Reistance to Indain Removal and Assimilation
The policy of Indian Removal has been in existence since settlers first came to American lands. Though always in effect, widespread removal did not become such a strong policy until lands in the South and the West began to be seen as valuable. ... Resistance to their removal is seen in the many wars between tribes and the government throughout the 19th century. ... While manifest Destiny grew, Removal became less of an issue because settlers were filling all available fertile lands . There were no longer any sufficient place to remove the Indians, and assimilation of the Indian into White society became the main objective. The Assimilation policy involving the Natives took place after the Removal process was over, it involved teaching the Indians ways in which to survive in the white culture with the primary focus being the idea of private ownership. ... Whether through Removal or Assimilation, the government was concentrated and had the power to bring down all resistant measures of the Native people. Resistance by the Native was always at a dead holt because as soon as one policy , such as Removal, was carried out, another, that of Assimilation, was followed to ensure the deprivation of the Indian and all he had stood for. ... Removal was in constant effect through the 18th and 19th centuries due to the growing number of settlers and land seekers. The practice of Indian Removal became the most popular form of solving the Indian problem while lands still existed that were not seen as valuable to the Whites. ... However, after Removal to an area the government would not uphold their negotiations if the land was discovered to be useful, the Indians would be forced out once again. ... The policy of Removal became the leading policy when land disputes came to a head between the tribes and the settlers. ... In this time period the policy of Removal came strongly into effect, primarily under the Jackson presidency. ... Without a leader and with a growing military presence Seminoles were forced to sign the treaty of their removal. ... This form of Removal, the government constantly construing events for their benefit, became the norm and it was justified by the government through manipulation. ... However, it is never mentioned that the Indians were resisting so strongly to removal and that the government was hastily putting down revolts. Explaining the governments way of manipulating the situation of Indian resistance to removal Churchill states, “ Given this, Indians were could be legally construed as committing aggression whenever they resisted invasion by the United States, a matter which rendered literally any military action the U. ... Although Removal was an important policy, especially in the Jacksonian era, Assimilation began to gain widespread popularity when it was clear that Removal would not benefit America any longer. Indeed Assimilation was considered an alternative and in some ways a form of resistance to the act of Removal but if it was a form of Resistance it was not that of Indian Resistance. The government proclaimed Assimilation as “helping” the Indian when in fact it deprived them of the only thing they had left after Removal, their culture and pride. ... it became apparent that the Natives did not have many places to move and settle , Assimilation into society became the dominant force. After Removal policies the Era of Assimilation ultimately proved to have the goal of eradicating the Native Americans ways of life and most specifically their land. Assimilation was centered on teaching the Indian to become sufficient farmers in land that was foreign to them and also taught the idea of private ownership of land. Assimilation was determined to be an alternative process in which Indians would be able to co-exist with the obvious dominant White culture. ... It proved to not be a reformed movement but a last alternative when Removal no longer proved to be an adequate policy since lands were in constant demand. Assimilation thus began after Removal was over, and resistance to this policy also ensued among the Natives. ... Removal of Indians was an important aspect of dealing with the problem of increased population but education began to be seen as a better measure; a more humane way of dealing with the Natives. ... This very aspect is indeed what was aimed at; the de-rooting of Indian culture in order to making Assimilation into White society more appealing.