The Removal of Indians & The Bank War APUSH

What were the whites' attitudes toward Native American tribes? How did they contribution to the decision in favor of their removal westward?

The whites' attitudes toward Native American tribes during the time was that Natives were pure savages, not only uncivilized but also uncivilizable. This outlook had changed greatly since the eighteenth century, were most white Americans saw Indians as "noble savages"; peoples without real civilization but with a dignity that made civilizing them possible. These views contributed to the decision in favor of removal westward because it brought up another reason for their removal: the belief that whites should not be expected to live in close proximity to the "savage" Indians, and that the Indian cultures and societies were unworthy of respect. These views helped provide as an exterior motive and cover up for the true motive of trying to gain valuable Indian land.

What was the program (inherited by Jackson) designed to deal with the Indians who lived east of the Mississippi? What happened when this program was applied to the Cherokee in Georgia?

The program that Jackson created to deal with the Indians who lived east of the Mississippi was the Removal Act, which appropriated money to finance federal negotiations with the southern tribes aimed at moving them to the West. The president quickly dispatched federal officials to negotiate nearly a hundred new treaties with the remaining tribes, and thus, the southern tribes faced pressure form both the state and federal governments. Most tribes were too weak to resist, and ceded their lands for very small payments, but on the other hand, some resisted. When this program was tried with the Cherokees in Georgia, the Cherokees appealed to the Supreme Court. Marshall ruled that the states could not deal with the Indians and force them to move (Worcester v. Georgia). In 1835, the federal government extracted a treaty form a minority faction of the Cherokees, whom none of which were representatives of a Cherokee Nation. The treaty ceded the tribe's land to Georgia in return for $5 million and a reservation west of the Mississippi. The great majority of the 17,000 Cherokees didn't recognize the treaty and refused to leave, but Jackson responded by sending an army of 7,000 under General Winfield Scott to round up the Natives and rive them westward at bayonet point.

Explain the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the Indian tribes and Jackson's response.

Marshall invalidated the Georgia laws and claimed only the Federal government could regulate US citizen access He explained that the tribes were sovereign entities in much the same way Georgia was a sovereign entity, saying that Indian Nations were "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive". Jackson responded with contempt, stating, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". The decision was not enforced, and Jackson went on to negotiate an illegitimate treaty with the Cherokees and forcibly remove them when the refused to leave

How did Jackson's action in the matter of the Cherokee removal correspond to his views on the role of the president and on the issue of states' rights?

Jackson's actions in the matter of the Cherokee removal showed that his vies were that the President should be able to use force when he deemed acceptable. It showed that he thought states should be able to deal with Native Americans, but that he, under the federal governmental, could raise an army to deal with the Indians without any approval from Congress or the states. This situation helped to show Jackson's views that the federal government should have strong, overall power, but that states governments should be able to deal with natives.

How were Jackson's views concerning the Indians "little different" from those of most white Americans? What was the meaning of "removal?"

Jackson's views concerning the Indians were similar to most white Americans, who all saw the Natives as savages that needed to be moved west, and that removal was helping the Indians go "beyond the reach of injury or oppression". The meaning of "removal" was that by the end of the 1830s all the important Indians societies had been removed to the West. The tribes had ceded over 100 million acres of eastern land to the federal government, and had only received about $68 million and 32 million acres of land that was virtually inhospitable between Missouri and Red Rivers. The Indians dwelled there into a series of carefully defined reservations, in a territory surrounded by a string of US forts to keep them in (and whites out) in a region whose climate and topography bore little relation to anything they had know before.

Why was the outcome of the Seminole War different from that of the Trail of Tears?

The outcome of the Seminole War was different than the outcome of the Trail of Tears because the Seminoles fought back militarily and some succeeded in staying in Florida. Although Osceola, the leader, had been treacherously captured by white troops while under a flag of truce (and later died in prison), his followers succeeded in dragging on the successful guerrilla warfare in the jungly Everglades, which they were masters at with their African-American associates. The Indians survived a systematic campaign of extermination against them and their black allies, and killed over 1,500 white soldiers, costing the federal government $20 million. On the other side, in the Trail of Tears, no Cherokees remained in Georgia, no successful resistance was mounted, and there were no good sides for the Indians.

What were some of the alternatives to Indian removal?

Some alternatives to Indian removal were to leave in peace with shared land. Examples of this could be found in the pueblos of New Mexico, the fur trading posts of the Pacific Northwest, and in parts of Texas and California. During the famous Lewis and Clark expedition, white explorers had lived with western Indians on terms of intimacy that many of them contracted veneral disease form Indian sexual partners. Some of these close contacts were beneficial to both sides, and sometimes they were cruel and exploitive. However, by the mid-nineteenth century, white Americans thought that natives needed to be moved in order for westward expansion, and that Native Americans could not be partners. As a result of this attitude, no alternative to removal was realistic during this time period.

What is the difference between the views of "hard-money" followers and "soft-money" advocates? President Jackson allied himself with which group? Why?

Hard-money followers believed that gold and silver were the only basis for money, and they condemned all banks that issued bank notes, including the bank of the United States. Advocates of soft money wanted more currency in circulation and believed that issuing bank notes unsupported by gold and silver was the best way to circulate more currency. These advocates consisted largely of sate bankers and their allies, and objected to the Bank of the US because it restrained the state banks form issuing notes freely. The soft-money advocates were believers in rapid economic growth and speculation while the hard-money forces embraced older ideas of "public virtue" and looked with suspicion on expansion and speculation. Although both were different, they both shared the view of being against the Bank of the United States. Jackson supported the hard-money position because he had been involved in some grandiose land and commercial speculation based on paper credit, but his business failed, and he fell deeply it debt as a result of the Panic of 1797. As a result, he was suspicious of all banks and all paper currency.

What was Jackson's opinion on the Bank of the United States? On what did he base his views? What other factors contributed to his stand?

Jackson did not favor renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States, mostly because of his personal experience with the Panic of 1797, but also because he wanted the political support of the growing number of people who opposed the bank, both hard and soft money advocates. As a result, Jackson won the issue of the bank war, which allowed him to overwhelming defeat Clay in the next presidential election.

What roles did Daniel Webster and Henry Clay play in the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States?

Both Daniel Webster and Henry Clay helped to defend the Second Bank of the United States. Webster was recruited by Biddle, and named the Bank's legal counsel and director of its Boston brand; Webster was also a frequent, heavy borrower form the Bank. He in turn helped Biddle win the support of other important figures, including Henry Clay. Clay Webster, and other advisers persuaded Biddle to apply to Congress in 18323 for a bill to renew the Bank's charter, four years ahead of the date the original charter was scheduled to expire. This forced the bank to be a major issue in the 1832 national election. Congress passed the recharter bill, and Jackson predictably vetoed it. The Bank's supporters failed to override the veto, and the voters voted with Jackson in the 1832 election, showing popular opinion favored destroying the bank.

How did Jackson respond to the efforts to re-charter the Second BUS? What reasons did he give for his action?

Jackson responded to the efforts to re-charter the Second BUS by vetoing the bill. In addition, once he was reelected, he worked to destroy the bank by weakening int. He removed the government's deposits form the bank, and after firing two secretary of treasuries for not complying, eh hired Attorney General Roger B. Taney, who placed the deposits in a number of state banks. He did this in order to destroy the bank by weakening it because he could not legally abolish it.

How did the supporters of the Bank respond to Jackson's action? What did Biddle do? What were the results?

Biddle responded by blasting Jackson, and calling in loans and raising interest rates to make up for the loss of the government deposits. He realized his actions would cause financial distress, and hoped a short recession would persuade Congress to recharter the Bank. He figured that "nothing but the evidence of suffering would produce any effects in Congress", and by now, the struggle had become not just a conflict over policy but a bitter and even petulant personal battle between two proud men acting recklessly to humiliate and defeat the other. Financial conditions worsened in the winter of 1833-1834, and supporters of the Bank blamed Jacksons' policies for the reception. They organized meetings around the country and sent petitions to Washington urging a rechartering of the Bank but the Jacksonians responded by blaming the recession on Biddle and refused to budge. Finally, Biddle contracted credit too far even for his won allies, and a group of New York and Boston merchants protests that the business community ought not and would not sustain him in further pressure. To appease the business community, Biddle at last reversed himself and began to grant credit in abundance and on reasonable terms. His unpopular tactics ended his chances of rechartering the bank. Jackson was victorious and the second BUS died in 1836, which resulted in a fragmented and chronically unstable banking system that would plague the economy for more than a century.

How did the Supreme Court under Roger B. Taney differ from the court under John Marshall? What groups profited from Taney's decisions?

The Supreme Court, under Taney, differed from the court under John Marshall because he reversed many of the policies of Marshall, and in the Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge case in 1837; Taney ruled that the new company that wanted to build the bridge could. Taney claimed that the main object of government was to promote the general happiness, and object that took precedence over the rights of contract and property. In this sense, a state had the right to amend or abrogate a contract if such action was necessary to advance the well being of the community. State companies and newly rising entrepreneurs benefited form this decision, because combated any monopoly, for a judge could rule that a monopoly detracted form the general happiness of a community. The decision reflected one of the cornerstones of the Jacksonian ideal: that the key to democracy was an expansion of economic opportunity, which would not occur if older corporation could maintain monopolies and choke off competition from newer companies.