What Is The Legal Basis Of The Cherokee Expulsion On The Trail Of Tears

Enduring perpetual bludgeoning since its first contact with European society, the Cherokee Nation succumbed to the dominant power in the first half of the nineteenth century. As tensions between the two entities grew, the collective idea of defending tribal culture and land from external institutions defined Cherokee nationalism. The United States’ continuous infringement of Indian sovereignty inspired sentiments of opposition that remained prevalent until the Cherokees abandoned all hope on the Trail of Tears. Stemming from religious and governmental assimilation policies, the law’s bias against the Cherokees in their efforts to keep their borders and culture intact, and political infighting over land secession, Cherokee nationalism encompassed

The process of reaching the agreement, which laid down the legal basis for Cherokee expulsion on the Trail of Tears, incited fierce debate over its lack of transparency and few voices that dictated its terms. On top of criticizing the Treaty Party for failing to consult with its constituents, John Ross, a prominent Cherokee leader and former treaty negotiator, noted, “But when I speak of the principles of white men, I speak not of such principles as acute those who talk thus to us, but of those mighty principles to which the United States owes her greatness and her liberty.” Referencing the nationalistic values of the United States, Ross establishes the mainstream idea among the Cherokee people. He claimed that freedom to dictate oneself and one’s community through democratic vote should apply to all in America, even Native Americans with little power. This final outcry against the forced removal yielded a backlash from the Treaty Party that admitted defeat in preserving the Cherokee

Elias Boudinot, a member of the Treaty Party, proclaimed, “Instead of contending uselessly against superior power, the only course left, was, to yield to circumstances over which they had no control.” Since relocation seemed inevitable, the viable pathway consisted of surrendering with minimal dignity and benefits, including the promise of a monetary settlement. Claiming to act out of the Cherokees’ best interests, Boudinot lambasted Ross’ false promises of a better deal, writing, “They have been taught to feel and expect what could not be realized, and what Mr. Ross himself must have known would not be realized.” This diversion from the majority view among the indigenous population presents the pragmatic yet pessimistic approach to the dilemma. As a final contribution to the discussion before removal, Boudinot and the signers marked the end of a once-fiery nationalism with their message of