What was the Indian Removal Act
Analyze President Andrew Jackson’s Speech concerning the Indian removal Act.Take into consideration the following points:1. What was the Indian Removal Act?2. How does this fit in the greater context of “Manifest Destiny.”3. How was the Native American portrayed in this document?4. How is the European American portrayed?5. How does the ideal of progress fit in?6. What points of the text are directly connected to our discussions on nationalism, industrial revolution, and colonialism.7. What are your thoughts?8. Address other points of interest.THREE-FOUR PAGES, DOUBLE SPACE, 12 FONT, TIMES NEW ROMAN FONT, NO COVER PAGE, NAME IN TOP RIGHT CORNER AND PAPER MUST HAVE A TITLE
USE MLA FORMAT, THREE PAGES
Andrew Jackson’s Speech to Congress on Indian Removal
“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. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for
their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the
remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and
to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least
of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the
General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population
in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory
between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will
incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel
future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of
Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and
power. 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.
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?
The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder
process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated
or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling
to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South
and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their
existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the
graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now
doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly
objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant
regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate,
with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our
country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind,
developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and
almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support
themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government
when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to
purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and
support him a year in his new abode? 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.
And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled,
civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers
and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only
liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their
population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government
kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.”
Citation: President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal”, December 6, 1830; Records of the United States
Senate, 1789 ‐1990; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐1990; National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA]