Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal (Effects (More public support…
Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal
Forced migration of about 60,000 natives
More public support
Removal of many indian tribes to west of Mississippi &/or killed
Destruction of native cultures
People could settle more eastward
More fertile land for farming/agriculture
Trail of Tears
Death of 1/4 of the natives forced on the trail, mostly through starvation, disease, and harsh weather.
Indians were thought as inferior to Americans based on racial preferences. (Seen as barbarians/savages as well)
Desire for more land and expansion
Would benefit the development and
security of the southern states
Discovery of gold in Georgia
Arguments for Jackson's Indian Removal
Indian communities were an obstacle prohibiting development presented in eastern North America.
The outcome would create a more secure, expanding, and developing country for US society.
Treaty law was criticized as causing misunderstanding in relations with the Indians.
The way to solve the misunderstanding was to abrogate treaty law and allow the states to dominate Indian relations, as provided for in some earlier US legislation, while the US assisted the states and assumed direction of Indian
Affairs outside the states.
Indians would be compensated
The Indians would not just be thrown out of the United States, they would be relocated and would be able to remain in the southeast.
Arguments Against Jackson's Indian Removal
Others argued against the Indian removal act because they believed that the natives had a right to their land, and that the action of forcing the Indians to move was cruel and harsh to the Natives
Some believed that the Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional. This is because treaties formally signed with the native peoples regarding their right to own land were neglected. In general, most promises made to the natives were ignored, even though treaties were supposed to be upheld by the Constitution
Daniel Webster and Henry Clay opposed the Indian Removal Bill, but its most bitterly outspoken opponent was Davy Crockett
Supreme Court decision in which Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokee had "an unquestionable right" to their lands, but they were "not a foreign state, in the sense of the Constitution" but rather a "domestic, dependent nation" and so could not sue in a United States court over Georgia's voiding their right to self-rule. Was a blow to the Cherokee case, it cast doubt on the constitutionality of Indian Removal Act.
Worchester v. Georgia: 1832 - The Supreme Court decided Georgia had no jurisdiction over Cherokee reservations.