignored Indian land claims while dividing and selling the Northwest Territory, despite its promise to act in good faith toward the Indians residing there (Meyers, 2000). He also cited the 1777 Treaty of De Witt's Corner, which contained an article about the conquest of the Cherokees and the resulting jurisdiction over them, and the Treaty at Galphinton in 1785.

Opponents of removal clearly presented the strongest arguments when citing past treaties and the Constitution itself. Congress had the clearest claim to managing relations with the Indians through treaties. The pro-removal congressmen's strongest asset — next to President Jackson himself — was the fact that government officials had consistently discarded any supposed Indian sovereignty whenever it suited their interests. Few in Congress could dispute this historical reality, regardless of its legality or morality.

The debates also touched on the meaning of the right-of-discovery doctrine as applied to the first settlers of the New World, as well as differing historical interpretations. Some argued on the basis of history or in an attempt to sway public opinion, regardless of the accuracy of their presentations. On a practical level, congressmen debated with an awareness of their constituents and sought to cast their positions in the most legally defensible light, selecting historical arguments that would appear valid and win the approval of the people they represented.

Despite heavy historical argumentation on both sides, it appeared that opponents of each position were unimpressed by arguments that a rival interpretation could easily overturn. The debates ended with the bill passing the House by a close vote of 102 to 97 on May 26, 1830. Two days later, President Jackson signed it into law. As the opposing congressmen had feared, it gave the President explicit powers to negotiate the expulsion of the Cherokees from Georgia, ending the U.S. government's long-standing policy of extending education, assistance, and protection to this people.