Rationale Evaluation
The rationale for removing Indians from the Southeast lands of the United States included several points that were claimed to benefit the Government of the United States in multiple ways. Firstly, the removal was claimed to be a precautionary measure to minimize internal state conflicts. Indeed, Jackson stated that the Removal Act would put “an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians” (“Transcrip,” n. d., para. 2). Secondly, in terms of territorial security, the areas “between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south” would belong to settlers, thus strengthening the border (“Transcript,” n. d., para. 2). Thirdly, the areas relieved of Indians would strive for economic advancement and progress.
Fourthly, the relocation of Indians to the west was claimed to be their path to civilized and Christian governance. In such a manner, they were promised to be supported in achieving happy life instead of their “savage habits” (“Transcript,” n. d., para. 2). Finally, the President validated his proposal of removing Indians by the claims of fair exchange. Indeed, the Government was supposed to take responsibility for all the expanses of the relocation “to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual” (“Transcrip,” n. d., para. 4). In Jackson’s opinion, the resistance to such actions was labeled as ingratitude because white settlers also suffered when they were moving from their native land; therefore, Indians can also comply with removal.
Overall, when evaluating the rationale President Jackson presented in his message to Congress within the context of his speech, the validation of the Act is strong in supported by multiple benefits for the state and the tribes. Indeed, in Jackson’s opinion, the removal of Indians allowed for gaining economic, security, population-related, and development-based advantages for the Southeast of the United States. However, one might identify ethical inconsistencies that relate to the claimed benefits for the Natives. In particular, Jackson’s appraisal of the Act as an opportunity for the tribes was not justified by any proof. Moreover, the fact that white settlers suffered when relocating does not mean that others should go through the same process as well. However, the rationale was sufficient enough to obtain the support of the Senate and Congress and implement the Act. Consequently, the removal of Indians had its intended influence on the development of the Southeast of the United States but with significant population losses in tribes.
President’s Responsibilities under the Indian Removal Act of 1830
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 granted multiple advantages for President Jackson to pursue his agenda. The Act provided him with the responsibility to negotiate the removal activities with the tribes on the basis of previous treaties (Reclova, 2019). The President obtained the power to allocate the western lands to the removed tribes (Tolbert, 2019). In such a manner, he had all the tools necessary to persuade Indians to relocate; those refusing to do so were threatened to become a part of the state.
Comparison of Planned Actions and Events During the Trail of Tears
The planned actions that were manifested in the Act did not match the actual events that were later labeled the Trail of Tears, which is one of the most tragic events in US history. The removal had been claimed to be a peaceful and voluntary process while, in reality, it was a forced relocation. Indians were removed from their lands and had to walk hundreds of miles to their new lands. This process was marked by numerous conflicts and battles between Indians and white settlers, in which the tribes tried to prove their sovereignty but failed. Force was used to make the Native population free of the Southeast lands. Moreover, on the long routes to the west, many Indians died and suffered.
Violation of the Declaration of Independence
Regardless of the strong rationale for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and its seemingly constitutional implementation, the Trail of Tears was a manifestation of multiple violations of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. This profound document serves as a guideline for implementing morally right governmental decisions at all times. However, during the Trail of Tears, the Native Americans were discriminated against. They were threatened that they would be governed under state laws if they refused to relocate, which is a violation of the principle of sovereignty.
Furthermore, the tribes were deprived of their historically ancestral lands. The forced removal was a violation of basic human rights for the protection of the Government because the safety of the tribes was neglected. The principle of equality was also not followed in the course of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 implementation because the interests and rights of the white population were prioritized over those of Indians. Thus, Andrew Jackson’s removal of Indians from the Southeast of the USA helped him promote his agenda and achieve economic development. However, it was done by the cost of multiple deaths and consequent elimination of the Native populations from the territory of the state and the persistent dominance of whites.
References
Reclova, Z. (2019). The Trail of Tears: Indian removal in the 1830s [Bachelor’s Thesis, Tomas Bata University]. Web.
Tolbert, P. (2019). This land is whose land? History, fiction, and the 1800’s Cherokee removal in Inskeep’s Jacksonland. Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History, 9(2), 1-19.
Transcript of President Andrew Jackson’s message to Congress ‘On Indian removal’ (1830). (n. d.). Web.