The Hunger For Indian Land In Andrew Jackson S America

Erik Herrera
Mr. Mata
AP US History
12 November 2014
The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America by Anthony F. C. Wallace Article Review
I. Introduction
In writing his essay The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America, Anthony F. C. Wallace briefly examines Andrew Jackson’s presidency from the perspective of the removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homes. His analysis of Jackson’s time in office makes Indian removal just as important as the traditional focal point: Jacksonian democracy. By drawing attention to this previously neglected aspect of the period, Wallace raises very important questions about the much lauded President Jackson and America. In doing so, Wallace highlights the complexity of the interactions between Native Americans and the new “Americans”; he exposes corruption in the early United States; and he unearths the role the industrial revolution played in the loss of much of Native American culture.
II. Summary
Andrew Jackson is often revered as a great hero of the United States of America. He is such a cherished part of the history, that he is honored on the twenty-dollar bill. According to Wallace, this view stems from the disregard of many inconvenient truths during his administration.
The largest example the author uses to illustrate the repugnant actions of President Jackson is Native American removal. Even before he became president, he worked to acquire Native American land for the United States as treaty commissioner. In his time with that position, he gained large areas of land that would grow the United States. This would seem like an honorable achievement for the country, but Jackson and his fellow commissioners did not always use fair tactics when negotiating with Native American tribes that refused to give up their homes. Not only is this morally wrong, but it is the exact sort of oppression that many American colonists were trying to leave when they declared independence of Great Britain. This demonstrates the hypocrisy that he believed rights should only apply to Americans and people who happen to get in the way do not. This forces the question: Can a nation really be equal if it excludes others from equality?
When he eventually became president in 1828, one of his early goals was to pass an act that would forcibly remove the Native Americans on land “purchased” by the United States. Though The Indian Removal Act was signed during his time in office, it would be enforced after Jackson. The act did not discriminate between Native Americans who had greatly contributed to and aided the United States when it was in need. For example, John Ross, who was only part Native America, fought alongside Jackson in multiple battles. Yet he was forced to walk to another state in the mass emigration known as The Trail of Tears. The conditions were terrible, and many, including John’s own wife, died during the trek to their new “home.” Not only did the United States ignore the natural rights of Native Americans, it did not care about their deaths. The United States used them when they were needed, but it refused to see them as Americans. What did the Americans have that made them more American than the Native Americans, especially when they are literally born Native Americans?
It is also important to acknowledge that Wallace includes a reason for why Jackson wanted to displace the Native Americans: Many Americans wanted it. As the cotton industry skyrocketed with the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, many Southerners sought more land to grow more cotton. To Jackson, increasing cotton exports would be a huge priority because American cotton accounted for half of the worldwide production. Such predominance on a global scale would be important for a growing country. Jackson made the choice grow the country’s economy over the lives of thousands. Whether he made this choice because he truly believed it was for the better of the United States or because he did not like Native Americans can never be known. But Wallace compels the United States to re-examine itself because its past is not as simple as it many of its citizens would like to believe.
III. Conclusion
Wallace’s analysis illuminates the little-known Native American removal, providing a unique point of view for a common subject. Additionally, the article such a valuable source because it mainly provides facts. Rarely does Wallace offer his personal judgment or opinion on the facts, allowing the reader to exercise his or her own evaluation of the events, unlike many historical sources that try push the reader into one belief or another. Because the article focuses on Native American removal, it does not provide a complete picture. The article is relevant today because the effects can still be seen today: Social inequality is still prevalent, many Native Americans still live on reservations, and industrialization still leaves many subjugated for the benefit of the United States.