Talk:Indian Removal Act of 1830

Why was the material on the Supreme Court case removed? It wasn't "false and anti-American;" it was what happened. The Supreme Court said one thing, and Jackson did another. Fishal 13:21, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The article was filled with false and ridiculous statements. Eg, it said, "Jackson ordered military action in 1838." Jackson was no longer president in 1838, and was not ordering anyone to do anything. RSchlafly 13:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

You did, however, remove some true information, to wit:

Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees when it passed the Indian Removal Act (deleted): The act did in fact violate several treaties guaranteeing the 5 Civilized Tribes their lands east of the Mississippi.

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— changed to: The act promised a voluntary and fair "exchange" of lands, and opened the door for the militias of trans-Appalachian and southern states to move the Indians across the Mississippi by force. The new version blurs the incongruity between the language of the act (a voluntary exchange) and the facts on the ground (forced removal). Why would you change the article to make it less clear?

...but the following year [the Court] 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 (deleted): The old sentence was clumsy, but why did you remove the result of the Supreme Court case? It's crucial to understanding the context of the act.

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 (deleted): Except for Jackson's name, this is true. The Cherokees had just fought to keep their lands in the Supreme Court; only a handful agreed to leave. Jackson was no longer president; the military action was led by General Winfield Scott, under President Van Buren's authority.

Thousands died en route from the brutal conditions of the "Trail of Tears."— changed to: Thousands of resisters died en route from the brutal conditions of the "Trail of Tears." This revision ignores the many who died from the conditions of the trail and implicitly places blame on the Cherokee.

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— changed to: The United States government's conflict with Indian tribes was clearly related to an insatiable demand for cheap land for European settlers. This is a less blatantly accusatory way of saying this, to be sure. But you deleted other references to the United States failing to uphold its promises, or else failing to stop the states and settlers from breaking the promises for it: why?

Indian society was loose, decentralized, democratic, and non-authoritarian— "democratic" removed: This seems reasonable; the deletion doesn't seem to detract from the main point of the paragraph, namely the contrast between white and Indian society.

The result was that treaties were often signed with Indian leaders who did not have the authority of the tribe— changed to: The result was that treaties were often signed with Indian leaders who did not have the backing of everyone in the tribe: No government action ever has the backing of _everyone_, but the treaties often were made on the signatures of a small faction of the tribes involved, not the authority of the leaders or the consensus of the tribe as a whole. The new version sounds like only a few malcontents were unsatisfied with the pattern of broken treaties.

Whether the system of Indian treaties were ever meant to work is a matter of debate, but in reality, most Indian treaties were broken. (deleted): This part was speculation and overgeneralization and should have been deleted. IIRC, some of the treaties were in fact made with good intentions, while others were made with the intention of breaking them eventually. It depended on the President and officials involved in the negotiation. Fishal 18:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The whole article seems to have been copied from dubious source that blames America for everything related to Indians. I deleted stuff that was biased, obviously false, or improbable.

Do you have some proof that "Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees"? That the Act was not a fair exchange of land?

That court decision had nothing to do with the matter. Neither did states's rights.

The discussion about Indian leaders having authority to sign treaties is a little silly. If the Indian were really democratic, then they had elected leaders with the proper authority. If Indian society was incapable of agreeing to treaties, then why the complaints about the treaties being broken?

The article makes repeated statements about the USA breaking treaties. Where is the proof of that? It is just anti-American propaganda. RSchlafly 19:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The United States made innumerable treaties with Native tribes. Almost every one was broken. The tribes once possessed the entire continent; now they live on laughably small reservations. Where is your proof that they were happy to make this transition? Your insinuation that they did mocks the entire race: I think that I can without hyperbole compare it to holocaust denial. Fishal 22:58, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I guess you are dropping all serious argument. See Godwin's Law. RSchlafly 23:25, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, touche. But Godwin's Law does not apply when discussing pertinent topics, in this case, genocide. Fishal 09:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I am not interested in arguing some goofy Nazi genocide analogy. The article should stick to the facts about the Indian Removal Act. RSchlafly 11:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I quite agree. So the question remains: why are you trying to obscure the fact that the Act violated several treaties? Your edits seemed calculated to remove any suggestion that the US might have done anything bad.

Regarding states' rights, it was a crucial idea in this issue. The US government made the treaties, while in general it was the states and the citizens who violated them. Enforcing the treaties was an example of federal force against the states, so defenders of states' rights were against enforcement of the treaties. A good example was the first Indian treaty under the US Constitution, Washington's treaty with the Creek Nation. Washington was unable to provide enough troops to keep Georgians from infringing on Creek territory. States' righters wanted to keep it that way; i.e., keep a weak federal government.

Fishal 11:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

(Addendum):

I've decided to actually get some sources. Here is what I've found in the books I have on hand. I can't find anything to support your telling of events, namely that Indian Removal was a legal action that made a fair land exchange with the Indians' consent. I'm confident that rather than simply condemn my sources as biased and dismiss everything I said, you will provide some sources of your own that support your claims, though I imagine they would be difficult to find.

First, a general account:

"Indian Removal Act (May 28, 1830), first major legislative departure from U.S. policy of respecting Indian rights; it authorized the president to exchange western prairie land for desirable Indian territory within state borders... Although the bill provided only for negotiation of treaties, trouble arose when the U.S. had to resort to force to gain compliance...

"The problem lay in the Southeast, where members of the Five Civilized Tribes (C, C, S, C, and C) stubbornly refused to trade their cultivated farms and fields for the promise of strange land in Oklahoma with a so-called permanent title... Some 100,000 tribesmen were forced to march westward under U.S. military coercion... up to 25% of the Indians, many in manacles, perished en route...

"The mining and transportation frontiers began to be pushed aggressively westward in the years that followed, upsetting the "guaranteed" titles of the displaced tribes and precipitating decades of bloodshed on the Great Plains."

--Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. V, 334.

Excerpts from a major historical work:

"In December 1828, with Jackson safely elected, the Georgia state legislature proceeded against the Cherokees, confident that the incoming administration would not interfere... Jackson's State of the Union message claimed that Indian Removal would be 'voluntary'. In reality, everyone knew that no stone would be left unturned to exact such "voluntary" migrations. Jackson was personally well experienced in the techniques of bribery, intimidation, and fraud through which treaties were imposed on reluctant peoples, having been active to secure a series of land cessions by the Civilized Tribes since 1816. To make it clear what he really meant, the president stated that the federal government would not protect the Indians in their present locations whenever states extended jurisdiction over them... In fact, when an earlier federal treaty (1819) for a Cherokee land cession had guaranteed citizenship and property rights to those Natives who chose to remain, Georgia had refused to accept the stuipulations." (347-348)

"Although Andrew Jackson defended his own authority with resolute determination, he did not manifest a general respect for the rule of law when it got in the way of the policies he chose to pursue. This character trait, already apparent in his military career, continued to manifest itself during his years in the White House... His reactions to the Supreme COurt's decisions on Cherokee rights, to abolitionist use of the mails, and to the epidemic of public violence that raged during his presidency all contribute to the pattern." (411)

"Back on the ground in the Cherokee Nation, the rejoicing at the decision in Worcester v. Georgia passed as it became apparent that neither state nor federal authorities would obey it... In the face of extreme state pressure, tribal unity gave way. Most Cherokees, led by Principal Chief John Ross, resolutely stayed put, but a small minority of the tribe decided that it would be better to sign a removal treaty and try to salvage something from the wreckage. On December 29, 1835, a party led by John Ridge and Elias Boudinot... signed the Treaty of New Echota, consenting to trade the tribe's ancestral homeland in return for $5 million and land in Oklahoma. The treaty derived its support mainly from mixed-bloods and slaveowners... Notwithstanding Cherokee protests that the treaty signatories lacked authorization, and the eloquent opposition of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, the US Senate consented to ratification (date, time, voting numbers)." (414-415)

--Daniel Walker, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, part of The Oxford History of the United States.

Finally, some quotes from the Cherokee themselves:

"Our neighbor, the state of Georgia, is pressing hard upoon us, and urging us to reliquish our possessions for her benefit. We are told, if we do not leave the country, which we dearly love, and betake ourselves to the western wilds, the laws of the state will be extended over us, and the time, 1st of June, 1830, is appointed for execution of the edict. When we first heard of this we were grieved and appealed to our father, the president, and begged that protection might be extended over us. But we were doubly grieved when we understood... that our father the president had refused us protection...

"This right of inheritence we have never ceded, nor ever forfeited. Permit us to ask, what better right can a people have than their country...?"

--"Memorial of the Cherokee Indians", Dec. 1829.

"We are aware, that some persons suppose it will be for our advantage to remove beyond the Mississippi. We think otherwise. Our people universally think otherwise. Thinking it would be fatal to their interests, they have almost to a man sent a memorial to congress, deprecating the necessity of a removal...

"We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation. The treaties with us, and laws of the United States made in pursuance of treaties, guaranty our residence, and our priveleges secure us against intruders. Our only request is, that our treaties may be fulfilled, and these laws executed."

--Lewis Ross et al, Address of the Committee and COuncil of the Cherokee Nation, in General Council Convened, to the People of the United States, July 17, 1830

--Both from Voices of a People's History of the United States, ed. Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. This book is a collection of primary sources.

Fishal 12:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Exactly how does any of this contradict my edits? I realize that there are people who hated Andrew Jackson, but I would object to the article saying something like "he did not manifest a general respect for the rule of law" unless it is going to document what law he did not respect. RSchlafly 13:13, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, RSchlafly, but in this article I agree with Fishal. The Indian Removal Act was a forced removal of the Cherokee from their lands in Georgia. Everything I came across on this subject (and that includes college courses, original source material, etc.) points to that fact. Karajou 13:46, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you disagreeing with anything that is currently in the article? If so, what? RSchlafly 14:18, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

What I mean is Fishal made an attempt to include factual, original source material to emphasize the article's point about the forced removal of the Cherokee. This in no way negates what you are doing; but what should not happen is a "whitewashing" of the subject to make it appear that the Cherokees were happy about their situation. It's another sad chapter in American history, but it needs to be explained properly to the student reader. Karajou 15:47, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I repeat myself, but based on the sources I found I disagree with the following edits you made:

1. Removing "Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees when it passed the Indian Removal Act:" the entire purpose of the act was to force the tribes to leave their lands, contrary to treaty promises.
2. Changing "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" to "The act promised a voluntary and fair "exchange" of lands, and opened the door for the militias of trans-Appalachian and southern states to move the Indians across the Mississippi by force:" This blurs the incongruity between the language of the act (a voluntary exchange) and the facts on the ground (forced removal).
3. Removing "but the following year [the Court] 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:" President Jackson, behind a mantle of states' rights, refused to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling or the federal treaty, allowing Georgia to place the Cherokee under its own laws.
4. Removing "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:" This was a key fact, apparently removed to make the actions of the U.S. government sound less "bad." I have already noted that Jackson's name is an error.
5. Changing "Thousands died en route from the brutal conditions of the "Trail of Tears." to Thousands of resisters died en route...:" The idea that only "resisters" suffered from conditions on the trail seems to be a "fact" that you made up out of thin air, contradicted by all info I can find on the trail.
6. Changing "The result was that treaties were often signed with Indian leaders who did not have the authority of the tribe" to "...Indian leaders who did not have the backing of everyone in the tribe:" The sources make it clear that the tribe's actual authorities did not sign the treaty ceding the land.

Fishal 15:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Where is the evidence that any of those edits are wrong?

1. How do you know that "Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees". Maybe Congress was trying to honor those guarantees as best that it could.
2. Yes, force was eventually used 8 years later, but it appears to me that every attempt was made to move the Indians voluntarily and fairly.
3. It is just not true that President Jackson hid behind a mantle of states' rights, or that he refused to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling.
4. Where is the proof that "The Cherokee signing party did not represent the vast majority of Cherokees."? Would you also say that Pres. Bush does not represent the vast majority of Americans?
5. Who suffered, besides the resisters?
6. Where is the evidence that the Indian leaders did not have authority? Were there some other leaders who did have the authority? Or that no one had authority?

I want to stick to verifiable facts. RSchlafly 15:59, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Please read the sources I provided. Passing a law to undo treaty guarantees does not constitute honoring them. Ordering someone to leave their home, then attacking them when they do not, does not constitute a "voluntary" or "fair" move. As a states' rights advocate, Jackson did not force Georgia, or other states with 5CT nations in their borders, to comply with treaty or the Supreme Court decision. The secondary and primary sources make it quite clear that the signatories did not represent the actual authority of the tribe, or the wishes of the people. Read them again. George Bush was not, to my knowledge, involved in the incident. Everyone on the trail suffered; the sources say the fatality rate was 25%, and not just by the Indians who resisted the troops; please provide a source saying otherwise. Fishal 16:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I've read what you have posted, but you have no facts to contradict anything I've said. Your statement that the move was not fair is just an opinion. That Supreme Court case had nothing to do with the move. I don't know whether the Cherokee leaders legitimately represented the Cherokees or not, but I don't want to say one way or the other unless there is some hard evidence. And I certainly don't want to accept the opinion of some America-hater who thinks that Jackson was still president in 1838. RSchlafly 16:58, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I've provided two primary and two secondary sources that say exactly that. You've provided your opinions, your doubts, and your attacks. No matter, I'll not bother you if you don't want to seriously debate the matter. I'm surprised you take such offense at the implication of the U.S. government's actions during the 1830s: it was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, after all (indeed, the genocidal autocrat was the party's founder). Fishal 17:03, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

No, you have no sources to contradict anything I've said. I have not expressed any opinion on whether the USA govt did the right or the wrong thing in the 1830s. I want the article to accurate, and I know that it was not before my edits. RSchlafly 17:46, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Forgive me, but the conversation to me feels much like this:

• R: Where do the sources contradict my edits?
• F: The sources contradict your edits at points X, Y, and Z.
• R: So where do the sources contradict my edits?

Against such stonewalling I can do very little. The last word is yours, if you'll take it. Fishal 18:35, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I made a couple of more edits, to remove liberal bias and doubtful statements. RSchlafly 17:41, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

DamianJohn re-inserted a bunch of those doubtful and anti-American statements. They are not supported by any sources. They perpetuate myths about treaties and court cases. Please provide support for assertions. RSchlafly 12:46, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Well I followed the discussion here on this talk page and the sources have all been supplied by Fishal. I must admit I misread the talk page and thought that was the outcome of the discussion. Anyway I'm not worried about it too much. As a Maori I studied the plight of aboriginal peoples all over the world. I'll address the specific points when I get home from work tonight.

It is not unpatriotic to make statements that criticize the past actions of your government. The treatment of the Native American Indians, the Australian Aborigines and the Maori's by the English settlers was outrageous. It is not Un-American or Un-New Zealand to say so because its true. Native American Indians are citizens of the US so to admit that the government made some mistakes in dealing with its citizens is hardly unpatriotic. The recent apology by John Howard for the lost generation in Australia is a positive thing, not an Un-Australian thing. In reality the fact that the Australian government is able to admit it was wrong and begin to remedy the mistakes of the past shows courage, respect and humility - the very essence of patriotism. --DamianJohn 13:35, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't want opinion labeled as fact. I realize that some people have the opinion that the Indian Removal Act was harmful, or that Indians were mistreated. I removed a lot of stuff that was obviously false (such as Jackson being president in 1838), or was just opinion. Fishal posted quotes from a couple of Cherokees who disagreed with the move. Okay, I guess that it is fair to say that some Cherokees did not want to move. But that does not justify the sweeping comments that were in the article. RSchlafly 21:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

"Advancing civilization?"

Your other edits were inaccurate. That one's simply repugnant. I thought conservatives prided themselves on "moral virtue." Fishal 09:23, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

You say my edits are inaccurate, but you cannot point to anything that is wrong. Your main concern is that I don't express moral disapproval of the Indian removal. My opinion does not matter. I am just trying to put facts in the article, and remove opinions. Before I edited the article, it was very inaccurate and had one-sided opinions.

I did remove the phrase "clearly related to an insatiable demand for cheap land for European settlers." As far as I know, no European settlers were involved. There were Americans in Georgia who wanted land, but there is no reason to think that their demands were any more "insatiable" than Cherokee demands, or that they wanted the land "cheap". I thought that it was better to describe the conflict in terms of "advancing civilization". Are you saying that advancing civilization was not a factor? RSchlafly 11:51, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

I am saying exactly that. The Five Tribes were already Civilized according to anyone's definition of the term. They lived in houses, were literate, planted crops, even practiced Christianity. The problem for the settlers, the Georgian government, and President Jackson was that they were not white and they were not under Georgian jurisdiction. Of course, I would never expect you to understand the issue in any amount of depth. You no doubt imagined them living in tepees and chasing around the plentiful Georgian buffaloes. Fishal 16:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I would like to stick to facts. Your insults are not helpful. Perhaps you would like to start a debate page on whether the Indian removal was good or bad, as there is such a page on the Crusades. RSchlafly 19:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

And again you show a surprising imperviousness to any questioning of your facts. 1830s Indian Removal had nothing to do with the "advance of civilization", for the simple reason that the areas taken were already civilized by any definition. To what places, in your mind, was civilization brought? Or are the browner folks of the earth simply uncivilized by definition? Fishal 12:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)