Validity of Criticism against Andrew Jackson
The criticism of Andrew Jackson and his supporters for upholding the principles of majority rule and the supremacy of the federal government inconsistently and unfairly is valid and can be demonstrated by three points. These points are as follows: first, his negotiations to the Chickasaw treaty; second, his verdict to “forcibly remove” the Native Americans to the West; and third, his decision to support the railroad which in turn took away the Indian’s food source of the buffalo. It is because of these three points that Andrew Jackson was often viewed as a hypocritical man who was uncaring for minority groups unless it could selfishly benefit him.
In 1814, Andrew Jackson individually “negotiated the Chickasaw treaty”, resulting in the Indians’ land being opened up to white settlement despite what the Chickasaw Indians desired. The Chickasaw tribe reluctantly agreed to this treaty under pressure from the United States, which left them little to no choice because of its mass power. In return for agreeing to this treaty, the federal government offered to provide the Chickasaw tribe with suitable Western land and would protect them until they moved to it. As a result of this treaty, the Chickasaw lost their ability to determine their own areas of settlement. This ‘negotiation’ demonstrates Jackson’s majority rule instead of looking out for the rights of all people, including minority groups that Jackson often showed a disinterest in helping.
After this, Jackson believed, because the powers of the Mohigan, the Narragansett, and the Delaware tribes were growing over the power of the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek, that the weaker tribes should be moved to a different land to be protected. Jackson declared that the weaker tribes would be pushed west of the Mississippi River and used the excuse that this move would protect the tribes from the “mercenary influence of white men”. Jackson abused his power of the federal...