DIRECTIONS
Click on one of the questions to the left to write a blog post. Please refer to your "Writing an Effective Blog" handout as well as the "British Taxation and Colonial Response Blog" handout for specific expectations. Be sure to keep your blog posts on topic and use appropriate language.-
Recent Posts
- How are the American ideals of freedom, equality, liberty and progress in tension (or not in tension) with Native American policy in the late 18th century and early 19th century?
- How did United States Native American policy evolve and change from the late 18th century and the mid 1800s? If you could go back in time, how would you have shaped government policy towards Native Americans while still allowing the United States to expand west?
- How did Native Americans, specifically the Cherokees, resist removal? Why was this resistance ineffective? How could it have been more effective?
- How did Jackson defend the Indian Removal Act? Is his rationale convincing? Why or why not? Be sure to consider all historical circumstances, such the America’s population growth, economic depressions, and desire to establish itself among other nations and protect American land from foreign countries.
- Was conflict between Native Americans and Settlers/US Government inevitable? Was Indian Removal inevitable? Was the Trail of Tears inevitable?
Archives
Categories
How did Jackson defend the Indian Removal Act? Is his rationale convincing? Why or why not? Be sure to consider all historical circumstances, such the America’s population growth, economic depressions, and desire to establish itself among other nations and protect American land from foreign countries.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
americanstudies1ruback.wordpress.com 
Andrew Jackson defended the indian removal act very well. he made it sound like a perfect thing for the american people to do and grow from, even though it was a tragedy for the indian people and their land. he told the people that it will make america a super nation. “it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent states strong enough to repel future invations without remote aid” (Andrew Jackson’s second annual message to congress notes). he told people that it would allow america to become powerful and safe from invaders attacking. “[it will] enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power” (Andrew Jackson’s second annual message to congress notes). he also told them that it would make the nation wealth and grow in population helping the economy to become stronger and better. he made it sound rational and acceptable to do because of its “benefit’s” to the american nation.
Andrew Jackson defended the Indian Removal Act by listing the advantages for Americans and Native Americans. Jackson believed that if the Native Americans moved west it would be a good economic opportunity for the American government. He also believed that the conflict between the general and state governments over Native Americans would be over because of the Native Americans migration to the west. Andrew Jackson thought that if the Native Americans moved away then the states would “advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power” (Andrew Jackson). Jackson tried to make the Indian removal act justified by saying that it will free the Native Americans “from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their way” (Andrew Jackson). What Jackson didn’t know was that it wasn’t happiness that the Native Americans would have about moving west.
I do not think that Jackson’s reasoning for moving the Native Americans west was justified. If I was living in the time period of the Indian Removal Act I would somewhat agree with Jackson’s reasoning to a certain extent. I don’t believe that moving the Native Americans west would increase population, wealth, and power is a good enough reason or that the Native Americans would be happy. One of the reason’s Jackson wanted people to move west because of the east was being overpopulated. The United States population grew form five million to twenty-three million between the 1800’s and mid 1800’s. If Jackson wanted the population to go down than why say the population will go up if the Native Americans move west? Native Americans can’t pursue happiness if they’re happy were they’re at. Jackson doesn’t know how they’ll feel when they go west. He doesn’t have the right to say anything about how the Native Americans will feel. I don’t believe that Jackson’s defense for the Indian Removal Act was convincing.
President Andrew Jackson supported the Indian Removal Act for many reasons, one of which was for the prevention of potential conflict between the two parties. With the Native Americans and the United States government so close together, conflict was almost inevitable. The two groups were bound to meet at some point, and it would surely not be pretty. When I first heard of this reason supporting the removal of Indians, I thought it was a stretch. One could not assume that the two parties were going to meet. If they knew that collision could cause a harmful outcome, they would do their best to avoid meeting. It is that simple. Also, the Americans who supported Indian Removal thought of the Native Americans as savages. Indians seemed inferior to the them, so I doubt they would have truly cared about their safety. Another reason supporting the Indian Removal Act that also made it seem as if the Americans truly cared the Native Americans is as follows: “It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions” (“Andrew Jackson’s Second Annual Message to Congress”). These were President Andrew Jackson’s words, and they gave the illusion that he respected the Native Americans and their freedom. According to this statement, he wanted the Native Americans to pursue happiness on their own and in their own way. However, when the removal eventually took place, thousands of Cherokee Indians died and never even got to their destination. Those Native Americans never got the chance to pursue happiness because their life was cut short by death. Also, when they arrived at their destination after the 850 mile trek now called “The Trail of Tears” was completed, their new land was significantly less bountiful and useful as their old land. In fact, their removal made it much more difficult to pursue happiness properly and in their own way. Therefore, I disagree with this reason supporting the Indian Removal Act.
There were more reasons supporting this act that explained the positive effects for the Americans as well. First, and possibly most importantly, the removal of the Native Americans would improve life as a whole for those moving into the abandoned land. According to President Jackson, Americans moving west would “enable [Mississippi and Alabama] to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power” (“Andrew Jackson’s Second Annual Message to Congress”). Taking over the Native Americans’ land would help out the white settlers significantly in the areas of money, power, and property. First of all, the land would be very cheap, so it would be very easy to buy. Therefore, someone moving west could easily purchase a lot of land (or at least more than they could in the east). The advance in property per person could also be caused by the significant decrease in population density out west. In the original colonies, the population was incredibly dense because the great amount of immigration. Therefore, when you would move out west, there would be much more open land up for grabs, and for a significantly lower price. The conditions were perfect for buying a lot of land. Of course, with land comes both power and money. If you have a lot of land, then you earn a lot of money consistently. This money could help you put food on the table for your family (which was extra important after two major recessions that had recently passed), buy more slaves, and also help you buy even more land. If you have a lot of land, you also have a lot of power. That has been true throughout history in many different societies. Therefore, with all of the factors considered, the removal of the Indians would help not only the individual, but also the economy tremendously. This is one point I strongly agree with. While I must admit that the removal of the Indians is immoral and selfish, it would help the economy. People would become much more wealthy, and as we all know, wealth passes from person to person. This wealth would improve the struggling econonmy in the United States, so this reason supporting the Indian Removal Act is sensible.
President Andrew Jackson was extremely successful at defending the Indian Removal Act and he managed to convince most of Americans that it would be good for them. At this time America was experiencing an economic downfall and many were impoverished. Jackson used this to sell the idea that taking over Indian land would reinvigorate the economy. In addition to this Jackson used fear tactics to scare the American population to agree with him, claiming that it would help repel foreign invasion “it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent states strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid” (Andrew Jackson). To me his rationale is not convincing and I find him corrupt and simply seeking more power.