.svg) | |
| Long title | 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. |
|---|---|
| Enacted by | the21st United States Congress |
| Citations | |
| Public law | Pub. L. 21–148 |
| Statutes at Large | 4 Stat. 411 |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| ||
|---|---|---|
Personal Military career 7th President of the United States
Tenure Presidential campaigns   | ||
TheIndian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States presidentAndrew Jackson. The law, as described by Congress, provided "for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of theriver Mississippi".[a][2][3] During the presidency of Jackson (1829–1837) and his successorMartin Van Buren (1837–1841), more than 60,000 American Indians[4] from at least 18 tribes[5] were forced to move west of the Mississippi River where they were allocated new lands. The southern Indian tribes were resettled mostly intoIndian Territory (Oklahoma). The northern Indian tribes were resettled initially inKansas. With a few exceptions, the United States east of the Mississippi and south of theGreat Lakes was emptied of its American Indian population. The movement westward of Indian tribes was characterized by a large number of deaths due to the hardships of the journey.[6]
TheU.S. Congress approved the Act by a narrow majority in theUnited States House of Representatives. The Indian Removal Act was supported by President Jackson and the Democratic Party,[7] southern politicians and white settlers, and several state governments, especially that ofGeorgia. Indian tribes and theWhig Party opposed the bill, as did other groups within society (e.g., someChristian missionaries and clergy). Legal efforts to allow Indian tribes to remain on their land in the eastern U.S. failed. Most famously, theCherokee (excluding theTreaty Party) challenged their relocation, but were unsuccessful in the courts; they were forcibly removed by the United States government in a march to the west which later became known as theTrail of Tears. Since the 21st century, scholars have cited the act and subsequent removals as an early example of state-sanctionedethnic cleansing orgenocide orsettler colonialism; some view it as all three.[8][9][10]
ManyEuropean colonists sawAmerican Indian tribes assavages. However, Euro-Indian relations varied, particularly between theFrench andBritish colonies.[11]New France, which was established in theGreat Lakes region, generally pursued a cooperative relationship with the Indian tribes, through the existence of certain traditions such as themarriage à la façon du pays, a marriage between French-Canadian tradesmen (coureur des bois) and American Indian women. This tradition was seen as a fundamental social and political institution that helped maintain relations and bond the two cultures. Many of the missionaries are known to have taught the tribes how to use iron tools, build European-style homes, and improve farming techniques; the teachings of theWyandot, who maintained a century long friendship withFrench Canadians, would spread on to other tribes as they relocated to theMaumee River.[12] Throughout the 17th and 18th century during theBeaver andFrench and Indian Wars, the greatest number of tribes—and the most powerful—tended to side with the French, though other tribes such as theIroquois supported the British for various strategic reasons. For strategic economic and military purposes, the French had a practice of building forts and trading posts within tribal villages, such as that ofFort Miami inIndiana within theMiami village ofKekionga. However, the belief in European cultural, religious and technological superiority was generally widespread among high ranking European colonial officials and clergymen in this period.
During thecolonial history of the United States, many European colonists felt their civilization to be superior to that of the Indians due to their own notions ofprivate property as a superior system ofland tenure in addition to their Christian practices. Colonial and frontier encroachers inflicted a practice of cultural assimilation, meaning that tribes such as the Cherokee were forced to adopt aspects of white civilization. This Americanacculturation was originally proposed by first PresidentGeorge Washington, and it was well underway among theCherokee and theChoctaw people by the beginning of the 19th century.[13] Indian tribes were encouraged to adopt European customs. First, they were forced to convert to Christianity and abandon their traditional religious practices. They were required to learn to speak and readEnglish, although there was interest in creating a writing and printing system for a fewNative languages, especiallyCherokee, exemplified bySequoyah'sCherokee syllabary. The American Indians also had to adopt white settler values, such asmonogamous marriage and abandon the idea ofnon-marital sex. Finally, they had to accept the concept of individual ownership of land and other property (including, in some instances, the ownership of black African people as slaves). Many Cherokee people adopted all, or some, of these practices, includingCherokee chief John Ross,John Ridge, andElias Boudinot, as represented by the newspaper he edited, theCherokee Phoenix.[14]
Despite the adoption of white cultural values by many natives and tribes, the United States government began a systematic effort to remove Native peoples from the Southeast.[15] TheChickasaw,Choctaw,Muscogee-Creek,Seminole, andoriginal Cherokee nations[b] had been established asautonomousnations in the southeastern United States.
Andrew Jackson sought to renew a policy of political and military action for the removal of Natives from these lands and worked toward enacting a law for "Indian removal".[16][17][14][18][19] In his 1829State of the Union address, Jackson called forIndian removal.[20]
The Indian Removal Act was put in place to annex Native land and then transfer that ownership to Southern states, especiallyGeorgia. The Act was passed in 1830, although dialogue had been ongoing since 1802 betweenGeorgia and thefederal government concerning the possibility of such an act. Ethan Davis states that "the federal government had promised Georgia that it would extinguish Indian title within the state's borders by purchase 'as soon as the such purchase could be made upon reasonable terms'".[21] As time passed, Southern states began to speed up the expulsions by claiming that the deal between Georgia and the federal government was invalid and that Southern states could pass laws extinguishing Indian title themselves. In response, the federal government passed the Indian Removal Act on May 28, 1830, in which President Jackson agreed to divide the United States territory west of theMississippi River into districts for tribes to replace the land from which they were removed.
In the 1823 case ofJohnson v. McIntosh, theUnited States Supreme Court handed down a decision stating that Indians could occupy and control lands within the United States but could not hold title to those lands.[22] Jackson viewed the union as afederation of highly esteemed states, as was common before theAmerican Civil War. He opposed Washington's policy of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were sovereign foreign nations. Thus, the creation of Indian jurisdictions was a violation of state sovereignty underArticle IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. As Jackson saw it, either Indians comprised sovereign states (which violated the Constitution) or were subject to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson urged Indians to assimilate and obey state laws. Further, he believed he could only accommodate the desire for Native self-rule in federal territories, which required resettlement on Federal lands west of the Mississippi River.[23][24][25]
The Removal Act was strongly supported in theAmerican South, especially inGeorgia, which was involved in a jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokee and was the largest state in 1802. President Jackson hoped that removal would resolve the Georgia crisis.[26] Besides theFive Civilized Tribes, additional people affected included theWyandot, theKickapoo, thePotowatomi, theShawnee, and theLenape.[27]
The Indian Removal Act was controversial. Many Americans during this time favored its passage, but there was also significant opposition. Many white Christianmissionaries protested against it, most notably missionary organizerJeremiah Evarts. In U.S. Congress,New Jersey SenatorTheodore Frelinghuysen, Kentucky SenatorHenry Clay, andTennessee CongressmanDavy Crockett spoke out against the legislation. The Removal Act passed only after a bitter debate in Congress.[28][29] Clay extensively campaigned against it on theNational Republican Party ticket in the1832 United States presidential election.[29]
Jackson viewed the demise of Native nations as inevitable, pointing to the steady expansion of European-based lifestyles and the decimation of Native nations in the U.S.'s northeast region. He called his Northern critics hypocrites, given theNorth's history regarding Native nations within their claimed territory. Jackson stated that "progress requires moving forward."[30]
Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country andphilanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress never has for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth... But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another... In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes… Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?[31][32][33]
According to historianH. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that hispopulation transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Native Americans from "utter annihilation". Jackson portrayed the removal as a paternalistic act of mercy.[34]
According to Robert M. Keeton, those in favor of the bill would use biblical stories, including the Story of Creation and the Story ofJacob and Esau, to argue for the resettlement of Native Americans. This method was used by figures such asWilson Lumpkin,Richard H. Wilde, andAndrew Jackson to justify the act from a righteous standpoint.[35]
On April 24, 1830, the Senate passed the Indian Removal Act by a vote of 28 to 19.[36] On May 26, 1830, the House of Representatives passed the Act by a vote of 101 to 97.[37] On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson.
Worcester v. Georgia
A legal case that took place in 1832 by theUnited States Supreme Court which held a final vote (5–1) affirming that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on Native American Land. Despite PresidentAndrew Jackson's refusal to enforce the ruling, this ultimate decision led the formation basis for the subsequent law in the United States in regard to Native Americans.
Worcester v. Georgia involved a group of whiteChristian missionaries who were living in theCherokee territory inGeorgia, this includedCherokee messenger, Samuel Austin Worcester.
The Removal Act paved the way for the forced expulsion of tens of thousands of American Indians from the Cherokee tribe in 1838-39 into the West in an event widely known as the "Trail of Tears", a forcedresettlement of the Indian population.[38][39][40] This event has been characterized as a genocide.[41] The first removal treaty signed was theTreaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek on September 27, 1830, in whichChoctaws inMississippi ceded land east of the river in exchange for payment and land in the West. TheTreaty of New Echota was signed in 1835 and resulted in the removal of the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears.
The Seminoles and other tribes did not leave peacefully, as they resisted the removal along withfugitive slaves. TheSecond Seminole War lasted from 1835 to 1842 and resulted in the government allowing them to remain in south Florida swampland. Only a small number remained, and around 3,000 were removed in the war.[42]
In the 21st century, scholars have cited the act and subsequent removals as an early example of state sanctionedethnic cleansing orgenocide orsettler colonialism or as all three Forms of these.[43][44][45] HistorianRichard White wrote that because of "claimed parallels between ethnic cleansing and Indian removal, any examination of Indian removal will inevitably involve discussions of ethnic cleansing."[46] Other scholarship has focused on the historical comparisons between the United States concept ofmanifest destiny andNazi Germany's concept ofLebensraum and how American Indian removal policy served as a model for Naziracial policy during theGeneralplan Ost plan.[47]
An alternative view posits that the Indian Removal Act, despite the deaths and forced relocation, benefitted the removed peoples by saving their societies from a worse fate that likely awaited them were they to remain in their home territories to face a mass influx of settlers that the federal government was unable to prevent.[48] AsRobert V. Remini stated:
Jackson genuinely believed that what he had accomplished rescued these people from inevitable annihilation. And although that statement sounds monstrous, and although no one in the modern world wishes to accept or believe it, that is exactly what he did. He saved the Five Civilized Nations from probable extinction.[49]
Similarly, historianFrancis Paul Prucha argued that removal was the best of the four options that presented themselves, the other three being genocide, assimilation into white culture, and protection of tribal lands against settler encroachment, the last of which Prucha, like Remini, saw as unachievable.[50]
.jpg)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Indian question.
The bill passed 101–97, with 11 not voting
| Statutes |
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precedents |
| ||||||||||||
| By state | |||||||||||||
| Compare | |||||||||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
