″Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. … But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. ... Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. 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?″
Was the Indian Removal Act inevitable, as Jackson seems to think, or was there an element of willful malevolence in it on his part? He was a life-long Indian fighter and had fought the Five Civilized Tribes several times, seizing land from them with each engagement. Does this single event tarnish his legacy as President?
>>1091298
I don't care about what Jackson did to the Indians.
I care that he made and violated treaties with the Indians in order to do what he did. Absolute terrible precedent, and diminished our country.
>>1091298
>Was the Indian Removal Act inevitable, as Jackson seems to think
Yes. If we didn't do it then, we would have done something similar (but not necessarily as heavy handed as Jackson did it) later. Or some other power would have taken the land.
>or was there an element of willful malevolence in it on his part?
Of course. Jackson had spent his life fighting Indians. Seeing them get their shit pushed in was what he'd wanted for ages. That's not to say he hated Indians, but he certainly wanted to see an end to their nations as entities.
>Does this single event tarnish his legacy as President?
No.
Jackson was a douche. That was his legacy. So no, this didn't diminish it. It was a part of it.
>>1091327
Didn't every President and. in fact. every European power routinely break treaties with the Indians? I mean, Tennessee and Kentucky didn't spring up by accident even though the British promised no colonization beyond the Appalachians. There were settlers there in force before the Revolution, they even tried to become the first autonomous government in defiance of crown rule, epitomized by the Watauga Charter.
>>1091348
Why was he a douche compared to say, J.Q. Adams who had an affair with the Czar and tried to sell off America to moneyed interests?
>>1091330
While revisionists like to bemoan the fate of the Cherokee they often forget the years of rampant raiding perpetuated by the tribe, the grisly murders, wholesale rape and enslavement of settlers. Or how the Cherokee were fond of torturing prisoners, often burning them alive or flaying the skin and hanging it from trees. They were far from the innocent victims of the evil white man they're portrayed as today.
>>1091298
>five
>civilized
>tribes
The five civilized tribes were not five, nor civilized, nor tribes.
>>1091355
I know nothing of either the Watauga charter nor the Appalachian independence push. I can find nothing.
>wouldpeopledothatjustgoontheinternetandtelllies.png2000
