Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Indian Removal Act of 1830

2007-12-11T19:12:07Z

SacchoPavta: Undo revision 350553 by Special:Contributions/Aschlafly (User talk:Aschlafly)

The '''Indian Removal Act''' was signed into law by President [[Andrew Jackson]] on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the [[Mississippi River]] in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders.

The story of westward expansion by European Americans is a basic theme of the American experience, but it is also a history Indian removal from their traditional lands. Indians lost their lands through by purchase, war, disease and even extermination, but many transfers of Indian land were formalized by treaty. The Constitution of 1789 empowered [[Congress]] to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html] Federal policy regarded each tribe as a sovereign entity capable of signing binding treaties with the [[United States]] government. In the first 40 years of the new republic, the United States signed multiple treaties with Indian tribes which usually followed a basic pattern: the signatory tribe withdrew to a prescribed reservation and in return the Federal Government promised to provide supplies, food, and often an annuity. In 1830, Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees when it passed the Indian Removal Act, a bill engineered by President Andrew Jackson. Despite its language suggesting a voluntary and fair "exchange" of lands, the act opened the door for the militias of trans-Appalachian and southern states to simply drive the Indians across the Mississippi by force. The Indians destination was to be an "Indian Territory" set aside west of [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], and [[Arkansas]].

The [[Cherokee]] nation resisted, however, challenging in court the Georgia laws that restricted their freedoms on tribal lands. In its 1831 ruling on [[Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia]], the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether native tribes could be treated as "foreign nations." It decided that they should be counted rather as wards of the federal government, but the following year ruled that they were indeed sovereign and immune from Georgia laws. President Jackson, famous from his "Seminole Wars" against the Indians in Georgia and Florida and an ardent defender of states' rights, nonetheless refused to heed the court's decision. He obtained the signature of a Cherokee chief agreeing to relocation in the Treaty of New Enchola, which Congress ratified against the protests of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay in 1835. The Cherokee signing party did not represent the vast majority of Cherokees. When the followers of Principal Chief John Ross tried desperately to hold onto their land, Jackson ordered military action in 1838. Under the guns of federal troops and Georgia state militia, the Cherokee tribe made their trek to the dry plains across the Mississippi. Thousands died en route from the brutal conditions of the "Trail of Tears."

The United States government's inability and unwillingness to abide by its treaty obligations with Indian tribes was clearly related to an insatiable demand for cheap land for European settlers. To make matter more difficult, Indians generally had a different concept of land ownership than Europeans, emphasizing land use for hunting, farming, or dwelling for the tribe, but not recognizing the concept of individual ownership. Indian society was loose, decentralized, democratic, and non-authoritarian where "chiefs" were often men of respect and informal authority, but not designated by the tribe to make decisions. The result was that treaties were often signed with Indian leaders who did not have the authority of the tribe. Whether the system of Indian treaties were ever meant to work is a matter of debate, but in reality, most Indian treaties were broken.

==Text of Jackson's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1930==
'''Andrew Jackson's Second Annual Message'''

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

==Text of the Indian Removal Act==
'''CHAP. CXLVIII.'''--An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of the river Mississippi, not included in any state or organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguished, as he may judge necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there; and to cause each of said districts to be so described by natural or artificial marks, as to be easily distinguished from every other.

===SEC. 2.===
And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to exchange any or all of such districts, so to be laid off and described, with any tribe or nation within the limits of any of the states or territories, and with which the United States have existing treaties, for the whole or any part or portion of the territory claimed and occupied by such tribe or nation, within the bounds of any one or more of the states or territories, where the land claimed and occupied by the Indians, is owned by the United States, or the United States are bound to the state within which it lies to extinguish the Indian claim thereto.

===SEC. 3.===
And be it further enacted, That in the making of any such exchange or exchanges, it shall and may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them; and if they prefer it, that the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same: Provided always, That such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same.

===SEC. 4.===
And be it further enacted, That if, upon any of the lands now occupied by the Indians, and to be exchanged for, there should be such improvements as add value to the land claimed by any individual or individuals of such tribes or nations, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such value to be ascertained by appraisement or otherwise, and to cause such ascertained value to be paid to the person or persons rightfully claiming such improvements. And upon the payment of such valuation, the improvements so valued and paid for, shall pass to the United States, and possession shall not afterwards be permitted to any of the same tribe.

===SEC. 5.===
And be it further enacted, That upon the making of any such exchange as is contemplated by this act, it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such aid and assistance to be furnished to the emigrants as may be necessary and proper to enable them to remove to, and settle in, the country for which they may have exchanged; and also, to give them such aid and assistance as may be necessary for their support and subsistence for the first year after their removal.

===SEC. 6.===
And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.

===SEC. 7.===
And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to have the same superintendence and care over any tribe or nation in the country to which they may remove, as contemplated by this act, that he is now authorized to have over them at their present places of residence.

==Links==
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html Article I] - US Constitution
*[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=010/llrd010.db&recNum=438 Outline of Jackson's Indian removal policy, December 6, 1830]
*[http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/indian_act.html Civics Online; text of the Indian Removal Act]

[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:genocide]]

Talk:Lifeboat ethics

2007-12-09T20:34:31Z

SacchoPavta: /* Is conservapedia advocating suicide? */

You know, I detest this scenario, too (I always said, "Pick the meatiest ones, in case we run out of food"), but your "fallacies" are misplaced. With the possible exception of the first one, the others are often a fact in sea disasters--boat sinks, more swimmers than boats, problems ensue, lifeboats get swamped, more people drown. In the real world, of course, there wouldn't be picking and choosing going on--it'd be a first-come, first-serve sort of operation. Using the Titanic as an example is particularly misguided--much of the death toll can be attributed to a lack of lifeboat space, and (contrary to your scenario) there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, you've got to do better than this. As a lawyer, you know better than to refute a hypothetical scenario with the argument "this will never happen." Remember torts class? You were given a grade over nonsense that would never happen. Deal with the argument on the merits, and quit being retarded. --[[User:JamaicanJah|JamaicanJah]] 20:55, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:: In reply to RossC, that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats, and the rescue came quicker than some probably expected. The content page also identifies other flaws in the problem.

:: JamaicanJah, in torts class the hypotheticals should illustrate real controversies, not pure fantasy. There is no end to the absurdities if unrealistic problems are presented. Suppose a UFO landed and demanded a parent to give up one of her children? Which would it be? The proper answer is, "that's silly."

:: The root of the lifeboat dilemma is a lack of [[faith]], as the Biblical account illustrates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Regarding your Titanic claim and RossC's claim not being true:
::::''Mrs. Beane, interviewed shortly after the sinking, said she had seen members of the Titanic's crew holding men back at gunpoint from the lifeboat stations after the order was given for only women and children to board the boats. According to the interview, she said she had seen one man shot.''
:::(Source: Found [http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/326/ here] but can also be found [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E6D91138F933A1575AC0A965948260 here].) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Jenkins, it's undisputed that scores of men voluntarily went down with the ship. In fact, your story tends to reinforce that there was extra lifeboat space, as Mrs. Beane's groom was pulled into a lifeboat and saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:33, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Andy, please try to focus on what I actually clarified. Here's a summary, using quotes:
::::::RossC: "there were fights for lifeboat space, and men had to be restrained at gunpoint to allow the women and children to board."
::::::Andy: "that isn't true about the [[Titanic]], as more than enough people voluntarily gave up spots on lifeboats"
:::::The truth is that men were held at gunpoint, contrary to your claim that RossC is wrong. Also, you're arguing that there was more than enough space because he was pulled into a lifeboat, but it's just as likely that somebody had fallen out. Or do you think that the Titanic deployed their lifeboats with empty seats?
:::::In fact, your "more than enough men gave up their slot" and the cited "men held at gunpoint" are both solutions for the Lifeboat Ethics scenario of the Titanic: Ship sinks, not enough lifeboats, a decision has to be made who goes into the boats and who is left to drown. Yet you claim that "no one is likely to be in the situation described" and that such an event has the same probability as an encounter with an UFO. I could say more about the fallacies you list in the article, but I'm 95% certain that you would dismiss any criticism, so I'll do more productive things instead. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:25, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::I fear that this is getting off-topic in relation to the article, but...Titanic had a lifeboat capacity of about 1200. Only about 700 were rescued, meaning about 500 seats were empty. Many of the lifeboats went partly empty because of confusion and disbelief (early on, many thought it was only a drill), fear that boat capacity was overstated, and problems during launch (two were swamped upon launch, and floated off empty). Now, once the boats were away and people were in the water, there was discussion/argument in the part-empty boats about going back and taking on more passengers, but only one boat (#14) did; the rest feared that--yes--they'd be swamped by desperate people trying to get into the lifeboat. Now, regarding women/children, there was theoretically space enough in the lifeboats for all women and children (even as empty as they were), but about 30 percent of women and children passengers died, their theoretical spots in the lifeboats taken by men and crew (who should have been the last to go).

::::::But enough of that. Instead a practical suggestion: How about an example of (or a link to) the lifeboat dilemma problem, so that readers can better understand how it varies from reality, and how it pushes situational ethics, etc.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:05, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: The point is this: even on the [[Titanic]], the rarest event imaginable, there were plenty of lifeboat spaces after the volunteers gave up their spots. This underscores how the [[lifeboat problem]] is much a fantasy as a UFO invasion would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Is conservapedia advocating suicide?==

Schlafly - your 4th "logical fallacy" concerning the lifeboat scenario presents you with a significant challenge. You claim that the scenario would never happen, because people will be willing to not go into the lifeboat. These individuals would be engaging in [[suicide]], which is a [[sin]]. Do you really want to tell young children that view this site that they don't have to worry about difficult ethical decisions, because they can wait for people to kill themselves?

Seems like a terrible idea. --[[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:I think you have self sacrifice confused with suicide. There's a difference between sacrificing your own life to save the life of others (though a very small percentage of non-lifeboaters actually lived) and killing yourself for selfish reasons. Jesus could have gotten out of crucifiction but he did not -- I'm pretty sure he didn't commit a sin in doing so. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Jazz, I think you might have gotten yourself confused. Look at this encyclopedia's entry for [[suicide]]. There is no differentiation between suicide and self-sacrifice. You're just making that up out of thin air.

::Suicide is only bad when killing yourself for selfish reasons? Seriously? Where do you get this stuff?

::Additionally, Jesus didn't kill himself, the Jews did it. He did't put a spear through his own side. However, Schlafly wants us to sit around until an adequate number of people throw themselves into the ocean. Can you see the difference between the two examples, or do you need me to type it real slow for you? [[User:SacchoPavta|SacchoPavta]] 15:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Lifeboat ethics

2007-12-09T20:22:08Z

SacchoPavta: