![]() |
On this day in 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, a vaguely written piece of legislation later used as a pretext by state and federal authorities to dispossess the few remaining tribes in the southeastern United States — “removing” them to lands west of the Mississippi.
Beginning in the summer of 1829, following the discovery of gold on Cherokee lands, the State of Georgia’s longstanding desire to rid itself of the tribe became more urgent than ever. In December of that year, the state legislature ruled that the Cherokee constitution and laws would be meaningless come the following June. Georgia’s lawmakers implied that it would be open season on the Cherokees and their landholdings at that time. The federal government, then, had just a few months to avert what surely would have been another horrifying chapter in the already-grim story of Native-white relations in the United States. Andrew Jackson, who had long favored removal, seized the chance to advance his pet policy.
It wouldn’t be easy. By that time, Protestant evangelicals had taken an interest in the Cherokees, holding them up as the most civilized of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes (along with the Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Seminoles). The Cherokees had “civilized” themselves by adopting sedentary agriculture, a tribal constitution modeled on the U.S.’s, a written alphabet (see above), and, in some cases, Christianity. Reformers — including Catherine Beecher, who rallied women to the cause — organized a huge petition drive to counter President Jackson’s lobbying.
Jackson responded by casting support for removal as humanitarian and paternalistic. Observing the mistreatment of Native people throughout the nation’s history, Jackson claimed to want “to preserve this much-injured race.” At the same time, he packed the House and Senate committees that would write the removal bill with his loyalists. On this day in 1830, Jackson had his law, sealing the fate of the eastern tribes.
Jackson had promised that removal would be voluntary, that those Indians who wished to remain in the east would be able to do so, and that those who moved would be compensated for their property. In fact, the pressure to leave was intense, often accompanied by the threat of violence, and Native people who got paid for their land typically only received a fraction of its value. At the same time, Jackson compounded his crimes by setting the precedent of trying to remove tribes on the cheap. Underfunding and federal neglect ultimately led, after Jackson left office, to tragedies like the Trail of Tears, when, in 1838, thousands of Cherokees died en route to Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma. In the end, Jackson only forestalled the bloodletting that he claimed to want to avoid in 1830, putting off the carnage and relocating it to the West, where relatively few whites had to confront the horror.
In the Congressional debates surrounding removal, Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, who opposed the measure, had asked: “Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin?” For Andrew Jackson the answer was yes.



17 comments
May 29, 2008 at 2:59 am
albiondia
Great post. Freylinghuysen’s comment is fascinating, I think. There’s a real sense during debates on Indian policy throughout the 1820s (even the 1810s) in which advances in Native anglicisation and Christianisation delegitimise claims to the soil, even whilst they make such claims possible. It’s a neat little circular argument: that those Native Ameicans most au fait with the workings of American law, often of mixed ethnicity, who were prepared to firmly press their claim to land within Georgia’s boundaries could not be ‘real’ Indians, and could not, therefore, be presumed to speak on behalf of their tribes. If memory serves, this line of thinking is something that Gov. Troup of Georgia and his faction buy into in a big way.
Thinking of the Troup-J.Q.Adams brinksmanship of the late-1820s, what could Jackson have been expected to do differently?
May 29, 2008 at 3:38 am
The Modesto Kid
How does this fit in with Jackson defying a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Seminoles (if memory of Jr. High social studies class serves)? Was that ruling against the Indian Removal Act? That defiance and the nickname “Old Hick’ry”, are all I ever really learned about President Jackson.
May 29, 2008 at 4:47 am
John Emerson
Georgia gold rush? Fake gold rushes apparently played a big part in American history. The SF and Alaska gold rushes were net money losers, I’ve been told, and there was an Oregon gold rush too. The Black Hills at least do have one real mine, at Lead, (pronounced “Leed”.)
I recently saw a piece listing Native American population by state, and IIRC Georgia and South Carolina had by far the fewest, in absolute numbers and maybe per capita. Barely into the triple figures.
May 29, 2008 at 4:57 am
Left Flank: Every Indian Vote Is a Good Vote
[...] this blackest of days in Native American history, the spectacle of Senator Barack Obama standing and asking Native [...]
May 29, 2008 at 5:18 am
Adam Arenson
Another sign of the Cherokee “civilization” was their embrace of slavery, to prove their agriculture was much like their white neighbors….
May 29, 2008 at 6:21 am
Steve Balboni
Curious as to how a President would go about packing legislative committee’s?
It seems to me the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader would have to be complicit and in the name of accuracy their names should also be included.
May 29, 2008 at 9:31 am
ari
Sorry, Steve, my struggle to present a fair and balanced portrait of Jackson sometimes comes up wanting. And yes, Adam, the slavery issue was key. I really should have mentioned that, having written a bit on the subject. It was late, I was tired, blah, blah, blah. Seriously, that’s a lousy omission on my part. As for you, John, there’s a really good book to be written about gold rushes in US history, perhaps in world history, emphasizing the way that precious metals presented an excuse to dispossess indigenous people. MK, are you thinking of Worcester v. Georgia? If so, the case pivoted on the Cherokees. And I’ll write about it another day. Finally, albiondia, yours is the toughest question. But it seems to me that had Jackson not insisted that there could be no sovereign tribes within the borders of the United States (an ironclad Constitutional claim he often ignored when negotiating treaties with those same tribes), he could have pushed back against Shoup and Georgia, just as he later pushed back against Calhoun and South Carolina over Nullification. But that’s not what he wanted to do. He wanted the southeastern tribes gone. And, on the issue of federal versus state power, Jackson was nothing if not an inconsistent opportunist.
May 29, 2008 at 9:33 am
Jay C
@ John Emerson:
While the Georgia Gold Rush of 1829 may not quite have been on the scale of the California/Colorado finds of the 1850s, it was hardly a “fake” . Unlike the latter, however, the “rushes” of the Southeast (there was one in North Carolina, too, I believe) didn’t lead to significant further settlement/development of the affected region (as, spectacularly, in California). Although, as
May 29, 2008 at 9:36 am
Jay C
Rats! Sorry.
Although, as in the Colorado and the Dakotas, the rush for mineral wealth DID have the same deletrious effects on the Native American populations; as “gold rushes” usually do (viz. the Rand strikes in South Africa).
May 29, 2008 at 10:26 am
The Modesto Kid
Worcester v. Georgia
Yep, that’s the one. The “let him enforce it!” line. Somehow I thought that was about Seminoles, maybe I got that Jackson factoid mixed up with Jackson fighting in the Seminole War.
May 29, 2008 at 11:11 am
Steve Balboni
No need to be sorry Ari! I appreciate that you pull no punches when it comes to Jackson.
That Democrats continue to celebrate Jefferson and Jackson as the “fathers” of the modern Party bugs me to no end. Jackson’s flaws are obvious. As for Jefferson he certainly would not be aligned with the post-FDR Democratic Party.
If one is looking for a Founder that had a vision for how government could be used in a positive manner to benefit society we should be looking at Alexander Hamilton. Although Hamilton is perceived as an elitist if not a closet Monarchist he was the one battling for a stronger and more effective Federal government and who had a vision of the future of America far beyond what any of the other founders could conceive. Who was his primary opponent to this vision within the Washington administration? Thomas Jefferson.
May 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm
albiondia
Ari, I think you’re right about the fundamental lack of will on the part of Jackson to stand up to Troup and Georgia: contingency and opportunity aligned, and Jackson’s removal policy logically followed. It’d be an interesting counterfactual, if an implausible one, to posit Jackson enforcing Cherokee rights against Georgian sovereignty.
On Calhoun & Nullification, I’d argue that Jackson had Van Buren’s 1828 Tariff and the S.C. responses in mind when framing his Indian policy. Separating Georgian grievances from broader ‘Southern’ grievances undercut the South Carolinian appeal when the crisis loomed. Had he sought to temper Georgia’s land claims, he might have faced far greater resistance when push came to shove in 1832. Indian removal, I think, is as much a function of Jacksonian unionism (a weapon vs. Calhoun’s nullification-unionism) as of ideological drive or vacillation on state-federal relations.
May 29, 2008 at 1:53 pm
ari
I agree with you when you agree with me. And I also may agree with your second point, though I don’t have the goods (citations) to support my agreement. Maybe I’ll look at Wilentz’s all-too-favorable portrait of Jackson later and see what it says. Still, what I do know is that Jackson’s views on tribal sovereignty (there could be none — ever) were informed by a rigid reading of federal authority embedded in the Constitution. But he was, as noted above, willing to negotiation treaties with the very same tribes. That was the vacillation, to use your word, about which I was talking. Not that my point necessarily undercuts yours.
May 29, 2008 at 2:08 pm
albiondia
I’m gonna start calling citations ‘the goods’. I like that. I can’t remember what Wilentz’s line on Indian removal is, but I’d be surprised if it doesn’t, somehow, end up being John Quincy Adams’s fault. Or maybe Kenneth Starr’s.
May 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The Modesto Kid
Listen, don’t let your thesis make a promise that your citations can’t keep.
May 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm
ari
Wilentz loves Jackson, natch, and wants to debunk the haters. He allows that removal got a bit messy, but Jackson’s motives were pure. And yes, in the Wilentz narrative, Ken Starr plays an important role in sullying Jackson’s good name.
May 29, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Charlieford
Anyone here waded thru WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT yet? Jackson gets nailed, repeatedly, on this. Also I think I read a review from long ago (80s?) where Wilentz made some very snarky comment about Howe (along the lines of “he’s threatening to move back to the US”?), but haven’t been able to find it.