Chat with us, powered by LiveChat James Kent Discussion Post | Refine papers
  

1. Some Americans in the early decades of the nineteenth century argued for greater democratic participation in the political system, while others argued that too much democracy was dangerous. Which side did James Kent support? Does Kent agree with New York’s proposal for universal suffrage, i.e., the universal right to vote (at least for men) in both house of the state legislature (the assembly and the senate)? Why, or why not? Explain your answer clearly, in your own words. Avoid using quotes unless absolutely necessary.

2. Thomas Jefferson, in his Secret Message to Congress on Indian Policy (which you read in Week 8), proposed a system of cooperation between the United States and Native Americans, arguing that Indians could be induced to sell their land by encouraging them to take up farming instead of hunting. In doing this, Jefferson was trying make Native Americans a part of his Republican vision for America, which he hoped would be a land of independent, land-owning farmers. He basically wanted to the Indians to voluntarily give up their traditional lifestyles, and live like American farmers.

Based on your reading of the Andrew Jackson and John Ross documents, how successful had Jefferson’s plan for changing Indian lifestyles, and for peaceful coexistence between white Americans and Native Americans, been in the decades between the Louisiana Purchase and 1830? Make sure that you consider BOTH the Jackson and Ross documents in your answer.

Use only these two documents in your answer. Any use of outside sources risks a failing grade.

PLEASE. DO NOT USE OUTSIDE SOURCES. ONLY THE SOURCES ATTACHED. I WILL
FAIL IF YOU DO SO.
EACH QUESTION ON A SEPRATE PAGE
DO NOT QUOTE SOURCES UNLESS NECESSARY–NO WORKS CITEDAndrew Jackson, Message to Congress, ?On Indian Removal? (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,

error: Content is protected !!