what is the indian removal?(act of 1830)?

Question

I am doing a reserarch prodject on this.... please help.

Answer 1

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a law passed by the Twenty-first United States Congress in order to facilitate the relocation of Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River in the United States to lands further west. The Removal Act, part of a U.S. government policy known as Indian Removal, was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830.

The Removal Act was strongly supported in the South, where states were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the "Five Civilized Tribes". In particular, Georgia, the largest state at that time, was involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokee nation. President Jackson, who supported Indian removal primarily for reasons of national security, hoped removal would resolve the Georgia crisis. While Indian removal was, in theory, supposed to be voluntary, in practice great pressure was put on American Indian leaders to sign removal treaties. Most observers, whether they were in favor of the Indian removal policy or not, realized that the passage of the act meant the inevitable removal of most Indians from the states. Some American Indian leaders who had previously resisted removal now began to reconsider their positions, especially after Jackson's landslide reelection in 1832.

Most white Americans favored the passage of the Indian Removal Act, though there was significant opposition. Many Christian missionaries, most notably missionary organizer Jeremiah Evarts, agitated against passage of the Act. In Congress, U.S. Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen and Congressman David Crockett of Tennessee spoke out against the legislation. The Removal Act was passed after bitter debate in Congress.

The treaties enacted under the provisions of the Removal Act paved the way for the reluctant—and often forcible—emigration of tens of thousands of American Indians to the West. The first removal treaty signed after the Removal Act was the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek on September 27, 1830, in which Choctaws in Mississippi ceded land east of the river in exchange for payment and land in the West. The Treaty of New Echota (signed in 1835) resulted in the removal of the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears.

Answer 2

It's easy to lose the actual content of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 inside the broader sweep of Indian removal in general. That this was a popular idea among Americans at the time would be hard to dispute - political candidates who pushed for such things enjoyed landslide victories in elections, even though there were equally vocal critics.

Much of the Indian removal movement was based on greed, racism, and the like. People coveted some of the lands that tribes currently held... and many of the tribal areas in the new America were huge. Some viewed the Indians as a security threat. It would be difficult to find much of this in the Act itself, however (complete text of the Act in link 1).

What the Indian Removal Act did was authorize the president to designate currently unclaimed land not within the borders of a state and give it to tribes willing to move to them and also allocate moneys that could specifically be used in bargaining, protection, and for assistance in such moves. The Act itself have almost no teeth or means of force... it just creates the opportunity for these kinds of deals to take place.

Of course, some leverage was applied anyway. And many of the deals that were made after the Act were not with the valid leaders of tribes, but with other representatives who arguably had no right to speak for their tribes in that way. So even though the Act itself was largely innocuous, it was used in many cases in a far from innocuous manner.

Hope that helps!

Answer 3

Andrew Jackson initiated the Indian Removal Act--he wanted the land of the Cherokee Indians, mainly in the Carolinas and Tennessee, so he just kicked them off the land and had them "removed" to the Oklahoma Territory. This trip was also known as the Trail of Tears, because families were torn apart, torn from their ancestral homes, and millions did not survive the trip. Also, the U.S. Government treated it as if they were simply trading land for land, when in fact the Native Americans had left a rich land for one completely different.

Answer 4

It was an act designed to move native Americans farther west. It applied to those east of the Mississippi River, mainly affecting the Choctaw and Cherokee. The displaced Cherokee travelling westward is called the Trail of Tears - many didn't survive the journey.

Answer 5

It was an act that allowed the government to throw the Indians off their land and take it for white settlers.
The Indians were forced off by the military and followed the Trail of Tears west to live on reservations,

Answer 6

nicely i could pass with undesirable injustice, because of the fact it form of feels extra basic to run with and is extra convincing. even however you're giving your opinion, there is extra supportive info on that area of the argument then the 2nd instant. I hate to take a seat down on the fence in this when you consider which you're inquiring for which one we would opt for, yet i think of the 2nd instant could be extra complicated and may be able to teach your instructor which you're keen to take different stance. yet on the tip of the day, which one are you able to write the main on, or in simple terms ask your self what your opinion fairly is...that often works. desire this helped, lol.