# data[].attributes.headline
5 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE

# data[].attributes.subject
5 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE

# data[].attributes.body
The article below is from CNN. It provides a brief insight into the conflict surrounding the Dakota access pipeline.Use this article to help fill out your graphic organizer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has sued the federal government, saying the Native American tribe was not properly consulted over the project to construct a 1,168-mile crude oil pipeline that extends over four states.

While proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline tout its economic boost, opponents question its environmental impact.

The US Army Corps of Engineers approved the project, granting final permits in July, to the dismay of environmentalists and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

The proposed Dakota Access Pipeline would transport crude oil from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa and into Illinois. The pipeline is also known as the Bakken Oil Pipeline, named for the oil-rich area in North Dakota. An estimated 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil is believed to be in the US portion of the Bakken Formation, according to the US Geological Survey.

The underground pipeline would transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, which would be sent to markets and refineries in the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast regions, according to Energy Transfer Crude Oil Co.

2. Why is the pipeline being constructed?

The project developer, Dakota Access, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Crude Oil, says the pipeline would help the United States become less dependent on importing energy from unstable regions of the world. It says a pipeline is the safest, most cost-effective and environmentally responsible way to move crude oil, removing dependency on rails and trucks.

It also estimates the pipeline would bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to state and local governments as well as add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs.

The proposal comes as a glut of cheap oil has devastated North Dakota's economy. The state had enjoyed a major boom, but after hitting highs in 2014, it suffered a major economic downturn.

The project developers say the $3.7 billion project will "bring significant economic benefits to the region that it transverses."

3. Who is protesting?

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a complaint in federal court alleging that "the construction and operation of the pipeline ... threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe."

There are also concerns that digging the pipeline under the Missouri River would affect the tribe's drinking water supply. The tribe, represented by Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm, has asked for an injunction.

Based in Fort Yates, North Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe, a successor to the Great Sioux Nation. Other Native American tribes and nations have joined its efforts.

"We have laws that require federal agencies to consider environmental risks and protection of Indian historic and sacred sites," Dave Archambault II, the elected chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a statement.

"But the Army Corps has ignored all those laws and fast-tracked this massive project just to meet the pipeline's aggressive construction schedule."

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota disputes the tribe's chief complaint that the Army Corps did not properly consult it.

"If there is some way for the corps to work to meet the concerns of the tribe, they should certainly do that. But (there) has been a consultation process. If the tribe doesn't feel that that has been sufficient, again, they can protest as long as they do it peacefully and safely, but ultimately their recourse is to the courts," the Republican senator told CNN affiliate KFYR-TV in Bismarck, North Dakota.

About 30 environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, signed a letter to President Barack Obama, slamming the Dakota Access Pipeline as "yet another example of an oil pipeline project being permitted without public engagement or sufficient environmental review."

They appealed to him to reject the project -- as he did with the Keystone XL pipeline.

Protests have been held in North Dakota and Washington.

Construction equipment involved in the pipeline project in Iowa was set ablaze in suspected arson fires, reports say.

4. Who's on which side?

Bernie Sanders spoke out against the pipeline in November 2015, but Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has not addressed the issue. CNN reached out to the Clinton campaign for comment on the issue and has not yet received a response.

"If candidate Clinton does nothing to address this issue yet continues into November promising Native Americans that she is our champion, then her words will be nothing but false promises -- just more bombast, more white lies to Indians," Simon Moya-Smith, a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and culture editor at Indian Country Today, wrote recently in a CNN op-ed.

Celebrities such as Shailene Woodley, Susan Sarandon and Rosario Dawson have spoken out against the pipeline.

Leonardo DiCaprio tweeted that he was "inspired by the Standing Rock Sioux's efforts to halt the Dakota Access Pipeline."

5. What's next?

The tribe's actions may be the start of a lengthy, legal fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline. Meanwhile, construction work on the pipeline is ongoing.

US District Judge James Boasberg said he wants to absorb both sides of the argument before issuing a ruling, which is expected by September 9, KFYR reported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dakota access pipeline: 5 things to know - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 things to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has sued the federal government, saying the Native American tribe was not properly consulted over the project to construct a 1,168-mile crude oil pipeline that extends over four states. While proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline tout its economic boost, opponents question its environmental impact.

# data[].attributes.headline
DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE: WHAT'S AT STAKE?

# data[].attributes.subject
DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE: WHAT'S AT STAKE?

# data[].attributes.body
Another CNN article that debates the economic, environmental issues revolving around the conflict. Article presents both sides of the argument, while also providing a backstory of the conflict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And depending on who you ask, the results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites.

Here's what you need to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline:

The 1,172-mile pipeline would stretch from the oil-rich Bakken Formation -- a vast underground deposit where Montana and North Dakota meet Canada -- southeast into South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.

The oil potential in Bakken is massive. An estimated 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil is believed to be in its US portion, according to the US Geological Survey.

After the pipeline is completed, it would shuttle 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day, developer Energy Access Partners said. That's enough to make 374.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.

From Illinois, the oil could go to markets and refineries across the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast.

Who approved it?

The US Army Corps of Engineers approved the project and granted final permits in July.

But the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Corps, saying the pipeline "threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the Tribe."

The Army Corps of Engineers has declined to comment to CNN, citing pending litigation.

But an advocacy group says the tribe's claims are misleading, saying the pipeline "does not cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation."

The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now also said 100% of the affected landowners in North Dakota, where part of the tribe lives, voluntarily signed easements to allow for construction.

What's the argument for and against?

Pro: The pipeline wouldn't just be an economic boon, it would also significantly decrease U.S. reliance on foreign oil, the developer Energy Transfer Partners said. The pipeline would also help free up railways to transport "crops and other commodities currently constrained by crude oil cargos."

Con: Construction for the pipeline will "destroy our burial sites, prayer sites and culturally significant artifacts," the Standing Rock Sioux tribe said. Opponents also cite environmental concerns, including possible contamination due to breaches and eventual greenhouse gas emissions.

What's the environmental impact?

The developer says the pipeline would provide a safer, more environmentally friendly way of moving crude oil compared to other modes of transportation, such as rail or trucks.

Pipeline supporters cite the 2013 disaster in Quebec, Canada, where a train carrying crude oil derailed and destroyed downtown Lac-Megnatic.

But Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II said he doesn't support moving more crude oil from North Dakota. He told CNN affiliate KFYR that Americans should look for alternative and renewable sources of energy.

More than 274,000 online petitioners agree.

"The Dakota Access pipeline would fuel climate change, cause untold damage to the environment, and significantly disturb sacred lands and the way of life for Native Americans in the upper Midwest," a petition on CredoAction.com states.

Opponents also say they're worried what would happen if the pipeline, which would go under the Missouri River, ruptured and contaminated the water supply.

But the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now backed the developer's claim that pipelines are a safe way of moving crude oil.

"Already, 8 pipelines cross the Missouri River carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of energy products every day," the group said in a statement.

What's the economic impact?

Energy Transfer Partners estimates the pipeline would bring an estimated $156 million in sales and income taxes to state and local governments. The developer also says it will add 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs.

But Archambault said his tribe will settle for nothing less than stopping the pipeline's construction.

"We're not opposed to energy independence. We're not opposed to economic development," he told CNN. "The problem we have -- and this is a long history of problems that evolved over time -- is where the federal government or corporations take advantage of indigenous lands and indigenous rights."

What's going on with the protests?

Protests have been taking place in North Dakota for months. Police said they arrested at least 141 protesters in one day.

Law enforcement officials spent six hours pushing about 200 protesters from one area back to their main encampment. Police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas, and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd.

In response, protesters lit debris on fire near a bridge and threw Molotov cocktails at law enforcement, North Dakota Department of Emergency Services spokeswoman Cecily Fong said.

Around 50 cars were towed away. A handful were either burned or otherwise vandalized.

What do the landowners get?

Energy Transfer Partners said it has tried to steer the pipeline away from residential areas and has tried to reach voluntary deals with property owners "at a fair price."

But Archambault, the tribal chairman, said he thinks the Native Americans are getting short-changed once again.

"What we're opposed to is paying for all the benefits that this country receives," he said. "Whenever there's a benefit, whether it's energy independence ... whether it's economic development, tribes pay the cost. And what we see now are tribes from all over sharing the same concern that we have, saying, 'It's enough now. Stop doing this to indigenous people. Stop doing this to our indigenous lands.'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dakota access pipeline: what's at stake?  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dakota Access Pipeline: What's at stake?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And depending on who you ask, the results could be an economic boon that makes the country more self-sufficient or an environmental disaster that destroys sacred Native American sites. Here's what you need to know about the Dakota Access Pipeline: The 1,172-mile pipeline would stretch from the oil-rich Bakken Formation -- a vast underground deposit where Montana and North Dakota meet Canada -- southeast into South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.

# data[].attributes.headline
DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE: TOP 3 PROS AND CONS

# data[].attributes.subject
DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE: TOP 3 PROS AND CONS

# data[].attributes.body
This is a comprehensive article that list out the top 3 pros and cons of installing the pipeline through the North Dakota territory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dakota Access Pipeline: Top 3 Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article explaining the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and pros and cons of completing the 1,172-mile oil pipeline project

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE

# data[].attributes.body
This article from time magazine list the arguments for and against the creation of the pipeline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline since first learning about plans for the pipeline in 2014. But it's only been in recent months that the issue has gained national attention, as thousands of protesters-including many Native Americans-have gathered in North Dakota in attempt to block the 1,200-mile project. And, with both supporters and opponents vowing to fight through the harsh North Dakota winter, the battle shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

Here's what you need to know:
What is the Dakota Access Pipeline?
The pipeline is to be built by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners and is designed to transport as many as 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily from North Dakota to Illinois. The pipeline would be a key conduit connecting oil wells in the state's Bakken Shale, where the development of fracking has opened billions of gallons of new oil to recovery, to other valuable consumer markets, including the Gulf Coast, Midwest and East Coast. The nearly $4 billion project was first proposed in 2014 with an anticipated completion of this year.

Construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline continues near St. Anthony, an unincorporated community in Morton County, N.D., Oct. 8, 2016. Kristina Barker-The New York Times/Redux

Why are the Sioux and others protesting the project?
The pipeline has united a number of different interest groups with a variety of objections, but Native Americans have been at the center of the opposition. The pipeline would travel underneath the Missouri River, the primary drinking water source for the Standing Rock Sioux, a tribe of around 10,000 with a reservation in the central part of North and South Dakota. Builders of the pipeline insist that they have taken extraordinary measures to safeguard against disaster, but opponents point out that even the safest pipelines can leak. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has reported more than 3,300 incidents of leaks and ruptures at oil and gas pipelines since 2010. And even the smallest spill could damage the tribe's water supply. The Standing Rock Sioux also argue that the pipeline traverses a sacred burial ground. And while the land being used for the pipeline is not technically on its reservation, tribal leaders argue that the federal government did not adequately engage the Standing Rock Sioux during the permitting process-a requirement under federal law.

More broadly, environmental activists say the pipeline would contribute man-made climate change by building up the country's oil infrastructure. They insist that fossil fuels-including the vast reserves in the Bakken Shale-need to be kept in the ground to protect the world from the worst effects of climate change. Proponents of the pipeline argue that oil producers would likely ship the oil by rail line if construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline was halted, as much of the oil produced in North Dakota already is-and argument that was also used in favor of the now canceled Keystone XL pipeline.

Native American veterans carry U.S. and tribal flags before entering the "Rocking the Rez" Pow Wow on Oct. 1, 2016 in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, Texas, expressing support for protesters that have blocked construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. John Moore-Getty Images

Read More: Shailene Woodley: The Truth About My Arrest
How have opponents and supporters responded?
Opponents of the project have responded with both protests and litigation in an attempt to slow-and eventually stop-the pipeline. The protests began months ago with a core group of attendees, and have heated up recently as the issue gained more attention. There are now thousands of people at the construction site or in a nearby encampment, according to the tribe. Protesters have set up teepee and tent camps on land owned by Energy Transfer Partners to slow the progress of construction and have threatened to block the highway. More recently, celebrities and public figures like actor Shailene Woodley, actor Mark Ruffalo and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson have traveled to North Dakota in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux. The most dedicated protesters say they will remain through winter, even though the average low temperature in North Dakota reaches nearly 0 F (-17.8 C) in those months.

The tribe has also sued the Army Corps of Engineers, which permitted the project, alleging that the agency violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NHPA requires the agency to consider the cultural significance of federally-permitted sites and NEPA to consider the implications for the waterways. The litigation is ongoing though a court rejected an argument that construction should be halted while the case winds through the courts.

Supporters of the pipeline-which include state and local government leaders -have showed little interest in accommodating the project's critics, particularly the protesters on the ground. North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple has called in the National Guard as well as an army of other police officials. More than 140 people were arrested this week, even as construction on the pipeline has continued.

Protesters and tribal leadershave accusedofficials of unnecessarily rough treatment. Police have used pepper spray, rubber bullets and concussion cannons, among other tactics, according to the tribe. Amy Goodman, a journalist with the Democracy Now! program, was arrested while covering the protest for allegedly trespassing. Footage she captured showed police officers allowing their dogs to charge protesters.

Protesters of the Dakota Access pipeline encampment sits Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2016, on private property near Cannon Ball, N.D., owned by the pipeline developer, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners. James MacPherson-AP

Read More: Does President Obama Want to Keep Fossil Fuels in the Ground?
How has the federal government responded?
The Obama administration-including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior- temporarily blocked construction on the project in September in hopes of conducting a review, but a federal court intervened to allow the project to proceed. President Obama has taken no additional steps and has said nothing officially about the pipeline, but has come to the defense of protesters, saying "you're making your voices heard" at a White House event for tribal leaders.
What do the presidential candidates say?
The federal government has authority over the project's permits and the next Administration would have the power to cancel the project-or at least revoke its permits after further assessment. Hillary Clinton declined to take a firm stance calling for both sides to "find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest." Donald Trump-who owns stock in Energy Transfer Partners-has called for the removal of regulations on the oil and gas industry but has not commented specifically on the pipeline.
Is the Dakota Access Pipeline the next Keystone XL?
The Dakota Access Pipeline has drawn parallels to the Keystone XL pipeline. Opposition to that project, which Obama eventually rejected, became a litmus test in the eyes of some activists for public officials to show their commitment to addressing environmental issues. But at the same time significant differences remain. Perhaps most importantly, Keystone crossed into Canada, making it an international issue that gave authority over its final approval to the State Department. The federal government has the authority over the Dakota Access Pipeline because it crosses interstate waterways. Stopping the project would be heavier lift for any administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What to Know About the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline since first learning about plans for the pipeline in 2014. But it's only been in recent months that the issue has gained national attention, as thousands of protesters-including many Native Americans-have gathered in North Dakota in attempt to block the 1,200-mile project.

# data[].attributes.body
Manifest Destiny is a term for the attitude prevalent during the 19th century period of American expansion that the United States not only could, but was destined to, stretch from coast to coast. This attitude helped fuel western settlement, Native American removal and war with Mexico. The phrase was first employed by John L. O’Sullivan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839

Excerpted from "The Great Nation of Futurity," The United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23, pp. 426-430. The complete article can be found in The Making of America Series at Cornell University

The American people having derived their origin from many other nations, and the Declaration of National Independence being entirely based on the great principle of human equality, these facts demonstrate at once our disconnected position as regards any other nation; that we have, in reality, but little connection with the past history of any of them, and still less with all antiquity, its glories, or its crimes. On the contrary, our national birth was the beginning of a new history, the formation and progress of an untried political system, which separates us from the past and connects us with the future only; and so far as regards the entire development of the natural rights of man, in moral, political, and national life, we may confidently assume that our country is destined to be the great nation of futurity.

It is so destined, because the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of equality is perfect, is universal. It presides in all the operations of the physical world, and it is also the conscious law of the soul -- the self-evident dictates of morality, which accurately defines the duty of man to man, and consequently man's rights as man. Besides, the truthful annals of any nation furnish abundant evidence, that its happiness, its greatness, its duration, were always proportionate to the democratic equality in its system of government. . . .

What friend of human liberty, civilization, and refinement, can cast his view over the past history of the monarchies and aristocracies of antiquity, and not deplore that they ever existed? What philanthropist can contemplate the oppressions, the cruelties, and injustice inflicted by them on the masses of mankind, and not turn with moral horror from the retrospect?

America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle fields, but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations, of the rights of conscience, the rights of personal enfranchisement. Our annals describe no scenes of horrid carnage, where men were led on by hundreds of thousands to slay one another, dupes and victims to emperors, kings, nobles, demons in the human form called heroes. We have had patriots to defend our homes, our liberties, but no aspirants to crowns or thrones; nor have the American people ever suffered themselves to be led on by wicked ambition to depopulate the land, to spread desolation far and wide, that a human being might be placed on a seat of supremacy.

We have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples. The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and no earthly power can. We point to the everlasting truth on the first page of our national declaration, and we proclaim to the millions of other lands, that "the gates of hell" -- the powers of aristocracy and monarchy -- "shall not prevail against it."

The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In its magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles; to establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most High -- the Sacred and the True. Its floor shall be a hemisphere -- its roof the firmament of the star-studded heavens, and its congregation an Union of many Republics, comprising hundreds of happy millions, calling, owning no man master, but governed by God's natural and moral law of equality, the law of brotherhood -- of "peace and good will amongst men.". . .

Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Equality of rights is the cynosure of our union of States, the grand exemplar of the correlative equality of individuals; and while truth sheds its effulgence, we cannot retrograde, without dissolving the one and subverting the other. We must onward to the fulfilment of our mission -- to the entire development of the principle of our organization -- freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature's eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it. All this will be our future history, to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man -- the immutable truth and beneficence of God. For this blessed mission to the nations of the world, which are shut out from the life-giving light of truth, has America been chosen; and her high example shall smite unto death the tyranny of kings, hierarchs, and oligarchs, and carry the glad tidings of peace and good will where myriads now endure an existence scarcely more enviable than that of beasts of the field. Who, then, can doubt that our country is destined to be the great nation of futurity?
Return To Vinnie's Home Page Return to Documents Relating to American Foreign Policy Before 1898

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839 Excerpted from "The Great Nation of Futurity," The United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23, pp. 426-430.

# data[].attributes.body
Even before he was elected as President, Andrew Jackson had a major role in the removal of Native Americans. Jackson's second annual message was an update on the removal process and how the removal of Native Americans benefits both sides. Andrew Jackson believes that if Native Americans leave their land they will be able to pursue happiness in their own way, and if the Native Americans leave it will put an end to all possible danger of collisions between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Native Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Andrew Jackson announces Indian Removal Policy in 1830 State of the Union Speech

# data[].attributes.body
There were very few pockets of people who opposed the removal of the Native Americans. Below is a petition by the ladies in Steubenville Ohio, who are for the Native Americans maintaining their land. They believed that since the Native Americans held the land before the colonist they should continue to hold their land, and also they are fighting for the oppressed people in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Petition by ladies in Steubenville, OH, against Indian removal | Teach US History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was entitled to federal protection over those of the state laws of Georgia. The Court ruled "the Indian nation was a "distinct community in which the laws of Georgia can have no force" and into which Georgians could not enter without the permission of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties.

# data[].attributes.body
A letter from chief John Ross. In 1835 the treaty of New Echota was signed which ceded Cherokee land to the United States. The treaty was negotiated by Major Ridge who claimed he was speaking on behalf of the entire Cherokee nation, but was actually supporting a small fraction. John Ross’s letter to the government states his disgust and non-approval of the treaty or the vacating of the Cherokee land.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Africans in America/Part 4/John Ross letter

# data[].attributes.headline
Petition by ladies in Steubenville, OH, against Indian removal

# data[].attributes.subject
Petition by ladies in Steubenville, OH, against Indian removal

# data[].attributes.body
There were very few pockets of people who opposed the removal of the Native Americans. Below is a petition by the ladies in Steubenville Ohio, who are for the Native Americans maintaining their land. They believed that since the Native Americans held the land before the colonist they should continue to hold their land, and also they are fighting for the oppressed people in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Petition by ladies in Steubenville, OH, against Indian removal | Teach US History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was entitled to federal protection over those of the state laws of Georgia. The Court ruled "the Indian nation was a "distinct community in which the laws of Georgia can have no force" and into which Georgians could not enter without the permission of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties.

# data[].attributes.body
The piece below is a first hand account of the trail of tears. General John G. Burnett was a private at the time and was sent to follow the Cherokee as an interpreter. This is his first hand account of what he saw on the their journey west.

# data[].attributes.body
American Progress by John Gast portrays the United State's expansion into the western portion of the country. The belief that US expansion is justified and inevitable is prominent in this painting. This painting can be used in a classroom setting as a hook. Have students first write what they see and the meaning behind it. Students can talk about the following: The difference in light between the East and West. The Natives being pushed out of the west, colonized people moving from East to West or the angel in the center of the painting.

# data[].attributes.body
This image shows the path that different native american nations took after the signing of the Indian removal act. Students can examine this map and identify the struggles, and the distance that many Native Americans faced on their journey to the reservations that Andrew Jackson created for them in Oklahoma.

# data[].attributes.headline
Terrtiory Acquistion by the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Terrtiory Acquistion by the United States

# data[].attributes.body
This map shows the territory the United States acquired from 1803-1853. Students can use this map to see the progress of westward expansion for last 50 years. Students can use this tool to determine what the US gained from moving west, and what they may have lost, or what were some of the causes and effects from moving westward.