Native American Treaties

the States requested that the population cede certain races of land, beneficial to the US, and with the agreement that the fall in States could hand garrisons where they desire In order to protect the frontiers. In exchange for the considerations and the permanent relinquishment of those lands and claims, the join States agreed to pay the nation several types of compensation. First was an annual monetary nucleus of $3000. 00 every year indefinitely to the creek estate, with an redundant $1000. 00 per year to the chiefs who administer the disposalal services to the tribe.Also provided In the treaty was the sum of $25,000. 00, to be distri neverthelessed in parts as merchandise and goods, the distraction of debts the community owed, and the satisfaction of individual loss of property claims against the tribe by citizens of the unite States. In addition, the united States agreed to furnish two sets of Blacksmiths tools and the men to seduce them for a period of three years . K State brook 1802 1 felt as though, bandage I still disagree with the report that these treaty agreements were in both way fair or a true option to the tribes on these lands, this particular treaty wasnt any crueler than former(a) treaties.The land descriptions of what was to be ceded to the united States Is official for me to comprehend in any Value aspect. I am not certain of the acreage, nor would I begin to greet the land value. Secondly, only part of that value was direct compensation. I encounter the breakdown of the larger compensation package suspect, since It virtu every(prenominal)y forgives debts that the United States government purports the brook Indians acquired and/or for acts the government purports the Creek Indians committed against the citizens of America.If the land, property, or otherwise purported to have been taken was in actuality the Creek Indians to begin with, then it would be unfair to use land compensation as payment of a debt that never occurre d. The second treaty I chose was signed August 9, 1814, (also called the conformity of Ft. Jackson) following the events surrounding the War of 1812. Andrew Jackson was both the 1 reach the Creek Indian tribes that culminated with the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in atomic number 13 on March 27, 1814, and killed 800 Indian warfareriors and imprisoned over 500 women and children in the Ft Aims Massacre. Britannica Creek Indian War) The agreement was in response to Unprovoked, inhuman, and gory war, waged y the hostile Creeks against us and for basically violating the 1790 treaty, disregarding the previous honest spirit of existing treaties. (K State Creek 1814) This treaty had many more(prenominal) provisions, and heavily favored the United States, while laying blame to the Creek Indians for the events that lead to the massacre, and hence, this treaty which reads more as a list of spoils.The United States demanded the combining weight to all expenses for seeing out the perfectty of the war to its end. Not macrocosm specifically written, I can only assume that they entirety included the Creek Indian War AND the majority of the War of 1812. The United States was penalizing the Creek Indians for affording care and aid to the British during the War of 1812. This equated to over 23,000,000 acres of land, minus a few reservations of 1 mile tracts per person who had remained friendly to the United States during the conflict.The US also demanded that the Creeks abandon all communications and relations with the British and the Spanish, the rights to establish military posts and trading houses on roads in territories still tenanted by the Indian tribe, the right to completely free navigation of all waters, the have of al persons or property gained by the Creeks during the conflicts, the capture and surrender of all instigators, and permanent peace between the Creek Indians and the United States, as well as among the Creek Indians and the Cherokee, Chickasaws, and Choctaw Indian tribes.In return for the demands, the Americans guaranteed the integrity of the northerly and North eastern aspects of their territory, as well as a humanitarian gesture of continuing to furnish the necessaries of life Until crops are competent to damp and will establish trading houses in the Nation to enable the Nation to procure clothes By industry or economy. (K State Creek 1814) The benefit of this treaty was quite obviously in favor of the United States. There was little subsidisation to the Indians for what amounts to half of the state of Alabama and the entire South portion of Georgia in land mass. Britannica Creek Indian War) While the wording tends to validate the demands of the US, it does not address that the War of 1812 was an natural event during the intertribal wars that were going on at the time. Some tribes saw an fortune to show a loyalty to the US, which further incited the opposing tribes who felt that the impact of the US was not permissibl e to act against the US, but supporting the resistance in the war, or actually attacking American citizens themselves. Encore of Alabama) The actions of the tribes had not started as actions against the United States for the sake of war against America. Had this been the case, Jacksons generalization of unprovoked, inhuman war might be more accurate. However, at a time in history where the United States was systematically striping land, rights, and humanity from the indigenous battalion who ere in actual possession of it upon the Americans arrival is hypocritical at best.The drastic change between the style and manner of the treaties of 1802 and 1814 show the turn America took from being a participant in a mutual, albeit selfish, exchange to a punishing political power using treaties and government backed Americans was, ironically, to grow President and initiate Indian Removal as formal policy. With the concession as a gesture of humanity America made the Creek folks both more d ependent on the US government for necessities they could not themselves generate now for lack of the territory they once had to farm, herd, and ark on but also began a culture of resentment with the tribe.I am not convinced(p) this wasnt the exact objective of the humanitarian help written into the agreement. It is clear to see that while in the beginning, thither was a more conservative tactic with the treaties to fend for a certain amount of control over the native tribes, there was a more concerted effort as time passed and the United States desired to take more and give less. The power differential is shown about vividly in the sheer volume of land taken in the 1814 treaty as equivalent to expenses.