The Legacy of Indian Removal
Assessing the Legacy of Indian Removal
"The command for a removal came unexpectedly upon most of us. . . Wagons stopped at our home and the men in charge commanded us to gather what few belongings could be crowded into the wagons.We were to be taken away and leave our homes never to return. This was just the beginning of much weeping and heartaches . . . most of us had not foreseen such a move in this fashion or at this time.
We were not prepared, but times became more horrible after the real journey was begun. Many fell by the wayside, too faint with hunger or too weak to keep up with the rest. The aged, feeble, and sick were left to perish by the wayside. A crude bed was quickly prepared for these sick and weary people. Only a bowl of water was left within reach, thus they were left to suffer and die alone." — Creek Mary Hill, recounting her grandmother's experience migrating to Oklahoma Territory
We were not prepared, but times became more horrible after the real journey was begun. Many fell by the wayside, too faint with hunger or too weak to keep up with the rest. The aged, feeble, and sick were left to perish by the wayside. A crude bed was quickly prepared for these sick and weary people. Only a bowl of water was left within reach, thus they were left to suffer and die alone." — Creek Mary Hill, recounting her grandmother's experience migrating to Oklahoma Territory
Andrew Jackson signed into law over 70 Indian removal treaties. During his presidency, more than forty thousand Indians were moved westward mostly without their consent, opening millions of acres of land to American settlers and cotton planters. Even before the Cherokees were forced to Indian Territory in 1838, the Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks had already been removed from their lands. By the 1840s, the vast majority of Indians in the American south had been relocated.
In the nineteenth century, along with the southern Indian nations, the U.S. government resettled portions of at least sixty Indian tribes, totaling several hundred thousand Indians. The Oneida, Brothertons, and Mohicans were moved from New York and western Massachusetts to Wisconsin. Others like the Dakota and Lakota of Minnesota were resettled in the Dakotas and Nebraska after the Sioux "uprising" of the early 1860s. After two hundred and fifty years of settler expansion, the Lenapi, who originally lived in present-day New Jersey, ended up in Indian Territory in 1867. The Chiricahua Apaches, moved from Arizona in 1889, were among the last to be exiled from their former homes. Many of these tribes suffered "trails of tears" and untold numbers perished during their difficult journeys and while attempting to reestablish themselves in a new land.
1. How does Jackson's legacy of Indian removal affect his own legacy as president?
2. How could Indian removal have been handled differently? Could there have been a compromise? Explain.
Each answer must be at least 1 paragraph.
1. His decition made the indians hate him because he removed their homes and forced them to get used to another area. there were more indians than rich people therefore Andrew jackson was hatred by a huge amount of people. 2. the situation with the indian removal could of been better if Jackson made a deal with the indians. One way of making a pact with the indians is if he respects their land the indians would hunt animals for him or somnething that would make him happy.
ReplyDelete1. Jacksons legacy of Indian removal affected his own legacy as president because it showed his actions as cruel and brutal. It also made him look selfish because he was only thinking of his own needs, not the peoples. this greedy act of his led the exile of many Indian Americans.
ReplyDelete2. it could have been avoided in a way where Jackson could have left the Indians to work on the plantation work and all the other things he told the Americans to do expanding.
1.During jackson's presidency,his legacy of indian removal caused more than forty thousand indians moved westward mostly without their consent, opening millions of acres of land to american settlers and cotton planters.
ReplyDelete2.Indian removal could have been handle differently by making some compromises between the indians and the government. the us government wanted to move natives westward,it should give some benefits for the indians inorder to make a compromise. for example, gave out the plenty of food , provided safe transportation,etc.
1.Andrew Jackson's Indian removal affected his legacy as a president because it showed that he was a cruel man and very brutal . it also showed people that he was selfish and was not really thinking about the people, he only cared about himself.
ReplyDelete2. This Removal of the indians definitely could've been avoided and a compromise between the indians and government could've been one of them.
1. How does Jackson's legacy of Indian removal affect his own legacy as president?
ReplyDeleteIt effected his legacy because it changed his view in the citizens eyes. It showed him in another perspective which would be cruel and harsh.
2. How could Indian removal have been handled differently? Could there have been a compromise? Explain.
Even though I don't think there could have been a compromise I think there could have been a less cruel way to handle things. For instance instead of sending them running from the land they called their home, Andrew Jackson could have ordered to grant them transportation and at the least bit just food. That way even though you were forcing them out of their land you showed at least a little bit of hospitality.
1. It affected him because he showed people the cruel and mean person he is, and he kicked out so many indians from their land.
ReplyDelete2. I dont think there is such thing as handing it diffrently. I think it is dishonorable period on how you can kick people out from their land. Sure you can give them food and some water or even transportation but at the end there still being kicked out of there land.