WI: The Indian Removal Act of 1830 is defeated?

What would have happened if this piece of legislation had not passed in 1830? (OTL: Passage of this bill lead to the "Trail of Tears".)
 
IOTL public opinion was split down the middle on the issue, and the vote passed narrowly. Twice the vote could have gone either way, once in comittee, and once in the general vote.

Jackson would probably try to remove the Five Tribes anyway. But in this century, Congress was considered supreme, over the President. Congress would try to shut him down, first by cutting funds for removal. Jackson was enormously stubborn, strong willed, and utterly convinced he was always right. So he pushes American troops into an incredibly uncomfortable position: Back him or Congress. Congress tries to impeach him. The potential for an early civil war, much like England's but perhaps much shorter, was there.

While much of the military (and the public) admires Jackson as a war hero, defying Congress andthe public will can lose him a lot of support. (IOTL the army cmdr for removal, Scott, was personally opposed to what he carried out. I'm not sure what other cmdrs positions were.) So no matter which way the conflict plays out, chances are removal doesn't happen, at least not for the short term.

Now if Jackson does carry it out in spite of Congress, and defies all congressional attempts to remove him or even restrain him, this sets an ugly precedent. And if Congress is forced to use the military remove him from office, that sets another. Military interference in politics potentially becomes acceptable, meaning the US could at some point be much like Latin America. Democracy has its limits set by the military.
 
Now if Jackson does carry it out in spite of Congress, and defies all congressional attempts to remove him or even restrain him, this sets an ugly precedent. And if Congress is forced to use the military remove him from office, that sets another. Military interference in politics potentially becomes acceptable, meaning the US could at some point be much like Latin America. Democracy has its limits set by the military.

I agree with everything else, but I don't think Congress would use the military. By this point Jackson would be impeached and if he still did not leave office, local (D.C.) authorities would be used to remove him at this time.

What would be interesting though is the fact that the south was pushing for removal of the Native Americans, yet if Jackson refused to do as Congress ruled and he went ahead anyway. Many southern states may actually have a backlash against the feds (executive branch) of stepping on states rights by not obeying the consensus of each state's representative in Congress. This could bring about the removal of several executive powers to prevent future problems when Congress makes a ruling.
 
But what would Georgia do? Will the Federal Army be brought in to keep the peace between white settlers and the Cherokee?
 
But what would Georgia do? Will the Federal Army be brought in to keep the peace between white settlers and the Cherokee?

Georgia will probably try to "solve the problem" on its own with its militia, which, judging by their standards of militia, would probably be a spectacular failure.
 
But what would Georgia do? Will the Federal Army be brought in to keep the peace between white settlers and the Cherokee?
Georgia will probably try to "solve the problem" on its own with its militia, which, judging by their standards of militia, would probably be a spectacular failure.

One part of me wants to say Georgia would try to expel the Cherokee on their own, but then the Georgia militia is crossing into another states territory; fausting off the Cherokee on another state. This could cause an incident between state militias as the other state tries to prevent the move. Unfortunately, the Cherokee are in the middle of this.

The other part of me says Georgia would just stick the Cherokee on a peice of land within the state that isn't worth as much to the state. Yet, this won't work either.
 
As I understood Indian Removal, It was immensely popular in the South and immensely unpopular in the North. Jackson's decision to go forward with Indian Removal was more to mollify the South more than anything. Yes Jackson was in favor of it, but I doubt he would have done it without widespread popular support. Jackson known for his force of will, was also an astute politician so to think he would drive through Removal with no one supporting him is not an accurate analysis. One more point, if Removal doesn't pass Congress it doesn't pass by a small margin so there is still a large vocal minority in Congress and in the country supporting it. While Jackson was for it, I don't think he would have done it if Georgia and South Carolina weren't pushing so hard. Georgia and South Carolina were two of the prime orchestrators behind Nullification and behind the Tarriff protests; two things Jackson needed to move past. I am not trying to apologize for Removal just trying to point out the realpolitik behind it.

Besides Indian Removal was declared illegal by the SC so if Congress wanted to impeach him couldn't they anyway?
 
Top