Essay Example on Indian Removal: Arguments for and Against

During the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson sought after an Act of Indian Removal. The Act gave authority to relocate American Indians living in the east of Mississippi River to the west of the river. There are several arguments both for and against Indian removal. The cases are economic, humanitarian, political, and social.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The significant economic argument for Indian Removal was that farmers needed more land for cotton plantation. During this period, cotton production was increasing because of the popularity of cotton gin (Dudley). White farmers needed the land, and as a result, they put a lot of pressure on the Indian nations. Before his presidency, Andrew Jackson had championed for white settlers against the American Indians. By the time Jackson was entering the office, a lot complaining by white settlers had been going on about farms owned by Cherokee and Creek people that they wished to occupy (Dudley). The colonists were highly enthusiastic about the election of Jackson, and soon the constitution of Cherokee nation was revoked and replaced by Georgia state laws.

During this time, the westbound movement, the market revolution, and the development of a majority rules system were vital to the growth of the nation. Several national leaders, therefore, viewed the westward movement as an integral piece of the general nation's health. New nationalism sparked after the Louisiana Purchase and the Treaty of Ghent which saw the end of the First Seminole War. The treaties successfully removed all foreign encroachment on the American territory. The new patriotism sought after the expansion of the nation. The Indians, however, seemed to impede this realization. As a result, the federal authority forcefully removed Indians all across the nation's territories and relocated them to small and concentrated reserves.

However, in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia, the thought was challenged. The court ruled that American Indians were unique and should not be harmed (Bowes). Be that as it may, Jackson did not heed the ruling, he saw the Indians as savages. He further argued that he had made the decision and he was going to reinforce it (Bowes). This case proved Jackson's firm stance on the removal of Indians. Despite Jackson's defiance of the Supreme Court ruling, he faced no consequences.

The Indians tried to make some efforts against Jackson's defiance but in vain (Dudley, 123). Accordingly, the government denied the clan the power provided by nationhood. Furthermore, in an indication of a complete lack of respect, the federal government employed trickery to expel the Indians forcefully and satisfy the desires of the white settlers (Bowes). The nation took what it was starting to believe as legitimately its own, with little respect to the ramifications caused to the earlier occupants.

The adversaries of Indian removal couldn't help contradicting each of these at any rate to some extent. They didn't deny that whites would utilize the land than Indians. Nonetheless, the opponents of Indian removal thought that teaching Indians about civilization was the way. They indicated the Cherokee as evidence this was conceivable. The Cherokee had turned out to be to a great extent inactive and agrarian and had built up a composed language and a constitution (Bowes). In this way, they stated, Indians ought to be enlightened, not evacuated. Second, they contended that the US was ethically required to satisfy understandings it had signed. It was morally not okay to disregard treaties simply because the nation was stronger than Indians.

Works Cited

Bowes, John P. "American Indian Removal Beyond The Removal Act." Wicazo Sa Review, vol 1, no. 1, 2014, p. 65. University Of Minnesota Press, doi:10.5749/natiindistudj.1.1.0065.

Dudley, William. Native Americans. Greenhaven Press, 1998.