Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal Policies: by Amy Katz

The Beginnings of Extinction

Southern states, such as Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee, had put so much pressure on the government about forced Indian removal policies in the 1820s, that in order to retain popular support, government legislators were forced to concede to southern demands for land. For example, in the late 1820s, Thomas McKenney, head of the Office of Indian Affairs within the War Department, and Lewis Cass, who played an important role for Indian relations in the Northwest, both changed ideologies from opposing to supporting removal (Horsman 200). "The federal government was bowing before southern state pressures, causing confusion and despair among the southern Indians, and then was using this confusion and despair as justification for removal" (Horsman 200).

Andrew Jackson was elected president in 1828, with one of his major objectives being Indian removal. From the beginning, it was made clear that he would truly follow through on this goal. Since 1814, at the end of the War of 1812, had he been "anxious" to acquire the Cherokee territory in the South, and the southern states knew that he would do anything possible to attain it. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, as a result, all gave him large popular majorities in the election. As president, he made it known through the Secretary of War and through messages to Congress that, "he would no longer protect the Indians against the southern states who wanted their land." In his inaugural address on 2 March 1829 he said:

"It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people." (Richardson collection 438)

And, in his first annual message to Congress on 8 December 1829, Jackson described removal policies:

"This emigration should be voluntary, for 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. But they should be distinctly informed that if they remain within the limits of the states they must be subject to heir laws." (Richardson collection 458-9)

The Indian Removal Act

Despite what Jackson might have said, his actions regarding Indian removal were under way. From February to May of 1830, Congress debated the ability and implications that a removal bill would entail. Opponents argued that southern Indians would also be forced out of the state, and that the, "white population would eventually sweep over the new lands that were to be permanently guaranteed" (Horsman 201). However, Jackson pushed legislation through Congress, and on 26 May 1830, he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, "An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi." Passing in congress by a narrow majority, the bill appeased the demands of the southern states, and Jackson intended on using every possible measure to follow through on the policy. The act authorized the president to literally transfer Indian tribes from east of the Mississippi to the western side into territories falsely promised to them. About "land transfer," it states in the first two sections of the bill:

"That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of the river Mississippi, not included in any state or organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguishedto be divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there.

That it shall and may be lawful for the President to exchange any or all of such districts, so to be laid off and described, with any tribe or nation of Indians now residing within the limits of any of the states or territories..." ("The Indian Removal Act of 1830" Civics Online)

The President now had the power to negotiate removal treaties with various tribes east of the Mississippi River. The treaties exchanged Indian land claims in the east for the possession of territorial land west of the river. Indians who remained would become citizens of the state in which they lived. For those who abided by the law, the process went smoothly. This was intended on being a peaceful exchange; however, when the southeaster tribes in particular refused to comply with this ruling, Jackson took more forceful measures to ensure their eradication from the land.

Native Reaction to Removal Policies

As expected, Indians did not want to comply with the government's idea of removal. Appealing to the U.S. government in 1830, the Cherokee stated:

"We are not willing to remove, and if we could be brought to this extremity, it would be, not by argument, not because our judgment was satisfied; not because our condition will be improved-but only because we cannot endure to be deprived of our national and individual rights, and subjected to a process of intolerable oppression." (Levy, 95)

They claimed a "perfect and original right" to their land because of treaties the tribe had signed in the past guaranteeing their rights as a sovereign people. The inevitable disregard of these treaties was to come. In this letter, the Cherokee give reason for not wanting to move into the foreign territory, stating that they see, "nothing but ruin." The land was unknown to them; they had no experience living in any other type of land than that which they were occupying. The Cherokee cited poor resources in lack of wood and water, making survival impossible: "no Indian tribe can live as agriculturalists without these articles." Also, there were other tribes living in the proposed area for removal in Oklahoma. The Cherokee anticipated trouble, since the tribes they would encounter spoke different languages and observed different customs. The foreign tribes would view the Cherokee as intruders in their land and act with hostility towards them. The western tribes were described as warlike and, "easily tempted to turn their arms against peaceful emigrants." Finally, the Cherokee simply did not want to give up the land that holds history and sentimental meaning to them. The unfamiliar land, "contains neither the scenes of our childhood, nor the graves of our fathers." (Levy, 95)

The Case

Once Indian removal was justifiably legal, change began to happen in the south as policies were enacted to begin Indian movement westward. At the same time, the Cherokee raised concerns about their right to land ownership. Their particular case to the Georgian courts was based on appeals to previous unjust laws that allowed whites to live on Indian lands. The court ruled in favor of the Cherokee, declared their right to self-government and said the state law extended over them was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall states about the Indians:

"The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence. In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term foreign nation is, with strict propriety, applicable by either to the other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else." ("Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" Legal Information Institute)

In 1831, the Supreme Court deliberated over the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, which brought up the question of whether the Cherokee who lived in Georgia fell under state laws and regulations as other citizens. The Cherokee had hoped to restrain Georgia from executing laws that would allow white settlers to inhabit and explore their lands, laws that "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society, and to seize, for the use of Georgia, the lands of the nation which have been assured to them by the United States in solemn treaties repeatedly made and still in force." ("Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" Legal Information Institute)

In the past, the Cherokee had been willing to assimilate into American culture: they adopted Americanized laws, used their farming techniques, instituted more westernized education, converted to Christianity, acquired deeds for their land and even owned some African slaves (Horsman 200). Also, the Cherokee organized a system of self-government, including a policy of restricting land sales to the government. The Cherokee were considered one of the "Five Civilized Tribes," along with the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole tribes. These policies attempted to enable the Cherokee to coexist with settlers and to avoid hostility.

However, the Indians constantly refused to sell their land to the U.S. or to Georgia, causing the state government to seize the Indian property and force them to move elsewhere when they would not concede. "The Cherokees were not in danger because they had failed to adapt to white ways; there were in danger because of a Georgian greed for land, the unwillingness of most whites to accept Indians within their society, and the failure of the federal government to honor its previous commitments" (Horsman 197). Rather than initiating a war to settle their dispute, the Cherokee nation brought their situation to court. They argued for Georgia to protect their rights as residents of the state and to uphold the many promises that were made to them by past treaties. Almost surprisingly, when the case rose to the Supreme Court, the court ruled in their favor, declaring that Georgia violated the Indians' property rights by evicting them from their land.

The Court declared that the Cherokee nation was not a "foreign state" as written in the constitution. They are a state and have been treated as such since the beginnings of the country. "The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war; of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community...The acts of our Government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a State, and the Courts are bound by those acts" ("Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" Legal Information Institute).

In this case, Marshall changed the definition of the relationship of the Indians to the U.S. to one of "domestic independent nations." He justifies this decision by declaring that because of their indigenous occupation of U.S. lands, they therefore have an "unquestionable" right to their property. "until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government, yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nationsThey occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their willMeanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian" ("Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" Legal Information Institute).

In addition, the Court repealed earlier laws that deprived the tribe protection of their land to be controlled by their own laws, based on the fact that they had an indigenous ownership claim, and that the purpose of these laws were blatantly to take the land away from the Cherokees:

"The effect of these laws, and their purposes, are stated to be to parcel out the territory of the Cherokees; to extend all the laws of Georgia over the same; to abolish the Cherokee laws, and to deprive the Cherokees of the protection of their lawssubjecting them all to indictment therefore, and death by hanging; extending the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace of Georgia into the Cherokee territory, and authorizing the calling out of the militia of Georgia to enforce the processAll these laws are averred to be null and void because repugnant to treaties in full force, to the Constitution of the United States, and to the Act of Congress of 1802." ("Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" Legal Information Institute)

It is interesting to note that Marshall revealed a bit of sympathy towards the Cherokee in the opinion of the court. He seems to think it unfortunate that the Cherokee were struggling for the right to inhabit the same land that they had so long occupied before European settlement of the continent.

"If courts were permitted to indulge their sympathies, a case better calculated to excite them can scarcely be imagined. A people once numerous, powerful, and truly independent, found by our ancestors in the quiet and uncontrolled possession of an ample domain, gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts, and our arms, have yielded their lands by successive treaties, each of which contains a solemn guarantee of the residue, until they retain no more of their formerly extensive territory than is deemed necessary to their comfortable subsistence. To preserve this remnant the present application is made." ("Cherokee Nation v. Georgia" Legal Information Institute)

Marshall was a strict interpreter of the constitution and believed that the country needed a strong centralized federal government. He saw his position on the Supreme Court as setting the standard and laying the groundwork upon which the future of the country would lie. In crucial decisions, such as Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall set the power of the Supreme Court with standards that are still upheld today. He was in constant opposition with Thomas Jefferson, who believed that the government should remain in the hands of the states. Their historical disagreements helped to shape the role of the federal government for the next 200 years.

Implications of the Verdict

The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law. But, if the case was passed through the Supreme Court, are not the executive and legislative branches supposed to adhere to the ruling? They are. However, Jackson had goals to accomplish that he would not let be stopped by another branch of government. So, he virtually told the court if they wanted to pass this ruling, he would not implement their decision. The Supreme Court is not responsible for enforcement-that responsibility is given to the executive and legislative-and Jackson was fully aware of that distinction. As it is laid out in the constitution, congress, "provide[s] for calling forth [of] the militia to execute the laws of the union"(Art.I Sec.8 Cl.15). Further, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" (Art.II Sec.2 Cl.1). It is unconstitutional that the Supreme Court be held to enforcement of the laws.

After the Supreme Court: Removal Treaties

What seemed like a victory for the Cherokee in the Supreme Court in 1831 did not last long. With the Indian Removal Act safely passed through Congress, the government was hastily writing treaties full of false promises about land and guaranteed rights to various Indian tribes. All five of the Five Civilized Tribes were approached with these treaties, and each reacted differently. This began a series of three Seminole Wars in Florida, as the Seminoles refused to sign a removal treaty. Over the course of three wars, they caused disorder in the south for 28 years. The Chickasaws, on the other hand, saw removal as inevitable and signed treaties without dispute.

In 1835, some members of the Cherokee tribe were presented with the Treaty of New Echota. As not all Cherokee officials were present at this meeting, some consider the treaty illegitimate. It signed away Cherokee lands in Georgia for five million dollars and agreed to the terms that the Cherokees would move west of the Mississippi into allotted territories. The treaty states:

"The Cherokee nation hereby cede relinquish and convey to the United States all the lands owned claimed or possessed by them east of the Mississippi river, and hereby release all their claims upon the United States for spoliations of every kind for and in consideration of the sum of five millions of dollars to be expended paid and invested in the manner stipulated and agreed upon in the following articles." ("Treaty of New Echota" Waking Dove and Associates)

However, since John Ross, elected chief of the tribe in 1827, was not present at this meeting, internal protests within the tribe began. Over 15,000 Cherokees, including John Ross, signed a petition and submitted their case to the Supreme Court, as the voice of the majority of Cherokees. His letter reads:

"It is well known that for a number of years past we have been harassed by a series of vexationsA spurious Delegation, in violation of a special injunction of the general council of the nation, proceeded to Washington City with this pretended treaty, and by false and fraudulent representations supplanted in the favor of the Government the legal and accredited Delegation of the Cherokee people, and obtained for this instrumentthe recognition of the United States Government.The instrument in question is not the act of our Nation; we are not parties to its covenants; it has not received the sanction of our people. The makers of it sustain no office nor appointment in our Nation, under the designation of Chiefs, Head men, or any other title, by which they hold, or could acquire, authority to assume the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our common country. And we are constrained solemnly to declare, that we cannot but contemplate the enforcement of the stipulations of this instrument on us, against our consent, as an act of injustice and oppressionAnd, therefore, weappeal with confidence to the justice, the magnanimity, the compassion, of your honorable bodies, against the enforcement, on us, of the provisions of a compact, in the formation of which we have had no agency." ("John Ross letter" WGBH Educational Foundation)

Yet, the Supreme Court ignored their requests this time, and forced removal began.

Ultimate Removal: The Trail of Tears

In 1838, 2,000 out of 16,000 Cherokee had migrated westward. The government then sent 7,000 to Georgia who forced the remaining Cherokee at gunpoint (bayonet point?) out of their homes, with no times to collect their belongings while others looted their homes. It was at this point in 1838 that the Trail of Tears began-a literal march from Georgia to Oklahoma. Cherokee called this trip the "trail where they cried." John Ross and other tribal leaders were allowed to lead their people and organized groups to gather food and other necessities for survival from the wilderness. Nevertheless, over 4,000 people died along the way of disease, hunger, cold, and lack of strength. During this time, Cherokee killed three of those who signed the Treaty of New Echota. During what is considered one of the most shameful moments in U.S. history, the Jackson administration looked on, plotting procedures for the now former Cherokee territory in Georgia.

Conclusion

At the end of this time period, the Jackson administration had removed over 46,000 Native American people from east of the Mississippi River. They had legally passed in Congress the Indian Removal Act, giving officials the right to attain Indian lands and move them westward, disregarding any possible conflicts that could come about in the future. The government had secured numerous treaties, oftentimes spelling out identical terms about acquiring or purchasing land to different tribes. These treaties lead to the ultimate removal of the majority of natives living in the eastern portion of the country, as well as the death of thousands due to inhumane conditions. 25 million acres of land had been opened to white settlement and slavery for the future.

Works Cited

"Africans in America/Part 4/John Ross letter" WGBH Educational Foundation. 1999. 11 December 2001. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3083t.html.

"Cherokee Nation v. Georgia." Bruce, Thomas R., Martin, Peter W. Legal Information Institute. 2000. 7 December 2001. http://www.supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/name.htm.

Horsman, Reginald. Race and Manifest Destiny: the origins of American racial Anglo-Saxonism. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Levy, Peter B. ed. Leuchtenburg, William E. Foreword. 100 Key Documents in American Democracy. "Appeal of the Cherokee Nation (1830)." Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Richardson, James D. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1907. Vol 2. New York: Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1908. 11 vols.

"The Indian Removal Act of 1830." Civics Online. 8 June 2000. 10 December 2001. http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/indian_act.html.

"Treaty of New Echota." Waking Dove and Associates. 1998. 11 December 2001. http://www.councilfire.com/treaty/treat189.htm.