The removal

 

Throughout history, change has only been a matter of time. Change that can be seen as good or bad, it’s in the opinions of everyone who knows history. People of power or those that are in reality those that want change in the world are what make up history, as well as events that occur because of people and what they want. History and events are what define our lives now, and make us think what if something had not happened.

 

One man found his power of wanting change when he became the 7^th president of America, Andrew Jackson. He wanted so badly to change America for the better, his policies following in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson. Wanting education for the people, a new language and writing, to be totally different from anything British.  Jackson although a revolutionist of change also was a tyrant, a man who took matters in his own hands to change. Many of his idea’s failed, while others were slightly successful. Andrew Jackson was a forceful proponent of Indian removal, with a hunger for land so as to expand. Being a ruthless man, he thought up the Indian removal act, a policy of the government of the United States that sought to relocate American Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river.

 

 He wanted to move the "Five Civilized Tribes" the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee who still living east of the Mississippi, while others had already moved to the Indian Territory. The tribes were called "civilized" because many tribesmen had adopted various aspects of European-American culture, including Christianity. The Cherokees the most civilized in the ways of American culture had a system of writing their own language, developed by Sequoyah, and published a newspaper in Cherokee and English. Yet Jackson's attitude toward Native Americans was paternalistic and patronizing -- he described them as children in need of guidance. And believed the removal policy was beneficial to the Indians.

 

Many with their hunger for money, eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory agreed with Jackson, while others believed that the presence of the tribes was a threat to peace and security, based on previous wars waged between the United States and Native Americans, some of whom had been armed by enemies of the United States, such as Great Britain and Spain. But some Americans saw this as an excuse for a brutal and inhumane course of action, and protested loudly against removal.

 

In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act and President Jackson signed it into law. As a result, the five tribes were moved in the new Indian Territory in Oklahoma and parts of Kansas. Some Indians eluded removal, while those who lived on separately owned land were not subject to removal. Those who stayed behind eventually formed tribal groups including the Eastern Band Cherokee, based in North Carolina.

 

In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma. The Cherokee people called this journey the "Trail of Tears," because of its devastating effects. The migrants faced hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced march. Over 4,000 out of 15,000 of the Cherokees died. All these deaths because of the greed of the people for land and money.

 

Could the Indian removal have been prevented probably, and if it had been what would have happened in America. Could the Indian removal act be genocide committed by the US or was it necessary? The United States could not expand, could not have cities, railroads, mines, etc. if people couldn't buy the land. So if settlements, canals, farms, cities, etc were going to be built, this required that the Indians be moved off the land. Although more has been done with the land in the 300 years since the first white settlers came here, than was done with it in the previous 50,000 years the Indians had it. American farmer produced a lot more food off of an acre of the Great Plains than a Native American hunter/gatherer could.

 

            We however do not know if Native Americans could have been progressive with change, in the beginning the Indians welcomed us, helped us throughout time, even with their differences. Americans and Indians in the end could have been civil and worked together. The five Indian nations had made earlier attempts at resistance; many of their strategies were non-violent. One method was to adopt Anglo-American practices such as large-scale farming, Western education, and slave-holding. This earned the nations the designation of the "Five Civilized Tribes." They adopted this policy of adjustment in an attempt to coexist with settlers and ward off hostility. But it only made whites jealous and resentful. Instead the Native American had to deal with the 'white' or European settlers in long litany of broken promises, lies, deceit and bigotry.  The removal of Native Americans from their lands by the Indian Removal Act of 1830 violated their political, legal, and human rights. Taking away freedom and land without consent from Native Americans was a violation of their political rights. Native Americans had no freedom. The Indians tried to keep their land as well as try to make white settlers happy, one attempt involved ceding portions of their land to the United States but to also retaining control over at least part of their territory, or of the new territory they received in exchange. Some Indian nations simply refused to leave their land such as the Creeks and the Seminoles who even went as far as to wage war to protect their territory. The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. They sought protection from land-hungry white settlers, who continually harassed them by stealing their livestock, burning their towns, and squatting on their land. When the removal was final, Jackson did not even think to give the Indians time to be ready for the move, they were not allowed time to gather their belongings, and as they left, whites looted their homes. The Removal act is a genocide not only because of the deaths that occurred in the process of removing the Indians, it is also a genocide because Jackson killed off the trust and ways of the Indians, killing off dreams and the ways of life for the Indians, he had no right to do what he did, even if in the end the U.S expanded for the better. Andrew Jackson to this day is a hated figure to many Native American tribes, mainly due to the Seminole Wars and the "Trail of Tears'. Jackson produced a cold hearted part of history when it came to removing the Indians. Native Americans were moved off their land to other lands, such as the Black Hills of South Dakota, later the discovery of Gold caused an inrush of greedy people then drove Natives off that land. So many of the reservations you seen now are on land that was not valued too highly for much of anything.

 

            In the end, history still is being written, day after day we see history through our eyes. People today want change, and are not scared how to get it. Our history of today may be a black hearted as the past like the removal act. It is us who have to see something is gravely wrong so as to fix it. Andrew Jackson did not at all see the Removal as wrong so he never thought to fix the problem because he thought the removal was fixing the problem. We all need to open our eyes and see what truth is wrong and right. Even if change for the better comes of something, doesn’t always mean its right

Reviews

[Silent Kim aka mizmetap..]

Well written, clear and easy to understand. I'm not a history buff so I learned a little something. However change is a fact of life. The Indians repected the land. I think had they been allowed to keep their land, we would not be suffering today for lack of resources. The earth may have been preserved and we whouldn't have the green people trying to save the earth for the future.