the United States was growing, these people felt that the customs and ways of living of the Native Americans slowed the growth of the United States. They felt that building factories, expanding farming, and constructing new roads and railroads would be a better use of the land. These people also believed that the white ways of living were superior to the Native American ways of living.

Other people felt it was wrong to remove the Native Americans. In some cases, it was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee tribe couldn’t be forced off of their land. Yet, President Andrew Jackson ignored that decision. There were people who felt this was morally wrong. Other people believed it wasn’t right to take away somebody’s land because they felt they could use and develop it better.

There were arguments for and against the removal of Native Americans from the lands on which they lived.

By seeking Indian removal, the United States was contradicting its own values and was also going against treaties that allowed Indians to own land. Earlier agreements were being neglected by the settlers and the act.

The colonists attempted to convert the natives and actively criticized their way of life. The approach by the colonists was distasteful and disrespectful. Indian resistance was met by forced removal from their land.

The colonists did not consider that the land was their ancestral land and parts of it held significant cultural, social, and even religious symbolism for the natives.

The natives were also being forced to build new settlements afresh, and the progress that they had made over the years was being undone.

Those supporting removal suggested that removing the Indians and forcing them to settle elsewhere would help them maintain their heritage.

Removal would also help them return their population to earlier numbers.

Relocation of the natives was also aimed at reducing conflicts with the settlers.

Some of the settlers also believed that they had a chance of putting the land to better use by producing cash crops for commerce.

Although we typically think that the US was overwhelmingly in favor of Indian removal, this is not necessarily true.  In fact, the vote in Congress was very close.  The Senate passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by 28 to 19 while the House vote was much closer, with the act passing by 102 to 97.

The arguments for Indian removal rested on two main grounds.  First, they argued that the white Americans (and their black slaves) needed the land and could make better use of it.  They argued that Americans could make the land more economically productive than the Indians had been able to.  Second, the proponents argued from the idea of white superiority.  They argued that the Indians were inferior and that it was not necessary to treat them fairly.

The opponents of Indian removal disagreed with each of these at least in part.  They did not deny that whites would make better use of the land than Indians.  However, they felt the Indians should be taught “civilization.”  They pointed to the Cherokee as proof that this was possible.  The Cherokee had become largely sedentary and agrarian and had developed a written language and a constitution.  Thus, they said, Indians should be civilized, not removed.  Second, they argued that the US was morally required to live up to agreements it had signed.  It could not morally tear up treaties that it had signed just because it was stronger than the people with whom it had made those treaties. 

President Andrew Jackson's personal background, military career, political considerations, and assertive character all shaped his view of Native Americans. Moreover, he was—like most white Americans—racist in his attitude toward Indians.

Jackson's personal experience on America's frontier helped shape his hostile view of Indians. On the frontier, the Indians were viewed as a perpetual menace. They also occupied land that settlers wanted to develop, so the Indians stood in the way of progress.

As a distinguished battlefield commander, Jackson won some of his most impressive victories against the Indians. He annihilated the Creeks at the battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. His triumphal experience on the battlefield contributed to his view of Indians as vanquished enemies.

As a president, Jackson's support was strongest in the west, and frontiersmen were belligerent to the Indians. Southeastern states were determined to deny Indians their rights and move them west of the Mississippi River. The Cherokee tribe challenged Georgia in court; Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the Indians in a 1831 Supreme Court decision.

Jackson viewed Marshall's ruling as a personal affront and ignored it. Although the Seminoles resisted in Florida for many years, the Indian tribes were doomed as they were forced to relocate west of the Mississippi on the Trail of Tears.

Jackson claimed that Indian Removal would be good for the Native-American tribes, but, in reality, the policy was designed purely for the benefit of white settlers. Many of these settlers came from Southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi, which just two years before had overwhelmingly endorsed Jackson in his presidential election victory. In some ways, the policy of Indian Removal was part of the so-called spoils system whereby Jackson sought to reward his loyal supporters.

At the same time, Jackson could try and justify Indian Removal on ideological grounds, although he would never have used such an expression. Jacksonian democracy was predicated on the existence of a large body of stout, reliable small farmers and landholders. Opening up tribal lands for their cultivation and control would help to strengthen and consolidate the Jacksonian ideal.

Jackson attempted to sugar the pill for Native Americans by promising them compensation for their land. In reality, however, such compensation wasn't always paid in full, and, in any case, proved woefully inadequate even when it was. Indian Removal was supposed to allow tribes to govern themselves peacefully. In actual fact, it led to large numbers of Native Americans being herded onto unproductive land far away from their ancestral homes. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 caused incalculable damage to Native American culture and heritage and led directly to the appalling man-made tragedy of the Trail of Tears.

President Andrew Jackson justified Indian removal by pointing out the benefits that would result for both parties. In his speech on Indian removal, Jackson pointed to the urgent need of freeing up more land for development purposes. He believed the Indians were incapable of pursuing or achieving the same progressive agenda as the white settlers. Thus, it was imperative for the Indians to cede their lands to pave way for progress and development of the States. By removing the Indians, the whites would have access to more land for economic expansion and settlement.

Jackson argued that removal of the Indians would benefit them because they would be allowed to govern themselves under their native laws. He affirmed that American laws would present serious challenges to the Indian system. In addition, Indians would also get an opportunity to conserve their culture and tradition far from white interference. The Jackson administration also offered the Indians protection and financial assistance in their new settlements.

I beg of you to say to them, that their interest happiness peace & prosperity depends upon their removal beyond the jurisdiction of the laws of the State of Mississippi. - Andrew Jackson to John Pitchlynn