Andrew Jackson's attitude toward the Indians - Essay Example

History How would you describe Jackson's attitude toward the Indians, is his position borne out by the history of the Cherokee or is it rooted in something else? What ethical justification does he use for the legality of this action of removal? What ethical justification do the citizens of the state of Georgia use to support the removal? Explain. Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States of America from 1829 to 1837. He is famous for supporting the Removal Act which advocated for the relocation of Cherokee Indians from East of the Mississippi river to the West of the Mississippi. His past involvement, in the defeat of the Creek Indians, could have been his motivation to champion the removal of Cherokee Indians to avoid a repeat of what happened with the Creeks. This essay aims to determine the reasons behind his support for the Removal Act and establish if there were any other underlying factors or ambitions to encourage this. Andrew Jackson’s attitude towards the Indians was based on his past encounters with the Indians in war and peaceful negotiations. He was the commanding general in the defeat of the Creek Indians, and he experienced the devastation the war brought to the Indian tribes. He wanted to help the Cherokee Indians avoid the ravages of war (Stewart 11). Jackson addressed the congress in the first Annual Message of 1829, elaborating his stand on the Indian issue by castigating the congress over their support of the idea of assimilating the tribes. He instead promoted the idea of relocating the Cherokee Indians to the West of the Mississippi from the Eastern side. The reason for Jackson’s support of the Removal Act was because, as the leader of the Tennessee militia he had tried along with his troops, to make sure that the whites and the Indians respected each other’s rights. This endeavor proved to be a losing battle because white civilization had a greater, impact on the native Indian’s lifestyle, than they had on the white population who saw them as savages. His deployment of hundreds of soldiers to quell the friction between the settlers and the natives led to more casualties than was projected. As president, Andrew Jackson proposed to congress that the best way to deal with the Indian situation; as he considered it, was to offer them more treaties; guaranteeing their rightful ownership of land that they occupied west of the Mississippi. He did this by rooting for the dissolution of the American Bank that gave him powers to control the finances of the state’s largest sole source of revenue. He used this monetary power to issue incentives to Indians who were willing to leave on their own accord. He promised compensation to every woman, child, and man, who voluntarily left the Eastern Mississippi territory for the Western Mississippi frontier (Stewart 23). Jackson’s ethical grounding was based on the fact that his administration wanted to save the Cherokee Indians, of the humiliation of going against the United States, which would eventually lead to their defeat as witnessed by the Indian Creek war. The Cherokee Indians would not prosper under the Georgian laws because they had a different way of life and their customs did not rhyme with those of the white settlers. Their youths, especially the young men were already used to frequenting the local bars and getting intoxicated, and their response to this new found past time was a reaction that was not tolerated by the then laws. He thus offered the Cherokee Indians a better alternative of the leaving the Eastern banks of the Mississippi. The Jackson administration offered to compensate the Indian Cherokees for whatever land they had occupied in the Eastern banks (Stewart 31). Jackson reiterated to the people that his sole ambition was to protect the Cherokee Indians from extinction as other Indian tribes had perished The discovery of gold in the state of Carolina could have been an underlying factor to Jackson’s increased zeal to get rid of the Cherokee Indians. His political machinery could have advised him to moot the Removal Act so as to please the white settlers, who played a vital role, in financing his presidential bid. On his letter to the Cherokee Tribe East off the Mississippi river in March 16Th 1835, he implored the Cherokee Tribe to shun the advice of purported sympathizers who claimed to act in the best interest of the Tribe but had selfish motives of benefiting from the Tribe’s misfortunes. Jackson based his argument on ethical grounds of the Native Americans being unable to cope with civilized laws of the white settlers (Stewart 42). Through the support of the ever increasing influx of white settlers from Europe, influenced the congress and he was able to pass the Removal Act and relocation of more than 400,000 Cherokee Indians from the East side of the Mississippi. Jackson successful move to get the Removal Act passed and accented by congress saw the beginning of the inevitable relocation of Indians. He used past examples of Indian tribes who had agreed to earlier relocation treaties as benchmarks for the practical application of the Removal Act. The Jackson administration ventured into a rigorous exercise of convincing Indians of the benefits, of moving away from white settler influenced civilization, to regions where they could exist peacefully under their own government institutions, without interference from external elements. The Georgian citizens perceived the Indians as savages especially those who had participated in the Creek war (Stewart 78). They supported Andrew Jackson’s efforts to separate them from the common white settler folk. The behavior of Indians especially the youth, who had come into contact with white settler civilization, was put to question because of their failure to obey the Georgian State laws which saw many of them being involved in altercations with white settlers. This was attributed to their high spirited nature encouraged by their culture. Thus the Georgians, on ethical grounds, sought to remove them from their midst to avail them a chance to practice their culture, beliefs and religion where it would not conflict with the white settlers (Stewart 79). Andrew Jackson championed for the Removal Act and its subsequent enactment because he believed it would save the Cherokee Indians much grief caused by forceful evictions (Stewart 80). The Cherokee Indian’s response, to the Removal act, was to reject President Jackson’s proposal, and letter to them by drafting a counter proposal, which clarified their stand on the matter raised by the Removal Act. They refused to be relocated to the west of the Mississippi, stating that they were not familiar with the territory and that those tribes, who already occupied the neighboring regions, were unfriendly. This led to the eventual eviction of the Cherokee Indians through a surprise move by the Georgian forces while the Indians thought their counter proposal was being considered by the congress. The overall evaluation of the Removal Act was that it was motivated by selfish motives, in part from President Jackson, and the other by the white settlers, who wanted the fertile lands belonging to the Indians. The discovery of gold, in the South Carolina state, which was part of the Cherokee territory instigated the need to move the Indians further west to facilitate its mining without the Indians laying claim to the gold. Work Cited. Stewart. M. The Indian Removal Act: Forced Relocation. Illustrated Edition. Capstone, 2006. Print. Read More