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
Until about 1660, what was carolina's most valuable commodity?
inn [45]
Until about 1660, Slaves was Carolina's most valuable commodity.
5 0
3 years ago
Hi I’m lea I am 35 and love on the Cherokee reservation in North Carolina in 1987 can I vote
mars1129 [50]

Answer:

yeah

Explanation:

because in my country if you are up to 18 years u can vote

3 0
3 years ago
People arriving in the United States during the period known as "New Immigration" (late 19th through early 20th century), would
vodka [1.7K]
Probably eastern and southern Europe a lot of immigrants facing persecution. Ex Jews and Italians
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The monroe doctrine was intended to guard what for the united states?
Mrrafil [7]
The Monroe doctrine was intended to guard the western Hemisphere.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What role did Kiaser William 2 of Germany play in the events leading to World War 1
Tamiku [17]

While Wilhelm did not actively seek war, and tried to hold back his generals from mobilizing the German army in the summer of 1914, his verbal outbursts and his open enjoyment of the title of Supreme War Lord helped bolster the case of those who blamed him for the conflict. The kaiser was out of touch with the realities of international politics in 1914; he thought that his blood relationships to other European monarchs were sufficient to manage the crisis that followed the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914) in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Although Wilhelm signed the order for German mobilization following pressure from his generals–Germany declared war against Russia and France during the first week of August 1914– he is reported to have said, “You will regret this, gentlemen.”

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • 9. How did the social class with the largest number of people contribute to early civilizations ?
    9·1 answer
  • Does north and south korea speak the same language
    9·2 answers
  • If Massachusetts has a sales tax of 6 percent and New Hampshire has no sales tax how much money can be saved by buying a 1,000 t
    10·2 answers
  • Both union and confederate forces
    9·1 answer
  • Uu can go go work 6acc on the corner
    7·1 answer
  • ________ provided for Indian tribute in exchange for protection and Christian instruction.
    8·1 answer
  • Two functions of WHO.​
    12·1 answer
  • Which inference about the Know-Nothing Party is supported by the excerpt above?
    6·1 answer
  • Which statements about a democratic state are true?
    6·2 answers
  • How did colonization affect Africa?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!