Andrew Jackson, Nullification, and Indian Removal

Monday February 27, 2012

     Today we discussed Chapter 5 of our textbook.  Though I found the topics of Andrew Jackson and Nullification to be interesting, I especially liked the parts about Indian Removal.  When Andrew Jackson brought the Indian Removal Act up to Congress, there were many questions.  One question in particular was:  Do Indian nations have the right to establish an independent government within a state?"  According to Jackson, this would undermine the federal and state governments because Indians would be following their own laws, and not the laws of the country.  Jackson had an immense hatred on Native Americans, but he was sure to back up his arguments with reasonable facts, like how he used to fight Native Americans on the frontier in his early years.  Jackson said that Indians should assimilate into "normal" culture.  Though this is a good idea, it would have never worked because no matter how a Native American acted, what job they had, or what they believed in, they would always be looked down upon by society.  During the times before the Indian Removal Act, however, many Native Americans married whites and tried to blend in to the culture.  In the south, Indians learned about slavery and plantation work, whereas in the north they learned more about industrial work.  I have often come upon the question "in history, which group of people had a harder time, Native Americans or African Americans?"  This question is mind-boggling to me because there is so much information that needs to be taken into account.  The Native Americans were killed by the thousands from diseases, forced off their land, and basically put into exile.  The African Americans were taken from their homes, forced to work for no wages, and then after they gained freedom with the 13th amendment, still had to face racial discrimination!  So it would come down to the lesser of two evils: be killed off, or face decades of racial injustice?  This is a question that I honestly cannot answer and my opinion is always that both groups of people suffered and were looked down upon for no good reason and they really could not do anything to change their situation because the wealthy, land owning white people had all the power.  (ahh.....got a little side-tracked there!)
     Document 4 in our textbook further deals with the autonomy of the Indian nations.  Good ol' John Marshall decreed that the Federal government could make treaties with Indians, but individual states could not.  He used countries such as Great Britain and France to back up his argument. He said the Indians were technically a foreign power and only the federal government had the authority to deal with foreign governments.  A dicta was created that would explain the situation and position of Native Americans and their relationship with the U.S.  (meaning the government wanted to "lay down the law" and establish a Constitutional position on what to do and how to deal with Native Americans).  According to the text, this was not really about the Indian Removal Act, but was about establishing a formal procedure.  A famous court case dealing with the Indian Removal Act was Cherokee Nation versus Georgia.  This VIDEO briefly discusses the court case, along with the relationship between John Marshal and Andrew Jackson.
     Though Illinois was a free state, there were still racial discrimination.  A clip from Youtube.com talks about Illinois position on Native Americans during the era before and after the Civil War.
     I was once told that Jackson's treatment of Indians during the Trail of Tears created a "curse" on the presidents of the United States.  The story went something like:  Indians were so upset that they put a curse on the presidency.  From Andrew Jackson on to the next couple of presidents, all presidents were either killed in office, died of illness in office, or were severely injured while in office.  When looking on Youtube.com for a clip on it, I came across a different interesting CLIP.  According to this video, almost all of the presidents are related!  Plus, they are related back to King John Lackland (the King of England who signed the Magna Carta).  It was a very interesting video....
     The other topic which we covered in class was the idea of modernity.  Modernity is a post-traditional, post-medieval, concept.  This is a movement away from feudalism and toward capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the nation-state.  According to historians, 1500 to the 1970s is ttechnically referred to as the "modern" era.  This movement is often referred to as the end of the "isms" and grand theories.  Concepts like Marxism and existentialism are not accepted anymore.  Modernity is the creation of new things, such as art.  As we discussed in class, modernity is the end of originality.  Mankind has come a very long way since the 1500s and have accomplished many things.  We have put a man on the moon, discovered sunken ships, harnessed electricity, built massive towers, and more.  It seems like humans have discovered all they can and the only thing left to do is make things better.  We can make improvements on already existing things, but people are skeptical of creating new things.  Today we live in a world where "normal" and "safe" are considered good things.  No one is willing to take risks anymore because it could mean failure and loss of money, resources, and respect.  So instead of creating new things, we improve existing things.  For example, we have went from vinyl albums, to 8-tracks, to cassettes, to cds, and now we are digital.  We are not creating new ways of music, but making them more efficient and smaller in size.  Another example is space.  For thousands of years people have wondered about outer space and the weather patterns.  Today, we have explored the majority of outer space (as far as technology can reach), and have a pretty good grasp on weather patterns and weather forecasting.  People feel as if there is not much else to accomplish, so they try to make money by making improvements.  Personally, I slightly believe this concept of modernity.  Since I was born in the early 1990s not much has changed (clothes, music, cars, buildings, etc).  I have seen things improve, but there hasn't really been any new amazing inventions.  I mainly believe this is happening because it is the safe route.  People have seen depressions and economic hardships, so they are not as willing to put themselves out and try something new.  I really hope that this idea of simply making improvements is over soon because I am sure that there are inventions out there that are not yet created that can change the world.  Oh, and by the way, its 2012 and I was promised LONG ago that by now we would have flying cars, robots and computers to do everything, and people would be inhabiting other planets!  I doubt I will see any of these things in my lifetime....