Cold War

1. Context:

In 1945, World War II was drawing to a close with the surrenders of the Axis Powers and consolidation of power in the Allies. However, the close wartime alliance between the Soviets and the United States began to splinter as the necessity of wartime cooperation faded with the war. In reality, the extreme difference in ideologies and contest over who would fill the power vacuum led to a series of confrontations between the United States and Soviets that ultimately caused the deterioration of the relationship between the wartime Allies.

 

Central Reason: struggle for dominance of a certain ideology: Captialist v communist

 

• Way: Yalta: Poland, germany
  • Would give the dominant group/ideology power of influence
  • Pro-west or pro-Soviet, Lublin vs. London
  • Germany—correctionist or constructionist—capitalist or weak for soviet control
  • Contest for dominance
  • Emergence of the dealing with a postwar world with very different objectives
    • Arguments, but at Yalta
• Way:  Truman Doctrine, Containment of communism, Marshall Plan
  • Know through Kennan Telegram, Soviet spies
    • Knew about the Americans’ intentions to counter Soviets with all their resources that was not present in Yalta/Potsdam
    • Distrust, Stalin genuine reason for suspicion of American actions, contrary to arguments that Stalin’s personality was at fault (Gaddis)
    • RepercussionsàSoviets realize that US is trying to encroach on its sphere on influence, counter with greater antagonism
      • Evidence of harsh American intentions
      • Threaten satellites (Czechoslovakia) not to accept Marshall Aid
• Way: NATO/ Berlin Blockade
  • Symbolic power struggle—Berlin airlift
  • Formal, public separation in relations between the two nations—SOLIDified DIVISION
  • Solidified western bloc
  • Congregation of capitalist nations that excluded Soviet Union

 

 

 

1. Superpowers emergence
   1. Marshall Plan—collapse of Europe, military/industrial advancement of Soviets/US
   2. UN leaders
   3. Arms Race—nuclear powers, scientific development

i.      US military-industrial complex

ii.      Soviet resources

 

• Left in an advanced postwar situation facing the turmoil in Europe, Asia
• Competition to fill the power vacuum—greater, faster development, advancement

 

1. Ideological Differences—large role in fact.

• Different views on security
  • Unilateral (Soviet) or collective (US)
  • Essentially communism v. capitalism
  • Soviets feel that security involves soviet control of territory, imposing values
  • Historiography: theory of the arms race that created fear, need for dominance

 

Capitalism v. Communism

1. Germany question—construction or correction
2. Cominform, Comecon vs. Marshall Plan’
3. Soviet aggression in Poland vs. US attempts
4. Containment vs. global communist revolution and proliferation

 

 

4. Potsdam/Yalta

Yalta issues: Poland government, Japan entrance, UN creation

Potsdam Issues: Poland’s boundaries, German Reparations and division into 4 zones

 

Moderate extent, Conferences set the stage for ideological issues that formed the basis of conflict during the Cold War

El Narcotráfico en Cuba y España

Hi again! I have written another essay in Spanish. This is about the problem of drug-trafficking and the similarities and differences in Cuba and Spain.

El Narcotráfico en Cuba y España

Cuba y España son países de partes del mundo diferentes y con formas de gobierno diferentes. Pero, los dos países compartan los mismos problemas del uso de las drogas y el narcotráfico. Socialmente, económicamente, y políticamente, Cuba y España tienen las mismas condiciones del narcotráfico, pero tienen medios diferentes a parar el problema.

En el aspecto social, los dos países tienen los mismos problemas con jóvenes y el uso de drogas pero son diferentes en la lucha contra las drogas. En España, el uso de drogas con adolescentes es muy grande. Muchos factores culturales como la media, la televisión y redes sociales apoyan el uso de drogas. También, adolescentes van a fiestas y clubes sociales que usan drogas. Entonces, el uso de drogas en España es algo “normal” para los adolescentes. En Cuba, la influencia de drogas es alrededor de los jóvenes también. Pero, el uso de drogas en Cuba no es tan grande de un problema como España porque Cuba tiene muchas organizaciones y programas educativos para educar a los jóvenes. Aunque España tiene el Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, no es tan efectivo o fuerte como la Comisión Nacional de Drogas de Cuba. También, el gobierno cubano tiene el control de la media y crea mensajes fuertes contra las drogas; Pero, el gobierno de España no tiene el mismo control de la media y no puede eliminar los mensajes que apoyan el uso de drogas. Entonces, la lucha contra drogas es más fuerte en Cuba que en España.

En el aspecto económico, Cuba y España tiene medios de narcotráfico similares pero tienen condiciones diferentes. Los dos son países del tránsito de drogas porque están cerca al océano. Narcotraficantes usan las costas para transportar drogas a los Estados Unidos por Cuba y a Europa por España. También, los dos países no producen las drogas; Las drogas de Colombia vienen a Cuba y España y se venden en el mercado doméstico en secreto. Pero, el gobierno de España no está haciendo mucho para parar el narcotráfico porque no tiene el control de las portuarias en el sur de España. Al contrario, la policía de Cuba vigila a todas las portuarias y aguas y buscan narcotraficantes porque ellos tienen el control. También, Cuba quiere crear una imagen positiva de la lucha contra narcotráfico para mejorar relaciones con otros países, pero España enfoca en otros problemas más urgentes.

Políticamente,  los dos países tienen relaciones internacionales que trabajan a parar el narcotráfico, pero Cuba está haciendo más en su país. En España, hay la Unión Europea que ayuda a España a parar el narcotráfico. En Cuba, hay relaciones con treinta y dos naciones y los Estados Unidos. También, hay organizaciones en los dos países que ayudan a la drogadicción. España tiene el Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas que crea una conexión entre el gobierno central y comunidades autónomas. Cuba tiene el Ache III que lucha contra el narcotráfico internacional y la Coraza Popular que lucha contra el narcotráfico doméstico. Pero, hay más leyes sobre el narcotráfico en Cuba que España. En Cuba, hay leyes como sentencias de la cárcel o muerte para los narcotraficantes que no hay en España.

En conclusión, Cuba y España tienen el mismo problema con narcotráfico pero irán en direcciones diferentes en el futuro porque hacen cosas diferentes a parar el problema. En Cuba, el gobierno totalitario tiene el control y puede crear leyes y organizaciones fuertes contra el narcotráfico. Pero, en España, el gobierno es un repúblico que no tiene el poder de controlar a los narcotraficantes. Éste es la razón que el nivel de narcotráfico está bajando en Cuba, pero está aumentando en España.

Umberto Eco and his writings

Today, horrifying stories of terrorism, war, and death are all over the news. Deep within the roots of these terrible crimes are conflicting ideologies over the “truth” of the world. The chief offenders are science and religion, both of which provide hope and stability to millions of Americans by giving us a sense of understanding of the world. Any rational person understands that the world is an enigma and that no one can claim to know everything. Yet, science and religion assert the power to explain the world’s enigma even though no single “truth” exists. Various societies all claim their interpretation of the enigma to be “the truth,” only resulting in fury and conflicts in all parties. Philosopher Umberto Eco confirms that human attempts to impose a single truth on others, often in the form of science or religion, distort the “harmless” enigma into a “terrible” one.

Science and religion have become an accepted part of the upbringing and education of America’s children. However, often the “truths” that children must decide on their own are placed on them daily by adults. During the Scopes Trial of 1925, educators of the state of Tennessee argued over whether evolution or creationism should be taught in America’s schools. The jury were shown evidence of both evolution and creationism and forced to decide between the two. In essence, the case was decided over which faith was more “true” than the other.  As a result, the more “true” of the two faiths was taught as “the truth” in public schools to children. Society’s attempts to impose one truth on children take away their ability to choose and decide for themselves, revealing the lack of the moral value of freedom and choice. In daily life, children are subject to adults imposing their ideas at home. Children are subject to adults imposing their ideas during lectures at school. Children are subject to adults imposing their ideas in the media, using propaganda. The society of each child already imposes its interpretations of the world’s enigma, leading to lack of freedom and choice. Tragically, this lack of choice given to children has fatal consequences. In 2008 little eleven-year-old Madeline Neumann died of treatable diabetes while her parents prayed and watched her die without taking her to a hospital because they didn’t believe in medicine. The parents of poor Madeline imposed their beliefs on her, without giving her a choice of life or death. This lack of freedom and choice to interpret the world’s enigma only victimizes society’s most helpless victims: children. Children should at the very least be given the freedom of choice of life or death and beliefs.

Attempts to impose faiths on other people have disastrous and destructive outcomes. In the Roman Empire before Emperor Constantine, Christians who would not pray to the emperor as a god were brought for punishment. Most Christians refused to renounce their faiths and died gruesome deaths. The pagans and Christians both believed that their faith was the “truth” of the world’s enigma. The pagans’ persecutions of Christians transformed the peaceful, harmless nature of religion into a terrible, painful history. Yet as a nation, we have not learned from the past. Yet Christians and Muslims still persecute brothers and sisters. Yet we accept one truth and deny all others. It is urgent that Americans tolerate all interpretations and religions. History has shown that when the Muslims set out to create and empire, their policy of tolerance of other faiths led to peace within conquered lands. Tolerance of all truths instead of imposing a singular truth will be crucial to mediating the anger and hatred of America in the Middle East. Tolerance will reconcile the two societies and help avoid a costly, global war.

American interpretations of the world’s enigma are essential to a society of freedom and happiness. Though no single underlying truth to the world exists, “truths” such as religion and science are sources of inspiration and provide hope in times of despair and understanding in times of chaos. However, when these “truths” are imposed on other people or children, resentment and destruction often ensue, as Eco confirms. Tolerance and freedom of interpretations are essential to the prosperity of the lives of all humans on Earth. Through acceptance and tolerance of the different interpretations of the world’s enigma, we no longer “madly” impose a single truth. We become the voice of eleven-year Madeline that she never had. We become the millions of voices of children voicing their freedoms. We become the voices of our friends halfway around the world. Finally, we become the voices of ourselves, happy and peaceful with an enigma that is not “terrible,” but stronger and better than “harmless.”

The British Occupation of India

 

The Reasons and Consequences of British Christianity in India

1. Introduction
   1. Hook: In January of 1999, Graham Staines and his two sons were brutally murdered when they were burned to death inside a locked car. He was an Australian Baptist missionary who lived and worked in India with lepers for the majority of his life. His murderer—Dara Singh, was a Hindu militant who publicly boasted of his crime. However, the Indian police reported that Staines’ murderer was “never found.” This is just one heinous murder on the long list of crimes of Anti-Christian violence from the Hindus now that the British have lost their control over India.
   2. Thesis: Although Christianity brought new hope to India, the Indian independence from the British led to an increase in religious conflicts between the Hindu majority and the Christians.
2. Body
   1. When the British controlled India, conversion was safer and easier than after Indian independence.

i.      Under the Portuguese, conversion was forced. However, under the British, conversion was voluntary. Conversion is peaceful and true.

ii.      Churches from all over Europe felt the obligation to reach out and send missionaries to India and convert the people.

iii.      Christians were protected under British government.

1. The British ruled with Christian principles
2. The British were more favorable toward Christian subjects

iv.      After Indian independence, the Hindu majority again took control.

1. They discouraged conversion to Christianity
2. People who chose Christianity were expelled from society, persecuted
3. Caste distinctions, tie with Hinduism made it harder to convert
4. Christian missionary work in India proved beneficial in many ways.

i.      Missionaries worked to educate Indians, fight for women’s rights, provide basic shelter

1. Reading the Bible helped open up the Indians to western literature
2. The literacy percentage of Indian Christians was 4 times that of Hindus

ii.      “Evil” practices, such as sati and child sacrifice, were abolished by Christian governors.

iii.      The untouchables at the bottom of the caste were given new hope

1. In Christianity, everyone was equal so they were given an equal chance for a better future.
2. Untouchables had grown dissatisfied with Hinduism where they were treated harshly by the other castes, so Christian missionary work helped them convert.
3. After Indian independence, there have been increased Anti-Christian movements by Hindu nationalists in India.

i.      The percentage of Christians in India has never reached over 3% while the percentage of Hindus was greater than 80% and continues to increase.

1. The police is controlled by Hindus, so they do not bring Hindu criminals like Singh to justice.

ii.      Christian missionaries seen as political/religious threat and foreign menace

iii.      Conflict of Hindu parents, Christian children

1. In 1877, Balakrishan asked his father, a Brahman leader for permission for baptism; he was beaten, confined, then sent away

iv.      Hindu nationalists do anti-Christian violence

1. Greatest violence in places where BJP, Hindu nationalist groups, are in control
2. Intimidation of Christians—arson, threatening literature, Bible burning, bombing churches, ransacking churches, desecrating church graves, murder/rape of nuns, priest, and missionaries

v.      Reconversion of Christians to Hinduism

1. Pressure from neighbors, family, Hindu partners in marriage
2. Try to reconvert Christian untouchables
3. New motive to rediscover, revive the fundamentals of Hindu faith
4. Established Hindu Missionary Society to disrupt Christian missionaries
5. Hindu newspaper writers falsely claim that the Christian population is rising and that the missionaries are increasing to inspire hatred for the foreigners in India.
6. Conclusion
   1. During the time of British occupation, Christian missionaries provided services and resources to the people of India in hopes that they would convert. Christianity, the religion of the British, was supported and favored over Hinduism by the Europeans. However, when India gained its independence, the Hindu majority reasserted control. Some extreme groups of Hindu nationalists began violent and brutal persecutions of the minority: Christians and their missionaries. The consequences for Christianity resulting from religious differences and Indian independence are far-reaching and extend to modern times.

Defense Bill

An analysis on an article from the Washington Post:

A controversial defense bill was approved by the Senate and moves to the President’s signature, after weeks of debate and revision. The measure would cut funding for the military, triggered by the debt super committee’s talks, and allow for indefinite detention of US citizens. Earlier, the White House threatened to veto because it feared that the controversial detainee provisions would be an infringement of executive powers. In addition, human rights and civil liberties groups have urged Obama to veto the bill, fearing excessive government control and a broad justification for abuse of interrogation powers. However, the proponents for the bill argue that it provides the president with enough flexibility to effectively address and enforce laws regarding Al-Qaeda activities.

The central fear expressed in the article was that the public policy of indefinite detainment for interrogation could infringe on civil liberties. This is because the measure is a vague one and can be interpreted broadly. In addition, as history, the vague measures in history can lead to a “justified” abuse of power because of the wide room for interpretation. Thus, even the director of the FBI expressed his reservations towards the unclear measure. Thus, it is good that there is such wide debate and discussion in Congress that delays and lengthens the amount of time required to pass a measure. This debate helps to make sure that any provisions that could cause government tyranny over the people do not pass, as a check to the authority of the Executive Branch. Finally, it is the public interest groups that advocate for human rights and civil liberties that help represent and push for views against abuse of powers in government.

Niels Abel, A Brilliant Mathematician Who Died Too Soon

Niels Henrik Abel (1802-1829) was a brilliant Norwegian mathematician who accomplished so much in such little time. Born on August 5, 1802 in Findoe, Norway, Abel lived in relative poverty due to his huge family size of six brothers. His father was a Christian minister and died when Abel was only 18. Living in terrible conditions and without money, Niels Abel died at age 26 of tuberculosis. However, Abel was able to make numerous important contributions to mathematics in his short lifespan.

Abel began making accomplishments since a very young age. At only 16 years old, Abel was the first to fully prove the binomial theorem for all numbers instead of just for rationals (Euler). At 19 years, Abel invented a famous and important branch of mathematics with many applications in physics called group theory to show that there is no general algebraic solution to find the roots of a quintic polynomial, or any others greater than degree 4. In his time, this was the most sought after solution. By proving that there were no such solutions, Abel impressed the world. One of his most famous works published was Abel’s Theorem of Convergence. Abel also developed function inversion. Using elliptic integrals and inversion, he created elliptical functions.

Niels Abel was motivated to continue studying math by his math teacher at Christiana Cathedral School, Bernt Michael Holmboe. Holmboe saw Niels’ potential in math and supported his studies. When Niels’ father died, Holmboe provided a scholarship for him study at the Christiana University.

Abel worked as a mathematician. He submitted to various famous mathematicians and struggled to get a job as a professor of in a university. However, he was unable to obtain such a position and lived in poverty for the rest of his life.

Abel’s contributions are still used in math today. The binomial theorem, which Abel proved is the easiest way to expand equations like.

Binomial expansion Theorem:

Since

 

 

The binomial expansion theorem is one of the most useful of Abel’s accomplishments in modern mathematics.

Niels Henrik Abel was a genius mathematician who lived a tragic life. When Abel sent his paper on elliptical functions to Gauss, Gauss threw it away without even reading it thinking it was a joke. When Abel travelled to France in 1825, Legendre and Cauchy (also 2 very famous mathematicians) described Abel as a “monument more lasting than bronze.” In spite of this, Cauchy also misplaced Abel’s manuscript. In Berlin, Abel became friends with mathematician August Crelle. However, Abel was still not offered a post as professor, nor were his works widely acknowledged. Unable to find a job and living in poverty, Abel died of tuberculosis in 1829 at only 26 years old. Tragically, a letter arrived to Abel from his friend August Crelle informing him that he had been offered a position as professor at the University of Berlin two days after Abel’s death, but it was already too late. Abel lived a short life filled with many amazing accomplishments. He was underappreciated due partially to the fact that he was Norwegian; he would have been more famous if he had come from France or Germany. Today an Abel’s Prize exists in Niels Abel’s honor. The term ‘abelian’ has been coined in several concepts. Hermite quotes, “Abel has left mathematicians enough to keep them busy for 500 years.”

Sources:

http://james.fabpedigree.com/mathmen.htm#Abel

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Abel.html

http://robertnowlan.com/pdfs/Abel,%20Niels.pdf

http://mathbits.com/MathBits/TISection/Algebra2/binomialtheorem.htm

Inferno Analysis Cantos 12,13

The contrapasso for the murderers and violence toward neighbors is to sit in blood for eternity. Since the sinners were violent in their lives by harming others and spilling blood, they sit in boiling blood for eternity. The sinners’ punishment for their sins is similar to what they did in life—wallow in blood.
The contrapasso for suicides is to not be given human form and suffer pain forever. Since the suicides destroyed themselves in life, they are destroyed in hell and cannot have a human form because they did not keep their lives. So the suicides’ souls are encased in thorny trees that are eaten by harpies.
Dante uses metaphors. When Virgil insults the Minotaur, Virgil tells Dante to run while the Minotaur “is blind with rage” (12. 26).The metaphor increases the severity of the Minotaur’s rage.
Dante uses personification. Nessus the centaur tells Dante, “It is there that Holy Justice spends its wrath…and everlastingly milks out the tears” (13. 133-136). Personification brings more character to Holy Justice and the actions it commits.
\"Viva la Vida\"

The Indian Removal Act

Angel Leung & Maggie Locke[HKL1] 

5/22/08

Indian Removal Act Project Research Paper

 During the 1500s and 1600s, Spanish, French, and British settlers arrived on American land/soil. They sometimes traded and fought with the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Native American people living near the Great Lakes, these people being called the Five Civilized Tribes. The Europeans formed alliances with the native people over time, and the Europeans gave gifts to secure their friendship. Each powerful European country wanted control over the American land, and they paid money to Indian Tribes for land, sometimes against the wills of the Native Americans. In 1828, gold was discovered at Dahlonega, Georgia, which was in the heart of Cherokee territory. White miners, hungry for a quick fortune, invaded the Cherokee nation (Stein 13).  Vowing not to fight, the Cherokee people went to court and argued that the federal government had granted them their land by treaty and therefore should be protected from the gold miners, their greedy neighbors, and the government of the state of Georgia, which also wanted their lands. The Georgia Court gave the Cherokees no help at all, and the Cherokee lawsuit eventually reached the Unites States Supreme Court. The Creek and Cherokee refused to meet with Jackson on May of 1930 then hired William Wirt for their case in the Supreme Court. The Creeks withdrew later, but Cherokees pressed on and won the case, the decision was confirmed in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson later announced that he didn’t plan on keeping the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835[HKL2] , which had been signed by Major Ridge and the Treaty Party, a few hundred Cherokees who were afraid that Georgia would take their lands away without payment, agreeing to move off their land in return for 5 million dollars and 13 million acres in the West. President Jackson said that both Indians and Americans would be happy after the removal, saying that the Indians would enjoy free land, and the Americans could build up defenses and expand on Indian Territory (Sneve 22). The Indian tribes most affected by the Indian Removal Act were the Five Civilized Tribes. The Cherokees walked through more than 800 miles to Oklahoma from the Mississippi Valley where they lived, and suffered from October 1838 to March of 1839. 4,000 Cherokees died on the trip, later called the Trail of Tears. Even in Oklahoma, the location of the Indian reserve, the climate was harsh and many more Cherokees died (Stewart 11). After the Indian Removal Act, there has been much dispute over whether President Andrew Jackson was justified in enforcing the Indian Removal Act. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), an American essayist, philosopher, poet, and leader of the Transcendentalist movement in the early 19th century, wrote that the Native Americans were denied justice.[HKL3]  Andrew Jackson was not justified in enforcing the Indian Removal Act and the Native Americans had the right to their land because they were an independent, civilized, sovereign nation, and the Americans had no right to remove them from their land.

Andrew Jackson and the white men were only greedy for land and possessions. Hoping to harass the Indians into giving up their territory, the whites organized groups called Pony Clubs, which were gangs of rowdies who rode into Cherokee country to start fires and plunder homes. Also, many gold miners stole Indian cattle and attacked Indian women while neighboring whites that coveted Cherokee land encouraged them (Stein 13). The white men took advantage of the Cherokee people, their land, and their possessions. They committed terrible acts and used violence to invade and take hold of Cherokee people, land, and possessions. On May 20, 1777, the Cherokees signed their first treaty with South Carolina, and the Cherokees had to move out of the state because white settlers wanted their land. In 1785, the Cherokees signed a treaty with the U.S. government and the Indians lost more land. One such treaty was the Fort Laramie Treaty in which the Sioux Nation agreed to move onto a reservation, also eating up the Ponca Tribe’s bulk of land (Sneve 19)[HKL4] . By 1819 the Cherokees had lost about 75% of what they’d originally owned. Previously, the United States recognized the Cherokee nation in treaties after it became a sovereign nation; however the Cherokees lost more land after each treaty (Sneve 18). The federal government had promised to keep new settlers off Indian land, but never did. In this way, the United States government took advantage of Indians’ intentions to settle matters peaceably took away more and more land that the Native Americans owned. In 1802, the U.S. government, hungry for land, signed an agreement with Georgia, the Act of Congress of 1802, and urged the Cherokees to exchange their homeland for land in the West. But only a few Cherokees agreed, while the rest refused (Sneve 21). In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, removing Indians from their land, since the population in the U.S. was increasing, and so more land was needed. The Indians were in the way of the settlers, and the removal was issued to provide more land. The United States took land from the Native Americans without the consent of the majority of the Native Americans (Stewart 9). Only seeing the great opportunity to gain land before them, the Americans didn’t look to consider the feelings of other Native Americans and only thought of themselves.[HKL5]  The Creek Indians agreed to the Treaty of 1832, agreeing to move, but the whites wanted Creek possessions, and threw out the Creek families as they were still packing, to snatch the Creek possessions (Stewart 62). This proves that Americans took advantage of the Native American moving, and were greedy for Native American possessions. [HKL6] 

Andrew Jackson and the white men didn’t care about feelings of Native Americans. The white men kept taking the Native Americans’ land, and the Cherokees were angry that their land kept shrinking. They could no longer depend on hunting for food, and had to rely on farming instead. The Native Americans had to change their way of living because of the selfish white men (Sneve 19)[HKL7] . In the 1754 war between the French and English for land in North America, the Cherokees sided with the English. The Cherokees helped the English fight the Americans in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), but the English did not protect Cherokee towns and more than 50 states were destroyed and hundreds of warriors were killed (Sneve 18). The English did not repay the Cherokees after what they did the help them and didn’t care about how many Native Americans died trying to help them. The English still took Native American land after all the Native Americans had done to help them. [HKL8] Miantonomo, a Narraganset chief, observed, “Our fathers had plenty of deer and skins…our covers full of flesh and fowl. But these English have gotten our land, they with scythes cut down the grass, and with axes fell the trees; their cows and horses eat the grass…and we shall all be starved”(Behrman 14).[M9]  The Americans destroyed the Native Americans’ land but did not help them or offer relief after they took the Native American land. During his Second Annual Message to Congress in December of 1830, President Andrew Jackson said[HKL10] , “It is 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 that it is to our brothers and children?”(Jackson 2). President Andrew Jackson considered the Native Americans a lesser priority. He didn’t care about the strong importance to the natives of the graves of their ancestors in their land, thinking only of the American gain of land. Almost 16,000 other Cherokees didn’t want the Treaty of New Echota, called the Ross Party because they signed a petition that John Ross took to Washington. But President Andrew Jackson didn’t even look at the paper (Sneve 23). The Treaty of Echota that gave away all Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for new lands in the West and a cash settlement had been signed by only a tiny minority of the Cherokee people, and some signers had been bribed by government officials. But still, the federal government insisted that the treaty was valid (Stein 23). The Native Americans deserved to stay on their land because only 12.5 % of the people actually signed the treaty of Echota (Elish 44). The Americans weren’t giving Cherokees enough say in the decisions made. Ideas of the majority of Cherokee people were not even considered. Georgia Governor George Gilmer summed up his feelings [M11] about land treaties with Indians, saying[HKL12] , “Treaties were expedients by which ignorant, intractable, and savage people were induced without bloodshed to yield up what civilized peoples had a right to possess.”(Stein 15). George Gilmer took advantage of the Native Americans and refused to acknowledge their rights. He considered them savages, though they were very civilized and American-like. In a letter to Martin Van Buren about the Treaty of New Echota, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, [HKL13] ”Such a denial of justice and such deafness to screams for mercy never heard in times of peace…does this government think that the people of the United States are become savage and mad? From their minds and sentiments of love and good wiped clean out? The soul of the man, the justice, the mercy…does abhor this business.” (Elish 45). New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen said[HKL14] , “We call them brothers, but steal their land. It has to stop.” (Stewart 59). Ralph Waldo Emerson and Theodore Frelinghuysen both acknowledged[HKL15]  the wrongs of the U.S. government and that the Native Americans should be[HKL16]  given the right to their land, or their own terms[HKL17]  of how they should be treated.[HKL18] 

The Native Americans were a civilized, sovereign, and independent nation. The Cherokees believed they were a part of nature. It was part of nature’s plan for a hunter to kill animals for food. The men used spears, blowguns, and bows and arrows to hunt and fish (Sneve 8). Realizing that the whites were there to stay, the Cherokees had chosen cultural accommodations, or peaceful compromise, with white society. They tried to combine the best elements of European and Cherokee culture. The Cherokees and Native Americans had their own, different ways of life, but still yet showed a civilized society in many ways similar to an American society (Stein 6). The Cherokees so emulated the whites of the Old South that they even adopted the practice of keeping black slaves. Cherokees married white settlers, and a Cherokee named Sequoya created a Cherokee alphabet of 86 characters (Stein 8). Cherokees were adamant about staying on land, said that they were a sovereign nation, and wrote a Constitution, went to church, and had a school.[HKL19]  The[M20]  Cherokees became different from other tribes (Stewart 49). A sovereign nation has a Constitution, like the Cherokees did. The Cherokees blended in well with American society, and appeared civilized and independent. Henry Knox, George Washington’s appointed secretary of war, believed that the Indian tribes were “sovereign, independent nations” and hoped that the Indians could blend in with European customs, and become part of the expansion of America (Elish 20). The Cherokees had done this very objective. They had blended in along with American society and culture, adopting many American customs. The Americans had no right to move a civilized, sovereign, and independent nation that was growing to be a part of America elsewhere.

The Native Americans were the rightful owners of their land. After Christopher Columbus claimed to have discovered a “New World” in 1492, Spanish and English settlers arrived in the Americas, where the Native Americans had lived for centuries (Behrman 9). In 1540, the Cherokees met Hermano De Soto, the Spaniard who explored the Southeast. On and off for the next hundred years, English colonists came to the seacoast. The Native Americans allowed the colonists to stay on the land (Sneve 18). The Native Americans were on their land long before the Americans first colonized North America, and had the right to all of their land. In 1684, England made a treaty with the Cherokees as a sovereign nation, or a country that ruled itself. The Hopewell Treaty, passed in 1785, was signed to protect Cherokee “holdings.” It clearly marked the borders to their land and gave the Cherokees the power to ward off intruders. However, some states like Georgia and North Carolina persisted that they had power over Indian territories (Elish 20). In addition, in the trial Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Justice John Marshall decided that the Cherokees were “not subject to rule by individual states” (Remini 1). The states Georgia and North Carolina broke the Hopewell Treaty that protected Indian holdings. These states had no right to invade Native American territory. In the Treaty of New Echota, the government paid $5 million for the Cherokee land. The Creek and Cherokee refused to meet with President Andrew Jackson in May of 1830. Instead, they hired William Wirt for their case in the Supreme Court. The Creeks withdrew later, but Cherokees pressed on and won the case. The decision was confirmed in Worcester v. Georgia, but Jackson later announced that he didn’t plan on keeping the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835.[HKL21]  President Andrew Jackson’s words were,[HKL22]  “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” (Stein 37). Even after the Supreme Court had decided that the State of Georgia couldn’t move the Cherokees, President Jackson disregarded the Supreme Court’s decision and continued on removing Native Americans from their homelands. President Jackson violated the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling that was meant to be “the supreme law of the land.” It was unconstitutional for Jackson to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision and continue removing the Cherokees from their homelands.[HKL23]  The Americans didn’t abide by the laws and treaties that they themselves had set up, and they arrived at America long after the Indians had so the Native Americans were the rightful owners of their land.

The Indian Removal Act was an error made by America. The Native Americans clearly did not want to move, but the Americans did not regard the Native Americans’ rights. The Native Americans were their own civilized, sovereign nation, and that was “thus far advanced, further than any other nation or tribe in America,” as one white missionary wrote in 1808. Andrew Jackson and the white men were only being greedy for land and selfish, disregarding others’ rights. The Indians rightfully owned the land, but the white men did not care. Now, Native Americans are still living in reservations set aside by them during the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Many Native Americans have returned to their original homelands now set aside by the states and returned to the Native Americans. They found jobs in other parts of the US, often in casinos making good business. Now, many Native Americans have blended in with American customs and culture. Many still live in tribes trying to keep alive their old customs. They have also often found greater job opportunities because of racial preference and their Native American ancestry. The Indian Removal Act also helped in founding our nation because it helped show us that “all men are created equal” and became a black scar on U.S. history. We[HKL24]  Americans have learned to respect the goals and desires of people of other races and backgrounds, and try to understand the reason for their actions[HKL25] . We[HKL26]  have [HKL27] learned that we shouldn’t only[HKL28]  consider our own dreams, and learned to abide[HKL29]  by the law that we set up ourselves[HKL30] , the Constitution, and our treaties. From this incident, the president’s influence has been reduced, and there have been debates over the fairness of the Supreme Court ruling. The Indian Removal Act serves as a lesson to Americans about what happens when its members consider themselves superior.

 

Word Count: 2,674

---

 [HKL1]My name goes first in the heading because my name is alphabetically first

 [HKL2]You repeat this exact same thing in the body

 [HKL3]I changed stuff here.

 [HKL4]This isn’t one of my notecards! Is this relevant to Cherokee removal, by the way?

 [HKL5]move this to the end of the paragraph to conclude TS.

 [HKL6]Ok so if you move what I said in comment 5 as the conclusion, you need a transition to the creek Indians stuff because it doesn’t flow well.

 [HKL7]The NAs having to change their way of living is CM, not CD. Aren’t you only supposed to frame CDs?

 [HKL8]I am confused about this, because the NAs fought against the Americans, so shouldn’t the Americans be mean to the NAs?

 [M9]Guess what: they are. Duh dun…………duh dun duh dun….

 [HKL10]I changed stuff here

 [M11]Quite right. HA. I used it for emphasis.

 [HKL12]I changed stuff here. “As GGGG spat” doesn’t sound right

 [HKL13]I changed stuff here

 [HKL14]I changed stuff here

 [HKL15]they’re both dead, right?

 [HKL16]have been

 [HKL17]what such terms?

 [HKL18]Conclude TS2

 [HKL19]There are two separate clauses here. Say, “The Cherokees were adamant about staying on land and being a sovereign nation. They wrote a Constitution, went to church, and had a school.”

 [M20]You wrote something here about it not flowing well…well I don’t know what you mean…

 [HKL21]You repeated this same thing in the intro (my comment #2). Reword.

 [HKL22]I changed things here

 [HKL23]Conclude paragraph, tie to TS

 [HKL24]who is we? Maybe say “We Americans”

 [HKL25]You can’t learn to understand reason for actions. You just do. Say try to understand…

 [HKL26]we americans

 [HKL27]have

 [HKL28]only

 [HKL29]but

 [HKL30]are you talking about the Constitution and that all men are created equal? if so, say it in the paper

Outline Indian Removal

Angel Leung & Maggie Locke

Ms. Dougherty

LA/SS 3/4

5/9/08

 

Indian Removal Act Project Outline

Was Andrew Jackson justified in enforcing the Indian Removal Act?

During the 1500s and the 1600s, Spanish, French, and British settlers arrived in America and sometimes traded and fought with the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Native American people living near the Great Lakes. These people were called the Five Civilized Tribes. The Europeans formed alliances with the native people over time, and the Europeans gave gifts to secure their friendship. Each powerful European country wanted control over the American land, and they paid money to Indian Tribes for land, sometimes against the wills of the Native Americans. In 1828, Gold was discovered at Dahlonega, Georgia, which was in the heart of Cherokee territory. White miners, hungry for a quick fortune, invaded the Cherokee nation. Vowing not to fight, the Cherokee people went to court and argued that the federal government had granted them their land by treaty and therefore should be protected from the gold miners, their greedy neighbors, and the government of the state of Georgia, which also wanted their lands. The Georgia court gave the Cherokees no help at all, and the Cherokee lawsuit eventually reached the Unites States Supreme Court. The Creek and Cherokee refused to meet with Jackson on May of 1930 then hired William Wirt for their case in the Supreme Court. The Creeks withdrew later, but Cherokees pressed on and won the case, the decision was confirmed in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson later announced that he didn’t plan on keeping the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which had been signed by Major Ridge, the leader of the Treaty Party, a few hundred Cherokees who were afraid the Georgia would take their lands away without payment, agreeing to move off their land in return for 5 million dollars and 13 million acres in the West. President Jackson said that both Indians and Americans would be happy after removal, saying that the Indians would enjoy free land, and the Americans could build up defenses and expand on Indian Territory. The Indian tribes most affected by the Indian Removal Act were the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole). The Cherokees walked through more than 800 miles to Oklahoma from their Mississippi Valley, and suffered from October 1838 to March of 1839. 4,000 Cherokees died on the trip, later called the Trail of Tears. Even in Oklahoma, the location of the Indian reserve, there was harsh climate and many more died.

• I. Andrew Jackson was not justified in enforcing the Indian Removal Act and the Native Americans had the right to their land because they were a civilized, sovereign nation, and the white men had no right to remove them from their land.
• A. Andrew Jackson and white men only greedy for land.
• 1. Hoping to harass the Indians into giving up their territory, the whites organized groups called Pony Clubs, which were gangs of rowdies who rode into Cherokee country to start fires and plunder homes.
• 2. Many gold miners stole Indian cattle and attacked Indian women while neighboring whites that coveted Cherokee land encouraged them.
• a. The white men took advantage of the Cherokee people, their land, and their possessions.
• b. The white pioneers had a burning thirst for new land, a thirst that seemed unquenchable
• 3. The United States recognized the Cherokee nation in treaties after it became a sovereign nation, but the Cherokees lost more land after each treaty.
• 4. On May 20, 1777, the Cherokees signed their first treaty with South Carolina, and the Cherokees had to move out of the state because white settler wanted their land. In 1785, the Cherokees signed a treaty with the U.S. government and the Indians lost more land. By 1819 the Cherokees had lost about 75% of what they’d originally owned
• 5. The federal government had promised to keep new settlers off Indian land, but never did.
• a. The United States took advantage of the Cherokee land.
• b. The United States did not care about the accommodations of the Cherokees.
• 6. In 1802, the U.S. government, hungry for land, signed an agreement with Georgia, and urged the Cherokees to exchange their homeland for land in the West. But only a few Cherokees agreed, while the rest refused
• 7. The Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830, removing Indians from their land, because the population in the U.S. was increasing, so more room was needed. The Indians were in the way of the settlers, and the removal was issued to provide more land.
• a. Although the U.S. took the land to provide for its people, it did not have to remove the Cherokees from their land.
• b. The Cherokees did not want to move, but the U.S. government did not consider the feelings of the Native Americans and only thought about themselves.
• 8. The Creek Indians agreed to the Treaty of 1832, agreeing to move, but the whites wanted Creek possessions, and threw out the Creek family as they were still packing, to snatch the Creek possessions.
• a. The white men only considered themselves, and not others different than their kind.
• B. Andrew Jackson and the white men didn’t care about feelings of Native Americans.
• 1. The white men kept taking the Native Americans’ land, and the Cherokees were angry that their land kept shrinking. They could no longer depend on hunting for food, and had to rely on farming instead.
• a. The Native Americans had to change their way of living because of the selfish white men
• 2. In the 1754 war between the French and English for land in North America, the Cherokees sided with the English.
• 3. The Cherokees helped the English fight the Americans in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), but the English did not protect Cherokee towns and more than 50 states were destroyed and hundreds of warriors were killed.
• a. The English did not repay the Cherokees after what they did the help them.
• b. The white men didn’t care about how many Native Americans died trying to help them
• 4. “Our fathers had plenty of deer and skins…our covers full of flesh and fowl. But these English have gotten our land, they with scythes cut down the grass, and with axes fell the trees; their cows and horses eat the grass…and we shall all be starved” -Miantonomo, a Narraganset chief.
• a. The white men destroyed the land of the Native Americans
• 5. President Andrew Jackson’s claim to fame was fighting Indians. When he became president, Jackson supported Indian relocation and agreed with Georgia that a nation could not exist within another. Jackson recognized Georgia’s claim to Cherokee land.
• 6. “It is 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 that it is to our brothers and children?” -Andrew Jackson.
• a. Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians off the land no matter what.
• b. Andrew Jackson thought that white men were superior to the “uncivilized” Native Americans.
• 7. Almost 16,000 other Cherokees didn’t want the Treaty of New Echota, called the Ross Party because they signed a petition that John Ross took to Washington. But President Andrew Jackson didn’t even look at the paper.
• 8. The treaty that gave away all Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for new lands in the West and a cash settlement had been signed by only a tiny minority of the Cherokee people, and some signers had been bribed by government officials. But still, the federal government insisted that the treaty was valid.
• a. The U.S. government was not being fair to the Native Americans and did not consider their rights.
• b. The Native Americans deserved to stay on their land because not enough people signed the treaty.
• 9. “Treaties were expedients by which ignorant, intractable, and savage people were induced without bloodshed to yield up what civilized peoples had a right to possess.” -Georgia Governor George Gilmer
• a. George Gilmer took advantage of the Native Americans and refused to acknowledge their rights
• 10. “Such a denial of justice, and such deafness to screams for mercy never heard in times of peace…does this government think that the people of the United States are become savage and mad? From their minds and sentiments of love and good wiped clean out? The soul of the man, the justice, the mercy…does abhor this business.” – a letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Martin Van Buren about the Treaty of New Echota
• 11. “We call them brothers, but steal their land. It has to stop.” -New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen
• a. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Theodore Frelinghuysen acknowledge the wrongs of the U.S. government and that this must stop
• C. The Native Americans were a civilized, sovereign nation
• 1. The Cherokees believed they were a part of nature. It was part of nature’s plan for a hunter to kill animals for food. The men used spears, blowguns, and bows and arrows to hunt and fish.
• 2. Realizing that the whites were there to stay, the Cherokees had chosen cultural accommodations, or peaceful compromise, with white society. They tried to combine the best elements of European and Cherokee culture.
• a. The Cherokees and Native Americans had their own, different ways of life
• b. When the white men came, the Cherokees invited them onto their land
• 3. The Cherokees so emulated the whites of the Old South that they even adopted the practice of keeping black slaves. Cherokees married white settlers, and a Cherokee named Sequoya created a Cherokee alphabet of 86 characters.
• 4. Cherokees were adamant about staying in land, said that they were a sovereign nation, and wrote a Constitution, went to church, and had a school. The Cherokees became different from other tribes.
• a. The Cherokees were their own sovereign nation and wrote a Constitution
• b. The Cherokees tried to blend in with the white men and appear civilized
• 5. Henry Knox, George Washington’s appointed secretary of war, believed that the Indian tribes were “sovereign, independent nations” and hoped that the Indians could blend in with European customs, and became part of the expansion of America.
• a. Henry Knox acknowledged that the Native Americans had their rights because they were a sovereign nation
• D. The Native Americans were the rightful owners of their land.
• 1. After Christopher Columbus claimed to have discovered a “New World” in 1492, Spanish and English settlers arrived in the Americas, where the Native Americans had lived for centuries.
• 2. In 1540, the Cherokees met Hermano de Soto, the Spaniard who explored the Southeast. On and off for the next hundred years, English colonists came to the seacoast. The Native Americans allowed the colonists to stay on the land.
• 3. In 1684, England made a treaty with the Cherokees as a sovereign nation, or a country that ruled itself.
• 4. The Hopewell treaty (1785) was signed to protect Cherokee “holdings.” It clearly marked the borders to their land and gave the Cherokees the power to ward off intruders. However, some states like Georgia and North Carolina persisted that they had power over Indian territories.
• 5. In the trial Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Justice John Marshall decided that the Cherokees were “not subject to rule by individual states.”
• 6. The Treaty Party that signed the Treaty of New Echota agreed to it. Only 12.5% of the Cherokee people could vote, and the Treaty of New Echota didn’t represent the will of the majority of the Cherokees. The government paid $5 million for the Cherokee land. Many Americans and Cherokees were outraged
• 7. The Creek and Cherokee refused to meet with President Andrew Jackson in May of 1830 then hired William Wirt for their case in the Supreme Court. The Creeks withdrew later, but Cherokees pressed on and won the case. The decision was confirmed in Worcester v. Georgia, but Jackson later announced that he didn’t plan on keeping the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835.
• 8. “John Marshall has mad his decision. Now let him enforce it.” -President Andrew Jackson. Even after the Supreme Court had decided that the State of Georgia couldn’t move the Cherokees, President Jackson disregarded the Supreme Court’s decision and continued on removing Native Americans from their homelands.

 

The Indian Removal Act was an error made by America. The Native Americans clearly did not want to stay off their land, and did not want to move, but the Americans did not regard the Native Americans’ rights. The Native Americans were their own civilized, sovereign nation, and that was “thus far advanced, further tan any other nation or tribe in America,” as one white missionary wrote in 1808. Andrew Jackson and the white men were only being greedy for land and selfish, disregarding others’ rights. The Indians rightfully owned the land, but the white men did not care. The Indian removal act also helped in founding or nation because it helped show us that “all men are created equal” and became a black scar on U.S. history. From this incident, the president’s influence was reduced, and there were debates over the fairness of America. The Indian Removal Act serves as a lesson to Americans about what happens when its members consider themselves superior.

 

Indian removal act abstract

Maggie Locke & Angel Leung

June 3, 2008

Abstract

In 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, forcing the Native American Indians out of their homes and on to reservations designated for them in Oklahoma. This was to give the rapidly American settlers more land to settle. In the blinding greed for more land, the American settlers unjustly forced out the Native Americans from their lands. In many documents and letters from Native Americans and Americans, the cries of pain and protests from many tribes were being ignored by the Americans. The Native American point of view was not being considered greatly, and President Andrew Jackson carried on removing the Native American even though they were sovereign, civilized, and independent. In addition, the Native Americans had many age-old treaties with the Americans. By removing them, the US would be breaking and disregarding all of those treaties. Clearly, the Americans proceeded with the Indian Removal Act without listening to the Indian arguments. In the Cherokee trial, President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court’s decision and carried on with the Indian Removal Act. As a result of this, many Native Americans did not live through the unforgiving relocation to the Oklahoma reservations. The Cherokee tribe suffered through the Trail of Tears in which 4,000 Cherokees died. Even more Native Americans perished at the reservations, in which conditions were insanitary and harsh. If the voices and cries of the native Americans had been considered and agreed to, then these many people would never had to suffer through the Trail of Tears and the deaths of countless loved ones at the hands of Americans. The US would have also been proven more trustworthy, because they would have kept their scores of agreements with the Native Americans instead of breaking them to the deaths of numerous Indians. This research helps us understand that the Indian Removal Act was unjustified.