On Indian Removal

“[...] it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.”

Jackson argues that other tribes will agree to resettlement because two “important” tribes have already acquiesced to the government’s plans. This introduces the theme of Savagery Versus Civilization because it implies that Indigenous Americans can be made to understand the “advantages” of civilized American culture.

“The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves.”

Throughout the speech, Jackson argues that forced relocation will not merely benefit the United States government, US citizens, or American cultural identity. Rather, he focuses on the perceived benefits to the Indigenous people who, according to Jackson, now have the opportunity either to preserve their traditional way of life away from white settlers or to assimilate into American culture. He suggests that either option is preferable to the alternative: remaining in place and being “annihilated” by the inevitable tide of Western imperialism.

“By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.”

Jackson asserts that the lands within and on the US’s current borders must be populated with “civilized” white people to ensure the country’s survival. What’s more, he implies that the mere occupation of these areas by white Americans will stimulate America’s wealth and power. By contrast, he frames Indigenous occupancy as a burden these regions must be “relieved” of.

“[Relocation will] free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.”

Jackson reiterates that relocation will benefit Indigenous Americans, who he says will have the opportunity to flourish as a people and “perhaps” eventually to assimilate into American culture (provided they heed the government’s guidance). Jackson’s unquestioned assumption that Indigenous ways of life are inferior to Western ones is prevalent throughout his speech and reflective of the attitudes of the time. However, there is ambiguity surrounding the nature of that “inferiority”: Jackson’s claim that Indigenous Americans will “pursue happiness in their own way” suggests that they are innately different from white Americans, whereas the idea that they might assimilate suggests that they have simply learned to follow a different lifestyle (and could learn yet another).

“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?”

Jackson is known for his ability to reach the “common man,” and with this rhetorical question, he is speaking directly to those men. The implication is that these men may have their liberties and rights infringed upon by those who sympathize with the plight of “savages.” This paints opponents of Jackson’s policies in a particularly dim light and touches on Divisions Within America.

“The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process.”

Jackson reiterates the notion that the Indian Removal Act merely extends the policies that have been in place for years prior. This serves to undercut dissenting opinions and arguments by implying that they ought to have voiced their objections previously. By using the word “progressive,” Jackson also implies that the policy is the next natural step in the process of expanding America and its cultural influence. Finally, he once again casts his policy as preferable to—i.e., “milder” than—the status quo.

“The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites.”

Jackson cites this historical fact as a veiled threat to those who wish to help Indigenous people retain their land: In allowing them to stay where they are, Jackson’s opponents would be responsible for the tribes’ destruction. Jackson also presents this removal process as part of the natural order of the world: The “savage” gives way to the “civilized.”

“The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.”

This quote further emphasizes the belief that “civilization” will always supplant “savagery.” This belief is based in racist ideologies in which races, cultures, religions, etc. are ranked and deemed either superior or inferior: Because Indigenous Americans are “inferior,” Jackson suggests, the only way to save them is to separate them from the “superior” white men.

“Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects.”

Jackson compares the forced removal of Indigenous Americans from their ancestral homes to Europe’s elective colonization of the Americas to downplay the moral questions that surround this decision, including those of its lasting effects.

“Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection.”

Jackson emphasizes his previous point through the continued comparison of Indigenous people and American settlers. He compares the journeys to the maturation of mind, body, and spirit. Jackson’s argument is layered; he contends that the government’s policies are not only not harming the native people but may even benefit their development individually and collectively.

“These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode?”

Jackson portrays the United States government as a savior to Indigenous Americans. By forcibly removing Indigenous tribes—an act he downplays as merely “discontenting” them—but paying for their removal, Jackson suggests that the government is doing more for them than anyone did for the European colonists. He also frames the government’s decision as merely a reaction to “events which it cannot control.” This elides the government’s moral responsibility for the tribes’ fate while evoking the idea that some cultures are simply fated to dwindle, as if by a law of nature.

“How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.”

Jackson takes an offensive stance in this quote by implying Indigenous Americans are ungrateful for not embracing the opportunities presented to them. This characterization further vilifies the tribes as savage and undeserving.

“Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous.”

Jackson explicitly states that the United States government is not wrong to remove Indigenous Americans—in fact, it is magnanimous in its actions. Jackson’s simple statement and firm, clear tone frame his opinion as fact.