This source has significant value to historians but, like any other source, has its limitations. Andrew Jackson’s motivation to remove the Cherokee from their homeland originated from an avid persona to benefit the Americans. The speech analyzes Jackson’s motivation, and specific plans to remove the Cherokee. In consideration of the speech being written in 1830, the audience can learn how Jackson was rather harsh towards the natives in order to benefit himself and others. This is evident with Andrew Jackson’s actions and his presumptions of the Natives. However, this source has significant limitations due to Jackson’s motivation in removing the Cherokee, historians cannot be fully assured Jackson included all facts behind the removal. For example, many of the benefits Jackson mentioned in his speech specifically regarding the Cherokee benefiting from removal hardly seem plausible. This calls into attention Jackson’s integrity and honesty throughout the entire speech. …show more content…
He achieved this by purposely neglecting the true horrors behind the removal of the Indians. Andrew Jackson portrayed the Native Americans as less than equal. The purpose of Jackson's speech was to justify his motives in moving the natives and to also convince congress that it was both beneficial to the Natives and the Americans. The source has value because it gives some insight into Jackson’s effort behind his motivation. Based on his purpose of speech, it can be learned that the relationship between the Natives and Americans was only beneficial for certain necessities. However, we are limited to what Jackson has implemented in his
Even if the government had listened to the Cherokees after the ratification of the Treaty of New Echota when they gave their, “earnest, solemn, and reiterated protestations”, of the treaty history could have changed. A number of different, and better, outcomes exist that would not have caused so much grief and loss of life in this beautiful country. That being said, history remains the same and Jackson’s actions incapacitated Native Americans’ growth and
In the article by Anthony F. C. Wallace, “The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America,” the reasons for America's need for Indian land is discussed. The purpose of this article is to explain the Indian removal that occurred under Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The thesis of this essay states that Americans kicked the Natives off of their land to fulfill a selfish desire to expand the cotton industry. The first point Wallace uses to support his thesis is how Jackson’s financial interest in the land affected the removal of Natives.
2.2 In Andrew Jackson’s argument, Jackson addresses his opinions about the treaty and Cherokees that let us know the main purpose of this treaty, “[i]t seems now to be an established fact that [Cherokees] can not live in contact with a civilized community and prosper.” And he also explains the new settlements and those people’s lives, “…the Indians are removed at the expense of the United States, and with certain supplies of clothing, arms, ammunition, and other indispensable articles; they are also furnished gratuitously with provisions for the period of a year after their arrival at their new
President Jackson didn’t treat the CHerokee Indians with respect at all. In the U.S. Constitution it states that the CHerokee Indians were there first and they own the land that they took their territory. President JAckson said,” The sooner you do this, the sooner you will commence your career of improvement and prosperity. ”(Doherty and Jaffe) Meaning that the sooner the Cherokee Indians moved west of the Mississippi River the sooner you will get our help moving.
Jackson presidency was marked as a new era in Indian-Anglo American relations by imitating a policy of Indian removal. Before the removal, he made about 70 treaties with Native American tribes both in the South and the Northwest. His First Annual Message to Congress and some others begins in December of 1829, which contained remarks on the present and future state of American Indians in the United States. He argued that it was for the Indians own well, that they should be resettled on the vacant lands west of the Mississippi River. During the time in Congress, debates on a bill didn’t begin until late February 1830.
“Jackson's comments on Indian removal begin with the words, "It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty
One of many atrocities that Jackson committed was the forceful removal of thousands of Indians and the subsequent death of many of them. Although his reasoning, as is stated in his Message to Congress "On Indian Removal," was
In the article “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” the author, Alfred A. Cave, writes about President Jackson’s abuse of power. He is arguing that Jackson abused his power when he was enforcing the Indian Removal Act. He argues that Jackson broke guarantees he made to the Indians. He uses a political methodology and uses secondary sources.
Although this act was harsh, to some it overshadows the good that Jackson did. In the source: Letter from Elias Boudinot, Cherokee Indian, Elias says, “Removal, then, is the only remedy, the only practical remedy. Our people may finally rise from their very ashes, to become prosperous and happy, and a credit to our race.” The quote is from a Cherokee Indian agreeing that the removal might be the best thing for the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson is a hero because he worked to bring more democracy to the
He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live.
Andrew Jackson’s sentiment towards the Native Americans was certainly not a kind one. Manifest destiny was a popular belief among Americans, including Jackson, and he would go to the extent of forcing Native Americans out of their homes to reach their “ordained goal”. He believed in the expansion of southern slavery which is why he pushed for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi, which makes it the more disgraceful. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 said that it will allow American government to offer in-state territories to the Indian’s for their western land. This wasn’t the case when the U.S. went in and drove the Indians out by force.
Jackson was wanting to change Washington and America. He done that very fast. The very first major piece of legislation, Jackson had recommended and got passed, was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This act forced Jackson to prevent all the Indian tribes to live East of the Mississippi River. There were five Indian nations that were highly effected.
The tone and diction used in Samuel’s Memory, and Andrew Jackson's speech on the Indian removal act share differences and similarities. Analyzing, both sides of the removal act, and how the people reacted differently due to the writer's tone using positive and negative connotations. As well as the diction used in each piece of writing. Jackson uses different tones and diction to persuade readers to believe him. Each piece of writing shares a main purpose.
The government tried to force assimilation on Native Americans as well as an attempt to “kill the indian, save the man.” These ideas and policies are similar to those popular during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson developed a sense of ‘paternalism’ towards indians and believed he was saving them by forcing them to live out west of the Mississippi river away from white culture. The difference was that Jackson did not believe in assimilation of indians into white culture, he believed they should be kept separate. With the help of the Federal government removing indians from land west of the Mississippi, Americans were
Andrew Jackson and the Search for Vindication, a biography written by James C. Curtis and published in 1976, explores Andrew Jackson’s life from his childhood experiences to his presidency. James C. Curtis analyzes Andrew Jackson’s actions psychologically during his life-long search for vindication. James C. Curtis allows the reader to better understand why Jackson was such a troubled person, in both his childhood and adult years. Growing up, Jackson was a “hellion” (James C. Curtis 7). Jackson’s family experienced many tragedies.