27 pages • 54 minutes read
Andrew JacksonOn Indian Removal
Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 1830A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Expansion of American Culture
Content Warning: This section references ethnic cleansing and racial prejudice.
In the first half of the 19th century, the newly established United States was experiencing growing pains. National identity encompassed the democratic ideals on which the country had been founded as well as the broadly Christian beliefs of its settlers, but there was also a growing strain of expansionism. Self-reliance and independence were seen as part of the American spirit; Jackson’s speech, for instance, celebrates the desire to “range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection” (4). Combined with the colonialist impulse to “civilize” the “savage” wilderness, this encouraged the continual expansion of territory westward.
The belief that white Americans should (and inevitably would) colonize the rest of the continent came to be known as “Manifest Destiny,” and it underpins much of Jackson’s speech. The crux of his argument in support of the Indian Removal Act rests on the belief that American ideals require additional territory in which to flourish. Jackson repeatedly reiterates the importance of a “civilized population” inhabiting all areas within and bordering the United States to “repel future invasions” (2)—i.e., to ensure the survival of the country in its current form. However, Jackson’s ambitions go far beyond preservation. He postulates rhetorical questions asking his audience what “good man” would prefer land “covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages” to a “Republic studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms” (3). The question relies on several unstated assumptions: that American culture and civilization are one and the same, that industrialization and urbanization are integral to civilization, that Indigenous Americans do not make use of the land in any meaningful way, that land should be put to human use, and of course that Indigenous Americans are “savages” (partly, though not solely, due to their supposedly unproductive relationship to the land).
These implicit premises all inform Jackson’s argument that expanding westward is morally correct, but in another sense, he suggests that the situation’s ethics are irrelevant. Like many proponents of Manifest Destiny, Jackson depicts it as a foregone conclusion: It simply is the case, he argues, that Christianity, industry, urbanization, etc., will grow in influence while Indigenous American peoples and cultures wane. He notes, for instance, that “The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites” (4). His syntax and diction are noteworthy; the idea that these tribes “melted away” likens their disappearance to a law of nature, while the passive construction “were annihilated” refuses to lay blame for their destruction at the hands of those who supplanted them. This framing supports Jackson’s contention that his own proposals are “generous”: By submitting to relocation, he argues, Indigenous Americans can halt what would otherwise be their intractable decline.
Savagery Versus Civilization
Closely related to Jackson’s depiction of American culture is the conflict he outlines between the supposed savagery of Indigenous Americans and the “civilized” ways of white settlers. This characterization of Indigenous Americans had long roots: One of the charges the Declaration of Independence brought against King George was that he “endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of [the colonies’] frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.” Here, Jefferson not only portrays Indigenous Americans as unrestrainedly violent—even bloodthirsty—but also admits no distinctions between them, treating the country’s many Indigenous tribes as an undifferentiated mass.
The same tendency animates Jackson’s speech and informs his characterization of the tribes he proposes to displace as “savages.” For example, Jackson describes Indigenous Americans as “wandering,” implying a nomadic, hunter-gatherer existence. This not only presumes that a settled existence is more civilized than an itinerant one but elides the fact that the particular tribes in question were in fact not itinerant; the Cherokee lived in permanent settlements and practiced agriculture. In fact, the five tribes impacted by Jackson’s policy had been named the “Five Civilized Tribes” for the degree to which their cultures either already resembled or incorporated elements of Western cultures. Though ethnocentric in its assumptions, the term acknowledged that (for example) many of these Indigenous Americans had converted to Christianity. It is evident that Jackson himself regards Christianity as central to the notion of civilization, as he refers to the “settled, civilized Christian’s [attachment to his home]” and speaks of his hope that relocating the tribes will result in them becoming an “interesting, civilized, and Christian community” (5, 2). The latter remark develops a thematic thread through which “savagery” inevitably leads to self-destruction while conversion to Christianity and embracing civility offer hope of societal resurrection, yet it again overlooks the fact that many of those Jackson proposed to displace had adopted precisely the lifestyle he advocates. Jackson thus constructs his dichotomy of savagery versus civilization by appealing to a broad caricature of Indigenous Americans that bore little resemblance to the particular historical situation.
Jackson answers any opponents to his argument by drawing parallels between the relocation of tribal people with the immigration of the initial European settlers of the United States. While conceding the pain Indigenous Americans will experience when leaving their lands, he asks, “[W]hat do they more than our ancestors did or than our children now are doing?” (3). Paradoxically, Jackson’s parallels suggest how similar “savage” and the “civilized” people are—without the need for government intervention to rehabilitate the former.
Divisions Within America
Though Jackson frames the proposal to relocate Indigenous Americans as a struggle between ideals—civilization versus savagery—several more tangible conflicts underpin his argument. One is the threat of foreign encroachment on US lands. As a veteran of the War of 1812, Jackson would have been sensitive to the threat world powers like Britain posed to the new country, and as a proponent of American expansionism, he would have seen little difference between outright invasion and claims to territory the US regarded as rightfully its own; such concerns inform his argument about the need to strengthen the frontier. However, Jackson’s speech also raises the specter of another kind of conflict: one within the US itself.
This possibility is most explicit in Jackson’s warning about the “danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians” (2). Generally speaking, state governments had been dissatisfied with even the limited rights that the US federal government granted to Indigenous tribes; dealing more directly with a population eager to expand westward, these local officials wanted the freedom to pursue their own courses of action regarding the Indigenous population. More broadly, friction between the state and federal governments had been a feature of the US since its inception, growing increasingly vitriolic throughout the first half of the 19th century over the issue of enslavement. Jackson positions himself as a mediator in this power struggle, arguing that his policy will cool tempers on both sides by decisively resolving one source of tension.
A more implicit division concerns Jackson’s role as the “people’s president.” Throughout his speech, it is evident from his tone and his diction that Jackson views himself as speaking for the “common men” of the United States. The immediate beneficiaries of the seizure of land from Indigenous Americans would be white Americans of humble means—those who might struggle to make a living in the eastern US, but who could afford the cheaper land (and smaller acreages) out west. Jackson implies as much through his use of rhetorical questions like, “If the offers made to the Indians were extended to [the citizens of the United States], they would be hailed with gratitude and joy” (4). With such remarks, Jackson aligns himself with the average US citizen rather than the elite members of the Senate; he suggests not only that he has faith in such people’s common sense but that their common sense outstrips that of the senators, who might not so immediately perceive the benefits of Jackson’s proposal. The speech thus embodies the class tensions present throughout Jackson’s presidency.
