Thank you for the effort, I am sure it is meant well but the narrative has been to lump all natives together and then point at the Cherokee specifically to paint an over-simplified picture of native grievance. You mean well, but basically you just brought up specifically the Cherokee too. It seems like everyone does exactly this. (fair for you to do this, as this is a thread about Andrew Jackson.)
I am sure I am oversimplifying too, but bear with me, look at where most tribes settled (a third of the Cherokee tribes stayed put on ancestral land), the majority of native tribes in general carved out their reservations right where they chose to, on the lands they claimed ancestral affinity for. We definitely encroached on what they wanted to claim (they wanted to claim everything, often claiming other tribes' lands too).
Maybe Jackson didn't betray them, he just knew them well, and was sick of their bullshit.
While it is correct that the Cherokee were not the only tribes in the southeastern USA that were removed (or attempts were made to remove), the Cherokee were the largest tribe constituting the largest portion of land per capita and relative to the other tribes (Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, et al), and were the direct party impacted by the Treaty of New Echota, and the biggest issue in the state of Georgia addressed in Worcester v. Georgia.
While it is also correct that the nyth of the noble savage is just that, a myth, and tribes did fight each other over land and resources prior to Europeans coming along, by the time whites took over control of the colonies and then states compromising the USA, said white governments recognized the various tribes as sovereign entities and furthermore recognized their land claims. That began to change by 1800, under Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and culminating under Jackson and Van Buren.
The narrative actually isn't that complicated as far as legislative and executive efforts on the part of the states, particularly Georgia, and the federal government. States started passing laws asserting for themselves authority to deal with Indian tribes. They had no such authority under the Constitution. "Indian territory" was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. That's how we ended up with Worcester v. Georgia, in which Marshall ruled correctly that GA's law was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Nevertheless, Jackson ignored the Court and was not merely complicit in Indian removal, but literally directed it under his claim of enforcing the Indian Removal Act, which to note was a very close vote... Senate was 28 to 19, the House was 101 to 97. Moreover, the Act gave authority to offer treaties, not to force removal if treaties were rejected. Some resisted removal. That's how we ended up with the Seminole Wars. Also, if you actually read the Act, hardly any of the provisions were followed, like reimbursement for improvements made to the land, protection against other tribes where they were being relocated to, or the perpetual ownership of said new land.
The only "bullshit" was that of white men making promises to Indians, only to break them. Jackson sadly perfectly epitomizes this reality. He was a friend of the Cherokee when it was advantageous to get their help to suppress the Creek. But when it came to appeasing his fellow southern white plantation and slaveowners, he sided with the betrayal of his former allies. Such backstabbing even caused his friend and former ally David Crockett to leave the Senate and go to Texas. Again, not saying Jackson was the devil, but he certainly should take a significant portion of the blame for this black eye in our nation's history. Had he followed the example of Washington, Adams or at least even Jefferson (lots of interesting history of TJ's interactions with the Indians, particularly when he was younger), then grave injustice could have been prevented.
Thank you for the effort, I am sure it is meant well but the narrative has been to lump all natives together and then point at the Cherokee specifically to paint an over-simplified picture of native grievance. You mean well, but basically you just brought up specifically the Cherokee too. It seems like everyone does exactly this. (fair for you to do this, as this is a thread about Andrew Jackson.)
I am sure I am oversimplifying too, but bear with me, look at where most tribes settled (a third of the Cherokee tribes stayed put on ancestral land), the majority of native tribes in general carved out their reservations right where they chose to, on the lands they claimed ancestral affinity for. We definitely encroached on what they wanted to claim (they wanted to claim everything, often claiming other tribes' lands too).
Maybe Jackson didn't betray them, he just knew them well, and was sick of their bullshit.
While it is correct that the Cherokee were not the only tribes in the southeastern USA that were removed (or attempts were made to remove), the Cherokee were the largest tribe constituting the largest portion of land per capita and relative to the other tribes (Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, et al), and were the direct party impacted by the Treaty of New Echota, and the biggest issue in the state of Georgia addressed in Worcester v. Georgia.
While it is also correct that the nyth of the noble savage is just that, a myth, and tribes did fight each other over land and resources prior to Europeans coming along, by the time whites took over control of the colonies and then states compromising the USA, said white governments recognized the various tribes as sovereign entities and furthermore recognized their land claims. That began to change by 1800, under Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and culminating under Jackson and Van Buren.
The narrative actually isn't that complicated as far as legislative and executive efforts on the part of the states, particularly Georgia, and the federal government. States started passing laws asserting for themselves authority to deal with Indian tribes. They had no such authority under the Constitution. "Indian territory" was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. That's how we ended up with Worcester v. Georgia, in which Marshall ruled correctly that GA's law was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Nevertheless, Jackson ignored the Court and was not merely complicit in Indian removal, but literally directed it under his claim of enforcing the Indian Removal Act, which to note was a very close vote... Senate was 28 to 19, the House was 101 to 97. Moreover, the Act gave authority to offer treaties, not to force removal if treaties were rejected. Some resisted removal. That's how we ended up with the Seminole Wars. Also, if you actually read the Act, hardly any of the provisions were followed, like reimbursement for improvements made to the land, protection against other tribes where they were being relocated to, or the perpetual ownership of said new land.
The only "bullshit" was that of white men making promises to Indians, only to break them. Jackson sadly perfectly epitomizes this reality. He was a friend of the Cherokee when it was advantageous to get their help to suppress the Creek. But when it came to appeasing his fellow southern white plantation and slaveowners, he sided with the betrayal of his former allies. Such backstabbing even caused his friend and former ally David Crockett to leave the Senate and go to Texas. Again, not saying Jackson was the devil, but he certainly should take a significant portion of the blame for this black eye in our nation's history. Had he followed the example of Washington, Adams or at least even Jefferson (lots of interesting history of TJ's interactions with the Indians, particularly when he was younger), then grave injustice could have been prevented.
But alas, we're all humans, and prone to error...
More reading on the subject: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/jacksons-message-to-congress-on-indian-removal https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib//ourdocs/indian.html https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=458