Hugh Henry Brackenridge did not care much for the Indians. In his article, he referred to them as “animals, vulgarly called Indians” (Brackenridge, 185). Indians claimed their land by “occupancy” (Brackenridge, 185). One Indian would set foot on a piece of land so he believed that that area of land belonged to him. When another Indian set foot on that same piece of land, the first Indian asked him to leave because he had already claimed that land. Hugh Henry Brackenridge disagreed with this idea. He thought that every man should have an equal right to the land because all of it was given to man. Hugh Henry Brackenridge did not think that the Indians should have any rights to the land. The Indians had not improved the land for many years. He …show more content…
He said “as animal food decreased, their vegetable productions were not increased” (Cass, 215). The American’s even tried to help them by sending missionaries to their tribes. The missionaries would try to teach them agriculture, religion, morals, and other things that would help with their survival. This was unsuccessful because the Indians stuck with what they already knew. The Indians never learned a single thing from the Europeans throughout their whole existence. This was the fault of the Indians because they would not adopt what the Europeans were trying to teach them. Lewis Cass also said, “Every Indian submits in youth to a process of severe mental and corporeal discipline” (Cass, 216). During this process, the Indians were taught to hate labor. They were supposed to be hunters and warriors, and hate any other job. The Indians had no form of government. The lived more by family ties than a real government. “They have no criminal code, no courts, no officers, no punishments. They have no relative duties to enforce, no debts to collect, no property to restore” (Cass, 217). The Indians addressed their problems with revenge and their rights were secured with
“This is our land! It isn’t a piece of pemmican to be cut off and given in little pieces to us. It is ours and we will take what we want.” (voices and visions chapter 8 pg.181, poundmaker in the english tongue) The Cree and many Métis believed that the land was theirs and they were entitled to it.
The government made the “Indian children go to boarding schools run by white”, “...stopped Indian religious rituals and encouraged the spread of Christianity and the creation of Christian churches on the reservations”. (Brinkley 398). This way the government slowly but ultimately declined what was left of the Native Americans and their
The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the
Many Americans were influenced by the Homestead Act which gave them 160 Acres of land as long as they maintained the land for 5 years. Eventually, the Native Americans no longer had somewhere to go. They decided to sign a treaty with the Americans which granted them a small reservation in which no American would cross and a promise that supplies would be sent. However, the supplies never came and Americans continued to cross into the reservation. The Native Americans wanted to fight back but they were powerless against the American’s
Although this treaty explicitly stated the Indians’ rights to land, history- and even the Act itself- proved that Americans followed it very loosely, if at all. The Trade and Intercourse Act seemed to dampen the consequences of violating Indian land rights since it included the phrase, “not exceeding,” when referring to the jail- time and fees that any invasive Americans had to pay. 3. Andrew Jackson proposed moving the Indians because he wanted to end the tensions between the Federal and State Governments concerning Natives, to condense the Indian population in a single expanse of land, to open the area between Tennessee and Louisiana to the whites, and to prevent Indian and American conflicts. In the second paragraph of his Message to Congress in1829, Jackson said that the United States should move the Indians because it would put “an end to all possible danger of collisions between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians.”
The original relationship with the Indians was positive, but more was happening than what was on the surface. The Indians were being manipulated from the beginning, and given less than what was taken from them. It was believed that Indians should have the right to their own nation, and should not have their rights taken away from them. (Document B) However, at the time of Washington’s Administration after the war, The Indians were given less than half the land they had before American Independence through the treaty of Holston.
The Supreme Court had decided that the Indians could live on the land; however, they could not hold a title to the land. This was because their “right to own their land” was inferior to the settler’s “right to discovery.” The Indian’s wanted to own their own land because it was theirs to begin with; therefore, they thought this decision was
The harsh conditions the Indians underwent “encouraged the emigration of rural laborers from Mexico to the southwestern part of the United States” (New York: American Geographical Society, 1923). Diaz intervention in the administration of justice sided with the indians (162). He was aware that a large majority of territory was taken from the indians and so, made negotiations with corrupt companies which profited off of these lands. Part of this plan was to give the Indians sale on easy payment terms, irrigation, and education (Eder, 35). Indians were part of the rural population, they had their land taken from them and therefore were repressed.
In the Andrew Jackson speech to congress on indian removal, It talks about the reasons why they should be removed. Andrew Jackson's main reason why they should be removed is because of westward expansion and how it's the whites turn to develop the land. He also says how it will benefit both people even though it would actually make the Indians life worse. I thought it was interesting how they thought the Indians were the problem on westward expansion. In their eyes they thought whites and Indians couldn't mix.
No other transformation was more measurable in the west was the Assault on Indian way of life caught by miners and settlers who grasped their homes and federal Government extortion, (Doc C) by the 1890s Native Americans reservations had been the aftereffect on Most Indians, natives effortlessly combated to preserve their assets. Bison and buffalo had been their Linked article commonly utilizing it for food, clothing and trade. Promptly of the millions of
Native American Indians was discriminated just like other nonwhites, the New Deal relief program by the Government did not benefit them as well. American Indians were the victim of violence their land was stolen from them many was killed the surviving Native Americans were denied equality before the law and often treated as wards of the state, and placed in reservations and force to learn Americans traditions and values. Their tribal land was lost to government sales. It was not until the 1930s laws stop America from forcing American Indians to practice their culture. The law gave tribes increasing tribal economic and political
Merrell’s article proves the point that the lives of the Native Americans drastically changed just as the Europeans had. In order to survive, the Native Americans and Europeans had to work for the greater good. Throughout the article, these ideas are explained in more detail and uncover that the Indians were put into a new world just as the Europeans were, whether they wanted change or
1. Pratt opposed reservations because Jefferson’s treaty agreement meant the Great River would be the border between them and the whites. Indians would be isolated and not a part of the American life. 2. Schools would “kill the Indian and save the man” by introducing them to the life of an American.
The Natives believed that the Europeans are “edgy, rapacious, and remotely maladroit.” Sure enough, the settlers in Jamestown kenned little about farming and found the environment baffling. It was conspicuous that the colonists needed the avail of the Natives. Despite their inexperience the English dominated the Indians. From “the beginning the Virginia Company indited that the relationship would ineluctably become bellicose: for you Cannot Carry Your Selves so towards them but they will Grow Discontented with Your habitation.”
From the first trading post built to the sprawling colonies that would come to the country known as America today, land was stolen from the Native Americans. Who would start this massive misappropriation? Columbus, of course. On his first voyage in 1492 he built a stockade on “Hispaniola” (modern day Haiti). He constructed this on stolen land with forced native labor.