Sharp Knife: Andrew Jackson and the American Indians

by Alfred A. Cave

Drawing on a wide range of sources, this book exposes Andrew Jackson's failure to honor and enforce federal laws and treaties protecting Indian rights, describing how the Indian policies of "Old Hickory" were those of a racist imperialist, in stark contrast to how his followers characterized him, believing him to be a champion of democracy.

Early in his career as an Indian fighter, American Indians gave Andrew Jackson a name-Sharp Knife-that evoked their sense of his ruthlessness and cruelty. Contrary to popular belief-and to many textbook accounts-in 1830, Congress did not authorize the forcible seizure of Indian land and the deportation of the legal owners of that land. In actuality, U.S. President Andrew Jackson violated the terms of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, choosing to believe that he was not bound to protect Native Indian individuals' rights.

Sharp Andrew Jackson and the American Indians draws heavily on Jackson's own writings to document his life and give readers sharp insight into the nature of racism in ante-bellum America.

Noted historian Alfred Cave's latest book takes readers into the life of Andrew Jackson, paying particular attention to his interactions with Native American peoples as a militia general, treaty negotiator, and finally as president of the United States. Cave clearly depicts the many ways in which Jackson's various dishonorable actions and often illegal means undermined the political and economic rights that were supposed to be guaranteed under numerous treaties. Jackson's own economic interests as a land speculator and slave holder are carefully documented, exposing the hollowness of claims that "Old Hickory" was the champion of "the common man."

264 pages, Hardcover

Published October 3, 2017

Reviews

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It has rightly been said that the Cotton Kingdom rose on the backs of black slaves. But it is equally true that it was raised on lands stolen from Indians."

What can you say about Andrew Jackson?
While in his plus column you can certainly argue that he helped maintain the Union, (at least until it fell apart 30 years later), and certainly was a tireless supporter of America’s poor and disenfranchised (as long as they were white), he was also so many other awful and terrible things.
Not even going into the summary and illegal executions of prisoners he engaged in as a general in the U.S. army, the scurrilous rumors and lies he engaged in during his presidential campaigns, or the seemingly endless murderous dueling, if Jackson were judged solely on how he dealt with Native Americans, we would be rightly horrified.
Perhaps if one were going to say anything positive about Jackson here, it would be that unlike other U.S. officials of the era who attempted to engage in deceptive treaties and concessions to take Native land, Jackson barely concealed his intentions.
He was startlingly upfront both to Natives and his fellow Americans about his disdain for treaties with people he considered untrustworthy and inferior to himself, and more or less presented any and all “negotiations” with Native Americans as take it or leave it.
“Take it” as in move to lands west of the Mississippi with no hunting grounds, swampy marshes, and sandy soil that had no hope of ever producing any food with which to support themselves.
“Leave it” essentially meant that they would feel the full brunt of the U.S. military and be exterminated.
Even when the government itself, before Jackson ascended to the presidency, did not support most of these brutal tactics, Jackson simply took the initiative and forced many of them on unwilling Native populations anyway.
When Jackson promised protection from white incursions into their new lands or financial compensation for moving, he rarely followed through, leaving many who willingly moved stranded in unknown and barren lands unable to feed or support themselves.
It was the height of cruelty and by most indications of Jackson’s correspondence of the time, not something that particularly troubled a man who believed that extermination of the Native population was their destiny and hopefully they would be replaced by a more industrious and trustworthy race of people.
What perhaps sets Jackson apart from other Americans of the day who were hostile to Native populations is that his cruelty was not reserved solely for those who fought against him in battles such as the Battle of New Orleans or the Creek and Seminole wars.
Jackson had in those battles, the significant support of a large number of Native Americans who fought with him side by side in the belief that they would at minimum be allowed to remain on their lands in exchange for their help or perhaps even become American citizens.
Yet when the battles were over, Jackson would treat both his friends and enemies the same. There would be no land concessions for Creeks who helped him win a war or Seminoles who assisted him in his illegal invasion of Florida. Both friend and foe alike would be banished from their lands with no distinctions between them despite the fact that without their assistance most historians acknowledge Jackson could not have achieved the victories he did.
So what logic did Jackson use to justify this?

“The fact that, after his visit, many of the Creek chiefs and warriors had opposed Tecumseh and fought against the Red Sticks, in Jackson’s mind, did not exonerate them. Instead, Jackson’s official biographers, writing with his assistance the story of the war three years later, gave this matter a very strange twist. They declared Old Hickory’s Creek allies dishonorable, charging that they had betrayed their kinsmen. Honor and duty, declared Reid and Eaton, required that they set aside their disagreements with the Red Sticks and rally to the defense of the Creek Nation when war broke out with the United States. Instead, they entered ‘the ranks of an invading army’ and ‘fought for the extermination of their people, and the destruction of their nation’. The curious logic behind that argument reflected Andrew Jackson’s basic contempt for Indian character. The Creeks who fought for him, he believed, were not really steadfast allies, but ‘traitors to their country, deserving the severest punishment’,”

This argument, to sum it up, is that if you fight against America you’re a savage and we’ll exterminate you. If you fight with us you’re a traitor to your own people and we’ll exterminate you.
What do we do historically with such a treacherous, violent, and deceitful human being?
While it is an open question for some whether slaveholders (of which Jackson was a prominent one) for example should be banished to the dustbin of history for that transgression, irrespective of whatever other good they may have contributed, I personally believe that we need to view the totality of one’s life when judging them.
With Jackson however, I find very little redeeming about him. Aside from the human misery (ethnic cleansing or even genocide to some historians) he personally wreaked on entire populations of Native Americans, he also in practice was the first politician who gained the presidency through anti-intellectual populism and slander. He in this respect blazed a path that would be followed by others right up to the present day where personality and grievance is king and policy is something people have little time or attention for.
Without going into Donald Trump’s self professed love for Jackson (I sincerely doubt he has studied him particularly in depth) or all the parallels between them, it’s safe to say that if you were anything but white, Jackson’s remains perhaps the most transformative yet catastrophic and violent presidency in American history. As someone who attempts to have something good to say about everyone, with Jackson, I got nothing.