The war could not have been avoided because the whites wanted the land on which the Indians were on. Either way the war would have happened. The main reason the whites fought with the Indians was because the United States Government wanted the land on which the Indians were on, and the whites didn’t follow their treaty between the lands. That was just one reason the Indians and whites fought. Yakima, Nez Perce, Cayuse, and Walla Walla.
However, if the other Indians see the Cherokee prospering and keeping their land, then they will follow in example. Without a doubt, the Native Americans shou... ... middle of paper ... ..., yet they still drove out the Indians from their rightful land. However, the government could have issued a stricter security for the Native Americans. This would allow the lives of many Native Americans to be spared during the Trail of Tears. Undoubtedly, the unsafe transportation should have not allowed the relocation of Native Americans.
The “Battle of the Bluffs” was exactly this. Even though there were Indians that agreed with Henderson’s purchase, that did not mean some were not planning for war time like Dragging Canoe (Bender). What made Dragging Canoe a brutal and difficult opponent was his strong opposition to this deal and the white settlers: this would make for a truly bloody battle (Heape). On April 2nd,1781, Fort Nashborough was attacked by Dragging Canoe and his war party (Bender). This was known as the “Battle of the Bluffs” which, was an Indian raid on Fort Nashborough (Bender).
As a result of the invasion Indians stopped hunting and many tribes became infuriated. Indian response classified them as either "treaty" Indians or "non-treaty" Indians. "Treaty" Indians were the ones that their chief agreed to comply with the "reservation" policy so they signed it and took it to its people. The "non- treaty" Indians were the ones who refused to sign the policy and as a result would go to war with the U.S Army. In order to protect the "treaty" Indians they created the Department of Interior which was responsible for keeping the national security.
It was unjust for the Americans to seize Indian land in order to make room for more Americans and immigrants. The Indians had done nothing to deserve this type of brutal treatment. These Indians had no way of fighting back to the Americans, so it was both unfair and unjust. The Trail of Tears, or as Indians called it The Trail where the Wept, was a trail of sickness and despair (Ehle 385). No person should ever have to go through what the Cherokees and other tribes went through.
The policy was seen as a way to rid the United States of “a population of useless and bothersome” (p.15) people. I pose the question, what evidence is there to support the idea that the Indians were in fact “useless and bothersome”? The United States disregarded the treaties that had already been signed to ensure safety for the Indians. The Americans were simply greedy people who wanted more land even though they had not yet fully occupied the land they possessed. If the Indians were not dominant or superior why would the Americans go through the trouble of confirming treaties for Indian land?
It is obvious that without the aid of the local Indian tribes, many of the colonists in the New World would not have survived. Sharing their resources, befriending the newcomers and accepting them as permanent residences were literally the difference between life and death for the Europeans. Without question, the distinction between the European concept of owning land and the native idea of sharing the land was never understood by either group and the land controversy continues to this day. Ironically, by offering protection, cooperation and friendship to the European newcomers, Native Americans ensured the preservation of the English while assuring the destruction of their own peoples.
Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer says that "it was clear that the hundreds of sovereign Indian nations living on the North American continent were not going to willingly or voluntarily give up their land." As the expansion happened, the more Native Americans were pushed out of their tribal lands. The thought of attempting to assimilate the Native Americans seemed as if a last resort for many. As an article by Dr. Olsen-Raymer states, the Proclamation Line of 1763, the land was given to them, and it was the only land that the USA could not claim. But after the French-Indian War, Americans thought it was justifiable to take because the Natives lost their land just as the French had lost theirs.
They were aware of the growing unease between the settlers and Native Americans, especially through Pontiac 's War. The rebellion caused great loss of life, time, and money for the British government. To prevent any further conflict, the British issued the Proclamation of 1763. The proclamation stated that no colonist could cross or settle any west of the Appalachian Mountains, the territory which was inhabited by many Native Americans. In theory, the idea was simple and would have worked, but complications prevented its fulfillment.
“Dehydration, tuberculosis, whooping cough, and other hardships -- by some accounts, a dozen or more were buried at each stop. Some escaped along the way and were caught and returned to the march like criminals. Still others refused to leave, hiding out in... ... middle of paper ... ...kson may have trusted the Native Americans and stood concerned for them. He could have believed that by relocating the Native Americans would have been the preeminent thing for them, because he knew in the future no matter what it would become a white civilization. There was no courteous way around this, Andrew Jackson wanted this policy to pass, and it did so.