American History

The Populist and the Progressives were reform movements born on the midst of Americas growing economical problems and social issues during late 1800 and early 1900. They are people from all walks of life who stand for their rights and fights for it.

Populist members were mostly from the farmers sector. They were triggered to raise their grievances due to the remarkable dropping of the prices of their products and the corruption in the government. Progressives are those who came from the middle class sectors whom as well as the populist are aiming for better governance and to stop corruption in the government. The two reform movements share the same objections on what is happening to their country at that time but they differ on their ways of solving it.

Progressives have many accomplishments which includes the Business reform, Humanitarian Reform, and the 16th, 17th 18th and 19th Amendments. These accomplishments of the Progressives movement now plays a big role in the more efficient and more balanced way of life in America. On the other hand, Populist also posted big accomplishments. Their demands for the governments ownership of telegraph and railroads, the call for the closure of national banks and the idea of citizens to vote for their senators soon led to the creation of laws by the legislative body of America.

There are failures on both parties that came out because of certain factors that did not create a very good result to the citizens. In 1896, the Populist Party splits off between adhering to the Democrats and adopting the Republicans which has been severely impacted by the rapid increase of farm prices. Many leaders joined the Progressive movement at this point. On the other hand, Progressives didnt influence the political system that much as well as capitalism. It means to say that propaganda should be realistic and not idealistic. There must be an objective and every little thing should be taken into consideration especially the good of the people in order for a party to stay longer.

Culture is usually defined as a set of beliefs and values that affect the attitude and behavior of an individual. However it can also be defined as borrowed beliefs and values that affect attitudes and behaviors. Every country has its own culture however some countries have a blend of two or more cultures primarily due to the existing population diversity. One example of such a country is the United States of America (USA). The country has a population of approximately 250,000,000 and a size that is almost as huge as a continent. With a country this big, it is not surprising to say that it is perhaps the most culturally diverse nation in the world. This is primarily due to the cultural invasion of Europe and other countries into America and its Native American culture. This paper attempts to compare the European and Native American cultures and to analyze the encounter of both these cultures.

The Differences
Native Americans are the indigenous or local population of USA that faced a lot of problems during and after the European colonization of USA. The Native Americans had an old way of thinking and doing things compared to the new and comparatively modern ways of Europe. This was largely due to the difference in their cultures and backgrounds. The main cultural clash was between savagery of the Native Americans and the civilized culture of the Europeans. The Natives were more of a wild nature and indulged in practices such as cannibalization. This no doubt was a cultural shock to the Europeans who were much more civilized and proper in their ways.
   
A major cultural difference between the Europeans and the Native Americans was in their attitude towards the natural habitat and land. The Mother Earth was sacred to the Natives. It was something they loved, respected, and claimed they had a connection with it. A relationship of spirituality existed between the Natives and the Mother Earth. Nature was Godly to the Natives they thanked it and prayed to it. To the civilized cultures this concept was interesting and totally alien. To the Europeans and other New World societies, land was synonymous to territory, property, business, and power. The Europeans thought the Natives were wasting such a productive land and that it could be easily traded which would generate money and wealth. This difference of thinking became one of the root causes of the many wars fought between the two it was a fight of cultures. The Europeans without any hesitance made their own rules and decided to make it part of their territory. They started trading on the land of the Natives and found no shame in it as for them it was fighting against the people who did not believe in the real God or more simply non-Christians.

Another difference that arose after the European invasion was the others concept. The Native Americans never distinguished themselves from the other native tribes. However after the European invasion they did find the difference and started differentiating themselves from the Europeans. Nonetheless these others became one after a certain point. All the cultures mixed in with the others just like the European cultures had gotten mixed up amongst the other European cultures. The American culture that prevailed after the invasion was a mix of all the European cultures, and the one that prevails now is definitely a blend of the old and the new world cultures.

The Similarities 
Amongst the similarities, one similarity that was observed between both these cultures was that of the attitude towards war. The Europeans showed no resentment in adopting the war culture of the Native Americans. Both displayed savage like behavior at the war front as winning by any means was the sole motive. The Native military manners were something the Europeans adopted very easily.
   
A healthy similarity of both cultures was the exchange of plants, insects, and animals. Both cultures showed no apprehension towards adopting grain, animal vehicles, and other vegetation. The Natives were unfamiliar with the European animals such as cows, pigs, and horses, and the Europeans with the different fruits and vegetables of the Native land. This healthy exchange of goods led to the future development of both the worlds. The Natives made use of these animals to a great extent and with the help of these animals, especially horses they went and explored the inner lands. They used animals as a means of transport and traded with other native tribes. Moreover these animals were used for entertainment as well such as hunting and other activities. The animal population of the Native land also increased as many of these animals began breeding.
   
One similarity found between the New World population and the Siberians was in their spiritual belief. Both the Natives and the Siberians believed plants and the nature having a spiritual connect. Both had spiritual healers known as Shamans who had the power of healing people with diseases.
Culture is also seen in ones environment and houses etc. The Natives and Siberians shared a similar topography and therefore had similar dwellings and Tepees. The environment was similar hence many of the materials used for construction were similar too.
   
An interesting inference that can be made from all this study is perhaps the inclination of the Native Americans towards the European culture. Of course the Natives found an advantage in adapted to the European ways of doing things because of which they familiarized themselves with the European culture. The European culture suited the Native Americans and that is why we see the modern day American still following the same cultural blend.

The unfolding of these cultural conflicts led to frequent wars and confrontations between the Native Americans and European cultures. These confrontations and the merging of both these worlds brought in a lot of good as well as bad things into the native land of the Americans. The Europeans transmitted diseases to the Natives that they had not even heard of let alone have the cure for it. Apart from the many small battles, the Natives were moved away from main lands and were pushed into the remotest of areas. Their land was taken away from them, they were murdered for land, they were made slaves of the Europeans, and many of their women were forced into marriages with the Europeans. The new diseases and intermarriages led to the decline of the Native American population as well as a growing hatred for the Europeans.

The main event that unfolded after the clash of so many cultures the new and the old world, was the ultimate war of independence fought by the Americans. Freedom and other ideas associated with it were developed by the Native Americans and were extensively displayed to the Europeans during the revolutionary period. The Europeans were not aware of such a strong freedom spirit that prevailed amongst the Americans which they displayed wholeheartedly and finally won their land and their independence from the foreign cultures that had invaded their Mother Earth.

Many people agree that the resignation of President Nixon due to his involvement in the Watergate scandal is enough evidence that the constitution of the United States works. Other people believe that it was a good lesson for other presidents who took power later that they must be honest in their acts.  Although he resigned before he was impeached, there was enough evidence that he had committed an impeachable crime.

Impeachment of President Nixon
The United States constitution provides for the impeachment of any officer if he or she is found guilty of offences such as treason, corruption or other high rated crimes. According to the United States Constitution, the House of Representative has the power to determine whether any government official which could be the President, Vice president, Secretary of States or any civil officer can be impeached. The house can impeach any officer of the government by a simple majority. Once the House of Representative has determined whether an officer should be impeached, the person can then be tried by the Senate where he or she can be convicted by a two third majority. The presiding officer of the Senate is always the Vice president but incase the person being tried is the President or the Vice president, the presiding officer role is played by the Chief Justice (Brunner, Para 1). This approach can be seen to be unfair due to the high political influence the process is likely to be subjected to leading to unfair trial. However, the actions by the House of Representative or the Senate do not obstruct the legal action against the accused individual. Therefore, whichever action the Senate or the House of Representative takes, the individual is liable to normal court proceeding and is subject to punishment by the law if found guilty (Semonche. Para1).
  
Before Nixon was elected as the president of the United States, he had served in the house of representative and the senate. He had also served as a Vice president for two terms when Dwight David Eisenhower was the president. Nixon contested and won the presidency in a closely contested presidential election in 1968. However, he had previously contested and lost in 1960 when he was beaten on the ballot by J. F. Kennedy. He also lost a bid for a governor of California in 1962. Despite this, he had a landslide victory in the 1972 presidential elections. The Watergate scandal in which the Democratic Party headquarters were broken into attracted a lot of attention from the Americans though it did not affect Nixons presidential campaigns. The headquarters were located in Watergate hotel and the scandal was widely published by the Washington Post. The Washington Post did massive investigation to find the details and unearth the whole story. Their finding of Bernstein and Woodward who were reporters with the Washington Post and were assigned to investigate the scandal compiled their report in All the Presidents Men (Semonche, Para 6).
  
What followed was a trial of the arrested Watergate scandal suspect after the federal investigation agencies investigated the matter. As the trial went on, more attention was laid on how the president was involved in the scandal. The senate therefore instituted a committee led by Sam Ervin, who was then the senator of new Carolina, to investigate how the White House was linked to the scandal. Things changed from bad to worse for the president when one of his lawyers, John Dean, made a statement proving that the president had acted to cover up how he and his officials at White House were involved in the Watergate scandal. However, the president was safe if his involvement in the scandal was only testified by Dean (Cohen, Para 1).

The situation however became even worse when the senate committee investigating the scandal had information that the president had fixed a taping system in the Oval Office which was voice activated. Following the action of the senate to investigate how the president and white house officials were involved in the scandal, many official and president advisors were forced by circumstances to quit office through resignation. However, Nixon seemed to be unmoved by the unfolding events and withheld the tapes despite the attempts by special prosecutors as well as the senate committee to obtain them.
  
Although the president handed over some of the tapes he had withheld, the struggle did not end. The house of representative had already started considering the possibility of impeachment. Some of the politicians however defended the president arguing that the president was not directly involved in the scandal and there were no substantial evidence on the president attempting to cover up the scandal. In 1974, the Supreme Court overruled the executive privileges that enabled the president to hold the tapes and ruled that the tapes be handed over to the special prosecutor. The days in office for the president were numbered when he surrendered all the tapes he had guarded to comply with the court order.

The remaining defenders of the president had nothing to say when the content of the tapes were revealed. This revelation was also a big backup to his impeachment which was being planned in the House of Representatives. Although there was no evidence that Nixon was involved in the planning of the attack, his attempts to cover up the investigations of the scandal were clearly documented in the tapes (The History Place, Pg 1).
  
Among the three articles drafted for the impeachment of the president, the most relevant one was the one that accused him for trying to cover up the scandal. The draft was supported by the revelation of the tapes. The president was accused of obstruction of justice where he used the power of the institution of the presidency personally and using agents to obstruct and cover up crime. There was enough evidence that the house could have used against the president and remove him from office. Being aware of this, the president resigned on 8th of August 1974 before the house voted for his impeachment and the subsequent trail by the senate. He became the first president to resign due to allegations of misconduct and abuse of office. However, despite President Nixon being accused of committing the greatest crime ever by an American president, he maintained that he had done nothing that other presidents have never done (Gray  Schamel, pg 88).
  
The accusations on President Nixon had enough evidence to guarantee impeachment. He released the tapes that proved beyond any reasonable doubts that he was involved in cover up of the Watergate scandal. Therefore, even if he did not resign, he could have been impeached. However, his resignation assured him of benefits of a retired president. He was also given a blanket pardon by his successor president Ford who argued that he had suffered enough.

Woodrow Wilsons book, Congressional Government, which he wrote as a young political science graduate at John Hopkins University, extensively discussed the shift of power from the presidency to Congress. While this was true in the period observed by Wilson because of the aftermath of historically significant events such as the Civil War, the same shift of power was not the case during Wilsons own term as President of the United States from 1913-1921 and Theodore Roosevelts term from 1901-1909. In fact, during this period, there was a shift of power from Congress to the Presidency.
   
Congress wasnt too powerful in the late 18th century and early 19th century, which was the period preceding Wilsons and Roosevelts presidencies. Its decisions didnt have that much impact in the lives of citizens. This drastically changed during the late 19th century when events such as the Civil War clearly established hegemony of the government in politics. An interdependent economy supported by interstate commerce also emerged after the industrial revolution, which gave the national government more crucial decisions to make regarding the lives of citizens. The US was also conquering faraway territories and encountering foreign policy issues. These events shifted power from the Presidency to Congress because the latter was in charge of regulating interstate and foreign commerce, providing advice to treaties and ambassadorial nominations, controlling defense authorizations, and declaring wars (Davis, 1980, p. 75).
   
However, by the Progressive Era from 1880s to the 1920s, spanning the presidencies of Wilson and Roosevelt, members of Congress realized that centralized power within the legislative body didnt serve their personal interests anymore. They turned against strong party leaders who reduced organizational chaos, and instead, saw them as tyrants who hindered their personal careers and specializations in policy. Decentralization of Congress thus ensued, with members of the Congress stripping the Speaker of the House of most of its potency and eradicating the role of a powerful majority party leader in the Senate. Party government ended, replaced by committee government which served the interests of individual members of the Congress. Democratization of Congress was supported by the business sector and executive agencies because these elements also despised strong party leaders who tended to go against the interests of particular sectors of economy and society, since they were nationally oriented (Davis, 1980, p. 77).
   
During Wilsons and Roosevelts term, Congress was characterized by committees, which although promoted democratization, created internal chaos in the legislative body. Since the Congress was largely immobile or stagnant, the country elected strong presidents such as Wilson and Roosevelt who had the power to regain national political leadership. Theodore Roosevelt inspired the public so much that in 1904, he trampled upon his Democratic opponent by a popular majority of three-to-two and he took all states except for two in the South. In the executive sphere, he spearheaded the creation of national forests from public lands, initiated antitrust prosecutions, and led a coal strike settlement by threatening to close the mines down. Congress was troubled so much by his fast actions that they demanded he explain the legality of his executive decisions (Sundquist, 1981, p. 31).
   
Wilson was very much like Roosevelt who dominated the Congress fettered by its disputing committees. He was very much in favor of party government and sought the Presidency to take leadership of the immobile government. Wilsons swift activism was supported by the party majority elected with him, which was comprised of progressives who looked up to him for leadership. Democrats were also eager to work with him because they wanted to make a good record after their long period out of power. Thus, Wilsons analysis as a graduate student at Johns Hopkins was correct, that there was a power shift from the Presidency to Congress. However, during his term and Roosevelts, times had clearly changed and through them, the Presidency dominated Congress.

The political disturbance that occurred in the first half of the 18th century, when the American colonists rejected the rule of the British parliament is referred to as the American Revolution. Fiske (p, 5) notes that these colonists who were thirteen in number established sovereign states. They then united to form one nation and effectively resist the British rule. This paper looks at some of the events that took place in the process of revolution.

Major events that led to the American Revolution
According to Fiske (p, 5), after the overthrow of the Stuart Dynasty to the victory of Wolfe, the British government and the American colonies were in terms. The French however, emerged as a perpetual menace to the British. In 1705, the Virginia black code assigned the slaves the status of real estates. Marriage between Africans-Americans and whites was declared illegal. The Pennsylvania gazette was first published by Benjamin Franklin in the year 1729. In 1743, Ben Franklin founded the American philosophical society in Philadelphia. In order to protect their iron industry from competition with other American colonies, the British colony passed the iron act.

The English parliament according to Fiske, (p, 14) also passed the currency act which prohibited the issuing of paper money by all colonists. The proclamation act of 1763 prohibited any form of settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Many colonists were against this order. The sugar act was another event that led to the American Revolution in which the duties on sugar import from West Indies were raised. The committee of correspondence of 1764 which comprised of Thomas Jefferson played a key role in spreading information through letters.

The stamp act was imposed by the British government on the colonists. This acted as a means to pay for the price of protecting the American frontier. An underground movement known as the sons of liberty was formed in opposition to the stamp act. This movement forced many stamp act agents to resign and also stopped American merchants from ordering British goods. The quartering act which required the colonists to house and feed the British was another factor that angered the colonists. In 1766, the English parliament passed a declaratory act which indicated that the British government had all the authority to pass any laws that governed the American colonies. The British repealed tax acts in 1770 and all taxes on imports except tea were scraped. In the wake of the Boston tea party, the British had imposed so many restrictions that the Americans gave them a name the intolerable acts (Fiske p, 25).

Taylor, Scott, and Bullitt (para, 2), states that Jefferson proposed a ban on slavery all over the US after 1800. Jeffersons ordinance on freedom of religion was passed and this later became the form for the first amendment to the US constitution. George Washington became the first president of America in 1789 and delivered his inaugural address. According to Taylor, Scott, and Bullitt (para, 5), the capital of the United States was moved from Philadelphia to Washington in 1800. Jefferson was elected the president of the US in 1801. In 1868, President Johnson was impeached, but later acquitted which led to his resignation. The 15th amendment was ratified in 1870 allowing all blacks to vote except women. The Jim Crow laws were passed in Tennessee. The civil rights acts were also passed and in 1877, the congress which was the 45th had three black members (Taylor, Scott, and Bullitt, para, 23).

The struggle for American Revolution dates back to the Stuart dynasty. This struggle involved every community that lived in American, starting from the British, the French, the Spaniards, the Indians and the Native Americans to the African Americans. The British who were by then superior to other colonists imposed acts that were aimed at ensuring loyalty was paid to their throne. This revolution led to the independence of the United States with George Washington becoming the first president. The 15th amendment of the United States constitution gave more freedom, even political, to the African American

In the time when people were moving to cities to find their fortunes, there came the need to find employment.  These emigrants and country folk that moved to the cities created a large employee pool from which the manufacturers of the North were able to pull from to not only increased their own wealth, but give a little hope to those who worked for them.  At least that was the plan.  Depending on who was discussing the point, the ideas about wage labor varied as much as the ideas about slavery.  In some cases, wage labor was considered a type of slavery, but in the end wage labor won out.  Slavery was abolished, but slaves to wages were created.

The idea of slaves to wages was not the belief of everyone.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln in his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1859, talks about his views of wage labor and those views that are held by others.  Lincoln believed, from his own experience, was that men offer themselves as wage laborers in order to gain experience, and money to create their own life and in that be able to hire some young man and get him started in life (Lincoln 84).  However, Judge Douglas and many of the southern citizens viewed wage labor as horrendous and believed that slavery was better.  Their basis was the idea that the slave owner cared for all the necessities of the slave throughout life, while the wage laborer never got ahead and remained in service to the business owner, until he was no longer useful and then was laid on the public for support (Lincoln 83).
From the white mans view it is obvious that there are two sides to this debate of which is better than the other.  However, for most slaves, the idea of wage labor is a much better life than that of a slave.  Frederick Douglass explains this very fact in Chapter 11 of the Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave.  For Douglass there was no option.  Being free was a much better way of living.  He tells that as a slave, his owner hired him out, but the wages that he received for his work had to be given to the master at the end of each week.  He tells that if he made 6 or more, his master would give him six cents for his work (Douglass).  Eventually, Douglass got his freedom and worked for himself.  Even though the work was hard, he was happy to do whatever task was given to him, for he worked for himself and his family and not for the wealthy slave owner that could really care less about the conditions in which the slaves lived.

Both Lincoln and Douglass found that wage labor was a step up for all prospective employees.  The employee worked for the employer and was given wages in which to live.  Unlike the slave, who was forced to work for no wages, but was given food and housing.  This is one of the major problems with deciding which type of employment was most effective.  One factor that is laid out as being detrimental to both types of employment is burn out.  While not called burn out in the evidential documents, the industrial aspects of the wage laborer and the slave wanes as the activities associated with the job become more robotic than thought invoked.  Tocqueville states the art advances, the artisan recedes (FIU).  This is a powerful message and fairly accurate in that many employees over the years lose themselves to their jobs. They become the job and when they retire they lose a part of themselves in the process. 

Unlike Tocqueville, Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures sees the concept and life of a wage earner in a different light.  In fact, he laid out the new concept of wage labor in light of the industrialization and the use of machinery in manufacturing factories.  He saw the wage laborer as important.  Age and gender helped to define the type of work that the person could perform in the best manner (Hamilton).  For example, many children worked with cotton machinery and cloth weaving machines because they were small.  Should a full size man try to do the job and he would be unable to fit in the areas that are required for the job.  In contrast, a woman would not work as a physical laborer digging holes and such.  She would work in the more refined areas of the manufacturing plant as with the children.  

There was also talk of a new aristocratic governing body created by the capitalists and business leaders of the time.  In an aristocracy, the employee was reliant on the aristocrat for much including protection. This was expected for the work the peasant did for the lord of the manor.  However, the new aristocracy was only the leadership of those with money.  They did not feel any responsibility to their employees for anything but the cheapest wage that the employees would accept.  The business owners bought supplies cheap, and paid their employees a pittance, and kept the rest for themselves (FIU Orestes).  Then they ran the state governments and the actions of the governments were in the interests of the wealthy few rather than the poor many. 
   
In any event, for many the concept of slave labor was not the permanent answer and Lincoln even says as much in his Speech in Cincinnati when he mentions that slavery was to be used only for twenty years and then ended.  Of course the Constitution did not say that slaver would end, but the purchasing of slaves from Africa.  Of course, those in the slave states fought this as long as they could, but eventually they lost their cheap labor and were forced to pay their labor wages. 
Slave owners wanted to believe that wage labor was not permanent and in this sense, charged their employees to live in the shacks that were once provided to them at no cost in a way to keep their money.   Even in the north men and women of color were forced to work in specific jobs. Even if they were qualified, many of the white men did not want to work beside a black man, free or not, thereby creating an invisible barrier between the races (Douglass Lincoln).

This barrier was not just between color but gender and age as well.  The new concepts of wage labor created a new abuse of the employee.  While the employer could not whip the employee, he could pay little in wages and make the employee work long hours in less than sanitary conditions.  The fact is that to keep the wages low, the family, all ages, had to work, from young childhood until old feeble age.  Each faction of the family worked in specific jobs.  The children usually worked in the cloth and clothing manufacturing plants, while the men worked in more physical jobs.  Even with the family working, very few lived up to

Lincolns belief of getting out of poverty and living the American dream.  If anything the wage laborers in the northern cities were pushed deeper into poverty to ensure that there would always be laborers. 
It seems from the evidence that those people who truly embraced the concept of wage labor, did not truly understand the basis and the actual ways in which the laborers were treated.  Lincoln believed he had been a wage laborer.  While he did work for wages it was not in one of the major cities in the northeast, but in Illinois.  His basis for comparison was skewed from the beginning.  Even though his utopian view was believed by many, the truth was obvious to many in the northeast where they worked for little and often owed more than they made. 

Douglass, too, lives in a bit of a utopian society in regards to working.  He does acknowledge that he was unable to find a job as a caulker, which was his trade.  He was kept from the job because he was black, but he did find other employment and did actually make a good living and prospered.  But again, he had the help of others that led him in the right path. 

Hamilton mentions the division of classes in employment and the use of immigrants as cheap labor.  Women and children have already been discussed, but the use of foreign labor actually caused more problems to wage laborers in the long run.  The emigrant workers from Europe were excited about receiving pay for work, and would undermine those people that were Americans creating a lower than needed wage for employees.  In many cases, the wages and work were not equal and the positions were more or less free slave labor. 

It seems that more people between the years of 1790 and 1861 were not happy with the concept of wage labor.  Many wanted to keep the slaves at least in the slave states.  Even Lincoln agreed that the slave states should be allowed to continue in their way.  He believed that slaves were most useful in the agricultural states where their labor was best utilized.  Other agreed with this fact and was one of the reasons that new territories were often in feuds about being a free state or slave state. 

The idea of slaves in the north and many new territories however, was not accepted.  There were enough poor white people and free or escaped black people in which to employ in their factories, businesses and homes.  The wages were minimal and the workers gave their all.  They gave up their lives for the employers and employers made promises that many believed, but few actually obtained.  Wage labor was the new permanent wave of the future and even those that hoped it would go away could not have imagined the wealth that this type of work force could create for the businessmen of the time and in the future.

This essay is an attempt to investigate the approach towards Jacksons Indian removal policy offered by F.P. Prucha and to compare this approach to the interpretations of the events offered by other authors. Prucha explains his position in Andrew Jacksons Indian Policy A Reassessment published in 1969. I am going to compare his view to the concepts of of M.P. Rogin, R.N. Satz, M.E. Young and R.P. Longaker. The paper will review the position of author, and contrast them. The paper will argue that Pruchas approach is not so unique as he asserts when he writes of notable historians who adopted a devilish theory (527) of Indian removal. His main points were supported or interpreted by other authors creating a general complicated theory of Jacksons Indian policy.

Pruchas basic conclusion is that Jackson sincerely treated Indians as equal part of American nation and followed the paternalistic theory viewing Indians as unwise children who had yet to be civilized. His policy has been predefined rather by security considerations than by his anti-Indian ideas. As Prucha puts it, in assessing Jacksons Indian policy, historians must not listen too eagerly to Jacksons political opponents whose ideas continue to shape our view of the Indian removal.

Prucha offers several proofs for his arguments. He firstly examines Jacksons public statements and actions in respect of the Indians finding that Jackson distinguished peaceful Indians aiming to civilization from the hostile savage (530) tribes. The peaceful tribes could expect kind attitude and support of Jacksons administration while the barbarous tribes had to be brutally punished for any offence (528). Upon examination of Jacksons position and military career Prucha arrives to conclusion that Jackson was strongly influenced by his previous military experience including campaigns against unfriendly Indians and foreign enemies. Thus, according to Prucha, Jacksons Indian policy has been, to a great extent, predetermined by public security considerations and its ultimate goal was peace and protection for all (529).

With these assumptions Prucha puts his primary question was there a choice He answers that Jackson indeed had several options to choose from, including physical elimination of Indians, forcible displacement, removal, creation of Indian enclaves at their home territories and assimilation. Prucha argues that Jackson cant be recalled as anti-Indian President at least because he has not chosen one of the first two options. Attempts to apply the latter two options failed. Indian enclaves threatened the security of the settlers and the Indians proved to be reluctant to accept civilizational skills (532-533). Thus, the removal of Indians upon condition of government support and fair compensation appeared to be the only reasonable solution for Jackson, who observed that Indians are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the States (539). This Jacksons quote is Pruchas implied argument that Jackson planned his Indian policy with consideration of Indians interests same as interests of the whites.

The paternalistic view of Jacksons Indian policy is supported by M.P. Rogin in his Fathers and children Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian. The book offers an analysis of Jacksons personal and psychological background leading him to paternalistic attitude towards the Indians. Rogin gathered significant evidence proving that Indians were commonly treated by the whites as children of nature (114) who could hardly be civilized in the foreseeable future. At that, the colonizers viewed civilization as an absolute value and consciously took up Kiplings white mans burden. Such environment could hardly turn Jackson into advocate of Indian rights, more than that, Jackson could hardly imagine that rights and freedoms could exist outside of the civilized society. 

Researching on Jacksons living experience Rogin finds out that his character has been shaped by orphanage and privation during his childhood and early youth. Later this caused Jackson to support parentless children (40). As a President Jackson spread this ttitude to the entire nation including Indians who had to obey Jacksons parental orders or leave the family. Thus the removal of Indians appears as a painful but necessary measure to avoid interfamilial conflict inside America and reconstruct paternal authority over the Indians (251). At this point Rogin has much in common with Prucha, most notably the idea that Jackson himself viewed his Indian policy as a benefaction for the Indians themselves.

This conclusion is supported by Satz in his solid treatise  American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Talking on Jacksons intentions in respect of the Indians Satz notes that Old Hickorys policy toward the Indians was a natural corollary of his conception of the nature of the American Union and its needs (9), yet, the tremendous energy and perseverance Andrew Jackson expanded in Indian affairs, however,  was apparently not related to any feelings or animosity toward the Indians (9). Satz examines Jacksons Indian policy as matter of cool and rational reason based on Jacksons previous experience. The development of the Indian policy, according to Satz, was a result of a choice Jackson made already before he entered the White House. Once more, this position correlates with the one of Prucha as Satz demonstrates balanced considerations standing behind Jacksons policy, including demand for new agricultural land, protection of frontiers, as well as uncareful fulfillment of than policy. According to Satz, Jacksons original plan was quite beneficial for the Indians, however, it largely failed as a result of administrative and managerial blunders.

This rational theory of Indian removal is undermined by M.E. Young in an unexpected manner. Researching on agricultural considerations behind Indian removal, especially those concerning land allotment she observes that a considerable number of Indians was already involved in farming when Jackson started implementing his policy (34). Thus, the removal of those settled and relatively peaceful Indians appears to be illogical in the light of the rational theory. Young offers an original explanation. According to her idea, American government and Jackson himself sincerely erred in their perception of Indians. The only dominating image of an Indian was brutal savage, an uncivilized son of nature whose presence prevented white farmers from utilizing the fertile lands on the Western frontier. Failure to accept the fruits of civilization was attributed to Indian chiefs, so Jackson and his administration believed that migration will offer the Indian people an opportunity to free themselves from tyranny and begin a new life in a new land (35). Combined with frequent conflicts  between the Indians and white settlers this lead the government to a futile conclusion that most of the real Indians were anxious to emigrate (42). In the light of this, it can be assumed that the government simply saw that what it wanted to see and thus fanatically enforced its erroneous policy, resting assured that this policy was the most rational solution. The conclusions made by Jacksons administration were indeed rational, however, they relied in faulty assumptions.

This position has been further assured in the disputes between Jackson and US Supreme Court. Longaker points out that the idea of removal fastened in Jacksons mind after rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the cases like Kendall v. United States (353), United States v. Kendall (356), Kendall v. Stokes (356), Mississippi v. Johnson (359), and, most importantly, Cherokee v. State of Georgia (343). Those cases clarified the powers of the President, the government and the Congress concerning their powers and relations with the Indians. In the latter case Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Indian tribes cannot be viewed as separate nations, and thus the law of relations between nations is not applicable to them (354). This conclusion provided Jackson with moral and ethical grounds for the removal as well as, probably, with moral justification. At that, Jackson once again accepted only that what he wanted to accept, refusing, however, to accept Marshalls conclusion that the Indian rights are not dependent on the state authority (345) or that he had to respect for Indian rights so long as they are exercised on the western bank of the Mississippi (347). It appears thus, that Jackson attempted to utilize judiciary as an instrument to legitimize the Indian removal. This hardly corresponds to the theory of irrational hatter mentioned by Prucha, however, corresponds to the rational theory.

It can be concluded that various theories reviewed in this essay come down to a single rational choice theory. Thus, Pruchas idea is hardly outside of historiographical mainstream. Rather it is just an another interpretation of rational theory which can be called no other choice theory. The no other choice theory does not contradict Rogins paternalistic theory. It is paralleled by Satzs rational reasoning theory. Youngs good reasoning, bad premise theory complements Pruchas concept and perfectly explains the failure of Jacksons removal policy and the resulting sufferings of the Indians. And finally, Longakers notion on legitimization of the Indian removal by the Supreme Court provides additional justification to Pruchas assertion that Jackson acted in good faith during implementation of the removal policy.

Neither of the considered profound historical studies supports the primitive irrational hatter approach. In contrast, each of the scholars proves that Indian removal has been fostered by the ideas, which appeared to be noble and reasonable to Jackson. Combined together they suggest a complex theory of the Indian removal policy.