Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal A

B efore he became President, Andrew

Jackson had been involved in the removal
of American Indians from various states in the
where individuals stood most to gain from the
opening up of Indian lands to white settlement
and gold mining.
US. In the 1810s, Jackson led military forces But many Americans, including Tennessee
that removed Creek and Seminole tribes from Congressman Davy Crockett, opposed removing
lands in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. the Indians from their lands. One 1830 petition
In his First Message to Congress in 1829, from the Ladies of Steubenville, Ohio appealed
Jackson proposed (as his predecessor President to, “the undoubted natural right which the
James Monroe had done) that Indians be moved Indians have, to the land of their forefathers...”
to areas west of the Mississippi. “This emigra- [emphasis original]. The petition concluded,
tion should be voluntary,” he said, “for it would “To you [Congress], then, as the constitutional
be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines protectors of the Indians within our territory,
to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek and as the peculiar guardians of our national
a home in a distant land.” Ultimately, Jackson character, ... we solemnly and earnestly appeal
hoped, the Indians who remained in the East to save this remnant of a much injured people
would assimilate. “Submitting to the laws of ... and to shelter the American character from
the States, and receiving, like other citizens, lasting dishonor.”
protection in their persons and property, they
will ere long become merged in the mass of our THE SUPREME COURT
population.” Congress did not heed the petitions and legal
steps towards removal continued. The state
THE INDIAN REMOVAL ACT of Georgia passed a series of laws designed to
Jackson pushed the Indian Removal Act persuade the Cherokee to give up their lands
through Congress, and signed it into law once and leave. Some of these re-drew the boundaries
both Houses approved it in 1830. This law of Cherokee lands; banned whites from entering
authorized the President to negotiate treaties their lands without a permit; and forbade the
with Indian tribes, and to buy their land east of Cherokee from digging for gold.
the Mississippi River in exchange for western Seven white missionaries living on Cherokee
lands outside of US territory. In his Second land appealed their case to the Supreme Court.
Message to Congress, Jackson In Worcester v. Georgia (1831),
explained what he believed the Court declared that
would be the benefits of “speedy Georgia could not regulate
removal”: States would be able activity on the Cherokee lands.
to advance “in population, Chief Justice John Marshall
wealth, and power,” and the wrote, “The Cherokee nation,
Indian tribes would be freed from then, is a distinct community
state power and able to “pursue occupying its own territory
happiness in their own way .... in which the laws of Georgia
perhaps ... becom[ing] an inter- can have no force. The whole
esting, civilized, and Christian intercourse between the United
community.” States and this nation is, by
Indian Removal was popular our Constitution and laws,
among white Americans. It was vested in the government of
particularly popular in the South, the United States.”

UNIT 3 | PRESIDENTS & THE CONSTITUTION: 2010 Bill of Rights Institute | 92

 The state of Georgia ignored the decision TREATY OF NEW ECHOTA
and continued regulatory activity on Cherokee In 1835, the US government negotiated a
lands. When he heard of the ruling, Jackson is treaty with representatives of the Cherokee in
reported to have said, “John Marshall has made Georgia. The representatives were there against
his decision, now let him enforce it!” He took the wishes of the majority of the Cherokee
no action against Georgia to enforce the ruling. people, as well as their leader, Chief John
Though the stage was set for a possible confronta- Ross. The Treaty of New Echota exchanged
tion between Georgia and the federal government, the Cherokee lands in the east for five million
or one between the national judiciary and execu- dollars and lands west of the Mississippi.
tive branches, no such confrontation took place. Chief Ross argued that the Treaty was a
In another Supreme Court case, Cherokee fraud and urged the US Senate not to ratify the
Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Court expressly treaty. However, it was approved and President
denied that the Cherokee were a “foreign Jackson signed it into law.
nation” as referred to in the Constitution. “They The Treaty provided a two-year period for
may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated Cherokee families to leave voluntarily, and gave
domestic dependent nations... Their relations them money for the journey. In the summer of
to the United States resemble that of a ward to 1838 the deadline passed. Jackson’s successor,
his guardian. They look to our Government for President Martin Van Buren, ordered the US
protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, Army to proceed with forced removal. During
appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the winter of 1838-1839, 14,000 Cherokee men,
the President as their Great Father.” Therefore, women, and children were forced to march from
the ruling held, they had no right to sue in their homes to lands in present-day Oklahoma.
federal court to prevent their removal from Four thousand people died. Historians have
tribal lands. called the Trail of Tears, as it has come to be
At the time, most Americans did not believe known, one of the most disgraceful and dishon-
that the US would ever extend beyond the orable chapters in American history.
Mississippi. Many truly believed that American
Indians would benefit from self-government
away from American settlers. Although there
was some protest of Indian Removal, especially
in the North, Jackson’s policies were popular. He
was overwhelmingly reelected in 1832.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

1. What was the Indian Removal Act?

2. What did the Ladies of Steubenville, Ohio, mean when they said the Native Americans
had “the undoubted natural right” to their lands?
3. What was the significance of Worcester v. Georgia (1831) and Cherokee Nation v.
Georgia (1831)?
4. What objections did the Cherokee make to the Treaty of New Echota? Were these
objections valid? Can you think of other objections that might have been made?
5. How did Jackson understand his constitutional duty to enforce the law with respect to
Indian Removal? How would you assess that understanding?

UNIT 3 | PRESIDENTS & THE CONSTITUTION: 2010 Bill of Rights Institute | 93