Was Indian removal Andrew Jackson's only option for dealing with the Native Americans of the southeast? Prove your answer with evidence. One solid paragraph.
"Andrew Jackson wanted to clear the land from the Appalachians and the Mississippi to clear it for cotton for the south and grain for the north"(pg.97). "It would also create expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the construction of an empire clear across the pacific ocean."(pg.97) "The white males were the head of the country since they felt they were the dominant force while they saw the Native Americans as the weak and needy and were patronized for it".(pg.97) The reason why conflicts arose was since the whites saw them as unneeded,they began to burn their villages which caused them some wars or forced them to leave their land. The Indians had a tough time since they were losing land and numbers fast all due to the "Indian Removal" cause created by white males and spread by white males.
Indian removal was definitely not Andrew Jackson’s only option for dealing with the Native Americans in the Southeast. To begin with, Jackson was the most aggressive enemy of the Natives during this period which would push him towards Indian removal.(P. 98) After the war with the Creek Indians, a treaty granted the Indians individual ownership of land which split the Indians up and ended communal landholding.(P. 99) Jefferson had had a way of handling the Indians by bringing them into the American civilization, which was something Jackson could have done. (P. 99) Jackson just did not seem to want to comply with this Jeffersonian idea. Jackson could have also had the Indians voluntarily move westward as explained by Lewis Cass. (P.100-101). Andrew Jackson figured a method in which the Indians would not be pushed to the West, but if they chose to stay in the land they would have to abide by the laws established in that state. These laws would destroy their tribal and personal rights. (P. 101). Another option would have been to let the Indians live in harmony with the Americans. In the 1820s, the southern Indians were able to live side by side and share their cultures. Groups like the Cherokees knew that they needed to adapt to the American lifestyle in order to survive. (P. 103-104). As you can see, Jackson did not need to force the Indians west on The Trail of Tears. They were willing to live amongst the Americans. It was Jackson’s hatred for the Indians that pushed him to use Indian removal.
Andrew Jackson’s primary option in dealing with the Indians was to remove them from the South, but as time passed and relations emerged, Jackson had new options in dealing with them. At first, according to As Long As Grass Grows or Water Runs, Andrew Jackson wanted to “clear the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi…” purposely to, “clear it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities…” (pg. 97) In order to remove Indians from their native southern lands, Andrew Jackson was motivated to fight against them, such as in The Battle of Horseshoe Bend, where out of 1,000 Creek Indians, 800 were killed. Since Andrew Jackson’s troops failed to attack the Creeks, he “promised governmental friendship (to the Cherokee Indians) if they joined the war, swam the river, came upon behind the Creeks and won the battle for Jackson.”(pg. 99) This proves that Andrew Jackson’s option in dealing with the Indians was NOT only to remove them but also to negotiate with them. When Andrew Jackson asked the Cherokee Indians to be on their side, he created a sense of relationship with them. At last, Andrew Jackson had made a decision, “if the Indians chose to stay they would have to abide by state laws, which destroyed their tribal and personal rights and made them subjects to endless harassment and invasion by white settlers coveting their land.” (pg. 101) With such said, one can say that despite Andrew Jackson’s desire in Indian Removal, he had other options in dealing with them such as, “breaking communal landholding, bribing some with land, leaving others out…and bringing them into civilization.” (pg. 99) To conclude, Andrew Jackson did indeed want to remove the Indians from the South, yet that was not his only option in dealing with them.
This all started since the white males believed that the Native Americans were weak and needy and they patronized them for it. they were described as unneeded and they way to force them out was to burn their villages.
They needed to remove the Indians because they wanted to grow cotton and grain. (pg 97) Jefferson said that, "Indian removal was necessary for the opening of the cast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of the modern capitalist economy." Andrew Jackson was a land speculator as well as many other things and he became famous because of the War of 1812, which was a war that expanded the new nation into Florida, Canada, and the Indian Territory. (pg 98) The Creek Indians which lived mostly in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi attacked Jackson’s troops and Jackson promised rewards of land if they left. In 1814, Jackson fought the Battle of Horseshoe Bend again the Creeks. Jackson had the Cherokees fighting with him because he promised them governmental friendship. Jackson ended taking most of the land of the Creeks. Jackson’s military also burned Seminole villages and seized Spanish forts and practically forced Spain to sell land. (pg 99) Jackson forced Indians to leave their land, so the whites could us the land.
When evaluating if Jackson had only one way to deal with the Indians,it is clear he had more options. In chapter seven "As Long as Grass Grows or, water Runs" it begin to describe the feeling Americans have toward the Indians. "The Indian not needed- Indeed,an obstacle..."(pg.97) From the begining Andrew looks at them with no value merely an obstacle to country expansion. Jackson had no heart for Indians and their rights as he was, "...the most aggressive enemy of the Indians..."(pg.98)So this just further proves his actions were out of hate as opposed to option. Just like in the past the Indians revolted and, fought back. After the war with the creek Indians a treaty was written.(pg.99) This treaty presented Indians with land holding. Jackson could done peaceful deal with the Indians for land. He could even used Jefferson's plan but, instead he went for his own way. He would trick the Indians and, swindle them out of there land.(pg.99) He eventually forced the Indians west. (pg.100) Lewis class explains that Jackson could of moved the Indians voluntarily.(pg.101) This would of been a better moved than removing natives from their land, although the white man still took there land. Jackson did something similar to this, but it violated the Indians rights. If they did not force the Indians to west in the "Trails of Tears" they could of learned to settle into american culture. Which did eventually happen, it was just a matter of time. Jackson had more than one option with dealing with the Indians but, his hate for them stopped him from looking further.
I don't see it as Jackson hating them even with the way he treated them he just had no better idea to get rid of them and its easier to be unfair and cruel to get what u want rather than be fair.
Although I agree with your other points, I would have to agree with Justine that Jackson didn't necessarily hate the Indians. Rather he saw them as an inconvience to American expansion. Jackson main drive towards Indian removal was not hate but the benefit of the Americans.
Good points, but I too have to agree with Justine. I don't believe Jackson hated the Indians, he just could not propose the removal of the Indians in a kindly manner.
Of course indian removal was not Andrew Jackson's only option for dealing with the Native Americans in the Southeast. The fact that Andrew Jackson was considered the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history was already a bad quality (P.98). Jackson urged for expansion in the U.S. which caused many conflicts with indian tribes. One for example, was the war with the Creek Indians. The Creek Indians occupied most of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi (P. 98). This was obviously a very significant amount of land to obtain. Instead of burning down a Creek village, killing men, women, and children, Jackson should of acted more rational towards the indians and made peaceful relations. Not even thinking of this possibility, Jackson began to dictate treaties that took away native land from the Indians (P.99). Some of the treaties even split indian tribes, by granting some Indians individual ownership of land. The Indians were not forced to go west but if they chose to stay they would have to follow the laws of the state they lived in. This destroyed the Indian's tribal and personal rights (P.101) Jackson's obsession with gaining more land caused the so many Indian conflicts in the U.S. and the death of many Indians as well. Jackson should have just respected the Indian's native lands and allowed them to live there peacefully. The Indians were indeed there first and Jackson did not own any of the land therefore had no right to take away something that had already belonged to someone else.
Mariana I completely agree with you in the sense that Jackson should have acted in a more rational matter regarding Indians and also that Jackson's obsession with land was what caused so many problems between Americans and Indians.
Mariana I would have to disagree with you when you say "Andrew Jackson was considered the most aggressive enemy of the Indians" because that is not true. Jackson had adopted a native american and raised it as his own. If he was such an enemy then he would not have adopted him and gave him a home. (This was not in the packet but based on my own knowledge of staying for tutoring with Mr. Gibson :)
"the indian, not needed- indeed, an obstacles could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages" pg.97 "jefferson now committed the federal government to promote future removal of the creek and the cherokee from georgia" pg.97 "let the white perish. they seize your land; they corrupt your women, they trample on the ashes of your dead! back whence they came, upon a trail of blood , thy must be driven" pg.98 these are all key examples that Andrew jackson indian removal wasnt the only option for dealing with the native americans , yet he was determined to going along with his idea since his hatred was the main reason why he continued with the removal. jackson saw them as obstacles like said the first quote , he just didnt want them in his way for his future plans .. but the indians just dealt with the fact that they have to live amongst the americans.
The fact that Jackson hated Native Americans is very clear through this reading right Abby.It lets us know in page 99 " Jackson began raids into Florida, arguing it was a sanctuary for escaped slaves and for manufacturing Indians" Good point.
very nice use of quote " Jackson began raids into Florida, arguing it was a sanctuary for escaped slaves and for manufacturing Indians" . :D loved how you laid this paragraph out
Andrew Jackson didnt necessarily hate the indians since he did adopt a native boy and raised him as one of his one (Mr.Gibson's words)but he thought of indian removal as a good idea .. so i would have to disagree with you on that one but other than that your point are on point and very descriptive.
Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from their lands to grow cotton & grain (pg 97). However there were other options besides removal. Jackson thought that in order to achieve a greater american economy he had to get rid of the Indians (pg 98). Thus further justifying his sought of Indian removal. The treaty that had been written after the war with the Creek Indians granted the Indians ownership of land (pg 99). This was too tempting for Jackson & others to trick & cheat they Indians of their land. When Jackson had the Indians move west he could have had the Indians move voluntarily like Lewis class explained (pg 101). Another option that was presented was to live with peaceful relations among the Indians perhaps bringing them into "civilization" from the old Jeffersonian idea (pg 99). Again, Jackson had many other options, though he blinded himself with lust & greed that removal seemed the only way to go through his perspective.
I like your ending sentence which says that Jackson blinded himself with lust and greed. It's true that his ambitious desire for land lead him to deal with the Indians.
As my fellow classmates may have informed in the book on (page 97) to be exact, Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians to be removed from their own lands so that americans can grow cotton as well as grain. Andrew Jackson looked at the Indians as no value and decided to take advantage of them. On (page 98) the Indians were tricked and move themselves West. (Page 99) In addition, Andrew Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from the South (Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi), yet he could have done this act in a different matter ...
I do agree that Jackson did not have much interest in the Indians, but it your paragraph I do think that you could have elaborated more on why Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from the South.
Ivan you did a good job on describing the ways in which Jackson felt towards indians and the actions he took to get rid of them, and i agree with you. However, i believe you could have devoted a little more time to describing other options Jackson may have took, reason being that was the essential question and you lacked to answer it.
After reading chapter seven "As Long as Grass Grows or, water Runs" It's apparent that Jackson had other alternatives, but chose to do what he did because he thought like most Americans at the time why be no need to be passive with them when you could just beat them off the land. This quote sums up what Jackson and most Americans saw in the Indians "The Indian, not needed-indeed, an obstacle- could be dealt with by sheer force,"(pg.97) All of Jackson's actions stemmed from his hatred towards the Indians not out of lack of options he was seen as"...Exterminator of Indians... "(pg.98) During his Presidency it was he ignored congresses power over Federal Treaties and laws and supported state action. By supporting state action Indians wouldn't be "forced to move go west. But if they chose to say they would have to abide by state laws"(pg.101) These laws caused the Indians great hardship having to cope with the constant harassment and land invasion from white settlers. After gold was discovered in Cherokee Territory; white settlers destroyed the Indian territory and claimed it as their own Jackson only interfered to let the Indians know there was nothing he could do. (pg.101) Jackson used the Indians strong attachment to their culture against them because instead of staying on their territory and adapting to American culture they moved. From the beginning Jackson's upbringing and deep-rooted hatred of the Indians blinded him to any other option than Indian Removal.
It is a well-known fact that Jackson was not the Natives' best friend per se but I do believe you are taking too strong a stand on this subject considering it is debatable. Andrew Jackson did in fact raise an adopted Creek boy by the name of Lyncoya. I will however agree with you in the sense that Jackson had much resentment for the Natives (he was a war general). It is really a shame the way it all went down for the natives. I do believe you could have better formulated your thesis statement. I believe this all goes to show Jackson was a pioneer in his beliefs and impulsiveness. It also seems your conclusion could use some work on it.
"As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" states that Jackson wanted to eliminate Indian tribes from their territory for the whites (pg 97). Jackson was known for the hero of the war of 1812 that led new expansion for the new nation and it was what Jackson was plan on doing (pg 98). The whites saw Jackson as the "father" and they were the children and not all Indians agreed to such matter. Indians are well known to having their own belief's which is why they did not obey. The Indians would not be forced to the west, but if they chose to stay the would abide the state laws as well as destroy the personal and tribal rights. I think it was wrong the way Jackson proposed moving the New Nation to the Indian territory because it caused deaths, conflicts, and the Indians had no right or say to what had belonged to them for so many years.
I do agree with what u said above since the Indians were weak at the time since the war of 1812 and it was wrong for Jackson and his supporters to agree to this act even if some of these tribes never fought or had anything to do with the war.
I completely agree with you Justine because either way if the Indians stayed or moved to the West, their beliefs and rights would be taken away from them. It was injustice how they were treated by Jackson, then the Americans.
Indian removal was not the only option Andrew Jackson had, but he believed it was the best way to resolve issues with Indians and their lands. Their land proved to be valuable to the U.S. for planting crops, expansion, and even finding gold.(P.101)Andrew Jackson could have simply paid no attention to the Natives and let them live along side Americans as if they were a part of their country. It was proven in the 1820's when Indians and whites had learn to be in a community together with peace and no war.(P.103) Unfortunately, Andrew Jackson, along with other white settlers, grew to become selfish and greedy. He began to inform Indians that they should leave their land and if they did not comply then they would be without protection, funds, and at the mercy of the states.(P.104)He was giving Indians no choice because either way, they were on their own. Removing Indians from their land was not a one and only option, but Jackson decided not to deal with it any other way because he would be gaining more by getting rid of the nuisance.
Diana I agree with you based on how Andrew Jackson believed that by Indian Removal it would solve all the issues they had with the Indians instead of just leaving them in peace.
Andrew Jackson indeed had other alternatives with Indian removal to deal with the Native Americans in the Southeast. Before going on any further let me say that Jackson's personality seemed quite hot headed based on the reading of "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs".(PG.98) By this being said he envisioned things like some of the Americans."The Indian not needed,indeed an obstacle."(PG.97) In my opinion I feel that Andrew Jackson wanted an easy way out OF this situation with the Native Americans. Later Jackson desired for expansion in the U.S. which caused many conflicts with indian tribes. One for example was the war with the Creek Indians. The Creek Indians took up most space of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.(PG 98)When I read this part of the reading I couldn't help but get that feeling that Andrew Jackson was just striving to get more and more power. Jackson had many more options to deal with the Indians; like for example he could have done what Jefferson did and bring them into American Civilization.(PG 99) Overall Andrew Jackson did not really handle this situation very well. I feel that Jackson was TOO focused on gaining more land that he didn't really "notice" the damage he was causing with the Indians. Jackson took advantage of them because he knew very well that they had no voice and that to me was not a way to handle Indian Removal.
I completely agree with your opinion on him being hot headed. I believe that because he was so hot headed and had his mind set up on what he wanted to do with the Indians, he paid no attention to any other option than Indian Removal.
I also agree with agree you that Jackson didn't not know how much damage and suffering he was giving the Indians and that he was more concentrated on gaining more and more land.
We could clearly see that the Indian Removal was not the only option for Andrew Jackson to deal with the Native Americans in the Southwest. As I read "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" I could see that Jackson wanted to get rid of the Indians from their land to grow cotton and grain, he wanted to make the territory for the whites (pg 97). His hate towards the Indians were reflected on Jackson's actions. Jackson also thought that in order to have a greater economy he had to remove the Indians (pg 98). Andrew Jackson didn't want the Native Americans to become an obstacle for his future plans. Jackson could have done the samething that Jefferson did, he brought the Indians into the American civilization (pg 99). Jackson's decision was to force the Indians to move to the west, he had other options but he ignored them. We could even say that the hate that he had towards the Indians made him decided on what he had to do.
You make a good point when you say that Jackson though that to have a good economy he needed the Indians out. But I feel like if Jackson would of been a bit smart and settled in Native lands and used the Natives as workers he would of have an advantage. Don't you think?
To the best of my knowledge it is clear that Indian Removal was not the only option for Andrew Jackson to resolve problems with the southeast Native Americans. To begin with Jackson proved to be a man of pure interest,well all he had in mind was economic expansion in cotton, grain etc (pg.97). Not only that but Jackson could also sell the land and profit from it would then go toward federal revenue(pg.98), i believe that with that Jacksons intentions were fairly clear. Instead of banishing the indians from there land he had the option to create treaties in which the indians agreed to adapt to the american lifestyle(pg.99). Jackson's denial to do so proved his hatred toward indians, because instead of approving these types of treaties he decided in others, in which Indians were forced to give upland as it is explained by Cass(pg.100). The indians were innocent of anything they were accused of and they had already proved that at the time that they lived side by side with the whitefolk of the south(pg.103) because they knew that it was necessary in order to survive in the world of Jacksonian beliefs. " lands were taken,their government abolished, all meetings prohibited"(pg.105) this action suggested by Jackson was just another of his unorthodox ideas, in my eyes the best option for Jackson was to simply leave the indians in there own peaceful world because clearly they meant no harm at all. In sum treaties, bargains, and even bribes in my opinion would have been better actions of Jackson to take toward the indians, rather than their removal of land that rightfully belonged to them, but clearly in this case nothing could have touched the heart of this stubborn and wrongful man.
There is always an abundant amount of paths or options for people,Andrew Jackson not being an exception, could have decided with but like them he chose the option that he personally approved of given his nature. According to (page 98) "Jackson....was the most aggressive enemy of the Indians" therefore his relationship with the Indians directly affected his decision in handling the situation. He was biased in this conflict therefore he chose the hostile manner by removing the Indians as fast as he could. Of course there was motive behind this (page 102) "...gold was discovered in Cherokee territory in Georgia" which was a strong factor in the process. After all, money does make the world go round, being in that time any type of income was welcome, if there were any obstacles they would be eventually overcome.Yet some people such as Andrew Jackson are not patient enough to wait it out, therefore they take immediate action, he removed the Indians (page 100) "...seventy thousand Indians east of the Mississippi were forced westward...Sac and Fox Indians of Illinois were removed". Andrew Jackson could have simply made peaceful deals with the Indians, attempted every method possible before he resorted to violence using it as a last measure but he chose not to.His motives being both land and the natural resources that the land contains were interfering with the possibility of having any other choice.
I totally agree. Jackson's greed to further expand gave him more motive to get rid of the Indians as soon as possible. He had no sympathy to the Indians, for if he truly did not despise them he would have explored other options than dive head on to a cruel method.
Jackson certainly had a few options on how to deal with the Native Americans in the southeast, but as shown in chapter seven of "As Long as Grass Grown or Water Runs" demonstrates Jackson chose the easy/beneficial way to deal with the Native Americans. Jackson felt that it was necessary for Indian removal to take action but only because this would do good in opening American lands of agriculture.(pg. 98)Jackson could have handled this in a neutral way, Americans could have come to establish lands for agriculture but the Native Americans did not have to be removed from their home land.Indian chief Tecumseh noted that "The land, belongs to all, for the use of each"(pg.98) Jackson could of used these Native Americans as workers since they already known the land like no other.Another example I think shows that Jackson had this hate towards the Native Americans was that under Jackson seventy thousand Indians east of Mississippi were forced westward.(pg.100) If anyone else had a problem with the Natives being there why did it take until Jackson to remove them? Before Jackson became president in 1802 after the War of 1812 and the Creek War it seemed that southern Indians and the whites were settled near by and they all lived in peace. At times Native Americans would be the guest of white homes.(pg.103) Jackson came and destroyed this peace when he could of simply worked or established whatever we wanted around the people. As a matter a fact the Cherokees felt their only way of survival was to adapted to the American life.(pg. 104-104) That was the other option he had, letting the Indians settle and accustomed to the new culture. If this would of been the case, the Trail of tears might of not happened and innocent lives wouldn't of been lost.(pg. 109) Jackson just did not want to see Native Americans in "his land" which actually was never his.
I like your reference on why it took Jackson to remove the Indians, if it seemed to be such a huge problem. It gives more support on the idea that Jackson only paid attention to his own opinions.
Heidi, the Cherokee Natives were in fact in a process of voluntary adoption of American culture , private property, agriculture, etc. They even developed a writing system and drafted a constitution which had been inspired by the U.S. In war, they had fought alongside Jackson and despite all this, he still decided to sign the Indian Removal Act. I think your thesis is very vague and could definitely be improved as well as your conclusion. Although you had a lengthy response, you must keep in mind, quality matters more than quantity. Additionally, he claimed to be doing this in the name of America, which in the long run did in fact help the nation expand westward. This all stems back to the early 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century expansion theory of Europe. They were claiming land that did not belong to them, at the expense of the Native Peoples.
After reading chapter seven "As Long as Grass Grows or, water runs" we can clearly see that Indian removal was not Andrew Jackson’s only option for dealing with the Native Americans southeast. At first, Andrew Jackson wanted to clear the “Appalachians and the Mississippi to have cotton, expansion, immigration, canals, railroad...” (Pg. 97) Also, Jackson was “… the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history. (p.98) In order for Jackson to obtain lands he was in involved in several battles and because some of Jackson’s people were not able to win on some of the battles he negotiated with Indians and with that said we can see that removal wasn’t only his option for dealing with the Native Americans but bring to terms and for them to be in his side. But Jackson also wanted to the economic to grow “for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the devolvement of modern capitalist economy.”(Pg. 98) He also caused many damages to the Indians when he “proposed the Congress that Indians should be encouraged to settle down on smaller tracts and do farming.”(Pg.98) Overall, Jackson’s removing Indians from their land was not his only option but he in a way decided to avoid all the other options.
Maritza you made a very strong point when mentioning negotiations Jackson had previously made with the Indians that proved he clearly did have other options other than removal. I completely agree with your evaluation and feel you had a clear understanding of who Jackson was and why he took the actions that he did.
After Reading “As long as Grass Grows or Water Runs”, it was evident that the so-called “Indian removal” was nothing but an unnecessary aggressive approach by Andrew Jackson, who was known as the “most aggressive enemy of the Indians” (Pg.98). Jackson thought that eliminating Indians would be easy and that it was the only way to go about in this type of situation (Pg.98). However, Indian removal was not the only option for dealing with the Native Americans of the southeast. There could have been plenty of other resolutions, but the land-hungry white thieves attacked the Creek families and thus drove them away from their homes, even after they had volunteered to help the United States army fight the Seminoles in Florida (Pg.107). Andrew Jackson seemed blinded by his hatred towards the Indians to realize that some tribes were willing to cooperate with the whites to create a congenial environment. Despite the hardships, the Creeks refused to leave, but by 1836, both state and federal officials decided they must go (Pg.107). Unfortunately, Andrew Jackson proceeded with the removal of all Indians, despite the fact that there were other options that could have been elaborated on and that could have resulted in a better outcome.
I completely agree with you that Jackson had it out for the Indians. Indian removal was certainly an unnecessary act of agression, and it is true that there were tribes that were more than willing to cooperate with the Americans. Some tribes adopted democracy and a constitution. Put some thought into the options Jackson had when dealing with the Indians.
Indian removal was not Andrew Jackson’s only route when dealing with the Native Americans of the Southeast. First of all, Jackson believed relocating the Indians was necessary so they could expand America into a more modern capitalist economic nation (Pg. 98). After the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, Jackson lawfully made a treaty in 1814, which started granting Native individual land ownership but was separating them as well (Pg. 99). Jackson had the decision to allow the Indians to be civil with the Americans in the Southeast, however Andrew did not want them to be accepted so easily. Once Jackson was elected as president he denounced that Indians did not have to move they could stay but they had to abide under each states laws (Pg. 101). The most simple and direct choice Jackson could of considered was to allow them to be whatever religion they wanted and allow them to adapt as American and Indians. The Cherokees tried to adjust to white man’s world, by becoming farmers, blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, and owners or property (Pg. 103-104). However Jackson’s hatred toward the Indians resulted in a great abundance of Indian removal from the Southeast.
I found it surprising that Jackson thought the Indians were hindering the economic advancement of the United States. Why do you think Jackson was thinking this way? I believe the nation could have easily gone on with their lives under peace treaties with the Indians and made economic alliances with them. The Indians and Americans could have worked together to benefit everyone. Indians could have been made American citizens, but Jackson's agression got the best of him and made the American-Native relations very weary.
Indian removal was clearly not the only option Andrew Jackson had for dealing with the Native Americans of the southeast.However, it was the most effective for his plan to "clear the land for cotton,grain,expansions, immigration, canals,railroads,new cities,and to build a huge continental empire"(Pg.97).One way Jackson could have handled the Indians was by following Jefferson's idea of encouraging the Natives to settle down on smaller tracts and do farming (Pg.98)and bringing them into "civilization"(Pg.99).Another option was explained by Lewis Cass,which consisted of moving the Natives Westward without "forcing" them.Jackson proposed the idea but with one condition that "if they chose to stay they would have to abide by state laws, which destroyed their tribal and personal rights and made them subject to endless harassment and invasion by white settlers coveting their land"(pg.101).Jackson was blinded by his hatred towards Natives and his obsession for owning land and that's what drove him towards his decision of by any cause removing the Indians of their land.
Arely I completely agree with your statement that Indian Removal was the most effective for Jackson's selfish plans. Jackson could have allowed whites and Indians to live alongside each other but it wouldn't benefit American expansion as much as Indian Removal.
Indian Removal was most definitely not the only alternative Andrew Jackson had to deal with the Native Americans in the Southeast.As i read "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" i came to realize Jackson was looking forward to simply getting rid of the Native Americans no matter what." Indian removal was necessary for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce,to markets , to money,to development of the modern capitalist economy" (pg 98),Jackson mainly focused on benefits that suited himself and the Americans regardless what the Indians believed or felt.Andrew Jackson saw Indians as an obstacle to achieve his plans. There were other ways he could have came into negotiation with the Indians for example "... the old Jeffersonian idea of how to handle the Indians, by bringing them into "civilization".Instead Jackson forced the Indians to move west when in my opinion he could have tried to work out a way were neither would have resulted "damaged".
Rosangelica, I agree with you that Jackson should have found a way to cooperate with the Indians. However, his mentality that they were ruining their American expansion like you mentioned got the best of him. He believed wiping the Indians out would be the best decision for him, his people, and America but clearly was not. There could of been an in between compromise that both could have settled for.
I agree with you because I Jackson could have found another way to deal with the Indians, but he wanted the land and he did what he thought was best. I Still believe it wasn't the best way and he could have made a better choice.
Once I read "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" what they called the "Indian Removal." Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians to be removed from their own lands so that Americans could grow cotton and grain. was a way that Andrew Jackson had to turn to and he had believed that it was the best option to resolve this. The Indians wouldn't be forced to the west, but if they chose to stay then they would abide the state laws and would destroy the personal and tribal rights. Although "Jackson was the hero of the War of 1812" as stated on Page 98 this caused many deaths and then also created a new expansion to the new nation. Also it stated that Jackson had no heart and was very aggressive towards the Indians. Most the Indians tribes were really trying to cooperate with the Americans ,but Jackson was to blinded by this. They m,ight have been other options in which he could have gone by but he thought this way would probably be more effective which it was. In other words Jackson was a man with great anger towards Indians by my perspective. You can tell throughout the whole reading ,but a key point you might like to look at is when he starts saying that he raids Florida on Pages 98-99. You can tell like I mentioned before and he also makes it very clear.
What do you think about Jackson’s proposal of Indian removal? Do you believe there was another way? I believe you stayed on the subject but could of emphasized more on the reason of what else Jackson could of done. So in other words it was more of your opinion with facts surrounding it. However all in all, you wrote a good response.
Indian Removal was clearly not the only option Andrew Jackson had in dealing with southeastern tribes. In fact Americans and Native Americans were capable of living alongside each other. "After the War of 1812 and the Creek War, the southern Indians and the whites had settled down and were living in peace in a natural environment." (p. 103)Additionally some Indian tribes were even willing to assimilate and adapt to the white definition of "civilization". "Cherokees even started to emulate the slave society around them: they owned thousands of slaves...they even welcomed missionaries and Christianity." (p.104)Although I do not find it just that some Indians abandoned their customs, I believe that if they are willing to accommodate to the whites, Americans should pay their respects to the Indians for allowing them to live on their land. However Jackson's judgement was clouded with the greed of the common man and thus developed policies that would only benefit white Americans. Jackson only concerned himself with expansion and captialist dreams, instead of providing liberty and protection to the true Americans.
Very good paragraph. I like how you used "big" words but they were understandable. You made a good point in the middle of your paragraph when you said that if the Indians were willing to adapt to the whites' rules, then they should respect them, afterall they are living in the Indians' land. Good Good.
I definitely have to agree with Maria.I really like the fact that you gave your own opinion on the concept.Also agree that Jackson had no right to kick the Natives out of their own land, even after they tried to adapt to their way of life.
In chapter 7, “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs,” Howard Zinn clearly shows that Jackson had more choices than simply Indian Removal. To begin with, Jackson already possessed a lot of anger towards Indians which is why he is remembered as the most aggressive enemy of the Indians (Pg.98). Jackson as devious as he was, used a tactic where he wouldn’t force Indians from their territory but instead, they could stay with the condition that they would abide by the states’ laws, which would ultimately abolish their culture and make them targets to harassment and invasion by white settlers who wanted their lands (Pg.101). Instead of taking all these irrational decisions on trying to force Indians to emigrate west of the Mississippi River, Jackson could have simply let them live in peace among the whites and maybe even help plow the cotton fields to help the cotton economy. On October 1, 1838, Indians began their migration westward in what is known as the Trail of Tears where many Indians died due to sickness, drought, the heat, and exposure (Pg.109). Finally I must say that from my point of view, Jackson could have simply let the Indians establish their own government and completely ignore them or make fair peace treaties but instead he let himself be dragged by anger and chose violence instead.
I have to agree with you.Jackson could have just let the Natives live in peace among the whites,but his anger towards the Indians makes him see Indian Removal as his only option.
I completely agree with you Peter because Jackson let his anger towards Indians drive him to making unreasonable decisons. He was clever in his decision to let the Indians make a choice whether to stay or leave, but it was overall injustice.
Jackson abandoned the policy of his ancestors of treating different Indian groups as separate nations. Instead, he aggressively pursued plans to move all Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to west of the Mississippi. This was certainly not his only option, but since he was obsessed with obtaining more land he did what he wanted. In my opinion, it was extremely wrong of Jackson on how he proposed to move the new nation to the Indian territory mainly because Indians had no say in this, thus causing many conflicts. A treaty in 1814 was appointed after the war with the Creek Indians, stating that it granted Indians individual ownership of land, but breaking up communal landholding. (pg.99) As stated in "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs", Jackson was "...the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history." (pg.98) It was his hatred towards the Indians that led him to use Indian Removal.
I agree that Jackson was obsessed with obtaining as much land as possible even if it meant removing Indians out of their own lands. I would also agree on calling Jackson as the most agressive enemy towards the Indians because by forcing tribes to move long distances, thousands died.
After reading "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" I came to realize that Andrew Jackson had many options for dealing with Native Americans in the southwest. He just thought Indian Removal was the best way to go. The Indians seemed to be nothing but an "obstacle". The Indian, not needed-indeed, an obstacle-could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages."(pg. 97) The cost of human life did not seem as it was as important as what they achieved with the Indian Removal. "And so, "Indian removal," as it has been politely called, cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the bilding of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean."(pg. 97) Jackson thought this was the best for his land because he hated the Native Americans.
I believe that we see eye to eye with other people as well when it comes with the conclusion that Andrew Jackson was not fond of Native Americans but overall he took action,through his point of view, with which the best option for him had been the Indian Removal.
Yo Joselyn, I really liked your paragraph I think you worded it very well. I don't think I agree with your last sentence but overall I enjoyed your paragraph.
It is an undeniable fact that on many occasions, we as part of our humanly nature sometimes allow ourselves to be blinded by our feelings and our judgement upon other many-a-time-innocent people suffers the effects. Jackson, some might say, and I agree, was more "human" than others. Clearly that is demonstrated in the way he chose to handle Indian relations. We must always look at our options and choose those who benefit everyone which "King Andrew" failed to understand. He threw democracy along with the system of checks and balances out the window with his Indian Removal Act (Page 98). It was a lowly thing to do to overlook the Supreme Court's decision to allow the natives to merge with our own culture and live in peaceful harmony (Page 99). Perhaps they could have even been pacifically removed as Jefferson had proposed. Despite it all, Jackson did what he felt was best for his country, getting rid of all "obstacles" and only looking to capitalize upon others' vulnerability. The result was the dreadful and tragic Trail of Tears. Truly, this marks one of the saddest days in American history.
Nestor i would agree with you when you say that "Jackson was only doing what he felt what was best for his country" because he wanted them out only to expand America and make it better.
In the reading of "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs", I read and found out that Andrew Jackson had options for what to do when it came to dealing with Native Americans that were in the southwest. In Jackson's opinion, Indian Removal was what he thought was best. The Indians was a so called "obstacle" as said so on page 97 in the first paragraph. When Jackson referred to them that "could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages." Jackson included that Native Americans and Americans had the ability to live along side each other. On page 104, Jackson says "Cherokees even started to emulate the slave society around them: they owned thousands of slaves...they even welcomed missionaries and Christianity." Even though I think that not all Indians left there customs, Americans should allow them to live on their land.
I agree with you that the Indians should have been allowed to stay on their own lands because they were the original settlers and they deserved some sort of rights.
In the reading of "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs", i found that Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from their lands to grow cotton & grain pg 97.Removing the indians, although might not have been the best strategy. Perhaps he believed that the native americans were bad for his country pg 98. Jackson was not trying to hurt anyone, but it was to easy to simply hurt them and get rid of them. He could have simply of made a contract or can to an agreement with the indians and not force them west. The decisions he made her perhaps not the best, but they seemed easier, he didn't want to deal with them any longer so just pushed them out.
Yami, I think we are in the same page here since I also think that he did have other more peaceful options such as an agreement. In addition, I agree that he was not patient enough hence he then pushed them out.
Such harsh movement of the Indians out of the area between the Appalachians and the Mississippi was not Jackson's only option. Yes, it is understood that he "...cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities..."(pg. 97), but him invading Indian Territory and for them to migrate elsewhere was not the solution. "Before Jackson became president...the Southern Indians and the whites had settled down...white men were allowed to visit the Indian communities and Indians were often guests in white homes."(pg 103). 'But Jackson being known as "...the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history..."(pg 98) and "...exterminator of Indians..."(pg 100) felt that the Indians needed to be removed as soon as possible from beyond the Mississippi. Thus, he sent an army to remove the Creeks. The Creeks reacted and later allied with the U.S. Army to help "Fight the Seminoles in Florida in return for a promise that their families could remain in Alabama..."(pg.107) Unfortunately, that promise was not kept. Besides Jackson did not have full control in removing the Indian tribes from their territory, "Federal treaties and federal laws gave Congress, not the states, authority over the tribes."(pg.101) Indeed, Jackson had other options to remove the Indians from the territory he needed, he just did not know how exactly to propose the plan for Indian removal.
The Indian removal of the five civilized tribes was not the only option Andrew Jackson had, but in his opinion, it was the most easiest and beneficial way for both sides. Andrew's goal was to get rid of the Native Americans so he can grow cotton and grain. He wanted to build railroads, canals, and new cities to expand the country. (pg.97) Jackson strongly urged them to migrate by promising them land and goods. They were also promised that if they moved westward of Mississippi then there would be a treaty council in 1825 with the Cherokees and Shawnees and that they would no longer be bothered for land. (Pg. 101) In my opinion i believe that it would of been better for the Native Americans to fight and stay where they were settled because the "Trail Of Tears" caused them to get diseases and killed 1/3 of their nation.
Lezlee I agree with you due to the fact that Andrew Jackson had other options on dealing with the Indians but he decided that going with Indian Removal would be a much simpler way.
Lezlee i agree with you, i see your point of view when you say the native Americans should have tried to fight for the land where they settled since a big majority of their nations loss was due to the trail of tears. i like how you set your opinion out to back up your quotes .
"Andrew Jackson wanted to clear the land from the Appalachians and the Mississippi to clear it for cotton for the south and grain for the north"(pg.97). "It would also create expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the construction of an empire clear across the pacific ocean."(pg.97) "The white males were the head of the country since they felt they were the dominant force while they saw the Native Americans as the weak and needy and were patronized for it".(pg.97) The reason why conflicts arose was since the whites saw them as unneeded,they began to burn their villages which caused them some wars or forced them to leave their land. The Indians had a tough time since they were losing land and numbers fast all due to the "Indian Removal" cause created by white males and spread by white males.
ReplyDeleteThe land the Cherokees lived on was very valuable to Americans.
DeleteIndian removal was definitely not Andrew Jackson’s only option for dealing with the Native Americans in the Southeast. To begin with, Jackson was the most aggressive enemy of the Natives during this period which would push him towards Indian removal.(P. 98) After the war with the Creek Indians, a treaty granted the Indians individual ownership of land which split the Indians up and ended communal landholding.(P. 99) Jefferson had had a way of handling the Indians by bringing them into the American civilization, which was something Jackson could have done. (P. 99) Jackson just did not seem to want to comply with this Jeffersonian idea. Jackson could have also had the Indians voluntarily move westward as explained by Lewis Cass. (P.100-101). Andrew Jackson figured a method in which the Indians would not be pushed to the West, but if they chose to stay in the land they would have to abide by the laws established in that state. These laws would destroy their tribal and personal rights. (P. 101). Another option would have been to let the Indians live in harmony with the Americans. In the 1820s, the southern Indians were able to live side by side and share their cultures. Groups like the Cherokees knew that they needed to adapt to the American lifestyle in order to survive. (P. 103-104). As you can see, Jackson did not need to force the Indians west on The Trail of Tears. They were willing to live amongst the Americans. It was Jackson’s hatred for the Indians that pushed him to use Indian removal.
ReplyDeleteGood point...seems like Andrew Jackson had his mind up about the Native Americans
DeleteAndrew Jackson’s primary option in dealing with the Indians was to remove them from the South, but as time passed and relations emerged, Jackson had new options in dealing with them. At first, according to As Long As Grass Grows or Water Runs, Andrew Jackson wanted to “clear the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi…” purposely to, “clear it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities…” (pg. 97) In order to remove Indians from their native southern lands, Andrew Jackson was motivated to fight against them, such as in The Battle of Horseshoe Bend, where out of 1,000 Creek Indians, 800 were killed. Since Andrew Jackson’s troops failed to attack the Creeks, he “promised governmental friendship (to the Cherokee Indians) if they joined the war, swam the river, came upon behind the Creeks and won the battle for Jackson.”(pg. 99) This proves that Andrew Jackson’s option in dealing with the Indians was NOT only to remove them but also to negotiate with them. When Andrew Jackson asked the Cherokee Indians to be on their side, he created a sense of relationship with them. At last, Andrew Jackson had made a decision, “if the Indians chose to stay they would have to abide by state laws, which destroyed their tribal and personal rights and made them subjects to endless harassment and invasion by white settlers coveting their land.” (pg. 101) With such said, one can say that despite Andrew Jackson’s desire in Indian Removal, he had other options in dealing with them such as, “breaking communal landholding, bribing some with land, leaving others out…and bringing them into civilization.” (pg. 99) To conclude, Andrew Jackson did indeed want to remove the Indians from the South, yet that was not his only option in dealing with them.
ReplyDeleteThe negotiation allowed Jackson to create ties with the Cherokee, thus gaining their trust.
DeleteThis all started since the white males believed that the Native Americans were weak and needy and they patronized them for it. they were described as unneeded and they way to force them out was to burn their villages.
DeleteI wish maybe you could have stated another possible option.
DeleteThey needed to remove the Indians because they wanted to grow cotton and grain. (pg 97) Jefferson said that, "Indian removal was necessary for the opening of the cast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of the modern capitalist economy." Andrew Jackson was a land speculator as well as many other things and he became famous because of the War of 1812, which was a war that expanded the new nation into Florida, Canada, and the Indian Territory. (pg 98) The Creek Indians which lived mostly in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi attacked Jackson’s troops and Jackson promised rewards of land if they left. In 1814, Jackson fought the Battle of Horseshoe Bend again the Creeks. Jackson had the Cherokees fighting with him because he promised them governmental friendship. Jackson ended taking most of the land of the Creeks. Jackson’s military also burned Seminole villages and seized Spanish forts and practically forced Spain to sell land. (pg 99) Jackson forced Indians to leave their land, so the whites could us the land.
ReplyDeleteThey required the land for grain and cotton to live and provide for the new nation.
DeleteWhen evaluating if Jackson had only one way to deal with the Indians,it is clear he had more options. In chapter seven "As Long as Grass Grows or, water Runs" it begin to describe the feeling Americans have toward the Indians. "The Indian not needed- Indeed,an obstacle..."(pg.97) From the begining Andrew looks at them with no value merely an obstacle to country expansion. Jackson had no heart for Indians and their rights as he was, "...the most aggressive enemy of the Indians..."(pg.98)So this just further proves his actions were out of hate as opposed to option. Just like in the past the Indians revolted and, fought back. After the war with the creek Indians a treaty was written.(pg.99) This treaty presented Indians with land holding. Jackson could done peaceful deal with the Indians for land. He could even used Jefferson's plan but, instead he went for his own way. He would trick the Indians and, swindle them out of there land.(pg.99) He eventually forced the Indians west. (pg.100) Lewis class explains that Jackson could of moved the Indians voluntarily.(pg.101) This would of been a better moved than removing natives from their land, although the white man still took there land. Jackson did something similar to this, but it violated the Indians rights. If they did not force the Indians to west in the "Trails of Tears" they could of learned to settle into american culture. Which did eventually happen, it was just a matter of time. Jackson had more than one option with dealing with the Indians but, his hate for them stopped him from looking further.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as Jackson hating them even with the way he treated them he just had no better idea to get rid of them and its easier to be unfair and cruel to get what u want rather than be fair.
DeleteAlthough I agree with your other points, I would have to agree with Justine that Jackson didn't necessarily hate the Indians. Rather he saw them as an inconvience to American expansion. Jackson main drive towards Indian removal was not hate but the benefit of the Americans.
DeleteGood points, but I too have to agree with Justine. I don't believe Jackson hated the Indians, he just could not propose the removal of the Indians in a kindly manner.
DeleteI dont personally believe that jackson hated the indians. I believe that he did what was best for his country.
DeleteI have to disagree with Justine, i believe Jackson despised the Indians somewhat.
DeleteI agree with most of your points and I have to disagree with Justine and say that I do think that Jackson held some strong hatred towards the Indians.
DeleteOf course indian removal was not Andrew Jackson's only option for dealing with the Native Americans in the Southeast. The fact that Andrew Jackson was considered the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history was already a bad quality (P.98). Jackson urged for expansion in the U.S. which caused many conflicts with indian tribes. One for example, was the war with the Creek Indians. The Creek Indians occupied most of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi (P. 98). This was obviously a very significant amount of land to obtain. Instead of burning down a Creek village, killing men, women, and children, Jackson should of acted more rational towards the indians and made peaceful relations. Not even thinking of this possibility, Jackson began to dictate treaties that took away native land from the Indians (P.99). Some of the treaties even split indian tribes, by granting some Indians individual ownership of land. The Indians were not forced to go west but if they chose to stay they would have to follow the laws of the state they lived in. This destroyed the Indian's tribal and personal rights (P.101) Jackson's obsession with gaining more land caused the so many Indian conflicts in the U.S. and the death of many Indians as well. Jackson should have just respected the Indian's native lands and allowed them to live there peacefully. The Indians were indeed there first and Jackson did not own any of the land therefore had no right to take away something that had already belonged to someone else.
ReplyDeleteMariana I completely agree with you in the sense that Jackson should have acted in a more rational matter regarding Indians and also that Jackson's obsession with land was what caused so many problems between Americans and Indians.
DeleteMariana I would have to disagree with you when you say "Andrew Jackson was considered the most aggressive enemy of the Indians" because that is not true. Jackson had adopted a native american and raised it as his own. If he was such an enemy then he would not have adopted him and gave him a home. (This was not in the packet but based on my own knowledge of staying for tutoring with Mr. Gibson :)
DeleteWell Lezlee that opinion was in the packet so i just used it as a reference in my paragraph. :)
Delete"the indian, not needed- indeed, an obstacles could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages" pg.97 "jefferson now committed the federal government to promote future removal of the creek and the cherokee from georgia" pg.97 "let the white perish. they seize your land; they corrupt your women, they trample on the ashes of your dead! back whence they came, upon a trail of blood , thy must be driven" pg.98 these are all key examples that Andrew jackson indian removal wasnt the only option for dealing with the native americans , yet he was determined to going along with his idea since his hatred was the main reason why he continued with the removal. jackson saw them as obstacles like said the first quote , he just didnt want them in his way for his future plans .. but the indians just dealt with the fact that they have to live amongst the americans.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Jackson hated Native Americans is very clear through this reading right Abby.It lets us know in page 99 " Jackson began raids into Florida, arguing it was a sanctuary for escaped slaves and for manufacturing Indians" Good point.
Deletevery nice use of quote " Jackson began raids into Florida, arguing it was a sanctuary for escaped slaves and for manufacturing Indians" . :D loved how you laid this paragraph out
Deletethanks guys (:
DeleteAndrew Jackson didnt necessarily hate the indians since he did adopt a native boy and raised him as one of his one (Mr.Gibson's words)but he thought of indian removal as a good idea .. so i would have to disagree with you on that one but other than that your point are on point and very descriptive.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJackson wanted to remove the Indians from their lands to grow cotton & grain (pg 97). However there were other options besides removal. Jackson thought that in order to achieve a greater american economy he had to get rid of the Indians (pg 98). Thus further justifying his sought of Indian removal. The treaty that had been written after the war with the Creek Indians granted the Indians ownership of land (pg 99). This was too tempting for Jackson & others to trick & cheat they Indians of their land. When Jackson had the Indians move west he could have had the Indians move voluntarily like Lewis class explained (pg 101). Another option that was presented was to live with peaceful relations among the Indians perhaps bringing them into "civilization" from the old Jeffersonian idea (pg 99). Again, Jackson had many other options, though he blinded himself with lust & greed that removal seemed the only way to go through his perspective.
ReplyDeleteI like your ending sentence which says that Jackson blinded himself with lust and greed. It's true that his ambitious desire for land lead him to deal with the Indians.
Deletei agree with your post because i felt like Andrew Jackson had other options instead for the Indian removal.
DeleteAs my fellow classmates may have informed in the book on (page 97) to be exact, Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians to be removed from their own lands so that americans can grow cotton as well as grain. Andrew Jackson looked at the Indians as no value and decided to take advantage of them. On (page 98) the Indians were tricked and move themselves West. (Page 99) In addition, Andrew Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from the South (Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi), yet he could have done this act in a different matter ...
ReplyDeleteThat's true and i agree that Andrew Jackson did see the Indians in such matter.
DeleteI do agree that Jackson did not have much interest in the Indians, but it your paragraph I do think that you could have elaborated more on why Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from the South.
DeleteIvan, I would have to agree with you what you said about the part where Andrew Jackson choose to go with that method i mean wasn't the only way to go.
DeleteIvan you did a good job on describing the ways in which Jackson felt towards indians and the actions he took to get rid of them, and i agree with you. However, i believe you could have devoted a little more time to describing other options Jackson may have took, reason being that was the essential question and you lacked to answer it.
DeleteAfter reading chapter seven "As Long as Grass Grows or, water Runs" It's apparent that Jackson had other alternatives, but chose to do what he did because he thought like most Americans at the time why be no need to be passive with them when you could just beat them off the land. This quote sums up what Jackson and most Americans saw in the Indians "The Indian, not needed-indeed, an obstacle- could be dealt with by sheer force,"(pg.97) All of Jackson's actions stemmed from his hatred towards the Indians not out of lack of options he was seen as"...Exterminator of Indians... "(pg.98) During his Presidency it was he ignored congresses power over Federal Treaties and laws and supported state action. By supporting state action Indians wouldn't be "forced to move go west. But if they chose to say they would have to abide by state laws"(pg.101) These laws caused the Indians great hardship having to cope with the constant harassment and land invasion from white settlers. After gold was discovered in Cherokee Territory; white settlers destroyed the Indian territory and claimed it as their own Jackson only interfered to let the Indians know there was nothing he could do. (pg.101) Jackson used the Indians strong attachment to their culture against them because instead of staying on their territory and adapting to American culture they moved. From the beginning Jackson's upbringing and deep-rooted hatred of the Indians blinded him to any other option than Indian Removal.
ReplyDeleteIt is a well-known fact that Jackson was not the Natives' best friend per se but I do believe you are taking too strong a stand on this subject considering it is debatable. Andrew Jackson did in fact raise an adopted Creek boy by the name of Lyncoya. I will however agree with you in the sense that Jackson had much resentment for the Natives (he was a war general). It is really a shame the way it all went down for the natives. I do believe you could have better formulated your thesis statement. I believe this all goes to show Jackson was a pioneer in his beliefs and impulsiveness. It also seems your conclusion could use some work on it.
Delete"As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" states that Jackson wanted to eliminate Indian tribes from their territory for the whites (pg 97). Jackson was known for the hero of the war of 1812 that led new expansion for the new nation and it was what Jackson was plan on doing (pg 98). The whites saw Jackson as the "father" and they were the children and not all Indians agreed to such matter. Indians are well known to having their own belief's which is why they did not obey. The Indians would not be forced to the west, but if they chose to stay the would abide the state laws as well as destroy the personal and tribal rights. I think it was wrong the way Jackson proposed moving the New Nation to the Indian territory because it caused deaths, conflicts, and the Indians had no right or say to what had belonged to them for so many years.
ReplyDeleteJustinee I agree with you because I also believe Jackson should have respected the Indians and their beliefs.
DeleteI do agree with what u said above since the Indians were weak at the time since the war of 1812 and it was wrong for Jackson and his supporters to agree to this act even if some of these tribes never fought or had anything to do with the war.
DeleteI completely agree with you Justine because either way if the Indians stayed or moved to the West, their beliefs and rights would be taken away from them. It was injustice how they were treated by Jackson, then the Americans.
DeleteIndian removal was not the only option Andrew Jackson had, but he believed it was the best way to resolve issues with Indians and their lands. Their land proved to be valuable to the U.S. for planting crops, expansion, and even finding gold.(P.101)Andrew Jackson could have simply paid no attention to the Natives and let them live along side Americans as if they were a part of their country. It was proven in the 1820's when Indians and whites had learn to be in a community together with peace and no war.(P.103) Unfortunately, Andrew Jackson, along with other white settlers, grew to become selfish and greedy. He began to inform Indians that they should leave their land and if they did not comply then they would be without protection, funds, and at the mercy of the states.(P.104)He was giving Indians no choice because either way, they were on their own. Removing Indians from their land was not a one and only option, but Jackson decided not to deal with it any other way because he would be gaining more by getting rid of the nuisance.
ReplyDeleteDiana I agree with you based on how Andrew Jackson believed that by Indian Removal it would solve all the issues they had with the Indians instead of just leaving them in peace.
DeleteAndrew Jackson indeed had other alternatives with Indian removal to deal with the Native Americans in the Southeast. Before going on any further let me say that Jackson's personality seemed quite hot headed based on the reading of "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs".(PG.98) By this being said he envisioned things like some of the Americans."The Indian not needed,indeed an obstacle."(PG.97) In my opinion I feel that Andrew Jackson wanted an easy way out OF this situation with the Native Americans. Later Jackson desired for expansion in the U.S. which caused many conflicts with indian tribes. One for example was the war with the Creek Indians. The Creek Indians took up most space of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.(PG 98)When I read this part of the reading I couldn't help but get that feeling that Andrew Jackson was just striving to get more and more power. Jackson had many more options to deal with the Indians; like for example he could have done what Jefferson did and bring them into American Civilization.(PG 99) Overall Andrew Jackson did not really handle this situation very well. I feel that Jackson was TOO focused on gaining more land that he didn't really "notice" the damage he was causing with the Indians. Jackson took advantage of them because he knew very well that they had no voice and that to me was not a way to handle Indian Removal.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your opinion on him being hot headed. I believe that because he was so hot headed and had his mind set up on what he wanted to do with the Indians, he paid no attention to any other option than Indian Removal.
DeleteI also agree with agree you that Jackson didn't not know how much damage and suffering he was giving the Indians and that he was more concentrated on gaining more and more land.
DeleteWe could clearly see that the Indian Removal was not the only option for Andrew Jackson to deal with the Native Americans in the Southwest. As I read "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" I could see that Jackson wanted to get rid of the Indians from their land to grow cotton and grain, he wanted to make the territory for the whites (pg 97). His hate towards the Indians were reflected on Jackson's actions. Jackson also thought that in order to have a greater economy he had to remove the Indians (pg 98). Andrew Jackson didn't want the Native Americans to become an obstacle for his future plans. Jackson could have done the samething that Jefferson did, he brought the Indians into the American civilization (pg 99). Jackson's decision was to force the Indians to move to the west, he had other options but he ignored them. We could even say that the hate that he had towards the Indians made him decided on what he had to do.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point when you say that Jackson though that to have a good economy he needed the Indians out. But I feel like if Jackson would of been a bit smart and settled in Native lands and used the Natives as workers he would of have an advantage. Don't you think?
DeleteI agree with you my fellow peer. Jackson could have been more smart about it. I also agree with what you talk about jacskons economy plan.
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge it is clear that Indian Removal was not the only option for Andrew Jackson to resolve problems with the southeast Native Americans. To begin with Jackson proved to be a man of pure interest,well all he had in mind was economic expansion in cotton, grain etc (pg.97). Not only that but Jackson could also sell the land and profit from it would then go toward federal revenue(pg.98), i believe that with that Jacksons intentions were fairly clear. Instead of banishing the indians from there land he had the option to create treaties in which the indians agreed to adapt to the american lifestyle(pg.99). Jackson's denial to do so proved his hatred toward indians, because instead of approving these types of treaties he decided in others, in which Indians were forced to give upland as it is explained by Cass(pg.100). The indians were innocent of anything they were accused of and they had already proved that at the time that they lived side by side with the whitefolk of the south(pg.103) because they knew that it was necessary in order to survive in the world of Jacksonian beliefs. " lands were taken,their government abolished, all meetings prohibited"(pg.105) this action suggested by Jackson was just another of his unorthodox ideas, in my eyes the best option for Jackson was to simply leave the indians in there own peaceful world because clearly they meant no harm at all. In sum treaties, bargains, and even bribes in my opinion would have been better actions of Jackson to take toward the indians, rather than their removal of land that rightfully belonged to them, but clearly in this case nothing could have touched the heart of this stubborn and wrongful man.
ReplyDeleteArlene I did like the way you would explain why this happened and why that happened after you brought up a topic from the reading. Good job.
DeleteYou all rock for doing the reading and analyzing!!
ReplyDeleteThere is always an abundant amount of paths or options for people,Andrew Jackson not being an exception, could have decided with but like them he chose the option that he personally approved of given his nature. According to (page 98) "Jackson....was the most aggressive enemy of the Indians" therefore his relationship with the Indians directly affected his decision in handling the situation. He was biased in this conflict therefore he chose the hostile manner by removing the Indians as fast as he could. Of course there was motive behind this (page 102) "...gold was discovered in Cherokee territory in Georgia" which was a strong factor in the process. After all, money does make the world go round, being in that time any type of income was welcome, if there were any obstacles they would be eventually overcome.Yet some people such as Andrew Jackson are not patient enough to wait it out, therefore they take immediate action, he removed the Indians (page 100) "...seventy thousand Indians east of the Mississippi were forced westward...Sac and Fox Indians of Illinois were removed". Andrew Jackson could have simply made peaceful deals with the Indians, attempted every method possible before he resorted to violence using it as a last measure but he chose not to.His motives being both land and the natural resources that the land contains were interfering with the possibility of having any other choice.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. Jackson's greed to further expand gave him more motive to get rid of the Indians as soon as possible. He had no sympathy to the Indians, for if he truly did not despise them he would have explored other options than dive head on to a cruel method.
DeleteJackson certainly had a few options on how to deal with the Native Americans in the southeast, but as shown in chapter seven of "As Long as Grass Grown or Water Runs" demonstrates Jackson chose the easy/beneficial way to deal with the Native Americans. Jackson felt that it was necessary for Indian removal to take action but only because this would do good in opening American lands of agriculture.(pg. 98)Jackson could have handled this in a neutral way, Americans could have come to establish lands for agriculture but the Native Americans did not have to be removed from their home land.Indian chief Tecumseh noted that "The land, belongs to all, for the use of each"(pg.98) Jackson could of used these Native Americans as workers since they already known the land like no other.Another example I think shows that Jackson had this hate towards the Native Americans was that under Jackson seventy thousand Indians east of Mississippi were forced westward.(pg.100) If anyone else had a problem with the Natives being there why did it take until Jackson to remove them? Before Jackson became president in 1802 after the War of 1812 and the Creek War it seemed that southern Indians and the whites were settled near by and they all lived in peace. At times Native Americans would be the guest of white homes.(pg.103) Jackson came and destroyed this peace when he could of simply worked or established whatever we wanted around the people. As a matter a fact the Cherokees felt their only way of survival was to adapted to the American life.(pg. 104-104) That was the other option he had, letting the Indians settle and accustomed to the new culture. If this would of been the case, the Trail of tears might of not happened and innocent lives wouldn't of been lost.(pg. 109) Jackson just did not want to see Native Americans in "his land" which actually was never his.
ReplyDeleteI like your reference on why it took Jackson to remove the Indians, if it seemed to be such a huge problem. It gives more support on the idea that Jackson only paid attention to his own opinions.
DeleteHeidi, the Cherokee Natives were in fact in a process of voluntary adoption of American culture , private property, agriculture, etc. They even developed a writing system and drafted a constitution which had been inspired by the U.S. In war, they had fought alongside Jackson and despite all this, he still decided to sign the Indian Removal Act. I think your thesis is very vague and could definitely be improved as well as your conclusion. Although you had a lengthy response, you must keep in mind, quality matters more than quantity. Additionally, he claimed to be doing this in the name of America, which in the long run did in fact help the nation expand westward. This all stems back to the early 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century expansion theory of Europe. They were claiming land that did not belong to them, at the expense of the Native Peoples.
DeleteAfter reading chapter seven "As Long as Grass Grows or, water runs" we can clearly see that Indian removal was not Andrew Jackson’s only option for dealing with the Native Americans southeast. At first, Andrew Jackson wanted to clear the “Appalachians and the Mississippi to have cotton, expansion, immigration, canals, railroad...” (Pg. 97) Also, Jackson was “… the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history. (p.98) In order for Jackson to obtain lands he was in involved in several battles and because some of Jackson’s people were not able to win on some of the battles he negotiated with Indians and with that said we can see that removal wasn’t only his option for dealing with the Native Americans but bring to terms and for them to be in his side. But Jackson also wanted to the economic to grow “for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the devolvement of modern capitalist economy.”(Pg. 98) He also caused many damages to the Indians when he “proposed the Congress that Indians should be encouraged to settle down on smaller tracts and do farming.”(Pg.98) Overall, Jackson’s removing Indians from their land was not his only option but he in a way decided to avoid all the other options.
ReplyDeleteMaritza you made a very strong point when mentioning negotiations Jackson had previously made with the Indians that proved he clearly did have other options other than removal. I completely agree with your evaluation and feel you had a clear understanding of who Jackson was and why he took the actions that he did.
DeleteAfter Reading “As long as Grass Grows or Water Runs”, it was evident that the so-called “Indian removal” was nothing but an unnecessary aggressive approach by Andrew Jackson, who was known as the “most aggressive enemy of the Indians” (Pg.98). Jackson thought that eliminating Indians would be easy and that it was the only way to go about in this type of situation (Pg.98). However, Indian removal was not the only option for dealing with the Native Americans of the southeast. There could have been plenty of other resolutions, but the land-hungry white thieves attacked the Creek families and thus drove them away from their homes, even after they had volunteered to help the United States army fight the Seminoles in Florida (Pg.107). Andrew Jackson seemed blinded by his hatred towards the Indians to realize that some tribes were willing to cooperate with the whites to create a congenial environment. Despite the hardships, the Creeks refused to leave, but by 1836, both state and federal officials decided they must go (Pg.107). Unfortunately, Andrew Jackson proceeded with the removal of all Indians, despite the fact that there were other options that could have been elaborated on and that could have resulted in a better outcome.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that Jackson had it out for the Indians. Indian removal was certainly an unnecessary act of agression, and it is true that there were tribes that were more than willing to cooperate with the Americans. Some tribes adopted democracy and a constitution. Put some thought into the options Jackson had when dealing with the Indians.
DeleteIndian removal was not Andrew Jackson’s only route when dealing with the Native Americans of the Southeast. First of all, Jackson believed relocating the Indians was necessary so they could expand America into a more modern capitalist economic nation (Pg. 98). After the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, Jackson lawfully made a treaty in 1814, which started granting Native individual land ownership but was separating them as well (Pg. 99). Jackson had the decision to allow the Indians to be civil with the Americans in the Southeast, however Andrew did not want them to be accepted so easily. Once Jackson was elected as president he denounced that Indians did not have to move they could stay but they had to abide under each states laws (Pg. 101). The most simple and direct choice Jackson could of considered was to allow them to be whatever religion they wanted and allow them to adapt as American and Indians. The Cherokees tried to adjust to white man’s world, by becoming farmers, blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, and owners or property (Pg. 103-104). However Jackson’s hatred toward the Indians resulted in a great abundance of Indian removal from the Southeast.
ReplyDeleteI found it surprising that Jackson thought the Indians were hindering the economic advancement of the United States. Why do you think Jackson was thinking this way? I believe the nation could have easily gone on with their lives under peace treaties with the Indians and made economic alliances with them. The Indians and Americans could have worked together to benefit everyone. Indians could have been made American citizens, but Jackson's agression got the best of him and made the American-Native relations very weary.
DeleteIndian removal was clearly not the only option Andrew Jackson had for dealing with the Native Americans of the southeast.However, it was the most effective for his plan to "clear the land for cotton,grain,expansions, immigration, canals,railroads,new cities,and to build a huge continental empire"(Pg.97).One way Jackson could have handled the Indians was by following Jefferson's idea of encouraging the Natives to settle down on smaller tracts and do farming (Pg.98)and bringing them into "civilization"(Pg.99).Another option was explained by Lewis Cass,which consisted of moving the Natives Westward without "forcing" them.Jackson proposed the idea but with one condition that "if they chose to stay they would have to abide by state laws, which destroyed their tribal and personal rights and made them subject to endless harassment and invasion by white settlers coveting their land"(pg.101).Jackson was blinded by his hatred towards Natives and his obsession for owning land and that's what drove him towards his decision of by any cause removing the Indians of their land.
ReplyDeleteArely I completely agree with your statement that Indian Removal was the most effective for Jackson's selfish plans. Jackson could have allowed whites and Indians to live alongside each other but it wouldn't benefit American expansion as much as Indian Removal.
DeleteArely i like how you implied that it it was a selfish plan from Jackson, very nice paragraph :D
DeleteI would also have to agree with you and Isabel about the Indian Removal. It was a huge impact and was extremly effecftive.
DeleteGreat job overall Arely!
Indian Removal was most definitely not the only alternative Andrew Jackson had to deal with the Native Americans in the Southeast.As i read "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" i came to realize Jackson was looking forward to simply getting rid of the Native Americans no matter what." Indian removal was necessary for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce,to markets , to money,to development of the modern capitalist economy" (pg 98),Jackson mainly focused on benefits that suited himself and the Americans regardless what the Indians believed or felt.Andrew Jackson saw Indians as an obstacle to achieve his plans. There were other ways he could have came into negotiation with the Indians for example "... the old Jeffersonian idea of how to handle the Indians, by bringing them into "civilization".Instead Jackson forced the Indians to move west when in my opinion he could have tried to work out a way were neither would have resulted "damaged".
ReplyDeleteRosangelica, I agree with you that Jackson should have found a way to cooperate with the Indians. However, his mentality that they were ruining their American expansion like you mentioned got the best of him. He believed wiping the Indians out would be the best decision for him, his people, and America but clearly was not. There could of been an in between compromise that both could have settled for.
DeleteI agree with you because I Jackson could have found another way to deal with the Indians, but he wanted the land and he did what he thought was best. I Still believe it wasn't the best way and he could have made a better choice.
DeleteOnce I read "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" what they called the "Indian Removal." Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians to be removed from their own lands so that Americans could grow cotton and grain. was a way that Andrew Jackson had to turn to and he had believed that it was the best option to resolve this. The Indians wouldn't be forced to the west, but if they chose to stay then they would abide the state laws and would destroy the personal and tribal rights. Although "Jackson was the hero of the War of 1812" as stated on Page 98 this caused many deaths and then also created a new expansion to the new nation. Also it stated that Jackson had no heart and was very aggressive towards the Indians. Most the Indians tribes were really trying to cooperate with the Americans ,but Jackson was to blinded by this. They m,ight have been other options in which he could have gone by but he thought this way would probably be more effective which it was. In other words Jackson was a man with great anger towards Indians by my perspective. You can tell throughout the whole reading ,but a key point you might like to look at is when he starts saying that he raids Florida on Pages 98-99. You can tell like I mentioned before and he also makes it very clear.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about Jackson’s proposal of Indian removal? Do you believe there was another way? I believe you stayed on the subject but could of emphasized more on the reason of what else Jackson could of done. So in other words it was more of your opinion with facts surrounding it. However all in all, you wrote a good response.
DeleteIndian Removal was clearly not the only option Andrew Jackson had in dealing with southeastern tribes. In fact Americans and Native Americans were capable of living alongside each other. "After the War of 1812 and the Creek War, the southern Indians and the whites had settled down and were living in peace in a natural environment." (p. 103)Additionally some Indian tribes were even willing to assimilate and adapt to the white definition of "civilization". "Cherokees even started to emulate the slave society around them: they owned thousands of slaves...they even welcomed missionaries and Christianity." (p.104)Although I do not find it just that some Indians abandoned their customs, I believe that if they are willing to accommodate to the whites, Americans should pay their respects to the Indians for allowing them to live on their land. However Jackson's judgement was clouded with the greed of the common man and thus developed policies that would only benefit white Americans. Jackson only concerned himself with expansion and captialist dreams, instead of providing liberty and protection to the true Americans.
ReplyDeleteVery good paragraph. I like how you used "big" words but they were understandable. You made a good point in the middle of your paragraph when you said that if the Indians were willing to adapt to the whites' rules, then they should respect them, afterall they are living in the Indians' land. Good Good.
DeleteI definitely have to agree with Maria.I really like the fact that you gave your own opinion on the concept.Also agree that Jackson had no right to kick the Natives out of their own land, even after they tried to adapt to their way of life.
DeleteIn chapter 7, “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs,” Howard Zinn clearly shows that Jackson had more choices than simply Indian Removal. To begin with, Jackson already possessed a lot of anger towards Indians which is why he is remembered as the most aggressive enemy of the Indians (Pg.98). Jackson as devious as he was, used a tactic where he wouldn’t force Indians from their territory but instead, they could stay with the condition that they would abide by the states’ laws, which would ultimately abolish their culture and make them targets to harassment and invasion by white settlers who wanted their lands (Pg.101). Instead of taking all these irrational decisions on trying to force Indians to emigrate west of the Mississippi River, Jackson could have simply let them live in peace among the whites and maybe even help plow the cotton fields to help the cotton economy. On October 1, 1838, Indians began their migration westward in what is known as the Trail of Tears where many Indians died due to sickness, drought, the heat, and exposure (Pg.109). Finally I must say that from my point of view, Jackson could have simply let the Indians establish their own government and completely ignore them or make fair peace treaties but instead he let himself be dragged by anger and chose violence instead.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you.Jackson could have just let the Natives live in peace among the whites,but his anger towards the Indians makes him see Indian Removal as his only option.
DeleteI completely agree with you Peter because Jackson let his anger towards Indians drive him to making unreasonable decisons. He was clever in his decision to let the Indians make a choice whether to stay or leave, but it was overall injustice.
DeleteJackson abandoned the policy of his ancestors of treating different Indian groups as separate nations. Instead, he aggressively pursued plans to move all Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to west of the Mississippi. This was certainly not his only option, but since he was obsessed with obtaining more land he did what he wanted. In my opinion, it was extremely wrong of Jackson on how he proposed to move the new nation to the Indian territory mainly because Indians had no say in this, thus causing many conflicts. A treaty in 1814 was appointed after the war with the Creek Indians, stating that it granted Indians individual ownership of land, but breaking up communal landholding. (pg.99) As stated in "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs", Jackson was "...the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history." (pg.98) It was his hatred towards the Indians that led him to use Indian Removal.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with you on Jackson proposing the removal of the Indians in a different way. I also believe he did what he wanted.
DeleteI agree that Jackson was obsessed with obtaining as much land as possible even if it meant removing Indians out of their own lands. I would also agree on calling Jackson as the most agressive enemy towards the Indians because by forcing tribes to move long distances, thousands died.
DeleteAfter reading "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" I came to realize that Andrew Jackson had many options for dealing with Native Americans in the southwest. He just thought Indian Removal was the best way to go. The Indians seemed to be nothing but an "obstacle". The Indian, not needed-indeed, an obstacle-could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages."(pg. 97) The cost of human life did not seem as it was as important as what they achieved with the Indian Removal. "And so, "Indian removal," as it has been politely called, cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the bilding of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean."(pg. 97) Jackson thought this was the best for his land because he hated the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we see eye to eye with other people as well when it comes with the conclusion that Andrew Jackson was not fond of Native Americans but overall he took action,through his point of view, with which the best option for him had been the Indian Removal.
DeleteYo Joselyn,
DeleteI really liked your paragraph I think you worded it very well. I don't think I agree with your last sentence but overall I enjoyed your paragraph.
It is an undeniable fact that on many occasions, we as part of our humanly nature sometimes allow ourselves to be blinded by our feelings and our judgement upon other many-a-time-innocent people suffers the effects. Jackson, some might say, and I agree, was more "human" than others. Clearly that is demonstrated in the way he chose to handle Indian relations. We must always look at our options and choose those who benefit everyone which "King Andrew" failed to understand. He threw democracy along with the system of checks and balances out the window with his Indian Removal Act (Page 98). It was a lowly thing to do to overlook the Supreme Court's decision to allow the natives to merge with our own culture and live in peaceful harmony (Page 99). Perhaps they could have even been pacifically removed as Jefferson had proposed. Despite it all, Jackson did what he felt was best for his country, getting rid of all "obstacles" and only looking to capitalize upon others' vulnerability. The result was the dreadful and tragic Trail of Tears. Truly, this marks one of the saddest days in American history.
ReplyDeleteNestor i would agree with you when you say that "Jackson was only doing what he felt what was best for his country" because he wanted them out only to expand America and make it better.
DeleteIn the reading of "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs", I read and found out that Andrew Jackson had options for what to do when it came to dealing with Native Americans that were in the southwest. In Jackson's opinion, Indian Removal was what he thought was best. The Indians was a so called "obstacle" as said so on page 97 in the first paragraph. When Jackson referred to them that "could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages." Jackson included that Native Americans and Americans had the ability to live along side each other. On page 104, Jackson says "Cherokees even started to emulate the slave society around them: they owned thousands of slaves...they even welcomed missionaries and Christianity." Even though I think that not all Indians left there customs, Americans should allow them to live on their land.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the Indians should have been allowed to stay on their own lands because they were the original settlers and they deserved some sort of rights.
DeleteIn the reading of "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs", i found that Jackson wanted to remove the Indians from their lands to grow cotton & grain pg 97.Removing the indians, although might not have been the best strategy. Perhaps he believed that the native americans were bad for his country pg 98. Jackson was not trying to hurt anyone, but it was to easy to simply hurt them and get rid of them. He could have simply of made a contract or can to an agreement with the indians and not force them west. The decisions he made her perhaps not the best, but they seemed easier, he didn't want to deal with them any longer so just pushed them out.
ReplyDeleteYami, I think we are in the same page here since I also think that he did have other more peaceful options such as an agreement. In addition, I agree that he was not patient enough hence he then pushed them out.
DeleteSuch harsh movement of the Indians out of the area between the Appalachians and the Mississippi was not Jackson's only option. Yes, it is understood that he "...cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities..."(pg. 97), but him invading Indian Territory and for them to migrate elsewhere was not the solution. "Before Jackson became president...the Southern Indians and the whites had settled down...white men were allowed to visit the Indian communities and Indians were often guests in white homes."(pg 103). 'But Jackson being known as "...the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history..."(pg 98) and "...exterminator of Indians..."(pg 100) felt that the Indians needed to be removed as soon as possible from beyond the Mississippi. Thus, he sent an army to remove the Creeks. The Creeks reacted and later allied with the U.S. Army to help "Fight the Seminoles in Florida in return for a promise that their families could remain in Alabama..."(pg.107) Unfortunately, that promise was not kept. Besides Jackson did not have full control in removing the Indian tribes from their territory, "Federal treaties and federal laws gave Congress, not the states, authority over the tribes."(pg.101) Indeed, Jackson had other options to remove the Indians from the territory he needed, he just did not know how exactly to propose the plan for Indian removal.
ReplyDeleteThe Indian removal of the five civilized tribes was not the only option Andrew Jackson had, but in his opinion, it was the most easiest and beneficial way for both sides. Andrew's goal was to get rid of the Native Americans so he can grow cotton and grain. He wanted to build railroads, canals, and new cities to expand the country. (pg.97) Jackson strongly urged them to migrate by promising them land and goods. They were also promised that if they moved westward of Mississippi then there would be a treaty council in 1825 with the Cherokees and Shawnees and that they would no longer be bothered for land. (Pg. 101) In my opinion i believe that it would of been better for the Native Americans to fight and stay where they were settled because the "Trail Of Tears" caused them to get diseases and killed 1/3 of their nation.
ReplyDeleteLezlee I agree with you due to the fact that Andrew Jackson had other options on dealing with the Indians but he decided that going with Indian Removal would be a much simpler way.
DeleteLezlee i agree with you, i see your point of view when you say the native Americans should have tried to fight for the land where they settled since a big majority of their nations loss was due to the trail of tears. i like how you set your opinion out to back up your quotes .
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete