Indian Removal Act

Indian Removal Analytical Essay In America: A Narrative History, Tindall and Shi spend little time talking about Jackson’s Indian policy and The Trail of Tears. Jackson’s Indian Policy paints Jackson as a man who hates the Indians and briefly talks about the Black Hawk War and a couple minor battles between the whites and Indians. It bluntly states that Indian Removal was simply â€Å"†¦moving all of [the Indians] into the plains west of the Mississippi River, to the Great American Desert†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Tindall and Shi 304). In the section dedicated to The Trail of Tears, Tindall and Shi discuss the policy in Georgia towards the Indians, bringing up a few court cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, neither of which did anything to help the Indians. After explaining the court cases, Tindall and Shi spend a segment talking about how the Indians gave up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land west of the Mississippi, $5 million, and money for transportation. They do lightly address the â€Å"†¦grueling journey that killed many of the exiles† known as The Trail of Tears. Like most books though, America: A Narrative History uses a biased point of view and short segments about the subject to get its point across. Works Cited: Heidler, David, and Jeanne Heidler. Indian Removal. Ed. Lory Frenkel. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print. Tindall, George, and David Shi. America: A Narrative History. Ed. Jon Durbin. 8th ed. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print. Indian Removal Act Indian Removal Analytical Essay In America: A Narrative History, Tindall and Shi spend little time talking about Jackson’s Indian policy and The Trail of Tears. Jackson’s Indian Policy paints Jackson as a man who hates the Indians and briefly talks about the Black Hawk War and a couple minor battles between the whites and Indians. It bluntly states that Indian Removal was simply â€Å"†¦moving all of [the Indians] into the plains west of the Mississippi River, to the Great American Desert†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Tindall and Shi 304). In the section dedicated to The Trail of Tears, Tindall and Shi discuss the policy in Georgia towards the Indians, bringing up a few court cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, neither of which did anything to help the Indians. After explaining the court cases, Tindall and Shi spend a segment talking about how the Indians gave up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land west of the Mississippi, $5 million, and money for transportation. They do lightly address the â€Å"†¦grueling journey that killed many of the exiles† known as The Trail of Tears. Like most books though, America: A Narrative History uses a biased point of view and short segments about the subject to get its point across. Works Cited: Heidler, David, and Jeanne Heidler. Indian Removal. Ed. Lory Frenkel. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print. Tindall, George, and David Shi. America: A Narrative History. Ed. Jon Durbin. 8th ed. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print. Indian Removal Act Indian Removal Analytical Essay In America: A Narrative History, Tindall and Shi spend little time talking about Jackson’s Indian policy and The Trail of Tears. Jackson’s Indian Policy paints Jackson as a man who hates the Indians and briefly talks about the Black Hawk War and a couple minor battles between the whites and Indians. It bluntly states that Indian Removal was simply â€Å"†¦moving all of [the Indians] into the plains west of the Mississippi River, to the Great American Desert†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Tindall and Shi 304). In the section dedicated to The Trail of Tears, Tindall and Shi discuss the policy in Georgia towards the Indians, bringing up a few court cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, neither of which did anything to help the Indians. After explaining the court cases, Tindall and Shi spend a segment talking about how the Indians gave up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land west of the Mississippi, $5 million, and money for transportation. They do lightly address the â€Å"†¦grueling journey that killed many of the exiles† known as The Trail of Tears. Like most books though, America: A Narrative History uses a biased point of view and short segments about the subject to get its point across. Works Cited: Heidler, David, and Jeanne Heidler. Indian Removal. Ed. Lory Frenkel. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print. Tindall, George, and David Shi. America: A Narrative History. Ed. Jon Durbin. 8th ed. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print. Indian Removal Act The Indian Removal Act The U. S got the Louisiana Territory in 1803. Then during his presidency, Andrew Jackson got Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act. This act stated that all Indians that wished to follow their own tradition must move to the Indian Territory where they would have more than 70,000 square miles of free land. When this act was passed, all Indians but the Cherokee signed the Treaty of Echota agreeing to move. Jackson thought it was necessary to take action against them to enforce the law.But the question is was the U. S justified in passing the Indian Removal Act forcing all Indians to move. I say no, the U. S was not justified in passing the act. The Indians have had a right to this land way before we did. Even though we are settled here, all this land originally the Indians’ and with this act, we are kicking them off their own land. John Marshall stated, â€Å"The Choctaw and Creek were treated horrendously when they moved to the Indian Territory.Their h orses were stolen and hundreds died for malnutrition. † (Document 2). The Choctaw and the Creek were treated really badly. They suffered a lot and some of them even died. Honestly, the Cherokee are being smart in not moving to the Indian Territory because they know that they will be treated the same way. The very little trust that the Cherokees had in us is now lost. Mr. Marshall also states, â€Å"In the case of Worchester vs. Georgia (1832), the U.S Supreme court ruled that the state of Georgia could not force the Cherokee off their land. † (Document 2). President Jackson is going against the law by supporting the Indian Removal Act. This does not show good presidency. He’s taking hasty decisions because of his bad past with the Indians. The Cherokees are not at fault. If they want to follow their traditions and still live in Georgia, fine. I don’t see why any American has an objection with the Indians staying there not bothering us and we not bothering them.They have a right to this land. Let them have the freedom. The Cherokee should be allowed to stay in Georgia. It’s their land and they had a right to it even before we did. But think about it. How would you feel if you were told that you had only two choices: one, if you wanted to stay in your current location, you have to give up all your traditions and two, you have to move somewhere else if you wanted to follow your traditions? Put yourself in the shoes of the Cherokee. What would you do?