HistoryNet mastheadHistoryNetShop Summer Catalog

Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act

American History  | Single Page  | 23 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

The great Cherokee Nation that had fought the young Andrew Jackson back in 1788 now faced an even more powerful and determined man who was intent on taking their land. But where in the past they had resorted to guns, tomahawks, and scalping knives, now they chose to challenge him in a court of law. They were not called a 'civilized nation' for nothing. Many of their leaders were well educated; many more could read and write; they had their own written language, thanks to Sequoyah, a constitution, schools, and their own newspaper. And they had adopted many skills of the white man to improve their living conditions. Why should they be expelled from their lands when they no longer threatened white settlements and could compete with them on many levels? They intended to fight their ouster, and they figured they had many ways to do it. As a last resort they planned to bring suit before the Supreme Court.

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to American History magazine

Prior to that action, they sent a delegation to Washington to plead their cause. They petitioned Congress to protect them against the unjust laws of Georgia that had decreed that they were subject to its sovereignty and under its complete jurisdiction. They even approached the President, but he curtly informed them that there was nothing he could do in their quarrel with the state, a statement that shocked and amazed them.

So the Cherokees hired William Wirt to take their case to the Supreme Court. In the celebrated Cherokee Nation v. Georgia he instituted suit for an injunction that would permit the Cherokees to remain in Georgia without interference by the state. He argued that they constituted an independent nation and had been so regarded by the United States in its many treaties with them.

Speaking for the majority of the court, Chief Justice John Marshall handed down his decision on March 18, 1831. Not surprisingly, as a great American nationalist, he rejected Wirt's argument that the Cherokees were a sovereign nation, but he also rejected Jackson's claim that they were subject to state law. The Indians were 'domestic dependent nations,' he ruled, subject to the United States as a ward to a guardian. Indian territory was part of the United States but not subject to action by individual states.

When the Cherokees read Marshall's decision they honestly believed that the Nation had won the case, that Georgia lacked authority to control their lives and property, and that the courts would protect them. The Supreme Court, the Principal Chief told his people, decided 'in our favor.' So they stayed right where they were, and missionaries encouraged them to stand fast.

But they figured without Andrew Jackson — the man the Cherokees called Sharp Knife — and the authorities of Georgia. In late December 1830, the state passed another law prohibiting white men from entering Indian country after March 1, 1831, without a license from the state. This move was obviously intended to keep interfering clergymen from inciting the Indians to disobey Georgia law. Eleven such missionaries were arrested for violating the recent statute, nine of whom accepted pardons from the governor in return for a promise that they would cease violating Georgia law. But Samuel A. Worcester and Dr. Elizur Butler refused the pardon, and Judge Augustin S.J. Clayton sentenced them to the state penitentiary, 'there to endure hard labor for the term of four years.' They appealed the verdict and their case came before the Supreme Court.

On March 3, 1832, Marshall again ruled in Worcester v. Georgia, declaring all the laws of Georgia dealing with the Cherokees unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect. In addition he issued a formal mandate two days later ordering the state's superior court to reverse its decision and free the two men.

Jackson was presently involved in a confrontation with South Carolina over the passage of the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. The state had nullified the acts and threatened to secede from the Union if force were used to make her comply with them. The last thing Jackson needed was a confrontation with another state, so he quietly nudged Georgia into obeying the court order and freeing Butler and Worcester. A number of well-placed officials in both the state and national governments lent a hand and the governor, Wilson Lumpkin, released the two men on January 14, 1833.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tags: , , , , ,

HistoryNet.com Subject Locator
  1. 23 Comments to “Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act”

  2. i love history!!!!!!!!!!

    By Austin on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  3. i love history bcuz its very interestin

    By samantha on Jan 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm

  4. i love history cuz it is so amazing ;]

    By samantha on Jan 8, 2009 at 3:01 pm

  5. I LOVE EDWARD EVERETTTTT!

    By daddys little gurll(: on Jan 15, 2009 at 8:29 pm

  6. hate history!!!!!!!!!!
    but for me………….this artical was very helpful.(:
    To all you people who think there SO cool, to cool for school kinda kids. if ya need help in history go to historynet.com!!!!
    its VERY helpful. after this ill probably go back to being cool!!!
    haha but it helped and was VERY inspiring. Thankyou muchly(:
    this website helped(:
    -Peacce out

    ps. if you are in need of help, REMEMBER, God is always there for you. he will answer ure prayers. just need to be forgiven.
    <3 luv you kids(:

    By daddys little gurll(: on Jan 15, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  7. History revisionists have tried to make Andrew Jackson the scapegoat for the removal of the Cherokees. He did not come up with the idea on his own. The congress of the United States did after all pass this treaty. Jackson was out of office when the treaty was enforced.
    According to the article, Jackson urged Van Buren to enforce the treaty. The article stated that when the treaty was enforced, the Cherokee were forcibly removed. Looters came in and took what was left.
    That speaks volumes about the thugs the United States hires to do its dirty work. Case in point, the Cuban refugee boy that lesbian attorney general that worked for Clinton sent back to Cuba with a machine gun pointed at him.
    I am sure that is not the way that cousin Andy, I am 5th cousin related through his father's sister Tabatha Jackson, wanted the situation to turn out.
    There were clashes amongst the settlers and the Cherokee. Jackson did not want them to be wiped out. The Whites were flowing in. The Cherokees were outnumbered. Look what those thugs did to the Cherokee. Jackson wanted to avoid that. He offered money and support and new land. Ross, who was not a full blooded Cherokee and lived like a white man with slaves, convinced the tribe to hold out even though the situation was untendable.
    I saw a movie one time, I belive it was Charlie Sheen that was supposed to go undercover and bust a lot of outlaw bikers. During one scene in the movie, he was locked up in jail with an Indian fellow. They were talking about what a lone Indian was supposed to do when surrounded by 100 whites with guns. The Indian said
    " give the f up".
    2000 Cherokee listened to Jackson and left for Oklahoma right away.
    I think the Indian in the movie had the right idea.

    By bbjohnson on Jan 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm

  8. This place is such a good site…i really enjoy history

    By me on Feb 19, 2009 at 1:04 am

  9. BLEH!! HISTORY!

    By jhdfjskhfame on Feb 23, 2009 at 9:42 pm

  10. woa. . . . . . luved it!!!

    By michella on Mar 5, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  11. I HATE PRESIDENT JACKSON!!!

    By Nick on Mar 14, 2009 at 12:27 pm

  12. i love andrew jackson i have been too is house it is magnificent!!!!!!!!!!!

    By patrick on Mar 16, 2009 at 9:16 am

  13. i love andrew jackson<3

    By frank on Mar 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm

  14. Great president, but a JERK!!!!!!

    By shamishka on Apr 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm

  15. WOW

    By sbfsdbfbsdf on Apr 29, 2009 at 12:11 pm

  16. last year i got a D in history and this site helped me out!now i have a 90!!!!!!!!!!andrew jackson??????I HAV NO CLUE

    By litterbox on May 5, 2009 at 10:42 am

  17. i had a C in history and the teacher didnt help me at all so thos helped me a hole lot!!

    By yolanda on May 5, 2009 at 10:43 am

  18. This helps. but i hate history.. but i got really good notes on this. woo. haha.

    By Ann. :) on May 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  19. i think this is just wrong

    By sharon d on May 28, 2009 at 9:11 am

  20. i have never liked history its just not my thing….but this page was really helpful.
    and who IS Andrew Jackson??

    By cheyenne sanderson(loves ira thompson) on May 28, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  21. boring but informative helped me out on mii project hooray

    By tamzgurl33 on Oct 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  22. cool webi site

    By tamzgurl33 on Oct 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm

  23. The phrase "Indian Removal Act" does not exist ANYWHERE IN THIS @#@$# ARTICLE.

    By ballsack lol on Jan 8, 2010 at 11:23 am

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Dec 21, 2008: Prop 8? - Page 43

Post a Comment

Please note that HistoryNet Staff cannot respond to requests for research of any type. Please visit our research forum to post research questions. If you have a question about our magazines, please use the contact us form.

Related Articles



SPONSORED SITES







HistoryNet Article Archives Historynet Spacer

HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

If the Tirpitz and the Bismarck could have operated together, would it have made much difference in the naval war of the Atlantic?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

See previous polls

STAY CONNECTED WITH US

RSS Feed
 
Get Our Daily HistoryNet Email
 
 


What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

 Get our RSS!
 Newsletter Signup

From Our Magazines

Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer!

Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Contact Us|Advertise With Us|Subscription Help