Non-fiction: Message to Congress on Indian Removal

Overview
Andrew Jackson’s 1830 Message to Congress on Indian Removal urges legislative support for a long-advocated federal policy to relocate Native nations living within state boundaries east of the Mississippi River to designated lands in the West. Jackson frames the plan as the culmination of a decades-long “benevolent” approach meant to resolve chronic conflict between Native communities and expanding white settlements. He presents removal as voluntary, treaty-based exchanges of land that will secure peace, promote national growth, and safeguard Native peoples from what he portrays as inevitable decline if they remain among the states.

Policy and Promises
Jackson describes a federal program to negotiate with tribes for an exchange of their eastern homelands for territory west of the Mississippi, along with compensation for improvements, assistance with relocation, and support to ease their transition. He promises a title to western lands guaranteed by the United States, freedom from state legal encroachment, and protection from fraud and violence. The government, he says, will supply provisions during migration and initial settlement, offer annuities, and fund schools and other “civilizing” aids. Jackson insists these arrangements will be made by consent and formalized through treaties, emphasizing humanitarian intent rather than coercion.

Justifications and Arguments
Appealing to humanitarian and utilitarian reasoning, Jackson claims that Native nations situated within state boundaries cannot maintain independent political communities under the Constitution and laws of the United States. He asserts that attempts to preserve Native autonomy inside the states have bred jurisdictional conflict, lawlessness, and bloodshed, and that extending state laws over Native lands is both inevitable and proper. He repeatedly argues that proximity to white settlements brings exploitation and social disintegration for Native peoples, leading to “degradation and extinction.” Removal, he contends, will separate them from corrupting influences, reduce friction with settlers, and give them space to preserve their customs or adopt agriculture and schooling at their own pace.

Jackson ties removal to national prosperity and security. Opening millions of acres to settlement will expand the tax base, increase agricultural production, and populate the frontier with American citizens who strengthen defense. He argues the western concentration of tribes will also simplify federal oversight and reduce military expenditures required to police dispersed borderlands. He portrays the policy as consistent with earlier precedents and pledges, including long-standing federal efforts to extinguish Indian title by peaceful means and prior emigrations westward.

Sovereignty, Law, and Constitutionality
Throughout the message, Jackson denies that Native nations within the states possess a sovereignty that can exclude state jurisdiction. He presents federal treaty-making and commerce powers as compatible with state authority over persons and lands inside their borders. The government, he says, cannot create or recognize an independent Native polity within a state. In this framing, removal is the only workable constitutional solution: it preserves state rights, fulfills federal obligations, and relocates Native communities to a domain where the United States can guarantee their possession and self-government free from state interference.

Tone and Anticipated Outcomes
Jackson blends paternalism with inevitability. He portrays removal as a protective measure that rescues Native peoples from decline while simultaneously advancing the republic’s orderly expansion. He forecasts mutual benefits: the states gain settled jurisdiction and arable land; the nation secures peace and prosperity; and Native nations gain a distant, permanent home where they can sustain their communities without collision with state laws. The message culminates in a confident assurance that Congress’s support will complete a humane, just, and practical policy that, in his view, harmonizes constitutional order, humanitarian duty, and national growth.