Analysis Paper
Kanieshamm
EWC25.1A.docx25.1Andrew Jackson, “On Indian Removal”
On December 6, 1830, U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) delivered a message to Congress that explained and justified the Indian Removal Act that had been signed into law earlier that year. By the time of Jackson’s election in 1828, four major Indian tribes—Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks—along with others, controlled significant portions of land in several southern states including Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act provided Jackson with the power to designate land west of the Mississippi River where these tribes were to be relocated in exchange for their territory within the states. Jackson’s speech argued that removing the Indians was beneficial for both Americans and the Indians, and it articulated his support for individual states’ authority by explaining how the removal would help those states grow and prosper. Advocating an early act of ethnic cleansing, Jackson claimed this policy to be “liberal” and “generous” because the U.S. government was providing new western land for the Indians to settle and paying all expenses for the removal. Many Indians resisted, however, and tens of thousands were forced to move away from their homes, resulting in the infamous “Trail of Tears.”
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.
What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?
And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.
Source Citation:
Jackson, Andrew. “On Indian Removal.” Social Policy: Essential Primary Sources. Ed. K. Lee Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, and Adrienne Wilmoth Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 76-78. Web. 24 June 2015.
25.1
Andrew Jackson, “On Indian
Removal”
On December 6, 1830, U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767
-
1845) delivered a message to Congress that e
xplained and
justified the Indian Removal Act that had been signed into law
earlier that year. By the time of Jackson’s election in 1828, four
major Indian tribes
—
Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and
Creeks
—
along with others, controlled significant portion
s of
land in several southern states including Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act provided Jackson with the
power to designate land west of the Mississippi River where
these tribes were to be relocated in exchange for their territory
within the states. Jackson’s speech argued that removing the
Indians was beneficial for both Americans and the Indians, and
it articulated his support for individual states’ authority by
explaining how the removal would help those states grow and
prosper.
Advocating an early act of ethnic cleansing, Jackson
claimed this policy to be “liberal” and “generous” because the
U.S. government was providing new western land for the
Indians to settle and paying all expenses for the removal. Many
Indians resisted, ho
wever, and tens of thousands were forced to
move away from their homes, resulting in the infamous “Trail of
Tears.”
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the
Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in rela
tion to the removal
of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy
consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their
removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will
indu
ce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to
individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages
which it promises to the Government
are the least of its recommendations. It
puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the
General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense
and civilized population in large tracts of country now
occupied by a few savage
hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and
Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably
25.1Andrew Jackson, “On Indian
Removal”
On December 6, 1830, U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-
1845) delivered a message to Congress that explained and
justified the Indian Removal Act that had been signed into law
earlier that year. By the time of Jackson’s election in 1828, four
major Indian tribes—Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and
Creeks—along with others, controlled significant portions of
land in several southern states including Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act provided Jackson with the
power to designate land west of the Mississippi River where
these tribes were to be relocated in exchange for their territory
within the states. Jackson’s speech argued that removing the
Indians was beneficial for both Americans and the Indians, and
it articulated his support for individual states’ authority by
explaining how the removal would help those states grow and
prosper. Advocating an early act of ethnic cleansing, Jackson
claimed this policy to be “liberal” and “generous” because the
U.S. government was providing new western land for the
Indians to settle and paying all expenses for the removal. Many
Indians resisted, however, and tens of thousands were forced to
move away from their homes, resulting in the infamous “Trail of
Tears.”
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the
Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal
of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy
consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their
removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will
induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to
individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages
which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It
puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the
General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense
and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage
hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and
Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably
