Indian Removal Act


I chose to review the Library of Congress’ page ‘Indian Removal Act.’ It is a collection of primary sources about the 1830 law that led to the forced relocation of the Cherokee people in 1838. I chose it in part because of an image that caught my eye. This image is a painting of a Cherokee Chief named John Ross, yet he is dressed in such a manner to be essentially indistinguishable from any white man of his time. It creates a great deal of cognitive dissonance that even tribes that assimilated to European culture were treated as horribly as the Cherokee were.


“John Ross, a Cherokee Chief”

I believe that this source is not meant to convey a specific perspective so much as provide access to primary sources that demonstrate the perspectives of the members of the United States government who took part in the creation of and debate around the Indian Removal Act. Unlike most other courses about North American history, this course relies almost exclusively on native voices. While that of course makes sense, it is also important to have access to white voices of the time, because they were the ones making the decisions in Washington, D.C. The Library of Congress has a huge collection of government documents, so this webpage merely provides a starting point for discovering what the varying perspectives within the government were at that time. As a source that provides unaltered primary sources from the 19th century, it is definitely a quality academic website. That said, I do wish that it provided more context on the bill and linked directly to native voices with the same ease of access as it does white voices.

The information provided in this source definitely added nuance to my view of native communities. One document the source links to is minutes of a Senate debate on the Indian Removal Act from April 22, 1830. The Senators were discussing how to ensure that the government did not bribe native chiefs to betray their people. They alluded to this having happened in the past, which was disturbing. The Senator mentioning this, Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, opposed the bill. Other documents from the time, including a record of a speech he delivered, showed that he had genuine compassion for native people, saying "Let us beware how, by oppressive encroachments upon the sacred privileges of our Indian neighbors, we minister to the agonies of future remorse." Learning that Senators opposed the Indian Removal Act while there were some corrupt chiefs, though not surprising given human nature, certainly helps to bring up the reality that though there were clear rights and wrongs in this and similar events, the sides were not as cut and dry as I often think. 

***

“A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875.” A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875, Library of Congress, memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=008%2Fllrd008.db&recNum=383.

“American Political Thought: Readings and Materials.” American Political Thought: Readings and Materials, by Keith E. Whittington, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 105–115.

King, Charles Bird. John Ross, a Cherokee Chief. 1843, Washington.

“Primary Documents in American History.” Indian Removal Act: Primary Documents in American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress), Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/indian.html.

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 28, 2018 at 6:07 PM

    I can understand why that picture caught your eye. It is so symbolic to the assimilation that many Native American chiefs were faced with. One of the things that I enjoy about this course is how much of it is taught through Native voices. I agree with you that the white voices of people in power at that time can teach us about history through another perspective. It kind of helps to give us an all encompassing history lesson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yakira KellmanOctober 28, 2018 at 6:46 PM

      I also enjoy learning through native voices! I think it makes perfect sense that this was an additional source rather than something that was a required reading. It's been really helpful to learn everything through the perspectives of those who lived through the events and suffered their consequences.

      Delete
  2. UnknownOctober 31, 2018 at 12:44 PM

    Theodore Frelinghuysen must be commended on his ability to recognize that compassion and the misfortunes of others needed to be addressed in the debate for the Indian Removal Act. There was also the issue of the criminal element of bribery proposed to the native chiefs to compel them to betray their own people. On this point, the first question that arises is who taught the Native Americans the corrupt morals of bribery? Betrayal and treachery? What was used to convince the “corrupt” Native American chiefs to sell out their own people?

    Prior to the Euro-American invasion the Native Americans traded with goods from their land, money was made of shells, they hunted and gathered, employed their skills for travel, hunting, basket making, weaving, making clothing, and at times they fought with each other. Their way of life was disrupted, and they were left impoverished, living on U.S. government rations that left men, women, and children starving and dying. It would be interesting to know what promises were made, during an extreme time of duress, that would convince another to sell out their own people as they watched death at their door.

    During Hitler’s takeover and his plan for the final solution (extermination of the Jews) Jews were ratting on other Jews to survive. It seems that hostile takeovers of a people, their land, homes, and belongings create desperation that says, “I will live and not die.”

    In observing a white voice opposed to a native voice, Frelinghuysen’s compassionate words fell on deaf ears because the Indian Removal Act was still enforced by Andrew Jackson for the express purpose and planned land expansion westward. Land for the Euro-American was equivalent to wealth and status. There were many stops put in place by the Euro-Americans which were inflexible, and always took from the Native Americans. They were being forced from land that they resided in for many years, they were forced to assimilate, they had to emulate the white man’s ways, they had to give up their land with treaties meant to keep their land, children were transported to Indian Schools, those who rebelled were killed and those who did not were killed anyway. What did the Native Americans take from the Euro-Americans? Perhaps the Euro-Americans promised the alleged native traitors land that belonged to the natives in the first place, but then the Euro-American may have turned around and killed them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yakira KellmanNovember 1, 2018 at 7:59 PM

      I agree with so much of what you said, and want to be clear that I was in no way maligning native people in general.

      I do want to say that I'm hesitant about framing the actions of Jews during the Holocaust the way you did. There has been a great deal of debate and consideration within the Jewish community about how we should look back on kapos, sonderkommandos, and members of the Judenrat. There are no easy answers, but I would say that in general, we try not to oversimplify the matter - something I likewise attempted (hopefully successfully) not to do in my post.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 21st Century Indigenous Person

Image
The Mohawk Proverb, Mankiller’s favorite, “It’s hard to see the future with tears in your eyes,” which she shared at the end of her video gives us insight into what she believes – there is a future for Native Americans, and they will not let tears cloud their vision. Her attitude is one of encouragement, but we must also acknowledge that her motivation is not only for the natives and that they will make room for the non-natives including them in their forward movement into a new season of self-determination. It is important to note that Mankiller does not sugar coat the historical trauma that the Native Americans suffered; she reaches out to her audience and brings them into the events without criticism or judgmentalism sharing the facts of the past and leading all into the contemporary momentum of the Pan Indian movement. Mankiller gives the audience a glimpse into the partnerships that can develop when work is conducted outside of a vacuum. She states that the Arizona tribal...
Read more

Wilma Mankiller

We reviewed the video of Wilma Mankiller speaking at Arizona State University, describing the challenges that Native American tribes will face in the 21 st Century. It is meant to display the point of a view of Wilma Mankiller, a former chief of the Cherokee tribe, and her views on the future of indigenous groups, the challenges they will face and how indigenous groups can best approach these issues. Her words speak with the authority of a community leader and as an expert not only on Native American people but on indigenous people around the world. She speaks of the connectiveness and similarities that indigenous groups have world wide. She speaks of how these groups can and should unite around. These groups face both unique challenges that are present only to indigenous groups but also larger issues such as climate change, that all humans across globe face. It is important I believe as sometimes Native American groups and all indigenous groups can be marginalized and people can fo...
Read more

Lewis and Clark

I have used the web resources off PBS regarding Lewis and Clark. I have learned that Lewis & Clark would go to tribe to tribe telling all of the tribes that the land that they have been on for years now belonged to the US. I was shocked to read that they had a slave named "York" that they brought with them; they let the Indians believe that he was a "wild creature that has been tamed" so the Indians believed it had spiritual powers. Lewis and Clark's mission was to make peace of all Western tribes, though some tribes saw them as a direct threat and were hostile in return as they had heard about the White man taking things away from them. Throughout the reading, there was many things that each Tribe would contribute and known for. The Chinook's were canoe builders, fisherman and planters. Hidatsa were farmers of corn, tobacco and beans. When Lewis and Clark would show up they would many times have exchanges so that the Indians thought that they were the...
Read more