An example of the United States Government taking advantage of Native Americans noncitizen status to force the Native Americans into unfair agreements is the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This law was signed into law in May of 1830 by President Andrew Jackson (Library of Congress). It gave Jackson the power to grant Native American lands within state borders to white Americans in exchange for land that was unsettled west of the Mississippi. This act lead to many Native Americans being forcefully removed from their homes and lands and being forced into lands west of the Mississippi. Through the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Andrew Jackson had approximately 46,000 Native Americans removed from their lands many of whom were forced to leave their
…show more content…
President Andrew Jackson claimed in an address he made in 1830 concerning the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that the Act was beneficial to both white Americans and Native Americans because it gave the white Americans “relief” from the Native presence and allowed their population to grow and become more wealthy using the profitable land that the Native Americans were not using to its potential (Jackson, 1830). For the Native Americans, he claimed, it allowed them to live their lives in accordance with their own “uncivilized” manner, and to hopefully gain religion and become “civilized” in time. Furthermore, President Jackson claimed that because “all” Indians were migratory hunters, which was not necessarily true there were many tribes who planted crops and lived on their farmland, they had no real connection to the land. In reality, this act wasn’t meant to be and was not beneficial to the Native American tribes, many of whom were forced to leave their homes and land even though relocation was supposed to be voluntary. While construed as a “win-win” situation, the basis of the Indian Act of 1830 was entirely based on the greed of many of the southerners and other white Americans who wished to expand and use the Native Americans land for their own profit. In particular, it was beneficial to Jackson and his supporters who had long been in favor of the removal of Native …show more content…
However, many Native Americans who resisted were met with violence or were forced to leave their land even though they didn’t agree to give up their land. The Cherokee Nation, when faced with relocation, petitioned the United States Supreme Court claiming that their forced removal by the government of the State of Georgia was unconstitutional. The Court ruled in their favor; Unfortunately, the Court does not have the authority to enforce their decisions and President Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. This resulted in extreme discriminatory treatment of the Cherokees by the Georgia State Government, until the Cherokee finally, as a last resort, agreed to the relocation. While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, and Native Americans by extension, the lack of enforcement of the Court’s ruling resulted in the Court’s decision having no effect on the Act nor the forced removal of Native
President Andrew Jackson claimed in an address he made in 1830 concerning the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that the Act was beneficial to both white Americans and Native Americans because it gave the white Americans “relief” from the Native presence and allowed their population to grow and become more wealthy using the profitable land that the Native Americans were not using to its potential (Jackson, 1830). For the Native Americans, he claimed, it allowed them to live their lives in accordance with their own “uncivilized” manner, and to hopefully gain religion and become “civilized” in time. Furthermore, President Jackson claimed that because “all” Indians were migratory hunters, which was not necessarily true there were many tribes who planted crops and lived on their farmland, they had no real connection to the land. In reality, this act wasn’t meant to be and was not beneficial to the Native American tribes, many of whom were forced to leave their homes and land even though relocation was supposed to be voluntary. While construed as a “win-win” situation, the basis of the Indian Act of 1830 was entirely based on the greed of many of the southerners and other white Americans who wished to expand and use the Native Americans land for their own profit. In particular, it was beneficial to Jackson and his supporters who had long been in favor of the removal of Native …show more content…
However, many Native Americans who resisted were met with violence or were forced to leave their land even though they didn’t agree to give up their land. The Cherokee Nation, when faced with relocation, petitioned the United States Supreme Court claiming that their forced removal by the government of the State of Georgia was unconstitutional. The Court ruled in their favor; Unfortunately, the Court does not have the authority to enforce their decisions and President Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. This resulted in extreme discriminatory treatment of the Cherokees by the Georgia State Government, until the Cherokee finally, as a last resort, agreed to the relocation. While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees, and Native Americans by extension, the lack of enforcement of the Court’s ruling resulted in the Court’s decision having no effect on the Act nor the forced removal of Native