SSUSH7.e: Explain Jacksonian Democracy, expanding suffrage, the rise of popular political culture, and the development of American nationalism.

Transcription

1 Lesson Plan: (title) Lesson designer (s): School: Kell High School Keith Brown, Matt Bradford, and Lizz Etter Lesson Origin: (web site, modified from, original) Original Borrowed from other sites o Stanford History Education Group: Reading like a Historian /Indian%20Removal%20Lesson%20Plan.pdf o o Georgia Performance Standard: SSUSH7.e: Explain Jacksonian Democracy, expanding suffrage, the rise of popular political culture, and the development of American nationalism. Essential Question: (Learning Question) Why would people alive in 1830 have felt the Indian Removal Act was necessary and justified? Materials: (include at least one primary source) Power point with photos for primary document analysis Computer Projector Primary documents (2 for & 2 against Indian Removal) and questions Common Core Historical Literacy Standards/Skills: L11 12WHST1: Write arguments focused on discipline specific content L11 12RH1: Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole. L11 12RH2: Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes it clear the relationships among the key details and ideas. L11 12RH9: Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources. What task? o Write an essay What skills? o Analyze and interpret documents

2 What instruction? o Power point What results? o Student essay Instructions for class activities with suggested time (30 min., 60 min., 90 min., more) Introduction, warm up/hook: Teacher will introduce students to the content through an IPPL (interactive power point lecture) including: photos, maps, time lines, and primary documents regarding the Indian Removal Act minutes Step by step instructions: Students will then be broken into groups of 4 6 and are given a manila envelope containing: o A letter by Elias Boudinot o Excerpts from a speech by John Ross to the delegates of the Iroquois League o Excerpts from Andrew Jackson s 7 th Annual Message to Congress o Excerpts from the ruling of Worcester v. Georgia o Questions to help interpret all the documents that they can answer as a group They are to work together analyzing the documents and completing the questions o This should most likely take one class period. Their homework (or in class the next day depending on teacher preference and planning) is to write an essay answering the question: Using the evidence provided, defend or refute the Indian Removal Act. o The essay should follow whatever format the teacher wants and the teacher should differentiate based on the class level how many citations they want to support the students argument. Closure: The next day in class, have some brave souls share their thoughts. Differentiation: o Depending on class level and time available a debate could ensue (15 30 minutes). o Later Indian historical opinion could be shared (holding the Rock, reservation life, etc.) Connections should be made between Jackson s involvement with the Indian Removal Act and the National Bank Issue so they can better understand Jacksonian Democracy. Assessment: Formative Summative (attached?) The essay would be formative.

3 Technology use (include I-Respond file if used): Computer, projector and power point. Suggestions for differentiation/modification: Document analysis could be individual, group or whole class. Tiered requirements as far as evidence, for ex: o OL 2 pieces of evidence per paragraph o Honors at least 3 pieces of evidence per paragraph Extensions (advanced students): Find additional primary documents that support their argument Argue both in favor of and criticism against the Indian Removal Act Depth of Knowledge level: X 4. (rationale) Students are analyzing and interpreting primary documents to help formulate their own opinions. Modeling/Guided Practice/Independent Practice elements: Group or whole class document analysis of a document (ex: Indian Removal Act excerpt in power point) Questions to assist interpreting documents Extension activities for individual enrichment Elements of Teaching American History Grant activities incorporated into the lesson: Sourcing Contextualization Corroboration Close Reading Various sources for primary documents Photos from field trip studies Power point with background information Resources with conflicting perspectives of the same thing Document analysis questions

4 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

5

6 Painted by Robert Lindneux in 1942

7 EXCERPT FROM THE INDIAN REMOVAL ACT It shall and may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs or successors, the country so exchanged with them... Provided always, That such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same. reference/indian-removal-act-1830

8 BACKGROUND CHEROKEE INDIAN REMOVAL TIMELINE 1785 First treaty between Cherokee and United States, established peaceful relations George Washington initiated civilization program among Cherokees Georgia ceded some of its western land to the United States; the U.S. government, in exchange, promised to purchase for Georgia all of the Indian lands remaining within the state. However, the Federal Goverment could only buy land through treaty First major Cherokee migration to land west of the Mississippi. 1820s Cherokees became the most civilized of the five Civilized Tribes (Creeks, Chikasaw, Seminole, Choctaw and Cherokee). The Cherokee had a newspaper and many had converted to Christianity; they adopted a Constitution; they had farms and owned slaves.

9 BACKGROUND TIMELINE (CONT.) 1828 Andrew Jackson elected President and declares his support for removal Georgia extended its state power over Cherokee Nation and nullified (makes illegal) Cherokee law Cherokee won their case in Worcester v. Georgia. U.S. Supreme Court upheld Cherokee sovereignty in Georgia. Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling Treaty of New Echota signed; provided for removal of Cherokees to land west of the Mississippi. Chief John Ross led 15,000 in protesting the treaty. Only 2,000 Cherokee agreed to migrate voluntarily U.S. government sent in 7,000 troops, who forced the Cherokees out at bayonet point. 4,000 Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease on their way to the western lands Execution of Major Ridge, John Ridge, and Elias Boudinot for their role in the Treaty of New Echota.

10

11

12 Primary Documents 1.) Document B: Letter by Elias Boudinot (Modified) Look at our people! They are wretched! Look, my dear sir, around you, and see the progress that vice and immorality have already made! See the misery! If the darker picture which I have described here is a true one, can we see a brighter possibility ahead? In another country, and under other circumstances, there is a better prospect. Removal, then, is the only remedy, the only practical remedy. Our people may finally rise from their very ashes, to become prosperous and happy, and a credit to our race. I would say to my countrymen, fly from your life here that is destroying our nation. What is your (John Ross) plan of relief? It is dark and gloomy beyond description. You want the Cherokee to live according the laws of Georgia, no matter how unfair they are? Instead of fix the evil, you would tie our people down in the chains of slavery. The final destiny of our race, under such circumstances is too revolting to think of. Take my word, it is the sure end of our race if you succeed in preventing the removal of your people. There will come a time when there will be few of us left as reminders of this brave and noble race. May God protect us from such a destiny. Vocabulary wretched miserable vice sin prospect possibility Source: The letter above was written in 1837 by Elias Boudinot, a Cherokee who supported Indian Removal (and who signed the Treaty of New Echota that gave away Cherokee land). The letter is to Chief John Ross, leader of the Cherokees who opposed Indian Removal.

13 2 and 3.) Indian Removal: Two Points of View In 1830 John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee, went to the Supreme Court to fight Indian removal. In the early 1830s, he warned members of the Iroquois League of the dangers of the U.S. policies. In 1835 Andrew Jackson, the popular president of the United States, made Indian removal one of the key points of his annual address to Congress. Excerpts from John Ross's words to delegates of the Iroquois League: "Brothers: The tradition of our Fathers... tells us that this great and extensive Continent was once the sole and exclusive abode of our race.... Ever since [the whites came] we have been made to drink of the bitter cup of humiliation; treated like dogs... our country and the graves of our Fathers torn from us... through a period of upwards of 200 years, rolled back, nation upon nation [until] we find ourselves fugitives, vagrants and strangers in our own country.... "The existence of the Indian Nations as distinct Independent Communities within the limits of the United States seems to be drawing to a close.... You are aware that our Brethren, the Choctaws, Chickasaws and Creeks of the South have severally disposed of their country to the United States and that a portion of our own Tribe have also emigrated West of the Mississippi but that the largest portion of our Nation still remain firmly upon our ancient domain.... Our positon [sic] there may be compared to a solitary tree in an open space, where all the forest trees around have been prostrated by a furious tornado." Excerpts from Andrew Jackson's Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1835 "All preceding experiments for the improvement of the Indians have failed. It seems now to be an established fact they can not live in contact with a civilized community and prosper. Ages of fruitless endeavors have at length brought us to a knowledge of this principle of intercommunication with them.... "No one can doubt the moral duty of the Government of the United States to protect and if possible to preserve and perpetuate the scattered remnants of this race which are left within our borders. In the discharge of this duty an extensive region in the West has been assigned for their permanent residence. It has been divided into districts and allotted among them.... "Such are the arrangements for the physical comfort and for the moral improvement of the Indians. The necessary measures for their political advancement and for their separation from our citizens have not been neglected. The pledge of the United States has been given by Congress that the country destined for the residence of this people shall be forever "secured and guaranteed to them." "A country west of Missouri and Arkansas has been assigned to them, into which the white settlements are not to be pushed. No political communities can be formed in that extensive region, except those which are established by the Indians themselves or by the United States for them and with their concurrence. A barrier has thus been raised for their protection against the encroachment of our citizens, and guarding the Indians as far as possible from those evils which have brought them to their present condition."

14 4.) The U.S. failed to adopt a consistent policy towards Native American tribes during the early 19th century, but, generally, Americans agreed that Indians in Eastern states needed to be moved west of the Mississippi so that Eastern lands could be developed by whites. The only real issue was how rapidly this should be done and by what means. By the 1830s, the state of Georgia was upset that the federal government had not removed the Cherokee Indians who lived within Georgia, and the state took steps to remove the Cherokee on their own. Worcester v. Georgia (1832) In 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that state laws could not be applied to Indians. This ruling, in essence, denied that the state of Georgia had the power to remove the Cherokee from their land in Georgia. As you read, think about why the court ruled as it did. The defendant is a State [Georgia], a member of the Union, which has exercised the powers of government over a people who deny its jurisdiction, and are under the protection of the United States... We must inquire whether the act of the Legislature of Georgia...be consistent with, or repugnant to the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. It has been said at bar that the acts of the Legislature of Georgia seize on the whole Cherokee country, parcel it out among the neighboring counties of the State, extend her [law] to the whole country, abolish its institutions and laws, and annihilate its political existence...the very passage of this act [by Georgia] is an assertion of jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation... From the commencement of our government Congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, [and] respect their rights... The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory... in which the laws of Georgia have no force... The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, the regulation of which according to the settled principles of our Constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the Union.

15 I. Questions for Document B: Letter by Elias Boudinot (Modified) 1. (Sourcing) Who is Elias Boudinot? What do you predict he will say about Indian Removal? 2. (Contextualization) What was life like for the Cherokee in Georgia, according to Boudinot? 3. (Contextualization) What does Boudinot hope will happen if the Cherokees move west? 4. Is he for or against Indian Removal? II. Indian Removal: Two Points of View 1. What do you think was the goal of each speaker and were they for or against Indian Removal: a. Ross: b. Jackson: 2. What does Ross say has happened to other Indian groups? 3. What reason does Jackson give in favor of Indian removal? 4. What effects does each speaker expect Indian removal will have? a. Ross: b. Jackson: III. Worchester v. Georgia (1832) 1. According to the Supreme Court, do state laws apply to Indians nations? 2. What has the Congress done in the past that treats Indians as separate nations? 3. What law was the state of Georgia trying to make the Indians adhere to? 4. Based on this case, do you think the Supreme Court would have been for or against Indian Removal?