Summary Of Andrew Jackson And His Indian War

The removal of Indians from their native lands being the start of a long list of actions made by Jackson, he was warmly thought of positively by most of the United States population and risked everything he had to give more power, and even control to everyday people and fighting for the everyday person, because he knew what it was like to come from nothing and be someone with nothing and no power and nothing to give to society like many of the everyday country. He was, a lot like his people ultimately kind and fearful, also smart but yet blind to some true problems in the everyday world, and a man who fought a war for what seemed like a life time Jackson was a man who to me could widely be compared to our first beloved president George Washington. But in Jon Meacham’s American Lion he has presented the set in history, human definition of an inspirational man who forever created the true and yet controversial definition of the American presidency and what it means to be an American. Because to be a President it’s more than a title it’s putting millions of people’s lives in your hands and looking to you to guide them in a time of national trouble and fear, this book gives you all of the above from start to

General Andrew jackson chased away some of the native indians and took spanish forts and people who have escaped and hid in a place to not get thrown back to jail. Later on all of the americans liked the action that he took and so he received approval from the politicians. John Quincy on the other hand, demanded that spain control the person or animal that lives in florida or give it up. In the paragraph the author states that “General Andrew Jackson chased some fleeing Native Indians over the boundary.”

Jackson’s Native American policies were very undemocratic because they decreased the power of the people. Document 9 states that the Native Americans have reasons to stay on their land, one being that the land west of the Arkansas Territory is unknown to them. Another is that the region is poorly supplied with food and water and that the new neighbors have different customs and a totally different language. Finally, they wish to remain on the land in which their ancestors died and where they were buried. The evidence helps explain that Andrew Jackson’s Native American policy was very undemocratic because the Native Americans had four very good reasons for staying on their homeland.

Jackson’s belief that he was the “defender of the common man” led him to assume that he had supreme authority over the government, and as a result, ignored the Indian Removal Act of 1830 put in place by Congress and forced the Indian tribes to move west on the Trail of Tears. Jackson’s bold actions led to a great increase of power in the executive office. Resembling that of Jackson, Abraham Lincoln’s presidency also fortified executive power. During the Civil War, Lincoln’s “presidency shattered all precedents [and the]…. actions taken by the president were by no means understood to be powers of the executive” (Baker 176-177).

When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, the Native American condition worsened. Congress allowed the president to solve the "Indian problem" with the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (O’Neill 11). This act gave President Jackson permission to offer tribes land west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their tribal lands east of the Mississippi. Politicians of the day considered this a generous offer, (O’Neil 11) but the Native American population would not surrender their homes so easily. So the federal government used some shady tactics in order to get many tribes to accept the agreement.

The Indians believed that since they were a part of the United States they should be entitled to protection under its laws, but since this was not working they were left with another choice, and decided to take action against the Indian Removal Act and Georgia. Being very cultured and knowledgeable in the ways of the white man and their laws they decided to use Georgia’s strategy of law against in a “fight fire with fire” sort of sense to join the Cherokee Nation in suing the state of Georgia in a case that would eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Indians had also decided to insult to injury by hiring the former attorney general under Adams and Monroe, William Wirt. Jackson had showed his disdain of this action by commenting “The course of Wirt has truly been wicked” (Remini 242). This comment also shows the betrayal Jackson felt knowing that a fellow American was hindering the inevitable expansion of the United States and removal of the Indians.

This can be seen in the 1832 Supreme Court majority opinion on the Worcester v. Georgia case favored the Indian’s side displaying them as their own country and were not subject to the rule of the United States. Jackson would go on to ignore Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and continue to remove Indians, pushing them towards the West. This was a direct violation of the Constitution, but through it Jackson opened lands for the common man aiding them (Document E). In context, Andrew Jackson approved the creation of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which enabled for money to be spent on expediting federal negotiations with Indians to remove them. Additionally, the Black Hawk War which lasted from 1831 to 1832 displayed to American’s the hostility go the Indians and the need for their removal.

Throughout the early 19th century, changing politics and an evolving society in America impacted all classes of people, specifically the white working class. Jacksonian Democratic ideals was influenced by the working class, and the white working class benefited from President Jackson’s decisions. During the year of Jackson’s presidential election, the Workies, which consisted of working men, wanted to protect individuals who earned money from arduous labor, but failed to make payments punctually. Jacksonian Democrats realized the Workies language was valuable in the fact that beliefs of the Workies group echoed through Jackson’s party.

Congress had made a ruling that the Indians were allowed to keep their land, but “King Jackson” said he had already made his ruling and forced them to the Trail of Tears at gunpoint (President Jackson and Indian Removal). Andrew Jackson just ignoring Congress was a problem that showed he wasn’t a common man. The

In the article “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” the author, Alfred A. Cave, writes about President Jackson’s abuse of power. He is arguing that Jackson abused his power when he was enforcing the Indian Removal Act. He argues that Jackson broke guarantees he made to the Indians. He uses a political methodology and uses secondary sources.

Andrew Jackson, in his “Address on Indian Removal” speech, argues that his Act, which relocates Native Americans in the South East, is ultimately beneficial for both the United States and the Indians. To slowly degrade the opinions congressmen have on the Indians and conjure sympathetic emotions, Jackson uses derogatory words which further diminish the little respect congressmen have for the Native Americans. For example, almost every paragraph contains the word “savage” which connotes incivility, barbarism, and stupidity. The use of “savage” allows Jackson to imply that America is better than the “red men” and should decide their fate in order to protect them. Furthermore, towards the end of the second paragraph Jackson uses words like “retard,”

He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live.

Andrew Jackson’s sentiment towards the Native Americans was certainly not a kind one. Manifest destiny was a popular belief among Americans, including Jackson, and he would go to the extent of forcing Native Americans out of their homes to reach their “ordained goal”. He believed in the expansion of southern slavery which is why he pushed for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi, which makes it the more disgraceful. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 said that it will allow American government to offer in-state territories to the Indian’s for their western land. This wasn’t the case when the U.S. went in and drove the Indians out by force.

The government tried to force assimilation on Native Americans as well as an attempt to “kill the indian, save the man.” These ideas and policies are similar to those popular during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson developed a sense of ‘paternalism’ towards indians and believed he was saving them by forcing them to live out west of the Mississippi river away from white culture. The difference was that Jackson did not believe in assimilation of indians into white culture, he believed they should be kept separate. With the help of the Federal government removing indians from land west of the Mississippi, Americans were

Throughout the 19th century Native Americans were treated far less than respectful by the United States’ government. This was the time when the United States wanted to expand and grow rapidly as a land, and to achieve this goal, the Native Americans were “pushed” westward. It was a memorable and tricky time in the Natives’ history, and the US government made many treatments with the Native Americans, making big changes on the Indian nation. Native Americans wanted to live peacefully with the white men, but the result of treatments and agreements was not quite peaceful. This precedent of mistreatment of minorities began with Andrew Jackson’s indian removal policies to the tribes of Oklahoma (specifically the Cherokee indians) in 1829 because of the lack of respect given to the indians during the removal laws.