Was the Indian Removal Act Constitutional?
Performance Task Quarter 3
Author: Christina Thomas, Wilde Lake Middle School, Howard County Public School System
Course/Level: U.S. History, 8th Grade
Materials:
Timeline
Jackson as Great Father Political Cartoon (1835)
Document: Indian Removal Act (1830)
Document: Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832)
Document Analysis Graphic Organizer
HCPSS Curriculum Connections
This activity would be completed during the unit Growth of a New Nation: Jacksonian Era – 3rd Quarter.
Learning Outcome(s):
Assess the impact of Jacksonian policies on Native Americans.
Task Question: Was the Indian Removal Act Constitutional?
Historical Thinking Skills Assessed:


Corroboration
Contextualizing
Background for the Teacher
Students should have already been introduced to the concept of Judicial Review created by the Marbury
vs. Madison case and which will be called into question about the validity of the Indian Removal Act and
the power of the President. President Jackson had a complicated relationship with American Indians. On
one hand he fought against many during the Creek Wars and on the other he adopted a Native American
son. He talked about a “benevolent” policy toward Indians while aggressively pursuing their removal.
Ultimately, he set in motion the forced march of the remaining Cherokees to lands west of the Mississippi
River (Other tribes had chosen to leave earlier, on their “own accord”). Although he was not in office at
the time the actual march occurred he was the author of this act. This PAT can be given before or after the
“How Democratic was Andrew Jackson?” DBQ.
Timeline:
1821 The Cherokee syllabary is finished by Sequoyah.
1825 John Quincy Adams becomes the sixth President of the United States.
1827 Cherokees draft a constitution declaring themselves a nation.
1828 The Cherokee newspaper – Phoenix is published and Andrew Jackson becomes the seventh
president.
1830 The Indian Removal Act is passed by Congress and signed by Jackson.
1835 The Treaty of New Echota is signed by approximately 100 Cherokee, stating all Cherokee land east
of the Mississippi River belongs to the U.S. Government.
1837 Martin Van Buren becomes the eighth President of the United States.
1838 The Trail of Tears (the forced marched of the remaining Cherokees off of their land east of the
Mississippi to Oklahoma) begins. Thousands die on the journey.
1
Context Setting -- The Hook
Show students the political cartoon of Jackson as Great Father. Ask students to describe what they see
and discuss what is the relationship between the people in the picture. Discuss that relationships are
complicated and not often easily defined. Ask students what they think the author wants us to believe
about Jackson and his relationship to Native Americans and whether or not that seems appropriate. Are
Native Americans “children” that need to be handled or are they free men with their own culture,
government, laws etc.? The teacher may want to include a copy of the Cherokee Constitution that
resembles our own constitution.
Document Analysis
 Ask students to recall what they remember about Judicial Review and write it on the board. They
should ultimately discuss that Judicial Review allows the Judicial Branch to decide whether or not
a law is constitutional.
 Explain to students that they will be reading two documents to figure out if the Indian Removal
Act was indeed constitutional or not.
 Hand out the documents and have students source each document using their graphic organizer.
 Have students read each document, writing down the claims that each document makes.
Corroborating Evidence and Constructing Interpretations -- Close Analysis
 Using the Document Analysis Graphic Organizer students should write down the information,
filling in each of the appropriate sections.
 Focus on the language that describes the position of the tribes. Are they a nation, a foreign
country, or subject to U.S. laws?
 Discuss the perceptions being made about Native Americans in each document.
 Discuss reasons for the removal and ask students to put themselves in the shoes of a Georgian
Farmer, a Georgian Government Official, a Judge, the President, or a Cherokee Tribe member.
Thoughtful Application
Students will write a Letter to the Editor either supporting the President’s decision or condemning it.
They must cite evidence from the articles to support their view.
The standard grading rubric for writing assignments should be used to score the letter to the editor.
2
[Andrew Jackson as the Great Father] lithograph, circa 1835. Artist unknown.
Source: William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan
Accessed at: http://www.clements.umich.edu/exhibits/online/american-encounters/american-encounters11.php
3
The Indian Removal Act of 1830
Before he became president, Andrew Jackson had been instrumental in moving Indians from their eastern
lands – both by waging war against Native Americans and negotiating treaties with them to gain their
eastern lands for the United States in exchange for land west of the Mississippi River. Once elected president,
Jackson outlined his proposed Indian removal policy in his Second Annual Message to Congress in 1830. At
Jackson’s request, Congress began crafting and debating a bill about Indian removal to western territories.
Congress passed the bill on May 28, 1830; Jackson signed it into law on June 30, 1830.
An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or
territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress
assembled, That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so much of any
territory belonging to the United States, west of the river Mississippi, not included in any state or
organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguished, as he may judge necessary, to be
divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may
choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there….
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to exchange any or all
of such districts, so to be laid off and described, with any tribe or nation within the limits of any of the
states or territories, and with which the United States have existing treaties, for the whole or any part or
portion of the territory claimed and occupied by such tribe or nation, within the bounds of any one or
more of the states or territories, where the land claimed and occupied by the Indians, is owned by the
United States, or the United States are bound to the state within which it lies to extinguish the Indian
claim thereto….
Source: Library of Congress
4
Worcester v. Georgia
Missionary Sam Worcester and his family lived in Indian territory within the state of Georgia. Georgia
passed a law that said no non-Indian could live in Indian territory without a government license. Since he
refused to get a license, Worcester was arrested and jailed. He sued the state of Georgia, claiming that his
arrest was unconstitutional and that Georgia had no power over Indian land.
In March of 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in favor of Worcester.
Marshall wrote the state of Georgia did not have the power over Indian land within its state.
The defendant is a State [Georgia], a member of the Union, which has exercised the powers of
government over a people who deny its jurisdiction [authority], and are under the protection of the
United States.....We must inquire [ask] whether the act of the Legislature of Georgia*...be consistent with,
or repugnant [offensive] to the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. It has been said at bar
that the acts of the Legislature of Georgia seize on the whole Cherokee country, parcel it out among the
neighboring counties of the State, extend her [law] to the whole country, abolish its institutions and laws,
and annihilate [destroy] its political existence...The very passage of this act [by Georgia] is an assertion of
jurisdiction [authority] over the Cherokee Nation....
The treaties and laws of the United States contemplate [consider] the Indian territory as
completely separated from that of the States, and provide that all intercourse [relations] with them shall
be carried on exclusively by the Government of the Union. The Indian nations had always been
considered as distinct, independent political communities retaining [keeping] their original natural rights
as undisputed [undeniable] possessors of the soil, from time immemorial, with the single exception of that
imposed by irresistible power… The very term "nation," so generally applied to them, means "a people
distinct from others."
The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory... in which the laws
of Georgia have no force....The Acts of Georgia are repugnant [offensive] to the Constitution, laws, and
treaties of the United States. They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United
States and the Cherokee Nation, the regulation of which according to the settled principles of our
Constitution, are committed [given] exclusively [only] to the government of the Union.
*Marshall is referring to the Georgia law that stated non-Indians could not live in Indian land without a license.
Source: Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Accessed at: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/31/515/case.html
5
Was the Indian Removal Constitutional? – Reading Like a Historian
Examine the two documents about Indian Removal and fill in the graphic organizer below.
SOURCING
CLOSE READING
What is this source? When was it created? Who
created it? Is it primary or secondary? How
reliable is it?
What does the document say about the power of
the government (state or United States) over
Native Americans?
Worcester v. State of Georgia –
Worcester v. State of Georgia -
CONTEXTUALIZING
CORROBORATION
What was going on at the time of the documents?
What was life like in 1830 for Native Americans?
white Americans?
What is similar or different about what the
documents say about the power of the
government over Native Americans?
Indian Removal Act –
Indian Removal Act –
similar –
different-
6