Cherokee Nation (american history)?

Question

Was the Indian Removal Act justified?

Answer 1

No, President Jackson lied to Chief Junaluska after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Cherokees allied themselves with Jackson against the Creeks).

When Jackson was elected the 7th president he, in turn, signed the Indian Removal Policies. To wit, Chief Junaluska said "I should have sided with the Creeks and killed Jackson for betraying my people."

Answer 2

~That is a matter of perspective. However, throughout history the victors have consistently done as they would do with the vanquished. In that context, yes it was justified.

If you are asking as a moral question, what difference does it make. Morality has no place in the equation, particularly in the context of the time. Uncle Sam wanted to build a nation which strecthed from coast to coast. The Indians were in the way. The Indians were removed. It was okay for Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Spain, Great Britain and France (to name but a few), so why would Uncle Sam be held to a different standard (other than the one he himself so hypocritically imposed)?

And one must bear in mind what the Indians were doing to each other. I don't think the Tuscarora were too keen on getting kicked out of North Carolina by the Cherokee and being displaced to New York, for example (especially because they had no winter coats), and the Miami were perfectly happy in Pennsylvania until the Iroquois decided to move in. At least the Hopi and Navajo got along - had they had the technology, one would have made the other extinct ages before Miles and Sheridan hit the scene. Much the same with those peaceloving kindred souls, the Lakota and Crow. Hell, the Aztecs started out in British Columbia and got chased all the way to the central Mexican plateau before they could find there little island of peace and tranquility (from which they killed everyone in sight, and, on holidays, themselves. Ah, have a heart.)

With hundreds of tribes all shoving each other out of one place or another, the Indian Removal Act was simply a continuation of what had been happening for centuries - just on a larger and more permanent scale by folks of lighter complexion.

Answer 3

There were many people who were very sympathetic to native Americans - particularly the Cherokee.

The issue is complex, but a lot of the animosity towards native Americans in general came after the Revolutionary War because so many native nations sided with the British and went on raiding missions to terrify white settlers. Native Americans had a very difficult choice to make, and no one was allowed to straddle the fence. They had to pick a side.

Even after the Revolutionary War incidents, many people tried to defend the Cherokee. Unfortunately, Andrew Jackson and people like him did whatever they felt necessary to destroy the native peoples. The Cherokee won several important legal battles, just to have the ruling basically ignored by those in power.

Answer 4

> Well put, Brother Dave. I do not believe in the Sharpton Style Repayment Plan. As one who can claim kith and kin with the Original Americans, I agree that as deceitful as the act was, we can't go back in time. I would propose that every Legislator, Governor, anyone running for the highest office of this land and especially all employed by the Indian Affairs Bureau should spend at least one month on one of the poorest reservations, preferably during the winter, and live as the Native Americans live.
I remember listening to the old people talk, when we were small and supposed to be asleep. I would strain to hear what was so important, yet could not be spoken of because of fear of prejudice. My father told me all he knew. It was never enough to satisfy. My mother's side of the family was even less willing to pass on knowledge.

Answer 5

Are Cherokee Nation tribal citizens also considered American citizens? Yes, They are part of the United States.

Answer 6

Another couple pieces of of the everyday reality of those times overlooked in the previous responses is that 1) Indians didn't pay taxes. 2) And that for many generations both they and whites had intermarried.

That meant they (some) could and did stay behind - and be "white" and pay taxes, which likely something like a simple majority did, blending into the population. Afterward only those who "stayed Indian", took the head-of-household $10 or whatever it was and moved on with their families were called Indians. I'm not saying those who stayed on in their homes forgot who they were, not at all.

I only learned about this myself by helping others backtrack their indigenous family history through genealogy research - being caused to read a lot of history I'd otherwise likely never have read. (Sometimes a little girl would have been for whatever reason, maybe to help her elder, left behind with grandmother or great-grandma and be found on census to connect a "white" and "indian" family.)

(And what about those who owned black slaves? Which ones chose to stay and pay taxes, which took their people and moved on?)

Answer 7

Justified or not, it was the law passed by Congress, the representatives of the People, no matter that many people didnt approve of the law or the fact that many of the "Backers"(Jackson)of this bill owned stock in companies that claimed to hold title on these indian lands and were well paid for their small investment just as Hillary Clinton was.

whale

Answer 8

Would you consider it justified for us to have the Caucasian Removal Act? We lived here long before the Europeans came here to take our land and move us to Oklahoma. The tears we shed were not tears of defeat but tears from having to leave our ancestral lands and ancestors buried on this land. Would you not feel the same if you were taken by a foreign nation?

Answer 9

Categorically NO!
You headed your question using the Cherokee Nation. Well, heres a bit of history pertaining to the Indian Removal Act and the Cherokee Nation.....
The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. They sought protection from land-hungry white settlers, who continually harassed them by stealing their livestock, burning their towns, and sqatting on their land. In 1827 the Cherokee adopted a written constitution declaring themselves to be a sovereign nation. They based this on United States policy; in former treaties, Indian nations had been declared sovereign so they would be legally capable of ceding their lands. Now the Cherokee hoped to use this status to their advantage. The state of Georgia, however, did not recognize their sovereign status, but saw them as tenants living on state land. The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against them.The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision.
In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. This was because their "right of occupancy" was subordinate to the United States' "right of discovery."
Ostensibly, the Indian Removal Act was intended to give the Natives time to adapt to the "new ways", but in reality was nothing more than a legislated way to gain land already held. In theory, emigration was supposed to be voluntary, and many American Indians chose to remain in the East. In practice, however, the Jackson administration put great pressure on tribal leaders to sign removal treaties. This pressure created bitter divisions within American Indian nations, as different tribal leaders advocated different responses to the question of removal. Sometimes, U.S. government officials ignored tribal leaders who resisted signing removal treaties and dealt with those who favored removal.
As demonstrated by the Cherokee Nation, the native peoples were well aware of the ways of the white man, and even tried to use them to gain a legal status. It failed. There was no reason, other than the percieved "supremacy" of the white man for the act. The burgeoning population, as well as economic necessity, is what truly was behind the legislation.

Answer 10

It depends how one looks at the situation. Personally, I don't think it was justified and truly believe that it was a product of politics, as always.