On October 9, 1806, Joseph Bird Joquips, a 70 year old Native Indian from the Mohegan Tribe, petitioned the State of Connecticut General Assembly for a portion of the land in Connecticut that was divided among Natives in the Mohegan tribe. He emphasized his devout military career that began in 1758 during the Seven Years’ War to convince members of the General Assembly to allot him a portion of land that belonged to the Mohegan Indians. While Joquips had already rightfully possessed a piece of the land because he had lived on it prior to European presence, the Europeans did not recognize his authority to the land; and thus, forcibly seized control of Native lands so that they could distribute it as they saw fit. It was not important for Joquips to possess a piece of land, but to have the Europeans recognize that the land belong to him. Thus, this petition represented Joquips manipulation of the European system to secure a piece of his tribe’s land with hopes to collect the land for the Mohegan tribe piece by piece.
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.
In 1742 the chief of Onondaga of the Iroquois Confederacy knew that his land that the people shared would become more valuable than it has ever been. (Doc B)The reason for this was because the “white people” also known as the Americans wanted the land of the chief. The feelings of the Chief result in complaining to the representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia,
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.
In ‘The General History of Virginia’, John Smith wrote about how he first to America and he talked about it like the land was already his. He sounded very in control throughout the story, and when he talked about the American Indians he talked about how they were
Whether Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policies were ethical has come of debate from the time they were enacted and before. The time that Jackson was president has been fittingly named the Jacksonian Era. One of the iconic images of this era is a political cartoon that depicts President Jackson as “King Jackson the First” as he steps on the constitution and the Albany Plan of Union. I think that Jackson’s actions were not ethical.
Even though the Mexican encouraged the settlers to free the slaves, but the settlers refused(Source). The American settlers also took part in the mission system. Another law the American settlers broke was trying to convert the catholic nation into protestant. The Catholics did not have a good reputation because people were worried that the pope could lead to a dictation. Also,
Petalesharo’s writing reflected the treatment of Native Americans during the 1800s. Being a Native American himself, Petalesharo was able to give perspective on a point in history typically viewed from a white man’s opinion. The excerpt “Petalesharo” explains how the Native American was able “to prevent young women captured by other tribes from being sacrificed”, making Petalesharo well liked by the Americans (588). Petalesharo gave the “Speech of the Pawnee Chief” infront of Americans to convey the differences between Native Americans and Americans through emotion, logic, and credibility, which showed how the two groups will never be the same, but still can coexist in the world together.
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.”
Compare and Contrast Rainsford, a hunter, is sailing with Whitney, across the seas looking for big game to hunt throughout the amazon. Whitney goes to sleep on the ship, when soon after Rainsford falls off the ship near an island. There on the island lives Zaroff and Ivan, the sole proprietors of the island living in a Palatial Chateau with only a pack of dogs. Zaroff tells rainsford as the story progresses, that he no longer hunts animals but actually hunts humans. Zaroff states he plans to hunt Rainsford, if Rainsford does not agree to this hunt he will have to go through Ivans undescribed ways.
Andrew Jackson is known for being a major advocate for the superfluous removal of the Native American tribes. Jackson was being oblivious when he decided that he should ignore the treaties signed with the natives. The president was exhibiting selfishness and naïveté by confiscating the lands of the natives, to which they rightfully owned. Jackson had forced the “five civilized tribes,” which were natives who had adopted their neighbor’s ideas. These tribes were forced to make a long and perilous journey to the west of the Mississippi River.
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.
When the Europeans began colonizing the New World, they had a problematic relationship with the Native Americans. The Europeans sought to control a land that the Natives inhabited all their lives. They came and decided to take whatever they wanted regardless of how it affected the Native Americans. They legislated several laws, such as the Indian Removal Act, to establish their authority. The Indian Removal Act had a negative impact on the Native Americans because they were driven away from their ancestral homes, forced to adopt a different lifestyle, and their journey westwards caused the deaths of many Native Americans.
In the letter, the Cherokee nation addresses several reason on why they should not have to move. One reason is that the new land if foreign to them. They are being expected to pack up, leave everything they know, and move to the unknown. Another reason to add on to the above is that there are other Native American tribe already
Take Back Our land: Tecumseh Speech to the Osages “We must be united” was the plea from Tecumseh to the Osage tribe. In 1811, Tecumseh, known as the “Greatest Indian”, gave a speech pleading with the Osage tribe that they should unite together to fight against the white man (Tecumseh, 231). He goes on to tell how they had given the white man everything they needed to recover health when they entered their land but in return the white man had become the enemy. The speech to the Osages by Tecumseh illustrates the dangers of the white men to the Indian tribes, and why the tribes should unite together against the white man.
