The Indian Removal Act of 1830 resulted in the forced removal of the Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Creek and Chickasaw tribes from their homelands in Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama to western land. Colonists had been wanting the land held by the Native Americans for a long time, and when Andrew Jackson came into the presidency, he made their dream of owning it a reality – at the expense of the Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act should never have passed, as it was problematic morally, politically and practically. Politically, the act was unconstitutional, and allowing it 's passage would be illegal; it would result in the death of thousands of Native Americans, making it morally reprehensible; and wouldn 't actually
…show more content…
This Act stated that members of certain Native American tribes would have to move from the southern land they had lived on for decades to new western land, or lose most of their rights and their land. This was a very controversial act, and both supporters and opponents of the act argued viciously for their preferred outcome.
The Indian Removal Act was a bad political move because it was both unconstitutional and illegal, but was enforced regardless. Though it was meant to protect Native Americans from the threat of angry citizens, what it really did was remove many tribes from their land so that US citizens could expand into it. Many tribes rightfully protested this, and the Cherokee tribe sued the government. Their case was brought to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that Native Americans, as a sovereign dependent …show more content…
As more and more white settlers began moving westward, conflict between whites and natives became an issue again. In a move that surprised no one, the US government again sided with the white settlers. A series of acts were enforced in the years between 1851 and 1889, collectively entitled 'Indian Appropriation Act '. These acts would yet again uproot entire tribes, often forcing them onto marked reservations that continue to exist today. The act utilized the guise of the earlier Indian Removal Act – it claimed to 'protect ' Native Americans from western-settling whites. Again, the acts were politically, morally and practically unwise, and natives and some whites protested; and again, the government forced Native Americans off land that rightfully belonged to
This Act stated that members of certain Native American tribes would have to move from the southern land they had lived on for decades to new western land, or lose most of their rights and their land. This was a very controversial act, and both supporters and opponents of the act argued viciously for their preferred outcome.
The Indian Removal Act was a bad political move because it was both unconstitutional and illegal, but was enforced regardless. Though it was meant to protect Native Americans from the threat of angry citizens, what it really did was remove many tribes from their land so that US citizens could expand into it. Many tribes rightfully protested this, and the Cherokee tribe sued the government. Their case was brought to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that Native Americans, as a sovereign dependent …show more content…
As more and more white settlers began moving westward, conflict between whites and natives became an issue again. In a move that surprised no one, the US government again sided with the white settlers. A series of acts were enforced in the years between 1851 and 1889, collectively entitled 'Indian Appropriation Act '. These acts would yet again uproot entire tribes, often forcing them onto marked reservations that continue to exist today. The act utilized the guise of the earlier Indian Removal Act – it claimed to 'protect ' Native Americans from western-settling whites. Again, the acts were politically, morally and practically unwise, and natives and some whites protested; and again, the government forced Native Americans off land that rightfully belonged to