Question

president jacksons 2nd annual address, 1833
topic: indian removal
“the consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the united states, to individual states, and to the indians themselves. the advantages which it promises to the government are the least of its recommendations. it puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the general national and state governments on account of the indians. it will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. by opening the whole territory between tennessee on the north and louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent states strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. it will relieve the whole state of mississippi and the western part of alabama of indian occupancy, and enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. it will separate the indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and christian community.”

1. how would americans/settlers benefit from indian removal?
2. how does jackson claim native americans would also benefit?
3. gold was found on cherokee land in 1828. how do you think this complicated matters for the “civilized tribes” like the cherokee?

does indian removal show jackson as a king or champion for the common man?
“memorial of the cherokee nation,” as reprinted in niles weekly register, aug 21, 1830
topic: indian removal
we wish to remain on the land of our fathers. we have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation...
but if we are compelled to leave our country, we see nothing but ruin before us. the country west of the arkansas territory is unknown to us... the far greater part of that region is, beyond all controversy, badly supplied with food and water, and no indian tribe can live as agriculturists without these articles. all our neighbors, in case of removal, though crowded into our near vicinity, would speak a language totally different from ours, and have different customs.... were the country to which we are urged much better than it is represented to be and free from the objections which we have made to it, still it is not the land of our birth, nor of our affections, nor the scenes of our childhood, nor the graves of our fathers.
what do the cherokee believe will happen if they have to move?
what are reasons given for why they object?
chief marshall believed the cherokee nation had “an unquestionable right” to their territory and the supreme court reflected this belief. jackson said, “john marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” thousands of the cherokee will die on the trail of tears. what does this say about jackson?
does indian removal show jackson as a king or champion for the common man?

Explanation:

Answer:

(a) Americans/settlers would benefit as it would open large tracts of land currently occupied by a few "savage hunters" for white settlement between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south, strengthening the southwestern frontier and adjacent states, allowing them to repel future invasions without remote aid, and enabling states like Mississippi and western - Alabama to advance in population, wealth, and power.
(b) Jackson claimed Native Americans would benefit by being separated from immediate contact with white settlements, freed from state power, able to pursue happiness in their own way under their own institutions, and gradually, under government protection and good counsel, cast off savage habits and become a civilized and Christian community.
(c) The discovery of gold on Cherokee land complicated matters for "civilized tribes" like the Cherokee because it likely increased white settlers' and the government's desire to remove them from their land to access the gold, overriding any recognition of the Cherokee's rights to their territory.
(d) The Cherokee believed that if they were compelled to leave, they would face ruin. The land west of Arkansas was unknown to them, poorly supplied with food and water, and the neighbors there spoke a different language and had different customs. It was not the land of their birth or affections.
(e) Jackson's statement about John Marshall's decision shows his disregard for the legal rights of the Cherokee as recognized by the Supreme - Court. It implies a sense of arrogance and a willingness to ignore the rule of law in pursuit of the Indian Removal policy, which could be seen as more in line with a "king - like" authoritarian approach rather than that of a champion for the common man.
(f) Indian Removal shows Jackson more as a "king" in his actions. His disregard for the Cherokee's legal rights, as well as his push for a policy that was detrimental to the Native Americans while benefiting white settlers, does not align with the idea of a champion for the common man who should uphold justice and the rights of all people, especially the marginalized.