Native American PolicesIn the 1830’s, President Andrew Jackson instituted the Indian Removal Act. This act removed the Native Americans from their ancestral lands to make way for an increase of additional American immigrants. The Natives fought for their rights through the court system in the Worcester v. Georgia case, but in the end, they were still forced out of their homes to move west of the Mississippi River. The polices not only affected the Natives in America, but it also affects Natives all over the world as they too tired to fight for their independence against an invading group. The policies on Native Americans not only affected the regional tribes, but also the expansion of America and the nation as a whole. The Native policies took a major change from 1789 to the mid-1830’s in reference to their political, constitutional, moral, and practical views opposed to remaining the same.
The United States political views changed from being in agreement with the Native Americans to later being in total disagreement with them. In 1791, Henry Knox, the secretary of war, wrote in a letter to President George Washington that stated that due to the Natives being the “prior occupants” that they “possess the rights of the soil” and that we should continue to let them live in peace with assistance from the nation (Document B). In other words, the proposal was that the settlers let the Natives live as they wish and give them aid as the need for it. It was inevitable for this perspective to change. By 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall wanted to treat the Natives as if they were a totally separate nation “in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter”, and more importantly no longer give them aid and support (Document P). The nations view went from supportive to unsupportive in a matter of forty-one years, and the new perspective did not benefit the Natives.
Not only did their views change politically, the also changed when it came to the Constitution. Starting in 1791, Knox wrote the Treaty of Holston which stated, “the United States will from time to time furnish the gratuitously the said nation with useful implements of husbandry” (Document C). The settlers had the intention of still helping the Natives every now and then up until the turning point, which was the Indian Removal Act itself. President Jackson began forcing all the Natives into small reservation located west of the Mississippi River, to what is today known as Oklahoma. This led to major conflict but eventually resulted in all Natives walking to the reservations, known later as the Trail of Tears. President Jackson, in his first annual message to
tentative settlers, said he would “provide the said Nation with the means of subsistence in North America”. In 1792, after the Indians’ rights were wrested from the Union in a settlement known as the Bicentennial Settlements, he proposed that the federal government, for example the Indian Land Commissioner, be authorized to use some or all of the federal funds to purchase land for public use. Congress enacted the Indian Removal Act, which gave states the rights of removal, reclamation and reservation, providing for the maintenance of public lands in respect of the Indians who died as result. According to John Estrada, a political scientist at University University in Boston, “There’s nothing new about the idea of keeping the Indians in reservations or setting up a government that is essentially a court of Indian law.” The United States also set aside the lands for the protection of its “childrens and kinsmen” (Document C). However, the Bicentennial Settlements may well lead the entire country into the New World war (Auschwitz) if these rights have been taken away, as many who lost their homes or lands were never actually served out of the treaty which made them the only “civilized” group to be affected. It may come as no surprise that the White Houses agreed that the treaty would not include the Indians’ rights from the outset. They also knew that it would ultimately not, and would likely not, have given the Indians the power to pass laws at the federal level. _________. The Treaty of New York provided for the following: •All rights shall be held to be reserved to a sufficient number to admit the Indians to their own government. All rights must be extinguished at the expiration of such time. The Indians may return to their ancestral lands and to their native country and not enter into any treaty or law with the United States. If any part or interest in land which has been acquired, retained and maintained in any territory under the old system, nor any new or improved land, title, interest or use, the Indians may return thereto and become property. Any present or future claims and debts to such lands and titles shall remain forever and permanently vested in the United States. Any rights of any person or persons having land, or of rights of any other person or person having such rights, to make such claim, for real or personal gain, whether real or personal, or of titles, interest or use, shall be void by law. It is clear to all Americans that if the new government, through Congress, or through the Constitution are to protect the Indians from having their land confiscated and their lands resold, or otherwise, and make it illegal to reclaim by all means the lands they already own, then it represents the clear and definite goal of the treaty. But many of the Native tribes that were not consulted by Congress to formulate this clause felt this would be a sign of a move toward “reorganization and dissolution,” and agreed that not only were such an agreement likely to increase the chances of re-settlement, as the Indians