Since the late 15th century, the Native population within North America was vulnerable to attacks from foreign powers such as the Spanish, French, and the English. The Natives’ exposure to a more advanced group of people as well as their vulnerability to diseases led to the extermination of many tribes throughout the continent. After the Revolutionary War, the “Indian Problem” remained an important topic for many white settlers as the Natives’ presence hindered their desire for farmland and economic opportunity. To ease the conflict between the two groups, the Federal government intervened, often setting boundaries through treaties that would ensure that those lands would remain under Native jurisdiction. Nevertheless, further intrusions westward occurred, adequately undermining the power of these treaties and oppressing the Native population. By the 19th century, as westward expansion began to encroach on Native American lands, the Federal Government began to enforce laws that either forced them to relocate or assimilate into American society.
Andrew Jackson’s election as president saw the enforcement of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, enacting a more extensive process of Native American removal from their lands. The emergence of the Manifest Destiny, that Americans are destined to span the North American continent, fueled the sentiment for Indian Removal as it placed larger implications on them as they became known as obstacles to the ideal of the Manifest Destiny. In the early 19th century during the Seminole War, Jackson led many attacks on Native tribes and villages, demonstrating his dislike for the Native population and precipitating the effect his presidency would have on the future of Native American tribes. Jackson was a strong supporter of this law as he believed it benefitted both the Natives and the white settlers (1). He justified this act by claiming that if they were left alone, the Native population would succumb to westward expansion and deteriorate, deeming this law necessary to ensure their survival. Despite this belief that both sides would benefit, he failed to incorporate the value of these territories to various tribes, forcing them to relocate to areas they were unfamiliar with, as they were inexperienced with both the landscape and life living in close proximity with different tribes who maintained distinct values. On the difficult and tumultuous journey to “Indian Territory,” the “Trail of Tears” demonstrated the consequences of the Indian Removal Act on the lives and cultural identity of the Native Americans (2). This migration to the reservation east of the Mississippi River resulted in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans who left virtually all of their belongings behind and possessed little as they were forced to leave their land, all under the federal troops’ supervision. With many tribes succumbing to the pressure and force under the federal government, few tribes resisted, such as the Seminoles, demonstrating the escalating tension between Native Americans and white settlers as the nation heads into the Civil War.
As some Native Americans were faced with few options besides relocating or assimilating, they resulted to violence, propagating the American perception of them as savages. Resistance from the Native population, in many instances, justified the necessity of force in order to eliminate these uprisings. During the Civil War, for example, the Sioux began killing whites in Dakota, demonstrating the discontent that Natives harbored over the loss of territories (3). As these uprisings only came to support the idea of Native Americans as “savages,” those who supported westward expansion or Indian removal often disregarded the cultural differences and beliefs that contrasted greatly with their own. Others such as Francis Walker, utilized this perception of Natives as savages to justify force as the only option they had in order to quell the conflict between whites and Natives when concerned with the protection and well-being of Americans (4). As settlers began to maintain these impressions of superiority compared to Native Americans and other minorities, it gave them stronger incentive to control lands, eliminating any influence Natives had before Indian Removal.
With the apparent success of the Indian Removal Act, small treaties across the nation were made to remove the Natives Indians. With the loss of power in political affairs, the federal government became increasingly concerned with the lives of its own citizens rather than of both Americans and Natives like in the past. With the government serving its best interests, it was easier to yield to the motives of westward expansion, and in the process, neglected their impact on Native tribes (6). This gave way to more treaties involving both the government and various tribes to surrender their land, who, at times utilized violence or force to obtain these lands. Though the government tried to uphold their agreements, these usually fell through as Natives were usually led to believe that these boundaries would prevent encroachment but would once again fail to resist the rapid expansion in American settlement. This was true for Chief Joseph who was coerced into relocating and was not consented with, resulting in the deaths of many Nez Pearce Indians on the way to their new reservation (5). These events signaled the change in Native moral with the deterioration of hope for many Indian tribes as they were deprived of the hope of peace and restoration of their lands and culture. With these treaties and the failure of the government to enforce them, this allowed trespassing on Native territory. Though time and time again treaties were passed and failed, the only thing that remains constant is that the Natives are usually always the victims. As settlement neared the western coast, the lingering impulse for expansion remained prominent, Americans began looking toward Indian reservations for land. By the late 19th century, the federal government passed laws to impose assimilation onto Native Americans.
Though no federal laws were made to enforce assimilation of native tribes in the past, by the late 19th century, the federal government began taking steps to strip the natives of their culture and impose the standards of American society. The Dawes Act of 1887 marked a turning point in how the government came to deal with the Native population. Under the Dawes Act, Natives were required to own individual tracts of land opposed to tribal lands where various tribes resided in as a community. As the land was divided for the use of agricultural cultivation, this effectively narrowed down the ways they would have normally obtained food and resources, restricting them to a situation that they may be uncharacteristic to their tribe and way of life (7). Furthermore, if the Natives are unable to produce necessities for themselves, they become vulnerable to more restrictions, resulting in the lack of community and traditions that many tribes once enjoyed.
Though Americans maintained that all should be able to enjoy the basic rights of man, they themselves failed to extend these principles to the Native Americans. America’s growth in economic and social power seemingly justified their actions and although it was met with the approval of the American citizens, Native Americans were excluded from these agreements and essentially oppressed by the pressure to relocate or the necessity to assimilate to survive. With the arrival of immigrants throughout the mid-19th to early 20th century, the same sentiments of exclusion, superiority, and an obstacle to progress would enact laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as well as fuel racist perceptions of different nationalities residing in America as the conflict between nations escalate throughout World War I.