Research Paper Select a person, event, or thing who lived or that happened somet
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
Select a person, event, or thing who lived or that happened sometime between 1800 and 1865 and write an essay about how whatever you selected impacted the U.S. between 1800 and 1865.
Your paper should:
– Be 3 to 5 pages in length, double-spaced, in 12 point font Times New Roman, and have one inch margins.
– Have at least three well-developed and different examples of how whatever you selected impacted the U.S. between 1800 and 1865. These impacts can be big and/or small; these impacts can be positive and/or negative. Pick a topic that gives you the ability to cover three impacts, changes, developments stemming from that topic.
– Have an introduction that includes a thesis.
– Have a conclusion.
– Incorporate one primary source from For the Record, information from the textbook and/or lecture, and at least one outside resource. Outside resources can be books, articles, and websites (just as long as the website is a .gov, .org, .edu website). Wikipedia, although a .org, is not allowed. If primary sources in For the Record do not work for your paper topic, you may use a primary source that you find on your own. This would also be counted as an outside resource.
– Have in-text citations and a works cited page (your works cited page does not count towards the 3 to 5 page limit).
Topic will be “The Indian Removal Act” that led to the Trail of Tears and how that impacted the US. Good or negative. I say more negative because it showed how greedy Americans were during that time for more land and the gold.
I’ve included at the end some of what I already wrote on the subject from a prompt I had earlier. You can include any that’s directly related to the Indian Removal Act. I will include in an attachment photos of the sources with page numbers that I want to use that is referenced in what I was writing about. Both sources from “For the Record” relate to what I was writing about and relate to the Indian Removal act as to what happened after it was passed. I will also include an attachment that will have the information from “America” source that is related to the Indian Removal Act.
Include in citations these 2 sources- As stated above information must be from these sources and can be 1 other outside source that you use. I will upload photos of the pages that will be a reference to these 2 sources in case you can not access the information another way.
* For the Record, A Documentary History of America by David Emory Shi and Holly A. Mayer
*America, The Essential Learning Edition, Second Edition by David Emory Shi
If you need any other information just let me know.
This week in For the Record we have two sources discussing policies toward Native Americans. The first, “City of Washington…Indians,” is from Frances Trollope (For the Record, p. 262-265). The second, “The Chief’s Annual Message,” was written by Cherokee Principal Chief John Ross, who served in that position from 1828-1866 (For the Record, p. 265-269).
What are some of the specific federal policies and actions reported in the two accounts? What did Trollope and Ross anticipate would be the future of Native Americans in the United States? These two individuals come from very different backgrounds. In what ways are those differences evident in the two sources?
Frances Trollope mentions the “oppressive acts of the Indians great father” in the source “City of Washington… Indians” (For the Record, p.262-265). Trollope goes on to say she was in Washington when Congress and the president signed into law an Act that would “chase the last of several tribes of Indians from their forest homes” (Shi and Mayer, p.264) in which she is referring to the “Indian Removal Act passed in May 1830” (Shi, p.338). Georgia and the American government wanted the Indian land because of its rich resources and gold. They also feared the “Indians to be a threat to state and national security” (Shi and Mayer, p 265). Laws and treaties were in place that was supposed to protect the Indians and their rights to their land. When Andrew Jackson first became president, he vowed to protect the Cherokees and if needed would send in troops if “an interference happened to the extent of affording protection. Federal troops were sent in when Georgia was interfering with the Cherokees. Unfortunately, greed for the gold mines ended the protection and Jackson ordered the troops back out. The Indians tried to lawfully go through the courts to stop Georgia, but they were first “denied the injunction on the grounds the Cherokee Nation was not a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution” (Shi and Mayer, p. 268). But by majority the courts ruled that the Cherokees lands were a separate stand alone state and could take a case to Supreme court. The Cherokees did take their case to supreme court and won and it was ruled “that the Cherokees had an unquestionable right to their lands until title should be extinguished by voluntary cession to the U.S.” (Shi, p. 340). The president had joined in with the governor of Georgia in trying to push the Indians West and sent in “agents for the purpose of urging our Citizens to enroll their names for emigration west of the Mississippi” (Shi and Mayer, p. 268). By this time Ross knew if they couldn’t get the U.S. government to see they had rights and were of no threat to the Nation that they were in trouble of being forced off their lands. Because of the Indian Removal Act, both Trollope and Ross felt the way of life as the Indians knew it would be ruined. As Ross stated, “by a removal West of the Mississippi, too barren and inhospitable region, we can flatter ourselves with no other prospect then the degradation, dispersion, and ultimate extinction of our race” (Shi and Mayer, p. 269).
Trollope and Ross with all their differences actually did have one thing in common and that was having scorn towards the Americans for what they were doing to the Indian. Both felt the American people and its government were being unjust in not honoring the treaties and laws set by the Constitution when it applied to the Indian lands. But they had different reasons as to why they felt the way they did and it’s evident in their difference why they would feel this way. Frances Trollope came to America to make her fortunes and failed which caused her scorn towards America. She ended up traveling more of U.S. and then wrote “Domestic Manners of the Americans which had biting critiques” (Shi and Mayer, p.262). This would have influenced her to include her take on what she felt the Americans were doing to the Indians. It is also evident in her account of what was happening to the Indians that even though she could see the Indian “are capable of civilization” and that she felt they could assimilate to survive but still felt she was sophisticated and civilized then the Indians. I do wonder if she had run into her fortunes in America then would her opinion have been different. John Ross’s scorn had more to do with how his people were being treated. The Cherokee’s did assimilate to an extent and even “adopted a constitutional government that had a similar constitution which established a chief executive, a bicameral legislature, and a judiciary” (Shi and Mayer, p. 265). They set themselves up as a separate nation in the U.S, and just wanted the U.S. to uphold their promise to protect their rights as a Nation. I would also say one of the biggest differences between the two would not just be their cultural background that was different but race. Trollope had the freedom to travel as she pleased and had no fear of her rights being trampled on where as Ross knew if he couldn’t get the white man and their government to see they also had rights under the treaties and laws that were established to protect them then Ross was in fear of their “ultimate extinction” (Shi and Mayer, p. 269).
Strong response! It was clear that you understood that these two sources referred to the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and that both creators didn’t have much hope for indigenous people’s futures. However, Ross did make the case that if they weren’t removed that his people would thrive (“by suitable encouragement and proper culture of the arts and sciences would soon flourish in every section of our Nation”). Ross had some hope because he and the Cherokee people had begun to take their case to the Supreme Court. At the bottom of 267 going into 268, Ross was referring to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. While this case didn’t resolve much for Ross’ people, Ross did state that many of the justices acknowledged that the Cherokee nation was indeed a distinct political society “capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself” (Shi & Mayer 268). The case that took place after Ross wrote this, Worcester v. Georgia, would state that the Cherokee people did have an uncontested right to their land and that Georgia could not make any laws impacting their nation. In Ross’ mind if the executive branch fell in line with the judicial branch of government in support of Cherokee rights, then there was hope for a bright future. However, the executive branch seemed to be in line with the legislative branch (which had passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830) when Ross stated that the military left Cherokee land “without affording that protection which we had a right to expect” (Shi & Mayer 266). The possibility that Jackson wouldn’t abide by Supreme Court rulings is what led to Ross to speculate the future for his people would be fairly dismal.
Just something the teacher wrote
Jackson’s advocacy for non-elites did not extend to slaves or Native Americans. He was a slave owner and, as you will see in your America and For the Record readings, supported the removal of Indians from their traditional lands. In the case of the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee were forced to relocate from parts of Georgia and North Carolina to present-day Oklahoma in spite of a Supreme Court ruling that said the forced relocation was unconstitutional. Jackson simply chose to ignore the court.
Just a reference that may or not be useful: