Logical Fallacies In Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act

President Jackson says that segregation “will free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, […]” Moreover, the government will influence the communities to be more like American society. However, President Jackson states that “as a Government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.” The Government control versus the promised freedom shows the carelessness towards the minority. This becomes apparent when President Jackson talks of humanity and philanthropy. He acknowledges the graves and the culture the Indigenous people will leave behind, but feels that what they offer justifies the losses.

When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, the Native American condition worsened. Congress allowed the president to solve the "Indian problem" with the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (O’Neill 11). This act gave President Jackson permission to offer tribes land west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their tribal lands east of the Mississippi. Politicians of the day considered this a generous offer, (O’Neil 11) but the Native American population would not surrender their homes so easily. So the federal government used some shady tactics in order to get many tribes to accept the agreement.

Jackson made the logical decision by moving the Indians because of the constitutionality of the matter, the land he provided for them, and the options he offered in regards to moving. First of all, Jackson was forced to deal with the Indians living in Georgia because of the Constitution. It states, “No new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state without consent of its legislature” (Doc A). This phrase clearly prohibits the formation of any state within the state of

One of many atrocities that Jackson committed was the forceful removal of thousands of Indians and the subsequent death of many of them. Although his reasoning, as is stated in his Message to Congress "On Indian Removal," was

Andrew Jackson was the first person to be elected as a member of the senate and later elected president of the United States. He was a man of many contradictions who had little formal education. Jackson claimed he was a “people’s” champion, yet he excluded many, especially the Indians, from the country’s democracy calling them “savages”. (Schwartz, Lecture 19). With the exclusion of the Indians followed Jackson being a forceful proponent of Indian Removal.

In the article “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” the author, Alfred A. Cave, writes about President Jackson’s abuse of power. He is arguing that Jackson abused his power when he was enforcing the Indian Removal Act. He argues that Jackson broke guarantees he made to the Indians. He uses a political methodology and uses secondary sources.

Although this act was harsh, to some it overshadows the good that Jackson did. In the source: Letter from Elias Boudinot, Cherokee Indian, Elias says, “Removal, then, is the only remedy, the only practical remedy. Our people may finally rise from their very ashes, to become prosperous and happy, and a credit to our race.” The quote is from a Cherokee Indian agreeing that the removal might be the best thing for the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson is a hero because he worked to bring more democracy to the

Andrew Jackson was said to be a divergent president in many ways, especially for his unique background compared to the wealthy ones of the previous presidents. He started off as an orphan and made his way up to becoming a general in the military, then became a frontier and started working in office soon later. Jackson’s presidency was held during an age known as the Age of the Common Man where he was determined to always do what was best for the common people and protect them from the powers of the rich and the privileged. With his success as a populist in his own Jacksonian Democracy, Jackson was able to seduce the American people but frighten the political and economic elite. Although Jackson had good intentions with what he wanted to accomplish

Lily Thomas Ms. Scott Honors US History Period 4 15 November 2016 A Demagogue in Disguise Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was undoubtedly an immoral demagogue who abused his position of power to promote his own selfish interests and disregard the rights of many. One of the most notable moments during his time of leadership was the “Trail of Tears”, or forced removal and relocation of all Cherokee tribes on American soil. The Indian Removal Act, passed in 1830, ultimately caused the death of 4,000+ Cherokee people (Doc 4, par. 3).

Robert Remini’s Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars is a book that makes you question Jackson's character. Remini addresses the long-standing debate of historians and scholars over whether or not Jackson was barbaric or whether he was a merciful savior that prevented the Native Americans from going extinct. Remini instead argues the opinion that Jackson was simply a man of his time. Despite this, Remini does show Jackson's inexcusable cruelty towards the Native Americans. He learned to fear and hate Indians from an early age.

He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live.

Andrew Jackson’s sentiment towards the Native Americans was certainly not a kind one. Manifest destiny was a popular belief among Americans, including Jackson, and he would go to the extent of forcing Native Americans out of their homes to reach their “ordained goal”. He believed in the expansion of southern slavery which is why he pushed for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi, which makes it the more disgraceful. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 said that it will allow American government to offer in-state territories to the Indian’s for their western land. This wasn’t the case when the U.S. went in and drove the Indians out by force.

Although Jackson was important, he was part of many terrible things. Around the 1820s there were many major indian tribes in eastern United States such as Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole. This soon came to a change. Andrew Jackson thought these Indians were in the way of eastern development, using the Indian Removal Act which the congress had approved he decided to kick them out and send them west. In 1831 the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Indians had the right to self government and the United States could not interfere with that.

The government tried to force assimilation on Native Americans as well as an attempt to “kill the indian, save the man.” These ideas and policies are similar to those popular during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson developed a sense of ‘paternalism’ towards indians and believed he was saving them by forcing them to live out west of the Mississippi river away from white culture. The difference was that Jackson did not believe in assimilation of indians into white culture, he believed they should be kept separate. With the help of the Federal government removing indians from land west of the Mississippi, Americans were

There is a saying in Africa, “Don’t make decisions about us, without us!” Andrew Jackson did not talk to the Indians before he made a bad decision which cost the lives of 4,000 Indians and dislocated 46,000 others. At the same time, the settlers weren’t happy with the Indian Removal Act process, it was too slow for them. “The policy was enacted with remarkable speed, but not fast enough to satisfy whites in the South and Southwest.” (p.331) Jackson's Democracy was always cast for the benefit of white men, it didn't even include white