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.