This story of the Seminoles’ struggles for identity and sovereignty is a microcosm of the true horrors inflicted on Indian nations by the federal government. The Seminoles remarkably defied federal, state, and local government pressures of removal in the early nineteenth century. They also disputed Creek insistence on tribal consolidation, and other Indian nation claims to their property. Among the federal tactics were the illegal removals, and treaties that meant little to the federal government when land, as part of Manifest Destiny, and wealth the federal government sought entered the equation. The Seminoles also endured the paternalism, coercion tactics, and pressures from Bureau of Indian Affairs agents who made promises to them that were frequently broken. At the Territory and local level, legislation would pass to limit their mobility and interaction with Whites. This was a story of a people’s rebellion and quest for sovereignty, one that came at the expense of tribal disagreements, internally and externally, and separate battles with the Creek Indians and the federal government. What legitimately created an Indian nation? Certainly, the Seminole’s …show more content…
Seminoles) definitely deserved a closer analysis of the trends and gaps in the historiography, and hopefully avoid only reflecting the systematic hierarchies dominating the recent research. This story also hopes to expose Seminole history as part of the larger Native American narrative by giving an account of the treaties that were ignored or poorly scrutinized in most, if not all publications about the Seminoles. The story should reflect the interaction and different perceptions among the players (Americans, Creeks, Blacks, Seminoles, etc.) as a reality constantly being negotiated despite the "permanence" of a treaty or a Supreme Court decision. And how the enduring Seminole struggles for identity resulted in the recognition of their
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.
The name "Seminole" came about from the tribe's original name of yat'siminoli meaning "free people". That was the name the Seminoles had referred to themselves as because of their refusal to be conquered and converted by the "white man". The Seminole Tribe has long had a unique history with both the land of the Southeastern United States, and with the government of the United States. Their relationship with the land has been drastically altered as the result of three Seminole wars which displaced and relocated the Seminole tribe. As a result of the persecution by President Andrew Jackson, members from a variety of tribes in the Southeast United States began migrating into Spanish Florida to seek refuge.
Settlers were against any treaties that didn’t include either the “extermination of the Seminoles or the relocation of all surviving Indians to the west. Any attempts by the army officers to make peace that would allow the Seminoles to remain in Florida was opposed by settlers and whenever possible they attempted to persuade Congress to accept nothing less than relocation. This is shown by the memorial the citizens of St John sent to Congress in 1841. They sent the message as a response to rumors of a treaty with the Seminoles which would allow the Seminoles to keep living in Florida. The settlers made it clear that they were against the treaty.
Having ratified the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1821, the United States officially purchased Florida from Spain. Taking control, American officials concluded the Treaty of Moultrie Creek two years later which established a large reservation in central Florida for the Seminoles. By 1827, the majority of the Seminoles had moved to the reservation and Fort King (Ocala) was constructed nearby under the guidance of Colonel Duncan L. Clinch. Though the next five years were largely peaceful, some began to call for the Seminoles to be relocated west of the Mississippi River. This was partially driven by issues revolving around the Seminoles providing sanctuary for escaped slaves.
As Europeans began to infiltrate the territory the Cherokee nation inhabited in the mid-1700s, Cherokee men’s power increased, drawing them into more traditional masculine roles. However, Cherokee women, Perdue argues, maintained their roles and power within the nation. She posits that their influence may
The “loose association” among the Seminole bands and disagreements among members within the bands gave rise to many unknowns about the intentions behind those who signed the treaty, and those Seminoles in Florida who refused to accept the authority of the chiefs who travelled to the Indian Territory. Furthermore, the African Americans among the Seminoles, including Abraham, were convinced that moving to the Indian Territory, where the Creeks occupied the land, risked re-enslavement. Like many white planters, the Creeks persisted with federal claims on escaped slaves who sought refuge among the Seminoles. The African Americans, Abraham among them, fearing this, worked hard at convincing the Seminole Indians to oppose removal.
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
To date, the reservation of the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi consist of 35,000 acres that cover over 10 counties, and with 10,000 thousand members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. From dire poverty to economically standings the Mississippi Choctaws are proof that no matter the situation you can strive for better tomorrow. Tribal sovereignty has seemed to rage since the time of the great effort for their lands. Since this time there has been frenzy over how much tribal sovereignty a tribe should have. Sovereignty, territory, children, and kinship are critical for the survival of the
Thesis: The English were a prideful group, entangled in ethnocentrism, that caused a condescending and harsh treatment of the Native Americans, while the Native Americans were actually a dynamic and superior society, which led to the resentment and strife between the groups. P1: English view of Native Americans in VA Even though the English were subordinates of the Powhatan, they disrespected him and his chiefdom due to their preconceived beliefs that they were inferior. “Although the Country people are very barbarous, yet have they amongst them such government...that would be counted very civil… [by having] a Monarchical government” (Smith 22). John Smith acknowledges the “very civil” government of the Natives but still disrespected them by calling them “very barbarous,” which
On July 17, 1830, the Cherokee nation published an appeal to all of the American people. United States government paid little thought to the Native Americans’ previous letters of their concerns. It came to the point where they turned to the everyday people to help them. They were desperate. Their withdrawal of their homeland was being caused by Andrew Jackson signing the Indian Removal Act into law on May 28, 1830.
Losing one’s cultural knowledge, and therefore the reality of their culture, allows others to have control over their collective and individual consciousness as well as their destiny. In this case, it is clear that the United States government has had the dominant relationship over the Native
During the “Gilded Age” period of American history, development of the Trans-Mississippi west was crucial to fulfilling the American dream of manifest destiny and creating an identity which was distinctly American. Since the west is often associated with rugged pioneers and frontiersmen, there is an overarching idea of hardy American individualism. However, although these settlers were brave and helped to make America into what it is today, they heavily relied on federal support. It would not have been possible for white Americans to settle the Trans-Mississippi west without the US government removing Native Americans from their lands and placing them on reservations, offering land grants and incentives for people to move out west, and the
“Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”, chapter one of “A People’s History of the United States”, written by professor and historian Howard Zinn, concentrates on a different perspective of major events in American history. It begins with the native Bahamian tribe of Arawaks welcoming the Spanish to their shores with gifts and kindness, only then for the reader to be disturbed by a log from Columbus himself – “They willingly traded everything they owned… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” (Zinn pg.1) In the work, Zinn continues explaining the unnecessary evils Columbus and his men committed unto the unsuspecting natives.
Throughout the 19th century Native Americans were treated far less than respectful by the United States’ government. This was the time when the United States wanted to expand and grow rapidly as a land, and to achieve this goal, the Native Americans were “pushed” westward. It was a memorable and tricky time in the Natives’ history, and the US government made many treatments with the Native Americans, making big changes on the Indian nation. Native Americans wanted to live peacefully with the white men, but the result of treatments and agreements was not quite peaceful. This precedent of mistreatment of minorities began with Andrew Jackson’s indian removal policies to the tribes of Oklahoma (specifically the Cherokee indians) in 1829 because of the lack of respect given to the indians during the removal laws.
If that were not the case we would not be witnessing significant disparities in poverty, illness, criminalization, and injustice of Native Americans in particular. These outcomes reveal the long-lasting insufferable consequences of assimilation policies that were enforced during the 18th and 19th centuries, furthermore, perpetuated in Richard Pratt’s