The Indian Removal Act

The Indian Removal Act and Its Justification

The Indian removal act was enacted in May 1880 by the then president of the united states Andrew Jackson. The law allowed the president to command the forceful eviction of the Indians from the lands in the west of Mississippi river. The Indians were to relocate to the president day Oklahoma. However, this state move was not well welcomed by the Indians and was ready to defend their land and maintained that the decision was unfair and not made in due diligence. More so, Jackson’s religious believes made the president notoriously to think that the skilled Americans should only own the land. This article will analyse the decision made by Andrew Jackson to understand why the Act is not justified.

Indian Immigration and Their Way of Life

Indian immigrants date back in the 1790s. The immigrants were brought along by boat captains and acted as servants in their houses. As the exploration continued, scholars were interested in Indians way of life and culture, several travelled to Indian and came back with more of them. More Indians migrated to the Northwest of America and also in Canada. These immigrants were mostly from Punjab. By then the British colony in Punjab was oppressing the citizens by huge taxes and if the owners failed to pay their farms were snatched from them. As a way to escape, most of the young Indian males came to America where they got work, and they could send their savings back to their relatives back in Punjab. More so, the British colony in Indian made it impossible for the Indians to get any beneficial jobs and were only left to do the poor man’s work.

Indian Workers and Land Ownership

Most American employers like Indian workers as they were readily willing to work for more hours with less pay. They were paid close to half what the regular wages were for the European workers. Most of them gained enough money to buy land although the only grounds that were available were those considered not fit for the Americans to use. However, upon occupying the properties, they were able to make good use of them as many of the Indians were from Punjab and agriculture is the primary economic activity there. The rate at which Indians were thriving became alarming, and no more immigrants were allowed. Also, the government made it illegal for any non-American citizen to own land. Despite all the hardships encountered, Indians seemed to be a significant threat to the growth of the united states and the government started evicting them from productive lands. Jackson’s government was no exception as the president stoutly wanted the Mississippi lands occupied by Americans as he believed that they could make better use of the earth.

Resistance and the Trail of Tears

Few tribes heeded to the act, but most remained adamant about their decision to stay behind. Of the remaining tribes was the Cherokees who had believed that they could win if the government tried to evict them. Nevertheless, during the fall and winter when they least expected, they were forcefully driven westwards by the government. This eviction journey was known as the “Trail of Tears” where the tribe lost over forty thousand populaces. The act brought a lot of extensive national debates about the superiority of the Americans over the rest of the races.

Opposition to the Act

Moreover, several Americans came out and openly protested the move claiming that the decisions were inhuman and had no basis. On such activist against the Indian Removal Act was Edward Everett. Everett thought that the determination was ruthless and would have dare ethical and humanitarian consequences and that America was not in any way superior to any other race (Wolfe 2008, pg. 15).

Violation of Treaties and Unfairness

The Indian removal act was wrong as it was against the treaties signed before. The Americans and Indians representative had signed treaties that the two would coexist in peace and trade should have continued lucratively. Despite the agreements made, most of the trades ended up in wars as there were no explicit rules that protected the Indians. More so, the Americans had the thought that the products were produced from American soils and hence it was extortion against them while they were buying. Also, the Indians had developed fear and prejudice toward the Americans and were always ready to defend themselves and their property. The enactment of the act meant that the Indians had lost all their products to the Americans who did little to earn them. Moreover, the state should have respected the afore agreed treaties and tried to resolve the detrimental relationship with the Indians instead of forcefully evicting them.

Injustice and Disregard for Supreme Court Rulings

The act was also inhuman and unfair as the Cherokee tribe had been on the land in Georgia for over one hundred years before their arrival. More so, this tribe had grown to have their own rules and regulation even to the point of having elections. Also, the tribe had very productive lands and an economy that was thriving. This organization depicts the orderly manner of doing things which the American government couldn’t consider. Moreover, in the case of Worcester and Georgia, the supreme court of the united states ruled against Georgia and pronounced that the Cherokee were free to stay in their farms. Nevertheless, the Congress motivated by the president Jackson did not respect the decision, and they sent troops to evict the tribe. The act was detrimental to the class and expectations of the United States as they should stringently follow the constitution and it provincials.

Revenge and Selfish Motives

Again, the decision of forcing the Cherokees to move was somewhat revengeful for their support to the British during the Revolution. However, the time the Indian Removal Act came in to play, it was over sixty years and very few if any of the Cherokee tribe members were alive. Also, it is ridiculous for the government to have judged the Cherokees for siding with the British yet they had shown no intention to uphold existing treaties. Additionally, the fact that the tribes’ men had fought alongside the United States during the 1812 war should have had considerations. In fact, during this war, several of the commissioners were from the Cherokee tribe.

Paternalistic Attitude and Cultural Destruction

The Act was somewhat selfish as the Americans wanted to occupy the productive lands in the east of Mississippi River. The government made it explicit that the tribe had to be willing to stay under the rules of Georgia or else they were to settle in the west of the river which was Indian territory. Making the Cherokees abide by the state laws was somewhat sarcastic as the government knew that the tribes had stout stands about the lands. Also, they believed that the land belonged to their fathers and in no way could they let them have it. Also, the government was offering a total of twenty million dollars for the whole land. The prices were way too low considering that the lands miners had discovered gold in the area. Also, no relative cost could pay for having to travel and start over entirely new lives.

Conclusion

Jackson had a paternalistic attitude towards the Indians and did not think anything good could come from them. In fact, in one of the statements, he described the tribes to be children who only needed help in living their own lives and could be in no way compared to the Americans. More so, he believed that the removal was an advantage to the tribes (Cave 2003, pg. 1342). In the does, Americans thought that their bounds were only limited to the extends by River Mississippi and hence by relocating the Indians West, it was an opportunity for them to form their government and govern themselves. However, this was just a scapegoat for the brutal harassment, brutality, and mistreatment that the Indians received. More so, if the act by the president were such genuine, there would have been no need to have a forceful eviction and a high number of fatalities.

Impact on Indian Cultures

The Indian Eviction Act was also detrimental to the cultures of the Indians. The Indian nation had several tribes that were spread all over the east. Several tribes succumbed to the pressure of the government and left their lands for the west. However, the trail of tears did not include all the Indians. Several of them escaped southwards from their settlements and intermarried with them. Many of them denied their cultural heritage as a survival technique to avoid being on the spotlight. The denials included burying or completely burning family bibles and not using their family names as they could be known. Also, when the tribes lastly were evicted to the western lands, they had a whole new environment with several changed conditions. They had to start over their lives again and hide their cultures due to fear.

Final Verdict

Andrew Jackson despised the Indian tribes actively and did not want them to continue ruling themselves as a sovereign state. However, that was not the only challenge the native India tribes had as the government also had in other cases restricted them from owning lands. Several factors can approve that the Indian act was not made in the right manner nor was it of any beneficial use to the Indians. The Indians had signed several treaties with the Americans to ensure that there was peaceful coexistence. The government went against the constitution by evicting the Indian tribes. Also, the Act was unfair to the Indians as they had inhabited the land for several years.

Inhumane and Unjust

Additionally, the manner of the eviction was cruel. The Act also was somewhat revenged against the Indians as the Americans had in several wars fought against them. Moreover, it was selfish for the government to take the fertile agricultural fields and the goldmines and make the inhibitors have to restart all over again. The eviction also destroyed several Indian cultures. All these accrue to the fact that the Indian Removal Act was not justified in any way and it was against humanity.

Works Cited

Cave, Alfred A. “Abuse of power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian removal act of 1830.” Historian 65.6 (2003): 1330-1353.

Wolfe, Eric A. “Mourning, Melancholia, and Rhetorical Sovereignty in William Apess’s Eulogy on King Philip.” Studies in American Indian Literatures

20.4 (2008): 1-23.