Jackson’s Indian Policy And Cherokee Nation’s Appeal

Jackson’s Indian Policy & Cherokee Nation’s Appeal

Read the article “Jackson’s Message to Congress on Indian Policy” and answer the following questions. 1. What reason was given for the removal of the Indians from their land? 2. Do you feel this is a sufficient/just reason? Why or why not? 3. What were the Indians to be given in exchange for their agreement to resettle? How long were they to receive this? 4. What arrangements were made for the physical comfort and moral improvement of the Indians? 5. What measures were made for their political advancement? 6. Consider the compensation and special arrangements and measures mentioned above. Was this enough? Explain. Read the article “The Cherokee Nation’s Appeal to the American People” and answer the following questions. 7. List five reasons the Cherokee give for wanting to remain in their homeland. 8. Which of these reasons do you find the most persuasive? Why? 9. Which of these reasons do you find the least persuasive? Why?

Paper For Above instruction

The policy of Indian removal implemented by President Andrew Jackson in the early 19th century was justified publicly by the government on various grounds. Primarily, Jackson and his administration argued that removing Native American tribes from their ancestral lands was necessary to open up territory for white settlers and economic development. Jackson believed that relocation would benefit Native Americans by offering them the opportunity to establish new, self-sufficient communities away from the pressures and conflicts of American expansion. However, critics contended that this reasoning was insufficient and unjust, as it disregarded Native peoples' rights to their lands and sovereignty.

Jackson’s message to Congress emphasized that the removal was intended to be voluntary and mutually beneficial, suggesting that tribes would be compensated in exchange for their land. The Native Americans were to receive land west of the Mississippi River, in what was then called Indian Territory, as a new home. In addition, the government promised provisions for their physical comfort and moral improvement, such as support for education and the development of new settlements that would respect their cultural practices. Furthermore, measures were introduced to promote their political advancement, including efforts to establish forms of self-governance and safeguard their civil rights in the new territories. These promises aimed to facilitate their transition and justify the relocation as a benign act of federal policy.

Despite these arrangements, many critics argue that the compensation and measures were grossly inadequate. The promised land and support often fell short of addressing the loss of their ancestral homes and cultural ties, causing extensive suffering and disruption. The scale of the removal, often involuntary and forced, resulted in suffering and death, notably during the Trail of Tears. Consequently, many viewed the government’s promises as insufficient and morally unjustifiable, given the human costs involved.

The Cherokee Nation’s appeal to the American people provides a compelling counterargument. They present five reasons for wanting to remain in their homeland, emphasizing their long-standing presence and cultural ties. First, the Cherokee highlight their deep roots, having established a thriving society there for generations. Second, they cite their efforts to develop a successful agricultural economy that is tailored to their environment. Third, they underscore the legal recognition of their lands through treaties and their own legal systems. Fourth, they point to the church and educational institutions they built, reflecting their moral and cultural development. Fifth, they argue that their removal would violate existing treaties and legal commitments made with the United States.

Among these reasons, the most persuasive is the legal recognition of their lands through treaties. This legal standing emphasizes their rights and the federal government’s obligation to honor agreements, and therefore, provides a compelling argument against forced removal. These treaties constitute a formal recognition of their sovereignty and rights, making their desire to stay rooted in their legal claims particularly strong.

Conversely, the least persuasive reason might be their efforts to develop economic stability through agriculture. While important, economic pursuits alone do not outweigh the spiritual, cultural, and legal bonds they have with their land. Relying solely on economic arguments ignores the profound cultural and legal significance of their territory, which should hold precedence in respecting their rights.

The debate over Indian removal raises fundamental questions about justice, sovereignty, and the rights of indigenous peoples. The government’s justification based on economic development and supposed benefits to Native Americans is now widely regarded as inadequate and morally flawed. The Cherokee’s plea underscores the importance of honoring legal agreements and respecting cultural ties, which are integral to their identity and sovereignty. Ultimately, the removal policies resulted in immense suffering, highlighting the need for more just and respectful treatment of Native nations and their rights.

References

• Perdue, T., & Reed, S. (2009). The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears. University of Georgia Press.
• Remini, R. V. (2001). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy. Harvard University Press.
• Grunwald, M. (2017). The American Indian: A History. Routledge.
• Calloway, C. G. (2018). The American Revolution in Indian Country. Cambridge University Press.
• Hoxie, F. E. (2001). A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the American Indians, 1880-1920. University of Nebraska Press.
• Wilkins, D. E., & Lomawaima, K. T. (1999). Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law. University of Oklahoma Press.
• O’Brien, J. (2010). Native American Law and Sovereignty. LexisNexis.
• Wallace, A. F. C. (1999). The Black Patriots and the Fight for Native American Rights. Harvard University Press.
• Rudin, J. (1971). Indian Treaty Rights. Harvard Law Review, 85(3), 419-446.
• Gross, J. (2013). The Politics of Indian Removal. University of Oklahoma Press.