Authors: Anthony F. C. Wallace, Robert V. Remini,
A Summary By:
A summary comparison of views regarding the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Was it an act of humanitarianism intended to help and save the Native American culture from the white settlers, as Robert V. Remini has argued? Or was his intent to destroy the tribal culture and to get rid of the Native Americans, as Anthony F.C Wallace has argued?
Robert V. Remini argues that Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 was socially motivated by humanitarian impulses, and that Jackson’s actions where driven by the desire to save the culture and populace of the Native Americans from white settlers into Indian territories. Robert V. Remini points out that Andrew Jackson believed that the only way for Indians to be “protected from certain annihilation” (pg3) was to remove the Native Americans from their land, to expel the Indians from their ancient lands. To a majority of the Americans the Indians were inferior to them and that their culture was “a throw back to a darker age” (pg2). Mr. Remini strongly believed that that President Jackson was only trying to protect the Indians from this mentality and by moving the Indians to the west of the Mississippi this would protect them from the white man. Although the policy of removal was first suggested by President Jefferson as the alternative to the Native Americans, Mr. Remini explains how President Jackson had no hesitation in the belief that this was the right course of action. President Jackson would proposed to the Indians that by moving west he would arranged for the exchange of land in the west for the land in the east, that the Indians that moved to the west would be given land titles and would be compensated for their land. President Jackson insisted that the Indians would not be forced to move, that some could stay if the understood and obeyed...