Andrew Jackson's Policy Of Removing The Native Americans

1105 Words 5 Pages
Indian Policy
Andrew Jackson’s policy of removing the Native Americans impacted the lives of many Native Americans and claimed thousands of their lives as well. To this day, this brutal policy is well known for its awful background and role it played upon civilizing the Native Americans. This policy is important since it significantly reveals how desperately they wanted more land. By pushing the Native Americans west of the Mississippi River, it showed that they would take a desperate action just to get what they most desired. Taking advantage of the Native Americans, the Jackson Administration’s decision to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s continued the economic policies but significantly changed
…show more content…
economic policies towards the Native tribes by purchasing more Native land and making a profit out of it. On December 18, 1829, in a speech to Congress, Andrew Jackson stated, “...we have at the same time lost no opportunity to purchase their lands and thrust them farther into the wilderness...”. Before the Indian Removal Act, the U.S. obviously wanted more land. They conjured treaties, laws, and policies just to gain land. When the Americans arrived, they had one clear goal, to get land. The Americans see land as power and opportunity. And with this power, they could be wealthy and make a profit out of it. Since Andrew Jackson has no morals whatsoever, his Indian Removal Act is obviously pushing out the Natives to the west of the Mississippi River, which would allow the plantation owners and small farmers have land to plant, which they could profit from. In addition, President James Monroe, in his communication to the Senate, stated that, “I am deeply impressed with the opinion that the removal of the Indian tribes from the land which they now occupy is of a very high importance to our Union”. James Monroe states how taking the Native lands is necessary and is “important”. This is ironic since taking the natives land showed no importance to them; however, it showed more of a counterplay of just getting rid of the Natives in general. In fact, the only “importance” the Jackson Administration had in mind was power. …show more content…
political policy towards the tribes by breaking many of the previous laws and treaties that were authorized for the Cherokees. Many of these laws were necessary, and they would benefit the Cherokees. But since Andrew Jackson became President, he found that these treaties and laws played no role in his success of removing all of the Native Americans. This is when a man named William Crawford, stated in a letter to the military commanders, “Intrusions upon the lands of the friendly Indian tribes, is not only a violation of the laws, but in direct opposition of the policy of the government towards its savage neighbors”. This announces how some Americans in fact, have truly changed, and they want to support and keep the integrity they have signed by doing what they were promised. Since Crawford had a integrative mind, he followed the law and was committed to it. Despite many people going with the Indian Removal Act, there were also many powerful political roles who opposed it. One was a Senator, named Peleg Sprague, who strongly disagreed with Jackson, and said in a speech to Congress on April 16, 1830, “Mr. President, I am aware that their white neighbors desire the absence of the Indians. But let it be by their own free choice, not awed by fear, not seduced by bribes”. Sprague did not only defend the rights for the Natives; he truly expressed how the Natives should not be feared, but left alone to have their rights and to make their

Related Documents