In contrast to Andrew Jackson’s decision on the Indian removal as an attempt to develop the new government, Stewart Udall defends the Indians as they valued the nature of its continents. On May 28 1830, the seventh president of the United States signed the Indian Removal Act, authorizing settlements of whites in land still held by Indians in the states east of the Mississippi River. Andrew Jackson’s method for the development of the US government was to gain more land. In his message, On Indian Removal, Jackson claims the removal of the Indians would “enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power”(Jackson, 371). This demonstrates Jackson’s belief that the Indians were slowing down the development of the states. Moreover, Jackson wishes to “cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and a Christian community”(Jackson, 371) with the influence of good counsels. In other words, not only did Jackson rip away their …show more content…
In The Land Wisdom of the Indians, the politician counterclaimed the belief of how all American Indians had neither title to, nor ties with, to the land and proposed “the land and Indians were bound together by the ties of kinship and nature, rather than by an understanding of property ownership”(Udall, 404). Udall highlights how the Indians and the land was bounded by something more than just property ownership by describing the Indian’s care for the land and how they would sacrifice their way of life to stay on their own lands. Furthermore as the years passed, Udall explains influences of the Indians to modern society and how “they have made a contribution to agriculture and to a better understanding of how to live in harmony with the land”(Udall, 409). Therefore, Andrew Jackson’s reason for removing the Indian to develop the government was