preview

Was Andrew Jackson Justified?

Better Essays

“Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they’ll move”. There are many opposing opinions as to if Andrew Jackson abused his presidential power under the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and accordingly, each side can be justified. However, there is more solid evidence proving that Andrew Jackson did indeed misuse his duties as president by transforming the free movement of Indians to a forced one. Although many believed that Andrew Jackson demonstrated a genuine concern for the well being of the Native Americans, Jackson abused his power as president by unfairly enforcing the Indian Removal Act that did not authorize him to repeal treaties or force the relocation of Indians. Andrew Jackson was elected to his first term of presidency …show more content…

Jackson declared his first statement of removal on December 8, 1829. His motivation behind this was to persuade Congress to pass the act to start his plan to remove all Indians from the white pioneers desired territory. In this, he addressed that the movement of Indians from this land must only be by their own personal choice because, “it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land”. Although, Jackson’s own draft of of his 1829 message to congress contains no reference to voluntary removal, this would not be the first time he lied to the Native Americans. The Jackson administration concluded that the treaties that Jackson previously made with the Indians were merely “a stately form of intercourse” that were most useful in gaining their agreement without opposition. These treaties mainly entailed regulations on peacemaking and the ownership of land. While they were viewed as vital to the indians, but to Jackson and his colleagues they were nothing more than meaningless documents. He only created these treaties to trick the Indians into thinking they have power in the United States government just so that he can later manipulate them into …show more content…

Cave’s idea that Jackson overstepped his legislative power and violated the Indian Removal Act as written is that of Robert V. Remini. Remini argues that Jackson did care for the well being of the Native Americans and their customs and therefore did everything in his power to protect them from the white settlers. While some aspects of this argument can be proven, there is far more evidence to support Cave’s proposal. Remini argues that, “the Indian Removal Act did not order the removal of Indians” and that it was “the President’s noble desire to give the Indians a free choice between staying and removing”. He blames the fraud and deception on the state officials that harassed Indians who refused to leave. But, what Remini fails to mention is that jackson regarded state harassment Indians as a useful means of encouraging removal. Jackson continuously warned and threatened the hesitant tribes to sign the removal treaties, “starvation and destruction await them if they remain much longer..”. There were many witness to fraud, coercion, and corruption were used by Jackson’s supporters to negotiate the removal treaties, accordingly, on many accounts, jackson’s agents resorted to extensive bribery of tribal leaders and frequently threatened leaders opposed to relocation. Another point in Remini’s essay was that Jackson truly showed “genuine feelings of concern for their welfare, particularly the poor among them”, but this argument is completely

Get Access