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
Tatiana [17]
3 years ago
11

The 1830 Indian Removal Act is best understood as ________.

History
1 answer:
nevsk [136]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

The 1830 Indian Removal Act is best understood as an illustration of the widespread hatred of Indians during the Age of Jackson.

Explanation:

When Jackson rose to power the situation with the American Indians was extremely tense. Just a few years before, in 1815, the country began to expand towards the west and ran into the tribes of American Indians who had inhabited the country for centuries. Those occupied lands aroused the desires of the colonies, which initiated a series of campaigns to get the Natives to travel further west in exchange for all economic royalties.

In fact, already during Jefferson's tenure (in office between 1801 and 1809) it had been established that the only natives who could stay east of the Mississippi would be those who had "civilized" and could coexist with the "white man." Based on this, those that had remained in the region were the Chicksaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and Cherokee tribes. These, in exchange for maintaining their territories, had fixed their settlements, tilled the land, divided their land into private property and had adopted democracy. Some became Christian (at least in appearance) so as not to be expelled from the area.

In 1830, just one year after taking power, Jackson decided to solve the Indian problem by the brave. That is, creating a law to deport them further west. That year, the Indian Removal Act was passed, which obliged the Indians to move to lands west of the Mississippi and authorized the president of the United States to act against all those located to the east of the Mississippi river.

Officially, the politician made this decision because of the need for land to produce cotton and for "national security" (to avoid conflicts between Indians and Americans). However, in addition to these two causes and his own racism, Jackson also sought to create a human barrier between the United States and the regions under the control of other transatlantic powers. With them, Jackson not only sought to empty the Indian territories colonized west of the Mississippi Indian conflicts, but also create a security belt to the Spanish and British threat that was still installed in large North American territories.

Regardless of the cause, in practice, tens of thousands of Indians were urged to leave the houses in which they lived (their lands for centuries) to leave for "reserved" territories.

At the official level, Jackson claimed that the natives had the possibility of refusing this "relocation" and keeping their home in the United States. However, the reality was that the government (at the head of which was the president) exerted a brutal pressure on the tribal chiefs to leave. In addition, they made it clear that, in the face of the refusal, they would use force.

You might be interested in
5. What are three characteristics of Communism?<br> a.<br> b.<br> C.
Ksenya-84 [330]

Answer:

A.Play

B.ussr

C.anthem

Explanation:

*angry Stalin noises* Here is 5 characteristics. 1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels

5. Equal liability of all to labor and establishment of industrial armies

5 0
3 years ago
How can we make sure nothing like the Trail of Tears ever happens again?
QveST [7]

Answer:

It could have been prevented in the first place by Andrew Jackson rescinded his pride and pressed for fixing the problems revolving Indians and the settlers rather than removing, displacing, and murdering them.

To make sure it doesnt happen again we should use sommunivation to deal with out conflicts

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Why do you think the Republicans rejected negotiating a peace settlement in 1864 and instead demanded the unconditional surrende
algol [13]

It is first important to understand that not all Republicans rejected a peace settlement with the Confederates during or after the Civil War, but it was a smaller group within the party that totally and completely refused and demanded a full surrender without conditions to the South. This group was called the Radical Republicans and they began around 1854 and went until after the Reconstruction of 1877. They were the ones who were responsible for the establishment of the Fourteenth Ammendment and they radically opposed any negotiations with the South on the basis of their being totally against segregation and slavery. Some other factions within the Republican party, including Lincoln, were more moderate and were willing to give in to some of the demands from the Confederates, especially ont he issue of slaves.

The reason for these radical Republicans not wanting to negotiate with the Southern Confederates, was that they refused to allow slavery to continue. They were pushing for all slaves in the U.S to be freed, for segregation to be prohibited, for rights for black people to be established in the United States and even went as far as pushing for civil rights, including suffrage, for African Americans. But the South, of course, refused these terms. This is why neither Radical Republicans, nor Confederate members would have been able to settle anything in a negotiation. There was no common ground for the toughest issue of all; slavery.

8 0
3 years ago
Giving brainliest please help
tensa zangetsu [6.8K]

Answer:

He organized a number of marches and protests and was a key figure in the U.S. civil rights movement.

Explanation:

He was instrumental in the Memphis sanitation workers' strike, the Montgomery bus boycott, and the March on Washington. His advocacy of peaceful protest has permeated into contemporary social justice movements.

5 0
3 years ago
The rise of agriculture and permanent settlements was a worldwide phenomenon during the Neolithic era.
Afina-wow [57]
True

The Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic eras occurred during the Stone Age. The correct option among all the options given in the question is option "C". The Stone Age is actually a large period of time and is considered to have covered around 3.4 million years. The Stone Age is thought to have ended anywhere between 6000BCE and 2000 BCE. It was the age when stones were widely used to serve different purposes of the people living during that time. The stones were sharpened and widely used as hunting tool by the people of the Stone Age. 

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How might the Spanish have resolved the problem of finding a dependable labor supply without resorting to the use of slavery?
    9·1 answer
  • Before an idea for a law is presented to Congress, it is articulated in a written
    7·1 answer
  • Which statement describes democracy in the region?
    7·2 answers
  • What inventions transformed the textile industry?
    10·2 answers
  • The community property and homestead laws of Texas
    9·1 answer
  • Create a caption for the following image.
    9·2 answers
  • During the period of European colonization, the French gained control over most of East Africa. True False
    8·1 answer
  • Name examples of chores a child would have on a colonial farm
    15·2 answers
  • What is the purpose of diplomacy?
    15·1 answer
  • The appointment of a colony's governor-general by the colonial power is an example of
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!