The US desired to take away the Indian identity from the Natives and transform them into Whites in which they can be considered part of the growing US nation.
The explorers of the Americas were both fascinated and disgusted by the Native American way of living. The Indians had no structured set of rules or government and did not even have a ruler. Their society was free from social classes based on land ownership, which was common in the Old World. A common nickname for the Indians was the “noble savage,” which meant “the man of liberty living in the natural state” (Weatherford, 1988, p. 124). Although the word “chief” implies authority, each Indian was equal to one another and was spiritually tied to the land they lived upon.
Facing East from Indian Country by Daniel Richter is--without question--one of the most effective studies of Native American history. Richter’s previous book, The Ordeal of the Longhouse, which viewed the European invasion of northeastern America from the perspective of the Iroquois peoples of modern New York a similar awareness of early American history. Facing East challenges the instilled perspective of westward expansion from the early sixteenth century well into the nineteenth. By viewing the early European-Indian encounter through the eyes of the Native Americans, this revolutionary examination intends to “turn familiar tales inside out, to show how old documents might be read in fresh ways...and to outline stories of North America”
As stated in the introduction, Ablavsky’s purpose is to demonstrate how those two narratives “are not only complementary but mutually explanatory.” In this, he is largely successful. By piecing together histories from all groups that inhabited the Northwest and Southwest territories, indigenous groups, the Anglo-American settlers, and the French inhabitants, Ablavsky is able to demonstrate that each of these groups called upon the federal government time and time again to settle disputes within and among the groups, provide financial compensation for the perceived wrongs they suffered at the hands of each other, and for protection. In doing so, each group was in effect laying the groundwork for the federal government to have an ever-increasing presence in its territories. An effective method used by Ablavsky to illustrate his argument was to divide Federal Ground into two primary sections: “Property” and “Violence.”
Beecher points out that, “This continent was once possessed only by the Indians, and earliest accounts represent them as a race numerous, warlike, and powerful. When our forefathers sought refuge from oppression on these shores, this people supplied their necessities, and ministered to their comfort.” Beecher addresses a key point that the land where she and other Whites live was originally and rightfully belonging to the Indians. Yet, the Indians were kind enough to offer assistance to the Whites as they sought refuge on these lands. Even though whites received so much assistance form Indians they insisted for more and thus took more and more land.
In order to show their power, they expanded into Indian’s lands because they wanted to show sovereignty and ownership. Also, in technical terms, the U.S. had control over the Appalachian lands, even though it was Indian territory due to the Treaty of Paris with Britain, but Indians still claimed it as their land. Also, white settlers or squatters were eager to find their own land instead of illegally living off of other people’s
So by removing the Indians they get to take the Indian's land and make theirs which gave Americans more
Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land.
During the early to mid 1800s, the colonization of “Indians” and subordination of “women’s rights in the American society,” was very essential to those in authority. They were perceived as a mere means to an end by promises of a better life in exchange for “land and work.” Although locals complied, those in offices took advantage by using antagonistic tactics in achieving wealth, power, and ownership. However, these actions lead to “The First Seminole War, The Monroe Doctrine, Andrew Jackson’s leadership, The Indian Removal Act, The California Gold Rush, The Seneca Falls Convention, and the Birth of the Republican Party.” Although some Americans have been perceived as heroes, their actions have said otherwise about their character.
“Owning land was extremely important to the European settlers … meant that a person had great wealth and political power”(VOA). On the other side, the native population, “believed that no one could own land … that anyone could use it … [and that if one] wanted to live on a piece of land and grow crops [one] could do so”(VOA). At the beginning when there were not that many colonizers the Native tribes were helping these Europeans and would share the land with them, but as tribes such as the Lenni Lenape began to see that more people were coming from another part of the world and started to take their lands, cut the trees and build roads and houses, the native tribes stated to see the true intentions of these
“In 1817, Americans burned a Seminole village on the border (Florida), killed five Indians, dispersed the rest.” (Shi and Tindall, 306) This comes to show that the trail of tears was not the first ruthless obtainment of territory on America’s part, and as shown throughout History, it was not the last. Territorial expansion helped raise the population and diversity of white men and women, but through the expansion of America in unscrupulous ways millions of Native Americans and black slaves were killed. America’s hunger for more territory was not always satisfied by the thieving of other ethnic group’s territories, soon America began pioneering west once more.
The colonists had no thought for the Natives who lived on the land, pushing aside their established residency and sharing it amongst themselves, ultimately placing the Natives at a state of second
At the time all the U.S. colonies were living on the east coast of North America. The Native Americans were living westward of these colonies. According to the Americans the Native Americans were not using the land to its full potential. So it was in the Native Americans best interest for the Americans to take over. Even before the Americans decided they wanted to expand Thomas Jefferson had already brought up the idea of Indian removal.
First of all, Native Americans were settled on a hotbed of natural resources which included oil and precious metals such as silver and gold. There was also much fertile land that would entice farmers and frontiersmen to move out west. On this land there was so much potential economic opportunity for farmers, cattle drivers, miners and many other occupations. The government developed the popular public misconception that the indians were misusing the land and that Americans had the right to take advantage of the opportunities that lie in the west. These ideas led to the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 which authorized encroachment of Indian lands by the US government in order to divide up reservations and control Indian activity.
Many began by leasing their land. If Anglo-Americans wished for Natives to make a living off farming their land, well then why not lease for enough funds to feed a whole Native family? With the help of leasing “Native Americans no longer had to attempt to farm or develop their land. Nor did they have significant reasons to accept Anglo culture or society. They could live as they wanted, supported by the money from lease incomes.
