Summary Of Lindsay G. Robertson's Conquest By Law

Young Henry Castleman woke before dawn, dressed and dawned his drum. As the 13 year old assistant drummer, he was required to assemble for the morning reveille, with Robert Averil, the 18 year old drummer and the fifers. A few tents over Francis Ullman would have heard the drumming and movement as he had done for the past 4 years. He got up, dressed in his Johnson’s Greens, grabbed his rifle and joined his fellow privates of Company 8, Captain Richard Duncan’s crew of 50 men and boys.

Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and The Trail of Tears There have been many dark times in our History as Americans. Among them is the Trail of Tears,brought upon by Andrew Jackson, which exiled the Indians from the American south and resulted in the death of thousands on the way to Oklahoma. Before this trying time there was speculation within the supreme court whether to treat the Native tribes as a sovereign foreign nation or as a dependent entity within the United States. I will discuss how these decisions came to be, the reactions to said decisions, and the aftermath of these rulings which inevitably leads to the Trail of Tears.

During the early to mid 1800s, the colonization of “Indians” and subordination of “women’s rights in the American society,” was very essential to those in authority. They were perceived as a mere means to an end by promises of a better life in exchange for “land and work.” Although locals complied, those in offices took advantage by using antagonistic tactics in achieving wealth, power, and ownership. However, these actions lead to “The First Seminole War, The Monroe Doctrine, Andrew Jackson’s leadership, The Indian Removal Act, The California Gold Rush, The Seneca Falls Convention, and the Birth of the Republican Party.” Although some Americans have been perceived as heroes, their actions have said otherwise about their character.

In 1828, Georgia passed a string of laws that violated the rights of the Cherokee people. One of the law passed by the state of Georgia also allowed the removal of the Cherokee from their own land After the settlers that were after the natives land had been burn and destroying houses and towns, and trespassing among other things, with the support of the state government the Cherokee’s brought a case to the supreme court. The treaties negotiated between Georgia and the Cherokee were negotiated as the Cherokee as an Independent Nation, this guaranteed the independence of both the land and the people of the Cherokee Nations. Cherokee tried negotiating with congress and Andrew Jackson, both of which failed. The Cherokee Nation, represented by John Ross who was the principal chief of the Cherokee’s, then filed for an Injunction at the Supreme Court against Georgia repeal the unfair laws.

This law allowed the federal government to pay the natives to move west. Most Native Americans accepted the payment for their lands and agreed to move, but the Cherokee nation refused. They took their case to the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Marshall decided that Georgia had no right to interfere with the Cherokees. Jackson disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The textbook states “ ‘John Marshall has made his decision,’ Jackson reportedly said.

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.

I feel that a contradiction may come from a lack of involvement of women in colonial America. Though both articles emphasise a love and belief in God, though both works of literature display a love of God being displayed in a different manner. The author 's purpose is to shed light on the atrocities committed against the natives in colonial America. This may have influenced American policies to where we feel we don 't answer to anyone on earth, and we gain our power from a greater

In Inga Clendinnen’s Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570, the word, “ambivalence,” as the book is entitled, suggests to both the Spaniards’ purpose of conquering the Yucatan and the tolerance by the Maya of the conversion to Christianity. The conquest of the Yucatan can be outlined, as Clendinnen explains, “Then, finally, I turn to the Maya; to discover, through analysis of deeply partisan Spanish accounts, what they did, and from their own few and fragmentary writings what they meant by what they did.” She argued that this is because of the existence of the Aztec Empire. “The Cortés expedition effectively ignored Yucatan, making landfall only at Cozumel Island. That pattern was to persist for the decade took to dismember and to distribute the spoils of the Aztec empire.

The interconnectedness of every living thing is not just an idea but a way of life. In "The Land Owns Us", we see this important message come to life through Bob Randall, a Yankunytjatjara elder and traditional owner of Uluru (Ayer 's Rock), who explains that all beings are part of a vast family and calls us to be responsible for this family and care for the land with unconditional love and responsibility.

In Chapter 8 titled “We Take Nothing By Conquest… Thank God” Howard Zinn states that the reason why the United States wanted to take the land away from Mexico was to be able to conquer and expand the territory. John Tyler wanted to initiate the war in order to make Texas a state. On the other hand James Polk wanted Texas to become a state that formed part of the United States. Polk also wanted to take over California and initiated the war by sending American soldiers into the territory.

According to the Constitution, people can’t be stripped from their inalienable rights which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Despite the implement of the Constitution, “freedom” was defined differently in the 1980s than it was in the 20th century. Back in the 1980s, “freedom” was still not seen as a right to all people due to some of the laws such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act” that were implemented to go against the Constitution. While, in the 20th century, “freedom” was viewed as a right since “freedom” was offered to every people no matter what their race, their color of the skin, their religion, and their sexuality. For example, former president Barack Obama was able to make same-sex marriage legal, lifted the restriction on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” barred employers for firing their employees for being either transgender or having a different sexuality, allowed everyone to have universal access to ObamaCare, and had a diversified cabinet that helped Obama make tough decisions to make America the most affluent and strongest country in the world.

President Jackson and Congress disagreed on the Indian Removal Policy, but Jackson went forward with it anyway. The Indians had fought with the people since the original colonization, and the U.S citizens were usually the aggrovators. The U.S had only had a couple of good relationship years, the rest of the time, there was a large amount of tension and small “wars” between the people and Natives. The U.S and Natives had been under tension for multiple years when Jackson declared the Indian Removal policy. The authors perspective towards the Indian Removal Act and Trail of Tears helped to shape our current understanding by showing how different people can have different views on a topic.

He notes that the Supreme Court may have veered off of the true path in recent years but pretty much leaves it at that. I believe that a statement like that deserves a solution, even if only in an opinionated way. One thing I do agree with is his belief in prayer. Robertson seems to indicate that the best way to prevail over this dilemma to begin with is by selecting proper judges. In order for this solution to work on a constant basis constant victories in politics is a must.

How far could the historian make use of sources 8 and 12 to investigate the extent to which the lives of the English people were transformed by the Norman conquest? Both source eight and source twelve provide a perspective into life of the people of England after the Norman conquest. Source eight, an extract from the Domesday book which was used to provide William with the information he needed about what the people of England had in terms of what they owned. Source eight makes a comparison between the taxation the people of Herefordshire owed King Edward to the taxation that those owed King William. The other source, twelve, was written by the monks of Peterborough who formed part of the King’s obituary, who detail their opinion of the King whom had just died.

FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED AND CAMILLO SITTE: NOT AS DIFFERENT AS THEY FIRST APPEAR Harkening from different sides of the Atlantic, two influential urban planners worked to transform the blossoming urban environment of the nineteenth century, albeit with very different approaches. This essay will be looking at the ideals and some of the work of Frederick Law Olmsted and Camillo Sitte. Born within just over twenty years of one and other, Olmsted in Hartford, Connecticut, and Sitte in Vienna, both men had careers encompassing fields well beyond urban planning. Not a planner by training, Olmsted delved into the world of planning when he and Calvert Vaux won the design competition for New York’s Central Park in 1858.