Does no Jackson mean no Indian Removal?

Lets say Andrew Jackson dies at Battle of New Orleans and is subsequently unable to capture the presidency and throw his weight behind Indian Removal. Support from the president certainly didn't help the cause but as I understand it there were quite a few voices in the South calling for removal even before Jackson's presidency. Georgia was particularly adamant about removing the native population by force if necessary. So what do you think, does removing Jackson from the picture butterfly Indian Removal or if not how does the Indian removal process differ from OTL without Old Hickory?
 
I always hated Andew Jackson for this. In a Civil War scenario, the south would certainly have a lot of problems dealing with the natives in this case.
 
I always hated Andew Jackson for this. In a Civil War scenario, the south would certainly have a lot of problems dealing with the natives in this case.
1. some of the Indians were slave owners, so I don't really see much change in the ACW if there had been no removal
2. there was gold discovered on their lands, we whites have a particularly poor record when ever the Indians had something we wanted, if it wasn't Jackson it would have been someone else
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
1. some of the Indians were slave owners, so I don't really see much change in the ACW if there had been no removal
2. there was gold discovered on their lands, we whites have a particularly poor record when ever the Indians had something we wanted, if it wasn't Jackson it would have been someone else

Actually the Supreme Court sided with the Natives in this instance. All you need is a President who sides with the Rule of Law(i.e. the Supreme Court) then you stand a good chance of butterflying Indian Removal. It's not gauranteed though...

Bare in mind that I'm not well versed in the SC's ruling. If anyone could post the actual ruling that would be awesomesauce... yes I use that term!


Also Jackson is a complex* character. On the one hand he is a well known indian fighter and enforced Indian Removal, defying at the sametime the rule of law. On the other hand he did adopt a native boy as his son and I think(not sure) he was adopted by some tribe(not sure which).

*Which pretty much means bloody well confusing... DAMN HISTORY FOR BEING SO DAMNED CONFUSING!!! I STAB IT IN THE BRAIN**!!!

**Sorry 'bout that...
 
Actually the Supreme Court sided with the Natives in this instance. All you need is a President who sides with the Rule of Law(i.e. the Supreme Court) then you stand a good chance of butterflying Indian Removal. It's not gauranteed though...

Bare in mind that I'm not well versed in the SC's ruling. If anyone could post the actual ruling that would be awesomesauce... yes I use that term!


Also Jackson is a complex* character. On the one hand he is a well known indian fighter and enforced Indian Removal, defying at the sametime the rule of law. On the other hand he did adopt a native boy as his son and I think(not sure) he was adopted by some tribe(not sure which).

*Which pretty much means bloody well confusing... DAMN HISTORY FOR BEING SO DAMNED CONFUSING!!! I STAB IT IN THE BRAIN**!!!

**Sorry 'bout that...
Didn't he adopt the native boy after he killed his family in his raids into Florida or something?
 
Unfortunately, it's simply a matter of WHERE the Rule of Law breaks down. If the President abides by a functionally identical SCOTUS ruling, it simply means the state and people of Georgia (and probably other states) will be eradicating the Indians themselves. Some might get dumped into Florida Territory, but mostly, they're going to be killed. (Not that the Trail of Tears wasn't killing most of them). Instead of a President ignoring the SCOTUS and getting away with it, you will have state governors ignoring it and getting away with it, which in my opinion is an even worse precedent (and will make the coming wrangling over nullification worse). I think the odds of any President sending Federal troops to protect Indians against white people in the 1830s are nil.
 
This is one of those things in history that is inevitable. There was already so much inertia towards getting rid of them in the first place that to stop it you would have to go further back than the creation of the United States. The Indian Removal was just the final straw.

As depressing as it sounds, I think the removal was as good an outcome as you could hope for given the situation. If Jackson sits on the sideline, Georgia declares war on the Indians. If he sends troops in to stop Georgia, you could probably kiss the Union goodbye due to Nullification.

The Indian Removal was the best possible outcome without ASBs. I highly doubt picking another President would have much of an effect.
 
This is one of those things in history that is inevitable. There was already so much inertia towards getting rid of them in the first place that to stop it you would have to go further back than the creation of the United States. The Indian Removal was just the final straw.

As depressing as it sounds, I think the removal was as good an outcome as you could hope for given the situation. If Jackson sits on the sideline, Georgia declares war on the Indians. If he sends troops in to stop Georgia, you could probably kiss the Union goodbye due to Nullification.

The Indian Removal was the best possible outcome without ASBs. I highly doubt picking another President would have much of an effect.

Agreed, like it or not the Indians are screwed.
 
Jackson had no qualms about standing up to the states when they defied him.

People like to think that Jackson got whatever he wanted when he raised his voice, but that wasn't always the case. Jackson mainly supported state's rights up to the point that they decided to nullify federal law.
 
I'd say its fifty fifty they end up sticking around as landlords for their land and running a few tobacco plantations and eventually intgrating into southern society vs getting run out by a pogrom at some point.
 
People like to think that Jackson got whatever he wanted when he raised his voice, but that wasn't always the case. Jackson mainly supported state's rights up to the point that they decided to nullify federal law.

Where he then threatened to use force and hang Calhoun from the nearest tree. And they backed down.
 

Deleted member 14881

The 5 Civilized tribes would have been killed b.c the states will ignore SCOTUS
 
Where he then threatened to use force and hang Calhoun from the nearest tree. And they backed down.

There was more to it than that. Jackson did have to compromise and lower the tariff despite his irate speeches against South Carolina. The problem is that if he actually tried to invade, it would have escalated into civil war.

I would argue that Jackson's threat against South Carolina was mostly a political ploy to convince them to accept the compromise. I highly doubt South Carolina would have complied if they hadn't lowered the tariff as well.
 
There was more to it than that. Jackson did have to compromise and lower the tariff despite his irate speeches against South Carolina. The problem is that if he actually tried to invade, it would have escalated into civil war.

I would argue that Jackson's threat against South Carolina was mostly a political ploy to convince them to accept the compromise. I highly doubt South Carolina would have complied if they hadn't lowered the tariff as well.

So what if Jackson strikes a compromise on the Indians.
 
So what if Jackson strikes a compromise on the Indians.

My earlier post wasn't worded precisely correctly, it wasn't really Jackson that came up with the compromise. I believe it was Henry Clay, IIRC. Regardless, what compromise? The gold was on Indian land. The Georgians wanted it. There really isn't that much that could be compromised on.

Again, there were no good options when it came to the Indian Removal Act. Back then it wasn't like the modern era where the President can call in the National Guard whenever the state refuses to obey federal law. Sending troops into Georgia would certainly have been seen as a violation of state's rights, which was an extremely touchy subject in those days.

The best option is to simply ignore Worcestor v. Georgia and defuse the conflict as quickly as possible. Sadly, that came at Native American expense.
 
Top