Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
History essay the civil rights movement
Westward expansion dbq essay
Westward expansion dbq essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History essay the civil rights movement
Westward expansion dbq essay
Westward expansion dbq essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Indian Removal Act authorized Jackson to give the Indians land west of the Mississippi in exchange for their land in the states, but could not force them to leave. He violated and broke commitments that he even negotiated with them. He tried to bribe the Indians and even threatened some of them. Alfred Cave organizes his article thematically and is trying to prove
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.
He just wanted the native americans to move to a different area so that they could take over their previous land. Also, in Indian Removal Document 3, it says that Jackson did not care if some of the tribes went extinct, which clearly shows the exercise of absolute authority. Although all of the other documents show a clear ignorance of others, democratic behavior is shown in Document 4 of Indian Removal. Jackson mainly shows the idea of autocratic behaviors throughout his presidency.
Jackson presented his ideas on acquiring the land belonging to the Native Americans, as well as ideas on persuading and manipulating the innocent people to hand it over and move out. It was a storm of racism holding Jackson's ideas in the
Andrew Jackson, being a tyrant, abused his power in his time of presidency. He was the 7th president, but before Jackson’s presidency, he had no political experience. One of the only things that really qualified him was the hardships he went through when he was younger. His father had died while Jackson was young and Jackson received the reputation as a “self-made man”, or an independent man.
In the journal article “ Andrew Jackson versus the Historians”, author Charles G. Sellers explained the various interpretations of Jackson, from the viewpoint of Whig historians and Progressive Historians. These interpretations were based on the policies of Jackson. The Whig historians viewed the former president in a negative way. They considered him arrogant, ignorant, and not fit for being president. Sellers pointed out that it was not just because of “Jackson’s personality…nor was it the general policies he pursued as president”
In the next few paragraphs I will be talking about some of the hardships and cruelty that the Indians of the Americas had to go through. There will be three different points of views I will be going into detail of, Bartolome de Las Casas, Helen Hunt Jackson, and Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson had the largest impact ever on Indians and it was not a positive one, while the other Jackson tried to take a stand and seek change. Bartolome de Las Casas was a knowledgeable and respected man. Throughout his life he had many jobs and positions.
“In that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees…” (Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, pg. 10). Society as a whole expects historians to be impartial, to report the events of the past as they happened, without incorporating their own thoughts into these events. We choose to believe that they are politically neutral, that they have no bias, and that they report history fairly and that everything occurred the way they say. However, as historian Howard Zinn points out in A People’s History, most historians have succumbed to the disturbing trend of glossing over and sugarcoating some of history’s most horrific events, excusing them as necessary for “progress,” and then moving on.
Although times are different now, newspapers and websites alike would agree that Jackson was a cruel and unfit president. In this paper, I will seek to persuade you to look at history for yourself and make your own conclusions. While he did some inexcusable mistakes such as relocating the Indians, Jackson was as a suitable president for the following three reasons: he held the unstable union together, encouraged expansion into
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.
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.
Although Jackson was important, he was part of many terrible things. Around the 1820s there were many major indian tribes in eastern United States such as Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole. This soon came to a change. Andrew Jackson thought these Indians were in the way of eastern development, using the Indian Removal Act which the congress had approved he decided to kick them out and send them west. In 1831 the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Indians had the right to self government and the United States could not interfere with that.
Robert Remini’s Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars is a book that makes you question Jackson's character. Remini addresses the long-standing debate of historians and scholars over whether or not Jackson was barbaric or whether he was a merciful savior that prevented the Native Americans from going extinct. Remini instead argues the opinion that Jackson was simply a man of his time. Despite this, Remini does show Jackson's inexcusable cruelty towards the Native Americans. He learned to fear and hate Indians from an early age.
First of all, Jackson’s strong character can be traced back to his early childhood and adolescence. His family emigrated from their poverty-stricken home in Ireland to a Scotch-Irish immigrant settlement along the Carolinas. It was here, in the land of the free, that the Jacksons continued to live in poverty. As a young child, his knowledge of the woods bought him a part in the Revolutionary War. This part of his life, however, is dampened by sorrow and abandonment.
Andrew Jackson disobeyed a direct order from the Supreme Court, which it means he was above the law. I really wonder how Americans tolerated him, at that time, he was cruel to the Indian common man. Because of him, the Native Americans have the worst end of the Trail of Tears. They are the ones who are forced out of their traditional homes and sent away on a journey of pain and death. Those who had fallen ill, most of the time died, and those who had the will to move on were able to make it to the end and start new lives.