background preloader

Indian removal

Indian removal
Early in the 19th century, while the rapidly-growing United States expanded into the lower South, white settlers faced what they considered an obstacle. This area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw and Seminole nations. These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. Although the five Indian nations had made earlier attempts at resistance, many of their strategies were non-violent. The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. previous | next

Indian Removal Act The Indian Removal Act was a law passed by Congress on May 28, 1830, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. It authorized the president to negotiate with Indian tribes in the Southern United States for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their homelands.[1][2][3] The act was strongly supported by non-native people of the South, who were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the Five Civilized Tribes. Christian missionaries, most notably Jeremiah Evarts, protested against its passage. Background[edit] President Andrew Jackson called for an Indian Removal Act in an 1829 speech. In the 1823 case of Johnson v. Support and opposition[edit] The Indian Removal Act was controversial. Jackson viewed the demise of Indian tribal nations as inevitable, pointing to the advancement of settled life and demise of tribal nations in the American northeast. Jackson, according to historian H. Implementation[edit] See also[edit] Worcester v. References[edit]

Indian Removal The evolving U.S. policy of Indian Removal shaped Arkansas geographically, economically, and ethnically. Federal removal treaties with the Choctaw in 1825 and the Arkansas Cherokee in 1828 established the state’s western boundary. Throughout the territorial period (1819–1836), Arkansas politicians were obsessed with removing Indians from the land within its shrinking borders, even the few destitute Quapaw for whom the state had been named. Yet, a cash-poor frontier economy profited enormously from government contracts when Southeast tribal groups were transported across Arkansas throughout the 1830s, along routes later collectively labeled “the Trail of Tears.” Still, the state’s political leaders complained loudly that the presence of sovereign tribes in neighboring Indian Territory stifled development in Arkansas and, especially after the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean following the Mexican War (1846–1848), wanted those tribes removed again even further west. Bolton, S.

gov News Release: Navy’s Next Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier to be Named Enterprise Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced today via video message at the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) inactivation ceremony that the third Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier will be named Enterprise. Mabus selected this name to honor USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the Navy’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which was inactivated today in Norfolk, Va. “The USS Enterprise was the first of its kind, and for 51 years its name has been synonymous with boldness, readiness and an adventurous spirit,” said Mabus. The future USS Enterprise, designated CVN 80, will be the ninth ship to bear the name. USS Enterprise and subsequent Gerald R. The Gerald R. Media may direct queries to the Navy Office of Information at (703) 697-5342. Additional information about the Gerald R. Additional information about previous Enterprise ships is available online at the Naval History and Heritage Command website:

The Destroyer Escort The production of destroyer escorts was first seriously considered by the United States Navy in the spring of 1939 when war clouds were gathering in Europe. Even then, it was suspected that, in the event of war, there would be a need for a mass produced destroyer type capable of transoceanic convoy and anti-submarine warfare. A number of designs were produced and rejected since production was not yet considered a matter of urgency. At about the same time, the need for escorts demanded immediate attention. The capability of submarines to interdict their enemy's supply lines and to destroy his ability to wage war was the single reason for the inception of the destroyer escort. The first two DEs went to the Royal Navy. Destroyer Escorts varied from 1140 to 1450 tons unloaded displacement, 300 tons more when fully loaded, and 290 to 308 feet in length. In addition to sonar and surface search radar, air search radar was installed on DEs operating in areas where air attack was probable.

6 Ridiculous Lies You Believe About the Founding of America #3. Everything You Know About Columbus Is a Calculated Lie The Myth: Columbus discovered America thanks to a daring journey across the Atlantic. His crew was about to throw him overboard when land was spotted. "Pile into a tiny boat with dozens of filthy people for months on end" isn't the world's most attractive sales pitch. The Truth: First of all, Columbus wasn't the first to cross the Atlantic. "Unknown" in this context means "inhabited by tens of millions." The myths surrounding him cover up the fact that Columbus was calculating, shrewd and as hungry for gold as the voice over guy in the Cash4Gold ads. There were plenty of unsuccessful, mostly horrible attempts to settle America between Columbus' discovery and the pilgrims' arrival. GettyWhen people talk about traditional American values, this is what they mean. They also show us white Europeans being unable to easily defeat a native population that hadn't yet been ravaged by plague. "It must be written in a cypher of some sort. #2.

The ALJs | The Legal Genealogist Administrative law judges So last week The Legal Genealogist took on the question of the Magistrate Judge — that federal judicial officer appointed by the trial judges of each United States District Court to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities. And that prompted my friend Craig to ask about another kind of judge. Good question, and one that a lot of genealogists may encounter when dealing with their families’ post-World War II encounters with the federal government. The fact is, administrative law judges are not exactly judges at all, in the sense of belonging to the Judicial Branch of government. Administrative agencies, both at the federal and state levels, have a lot of authority in two different areas. But second, they also have to pass on a lot of issues where somebody either wants permission to do something or to get a benefit or not to suffer a detriment, and the issue ends up being contested. But who, within the agency, is going to make the decision?

Chasing that pension file | The Legal Genealogist The missing pension Most folks whose families have been in America since oh-dark-thirty — defined roughly by The Legal Genealogist as after the Mayflower but before the Revolution — ended up with one or more ancestors involved in one or more of America’s early wars. The Legal Genealogist is no exception. My 3rd great grandfather Jesse Fore was a fifer in Captain Michael Gaffney’s company of South Carolina Militia. Another third great grandfather, Elijah Gentry, and his brother James Gentry, and their father — my fourth great grandfather — Elijah Gentry Sr. all served in the 1st Regiment Mississippi Territorial Volunteers. Now I’ve seen some of the pension files for the War of 1812. I’ve sat in the National Archives and held Jesse Fore’s file in my hands. In the case of the Elijahs, it’s pretty easy to understand why Elijah Sr. never got a pension for his 1812 service: he died before May 1818, when James was named executor of his will. Duh. And there was my answer. Check the laws.

American Revolution The American Revolution was a political upheaval that took place between 1765 and 1783 during which colonists in the Thirteen American Colonies rejected the British monarchy and aristocracy, overthrew the authority of Great Britain, and founded the United States of America. The American Revolution was the result of a series of social, political, and intellectual transformations in American society, government and ways of thinking. Starting in 1765 the Americans rejected the authority of the British Parliament to tax them; protests continued to escalate, as in the Boston Tea Party of 1773, and the British responded by imposing punitive laws—the Coercive Acts—on Massachusetts in 1774. The other colonies rallied behind Massachusetts and set up a Congress to take charge. The Patriots fought the British and loyalists in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). Origins Background to 1763 The British began colonizing North America in the 17th century. 1764–1766: Taxes imposed and withdrawn

History of Connecticut The U.S. state of Connecticut began as three distinct settlements of Puritans from Massachusetts and England; they combined under a single royal charter in 1663. Known as the "land of steady habits" for its political, social and religious conservatism, the colony prospered from the trade and farming of its white Anglican Protestant population. Connecticut played an active role in the American Revolution, and became a bastion of the conservative, business-oriented, Constitutionalism Federalist Party. The state took a leading role in America's industrial revolution, with its many factories establishing a worldwide reputation for advanced machinery; indeed in the 21st century it is known for jet engines, nuclear submarines, and advanced pharmaceuticals. The educational and intellectual establishment was strongly led by Yale College, by scholars such as Noah Webster and by writers such as Mark Twain. Many Yankees left the farms to migrate west. Colonies in Connecticut[edit]

History of Connecticut Connecticut began as three distinct settlements, referred to at the time as 'Colonies' or 'Plantations'. These ventures gradually were finally combined under a single royal charter in 1662. Colonies in Connecticut The Pequot War Under the Fundamental Orders The River Towns had created a general government when faced with the demands of a war. The Dominion of New England In 1686, Sir Edmund Andros was commissioned as the Royal Governor of the Dominion of New England. Territorial disputes Map showing the Connecticut, New Haven, and Saybrook colonies and the CT-NY dispute According to a 1650 agreement with the Dutch, the western boundary of Connecticut ran north from the west side of Greenwich Bay "provided the said line come not within 10 miles (16 km) of Hudson River." A map showing Connecticut's western land claims. In the 1750s, the western frontier remained on the other side of New York.

History of Pomfret, NY Pomfret - The survey of the Holland Land Purchase, begun in 1798, was so far completed that when in 1803 the first settler within the present limits of the town - Thomas McClintock, arrived, he was able to locate the land which he purchased in December, 1803 - lots 8, 4 and 20 in township 6, now in Pomfret. Low Miniger was the next purchaser, in 1804, and in October, Zattu Cushing, the third purchaser in township 6, bought lots 28, 29 and 33. Sales dropped off entirely for six years, but in the meantime township 5, range 12, was being taken up, Eliphalet Burnham buying lot 6 in March, 1805, and the same year Zattu Cushing bought lot 16. In 1800 the first wheat was raised in Clarence Hollow, and it was then estimated that but twelve persons were living upon the Holland Purchase. In 1807 the Connecticut Baptist Missionary Society sent a missionary, Rev. The town of Pomfret was formed from Chautauqua, March 11, 1808, and was the first division of the county after its organization.

The Ohio Frontier: Crucible of the Old Northwest, 1720-1830 - R. Douglas Hurt Wyoming Monument The Wyoming Monument is an American Revolutionary War monument and gravesite located in the borough of Wyoming, Pennsylvania, in Luzerne County. The monument marks the gravesite of the bones of victims of the Wyoming Massacre, which took place on July 3, 1778. Local residents banded together to defend the area against an invasion of British Tories as well as pro-Tory Native Americans. The battle ended in defeat for the colonial fighters and considerable brutality followed the battle. Ownership of the monument is held by the Wyoming Monument Association, originally formed as the Ladies Monumental Association. Each year, beginning in 1878 for the 100th anniversary of the battle, a commemorative ceremony is held on the grounds of the stone obelisk. Oscar Jewel Harvey, History of Wilkes-Barre and Wyoming Valley links==

Battle of Wyoming After the battle, settlers claimed that the Iroquois raiders had hunted and killed fleeing Patriots before using ritual torture against thirty to forty who had surrendered, until they died.[3] Background[edit] Encounter[edit] Accounts indicate that the moment of contact was followed by a sharp battle lasting about 45 minutes. An order to reposition the Patriot line turned into a frantic rout when the inexperienced Patriot militia panicked. Colonel Dennison surrendered Forty Fort and two other forts along with the remaining soldiers the next morning. Most non-combatants were spared and almost no inhabitants were injured or molested after the surrender of the forts.[7] Colonel Butler wrote: "But what gives me the sincerest satisfaction is that I can, with great truth, assure you that in the destruction of the settlement not a single person was hurt except such as were in arms, to these, in truth, the Indians gave no quarter Aftermath[edit] Legacy[edit] Battle of Wyoming Marker In the battle: