Arguments Against Indian Removal

1052 Words3 Pages

The removal of Native-Americans from their homes to the region east of the Mississippi is one of the most tragic and controversial episodes in American History. It affected the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee people. This tragic event killed approximately 2,000 to 6,000 of the 16,543 Cherokee Indians who were forced to move during the winter of 1838. There were many legal and moral arguments for and against this policy. In this paper I will point out the reasons why the argument against Indian removal was a more convincing argument.

The strongest legal arguments in favor of the Native Americans were the dispute over land rights. The Native Americans lived here in the United States long before anyone else. Their belief in …show more content…

This was proven false by the Cherokee Indian tribe. The Cherokee Indians adapted to a more civilized way of life. They lived in villages, created a republican government, developed large farms, and raised herds of cattle. Many white settlers did not believe this was possible as written in the North American Review which stated that “The peculiar character and habits of the Indian nations, rendered them incapable of sustaining any other relation with the whites, than that of dependence and pupilage. There was no other way of dealing with them, than that of keeping them separate, subordinate, and dependent, with a guardian care thrown around them for their protection.” The settlers believed that the white civilizations that surrounded the Indians would destroy their way of life and ultimately lead to their extinction. But the Cherokee Indians proved them wrong. They did not only survive while being surrounded by the white settler but they grew in numbers. Showing that the “barbarous people” could actually adapt and contribute. The relocation of the Indians west of the Mississippi because they are unable to coexist and thrive was not a good enough argument as again I side with the Native …show more content…

Manifest destiny was a popular belief during this time period that the United States was destined to expand across North America. The Americans wanted the rich and fertile lands that were held by the native tribes to increase crop growth and enhance the economy as well as strengthen the defense of the southern frontier against invasions, greatly improving national security. As Andrew Jackson said in his second annual address to congress in 1830 “By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.” As noted before, the American settlers did not believe the Indians were civilized people and any Indian communities bordering on areas desired for expansion were considered obstacles. Therefore, civilized settlements of the United States overruled and nullified the rights of the Indians community to allow for further expansion. But what made the American settlers believe that the Indians could not contribute in trade and

Open Document