,
24 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I've noticed lots of discussion about Andrew Jackson and Native Americans lately. Some people think he was a great guy and ought to stay on the $20 bill. I have some thoughts.
Some people are trying to defend Jackson's treatment of Native Americans. Hard to do if you look seriously at the policy of Indian Removal.
When Jackson became president in 1829, one of his major objectives was removal. Congress passed the Indian Removal Act and Jackson signed it in 1830.
During his years as president (1829-1837), Jackson oversaw the removals of (in roughly chronological order): Choctaws, Ohio Senecas, Delawares, Shawnees, Ottawas, Sauks and Mesquakies, Kickapoos, Ho-Chunks, Creeks, Potawatomis, and Seminoles.
Most of these trails of tears resulted in massive loss of life. Just two examples: From 1830 to 1838, the Choctaws lost 2,000 from their population of 18,000. From 1832 to 1840, the Ohio Senecas lost 200 from their population of 470.
In most cases, Native nations did not take up arms to resist the injustice of being forced from their homes. Instead, they reluctantly agreed to treaties forced on them by Jackson's administration.
But Sauks, Creeks, and Seminoles asserted a right to self-defense and defied Jackson's demand that they move. When they did, the United States waged genocidal war against them.
Jackson was responsible for the Black Hawk War. In August 1832, the Army massacred 250 Sauks, including women and children, most trying to cross the Mississippi on makeshift rafts while fired on by an armed steamship.
Jackson was responsible for the Second Creek War (1836-37). In March 1837, an Alabama militia slaughtered 50 Creeks, many non-combatants, at Pea River.
Jackson was responsible for the Second Seminole War (1835-1842). The Army would have liked to massacre resisting Seminole communities, but the Seminoles fought heroically and were hard to surprise. Still, it was hard to plant crops and hunt with troops everywhere. Hundreds died.
Gradually, most Seminole leaders decided that the risks of continued resistance were too high and so most agreed to move to Oklahoma. The Seminole population fell from 5,000-6,000 in 1832 to 4,000 in 1843.
I've heard some people say that Jackson isn't responsible for the most famous Trail of Tears (the Cherokee ToT), because it happened in 1838-39 and by then Martin Van Buren was president.
This seems a bit ridiculous. Jackson would have loved to force the Cherokees out of Georgia earlier and put a huge amount of energy into doing so. He engineered the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, which authorized removal (signed by a minority of Cherokees under enormous pressure).
OK, we should be sure never to put Martin Van Buren on the money. He, too, was culpable but Jackson was the prime mover.
Many scholars have characterized Jackson's policy of Indian removal as "ethnic cleansing." This is a serious indictment, since ethnic cleansing is now regarded as a war crime. That alone should get Jackson kicked off the money.
But, the policy was actually genocidal. First, because it had genocidal consequences. See above, and also note other demographic catastrophes, such as the Sauks and Mesquakies. They were removed several times. Their population fell from 6,500 in 1832 to 1,280 in 1860.
Yes, Andrew Jackson had long been in his grave by 1860, but he set in motion a policy with clearly genocidal consequences for the Sauks and Mesquakies (and many other nations)
But wasn't the intention behind Indian removal humanitarian? Wasn't removal the only way to save Native Americans---to move them away from white people? That's what Jackson and other advocates of removal said.
Jackson liked to think of himself as a humane "Great Father" who knew what was best for his "Indian children" Yes, he even adopted a Creek infant during the 1814 Creek War! But if he really had Native people's interest at heart, he would have listened to them.
In 1830, Cherokees informed Jackson that if he went through with removal "we see nothing but ruin before us." But Jackson ignored them.
Let's put Jackson's "humanitarianism" to the test. Removal was not a one-off event and so we can watch the consequences of the policy unfold and see how Jackson reacted. As soon as removal was implemented in 1830 it became apparent that it was not a humane policy.
Hundreds died on the early trails of tears. As death toll mounted into the thousands, Jackson could have said, "we need to stop this terrible, inhumane policy," but he did not. Suggests his goal was to get rid of Indians and if thousands died, he didn't mind.
Yes, Jackson could have undertaken a more overt policy of genocide and tried to kill every single Indian in the eastern United States. But, he did implement and continue to pursue a policy with consistently deadly consequences. This, too, was genocide.
I discuss all of this and more in my recent book. amzn.to/2Rj8W3S 
