Trail of Tears: Greed, White Supremacy, and Indian Removal
This paper examines the causes and consequences of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Trail of Tears, during which approximately 4,000 Cherokee died during forced relocation. It argues that two interconnected forces — settler greed fueled by cotton plantation expansion and white supremacist ideology — drove the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the Southeastern United States. The paper traces legal and military dimensions of the crisis, from Supreme Court rulings that denied Native land title to the Creek and Seminole Wars, and connects institutionalized racism against Native Americans to the broader legacy of slavery and racial hierarchy in American political and social life.
- Introduction: Jackson's Indian Removal Policy: Context for forced removal of Five Civilized Tribes
- Greed and the Drive for Native Land: Settler expansion and broken treaties driven by greed
- White Supremacist Ideology and American Law: Racist ideology codified in law and Jackson's worldview
- Native Resistance: Military and Legal Struggles: Creek and Seminole Wars and failed legal challenges
- Conclusion: Institutionalized Racism and American Political Life: Racism against Native Americans mirrors anti-Black policies
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper builds a clear causal argument, linking two distinct but reinforcing forces — economic greed and white supremacist ideology — to the same legislative outcome, giving the thesis analytical depth beyond a single-cause explanation.
- It draws on both legal precedent (Supreme Court rulings) and military history (the Seminole Wars) to demonstrate how racism was institutionalized across multiple domains of American life.
- The connection drawn between Native American removal and the legacy of slavery — particularly through the detail about Seminoles sheltering runaway slaves — adds an intersectional dimension that strengthens the concluding argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses primary legal sources (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the 1823 Supreme Court discovery doctrine ruling) alongside secondary historical scholarship to substantiate claims about institutionalized racism. Embedding direct quotations within the argument, rather than simply presenting them as illustration, demonstrates source integration appropriate for undergraduate history writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical context and a two-part thesis (greed + ideology), then devotes separate sections to each cause before turning to Native resistance efforts. It closes with a synthesis argument connecting Indian removal to the broader American legacy of racial hierarchy. The structure is clean and logical, moving from cause to response to consequence.
Introduction: Jackson's Indian Removal Policy
President Andrew Jackson had long pursued an aggressive approach toward Native Americans. That policy reached its most devastating expression in 1838–1839, when approximately 4,000 Cherokee died during the forcible relocation program later known as the "Trail of Tears." Five tribes in the Southeastern United States had been dubbed "civilized" because of their willingness to assimilate into Euro-American society: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. Over time, the informal and formal agreements between Native Americans and the federal government began to collapse under the weight of increasing demand for land.
Greed and white supremacist ideology laid the groundwork for the Indian Removal Act of 1830, revealing stark connections between the Trail of Tears and the broader legacy of slavery and racism in the United States.
Greed and the Drive for Native Land
Sheer greed prompted much of the Indian removal policies, the breaking of treaties, and ultimately, forced exile. Burgeoning numbers of settlers entering the lands now comprising Georgia and Alabama pressured the federal government to support their efforts to expand cotton plantations. As military resistance proved futile, several tribes opted for a policy of appeasement, attempting to negotiate with settlers and offering large swathes of land in exchange for the right to live harmoniously alongside them (United States Department of State Office of the Historian). These concessions were never enough. The relentless appetite for land meant that no agreement would hold, and the cycle of broken promises continued until removal became federal law.
Works Cited
"Indian Removal." PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
Manning, Martin J. and Wyatt, Clarence R. Encyclopedia of Media and Propaganda in Wartime America. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO, 2011.
United States Department of State Office of the Historian. "Milestones." Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.