EPrize_ZLast a. Jackson Su10

221THE CONCORD REVIEW

VINDICATING ANDREW JACKSON:

A REASSESSMENT OF HIS INDIAN REMOVAL POLICY

EuNa Noh

On June 28, 1830, Andrew Jackson (b.1767-d.1845), as the seventh President of the United States, signed the Indian Re-moval Act into law. The act gave Jackson the authority to negotiate treaties providing for the voluntary relocation of eastern Indians to the trans-Mississippi West.1 By the close of Jackson’s two terms in office, approximately 45,690 Indians had been relocated.2 In his annual message to the nation in 1830, Jackson remarked that the Indians “are now...saved from that degradation and destruc-tion to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the States.”3

Jackson’s Indian removal policy has become more conten-tious than ever in recent years as the rights of minorities have been recognized. Many modern historians such as Bernard W. Sheehan, Ronald T. Takaki and Michael P. Rogin have scathingly rebuked Jackson’s Indian policy and have presented what has been called the “devil theory.” Their accounts depict Jackson as a ruthless Indian-hater intent upon dispossessing and, according to some, even annihilating the eastern tribes.4 Sheehan described Jackson’s

EuNa Noh is a Junior at Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire, where she wrote this paper for Bill Johnson’s United States History 331 course in the 2009/2010 academic year.

222 EuNa Noh

Indian removal policy as a heartless expulsion of the Indians from their ancestral homes and called it “a palpable wrongheadedness.”5 Takaki criticized Jackson for developing “a metaphysics of geno-cide.” According to Takaki, Jackson presented a “philosophical justification for the extermination of native Americans...through the use of a multitude of disguises” and protected the “moral character” of Americans as he served the “class interests of the speculators, farmers, and planters seeking to appropriate Indian lands.” Takaki asked of Jackson, “What sort of a white man is he?” He answered his own question, “He is a killer, a slayer. Patient and gentle as he is, he is a slayer. Self-effacing...still he is a killer.”6 Some devil theorists such as Rogin have explained Jackson’s role in Indian affairs through the use of psychohistory. Rogin argued Jackson’s fears of feminine domination experienced in his youth surfaced as his intense hatred towards the Indians. He wrote that Jackson’s “personal trauma [and] monomania” regenerated through “violence and flawed maturity.” Through his psychohis-torical analysis, Rogin concluded that Jackson “could tread on Indian graves in peace.”7

Revisionists, led by historians Francis Paul Prucha and Robert V. Remini, have offered a reassessment of Jackson’s Indian policy. Though acknowledging the horrible manner in which the administration enforced the removal policy, they have attempted to vindicate Jackson himself. Prucha called the devil theory of Jackson, a “simplistic view” that is “unacceptable.” He wrote that Jackson “by no means developed a doctrinaire anti-Indian atti-tude.” Prucha asserted that Jackson’s concern for the well-being and advancement of the Indians was sincere. He equated Jackson’s removal policy with genuine efforts to civilize the Indians and concluded that there were no alternatives to the Indian problem other than removal.8 Remini argued that historians have paid too much attention to the rhetoric of Jackson’s political adversaries and the simplistic interpretations of the Christian missionaries. According to Remini, Jackson left office satisfied that he had found a safe haven for thousands of Indians and believed that he deserved the gratitude of both the red and white races for solv-ing a problem that no previous President had dared to tackle. He


wrote, emphasizing Jackson’s sincere care for the Indians, “Indian removal is a good reminder that the best intentions in the world can sometimes end in human misery and death.”9

The purpose of this essay is to reassess Jackson’s attitude towards Indians and evaluate his intentions in implementing the Indian Removal Act. It will do so by interpreting his references to Indians in his private correspondences and documents, and by examining their historical context. Based on the result of this examination, it will conclude that regardless of the unfortunate consequences of his Indian removal policy, Jackson, given his motivations and the alternatives available to him, does not deserve the vilification that some historians have bestowed upon him. Analysis will convey Jackson’s sincerity and belief in the actions engaged against the Indians as the sole constructive solution to the dilemma that confronted the nation.

Jackson’s Treatment of Indians

Examination of Jackson’s letters shows that Jackson’s behavior toward Indians differed little from his behavior toward his soldiers. He punished hostile Indians who harmed the whites and protected the rights of friendly Indians who wished to live in peace.10 Jackson acted similarly with his soldiers by punishing those who disobeyed the rules of the army and by acting as a fatherly figure for obedient soldiers.

Devil theory advocates cite aggressive and often merciless campaigns against Indians as proof of Jackson’s thirst for native blood. It is true that Jackson led many military actions against the Indians, but only in response to violence first inflicted by Indians. When Jackson heard the news of the Creek Indians’ massacre of white women and children at the Mouth of Duck River in June of 1812, he wrote:

...my heart bleeds within me...[the Creeks] have escaped with impu-nity—But they must be punished—and our frontier protected...we [should] march into the Creek nation and demand the perpetrators,

224 EuNa Noh

at the Point of the Bayonet—if refused—that we make reprisals—and lay their Towns in ashes...11

In a newspaper article, he wrote, referring to the massacre, that it is “impossible to permit the assassins of women and children to escape with impunity and with triumph” and called for a war against the Creeks.12

Nevertheless, while leading campaigns against hostile Indians, Jackson showed justice and fairness by firmly upholding the rights of the Indians who lived peacefully. When Jackson was a major general of the Tennessee militia, upon hearing the news that county militia officer Major Russle was involved in the mur-der of an innocent Indian, he insisted that Russle be punished. Jackson wrote:

Make Strict enquiry into those facts relative to the late conduct of Major Russle...Should he...proceed to violate the laws of the land I command you immediately to arrest him...the peace and tranquility of our country imperiously commands that such unofficer like conduct should be punished...and the unwarrantable act of killing the Indian lately may involve in it the lives of a number of the innocent. I am truly Surprised that the civil authority has not taken some notice of the act by trying to find out the perpetrator and bringing him to Justice.13

On another occasion, when a group of Tennessee soldiers robbed a friendly Cherokee Indian named Rattcliff, Jackson became furious and demanded that the soldiers be met with “speedy and ample punishment.” He wrote in a letter: “That a sett of men should without any authority rob a man who is claimed as a member of the Cherokee nation, who is now friendly and engaged with us in a war against the hostile creeks, is such an outrage.”14

Jackson even recognized Indians’ property rights and put them on a par with those of white men. He wrote in the same let-ter that theft of the Indian’s property is “as much Theft as tho the property, was stolen from one of our own citizens, and the laws of the united States provide amply for the punishment.”15

Jackson showed a sense of justice in his direct dealings with the Indians: he was aggressive in subjugating the Indians who were hostile to Americans, but was ready to respect the rights of the


peaceful Indians. Indeed, Jackson’s attitudes towards the Indians were in line with those towards his white soldiers.

Jackson’s Anti-British Sentiment

The charge that Jackson was an Indian-hater partly comes from the misinterpretation of his anti-British sentiment. Jackson developed a strong hatred toward Britain in his early years, having participated in the American Revolutionary War and having lost his entire family during that war.

Jackson’s eldest brother, Hugh Jackson, was killed by the British in the Battle of Stono. Jackson’s mother died from prison fever, which she contracted while nursing ill American prisoners captured by the British. Jackson’s older brother, Robert Jackson, died of either untended wounds or small pox while he was im-prisoned by the British.

During the Revolutionary War, Andrew Jackson participated in a mission to capture a group of British troops at Waxhaw Church. The attempt failed and the British took him prisoner. The British commanding officer ordered Jackson to black his boots. When Jackson remonstrated, asserting that he was a prisoner-of-war and not a servant, the officer hit Jackson with a saber. Jackson warded the blow by the arm, but his hand and head carried the scar to the grave.16

John H. Eaton, who served as the Secretary of War under Jackson, wrote in 1817, “[Jackson] had many private reasons for disliking [Great Britain]...In her, he could trace the efficient cause, why, in early life, he had been left forlorn and wretched, without a single relation in the world.”17

These early experiences with the British evidently tainted Jackson’s assumptions while serving in office. For instance, he was convinced that the British were behind Indians’ hostilities toward Americans. In a letter written in 1808, Jackson suspected the Brit-ish of inciting the Creek Indians’ massacre on the southern bank

226 EuNa Noh

of the Tennessee: “It appears that 25 of our innocent Citizens have fell victims, to the ruthless hands of Savage barbarity, and from strong circumstances it appears that the Creeks...have been excited to this hellish act, by the instigation of whitemen agents under foreign influence...”18 Out of rage, he likened the situation to the injustices committed by Britain that led to the Revolutionary War. He continued, “...this brings to our recollection the horrid barbarity committed on our frontier in 1777, under the influence of, and by the orders of Great Britain, and it is presumeable that the same influence has excited those barbarians to the late and recent acts of butchery and murder...”19

In 1812, Jackson expressed his conviction that the British had triggered the Creek Indians who murdered Americans at the Mouth of Duck River. He wrote, “I have no doubt but [the Creeks] are urged on by British agents and tools.”20

On another occasion, at a Spanish fort at St. Marks, Florida in 1818, Jackson captured Alexander Arbuthnot, a Scottish Indian trader, and Robert C. Ambrister, a British marine, and executed them for instigating and commanding the Indians.21

Many historians have mistaken Jackson’s anti-British sen-timent as his hatred toward the Indians. Yet, examination of his private correspondences shows that Jackson’s aggressiveness in his campaigns against the Indians was primarily directed toward Britain, not the Indians themselves.

Jackson’s Adoption of Two Indian Sons

The devil theorists’ simplistic view of Jackson as an Indian-hater cannot explain his adoption of two Indian boys, Lyncoya and Theodore.

On November 3, 1813, after the Battle of Talluschatches, Jackson found a 10-month-old Indian infant clutched in the baby’s dead mother’s arms. Jackson, who always harbored sympathy for orphans (as he himself was one), adopted the boy and named him


Lyncoya.22 Jackson took the child to a tent and gave him sugar-water, which kept him alive until he could be sent to Huntsville. At Huntsville, the boy was nursed at Jackson’s expense until the end of the campaign and was taken to Jackson’s home, the Hermit-age.23 Jackson wrote to his wife, Rachel: “The child must be well taken care of, he may have been given to me for some valuable purpose—in fact when I reflect that he, as to his relations, is so much like myself, I feel an unusual sympathy for him.”24

Upon receiving the letter that Jackson would send Lyncoya home, Rachel Jackson expressed her son’s eagerness to meet the boy. She wrote in a letter to Jackson, “[Andrew Jackson Jr.] is well, talks very much of his Little Lyncaia.”25

In the same letter, she lamented the death of Theodore, another Indian child that the Jacksons had adopted.

...you mentioned Andrew Lamenting the Loos of Theadoure he saw me sheding tears Saide he Sweet Mother what are you Crying for I told him Does It take you all to Cry for one Little thing Said He and sercly Ever names him since he dont like the other Andrew to have the little Indian boy you Spoke of I told him we Could not keepe so maney he saide theay Cold waite and he wold Eate with them.26

Lyncoya received the same education given to the planters’ sons in the neighborhood. He later became an apprentice for a harness-maker in Nashville. Harness-making was what Jackson himself had apprenticed for in his youth. Jackson had planned to educate the boy at West Point, but Lyncoya died of tuberculosis in 1828.27 Jackson is still the only U.S. President in history to have adopted an Indian child.

Jackson’s Racism

There is little doubt that Jackson regarded the Indians as inferior to whites. This is evident in the annual message to the nation in 1830: Jackson referred to the Indians as “wandering savages” and their culture as “rude institutions.”28 Furthermore, Jackson held a negative view of the Indians’ motivations. In a letter,

228 EuNa Noh

he urged Tennessee Governor Willie Blount to “join in punishing the hostile part [of the Indians]” for he believed that “self-interest and self-preservation [are] the most predominant passion[s in Indians].” He wrote, “Fear is better than love with an Indian.”29

This racial attitude was common during Jackson’s time. For example, the editor of the leading newspaper New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, considered Indians infantile and incapable of attaining Europeans’ civilized standards. He wrote in his letter published in New York Tribune in June 1859:

The Indians are children. Their arts, wars, treaties, alliances, habi-tations, crafts, properties, commerce, comforts, all belong to the very lowest and rudest ages of human existence...They are utterly incompetent to cope in any way with the European or Caucasian race. The Indian is...a slave of appetite and sloth. These people must die out—there is no help for them. God has given this earth to those who will subdue and cultivate it, and it is vain to struggle against His righteous decree.30

However, unlike Greeley, who depicted Indians as a hopeless and doomed race, Jackson did not regard Indians as inherently evil or so inferior. Jackson was convinced that Indians should rid themselves of their “savage ways,” but he believed that change was possible. Jackson thought that Indians could be assimilated into white society and eventually become citizens of the United States to exercise the rights that citizens enjoyed. He expressed that the removal would “perhaps cause [the Indian society] gradually, un-der 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.”31

Jackson’s Dismissal of the Worcestor v. Georgia Decision

As Western expansion progressed, Georgians flooded into the Cherokee territory for land and gold. When Georgian authorities aimed to remove the Indians, a group of missionar-ies attempted to persuade the Cherokees to oppose removal. In response, Georgia passed a law requiring the missionaries to take


an oath of loyalty to the state or leave the Indian country. When they refused, they were imprisoned. One of the missionaries, Samuel Worcestor filed a suit against Georgia, and on appeal, the Supreme Court Justice John Marshall held the Georgia statute unconstitutional.32 He reasoned that Georgia’s law was in conflict with a federal law, the Act of 1803, which decreed that the Indian territories should be protected from intrusion.33 In 1832, Marshall asserted:

The Cherokee Nation is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the consent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the Acts of Congress.34

Jackson refused to execute the mandate of the Supreme Court, an action that would have required the removal of all Georgia au-thorities from the Cherokee territory. Upon hearing the Supreme Court’s Worcester v. Georgia decision, Jackson is reputed to have said, “Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”35

Many historians faulted Jackson for defiance and inaction stemming from his supposed anti-Indian stance. Historian Walter Hart Blumenthal wrote that disregarding the Worcester v. Georgia decision was a “callous course whereby Jackson connived to oust the prosperous Southern tribes.”36 Historian Anthony F. C. Wallace bitterly claimed that Jackson intended to “permit the extension of the state sovereignty because it would result in the harassment of Indians, powerless to resist, by speculators and intruders hungry for Indian land.”37

It is true that by defying the Worcester v. Georgia decision, Jackson proceeded with his Indian removal policy. However, contrary to what many believe, Jackson’s dismissal of Marshall’s mandate was not sheer defiance, but recognition of the politi-cal reality. Jackson reacted with extreme caution to the Indian problem in Georgia because a rash move could have triggered a confrontation with Georgia when South Carolina was calling for secession.

230 EuNa Noh

At the time, Jackson was dealing with a confrontation with the state of South Carolina over the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Voices for secession grew in South Carolina as South Carolinians blamed the federal government’s protective tariffs as the cause of the economic depression. South Carolina attempted to nullify the Tariff of 1828, defied Jackson to enforce the tariff, and threatened the federal government with secession.38

Jackson had to be extremely cautious in his actions so that Georgia would not join South Carolina in the nullification dispute, which might lead to secession and even civil war. The last thing Jackson wanted or needed was a confrontation with another state in an already fragile Union. Thus, by dismissing the Worcester vs. Georgia decision, he avoided an open struggle: He managed to isolate South Carolina and at the same time, forced Georgia to support him against the Nullifiers.

Historian Richard P. Longaker praised Jackson for his careful political maneuvering in dealing with the Indian problem in Georgia and argued that Jackson cannot be condemned for refusing to enforce Marshall’s decision. Longaker wrote, “Jackson might have expanded his original statement to read: ‘John Marshall has made his decision and he can try to enforce it. I cannot. Even if the Executive wished to enforce the mandate it is not powerful enough to oppose the tide of feeling in the South.’”39

Jackson and his advisers were keenly aware that chastising Georgia was a dangerous idea. William Smith, one of Jackson’s advisers, wrote:

[South Carolinians] hope to see Georgia embroiled with the General Government, in which they may join and make a common cause...And should this happen, I can see no other result but civil war and the dismemberment of the Union...One thing is certain, General Jackson will not lend his official aid to enforce the injunction. This may avert disaster for awhile...40


A Lack of Alternatives

In Jackson’s mind, there seemed to be no feasible alterna-tive to the Indian problem other than removal. Jackson had four options available to him at the time: destroy the Indians, assimilate the Indians, establish Indian enclaves or remove the Indians.

First, taking into account the respect he showed for Indians’ rights (discussed under Jackson’s Treatment of Indians) and his adoption of two Indian boys (discussed under Jackson’s Adoption of Two Indian Sons), it is clear that Jackson had not considered the option of destroying the Indians.

Second, many Presidents before Jackson had attempted assimilation of Indians, but were not successful. George Washing-ton asked Congress in 1791 to undertake experiments to civilize the Indians. In 1793, he furnished Indians with “useful domestic animals, and the implements of husbandry.” Jefferson, too, em-phasized to the Indians the advantages of agriculture over hunting and gathering. He also established schools to train Indian children in white ways and advocated building trading houses so that Indi-ans could be familiar with the white men’s goods.41 Despite this optimism for Indians’ assimilation, it became increasingly appar-ent that assimilation was too slow and that conflicts between the whites and the Indians were growing, rather than disappearing.

The tension between the federal government and the southern states was at its peak and it was exacerbated by the Worcester v. Georgia case (discussed under Jackson’s Dismissal of the Worcester v. Georgia Decision). When the South Carolina Nullifiers were challenging federal authority, Jackson could not afford to aggravate the conflict between the southern states and the federal government. Jackson’s sentiment is shown in a letter:

The decision of the supreme court...cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate...if orders were issued tomorrow one regiment of militia could not be got to march to save them from destruction and this the opposition know, and if a collision was to take place between them and the Georgians, the arm of the government is not sufficiently strong to preserve them from destruction...42

232 EuNa Noh

Third, if Indians could not be assimilated, some asserted that they should be sheltered in their own culture. They would live in enclaves within the United States and be protected by trea-ties and military force. Jackson believed, however, that this option would not resolve the problems of white settler encroachment. In a meeting with a large delegation of Cherokee chiefs at the White House, Jackson said:

You are placed in the midst of a white population...Most of your people are uneducated, and are liable to be brought into collision at all times with your white neighbors. How, under these circumstances, can you live in the country you now occupy? Your condition must become worse and worse, and you will ultimately disappear, as so many tribes have done before you...43

Therefore, to Jackson, the removal of Indians seemed to be the only answer. Since neither adequate protection nor quick assimi-lation of Indians was possible, it seemed almost indispensable to Jackson’s mind to move the Indians to a place where they would be safe from the states’ oppression and intrusion of whites. Jackson believed that in a remote area, Indians could develop at their own pace and either be a part of the Union in the future, or if they desired, preserve their own culture. In 1830, Jackson remarked, “[Removal] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; en-able them to pursue happiness in their own way...[and] retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers.”

The “Benevolent Policy”

In drafting the Indian removal policy, Jackson adopted what he believed to be liberal terms. In his speech on Indian removal, he referred to the Indian policy as “benevolent.”44

Devil theory historians have claimed that Jackson’s em-phasis on benevolence were mere empty words. Sheehan argued that it was an attempt to masquerade his sinister intentions under “the guise of goodwill.”45 Takaki wrote that Jackson emphasized benevolence in Indian affairs because he “recognized the need


to explain the nation’s conduct toward Indians, to give it moral meaning.”46

It is true that Indians suffered immensely in the removal process. Accounts of Reverend Daniel Sabine Butrick who ac-companied the Cherokees through the Trail of Tears illustrate the inhuman ways the soldiers treated the Indians:

From their first arrest [the Cherokees] were obliged to live very much like brute animals; and during their travels, were obliged at night to lie down on the naked ground, in the open air, exposed to wind and rain, and herd together, men women and children, like droves of hogs, and in this way, many are hastening to a premature grave.47

Yet many devil theorists fail either to realize or mention that Jack-son was not in office when the removal of Indians commenced. President Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s successor, ordered and oversaw the removal. Hence, although Jackson’s Indian policy was one based on benevolence, implementation of the policy did not proceed as he had envisioned.

Many of the ways in which the tribes were induced to sign treaties of removal were immoral. Despite Jackson’s emphasis on voluntarism, the treaty commissioners resorted to bribery and in-timidation to secure the Indians’ consent for removal. For example, after the main body of the Choctaw delegation had abandoned the deliberations in disgust, John H. Eaton dickered with a few remaining spokesmen, holding out “special reservations” of land in exchange for their support.48 In another occasion, the commis-sioners resorted to bribery when signing the New Echota Treaty with the Cherokees. A commissioner reported, “The policy of making prudent advances to the wealthy and intelligent, has gone far to remove opposition of the treaty among the influential.”49

Jackson’s Indian policy brought disastrous consequences to the Indians, but Jackson’s emphasis on benevolence was sincere. Had Jackson been disguising his thirst for land under suave rhetoric, there would have been inconsistencies between his public addresses and private writings. However, examination of his private correspondences shows that Jackson emphasized

234 EuNa Noh

compassion regarding the Indian removal in the private sphere as well. In 1829, he wrote in a letter:

You may rest assured that I shall adhere to the just and humane policy towards the Indians which I have commenced. In this spirit I have recommended them to go to a country to the west where there is every probability that they will always be free from the mercenary influence of White men, and undisturbed by the local authority of the states.50

Unlike the commissioners who frequently resorted to bribery, Jackson believed that candor was the best course in winning the Indians’ approval for removal. In his letter to John Dabney Terrell, a commissioner to the Chickasaw Indians, Jackson wrote:

And with [the Chickasaws], as with all Indians, the best plan will be to come out with candor—tell them, situated where they now are, that they will always be exposed to encroachment from the white people who will be constantly harassing their father the President for the privilege of occupation & possession &c...

He finished the letter by saying, “nothing will defeat a negotiation with Indians so soon as the discovery of an attempt to deceive them.”51

Conclusion

Due to the brutal ways in which it was enforced, the 1830 Indian Removal Act has brought Jackson scathing denunciation in recent years. Although it is tempting to dismiss Jackson’s In-dian policy as bigotry pure and simple, to do so is to miss his true intention, his reasons and the larger historical context. Any fair appraisal of Jackson’s Indian policy must take into consideration the genuine concern for the welfare of the Indians Jackson showed in his private writings and actions. Rather than a heartless Indian-hater bent on the destruction of the Indian people, as devil theo-rists suggest, Jackson was a man with the sincere conviction that his policy represented the best interests of all groups, the whites, the Indians, and the Union.


That even historians, academically-trained experts, have subjective views on events and figures of the past must be expected to some degree. However, to wholly dismiss the historical context that governed Jackson’s decision is not only premature, but per-haps also callous. After all, it is historians to whom we look during times of impediment for possible advice and answers. Yet if these very answers are interpretations beclouded by prejudice and as-sumptions, how are we to depend on their interpretation of the past to be the trusted ally and mentor of the present and future? Indeed, only through comprehensive and objective assessment can history be called a true testament of civilization—its complexities, victories, and mistakes alike.

236 EuNa Noh

1 Paul Finkelman and Bruce A. Lesh, Milestone Documents in American History Vol. 2, 1st ed., ed. Paul Finkelman and Bruce A. Lesh (Dallas: Schlager Group Inc., 2008), s.v. “Andrew Jackson: On Indian Removal”

2 Robert V. Remini, The Legacy of Andrew Jackson (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988) p. 81

3 Andrew Jackson, “1830 Annual Message to the Nation,” December 6, 1830, in Finkelman and Lesh, pp. 551-552

4 Francis Paul Prucha, “Andrew Jackson’s Indian Policy: A Reassessment,” The Journal of American History 56, no. 3 (December 1969) p. 527

5 Bernard W. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973) p. 274

6 Ronald T. Takaki, Iron Cages (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979) pp. 100, 103, 106, 107

7 Michael Paul Rogin, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian (New York: Knopf, 1975) pp. 13-14, 248

8 Prucha, “Andrew Jackson’s Indian Policy,” pp. 527-539 9 Remini, pp. 45-8210 Prucha, “Andrew Jackson’s Indian Policy,” p. 52911 Andrew Jackson, “To Willie Blount,” June 4, 1812, in The

Papers of Andrew Jackson ed. Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984) II, p. 300 (hereinafter cited as The Papers)

12 Andrew Jackson, “The Massacre at the Mouth of Duck River,” July 7, 1812, in The Papers II, p. 309

13 Andrew Jackson, “To Henry McKinney,” May 10, 1802, in The Papers, I, p. 295

14 Andrew Jackson, “To John Cocke,” December 28, 1813, in The Papers, II, p. 511

15 Ibid., p. 51116 John Spencer Bassett, The Life of Andrew Jackson

(Hamden: Archon Books, 1967) pp. 9-1017 John Reid and John Henry Eaton, The Life of Andrew

Jackson (University of Alabama Press, 1974) p. 1818 Andrew Jackson, “To the Officers of the 2nd Division”

April 20, 1808, in The Papers, II, p. 19019 Ibid., p. 19020 Jackson, “To Willie Blount,” p. 30021 Ronald E. Shaw, Andrew Jackson (New York: Oceana

Publications, Inc., 1969) p. 7


22 Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998) p. 272

23 James Parton, Life of Andrew Jackson 1 (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967) p. 439

24 Andrew Jackson, “Jackson to Rachel Jackson,” December 29, 1813, quoted in Johnson, p. 272

25 Rachel Jackson, “From Mrs. Jackson to Jackson,” March 21, 1814, in Correspondence of Andrew Jackson ed. John Spencer Bassett (Washington D.C.: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969) p. 482

26 Ibid., p. 48227 Parton, p. 43928 Finkelman and Lesh, p. 55129 Andrew Jackson, “To Willie Blount,” June 17, 1812, in

The Papers, II, p. 30530 Horace Greeley, “Letters from the Far West,” New York

Tribune (June, 1859) quoted in Parton, p. 40131 Finkelman and Lesh, p. 55132 Anthony F.C. Wallace, The Long, Bitter Trail (New York:

Hill and Wang, 1993) p. 7533 Richard P. Longaker, “Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary,”

Political Science Quarterly 71, no. 3 (September 1956) p. 34534 John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Cases, s.v. “Worcester

v. Georgia,” in LexisNexis, http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=b439f9553705f56b9a60aef7c01e0d12&_docnum=2&wchp=dGLbV1WzSkVk&_md5=d9cbbddc182adc9caaa9fc31d01a977e (accessed November 9, 2009)

35 Wallace, p. 7636 Walter Hart Blumenthal, American Indians Dispossessed

(Philadelphia: George S. MacManus Company, 1955) p. 7137 Wallace, p. 7638 Bassett, The Life of Andrew Jackson, p. 55439 Longaker, “Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary,” p. 34940 William Smith, “William Smith to D.E. Huger,” February

16, 1831, quoted in Longaker, p. 34841 Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962) pp. 215-21742 Andrew Jackson, “Jackson to John Coffee,” April 7, 1832,

quoted in Longaker, p. 34943 Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act Historynet.

com, 2001, <http://www.historynet.com/andrew-jackson-and-the-indian-removal-act.htm>

238 EuNa Noh

44 Finkelman and Lesh, p. 55145 Sheehan, p. 27446 Takaki, p. 10047 Daniel Sabine Butrick, “Excerpts from the Journal,” June

11 or 18, 1838, in Voices from The Trail of Tears Vicki Rozema (Winston-Salem: John F. Blair, 2003) p. 140

48 James C. Curtis, Andrew Jackson and the Search for Vindication (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, Inc., 1976) p. 107

49 Cong. Rec., 25th Cong., 2d sess., 1838, 120: 816, quoted in Blumenthal, p. 86

50 Andrew Jackson, “To James Gadsden,” October 12, 1829, in The Papers, VII, p. 491

51 Andrew Jackson, “To John Dabney Terrell,” July 29, 1826, in The Papers, VI, p. 192

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Butrick, Daniel Sabine, “Excerpts from the Journal,” Journal, June 11 or 18, 1838. In Voices from The Trail of Tears edited by Vicki Rozema, p. 140, Winston-Salem: John F. Blair, 2003

Greeley, Horace, “Letters from the Far West,” New York Tribune June 1859, quoted in James Parton, Life of Andrew Jackson New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967

Jackson, Andrew, “1830 Annual Message to the Nation,” Public Speech, December 6, 1830, in Milestone Documents in American History Vol. 2, edited by Paul Finkelman and Bruce A. Lesh, pp. 551-552, Dallas: Schlager Group Inc., 2008

Jackson, Andrew, “Jackson to Rachel Jackson,” Letter, December 29, 1813, quoted in Paul Johnson, A History of the American People New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998

Jackson, Andrew, “Jackson to John Coffee,” Letter, April 7, 1832, quoted in Richard P. Longaker, “Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary,” Political Science Quarterly 71, no. 3 (September 1956) pp. 341-364

Jackson, Andrew, “The Massacre at the Mouth of Duck River,” Newspaper Article, July 7, 1812, in The Papers of


Andrew Jackson II edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 309, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To Henry McKinney,” Letter, May 10, 1802, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson I, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 295, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To James Gadsden,” Letter, October 12, 1829, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson VII, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 491, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To John Cocke,” Letter, December 28, 1813, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson II, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 511, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To John Dabney Terrell,” Letter, July 29, 1826, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson VI, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 192, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To the Officers of the 2nd Division,” Letter, April 20, 1808, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson I, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 190, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To Willie Blount,” Letter, June 4, 1812, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson II, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 300, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Andrew, “To Willie Blount,” Letter, June 17, 1812, in The Papers of Andrew Jackson II, edited by Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson, p. 305, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984

Jackson, Rachel, “From Mrs. Jackson to Jackson,” Letter, March 21, 1814, in Correspondence of Andrew Jackson edited by John Spencer Bassett, p. 482, Washington D.C.: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969

LexisNexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=b439f9553705f56b9a60aef7c1e0d12&_docnum=2&wchp=dGLbV1W-zSkVk&_md5=d9cbbddc182adc9caaa9fc31d01a977e

Reid, John, and John Henry Eaton, The Life of Andrew Jackson University: University of Alabama Press, 1974

Smith, William, “William Smith to D.E. Huger,” Letter, February 16, 1831, quoted in Richard P. Longaker, “Andrew

240 EuNa Noh

Jackson and the Judiciary,” Political Science Quarterly 71, no. 3 (September 1956) pp. 341-364

U.S. Congress, Senate, 25th Cong., 2d sess., 1838, No. 120, quoted in Walter Hart Blumenthal, American Indians Dispossessed Philadelphia: George S. MacManus Company, 1955

Secondary Sources

Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act Historynet.com, 2001 <http://www.historynet.com/andrew-jackson-and-the-indian-removal-act.htm>

Bassett, John Spencer, Correspondence of Andrew Jackson Washington D.C.: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969

Bassett, John Spencer, The Life of Andrew Jackson Hamden: Archon Books, 1967

Blumenthal, Walter Hart, American Indians Dispossessed Philadelphia: George S. MacManus Company, 1955

Curtis, James C., Andrew Jackson and the Search for Vindication Boston: Little, Brown and Company Inc., 1976

Johnson, Paul, A History of the American People New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998

Longaker, Richard P., “Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary,” Political Science Quarterly 71, no. 3 (September 1956) pp. 341-364

Parton, James, Life of Andrew Jackson New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967

Prucha, Francis Paul, American Indian Policy Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962

Prucha, Francis Paul, “Andrew Jackson’s Indian Policy: A Reassessment,” The Journal of American History 56, no. 3 (December 1969) pp. 527-539

Remini, Robert V., The Legacy of Andrew Jackson Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988

Rogin, Michael Paul, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian New York: Knopf, 1975

Satz, Ronald N., “Rhetoric Versus Reality,” in Cherokee Removal edited by William L. Anderson, pp. 29-54, London: The University of Georgia Press, 1991


Shaw, Ronald E., Andrew Jackson New York: Oceana, Publications Inc., 1969

Sheehan, Bernard W., Seeds of Extinction Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973

Takaki, Ronald T., Iron Cages New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979

Wallace, Anthony F.C., The Long, Bitter Trail New York: Hill and Wang, 1993

EPrize_ZLast a. Jackson Su10

Documents

john dabney terrell

private correspondences shows

north carolina press

johnson reprint corp

american history vol

jacksons indian policy

john henry eaton

harvard university press