American President: Jackson Signs Indian Removal Act -- May 28, 1830

[one...two...tree 2,762]

On May 28, 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which gave the President additional powers in speeding the removal of American Indian communities in the eastern United States to territories west of the Mississippi River. The Indian Removal Act set the stage for the forced removals of the Cherokees, Creeks, and other southern Native American nations that took place during the 1830s.

President Jackson's annual message of December 1829 contained extensive remarks on the present and future state of American Indians in the United States. His message contained many observations, assessments, and prejudices about Native Americans that had been widely held by American policy makers since Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Jackson observed that as white settlement in the east expanded, the range for Native American hunters diminished, and that this would gradually lead to their extinction. For their own good, American Indians needed to be resettled on vacant lands west of the Mississippi River, the President argued.

In Congress, debates on a bill that would authorize the removals that Jackson proposed began in late February 1830. The debates in both the Senate and the House were quite contentious. Those opposed to Jackson's plans had many reasons for concern. They felt for the Native American situation, and many pleaded eloquently for the inviolable nature of the Native American nations' sovereignty. They also did not want to alter the established practices of Native American treaty-making, and many did not like Jackson himself. Generally, those opposed to the bill constituted the emerging anti-Jackson party. Despite the debate, the Indian Removal Bill passed the Senate at the end of April and passed the House at the end of May.

Officially, the Indian Removal Act did not directly remove any Native American communities; it simply provided for a government apparatus that made it much easier to do so. The act allowed the President to exchange eastern Native American lands for unsettled western lands and grant the Native American nations involved full title to this new land. Officially, such exchanges would have take place through voluntary treaties with the Native Americans themselves. To expedite matters, the federal government would pay all the costs involved; it would reimburse the Native Americans for any structures they had built on their lands, and subsidize the new Native American settlements in the West.

This Indian Removal Act was Jackson's creature. He worked behind the scenes to get his friends and allies appointed to the proper Congressional committees, in order to produce a bill congruent with his desires. The new law now fully committed the United States government to a policy of Native American removal, a policy that Jackson and his allies would bring to life in the latter years of his presidency.

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanp...nt/events/05_28

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

um steven, this is old news

[one...two...tree 2,762]

um steven, this is old news

Affirmative...it's history!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A pretty disgraceful part of the country's history.

[Peikko 1,575]

Almost everything to do with the treatment of the indigenous populations during the colonization period of the US is pretty disgraceful. Not that they were the only ones but still...

[Heracles 417]

Even though one would think that people would be more concerned about the country's financial crisis, you do realize FP that Jackson was one of few presidents who stood up to large banks and large corporations. But hey lets not stand in the way of a die hard liberal clowns like Steven who are more concerned about history and anything else related to rights than living standards. While you are at it bro you may want to read up on pretty much every other country's history.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

How can your living standards be improved if you have no rights? I guess rights are relative.

Regardless BY, are you suggesting that we can only discuss things that pertain to today, because of the financial crisis? That a president who is right on one thing can be horribly wrong on another but the being wrong, if it pertains to human rights issues is unimportant if the being right pertains to telling the financial instutions to #### off? More and more bizarre...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Even though one would think that people would be more concerned about the country's financial crisis, you do realize FP that Jackson was one of few presidents who stood up to large banks and large corporations. But hey lets not stand in the way of a die hard liberal clowns like Steven who are more concerned about history and anything else related to rights than living standards. While you are at it bro you may want to read up on pretty much every other countries history.

LOL...Booooooooo-yah...yes, Andrew Jackson was a complex person and although he did some things that many today find shameful, he also did some positive things. The History Channel, BTW, has been showing some features on the different presidents and the ones I've seen so far excellent.

[Peikko 1,575]

...and Dances with Wolves was on the other day...although I found it romanticized and very twee, the book was quite interesting.

Or I might be thinking of another book, not sure now.

Probably Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, come to think on it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Even though one would think that people would be more concerned about the country's financial crisis, you do realize FP that Jackson was one of few presidents who stood up to large banks and large corporations. But hey lets not stand in the way of a die hard liberal clowns like Steven who are more concerned about history and anything else related to rights than living standards. While you are at it bro you may want to read up on pretty much every other country's history.

Steven is an economic terrorist!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...and Dances with Wolves was on the other day...although I found it romanticized and very twee, the book was quite interesting.

Or I might be thinking of another book, not sure now.

My great great (I'm not sure how many greats) was believed to have been Cherokee...who were forced under Jackson to move westward on a journey that became known as the Trail of Tears.

[Heracles 417]

How can your living standards be improved if you have no rights? I guess rights are relative.

Regardless BY, are you suggesting that we can only discuss things that pertain to today, because of the financial crisis? That a president who is right on one thing can be horribly wrong on another but the being wrong, if it pertains to human rights issues is unimportant if the being right pertains to telling the financial instutions to #### off? More and more bizarre...

Dwelling on the past is moronic. It would be like me saying England should pay considering they are the one country who displaced and killed a hell of a lot of indigenous communities around the world. Out of curiosity, how many people abroad dwell on this sort of ####### as much as liberal Americans like Steven do?

Now, if we are going to talk about rights lets discuss the present where someone's safety and security is clearly less important that an individuals personal right. How many murderers and criminals are walking free because their right to freedom is obviously more important than that of the victim. How many children are abused, raped, tortured, neglected etc because the parents rights are more important than the security and safety of this helpless child. Is this something you would call progression?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...and Dances with Wolves was on the other day...although I found it romanticized and very twee, the book was quite interesting.

Or I might be thinking of another book, not sure now.

My great great (I'm not sure how many greats) was believed to have been Cherokee...who were forced under Jackson to move westward on a journey that became known as the Trail of Tears.

Hey if it wasn't for Jackson you'd be a Noo Yawker. Thank the Lord for small mercies.

[Peikko 1,575]

One should give pause to the injustice that was committed to the indigenous people, even if there can be no going back and changing things now. Lessons of history and all that malarkey. The changes rendered on the wilderness due to a Western culture that could not comprehend that change might ultimately prove disadvantageous are also worth time and consideration.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

One should give pause to the injustice that was committed ...

Ok.

<pause>

Done.