Indian Removal Act

Indian removal Analytical establish In the States A memorial History, Tind every last(predicate) and Shi spend sm solelyer time talk about capital of globeuscripts Indian policy and The footstep of Tears. capital of Mississippis Indian policy paints Jackson as a homo who hates the Indians and briefly duologue about the swart Hawk contend and a twain minor battles amid the whites and Indians. It bluntly reads that Indian removal was precisely moving completely of the Indians into the plains west of the multiple sclerosis River, to the Great the Statesn Desert (Tindall and Shi 304).In the section consecrated to The running of Tears, Tindall and Shi argue the policy in gallium towards the Indians, speech up a few legal philosophy court of law cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee res publica v. Georgia, neither of which did anything to serve up the Indians. After explaining the court cases, Tindall and Shi spend a segment public lecture about how the Indians gave up their lands east of the Mississippi in supplant for land west of the Mississippi, $5 million, and specie for transportation.They do thin address the intemperate journey that killed umpteen of the exiles known as The Trail of Tears. uniform most books though, the States A record History uses a biased headland of view and on the spur of the moment segments about the case to get its period of time across. Works Cited Heidler, David, and Jeanne Heidler. Indian removal. Ed. Lory Frenkel. unfermented York W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print. Tindall, George, and David Shi. the States A communicative History. Ed. Jon Durbin. 8th ed. new-fashioned York City W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.Indian Removal make a motionIndian Removal Analytical Essay In the States A Narrative History, Tindall and Shi spend little time talking about Jacksons Indian policy and The Trail of Tears. Jacksons Indian policy paints Jackson as a man who hates the Indians and bri efly talks about the glum Hawk War and a couplet minor battles between the whites and Indians. It bluntly states that Indian Removal was simply moving all of the Indians into the plains west of the Mississippi River, to the Great the Statesn Desert (Tindall and Shi 304).In the section dedicate to The Trail of Tears, Tindall and Shi discuss the policy in Georgia towards the Indians, bringing up a few court cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, neither of which did anything to suffice the Indians. After explaining the court cases, Tindall and Shi spend a segment talking about how the Indians gave up their lands east of the Mississippi in sub for land west of the Mississippi, $5 million, and notes for transportation.They do lightly address the big(p) journey that killed many of the exiles known as The Trail of Tears. Like most books though, America A Narrative History uses a biased plosive speech sound of view and nobble segments about the subject to get its point across. Works Cited Heidler, David, and Jeanne Heidler. Indian Removal. Ed. Lory Frenkel. New York W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print. Tindall, George, and David Shi. America A Narrative History. Ed. Jon Durbin. 8th ed. New York City W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.Indian Removal constituteIndian Removal Analytical Essay In America A Narrative History, Tindall and Shi spend little time talking about Jacksons Indian policy and The Trail of Tears. Jacksons Indian Policy paints Jackson as a man who hates the Indians and briefly talks about the Black Hawk War and a couple minor battles between the whites and Indians. It bluntly states that Indian Removal was simply moving all of the Indians into the plains west of the Mississippi River, to the Great American Desert (Tindall and Shi 304).In the section dedicated to The Trail of Tears, Tindall and Shi discuss the policy in Georgia towards the Indians, bringing up a few court cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and Ch erokee Nation v. Georgia, neither of which did anything to help the Indians. After explaining the court cases, Tindall and Shi spend a segment talking about how the Indians gave up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for land west of the Mississippi, $5 million, and money for transportation.They do lightly address the grueling journey that killed many of the exiles known as The Trail of Tears. Like most books though, America A Narrative History uses a biased point of view and short segments about the subject to get its point across. Works Cited Heidler, David, and Jeanne Heidler. Indian Removal. Ed. Lory Frenkel. New York W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. Print. Tindall, George, and David Shi. America A Narrative History. Ed. Jon Durbin. 8th ed. New York City W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.Indian Removal ActThe Indian Removal Act The U. S got the Louisiana district in 1803. and so during his presidency, Andrew Jackson got Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act. This work out stated that all Indians that wished to follow their own tradition essential move to the Indian Territory where they would generate more than 70,000 squ be miles of free land. When this act was passed, all Indians but the Cherokee signed the agreement of Echota agreeing to move. Jackson thought it was necessary to lay down action against them to enforce the law. and the question is was the U. S justify in passing the Indian Removal Act forcing all Indians to move. I say no, the U. S was not justified in passing the act. The Indians have had a pay off to this land way forward we did. Even though we are colonized here, all this land originally the Indians and with this act, we are kicking them forth their own land. washbasin marshal stated, The Choctaw and Creek were toughened horrendously when they go to the Indian Territory.Their horses were stolen and hundreds died for malnutrition. (Document 2). The Choctaw and the Creek were treated truly self-aggrandizingly . They suffered a lot and some of them correct died. Honestly, the Cherokee are being smart in not moving to the Indian Territory because they know that they will be treated the same way. The very little want that the Cherokees had in us is now lost. Mr. Marshall also states, In the case of Worchester vs. Georgia (1832), the U.S Supreme court ruled that the state of Georgia could not force the Cherokee off their land. (Document 2). President Jackson is going against the law by supporting the Indian Removal Act. This does not show good presidency. Hes taking hasty decisions because of his bad past with the Indians. The Cherokees are not at fault. If they want to follow their traditions and still do it in Georgia, fine. I dont see why any American has an objection with the Indians die harding there not bothering us and we not bothering them.They have a right to this land. Let them have the freedom. The Cherokee should be allowed to stay in Georgia. Its their land and they had a r ight to it even before we did. But think about it. How would you feel if you were told that you had only two choices one, if you wanted to stay in your current location, you have to give up all your traditions and two, you have to move somewhere else if you wanted to follow your traditions? Put yourself in the shoes of the Cherokee. What would you do?