| |

Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal ActAmerican History | Single Page | 26 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
Jackson then concluded by reminding them of the fate of the Creeks, that once great and proud Nation. How broken and reduced in circumstances their lives had now become because they resisted. It was a not-so-subtle threat that also struck home. 'Think then of these things,' he concluded. 'Shut your ears to bad counsels. Look at your condition as it now is, and then consider what it will be if you follow the advice I give you.' Subscribe Today
That ended the talk, and the Indians filed from the room more disappointed and depressed than ever. Jackson would not budge, and they knew their kinsmen were dead set against removal. It was a stalemate that could end only in tragedy.
Meanwhile Schermerhorn called 'a council of all the people' to meet him at New Echota in Georgia during the third week of December 1835 to approve the draft treaty, making sure that a large contingent of Treaty Party members attended. Like Jackson, he had the temerity to warn other Cherokees that if they stayed away their absence would be considered a vote of consent for the draft.
Despite the threat and the warning, practically the entire Nation stayed away. As a consequence the treaty was approved on December 28 by the unbelievably low number of 79 to 7. The numbers represented only the merest fraction of the Nation. A vast majority — perhaps fifteen-sixteenths of the entire population — presumably opposed it and showed their opposition by staying away. The entire process was fraudulent, but that hardly mattered. Jackson had the treaty he wanted, and he did not hesitate to so inform the Senate. The Treaty of New Echota closely, but not completely, resembled the draft treaty in that the Cherokees surrendered all their eastern land and received $4.5 million in return. They would be paid for improvements, removed at government expense, and maintained for two years. Removal was to take place within two years from the date of the treaty's approval by the Senate and President.
A short while later some 12,000 Cherokees signed a resolution denouncing the Treaty of New Echota and forwarded it to the Senate. Even the North Carolina Cherokees, in a separate action, added 3,250 signatures to a petition urging the Senate to reject it. But Jackson was assured by the Treaty Party that 'a majority of the people' approved the document 'and all are willing peaceable to yield to the treaty and abide by it.' Such information convinced the President that the Principal Chief and his 'half breed' cohorts had coerced the Cherokees into staying away from New Echota under threat of physical violence.
At New Echota the Treaty Party selected a Committee of Thirteen to carry the treaty to Washington and they were empowered to act on any alteration required by the President or the U.S. Senate. This Committee invited Ross to join the group and either support the treaty or insist on such alterations as to make it acceptable. 'But to their appeal [Ross] returned no answer,' which further convinced the President that the treaty represented the genuine interests and the will of the majority of Cherokees.
Although Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, and other senators spoke fervently against the treaty in the Senate, a two-thirds majority of 31 members voted for it and 15 against. It carried by a single vote on May 18. Jackson added his signature on May 23, 1836, and proclaimed the Treaty of New Echota in force.
And they had two years — that is until May 23, 1838 — to cross over the Mississippi and take up their new residence in the Indian Territory. But every day of that two-year period John Ross fought the inevitable. He demanded to see the President and insisted that Jackson recognize the authority of the duly elected National Council, but Sharp Knife would have none of him and turned him away. Back home the Principal Chief advised his people to ignore the treaty and stay put. 'We will not recognize the forgery palmed off upon the world as a treaty by a knot of unauthorized individuals,' he cried, 'nor stir one step with reference to that false paper.' Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Tags: 19th Century, American History, American Indian Wars, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures, Politics
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
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. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2010 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
26 Comments to “Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act”
i love history!!!!!!!!!!
By Austin on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:49 pm
i love history bcuz its very interestin
By samantha on Jan 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm
i love history cuz it is so amazing ;]
By samantha on Jan 8, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I LOVE EDWARD EVERETTTTT!
By daddys little gurll(: on Jan 15, 2009 at 8:29 pm
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
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
This place is such a good site…i really enjoy history
By me on Feb 19, 2009 at 1:04 am
BLEH!! HISTORY!
By jhdfjskhfame on Feb 23, 2009 at 9:42 pm
woa. . . . . . luved it!!!
By michella on Mar 5, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I HATE PRESIDENT JACKSON!!!
By Nick on Mar 14, 2009 at 12:27 pm
i love andrew jackson i have been too is house it is magnificent!!!!!!!!!!!
By patrick on Mar 16, 2009 at 9:16 am
i love andrew jackson<3
By frank on Mar 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Great president, but a JERK!!!!!!
By shamishka on Apr 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm
WOW
By sbfsdbfbsdf on Apr 29, 2009 at 12:11 pm
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
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
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
i think this is just wrong
By sharon d on May 28, 2009 at 9:11 am
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
boring but informative helped me out on mii project hooray
By tamzgurl33 on Oct 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm
cool webi site
By tamzgurl33 on Oct 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The phrase "Indian Removal Act" does not exist ANYWHERE IN THIS @#@$# ARTICLE.
By ballsack lol on Jan 8, 2010 at 11:23 am
jaksom was a good prez but had stupid plans
By jman 123 lol on Mar 4, 2010 at 1:17 pm
jackson was a good president i dont know what yall are talking about
By blake creel on Mar 8, 2010 at 11:01 am
Andrew Jackson was a racist S.O.B
By Joe Elton on Mar 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm