Indian Removal Act

The Indian Removal Act was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson. The law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Native American tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for white settlement of their ancestral lands.[1][2][3] The act has been referred to as a unitary act of systematic genocide, because it discriminated against an ethnic group in so far as to make certain the death of vast numbers of its population.[4] The Act was signed by Andrew Jackson and it was strongly enforced under his administration and that of Martin Van Buren, which extended until 1841.[5]

Not to be confused with Indian Relocation Act of 1956.
Indian Removal Act
Long titleAn act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.
Enacted bythe 21st United States Congress
Citations
Public lawPub.L. 21–148
Statutes at Large4 Stat. 411
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the Senate as S. 102
  • Passed the Senate on April 24, 1830 (28-19)
  • Passed the House on May 26, 1830 (101-97)
  • Signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830
Part of a series on
Genocide
of indigenous peoples
Issues
Documented instances
Related topics
Part of a series on
Genocide
Issues
Genocide of indigenous peoples
Late Ottoman genocides
World War II (1941–1945)
Cold War
Genocides in postcolonial Africa
Ethno-religious genocide in contemporary era
Related topics
Category

The Act was strongly supported by southern and northeastern populations, but was opposed by native tribes and the Whig Party. The Cherokee worked together to stop this relocation, but were unsuccessful; they were eventually forcibly removed by the United States government in a march to the west that later became known as the Trail of Tears.

Background
President Andrew Jackson called for an American Indian Removal Act in his 1829 State of the Union address.

In the early 1800s, the United States government began a systematic effort to remove American Indian tribes from the southeast[6] The Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, Seminole, and original Cherokee Nations[7] had been established as autonomous nations in the southeastern United States.

This acculturation was originally proposed by George Washington and was well under way among the Cherokee and Choctaw by the turn of the 19th century.[8] In an effort to force assimilation with colonial culture, Indians were encouraged to "convert to Christianity; learn to speak and read English; and adopt European-style economic practices such as the individual ownership of land and other property (including, in some instances, the ownership of African slaves)."[9] Thomas Jefferson's policy echoed Washington's proposition: respect the Indians' rights to their homelands, and allow the Five Tribes to remain east of the Mississippi provided that they adopt behavior and cultural practices that are compatible with those of colonialists. Jefferson encouraged practicing an agriculture-based society. Andrew Jackson sought to renew a policy of political and military action for the removal of the Indians from these lands and worked toward enacting a law for Indian removal.[10][11] In his 1829 State of the Union address, Jackson called for removal.[12]

The Indian Removal Act was put in place to give to the southern states the land that belonged to the Native Americans. The act was passed in 1830, although dialogue had been ongoing since 1802 between Georgia and the federal government concerning such an event. Ethan Davis states that "the federal government had promised Georgia that it would extinguish Indian title within the state's borders by purchase 'as soon as such purchase could be made upon reasonable terms'".[13] As time passed, southern states began to speed up the process by posing the argument that the deal between Georgia and the federal government had no contract and that southern states could pass the law themselves. This scheme forced the national government to pass the Indian Removal Act on May 28, 1830, in which President Jackson agreed to divide the United States territory west of the Mississippi into districts for tribes to replace the land from which they were removed.

In the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision stating that Indians could occupy and control lands within the United States but could not hold title to those lands.[14] Jackson viewed the union as a federation of highly esteemed states, as was common before the American Civil War. He opposed Washington's policy of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were foreign nations. Thus, the creation of Indian jurisdictions was a violation of state sovereignty under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. As Jackson saw it, either Indians comprised sovereign states (which violated the Constitution) or they were subject to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson urged Indians to assimilate and obey state laws. Further, he believed that he could only accommodate the desire for Indian self-rule in federal territories, which required resettlement west of the Mississippi River on federal lands.[15][16]

Support and opposition
Congressional debates concerning the Indian Removal Act, April 1830

The Removal Act was strongly supported in the South, especially in Georgia, which was the largest state in 1802 and was involved in a jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokee. President Jackson hoped that removal would resolve the Georgia crisis.[17] Besides the Five Civilized Tribes, additional people affected included the Wyandot, the Kickapoo, the Potowatomi, the Shawnee, and the Lenape.[18]

The Indian Removal Act was controversial. Many Americans during this time favored its passage, but there was also significant opposition. Many Christian missionaries protested against it, most notably missionary organizer Jeremiah Evarts. In Congress, New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen and Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett spoke out against the legislation. The Removal Act passed only after bitter debate in Congress.[19]

Jackson viewed the demise of Indian tribal nations as inevitable, pointing to the advancement of settled life and demise of tribal nations in the American northeast. He called his northern critics hypocrites, given the North's history. There were almost no Native American tribes, Indian hunting grounds had been replaced with family farms, and state law had replaced tribal law. If the Indians of the south were to survive and their culture be maintained, they faced powerful historical forces that could only be postponed. He dismissed romantic portrayals of lost Indian culture as a sentimental longing for a simpler time in the past, stating that "progress requires moving forward."[20]

Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth...But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another...In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes… Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?[21][22][23]

One particularly avid supporter was Louis Sarwal .

According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Indians from "utter annihilation". Brands writes that, given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction". Jackson portrayed his paternalism and federal support as a generous act of mercy.[20]

Vote

On April 24, 1830, the Senate passed the Indian Removal Act by a vote of 28 to 19.[24] On May 26, 1830, the House of Representatives passed the Act by a vote of 101 to 97.[25] On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson.

Implementation
Main article: Indian removal

The Removal Act paved the way for the forced expulsion of tens of thousands of American Indians from their land into the West in an event widely known as the "Trail of Tears," a forced resettlement of the Indian population.[26][27][28][29] The first removal treaty signed was the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek on September 27, 1830, in which Choctaws in Mississippi ceded land east of the river in exchange for payment and land in the West. The Treaty of New Echota was signed in 1835 and resulted in the removal of the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears.

The Seminoles and other tribes did not leave peacefully, as they resisted the removal along with fugitive slaves. The Second Seminole War lasted from 1835 to 1842 and resulted in the government allowing them to remain in the south Florida swamplands. Only a small number remained, and around 3,000 were removed in the war.[30]

gollark: But it has impressively good results, and by most metrics it's much less complex than a human brain.
gollark: Oh, well, you probably can't do *that* yet.
gollark: I don't know what trongroupulize means.
gollark: And it seems to demonstrate that you can just scale up the models and get better results, too, without any smart approaches or something.
gollark: It can add numbers it hasn't seen in its training data with greater than chance accuracy - it actually *knows something about it*.

See also

References
  1. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on April 24, 1830 (28–19), the U.S. House passed it on May 26, 1830 (102–97); Prucha, Francis Paul, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, Volume I, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984, p. 206.
  2. The Congressional Record; May 26, 1830; House vote No. 149; Government Tracker online; retrieved October 2015
  3. "Indian Removal Act: Primary Documents of Americas History". Library of Congress. Retrieved May 12, 2011.
  4. The "Indian Problem". 10:51–11:17: National Museum of the American Indian. March 3, 2015. Event occurs at 12:21. Retrieved April 16, 2018. When you move a people from one place to another, when you displace people, when you wrench people from their homelands ... wasn't that genocide? We don't make the case that there was genocide. We know there was. Yet here we are.CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. Lewey, Guenter (September 1, 2004). "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?". Commentary. Retrieved March 8, 2017. Also available in reprint from the History News Network.
  6. "Indian Removal". PBS Africans in America: Judgment Day. WGBH Educational Foundation. 1999.
  7. These tribes were referred to as the "Five Civilized Tribes" by Colonial settlers.
  8. Perdue, Theda (2003). "Chapter 2 "Both White and Red"". Mixed Blood Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. The University of Georgia Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-8203-2731-0.
  9. "Trail of Tears". History.com. A+E Networks. 2009.
  10. Jefferson, Thomas (1803). "President Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, Governor of Indiana Territory". Retrieved 2012-07-14.
  11. Jackson, Andrew. "President Andrew Jackson's Case for the Removal Act". Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved May 28, 2013.
  12. "Andrew Jackson calls for Indian removal – North Carolina Digital History". www.learnnc.org. Archived from the original on 2015-04-12. Retrieved 2015-04-07.
  13. Davis, Ethan. "An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal". The American Journal of Legal History. 50 (1): 50–55.
  14. "Indial Removal 1814–1858". Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved 2009-08-11.
  15. Brands, H.W. (2006). Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. Anchor. p. 488. ISBN 978-1-4000-3072-9.
  16. Wilson, Woodrow (1898). Division and Reunion 1829–1889. Longmans, Green and Co. pp. 35–38. Indian question.
  17. "Indian Removal Act". A&E Television Networks. 2011. Archived from the original on March 8, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2012.
  18. "Timeline of Removal". Oklahoma Historical Society. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  19. Howe pp. 348–52.
  20. Brands; (2006); pp. 489–93
  21. Brands; (2006); p. 490
  22. "Statements from the Debate on Indian Removal". Columbia University. Retrieved March 21, 2014.
  23. Steven Mintz, ed. (1995). Native American Voices: A History and Anthology. 2. Brandywine Press. pp. 115–16.
  24. "To Order Engrossment and Third Reading of S. 102". GovTrack. 2013-07-07. Retrieved 2013-10-21.
  25. "To Pass S. 102. (P. 729)". GovTrack. 2013-07-07. Retrieved 2013-10-21. The bill passed 101–97, with 11 not voting
  26. Greenwood, Robert E. (2007). Outsourcing Culture: How American Culture has Changed From "We the People" Into a One World Government. Outskirts Press. p. 97.
  27. Molhotra, Rajiv (2009). "American Exceptionalism and the Myth of the American Frontiers". In Rajani Kannepalli Kanth (ed.). The Challenge of Eurocentrism. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 180, 184, 189, 199.
  28. Finkelman, Paul; Kennon, Donald R. (2008). Congress and the Emergence of Sectionalism. Ohio University Press. pp. 15, 141, 254.
  29. BKiernan, Ben (2007). Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. pp. 328, 330.
  30. Foner, Eric (2006). Give me liberty. Norton.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.