President Andrew Jackson signed into law The Indian Removal Act of 1830 for the prospects of a better America for all. The regulation authorized the forced removal of Native American tribes from East of the Mississippi River. The paper addresses President Jackson’s rationale for the removal and the responsibilities the Indian Removal Act granted him. It also offers a contrast concerning Jackson’s actions and the Trail of Tears and whether the removal violated values found in the Declaration of Independence.
Jackson’s Rational for Removing Natives
President Andrew Johnson held that the primary agent of conflicts between states and national government on issues of the Indians would be solved by removing the Indian tribes from the East of the Mississippi River, as indicated by the National Archives (n.d). In the message addressed to Congress, the president indicated that this move would facilitate the growth of the population in terms of wealth and power. Technically, this intention would create a concept where the tribes would be isolated from the expansion of the United States and could maintain their traditional way of life (National Archives, n.d.). In meeting this prospect, the Indians would gain happiness, and the territories would become civilized despite the critics arguing that the president had other motives (Corbett et al., 2017). The eviction of the Native Americans from the East of the Mississippi River had mixed developments, depending on how individuals looked at it. It contributed to the increased cotton production for the country on the one end. On the other end, it culminated in widespread suffering, displacement, and death (Corbett et al., 2017). Generally, the disadvantages were gross, and it is accurate to conclude that it did not have the projected effect.
Presidential Responsibilities Granted by the Indian Removal Act of 1830
The president was responsible for granting the unsettled lands west of Mississippi as per the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Jenkins & Gray, 2023). President Jackson was given the authority to use force to conduct this activity in case he met any resistance in the process. He was supposed to negotiate the removal of the Souter Native American tribes, as reflected by Corbett et al. (2017). This venture of the Act gave the president so much power that it saw the forceful removal of many Native Americans. Jenkins & Gray (2023) imply that it is a component that would later cause many tragic encounters, as addressed in the first question and as expressed in the Trail of Tears.
Comparison between Jackson’s Speech and the Trail of Tears
In his initial opening talk, Jackson stated a protective attitude toward Native Americans. In his address, he had the intention to observe a just and liberal policy toward the Indian tribes within the limits he got accorded by the government (Jenkins & Gray, 2023). It is a context that later got strongly contracted by the reality of the Trail of Tears. The incidents encountered in this path were the exact opposite of his projection of protecting and preserving the sovereignty of the people. The forced removal, harsh conditions, inadequate supplies, and disease were the encounters in the Trail of Tears (Michael, n.d). These events culminated in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans (Corbett et al., 2017).
Violation of Principles of the Declaration of Independence.
According to Michael (n.d), The Declaration of Independence statement constitutes a uniting factor that gives everyone equal rights in America. Looking at the Declaration and the eviction of Native Americans raises significant questions about their alignment. The Declaration indicates that the government must have a light touch on how the citizens engage in their business and lives, but this is contrary to the Act, which used force to evict individuals, creating mass suffering and the loss of life (Michael et al., n.d.). The exclusion of the Native Americans from the East can be termed as an infringement of the inherent rights of individuals (Corbett et al., 2017).
Conclusion
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 depicted a positive effect on the Native Americans, but this turned out sour. The law saw mass eviction and loss of thousands of lives, which is opposed by the Declaration of Independence statements. The Indian Removal Act stands as a dark chapter in American history as its impact was adverse compared to the benefits for the indigenous peoples. Therefore, the application and implementation of the act had negative impacts that affected the entire population and more so the Native Americans. There was a need to respect human rights and utilize more strategy to eliminate the unintended population.
References
Corbett, P.S., Janssen, V., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T., Waskiewicz, S., Vickery, P. (2017). U.S. History. Ann Arbor: XanEdu.
Jenkins, J. A., & Gray, T. R. (2023). Congress and the Political Economy of the Indian Removal Act.
Michael, N., Smith, B. J., & Grand Falls, A. Z. (n.d). Reclaiming Social Justice and Human Rights: The 1830 Indian Removal Act and the Ethnic Cleansing of Native American Tribes. Journal of Health and Human Experience, 125. https://jhhe.sempervifoundation.org/pdfs/v7n1/02_Michael.pdf
National Archives. (n.d). President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/jacksons-message-to-congress-on-indian-removal
write