Jacksonian Indian Policy

This article presents a question for debate from Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History, Volume One. It also poses subquestions which could lead component debates. Evidence for the answers comes from research done using the above book, as well as The American People by Nash and Jeffery and the artice Handsome Lake.

The information, since it is in debate form, may be slanted towards certain viewpoints.

----

TOPIC QUESTION
Was Jackson’s Policy Motivated by Humanitarian Impulses?

Yes- He realized that the Native Americans could only be protected from encroaching settlers and greedy state governments by moving the Native Americans west.

No- He was repaying a debt to Georgian supports and ignoring the implications that his policy would have on Native Americans in order to benefit the frontier people, whom he identified with.

DID JACKSON NEED TO REMOVE NATIVE AMERICANS?

No: b/c
1. The Native American “civilizing” process had been working, for example:
a) In the 1820’s Cherokees had increased their interaction with missionaries, traders, and government agents, and as result they started to advance technologically and develop a new culture which was a mix of Indian and American ways. The Cherokee Sequoyah put Indian language into a written (nonpictorial) language for the first time.
b) Another example is how in 1779, the Seneca Handsome Lake recognized that he could revitalize his people by combining their traditional religion with Christianity. He also integrated European-style housing and farming, and denounced drinking alcohol. His philosophy won approval from both the United States President Thomas Jefferson and the Iroquios Indian Nation. The Iroquois incorporated it in their Longhouse Religion, which is still used today. From this evidence, it is possible to arge that the process of civilizing the Native Americans was working and Jackson had no need to change it.

Yes: b/c
1. Whereas other polititions ignored how settlers were overwhelming Native Americans, Jackson was concerned enough to take action:
i. In the years preceding Jackson’s administration, the state governments with Indians on their lands (virtually all of them) imposed their jurisdiction on Indian lands within their borders regardless of whether the Indians were protected by treaty. As settlers entered Indian lands, the settlers' states, as the most direct representatives of the people, were forced to protect the settlers. For the federal government to stop the states from harassing the Indians, it would have had to go directly against the people, something that no politition would have wanted to do. Clearly, then, the only way to protect the Indians was to remove them to somewhere where they wouldn’t constantly be under attack from American citizens and state governments.

DID THE NATIVE AMERICANS REALLY HAVE TO MOVE?

Yes:
If the Native Americans didn't move, then the states would have full jurisdiction over them and thus the power to legislate against them. Jackson knew this and knew that his assertion to Congress that the Indians were free to stay if they liked was an empty promise. Also, there is no reason to think that Jackson believed everything he told Congress because his accounts of the Black Hawk war were fictional: he commended the performance of the militia for taking care of biligerent Indians when in fact the soldiers were the true instigators, many of them drunken and starting fights with the Native Americans who had only crossed the Mississippi to find food.

No:
Jackson supported legislation that allowed the Indians to stay if they wanted. All they had to do was obey state and national laws. Jackson was clearly concerned with the Indians’ freedom. He was also concerned about fraud and examined government ambassadors in order to limit corruption. The idea that Jackson approved a forced immigration of Indians is incorrect. He was willing to incorporate them into the United States if they so chose.

WHAT BENEFITS DID JACKSON SEE FOR THE U.S.?

Positive: He wanted unity throughout the land. This was impossible while independent Indian nations were spread throughout the states. They formed third-party gaps that made unity impossible.

Negative: Having grown up and worked on the frontier, he was sympathetic to settlers and hated Indians because they were in opposition to the settlers. He wasn’t concerned with Indian interests. This is evident because when he assigned officials to remove Indians he chose his own supporters, not people with experience with Indians, because he thought people who had been around Indians would be too sympathetic.

WAS JACKSON TRYING TO IGNORE THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION THAT GEORGIA’S INDIAN LAWS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Yes:
i) He had outside motives to favor Georgia over the Indians. As of late, Georgia had swung politically to favor the President and the national government’s opposition to nullification. Furthermore, Georgians had stopped supporting Jackson’s rival William Crawford. Because of this, Georgians were sure that if they changed their policy towards the Cherokees (from recognizing them as a sovereign nation to subjecting them to state law) Jackson would back them up. And they were right. Also, once the government had confiscated Indian land, the land was supposed to be turned over to the Federal government, not the individual states. This policy was applied to the land in all the states except one: the land in Georgia was turned over to the state itself, more evidence that Jackson was trying to support his political allies.
ii) Jackson took no action to demand Georgia change its laws even after the Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional. As the head of the Executive Branch, he should have intervened, especially since by ignoring the Supreme Court he allowed two innocent missionaries to be sent to jail. By the time Georgia would be forced to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision, the Cherokees would have already been kicked out.

No:
Georgia had no legal obligation to convene a court in order to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision. Nor did Jackson have any responsibility to confront Georgia. If Jackson had put demands on Georgia, it would have instigated a state vs. nation confrontation and increased sectionalism. He was not being dishonest, he was being prudent. Also, he sent agents to lobby for the release of the two missionaries and he was able to get them pardoned.

DID JACKSON’S POLICY EFFECTIVELY END THE INDIAN PROBLEM?

Yes:
It prevented further clashes between Indian nations and state governments, which would have been inevitable given the demand for land. It also provided a viable solution to a problem which had only gotten worse as past bureaucrats had ignored it.

No:
The removal of the Indians, which Jackson said would be quick and easy, was actually long, drown out, and full of anguish. It doomed the Indians that aquiesed, killing thousands on the journey, and it instigated conflict with those who refused the order to move out. Furthermore, the $500,000 that Congress had appropriated for the removal was not enough to scratch the surface of the problem. Countless more time and money had to be spent, and the solution was hardly permanent as the nation moved west of the Mississippi.

WAS JACKSON’S POLICY REPRESENTITIVE OF THE PEOPLES’ OPINIONS?

Yes:
Committees from both the Senate and the House defended the right of the states to rule over Indian lands. Throughout America, the opinion was that the best solution to the problem was removal.

No:
Throughout America, activists voiced concern for the plight of the Indians. In the northeast especially, town meetings were held to protest. Citizens sent hundreds of petitions to both legislatures demanding justice. Also, when amendments that would have protected Indian interests were proposed in the senate, they were defeated three times by only a single vote, showing that the country was divided nearly 50/50 on the issue. This, of course, doesn’t at all take into account the opinions of the Native Americans, who were supposed to be protected under the traditional policy, and who were all opposed to removal.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu