Debunking the Un-Fair Campaign Myths – Part 3


The Indian Removal Act of 1830

Here’s what has been omitted:
“In 1830 at the request of Jackson, a bill went before Congress authorizing moving the Indians across the Mississippi. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay opposed the Indian Removal Bill, but its most bitterly outspoken opponent was Davy Crockett. Having served in the army under Jackson, Crockett was a Jacksonian Democrat until he and the president parted ways over treatment of the Indians. In the next Tennessee congressional election, the Democrats threw their support to another candidate, and Crockett was defeated. Disgusted with partisanship, Crockett left the arena of national politics and went to Texas, delivering, as was the custom, a resounding rendition of his farewell speech at every stop along the way. Within a year he perished defending the Alamo.

Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which provided for the resettlement of all Native Americans then residing east of the Mississippi to a newly defined Indian Territory in what is now Oklahoma. There the Indians were to be free to pursue their lives without interference. This removal was intended to be voluntary, but groups of Indians were strongly pressured to go. The legislation affected not only the Indians in Georgia, but over 100,000 Native Americans in other states, including all of the Five Civilized Tribes.”
Andrew Jackson – Democrat

More on who opposed The Indian Removal Act of 1830:
Daniel Webster:

Henry Clay:

Davy Crockett:

Read more on from the Cherokee perspective here:

Bitter Debate

Despite the positive rhetoric, there were those who saw a more sinister motive underscoring the creation of the Indian Removal Act. Many members of Congress rose to speak in opposition to the measure. Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen condemned the Indian Removal Act as the product of an oppressive government that would one day regret the “encroachments upon the sacred privileges of our Indian neighbors.” Congressman David Crockett of Tennessee also rose in opposition to this legislation. Missionaries, who for years had been surreptitiously trying to alter Indian society with their efforts to convert them en masse, found themselves preaching against removal. One religious leader even went so far as to urge members of Congress to vote against the bill on moral grounds. Jackson’s powerful influence reached far into the House and Senate and the Indian Removal Act was passed by a single vote in May of 1830.”

Read more at Suite101: Andrew Jackson and Indian Relocation: The Argument Over the Indian Removal Act |

Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen – National Republican, Whig party.
Please read what Senator Frelinghuysen had to say in opposition to the Indian Removal Act:

““God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent, so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political existence. I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence. And, with this conceded, I ask in what code of the law of nations, or by what process of abstract deduction, their rights have been extinguished?”
“Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin? Is it one of the prerogatives of the white man, that he may disregard the dictates of moral principles, when an Indian shall be concerned? No, sir.”

Debunking the Un-Fair Campaign Myths – Part 1
Debunking the Un-Fair Campaign Myths – Part 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *