Table of ContentsIntroductionThe Indian Removal Act of 1830Short and Long Term EffectsIntroductionThe concept of moral compass can be a fairly subjective area when we consider the management of a nation. Consider, for example, U.S. President Harry S. Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, thereby ending World War II. Even more recently, intervention on behalf of one's own nation in the internal affairs of another nation. Like in Operation Condor, where the United States sent government agents to manipulate the results of numerous presidential elections and coups in Latin America in an attempt to control the spread of certain political ideas such as communism. In every large-scale decision made, there will always be a motive that, in retrospect, can change the tone of a story forever. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayEnter the early 19th century; a time of colonization and expansion in all directions. In the United States, this expansion would be primarily westward, into lands inhabited by countless Native American tribes who have resided there for well over a few centuries. The year is 1830, and the United States was still a fledgling nation at the time, having gained its independence only about 50 years before. Settlement of lands on the western frontier was rapid, preying on Native American territories in just a few decades. The result is an increase in clashes between settlers and natives. Meanwhile, it was time for the 1828 presidential election, as candidate Andrew Jackson ran for the second time against his opponent John Quincy Adams after losing the election the first time. He won the vote by an overwhelming majority. The stage is now set to resolve the issue at hand. What will be done with these Native Americans living on the margins of the new and future United States? The Indian Removal Act of 1830 The settlers' general attitude toward Native Americans was always one of two approaches. Either they are assimilated into European culture or they are completely eliminated from the scene, almost exclusively by force. Originally proposed by George Washington, acculturation had made great progress among the Cherokee and Choctaw tribes by the turn of the 19th century. However, current President Andrew Jackson did not believe that assimilation would work and chose to settle for physical removal of the Native Americans living in the southeastern part of the country. States would undoubtedly like to benefit from this. There are several key reasons for this. First, states were gaining power and growing on their own. Everyone sought to broaden their interests as much as possible. In "The American Journal of Legal History," J.D. Ethan Davis states, "the federal government had promised Georgia that it would extinguish Indian titles within the state's borders by purchase 'as soon as such purchase could be carried out under reasonable conditions. Other Southern states raised the idea that there was no contract in the deal between Georgia and the federal government. Otherwise, they could otherwise pass the law themselves. This interstate plan to acquire as much as possible pushed the government to be totally ahead of the curve on the issue, making passage of the law almost inevitable. Furthermore, in the famous Supreme Court case Johnson v. M'Intosh (pronounced McIntosh) in 1823, it was concluded that the only Native American lands and land sales that can be consideredValid are those made or owned by the federal government, because the natives were neither an officially independent nation nor citizens of the United States. Second, Andrew Jackson presented the following situation: ; Negotiating with tribes that resided within the current boundaries of the state as if they were self-governing foreign nations was unconstitutional under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. It states that: “New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; no State shall be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned and of the Congress. » -United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 It creates an untenable position for the natives by monopolizing the solution in its favor. Either the natives must assimilate into the states, become part of their society, obey their laws, or they can live the lives they want, but only in the predefined federal territories west of the Mississippi River. Third, it is well known that Andrew Jackson was prejudiced against Native Americans. He had no intention of keeping them. In his “Case for the Removal Act,” he clearly and unapologetically displays his contempt for the natives, as if they were nothing more than an object to be cast aside or pocketed. “This ends any possible risk of collision between authorities. general and state governments in favor of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in vast tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters...it will incalculably strengthen the southwest frontier and make the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without aid from a distance...It will separate the Indians from the immediate environment. contact with white colonies; free them from the power of the States; allow them to pursue happiness in their own way and within the framework of their own crude institutions; this will retard the progress of decadence, which diminishes their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of government and under the influence of good advice, to throw off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized community and Christian. » - Andrew Jackson, Case for the Removal Act, first annual message to Congress, December 8, 1829. Jackson likened the Native Americans to "a few wild hunters", referring to their presence as a threat, implying that by expelling them, the earth will be safer. “future invasions”. He then goes on to call their institutions "crude" and attempt to justify the entire operation by claiming that the natives could finally live the lives they want in the territories allocated to them after being expelled. is just a sample.Get a custom paper from our expert writers now.Get a custom essayShort-term and long-term effectsUltimately, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 would divide the territory west of the Mississippi into districts for the Native Americans to compensate for the territory from which they were evicted. Not everyone was in favor of the legislation. People such as evangelist Jeremiah Evarts, New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, and famous Tennessee Congressman Davey Crocket, who later met his end at the Battle of the Alamo, all opposed it. There were primarily five tribes in the affected area, excluding a few minor tribes: the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Creek, and Chickasaw tribes. Most tribes cooperated in the resettlement, but one stayed and resisted.