Andrew Jackson's removal policy was not beneficial to the Indians; the only benefactors were the states like Georgia, who wanted more land. The Indians had originally been protected by treaties with Jackson and the government, however, all these treaties and promises were broken, setting the example to the states that Indians were not equal and did not share simple rights. Indian culture made it painful for them to leave the graves of their fathers, therefore, when the states forced them out with threats of starvation and destruction, it sparked violence. Jackson sent threats to the tribes and even said that if they did not agree they would lose the right of self- government. Jackson brought damage to both the Indian nation and states rights.
I agree that Georgie was the only thing that benefited from the Indian Removal Act by aquiring the land that the Indians had been living on. I also agree that all of the previous treaties that had been made with Indians had been broken when Jackson kicked them off of their land.
I agree that it was terrible and harsh to force the Indians to move, however if Jackson had permitted the indians to stay they would all have been killed by angry Americans. The treaties would not have had any effect on the angry citizens. Perhaps if Jackson had better control of the Georgians, this wouldnt have been a problem, but becasue their forces were so large, the indians were not safe there anymore.
I agree that it was a terrible move also, but it could be argued that the Indians being pushed out was going to happen eventually anyway. Jackson started what others would continue with dealing with the Indians.
Andrew Jackson's removal policy was not beneficial to the Native Americans at all. Many of the forced Indians were becoming civilized and assimilating into American way of life, but instead they were forced to the Oklahoma area to share land with other Indians. They were taken from their natural environment and forced to live with some of their enemies. The Indian removal set the stage for the continued act of Americans dishonoring treaties and kicking the Native Americans off their land and forcing them farther away and into smaller denser land. Although Jackson did not hate the Indians, he made a bad decision to remove the Indians from their land in the East. In that day in age land was everything, and money always is a factor. Jackson set the precedent by removing the Indians, but it could be argued it was inevitable that the Indians had to go eventually.
I agree with what you said about Jackson not hating the Indians but he made a bad decision by removing the Indians from their land. I also agree that it was inevitable of the removal of the Indians and that they would have had to leave at some point.
I agree with your last statement about the removal being inevitable. Either the indains would eventually have been forced to move or the Americans would have exterminated them before they had a chance to move.
I agree that the Indians would have eventually been pushed west, if only because the population would get too dense, and the Indians preferred the more secluded places.
I agree with your argument that the natives being forced to live with their enemies was an example to the colonies that treaties and promises made with the natives did not hold the same level of importance. I also think that this led to dehumanization of the native tribes, which later allowed them to be pushed onto smaller areas of land with hardly any thought from the states. However, I disagree that it was inevitable that the Indians would be moved. Earlier, people hired the natives as babysitters; now, the natives were taking white customs and culture as their own, so it is likely that over time they would have been absorbed into the states if not for this act that dehumanized and alienated them from the states.
Andrew Jackson's removal policy was not beneficial to the Native Americans because it forced the Native Americans to start a whole new life somehwere else. The five civilized tribes were all forced to pack up and leave the land that they knew as their home and move to the other side of the Mississippi. This journey was known as the Trail of Tears, on this journey a lot of Indians died and never made it to their new home. The Indians once they reached their new homes had to start from scratch building new homes and finding land to grow crops on. This event showed that the Americans could not be trusted with keeping their word on any treaty they made with anybody. However this did not stop people from wanting to get rid of the Native Americans that had rights to the land they were living on.
I really like your statement, "This event showed that the Americans could not be trusted with keeping their word on any treaty they made with anybody." Although, I'm all for America and love being American, the statement you made regarding the Indian Removal Act of 1830 really is true. It is totally true that America isn't very trustworthy if they can completely change their "agreement" with the Indians like that. If I was the leader of a country that made any sort of agreement with America up until 1830, I would totally be questioning it after hearing of this "back-stabbing" towards the Native Americans.
I agree that the Trail of Tears was a direct result of the natives’ removal from their homelands. People may say it was a sad result from cold and sickness, but I believe it was also an affect from being torn from their ancestors’ resting place. Natives were very spiritual, and even though they absorbed many white customs, they still believed that they must remain near their ancestors. If you have ever tried to transplant an old tree, no matter how strong it is, it will always die. The natives were the same way, they could not live away from their homes; they lost hope and withered away on the trail.
1. Andrew Jackson’s removal policy ended up being extremely negative for the southeastern Indian tribes. Jackson guaranteed items to the Indians that were not followed through upon and his forcing those people to leave their homes and land caused the death of many people. As Alfred A. Cave observes in his article, “Jackson regarded state harassment of Indians as a useful means of encouraging removal.” This regard is terrible and was a great negative effect on the Indians. This point also shows the negative reflections on America and the standards of her citizens – pretty low in that instance. Also, Indians were shot and killed for defending themselves and were not given any sort of rights. Because of Jackson’s removal policy, the Indians were hurt in many ways, including physically and morally. I am appalled with the conduct of this “Indian Removal Policy”. America upheld the standards of freedom and then the president himself took the freedom of the Indians and forced them to be uprooted and removed, some being killed along the way. Jackson’s policy on removing Indians from the Georgia area was extremely negative for the Indians and also for America herself.
I, too, am very much so appalled by the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It just seems so unfair to the Indians, WHO WERE IN AMERICA BEFORE IT WAS EVEN NAMED AMERICA, that they should be forcefully led out of their homes onto new territory close to their enemy tribes. It seems hypocritical of America (at the time, of course) to restrict the freedom of actual Americans, as the US was established to grant this so called "freedom." I completely agree with your stance on this topic.
I like how you bring up the point of the president not giving the Indians their own freedom, while touting more freedom for the rest of American citizens.
Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policy did not benefit Native Americans. This policy interrupted the Indians' way of life that they were used to and forced them to pack up their belongings and get out of the white peoples' way. The Trail of Tears that resulted from this policy did not help preserve the Indians' heritage and culture as hundreds of Indians died in the process of migrating. Once the Indians were in the "Indian Territory," if they even made it that far, were then forced to establish new living quarters and get comfortable in the new area they were inhabiting. The intentions were to "permanently" free the Indians of any encounters with the whites that may lead into war, but this didn't last very long due to the Americans' rapid westward expansion. This proves that Jackson's Indian Removal Policy was not beneficial to the Native Americans in the long-run OR in the "short-run," but good try, 1820s/1830s American legislature!
I agree with your view on this issue. Bringing up the Trail of Tears is a good example of how the Indian Removal Policy didn't benefit the Native Americans.
It was not beneficial in the short or long run for the Indians, but was beneficial in the short run for the Americans. Indians were on very valuable land that the Georgians wanted so desperately.
The Indian Relocation Act that Andrew Jackson enacted wasn't beneficial to the Indians. The Indians were forced to leave their homes and move, many dying along the way. The Five Tribes were already adhering to many of the ways of white American settlers, but were forced to leave anyway. Indians were killed if they refused to leave. The Act was not authorized to relocate the Indians, or break the treaties set in place on earlier dates giving Indians land to hunt and live on. The Act stated “This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land.”, but Jackson till made the Indians move anyway, proving he wasn’t even following the law or Constitution.
I agree with the yes author. Though the Andrew Jacksons policy held negative consequenses for the native americans, this author presents an opinion that many people never get the chance to hear. He explains what ultimately triggered the need for indian removal, which is a conflict in Georgia that threatens the indians safety. Also, the essay explains how Jacksons intentions really were good; he wanted the indians to have rights and their own land. Jackson believed that the whites wouldnt push much further west and the indians would be free to inhabit the western part of the country without the desterbance and threat of the whites. Jacksons intent was not to harm the indians or cause suffering; he simply wanted to protect the indians from genocide/extermination, which is exactly what would have happened in Georgia because the native americans would never have stood a chance against the tecnologically advanced Americans.
While I disagree on your standpoint in this issue, I really like the points that you bring up. I especially think that saying, "this author presents an opinion that many people never get the chance to hear," was definitely beneficial to your post.
I understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion, but I am still convinced that Jackson's policy were an ultimate negative thing for the Indians. The way you stated your argument was valid, but the arguments to the contrary outshine your point, in my opinon. Thanks for your view point!
Andrew Jackson put in place the "Removal" Policy that was not at all benifitial to the Indians. Though this could not have been prevented it is still very sad. Most of the Indians never made it to the place they were being forced to go to. Jackson had said (and I quote) "protected in their persons and property." I feel that Indains gained nothing from this and the blood shed was absolutely inevitibul
I agree with the no author. Jackson lied and went against what he had promised to do. One example was how he said that any Indians who chose not to leave would be protected by the federal Government. In reality, he did nothing to help those who chose to stay. Jackson also lied when he said that the move would be voluntary. He only said this to gain needed votes to get the Removal Acts passed. Jackson was also lying when he said, " This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers." Later, he contradicted himself when he stated, "It will be painful for them to leave the graves of their forefathers, but what do they do more than our ancestors did or our children are now doing?" He also said, "I have used all the persuasive means in my power, I have exonerated the nation character from all imputations, and now leave the poor deluded Creeks and Cherokees to their fate, and their annihilation, which their wicked advisers has [sic] induced." He blamed the Indians' problems on themselves, even though, he had the power to help them and was the real cause of their pain. Andrew Jackson, pretty much, back-stabbed the Indians.
Your point that states, "One example was how he said that any Indians who chose not to leave would be protected by the federal government. In reality, he did nothing to help those who chose to stay" is something i completely agree with. His false promises and cruel treatment of the Indians is the reason Jackson's policies were a negative effect on the Indians. Thanks for sharing!
In the book Taking Sides (15th edition) by Larry Madaras and Janes M. SoRelle, the issue number 9, I agree with the No author, Alfred A. Cave. Alfred says that Andrew Jackson abused his power, and forced the Indians to move when moving was supposed to be an option. By pushing the NATIVE Americans off their chosen land, were we not taking away freedom from the people that were on the continent, before anyone from the old world even knew about America? Pushing people off the land, taking their freedom, and treating them terrible in general, seems to be fairly hypocritical, for what the United States stood for when George Washington became president. Thus Andrew Jackson’s removal policy did not benefit the Native Americans.
you make an excellent point that Jackson's forced removal of the indians was against everything that America had stood for since before settlers came from the east. the revolutionary war was fought for the freedom of the colonies and the new nations ideals were defined by Washington, as you pointed out. I say you make a very solid arguement in that no matter Jackson's motive, it was an abuse of his power to force the removal of the native americans.
Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policies did not benefit the Native Americans. Many Indian civilizations had complied to the dictations of white culture, and it was unnecessary to transport them from their lands. Had the Indian's resisted developing a new government system, educational system, or other “civilized” practices, this transplantation would have been much more justified. Instead, Jackson’s policies, even though they were presented to be voluntary, mandated the transplantation of the Indians to West of the Mississippi. Here, warring tribes were forced to cohabitate with one another, clearly a detrimental effect of Jackson’s policies. These policies disrupted the natural Indian way of life had long lasting negative impacts on Native American culture.
I think that Andrew Jackson was abusing his power with his Indian Removal act of 1830. Jackson was an Indian fighter before becoming an important political player, so many of his feelings and motives were against the Indians in anything, and for anything to help the advancement of American settlers. Were Jackson’s actions not like those of the English government when they sent the debtors and poor off to America to see if they would survive in such a foreign land with little to no help from the mother country? There is a saying, that history will repeat itself until we realize that cycle and choose to break it. The Indians were moved to a foreign land with barely any support from the national government, enduring forced march under severe conditions that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Similarly, the pilgrims traveled across a foreign sea, with limited supplies and no idea where they would end up, and survived with little or no help from England.
Andrew Jackson's removal policy was not beneficial to the Indians; the only benefactors were the states like Georgia, who wanted more land. The Indians had originally been protected by treaties with Jackson and the government, however, all these treaties and promises were broken, setting the example to the states that Indians were not equal and did not share simple rights. Indian culture made it painful for them to leave the graves of their fathers, therefore, when the states forced them out with threats of starvation and destruction, it sparked violence. Jackson sent threats to the tribes and even said that if they did not agree they would lose the right of self- government. Jackson brought damage to both the Indian nation and states rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Georgie was the only thing that benefited from the Indian Removal Act by aquiring the land that the Indians had been living on. I also agree that all of the previous treaties that had been made with Indians had been broken when Jackson kicked them off of their land.
DeleteI agree that it was terrible and harsh to force the Indians to move, however if Jackson had permitted the indians to stay they would all have been killed by angry Americans. The treaties would not have had any effect on the angry citizens. Perhaps if Jackson had better control of the Georgians, this wouldnt have been a problem, but becasue their forces were so large, the indians were not safe there anymore.
DeleteI agree that it was a terrible move also, but it could be argued that the Indians being pushed out was going to happen eventually anyway. Jackson started what others would continue with dealing with the Indians.
DeleteI like how you brought up the people who wanted more land, but the Indians, like Calvin stated, would have been pushed out later more than likely.
DeleteAndrew Jackson's removal policy was not beneficial to the Native Americans at all. Many of the forced Indians were becoming civilized and assimilating into American way of life, but instead they were forced to the Oklahoma area to share land with other Indians. They were taken from their natural environment and forced to live with some of their enemies. The Indian removal set the stage for the continued act of Americans dishonoring treaties and kicking the Native Americans off their land and forcing them farther away and into smaller denser land. Although Jackson did not hate the Indians, he made a bad decision to remove the Indians from their land in the East. In that day in age land was everything, and money always is a factor. Jackson set the precedent by removing the Indians, but it could be argued it was inevitable that the Indians had to go eventually.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about Jackson not hating the Indians but he made a bad decision by removing the Indians from their land. I also agree that it was inevitable of the removal of the Indians and that they would have had to leave at some point.
DeleteI agree with your last statement about the removal being inevitable. Either the indains would eventually have been forced to move or the Americans would have exterminated them before they had a chance to move.
DeleteI Have to agree. There was absolutely no way to avoid to avoid the Indians being pushed off their land into the western teritory.
DeleteI agree that the Indians would have eventually been pushed west, if only because the population would get too dense, and the Indians preferred the more secluded places.
DeleteI agree with your argument that the natives being forced to live with their enemies was an example to the colonies that treaties and promises made with the natives did not hold the same level of importance. I also think that this led to dehumanization of the native tribes, which later allowed them to be pushed onto smaller areas of land with hardly any thought from the states. However, I disagree that it was inevitable that the Indians would be moved. Earlier, people hired the natives as babysitters; now, the natives were taking white customs and culture as their own, so it is likely that over time they would have been absorbed into the states if not for this act that dehumanized and alienated them from the states.
DeleteAndrew Jackson's removal policy was not beneficial to the Native Americans because it forced the Native Americans to start a whole new life somehwere else. The five civilized tribes were all forced to pack up and leave the land that they knew as their home and move to the other side of the Mississippi. This journey was known as the Trail of Tears, on this journey a lot of Indians died and never made it to their new home. The Indians once they reached their new homes had to start from scratch building new homes and finding land to grow crops on. This event showed that the Americans could not be trusted with keeping their word on any treaty they made with anybody. However this did not stop people from wanting to get rid of the Native Americans that had rights to the land they were living on.
ReplyDeleteI really like your statement, "This event showed that the Americans could not be trusted with keeping their word on any treaty they made with anybody." Although, I'm all for America and love being American, the statement you made regarding the Indian Removal Act of 1830 really is true. It is totally true that America isn't very trustworthy if they can completely change their "agreement" with the Indians like that. If I was the leader of a country that made any sort of agreement with America up until 1830, I would totally be questioning it after hearing of this "back-stabbing" towards the Native Americans.
DeleteI am glad you highlighted that many of the Indians never made it to their final destinantion, and what the life was like after the Trial of Tears
DeleteI agree that the Trail of Tears was a direct result of the natives’ removal from their homelands. People may say it was a sad result from cold and sickness, but I believe it was also an affect from being torn from their ancestors’ resting place. Natives were very spiritual, and even though they absorbed many white customs, they still believed that they must remain near their ancestors. If you have ever tried to transplant an old tree, no matter how strong it is, it will always die. The natives were the same way, they could not live away from their homes; they lost hope and withered away on the trail.
Delete1. Andrew Jackson’s removal policy ended up being extremely negative for the southeastern Indian tribes. Jackson guaranteed items to the Indians that were not followed through upon and his forcing those people to leave their homes and land caused the death of many people. As Alfred A. Cave observes in his article, “Jackson regarded state harassment of Indians as a useful means of encouraging removal.” This regard is terrible and was a great negative effect on the Indians. This point also shows the negative reflections on America and the standards of her citizens – pretty low in that instance. Also, Indians were shot and killed for defending themselves and were not given any sort of rights. Because of Jackson’s removal policy, the Indians were hurt in many ways, including physically and morally. I am appalled with the conduct of this “Indian Removal Policy”. America upheld the standards of freedom and then the president himself took the freedom of the Indians and forced them to be uprooted and removed, some being killed along the way. Jackson’s policy on removing Indians from the Georgia area was extremely negative for the Indians and also for America herself.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am very much so appalled by the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It just seems so unfair to the Indians, WHO WERE IN AMERICA BEFORE IT WAS EVEN NAMED AMERICA, that they should be forcefully led out of their homes onto new territory close to their enemy tribes. It seems hypocritical of America (at the time, of course) to restrict the freedom of actual Americans, as the US was established to grant this so called "freedom." I completely agree with your stance on this topic.
DeleteI like how you bring up the point of the president not giving the Indians their own freedom, while touting more freedom for the rest of American citizens.
DeleteAndrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policy did not benefit Native Americans. This policy interrupted the Indians' way of life that they were used to and forced them to pack up their belongings and get out of the white peoples' way. The Trail of Tears that resulted from this policy did not help preserve the Indians' heritage and culture as hundreds of Indians died in the process of migrating. Once the Indians were in the "Indian Territory," if they even made it that far, were then forced to establish new living quarters and get comfortable in the new area they were inhabiting. The intentions were to "permanently" free the Indians of any encounters with the whites that may lead into war, but this didn't last very long due to the Americans' rapid westward expansion. This proves that Jackson's Indian Removal Policy was not beneficial to the Native Americans in the long-run OR in the "short-run," but good try, 1820s/1830s American legislature!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on this issue. Bringing up the Trail of Tears is a good example of how the Indian Removal Policy didn't benefit the Native Americans.
DeleteIt was not beneficial in the short or long run for the Indians, but was beneficial in the short run for the Americans. Indians were on very valuable land that the Georgians wanted so desperately.
DeleteThe Indian Relocation Act that Andrew Jackson enacted wasn't beneficial to the Indians. The Indians were forced to leave their homes and move, many dying along the way. The Five Tribes were already adhering to many of the ways of white American settlers, but were forced to leave anyway. Indians were killed if they refused to leave. The Act was not authorized to relocate the Indians, or break the treaties set in place on earlier dates giving Indians land to hunt and live on. The Act stated “This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land.”, but Jackson till made the Indians move anyway, proving he wasn’t even following the law or Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI like the way that you used the law and constitution to say that the Indians being forced to move was not beneficial to the Indians.
DeleteI agree with the yes author. Though the Andrew Jacksons policy held negative consequenses for the native americans, this author presents an opinion that many people never get the chance to hear. He explains what ultimately triggered the need for indian removal, which is a conflict in Georgia that threatens the indians safety. Also, the essay explains how Jacksons intentions really were good; he wanted the indians to have rights and their own land. Jackson believed that the whites wouldnt push much further west and the indians would be free to inhabit the western part of the country without the desterbance and threat of the whites. Jacksons intent was not to harm the indians or cause suffering; he simply wanted to protect the indians from genocide/extermination, which is exactly what would have happened in Georgia because the native americans would never have stood a chance against the tecnologically advanced Americans.
ReplyDeleteWhile I disagree on your standpoint in this issue, I really like the points that you bring up. I especially think that saying, "this author presents an opinion that many people never get the chance to hear," was definitely beneficial to your post.
DeleteI understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion, but I am still convinced that Jackson's policy were an ultimate negative thing for the Indians. The way you stated your argument was valid, but the arguments to the contrary outshine your point, in my opinon. Thanks for your view point!
DeleteAndrew Jackson put in place the "Removal" Policy that was not at all benifitial to the Indians. Though this could not have been prevented it is still very sad. Most of the Indians never made it to the place they were being forced to go to. Jackson had said (and I quote) "protected in their persons and property." I feel that Indains gained nothing from this and the blood shed was absolutely inevitibul
ReplyDeleteI agree with the no author. Jackson lied and went against what he had promised to do. One example was how he said that any Indians who chose not to leave would be protected by the federal Government. In reality, he did nothing to help those who chose to stay. Jackson also lied when he said that the move would be voluntary. He only said this to gain needed votes to get the Removal Acts passed. Jackson was also lying when he said, " This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers." Later, he contradicted himself when he stated, "It will be painful for them to leave the graves of their forefathers, but what do they do more than our ancestors did or our children are now doing?" He also said, "I have used all the persuasive means in my power, I have exonerated the nation character from all imputations, and now leave the poor deluded Creeks and Cherokees to their fate, and their annihilation, which their wicked advisers has [sic] induced." He blamed the Indians' problems on themselves, even though, he had the power to help them and was the real cause of their pain. Andrew Jackson, pretty much, back-stabbed the Indians.
ReplyDeleteYour point that states, "One example was how he said that any Indians who chose not to leave would be protected by the federal government. In reality, he did nothing to help those who chose to stay" is something i completely agree with. His false promises and cruel treatment of the Indians is the reason Jackson's policies were a negative effect on the Indians. Thanks for sharing!
DeleteIn the book Taking Sides (15th edition) by Larry Madaras and Janes M. SoRelle, the issue number 9, I agree with the No author, Alfred A. Cave. Alfred says that Andrew Jackson abused his power, and forced the Indians to move when moving was supposed to be an option. By pushing the NATIVE Americans off their chosen land, were we not taking away freedom from the people that were on the continent, before anyone from the old world even knew about America? Pushing people off the land, taking their freedom, and treating them terrible in general, seems to be fairly hypocritical, for what the United States stood for when George Washington became president. Thus Andrew Jackson’s removal policy did not benefit the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteyou make an excellent point that Jackson's forced removal of the indians was against everything that America had stood for since before settlers came from the east. the revolutionary war was fought for the freedom of the colonies and the new nations ideals were defined by Washington, as you pointed out. I say you make a very solid arguement in that no matter Jackson's motive, it was an abuse of his power to force the removal of the native americans.
DeleteAndrew Jackson's Indian Removal Policies did not benefit the Native Americans. Many Indian civilizations had complied to the dictations of white culture, and it was unnecessary to transport them from their lands. Had the Indian's resisted developing a new government system, educational system, or other “civilized” practices, this transplantation would have been much more justified. Instead, Jackson’s policies, even though they were presented to be voluntary, mandated the transplantation of the Indians to West of the Mississippi. Here, warring tribes were forced to cohabitate with one another, clearly a detrimental effect of Jackson’s policies. These policies disrupted the natural Indian way of life had long lasting negative impacts on Native American culture.
ReplyDeleteI think that Andrew Jackson was abusing his power with his Indian Removal act of 1830. Jackson was an Indian fighter before becoming an important political player, so many of his feelings and motives were against the Indians in anything, and for anything to help the advancement of American settlers. Were Jackson’s actions not like those of the English government when they sent the debtors and poor off to America to see if they would survive in such a foreign land with little to no help from the mother country? There is a saying, that history will repeat itself until we realize that cycle and choose to break it. The Indians were moved to a foreign land with barely any support from the national government, enduring forced march under severe conditions that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Similarly, the pilgrims traveled across a foreign sea, with limited supplies and no idea where they would end up, and survived with little or no help from England.
ReplyDelete