Leaving aside numbers for a second, because people often relate more to stories, we will start with General Winfield Scott's story. In his address to the Cherokee Nation, he is very clear that he is simply following orders by saying, "This is no sudden determination on the part of the President, whom you and I must now obey. By the treaty, the emigration was to have been completed on or before the 23rd of this month; and the President has constantly kept you warned, during the two years allowed, through all his officers and agents in this country, that the treaty would be enforced" (Scott). The treaty to which he refers is the Treaty of 1835 or the Treaty of New Echota. As we know later, many of the Cherokees starved or froze to death but at the end of his address he explicitly states, "You will find food for all and clothing for the destitute at either of those places, and thence at your ease and in comfort be transported to your new homes, according to the terms of the treaty" (Scott). The Cherokees after hearing or reading of this would have had a false idea of what their removal would be like. Throughout his address, he beseeches them to neither fight nor hide because he simply wants this to be as easy as possible. Although he seems to act like their friend, he is not in fact their friend.
Chief John Ross or the Cherokee nations is understandably furious. In a letter to the House of Representatives and the Senate, he says, "We are despoiled of our private possessions, the indefeasible property of individuals. We are stripped of every attribute of freedom and eligibility for legal self-defence. Our property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our complaints. We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family! We have neither land nor home, nor resting place that can be called our own" (Ross). Knowing what we have already learned, that the supreme court ruled that the government did not have the power to take away their land in Worcester v. Georgia. Andrew Jackson was going directly against court orders. Understandably, the chief turned to the Senate in the hope of repealing his decision to use military force. He argues that while they were once treated as a foreign nation that could negotiate reasonably with the US they are no longer listened to. All attempts they have, be it legal or whatever else, are ignored and they are left powerless in this situation.
But what does the main man himself have to say on it? Andrew Jackson was known for being racist and did not see the Natives as having any rights. In his message to Congress "On Indian Removal" he starts off by saying, "It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation" (Jackson). His obvious delight and the fact that it is coming to a "happy" end is a direct slap in the face to the Native nations. He even goes on to say that moving will benefit the Cherokees because they will be better off in their new place, "It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community" (Jackson). He assumes throughout all of this that their way of life that they are currently living is not as good as the one they will be receiving but as many of us know, this will not be the case at all. In fact, he even says that the Indians are lucky they are being removed and given land in the westward territories along with government support. Settlers, he says would gladly jump at this opportunity, "How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy" (Jackson). He describes his own policy as "generous" and that the government "kindly offers" their policy to be accepted. We know that it was not an offer but an order and that nothing the Cherokees did could have changed Jackson's mind.
And so, we can see in the lead up to the Trail of Tears the many perspectives on the issue. General Winfield Scott plays the helpless victim by saying he is just following the orders of Jackson. Chief John Ross pleads to Congress for help to save them from the taking of their land that was rightly ruled theirs by the Supreme Court. And Andrew Jackson remains fixed in his idea that he is actually helping out the Natives and severely twists his ideas to make them sound like a good thing when, in fact, it is most definitely not. Stay tuned to see what happened during the actual event.
Works Cited
Jackson, Andrew. "Transcript of President Andrew Jackson's Message to Congress 'On Indian Removal' (1830)." Our Documents. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.
Ross, John, Chief. "Cherokee Letter Protesting the Treaty of New Echota." Africans in America. PBS, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.
Scott, Winfield. "Gen. Winfield Scott's Address to the Cherokee Nation." Georgia Info. University of Georgia, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points about how throughout the lead-up to the Trail of Tears, the American government oppressed Native Americans living throughout the country due to racist ideals and a lack of political activism (in terms of promoting conflicting views against Jackson's). However, I feel that this argument is somewhat biased in that it portrays the entire United States as this large, pacifistic country that let President Jackson dictate them and that the main reason we were trying to force the Native Americans out of the country was only to please Jackson's racist ideals. Now, even though Jackson's personal beliefs did contribute to the oppression of Native Americans and the Trail of Tears, there were many other Americans throughout the country who agreed with his beliefs, as seen through the ideas of Manifest Destiny (since whites believed it was their job to conquer everything west to them). Also, I think that there were many other factors that contributed to the decision to spread west and relocate the Native Americans, including a desire for capitalistic growth through the creation of new businesses, cities, and homes. And overall, Westward Expansion did make sense to the United States as a smart economical choice since they legally owned the land they were spreading to (as recognized by the European countries who sold the land to them) which is why it ended up benefiting Americans so much in the end. So, even though it might not have been morally justifiable for the United States to oppress the Native Americans to such a great extent, the reasoning for doing so was a bit more complex than just pacifism towards Jackson and extreme racism.
ReplyDelete"We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family! We have neither land nor home, nor resting place that can be called our own" Chief John Ross. It's sad to think that discrimination was so widely spread at this time.Not only were African Americans stripped of human dignity, but so were Native Americans and other groups that did not fit the standard of the "America citizen". Today could what Andrew Jackson did in terms of ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling go without question? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that today there would be much more backlash against a president for directly going against a supreme court ruling. However, it's hard to say if Jackson did not get in trouble because people did not know or whether they chose not to know. Perhaps, today if many people happened to be in support of going against the supreme court, the repercussions might not be severe or even there at all. One would like to think that the supreme court today holds more power because of how crucial they are in the three part government and checks and balances system.
Delete"We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family! We have neither land nor home, nor resting place that can be called our own" Chief John Ross. It's sad to think that discrimination was so widely spread at this time.Not only were African Americans stripped of human dignity, but so were Native Americans and other groups that did not fit the standard of the "America citizen". Today could what Andrew Jackson did in terms of ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling go without question? Why or why not?
ReplyDelete