The Indian Removal Act

( – promoted by navajo)

During the first part of the nineteenth century, the American policy was to remove Indians from east of the Mississippi River and to “give” them reservations in Indian Territory. While this idea had been proposed by President Thomas Jefferson, it was not enacted into law until 1830 with the passage of the Indian Removal Act. Under the terms of this act, Indian tribes were to be moved from Ohio and Mississippi valleys to the western plains. The primary argument in favor of Indian removal claimed that European Christian farmers could make more efficient use of the land than the Indian heathen hunters. This argument conveniently ignored the fact that Indians were efficient farmers and had been farming their land for many centuries.

Removal was essentially a racially motivated idea. In the nineteenth century, most Americans tended to view Indians in racial terms and ignored cultural differences. They viewed all Indians as the same. Unfortunately, many Americans in the twenty-first century hold this same view. Today there are still some historians, in their attempt to justify removal, who continue to portray Indians as hunters and as such, hindrances to the development of the land.

One of the voices of dissent in 1830 was that of New Jersey’s Senator Theodore Frelingbuysen who pointed out to the Senate that Europeans had found Indians:

“exercising all the rights, and enjoying the privileges, of free and indeĀ¬pendent sovereigns of this new world. They were not a wild and lawless horde of banditti, but lived under the restraints of government, patriarchal in its character, and energetic in its influence.”

In making the case for Indian removal, Lewis Cass, the Secretary of War, wrote in the North American Review:

“A barbarous people, depending for subsistence upon the scanty and precarious supplies furnished by the chase, cannot live in contact with a civilized community.”

In a series of newspaper essays intended to build public support for Indian removal, Baptist missionary Isaac McCoy claims that Indians are not sovereign nations and that Indians had not really been a party to the treaties in contractual terms. He also defends the doctrine of discovery which gives the European nations the ownership of North America. He wrote:

“Civilized nations have long since divided the continent of America among themselves. So the nations have adopted the practice of settling their territories without asking the natives to leave it by the formalities of a treaty.”

Indian agents were told to inform the tribes that if they delay their removal they will be responsible for all provisions and costs themselves. The rationale for removal, rather than “civilizing” the Indians in their homelands, was explained in one letter to the Cherokee agent:

“An Almighty hand has stamped upon every creature a particular genius, propensity and leading traits of character. The polish of education may improve, but cannot change, for the imperishable seal is there; bars and dungeons, penitentiaries and death itself, have been found insufficient, even in civilized society, to restrain man from crime, and constrain him to the necessity of moral and virtuous action. How then are we to look for, or expect it, in a community made up of savage and illiterate people?”

It is interesting to note that at this time the Cherokee have a higher literacy rate than do the Americans. However, the Cherokees were literate in Cherokee which in the minds of the Americans didn’t count as literacy.

With regard to the passage of the Indian Removal Act, President Jackson said:

“It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.”

The President went on to say:

“It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy; and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.”

Jackson was not one to let the facts interfere with political goals. He exploited an enduring stereotype to push the Indian Removal Act through Congress.

In a report for the Niles Weekly Register, Colonel Gold (whose daughter was married to Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix) reported that the Cherokee afford

“strong evidence that the wandering Indian has been converted into the industrious husbandman; and the tomahawk and rifle are exchanging for the plough, the hoe, the wheel, and the loom, and that they are rapidly acquiring domestic habits, and attaining a degree of civilization that was entirely unexpected, from the natural disposition of these children of the forest.”

The actual physical removal of the Indians, often carried out under military force and brutality, turned out to be one of the most shameful periods of American history.

John McCain, Indian Agent

( – promoted by navajo)



Source

The justification for Public Law 93-531 passed by Congress in 1974 was that the Navajo-Hopi land dispute is so serious that 10,000 Navajos near Big Mountain, Arizona, must be relocated, forcibly if necessary. It would be the largest forced relocation of U.S. citizens since the relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

But tradition-minded Navajo and Hopi claim there never was a land dispute. They say the dispute was invented to get the Navajos and their livestock off mineral-rich land in the Hopi reservation so it could be developed by mining companies such as Peabody Coal and Kerr-McGee.

This should cost McCain any possibility of him ever being the next president of the United States, period.


The ACSA challenges Senator McCain on his legislative history of Human Rights Violations: “a Skeleton in his closet: UNFIT to hold public office!”

A public research website: http://www.cain2008.org has brought together diverse historical elements of factual proof that Senator John McCain’s was the key “point man” introducing, enacting and enforcing law that removed Dineh-Navajo Families from their reservation on the Black Mesa in Arizona. The McCain revised law relocated them to Church’s Hill, Nevada (a Nuclear Waste Superfund Site, called “the New Lands” in PL 93-531). The Dineh-Navajo, a deeply spiritual and peaceful people, engaged in only peaceful resistance to being moved off lands they’d owned since 1500 A.D. Nonetheless, the Public Press and UN depicted brutalization, rights deprivation and forcible relocation.

– snip –

Senator McCain and his predecessors introduced legislation (S1973-1 and S.1003) which they claimed were justified by what has turned out to be a non-existent range war between the Dineh (mainly consisting of grandfathers and grandmothers in their 70’s living on farmlands that had belonged to their tribe since 1500 AD) and the Hopi (the 3-5 individuals rapidly assembled to assist Peabody Western Group by Senator McCain, Congressman Owens and John Boyden).

Subsequently, as the Dineh were removed from their farms by the “Relocation Commission” authorized by the US Senate at the behest of the revisions to the Public Law 93-531 introduced as S.1973-1 (1996 Partition) and S.1003 (2001 and 2005 accelerated removal of the Dineh by amendment) by Senator McCain, expanded Coal Mining Rights to their lands were granted to Peabody Western who with Bechtel Corp, have been mining the lands formerly occupied by the Dineh, and piping the coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada, which serves the Las Vegas and Reno areas power needs.

He made a bogus claim that the Navajo and the Hopi were having land disputes, when the truth was, they weren’t. So what was the real intention? It must have been to steal their land and give it “to the coal companies without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites,” because that’s exactly what happened.

Source

The Dineh (otherwise known as Navajo) were stripped of all land title and forced to relocate. Their land was turned over to the coal companies without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites that would be destroyed by the mines. People whose lives were based in their deep spiritual and life-giving relationship with the land were relocated into cities, often without compensation, forbidden to return to the land that their families had occupied for generations. People became homeless with significant increases in alcoholism, suicide, family break up, emotional abuse and death.

– snip –

“I feel that in relocating these elderly people, we are as bad as the Nazis that ran the concentration camps in World War II.”

— Roger Lewis, federally appointed Relocation Commissioner upon resignation

“I believe that the forced relocation of Navajo and Hopi people that followed from the passage in 1974 of Public Law 93-531 is a major violation of these people’s human rights. Indeed this forced relocation of over 12,000 Native Americans is one of the worst cases of involuntary community resettlement that I have studied throughout the world over the past 40 years.”

— Thayer Scudder, Professor of Anthropology, California Institute of Technology in a letter to Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance

That is exactly.

What.

Happened, along with forcibly relocating the elderly and being what Scudder called “one of the worst cases of involuntary community resettlement that I have studied throughout the world over the past 40 years” and what Wager called,  “the largest forced relocation of U.S. citizens since the relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II.”

I thought the days of Indian Agents deceptively crafting words to steal land and resulting in forced relocation were long gone, but now there’s a republican presidential candidate running sliming for the highest office in the land,

McCain & Bush

who’s done just that. McCain introduced legislation (S1973-1 and S.1003) and claimed that legislation was justified by a non-existent range war between the Dineh and the Hopi.

(emphasis mine)


Source

James McLaughlin served under 12 U.S. presidents as an American Indian agent on the Standing Rock Reservation. He wrote an official government report covering the death of Sitting Bull at a camp near the reservation.

– snip –

Sitting Bull regarded McLaughlin as an evil enemy of all American Indians.

Well, I want a president – not an Indian Agent.



Source

John McCain’s political history is loaded with abuse of his position concerning lobbyists. Since posting actual links is against HuffPo policy, do the simple research yourself.

Look into the forcible removal of the Dineh tribes, known as the Navajo, in Arizona. Follow his ties to Atty John Boyden and the Peabody Western Group (nka Peabody Energy) and their advantages gained from McCain’s legislation S1973-1 and S1003. He pushed Atty Gen Reno in forcing them off their treaty lands and onto

a nuclear waste site (Church Hill, Nevada) through the “Relocation Commission” Look up PL 93-531. Genocide for the expansion of mining rights. Follow the money that supported his political career from the energy elites that own the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada. John McCain is a corrupt politician and the evidence is there to prove it. posted 02/21/2008 at 11:28:47

John McCain “knows what’s best for America”, and that’s Straight Talk, my friends….unless of course you’re a Native American.

McCain Instrumental in Removing Dineh-Navajo Tribe

( – promoted by navajo)

How does history repeat itself? Let’s count some of the ways.

One.

Source

The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders. A few tribes went peacefully, but many resisted the relocation policy. During the fall and winter of 1838 and 1839, the Cherokees were forcibly moved west by the United States government. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died on this forced march, which became known as the “Trail of Tears.”

In 1974 the U.S. Government legally endorsed genocide when Congress passed Public Law 93-531, which enabled Peabody Coal Company to strip mine Black Mesa by ripping the traditional Navajo and Hopi peoples from the land.

Two.

The Dawes Commission” by Kent Carter. p. 208.

The debate continued and shifted to the controversial subject of what to do with the valuable coal deposits in the Choctaw Nation that had been segregated from allotment. Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin objected to the provision in the bill that authorized selling the deposits because he believed the railroads would gain control.

Source

The Dineh (otherwise known as Navajo) were stripped of all land title and forced to relocate. Their land was turned over to the coal companies without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites that would be destroyed by the mines. People whose lives were based in their deep spiritual and life-giving relationship with the land were relocated into cities, often without compensation, forbidden to return to the land that their families had occupied for generations. People became homeless with significant increases in alcoholism, suicide, family break up, emotional abuse and death.

And on and on, ad infinitum.


The ACSA challenges Senator McCain on his legislative history of Human Rights Violations: “a Skeleton in his closet: UNFIT to hold public office!”

A public research website: http://www.cain2008.org has brought together diverse historical elements of factual proof that Senator John McCain’s was the key “point man” introducing, enacting and enforcing law that removed Dineh-Navajo Families from their reservation on the Black Mesa in Arizona. The McCain revised law relocated them to Church’s Hill, Nevada (a Nuclear Waste Superfund Site, called “the New Lands” in PL 93-531). The Dineh-Navajo, a deeply spiritual and peaceful people, engaged in only peaceful resistance to being moved off lands they’d owned since 1500 A.D. Nonetheless, the Public Press and UN depicted brutalization, rights deprivation and forcible relocation.

Perhaps everyone’s hopes and prayers for peace should be,“Please don’t let them find natural resources on our land.”

Crossposted at Progressive Historians