Throughout the Jacksonian era the Jacksonians proved to be violators of the United States Constitution and not the guardians they believed themselves to be. Both the Jacksonians and President Jackson went against the Supreme Courts regarding cases that were said to be constitutional. An instance in which the Jacksonian Democrats violated the Constitution was in the "Trail of Tears". The Supreme Court stated that the Jacksonian Democrats' actions were unconstitutional because they had issued the "Indian Removal Act". By doing this, they were in violation of the treaty of New Echota. In the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had their own land and that they did not need to follow Georgia law in their own territory. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land. Jackson used the Constitution to benefit himself when he vetoed the national bank, even after the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. When South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutionally. He threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary. This was in direct violation of the Constitution. They continued to violate the Constitution by placing censors on the mail and intercepting abolitionist literature or mail into or from the south. This was an infringement on the Constitution because it violated the first amendment.…
Even though we are settled here, all this land originally the Indians’ and with this act, we are kicking them off their own land. John Marshall stated, “The Choctaw and Creek were treated horrendously when they moved to the Indian Territory. Their horses were stolen and hundreds died for malnutrition.” (Document 2). The Choctaw and the Creek were treated really badly. They suffered a lot and some of them even died. Honestly, the Cherokee are being smart in not moving to the Indian Territory because they know that they will be treated the same way. The very little trust that the Cherokees had in us is now lost. Mr. Marshall also states, “In the case of Worchester vs. Georgia (1832), the U.S Supreme court ruled that the state of Georgia could not force the Cherokee off their land.” (Document 2). President Jackson is going against the law by supporting the Indian Removal Act. This does not show good presidency. He’s taking hasty decisions because of his bad past with the Indians. The Cherokees are not at fault. If they want to follow their traditions and still live in Georgia, fine. I don’t see why any American has an objection with the Indians staying there not bothering us and we not bothering them. They have a right to this land. Let them…
Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, dictating that all Indians living in the Deep South had to move to Eastern Oklahoma, because the Indians had something everyone else wanted, land. Jackson says in his First Inaugural Address,“It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people.” Jackson is saying that It will be his genuine and continuous desire towards the Indian tribes, and we want to give them a fair and open policy, and give humane and kind attention to their rights and their wants which is the same with the habits of our government and the feelings of our people. He wants to give the Indian tribes a good policy. Later on, he removes the Indian tribes from their homes in the Deep South and makes them march on the trail of tears, where they relocate to Eastern Oklahoma.…
Second, Jackson was not democratic for economic reasons. To start, Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. He claimed that he was protecting the democracy from corruption but in reality, he feared that the bankers would campaign against him. Jackson was a tyrant who destroyed the national bank for personal issues (Doc 8) and he was quoted as saying, "The Bank is trying to kill me but I will kill it." Next, Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act, which forced the Indians to move west. Even though the Indians did not want to leave their lands…
A major dilemma for Jackson was what to do with Native Americans living in the South and on this issue Jackson failed at protecting the rights of Native Americans. As shown in the picture, Native Americans living in the South were driven away from their lands to Oklahoma on a path known as the Trail of Tears. Did the Native Americans not have the same rights as the whites living in the South? Apparently Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren did not ever consider this question and upon this they failed to protect the Constitution. In relation to the issue of Indian removal came another violation of the Constitution by Andrew Jackson. When John Marshall and the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia's extension of state law over Cherokee land was unconstitutional, Andrew Jackson totally ignored the decision. This action violated Supreme Court decisions and strengthened Jackson's reputation as an enemy of the law.…
Although Jackson was out of office when the Indian Removal act was actually carried out, he had set its path into motion, and shares just as much credit for the act if not more than his presidential and ideological successor, Martin Van Buren. As Jackson saw it, the tribes were not part of the union, but sovereign nations, so why should they have any sort of protection from the federal government? The is the notable minority as stated earlier. Their land, unfortunately according to Jackson, belonged in and to the states they resided in. Jackson was also a strong supporter of…
Ronal Takaki opens our eyes to a different view of one of our early presidents. Andrew Jackson was for removing the Indians, “He supported the efforts of Mississippi and Georgia to abolish Indian tribal units and allow white settlers to take cultivated Indian lands” (Takaki, 2008. Pg. 81). He believed that the deaths of Indians meant that America was advancing civilization. Andrew did not feel guilty about what he stood for. Although they were laws that protected the Indians and their land, he did not obey them. Instead, he would ignore them, “Supreme Court ruled that…
In 1838 and 1839 Andrew Jackson from Tennessee was forceful on Indian Removal, and from 1814 to 1824 jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of 11 treaties, which had devastated the southern tribes of their eastern lands in the west. So the Cherokee indians were tired of it so they went to the supreme court. The n in 1830 Jackson pushed a whole new piece of legislation called the “Indian Removal Act”. Jackson’s attitude towards the Native Americans came off as rude because he did not like the Indians and he wanted them gone.…
When Jackson went against the Supreme Court, the United States constitution was not protected. In the Worcester v. Georgia case, Jackson went against the supreme court decision with the removal act. Indians were forced to move westward because of the Indian removal act (Doc G). Their decision was very unconstitutional because it…
When it came to protecting individual liberties, Jacksonians favored the white male population, but totally ignored others. They wanted to move all of the Indians who lived in the eastern lands to western lands past the Mississippi River. Jackson bolstered their case. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee tribe and its right to remain where it was, Jackson did not comply and he forcefully ejected the native people from their land. The Trail of Tears shows the painful journey the Indians had to take; the journey killed almost 4,000 people (doc. G). Jackson, by instigating the demise of the Bank, failed to protect the individual liberties of the wealthy class. In Document C, Daniel Webster states, “…It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; it wantonly attacks whole classes of people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of the other classes.” This quote shows that Jackson violated the wealthy peoples’ liberties because of his own biased opinions.…
The great Cherokee Nation that had fought the young Andrew Jackson back in 1788 now faced an even more powerful and determined man who was intent on taking their land. But where in the past they had resorted to guns, tomahawks, and scalping knives, now they chose to challenge him in a court of law. They were not called a 'civilized nation' for nothing. Many of their leaders were well educated; many more could read and write; they had their own written language, thanks to Sequoyah, a constitution, schools, and their own newspaper. And they had adopted many skills of the white man to improve their living conditions. Why should they be expelled from their lands when they no longer threatened white settlements and could compete with them on many levels? They intended to fight their ouster, and they figured they had many ways to do it. As a last resort they planned to bring suit before the Supreme Court. Prior to that action, they sent a delegation to Washington to plead their cause. They petitioned Congress to protect them against the unjust laws of Georgia that had decreed that they were subject to its sovereignty and under its complete jurisdiction. They even approached the President, but he curtly informed them that there was nothing he could do in their quarrel with the state, a statement that shocked and amazed them.…
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?…
In 1829 Andrew Jackson created the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act was a law that stated that Native Americans that were settled east of the Mississippi River had to move west of the river to a portion of land that was set aside for them in the Oklahoma territory. The Cherokee Indians that were settled in Georgia became angry with the law and decided to sue the state of Georgia, because they felt like they were entitled to the land. The Supreme Court case became known as Worcester v. Georgia. It was won by the Indians and the law was proven unconstitutional. President Jackson chose to ignore the results of the case and carry on wih the law, causing the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears was the name given to the horrible event where Jackson force the Native Americans to travel during one of the worst winters to the other side of the Mississippi River. Jackson went against the constitution and around the verdict of the Supreme Court, so that he could get exactly what he wanted. Jackson was very unlike the presidents before him, by performing selfish deeds such as the Trail of Tears to get what he wanted.…
Andrew Jackson was a supporter in Indian removal. However, he also had a soft spot; he adopted a Creek Indian boy named Lyncoya. Jackson didn’t consider Indians as American people; this somewhat made it easier to remove Native Americans from their homeland. Not only this, but he made it voluntary to leave, but if they were within limits of the states, they must be subject to their laws. (Document 8). Jackson also removed Indians from the land of their fathers/people. He didn’t even consider that they might not be familiar with the outside land or may not speak the same language. (Document 9). Generally, Indians were removed…
Andrew Jackson’s presidency reeks of pure corruption and Jackson has blatantly violated his Oath of Office in numerous occasions that put the Union in danger. From the beginning, he has used the infamous spoils system to remove skilled officeholders and replace them with individuals who are solely in office to support Jackson’s own political agenda. He has also refused to enforce Supreme Court Rulings; as evidenced by the Cherokee case. John Marshall claimed that the Cherokee tribe was sovereign and that their land was protected. Jackson ultimately defied this ruling by forcing the Cherokees from their rightful land. When the sovereign state of South Carolina was embroiled in the nullification crisis, Jackson responded by threatening violence…