The Indian Removal Act - Report Example

Why does Andrew Jackson fail to enforce John Marshall’s decision on The Indian Removal Act? Andrew Jackson failed to enforce John Marshall’s decisionon the Indian Removal Act not because he was incapable of doing so but merely because he never supported the cause and infact was always against the Cherokee nation’s existence in the southern states. Andrew Jackson was elected the seventh President of the United States of America in 1828. This was the era when the Southern states of America like Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, etc. were fighting for the rights of the land, pressurizing the government to force the Indian tribes to leave their lands. The native Indian tribes of these Cherokee nations, on the other hand, were unwilling to move out and argued for Georgia to protect their rights as the residents of the state and to uphold the promises that were made to them by the past treaties. This conflict for the land with varying pressures on the federal government was straining the situation in the country. The federal government was bowing before the southern state pressures and the government legislators was forced to concede to southern demands of the land in order to retain the popular support. Even before he became the president, Andrew Jackson commanded the American forces as the Commander of the Tennessee militia in the war of 1812 and had defeated the Red Stick Creeks. He had been anxious to acquire the Cherokee territory in the south and the southern states knew that he would do anything possible to attain this. Andrew Jackson was elected the president with majority support of the Southern states in the election.1 It was evident that his main objective was the removal of the Indian States. On May 26 1830, Jackson signed the law of the Indian Removal Act. He proposed a bill to create “an act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories and their removal to the west of the river Mississippi.” This bill was passed by the congress by a thin majority. The bill managed to appease the southern states and the act authorized the president to transfer the Indian tribes from the eastern side of river Mississippi to the western side of it. The territories promised to the Indian tribes on the western side of the river were never intended. The promises were a means to get the bill through congress without portraying a picture of snatching away the lands of the Cherokee tribes. The president had a vested interest in the removal as it was directly linked to appeasing the southern states which contributed in the largest measures to the victory of the president. Enforcing the ruling of John Marshall was actually in the hands of Andrew Jackson. Being the leader of the militia and an evident supporter of the southern states, Jackson never intended to leave the land for the Cherokees. He never intended to do justice to the Cherokee tribes. Even the land promised on the western side of river Mississippi was never intended to be given away by the President. The Cherokees were not willing to part with their land as they saw the Promised Land as a foreign one where there was a lack of natural resources. They questioned the sustainability of the new land with regard to the agricultural ways of the Indians. Besides, the new land was promised to other tribes of Oklahoma and the Cherokee saw possible conflicts with those tribes, if they occupied the western side of river Mississippi. Despite the non-popularity of the law among Cherokees, the Indian removal act made it justifiably legal to remove Indians from their land.2 Cherokee tribes were not willing to comply and they refused to part with their land. This constant refusal to sell their lands to the government of U.S. and Georgia led the governments to seize their lands and Indian property forcing them to move. This greed of land of the Georgian government and the unwillingness of most whites to accept Indians within their society became a problem for the Cherokees. The Cherokee nations decided to call for justice and brought their case in the court. They claimed ‘perfect and original’ right to their land because of the treaties the tribe had signed with the government that guaranteed their rights as sovereign people. They argued for Georgia to protect their rights as the residents of the state and to uphold the promises that were made to them by the past treaties. They wanted the court to protect the lands of the Cherokee nation which had been assured to them by the United States in solemn treaties repeatedly made and were still in force. When the case rose to Supreme Court, the court under the leadership of John Marshall ruled in the favor of the Cherokee nations. The court declared that Georgia had violated Indian’s property rights by evicting them from their lands. The court ruled that Cherokee were not a foreign state but a state of the United States and the pacts made with it must be respected. Jackson had been linked with the removal of the Indian territories for over ten years. With the increasing population and the discovery of gold in the Cherokee lands, the southern states wanted the land of the Indians all the more. This was one of the planks on which President Andrew Jackson was elected. The ruling of the Justice John Marshall was clearly against the popular demands of the white population in the southern states. The ruling was also against the law about removal of Cherokee nations as stated by the Indian Removal Act. This act was brought in by President Andrew Jackson and hence his reluctance to comply with the courts ruling. Andrew Jackson may have been right in refusing to obey the courts order in the form that it was presented because it would have a caused a constitutional crisis. In this case, the court’s ruling was going against a law which was adopted by the congress of the United States. 3 Andrew Jackson believed that the ruling of John Marshall could not be enforced. The responsibility of enforcing the judgment of the courts is upon the executives who control the military of the nation. The president is supreme commander of the armed forces as well as any militia that the government may use to enforce the ruling of the courts. He knew that he could afford to be defiant as the court was not in a position to enforce its own ruling. Jackson had his own goals to achieve which he did not want to be jeopardized by the judiciary, even if it meant contempt of the court and unconstitutionally asked the court to enforce its own judgment. Though Jackson acted to be enforcing the ruling of the court, he never succeeded in achieving the stated results since he never intended to. The government failed utterly in its pledge to enact the policy. All the relocation was carried out under pressure by military escort. Jackson’s intent was clear by a consistent pattern of thoughts across all his messages. In his first inaugural address, Jackson stated that, It will be me sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our government and the feelings of our people.4 Inspite of the concern being shared, Jackson’s idea of relocating the Indians had become a law by his next annual address. Bergland (2000) comments on the counterfactual construction of the removal era descriptions that described the native Indians to have ‘vanished’ where they would be better described as ‘vanquished.’ Andrew Jackson was always a forceful proponent of the Indian Removal. He was instrumental in negotiating nine out of the eleven treaties that divested the Indians of their eastern lands in exchange of their lands in the west. Jackson may have been inclined to acquire the land of the Cherokee nations due to his political compulsions as well as the personal outlook towards them. He had a baggage of past wars fought against the Cherokee nations where he was successful in defeating them. The President may not have been receptive to the idea of losing to the civilized part of Cherokee tribes. Some of the scholars have recorded that Jackson viewed Native Americans as savages and though he did not propose their extermination, he wanted them to be removed even if it meant coercion. This school of thought was in order with the expansionism and open acceptance of racism prevalent in those days. Jackson’s attitude towards the native Indians might have been paternalistic and he claimed to consider them as children in need of guidance and professed the removal policy as beneficial for all Indians. Some Americans saw this as an excuse for the brutal and inhumane behavior. The era was marked with a trail of treaties founded on illegitimate grounds and the resulting wars that caused huge loss of lives and monetary resources. The Seminoles, Creeks, Cherokees and many such Indian tribes were duped by illegitimate treaties and forced to relocate. A school of thought is of the opinion that Andrew Jackson may have supported the Indian Removal policy out of humanitarian desire to protect them from the wrath of white settlers and their state governments who refused to negotiate with them.5 Andrew Jackson is considered to be the supreme exponent of liberty. He propagated minimal intrusion from government bodies into the working of private institutions. Therefore, it is surprising that he also undertook the task of expelling the Native Americans from their homeland. Mayers stated that according to Jackson’s biographer Robert Remini, Jackson’s policy of Indian Removal Act did do some good to the tribes. He argues that however much the tribes lost, they did survive as entities in contrast to the tribes that stayed behind and never had a chance to migrate. 6 Bibliography Andrew Jackson Speaks: Indian Removal,” The eJournal website, Tracking Westward Expansion & The Trail of Tears. Indian Removal Policy Developing and applying the Removal Andrew Jackson addresses Congress, http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/jackson.htm (accessed January 10, 2009). Bergland, Renee.L 2000. .The National Uncanny: Indian Ghosts and American Subjects. UPNE, 2000. Myers, David, and Mayers, David Allan. Dissenting Voices in America’s Rise to Power, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Remini,Robert.V.and Wallace.Anthony F.C. “Was Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policy Motivated by Humanitarian Impulses”[Summary, n.d.]. http://www.austincc.edu/jdikes/Jackson%20Final.pdf (accessed January, 11, 2009). Stewart, M, Stwart.P.The Indian Removal Act:Forced Relocation, Compass Point Books, 2006. Read More