What were the consequences of the Indian Removal Act? This force the Cherokees to go on a long hard journey from their homeland to Indian territory one fourths of their population died and this was known as the trail of tears. Not all of the Cherokees moved west.
What were some of the effects of the Indian Removal Act?
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was signed into effect by President Jackson, which allowed Native Americans to settle in land within state borders in exchange for unsettled land west of the Mississippi. Many Native American tribes reacted peacefully, but many reacted violently.
What was the effect of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 quizlet?
The Indian Removal Act was signed into law in 1830. The law granted unsettled lands west of the Mississippi to Native Americans in exchange for their land with pre-existing borders. The treaty traded Cherokee land east of the Mississippi River for $5 million.
What are some causes and effects of the Indian Removal Act?
Effects: One major effect is that the Native American population severely decreased. While on the Trail of Tears, many Native Americans endured hypothermia, starvation, and sickness. More than 4,000 natives died due to these conditions, leaving the Native American population hanging by a thread.
What were some economic effects of the Indian Removal Act quizlet?
The lands and resources opened up provided much-desired opportunity for farmland and mining gold, which likely turned a high short-term profits.
What were the immediate and long term effects of the Indian Removal Act?
2 Immediate Gains and Losses
The terms “Trail of Tears” and “The Place Where They Cried” refer to the suffering of Native Americans affected by the Indian Removal Act. It is estimated that the five tribes lost 1 in 4 of their population to cholera, starvation, cold and exhaustion during the move west.
What was the main purpose of the Indian Removal Act of 1830?
To achieve his purpose, Jackson encouraged Congress to adopt the Removal Act of 1830. The Act established a process whereby the President could grant land west of the Mississippi River to Indian tribes that agreed to give up their homelands.
What was one result of the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830?
Introduction. The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant 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.
What were some economic effects of the Indian Removal Act?
Answer and Explanation: Some of the economic effects of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 were the bolstering of the US economy due to high profits from cotton, and detrimental economic effects for Native Americans who were relegated to reservations.
Which did not occur as a result of the Indian Removal Act?
NOT :The Supreme Court held that Georgia could not take away Cherokee lands. Which did not occur as a result of the Indian Removal Act? New treaties were created with the federal government. … The Cherokee struggled to support themselves in Indian Territory.
What was the purpose of the Indian Removal Act quizlet?
Law passed by Congress in 1830 and supported by President Andrew Jackson allowing the U.S. government to remove the Native Americans from their eastern homelands and force them to move west of the Mississippi River. Many tribes signed treaties and agreed to voluntary removal.
How did Native American resist the Indian Removal Act?
In a nutshell: the Choctaw were the first to sign a treaty of removal but some tribal members resisted by staying behind under treaty provisions; the Cherokee used legal means to resist removal; the Seminole who considered the treaty of removal illegitimate fought two wars of resistance; the Creek refused to leave …
How did Andrew Jackson justify the policy of Indian removal?
President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830) … Jackson declared that removal would “incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier.” Clearing Alabama and Mississippi of their Indian populations, he said, would “enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.”