Andrew Jackson “On Indian Removal”, 1830

Grade Levels: Middle School, High School
Subject Areas: Social Studies, U.S. History
Connection to Re-Imagining Migration Learning Arc: Awareness, Analysis, Adjustment

---

A Note to Educators

The primary source below includes stereotypes and racist language to describe American Indians. We have not edited the document, to help readers better understand the language of the period and analyze how such language was used to justify policy.

This document requires careful framing. Jackson’s message is not simply a historical curiosity—it articulates the logic behind the forced displacement of tens of thousands of Indigenous people from their ancestral homelands, a policy that resulted in profound suffering and death. The term “removal” is itself a euphemism for what scholars have described as ethnic cleansing.

When teaching this document, center Indigenous perspectives and sovereignty. Consider pairing Jackson’s words with primary sources from Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole nations—the peoples most directly targeted by this policy—to ensure students encounter Indigenous voices, not just the words of those who sought their dispossession.

---

Historical Context

In 1830, President Andrew Jackson addressed Congress to celebrate the progress of his administration’s Indian Removal policy. The Indian Removal Act, passed that same year, authorized the president to negotiate “removal treaties” with Indigenous nations in the southeastern United States, exchanging their homelands for territory west of the Mississippi River.

Jackson framed removal as benevolent—a policy designed to protect Indigenous peoples from the encroachment of white settlers and the authority of state governments. In reality, removal was driven by white Americans’ desire for Indigenous lands, particularly the fertile cotton-growing territory of the Deep South.

The policy resulted in the forced displacement of approximately 60,000 Indigenous people during the 1830s. The Cherokee removal of 1838—known as the Trail of Tears—resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 people. Similar forced marches devastated the Muscogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole nations.

Indigenous nations did not accept removal passively. They resisted through legal challenges (the Cherokee Nation took their case to the Supreme Court), diplomatic negotiations, and armed resistance (the Seminole Wars). Their resistance, and their survival, is as much a part of this history as the policies designed to destroy them.

---

Primary Source

Excerpt from President Andrew Jackson’s Second Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1830

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government‚ steadily pursued for nearly thirty years‚ in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress‚ and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States‚ to individual States‚ and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy‚ and enable those States to advance rapidly in population‚ wealth‚ and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay‚ which is lessening their numbers‚ and perhaps cause them gradually‚ under 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.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic‚ studded with cities‚ towns‚ and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute‚ occupied by more than 12‚000‚000 happy people‚ and filled with all the blessings of liberty‚ civilization and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward‚ and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange‚ and‚ at the expense of the United States‚ to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.

Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything‚ animate and inanimate‚ with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind‚ developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense‚ purchase the lands they occupy‚ and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when‚ by events which it cannot control‚ the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands‚ to give him a new and extensive territory‚ to pay the expense of his removal‚ and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them‚ they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled‚ civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered‚ the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal‚ but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative‚ or perhaps utter annihilation‚ the General Government kindly offers him a new home‚ and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

Source: President Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1830. Available via the Avalon Project, Yale Law School: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jackson2.asp

---

Reflection Questions

Awareness: Understanding the Document and Its Context

1. Jackson describes the removal policy as “benevolent” and “generous.” What specific benefits does he claim removal will provide to Indigenous peoples? What benefits does he identify for white Americans and the U.S. government?
2. Jackson uses particular words to describe Indigenous peoples and their ways of life. Identify at least five words or phrases he uses. What assumptions about Indigenous peoples do these word choices reveal?
3. Jackson claims that Indigenous peoples “have melted away to make room for the whites” in the eastern states. What does this passive language obscure? Who is responsible for what happened, and how does Jackson’s language hide that responsibility?
4. Jackson compares Indigenous removal to the voluntary migration of white American settlers moving westward. What are the key differences between forced removal and voluntary migration that Jackson’s comparison ignores?

Analysis: Examining Power, Perspective, and Purpose

5. Who benefits? Jackson lists many groups who will benefit from removal. Create a chart showing who gains what from this policy as Jackson describes it. Then consider: whose interests are actually being served? Whose interests are being harmed?
6. Whose voices are missing? This document presents Jackson’s perspective—the perspective of the U.S. government. What questions would you want to ask members of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, or Seminole nations about this policy? What might they say in response to Jackson’s claims?
7. What is the relationship between language and power? Jackson uses words like “benevolent,” “generous,” “kindly,” and “protection” to describe a policy of forced displacement. Why might he choose this language? What work is this language doing? How does framing matter?
8. Jackson acknowledges that “it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers” but dismisses this pain by comparing it to the experience of white settlers. What does this comparison reveal about how Jackson views Indigenous peoples’ connections to their ancestral lands? What does it fail to understand about Indigenous relationships to place?
9. Jackson presents Indigenous peoples as having a choice: submit to state laws, face “utter annihilation,” or accept removal. How does framing removal as the best of bad options obscure who created those limited options in the first place?
10. The Indian Removal Act was debated in Congress, and there was opposition to the policy. Why do you think Jackson emphasizes that removal is “benevolent” rather than simply arguing it serves American interests? Who might he be trying to persuade, and why might moral framing be important to that persuasion?

Adjustment: Connecting Past and Present

11. Jackson’s speech uses what scholars call the “rhetoric of benevolence”—framing harmful policies as being for the good of those being harmed. Can you think of other historical or contemporary examples where harmful policies have been justified using similar language? What patterns do you notice?
12. Jackson treats Indigenous nations as obstacles to American progress rather than as sovereign peoples with their own governments, cultures, and rights. How did this framing make removal seem acceptable to white Americans? How do similar patterns of dehumanization operate today?
13. Indigenous peoples did not simply accept removal—they resisted through legal action, diplomacy, and armed resistance, and they survived. Why is it important to learn about Indigenous resistance and survival alongside documents like Jackson’s speech? What is lost if we only study the perspectives of those in power?
14. Jackson’s language—”savage,” “rude institutions,” “uncivilized”—reflected widespread beliefs of his time. How do you think these beliefs shaped policy? How might different beliefs have led to different policies?
15. Today, Indigenous nations continue to assert sovereignty, protect their lands, and revitalize their cultures and languages. How does understanding the history of removal help you understand contemporary Indigenous activism and advocacy?

Taking Action: Using Voice and Influence

16. If you were going to teach someone about Indian Removal who had never heard of it, what would you want them to understand? What sources would you want them to encounter beyond Jackson’s speech?
17. The National Museum of the American Indian and other Indigenous-led institutions have developed resources for teaching this history accurately and respectfully. Why might it matter who creates educational resources about Indigenous history? What perspectives might Indigenous educators bring that others might miss?
18. Many places in the United States bear names connected to Indigenous peoples or to the history of removal. What responsibility, if any, do communities have to acknowledge this history? What forms might that acknowledgment take?

---

Extending the Inquiry

Indigenous Perspectives:

Pair Jackson’s message with primary sources that center Indigenous voices:

• Chief John Ross’s letters protesting Cherokee removal
• Memorial of the Cherokee Nation to the United States Congress (1830)
• Oral histories and accounts from descendants of removal survivors
• The Cherokee Nation’s own historical resources: https://www.cherokee.org/about-the-nation/history/trail-of-tears/

Legal and Constitutional Dimensions:

• Research Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). What did the Supreme Court rule? How did Jackson respond? What does this reveal about the limits of legal protection for Indigenous rights?

The Language of Removal:

• Analyze how the word “removal” functions as a euphemism. What other terms might more accurately describe this policy? Why might the government have chosen the word “removal”?

Connections to Migration:

• Jackson compares Indigenous removal to white American migration. Research the actual conditions of the Trail of Tears. How does the reality compare to Jackson’s description of voluntary westward migration?

Contemporary Relevance:

• Research how Indigenous nations today are working to preserve languages, protect sacred sites, and exercise sovereignty. How do these efforts connect to the history of removal and survival?

---

Resources for Further Learning

• National Museum of the American Indian, Native Knowledge 360°: https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360
• Cherokee Nation History: https://www.cherokee.org/about-the-nation/history/
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation History: https://www.mcn-nsn.gov/culture-history/
• Claudio Saunt, Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory (2020)
• Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States (2014)