Consequences Of The Indian Removal Act
In August of 1492, Christopher Columbus had landed in present day America. At that time he thought he had landed in Asia (West Indies to be exact) and naturally he called the inhabitants Indians. Today we refer to them as Native Americans. Fast forward to about 300 years later; The Indian Removal Act. What made President Andrew Jackson pass off such an act, one that would forcibly remove the Natives from their land? And how would he justify his actions? This essay’s main objective will be to discuss the removal and the reasons why it was carried out.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 is arguably one of the most harsh and immoral acts of 1800s. It refers to the act which gave Jackson the authority to trade/exchange lands west of the Mississippi …show more content…
This treaty gave out western boundaries for white settlement. The second treaty was the treaty of Holston, this was signed between the US federal government and the Cherokee nation. They agreed that the government would protect the nation and give them their space.
In 1802 Thomas Jefferson signed a contract with the state of Georgia, which gave them the western and eastern lands in the state (Compact of 1802). Georgia State was paid 1,25million dollars for these lands, lands which belonged to the Cherokee nation. By carrying out this action, the government and the state had violated the treaty of Holston, and they had to make a plan fast. The government bought lands which had belonged to the French government and Napoleon Bonaparte. These lands which the bought in 1803 in what is we know today as the Louisiana Purchase would be the new home for the …show more content…
One of them was John Ross (their leader) who took a trip to Washington and declared the case to the court and unfortunately failed. The court felt as though the Cherokees did not have a standing. They were recognised as a domestic dependent nation, which means that they were within the boundaries of the US, dependant of the federal government. So basically they were an independent political commune, but were subject to the powers of the United States government. “Those decisions, while declaring the Cherokee nation to have significant rights that could not be violated by the state of Georgia, reduced the Cherokee claim of sovereignty to that of a “domestic, dependant nation.”
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 is arguably one of the most harsh and immoral acts of 1800s. It refers to the act which gave Jackson the authority to trade/exchange lands west of the Mississippi …show more content…
This treaty gave out western boundaries for white settlement. The second treaty was the treaty of Holston, this was signed between the US federal government and the Cherokee nation. They agreed that the government would protect the nation and give them their space.
In 1802 Thomas Jefferson signed a contract with the state of Georgia, which gave them the western and eastern lands in the state (Compact of 1802). Georgia State was paid 1,25million dollars for these lands, lands which belonged to the Cherokee nation. By carrying out this action, the government and the state had violated the treaty of Holston, and they had to make a plan fast. The government bought lands which had belonged to the French government and Napoleon Bonaparte. These lands which the bought in 1803 in what is we know today as the Louisiana Purchase would be the new home for the …show more content…
One of them was John Ross (their leader) who took a trip to Washington and declared the case to the court and unfortunately failed. The court felt as though the Cherokees did not have a standing. They were recognised as a domestic dependent nation, which means that they were within the boundaries of the US, dependant of the federal government. So basically they were an independent political commune, but were subject to the powers of the United States government. “Those decisions, while declaring the Cherokee nation to have significant rights that could not be violated by the state of Georgia, reduced the Cherokee claim of sovereignty to that of a “domestic, dependant nation.”