Faragher, John Mack. Out of Many: A History of the American People. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.
The Indian Removal Act was President Andrew Jackson's measure that
allowed states to override federal protection of Native Americans, and
funded the appropriated amounts for relocation. This act caused plenty
of tensions between the regional parts of the United States of America
and between the president and the Native Americans. The President solely
represented the Southern and Western perspective as the North opposed
these actions with protests primarily from Protestant Missionaries.
Female protesters had raised money for missionaries who would assimilate
the Native Americans instead of relocating them elsewhere, it was the
first national female petition drive. But there was an unconstitutional
underlining with the Indian Removal Act, allowing Native Americans to
face there deaths such as the Trail of Tears that mainly consisted of
Cherokee deaths. It had displayed the unfair majority rule when such
minority sections were not strong enough to defend themselves and fight
for a compromise.
"Worcester v. The State of Georgia," Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States. January Term 1832. Vol. VI. Richard Peters, ed. (Philadelphia: T. Desilver, Jr., 1832), 556-567 , 561.
As the state of Georgia began to forcibly remove Native Cherokees from their lands, the tribe went to the Supreme Court for a case and some assistance within this issue they faced. Despite the ruling from the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson continued to allow the state of Georgia to remove the Native Americans. It brought up the idea of Judicial Rule, where the Supreme Court had the right to claim if a law was unconstitutional where the other two branches had to listen to that ruling among the case they were discussing at the time of crisis. Because of past relations with Native tribes with acts of regulating trade and intercourse, it seemed that the United States had treated those Native Americans as sovereign nations meaning that they were never apart of this country or any state within the country.
These two sources extend each other, the Out Of Many explained the gist of what happened during the Indian Removal but the Worcester v. Georgia case was a specific problem within the time of Indian Removal. Out Of Many outlines all of the problems and provides clear, simple information such as the regional resistance in the North and the female protesters among with the violations the Federal government committed against the Native Americans in order to move them onto other lands. But the Supreme Court outlined the explanation of why the Natives should've been allowed to stay in those lands; the American people have been treating them as people from another nation not as another citizen from other states with acts speaking on regulation of trade and intercourse. It also provides some evidence that President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional, the government is ordered to protect the property, prosperity, and liberty of its people along with those who reside in our territories. The law went against those liberties and properties by forcing the Indians out of their own settlements and homes, also it allowed the state of Georgia to commit nullification which could potentially disable the national unity Jacksonians wanted to preserve.
Both of these sources help us with our study because obviously parts of the reading will be put on the unit test along with specific events like the Trail of Tears and the Black Hawk War. The Supreme Court case helps us with evidence against the Jacksonians with the potential disbandment of the union based on the state right to override Federal protection which could be considered nullification. But despite those reasons, it could be a bit too one-sided meaning that we should find more primary sources and secondary sources that hold more opinions and thoughts on this topic of Indian Removal.
No comments:
Post a Comment