The indian removal period essay

The original thirteen states had transferred their western lands, granted in colonial charters, to the United States. Inthe Washington administration made a treaty with the Cherokees, allowing the settlers to take another chunk of land from the Indians.

And when the Cherokee Nation refused to sell, commissioners convinced a small, unauthorized faction to sign a removal treaty. The Indian removal act was nothing new. Parents passed the despair they felt on to their children, affecting their physical as well as mental health.

This change of heart accompanied an intellectual shift in the United States and Europe.

A Very Short Introduction Henry Knox was actually one of those people. Treaties that regulated trade, cemented alliances, and provided for the cession of land became a cornerstone of US Indian policy. For the settlers, these concerns were only considered problems in the later part of this period, and were just small complications in the beginning.

Indian Removal Act

Ultimately, the Sauks lost their lands in Iowa and most moved to Kansas. The government had sneakily talked its way into owning all of the Cherokee lands, and then wanted to kick them out entirely. Older states feared loss of revenue and political power as new states emerged, and those with American Indian populations eyed Native lands.

Library of America, 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.

Others settled on a small tract of land that the United States held in trust and survived as a Creek community.

The President used the Indian Removal Act to target southern tribes, many of whom lived on prime cotton-growing land. The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil.

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. Inthe Colonies and the Indian Confederation had signed a treaty, handing over half of the Cherokee land, and was supposed to stop there.

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 Georgia, home of the Creeks and Cherokees, led the charge to dispossess Indians.

Again, this treaty was disregarded, and another had to be made by the Monroe administration, and took another huge chunk out of the remaining land that was owned by the Cherokee, which by this time was only about one sixth the original amount they had.

Despite these acts of resistance, however, most citizens of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Nations went west, resettled in what is today eastern Oklahoma, and rebuilt their nations.

While Seminole leaders were touring land in the West, their escorts pressured them into signing a treaty that they repudiated upon their return home. 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.

Efforts to transport remnants of removed tribes continued into the twentieth century. 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.

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.

Indians did not submit to these high-handed and duplicitous dealings without a struggle. Cultural disparities, policy makers had thought, stemmed from education and opportunity, not inherent differences. Jackson did not succeed in convincing legislators to abandon treaty-making; instead he cynically used treaties to expel five large southern tribes.

Each of these removals occurred under different circumstances, but all were fraught with anguish and loss. By most white Americans did not believe that Indians and whites could live together, and they thought that Indians held resources, especially land, to which whites were entitled.

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. There had even been numerous treaties signed by white and Indian men alike, but were almost always encroached upon by the white settlers and their greed of the land.

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. Once an Indian, they believed, always an Indian.

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. The Cherokees petitioned the US Senate to deny ratification of their removal treaty, which the Senate refused to do.

The decisions that some Indian nations made seemed to support the tenets of Romantic Nationalism. Some tribes, such as the Shawnees in southern Ohio, experienced a revitalization that dramatically conveyed their preference for their own culture.

By the s, new ideas about human differences as immutable had begun to emerge on both sides of the Atlantic. 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.Read this American History Essay and over 88, other research documents.

Indian Removal Act. In regards to the proposal of the Indian Removal Act ofSecretary of War William Crawford stated that, “Intrusions /5(1). History: The Indian Removal Act Essay Words | 5 Pages. they needed the Natives out.

There were several motives for the removal of the Indians from their lands, to include racism and land lust.

Since they first arrived, the white Americans hadn’t been too fond of the Native Americans. They were thought to be highly uncivilized and they had to go. The Indian removal period, just like the just and lawful wars fought against native tribes, was yet another attempt to acquire immense wealth and power over the American territories.

Although this was much humane than the eradication of Indian populations, the removal in itself, both as a legal concept and its implementation, is debatable. The Indian Removal Act of was unfolded was during a time of contradictions.

While it was a period of expanding democratic institutions, it also pointed to obvious limitations of that democracy. States largely abolished property restrictions on voting and as the Western frontier was being expanded, it meant more opportunities of settlement for.

The Indian Removal Act and Andrew Jackson Essay Words | 3 Pages Short Term Essay The Indian Removal Act, inspired by Andrew Jackson; the 7th president of the US and the enhanced ambition for American settlers to find more land in the southwestern regions of North America.

2nd period 3/20/10 The Indian Removal Act Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act in This act called for the government to make treaties that required Native Americans to relocate west. Jackson thought that this policy was “just and liberal.” The Indian Removal Act Essay “The Indian Removal.

The indian removal period essay
Rated 5/5 based on 27 review