1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Svetach [21]
3 years ago
13

What are 3 reasons the indian removal act was not a good idea?

History
2 answers:
katrin2010 [14]3 years ago
3 0

-it killed a lot of "Indians" (massacre)

-it's still a problem today in society

-they took our land in an inproper way

gogolik [260]3 years ago
3 0

After demanding both political and military action on removing Native American Indians from the southern states of America in 1829, President Andrew Jackson signed this into law on May 28, 1830. Although it only gave the right to negotiate for their withdrawal from areas to the east of the Mississippi river and that relocation was supposed to be voluntary, all of the pressure was there to make this all but inevitable. All the tribal leaders agreed after Jackson’s landslide election victory in 1832.

It is generally acknowledged that this act spelled the end of Indian Rights to live in those states under their own traditional laws. They were forced to assimilate and concede to US law or leave their homelands. The Indian Nations themselves were force to move and ended up in Oklahoma.

The five major tribes affected were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. These were called The Civilised Tribes that had already taken on a degree of integration into a more modern westernised culture, such as developing written language and learning to read and write.

It overturned the more concessionary attitude of ex-President George Washington that aimed for ‘acculturation’ after debate with the Indian Nations. Even in those distant times, there was heated debate in congress with such famous names as the future president Abraham Lincoln and Davy Crockett speaking out against it. Now it is considered with serious negativity by all involved.

 

Articles Featuring Indian Removal Act From History Net Magazines

Featured Article

Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act

By Robert V. Remini

The great Cherokee Nation that had fought the young Andrew Jackson back in 1788 now faced an even more powerful and determined man who was intent on taking their land. But where in the past they had resorted to guns, tomahawks, and scalping knives, now they chose to challenge him in a court of law. They were not called a ‘civilized nation’ for nothing. Many of their leaders were well educated; many more could read and write; they had their own written language, thanks to Sequoyah, a constitution, schools, and their own newspaper. And they had adopted many skills of the white man to improve their living conditions. Why should they be expelled from their lands when they no longer threatened white settlements and could compete with them on many levels? They intended to fight their ouster, and they figured they had many ways to do it. As a last resort they planned to bring suit before the Supreme Court.

Prior to that action, they sent a delegation to Washington to plead their cause. They petitioned Congress to protect them against the unjust laws of Georgia that had decreed that they were subject to its sovereignty and under its complete jurisdiction. They even approached the President, but he curtly informed them that there was nothing he could do in their quarrel with the state, a statement that shocked and amazed them.

So the Cherokees hired William Wirt to take their case to the Supreme Court. In the celebrated Cherokee Nation v. Georgia he instituted suit for an injunction that would permit the Cherokees to remain in Georgia without interference by the state. He argued that they constituted an independent nation and had been so regarded by the United States in its many treaties with them.



Read More in <em>American History </em>Magazine

Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!

Speaking for the majority of the court, Chief Justice John Marshall handed down his decision on March 18, 1831. Not surprisingly, as a great American nationalist, he rejected Wirt’s argument that the Cherokees were a sovereign nation, but he also rejected Jackson’s claim that they were subject to state law. The Indians were ‘domestic dependent nations,’ he ruled, subject to the United States as a ward to a guardian. Indian territory was part of the United States but not subject to action by individual states.

When the Cherokees read Marshall’s decision they honestly believed that the Nation had won the case, that Georgia lacked authority to control their lives and property, and that the courts would protect them. The Supreme Court, the Principal Chief told his people, decided ‘in our favor.’ So they stayed right where they were, and missionaries encouraged them to stand fast.

But they figured without Andrew Jackson — the man the Cherokees called Sharp Knife — and the authorities of Georgia. In late

You might be interested in
Why was Pennsylvania established
Vinvika [58]

Because Quakers wanted a free land so they established Pennsylvania

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
2) This is the body of citizens who are eligible to vote.
kolezko [41]
The answer is electorate
6 0
3 years ago
Choose two culture regions and describe the similarities
vodomira [7]
Culturally, the indigenous peoples of the Americas are usually recognized as constituting two broad groupings, American Indians and Arctic peoples.
4 0
3 years ago
What are the Quack Reformers?
siniylev [52]
<span>Quackery is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman".</span>
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Causation describes a relationship between two events in which:
ElenaW [278]

Answer:

One event is the results of the occurrence of the other event; that is there is a causal relationship between the two events. For example: Lisa got dirty because she played with mud; or John is late for school because he over-slept.

Explanation:

Causation goes hand-in-hand with correlation,  is a statistical measure that describes the size and direction of a relationship between two or more variables.

4 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the three fascist or totalitarian countries expanded their territories in 1930s by invading other countries?
    5·2 answers
  • The earth and its peoples 5th edition ap review question answers
    14·1 answer
  • What was problematic about hamilton foreign policy
    15·1 answer
  • In taking the Orthodox faith into early Russia in the 800s CE, Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius also
    10·1 answer
  • Im having bestfriend problemsshe feels like i never give her any time but i have a boyfriend and everytime i do give her my atte
    14·1 answer
  • How did the geography of the greek peninsula affect the political organization of the region answeres.com?
    10·1 answer
  • 1 How did the First Amendment benefit the Jews? OA. It gave Jews superiority over Catholics. OB. Under the First Amendment, Jews
    8·1 answer
  • I don’t understand this problem please help me
    13·2 answers
  • Which of this question goes in CONSUMER DEBT​
    7·2 answers
  • Describe two different types of angles you see right now. Explain how you can identify what type of angle they are.
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!