Jackson's Trail Of Tears: Legal Or Criminal?

The Trail of Tears was the forced displacement of around 60,000 Native Americans from their ancestral homelands in the southeastern United States to newly designated Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. This was a direct result of the Indian Removal Act, which was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830. While Jackson did not oversee the Trail of Tears, which took place under his successor, Martin Van Buren, he was responsible for the policy that led to the expulsion and death of thousands of Native Americans.

Did Jackson break the law by ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling?

In 1831, the Cherokee Nation took the audacious step of trying to retain their lands by filing suit against the state of Georgia. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the states could not assert control over the Indigenous tribes. Despite this ruling, President Andrew Jackson and the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's ruling and took steps to start the removal process.

Jackson is famous for responding to Marshall's ruling with the words: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, Jackson's actions set a precedent for the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.

In 1832, when South Carolina declared that it had the power to nullify federal laws with which it disagreed, Jackson temporarily embraced Marshall's vision of judicial authority. He issued a proclamation of the Supreme Court's ultimate power to decide constitutional questions and emphasized that its decisions had to be obeyed.

However, in practice, Jackson's actions suggest that he believed the president could ignore Supreme Court rulings if they conflicted with his policies. By ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling in the Cherokee case, Jackson set a dangerous precedent that undermined the rule of law and the protection of Native American rights.

While Jackson's actions may have been influenced by his racist attitudes toward Native Americans and his belief in Manifest Destiny, they also highlight a critical tension between the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government. This tension would later contribute to the Civil War and continue to shape the country's history.

Was the Indian Removal Act legal?

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. The Act authorised the US government to remove Native Americans from their land and force them to move west of the Mississippi River. This removal was prompted by the desire of white settlers to expand into Native American land.

The Act was controversial and was opposed by several groups, including Native Americans, Christian missionaries, and some members of Congress. The Indian Removal Act was supported by President Jackson, the Democratic Party, white settlers, and several state governments.

The Act was deemed unlawful by the Seminole Tribe, who refused to move west. The Creek people also refused to migrate and signed a treaty in 1832 to keep some of their lands. However, the US government reneged on that treaty. The Cherokee Nation also protested the Act and took it to the Supreme Court in 1831, where the court ruled that the Cherokee Nation had a right to self-government and acknowledged that Georgia's extension of state law over the Cherokee Nation was unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, the state of Georgia and President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's decision and began the removal process.

The Indian Removal Act led to the forced displacement of approximately 60,000 people from the "Five Civilized Tribes" between 1830 and 1850. The Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States to the newly designated Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. The relocation resulted in thousands of deaths due to exposure, disease, and starvation.

The Indian Removal Act has been characterised as an early example of state-sanctioned ethnic cleansing or genocide by scholars. However, some historians argue that Jackson's policy on Native Americans was based on good intentions, believing that the removal would rescue the Native Americans from inevitable annihilation due to the expansion of European-based lifestyles.

In summary, the Indian Removal Act legalised the removal of Native Americans from their land and their forced relocation west of the Mississippi River. While the Act was controversial and opposed by many, it ultimately resulted in the displacement of thousands of Native Americans and led to significant loss of life.

Did Jackson's intentions matter?

Andrew Jackson's intentions are a matter of debate among historians. While some argue that his intentions were benevolent, others claim that his actions amounted to genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Jackson's supporters, such as historian Francis Paul Prucha, argue that his intentions were good. They claim that Jackson genuinely believed that his policy would rescue the Native Americans from inevitable annihilation and enable them to thrive in their new surroundings. According to Prucha, Jackson never intended the "monstrous result" of his policy.

On the other hand, critics of Jackson, such as historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, argue that his intentions were outwardly violent. They claim that Jackson believed in "bleeding enemies to give them their senses" to serve the goal of U.S. expansion and that he saw Native Americans as an obstacle to Manifest Destiny.

Jackson's complicated history with Native American tribes further complicates the debate. He had a long and varied career, during which he was both allied with and waged brutal campaigns against Indigenous peoples. His personal views towards Native Americans were racist, even by the standards of his time, as he believed tribal members to be inferior to whites and in need of guidance.

While Jackson's intentions may never be known with certainty, the impact of his policies is clear. The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears resulted in the forced displacement of approximately 60,000 people, thousands of deaths, and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and their enslaved African Americans.

Ultimately, the debate about Jackson's intentions is less important than the evaluation of the impact of his policies and the broader context of U.S. colonial expansion and genocide. The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears were part of a broader pattern of violent dispossession, forced relocation, and destruction of Indigenous communities in the United States.

Were there precedents for Jackson's actions?

The Trail of Tears was the forced displacement of approximately 60,000 people of the "Five Civilized Tribes" between 1830 and 1850. This was not the first time Native Americans had been forced to leave their land, and there were precedents for Jackson's actions.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1823 that the Indigenous peoples' "right" to occupancy of the southeastern region of the US was a secondary right to the right of the US government's "right of discovery" on those lands. This meant that Euro-American settlers could settle on that land lawfully. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, which Jackson pushed through Congress, was not the first legislation of its kind. Thomas Jefferson had previously proposed the creation of a buffer zone between US and European holdings, to be inhabited by eastern American Indians. This plan would also allow for American expansion westward from the original colonies to the Mississippi River. Between 1816 and 1840, tribes located between the original states and the Mississippi River, including Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminoles, signed more than 40 treaties ceding their lands to the US.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was also not the first time that the US government had used the army to coerce Native Americans into signing treaties ceding their lands. Between 1814 and 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina.

The Trail of Tears was not the first time that the US government had forced Native Americans to leave their land. The first time this happened was in 1814, when Jackson commanded the US military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The US acquired more land in 1818 when Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.

Was the Trail of Tears an act of genocide?

The Trail of Tears was the forced displacement of approximately 60,000 people of the "Five Civilized Tribes" between 1830 and 1850. Members of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the Southeastern United States to newly designated Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. The relocated peoples suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their newly designated reserves, and thousands died before reaching their destinations or shortly after.

There is debate among historians about how the Trail of Tears should be classified. Some classify the events as a form of ethnic cleansing, while others refer to it as genocide.

Those who argue that the Trail of Tears was an act of genocide claim that the threat of genocide was used to ensure Natives' compliance with removal policies. They argue that the Trail of Tears was a settler-colonial replacement of Indigenous people and culture, in addition to a genocidal mass killing. They also point to the negative environmental ramifications of the removal, which altered Cherokee efforts to protect traditional medicinal plants and resulted in a bureaucratic structure that continues to impact tribal governments today.

On the other hand, some historians argue that Jackson's policy on Native Americans was based on good intentions. They believe that Jackson genuinely thought that removal would provide blessings for Native Americans and rescue them from inevitable annihilation. They also argue that it is difficult to find evidence of a conscious desire for genocide in Jackson's policy and that the extent to which tribes were allowed to retain their identity does not meet the standard of cultural genocide.

In conclusion, the Trail of Tears was a tragic and devastating event in American history that resulted in the death and displacement of thousands of Native Americans. While there is debate among historians about whether it should be classified as genocide or ethnic cleansing, it is clear that it had a devastating impact on the Native American communities involved and contributed to the loss of their land, culture, and way of life.

Frequently asked questions