Missouri Compromise (slavery/sectionalism) Monroe Doctrine (Europe) Indian Removal

Missouri Compromise (1820) U.S. Congress dilemma about morality of slavery: – should slavery be allowed in Louisiana Territory? Congress got statehood applications from: – Missouri – “northern” state – climate good for cotton (very profitable) – Maine (separated from Massachusetts) sectionalism trying to balance power btw. slave & free states (1820–1860) “principle of balance”: states admitted in pairs to keep Senate ½ slave & ½ free states

Missouri Compromise

1810–1830: nearly all colonies in America became independent, creole-dominated countries exceptions: – Canada (British until 1867) – Cuba (Spanish until Spanish- American War, 1898–1899) – Puerto Rico (Spanish until S-A War, 1899, now U.S. commonwealth) – Jamaica (British until 1962) – British Guiana (1966) (now: Guyana) – British Honduras (1981) (now: Belize) – Dutch Guiana (1975) (now: Suriname) – French Guiana (still French) – assorted Caribbean islands (still French, British, Dutch, U.S.) ↑ CANADA—British to 1867

Monroe Doctrine (1823) 1810–1822: much of Central & South America got independence from Spain – like U.S. in 1776 United States: – asserted itself as dominant force in the Western Hemisphere (still does) – wanted to keep Western Hemisphere from being re-colonized by Europe – would stay out of European wars (did until late in World War I)  cartoon depicting Uncle Sam (the United States) telling European leaders they could not cross a line to (re-)colonize the Western Hemisphere

Monroe Doctrine Monroe’s 7th State of the Union address (Dec. 2, 1823): “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers” “[we consider] any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” “In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do.”

Jackson & Native Americans Andrew Jackson – first president from west of the Appalachians – war hero (forced Creek Indians off land in Alabama during War of 1812) – whites wanted agricultural land saw Natives as “inferior savages” blocking progress – since William Bradford’s writings in the 1650s – (125,000 Native Americans living east of Mississippi River [1820])

Jackson & Native Americans Congress passed Indian Removal Act (1830) Natives forced to: – adopt white ways or leave eastern U.S. – give up 100 million acres in: South (Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi) Midwest (Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa) – march cross-country to reservations in west

removal of Native Americans in 1830s

Andrew Jackson, State of the Union address (Dec. 6, 1830) (Greenberg, document 10, pp. 60–63) “It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters.... It will relieve the... 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.”

JOURNAL ENTRY 11 In your own words: What did Andrew Jackson think were the benefits of moving Indians onto reservations? – what were benefits for whites? – what were benefits for Indians?