On Indian Removal

Content Warning: The source material displays racial and ethnic prejudice and promotes ethnic cleansing.

Jackson’s brief address uses an empathetic tone, simple diction, and other rhetorical strategies to frame Jackson as a paternal figure protecting and encouraging the developing American identity and nation. The speech was delivered on December 6, 1830, and Jackson’s immediate audience was a Congress composed of all white men ranging in age from approximately 40 to 70 years old. While some opposed Jackson’s plan, many supported a stronger federal government (the “collisions” of state and federal governments over the question of Indigenous Americans were among the Divisions Within America that formed the backdrop to Jackson’s speech). However, his larger audience was the newly formed Democratic party. A “Jacksonian Democrat” was someone who believed in personal liberty regardless of economic or social status, championed the voice of the “common man,” and did not bend to the will of the elite. This diverged from the long-standing practice of wealthy, land-owning, legacy candidates running for and participating in government, and the tension between Jackson’s constituency and the population of Congress is another of the divisions the speech implicitly addresses.  

In part to foster unity among these disparate interests, Jackson uses pathos (appeal to emotion) to play to white Americans’ prejudice towards Indigenous Americans. Fear—the threat of violence—underpins Jackson’s promise that his policy will prevent “immediate contact” between Indigenous tribes and white Americans. Jackson also invokes the threat of foreign invasion to support his position, arguing that the US must bolster its frontier population to repel potential threats; the Indigenous Americans who currently occupy those lands must be removed, Jackson suggests, for the sake of the country’s security.

Jackson also appeals to positive emotions like pride. This is particularly evident in his case for The Expansion of American Culture. Through a series of rhetorical questions, he seeks to ignite the desire of his supporters to pursue “the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion” and to bring those “blessings” into new regions (3). He also juxtaposes the plight of the displaced Indigenous peoples with the situation of American settlers—first as colonists and then as westward expansionists. He uses this strategy to emphasize the fortitude of the American people and to discourage concern for the Indigenous tribes. Omitting the involuntary nature of the tribes’ removal, Jackson suggests that both relocations involve grief and hardship; the implication is that it will be the fault of Indigenous Americans if they do not show courage equal to that of the country’s first European settlers.

Jackson also uses logos (appeal to reason),  though his arguments frequently rely on biased  premises—i.e., that to be civilized is to be Christian. Taking this as a given, Jackson frames the proposed relocation as potentially accomplishing two goals: civilizing the Indigenous peoples and making room for civilized Christians. Jackson contends that both goals will prove beneficial. For example, Jackson predicts that opening formerly Indigenous lands to white settlers will lead to the development of new cities and farmland and the subsequent strengthening of the US economy—a logical conclusion given the history of the US so far. Noting the decline in Indigenous population that has already occurred, Jackson further reasons that the decline will likely continue unless something occurs to arrest it. In reality, the steep drop-off in Indigenous population had much to do with the introduction (and sometimes weaponization) of new communicable diseases, but Jackson’s assessment of the situation bolsters his overall point about Savagery Versus Civilization while also framing him as genuinely concerned with the welfare of Indigenous Americans. In this, Jackson builds on the opening paragraph, where he describes the policy of forced migration as “benevolent” and, citing examples of tribes who have already been moved, suggests others will voluntarily follow “to seek the same obvious advantages” (1). His later statement about the economic burden the government will bear to “kindly offer [the tribes] a new home, and […] to pay the whole expense of [the tribes’] removal and settlement” serves much the same purpose (5). Jackson notably does not outline how his policies will undermine Indigenous culture; he also excludes details about the realities of the journey from lands in Georgia to lands west of the Mississippi, which would kill an estimated 15% of those who were forcibly relocated.