Cherokee Removal Essay, Research Paper

Cherokee Removal

These articles, A Permanent Habitat for the American Indians and Memorial of the Cherokee Nation, enlighten the reader to both sides of a very controversial issue in the early 1830 s. The views of Andrew Jackson on removing the Cherokee Indians are very biased and very inconsiderate. As a unified nation, the Cherokees very clearly state their position and authenticate their claim to their native lands. Both articles, when combined, provide a very broad base of information, be it opinion or fact, and allow one to obtain significant knowledge about the issue.

When one article is weighed up to the next one, a very obvious contrast in style becomes clear. While Andrew Jackson tries to make his desires of moving the Indians seem very necessary and fair, the Cherokee bluntly state that they are opposed to the idea completely. Jackson goes through all of his provisions for the Indians, should they cooperate, as if to coax the addressed person to defend his position. On the other side of the issue, the natives show up everything for what it really is. Jackson s statements could make anyone think twice about his actions while the Cherokees side makes it easy to sympathize for them.

While laying out the reasons the Indians should be removed, Jackson presents three basic points as to why his actions are justified. First, he explains that every attempt to try and coexist with the Indians has failed. He says that everything that was attempted only went to prove that Americans could not possibly live with the natives on their soil. Next, he explains that the Indians would live best in a country where they were united and protected. By placing them all together in a common area and establishing their land as independent, the native people could more easily lead normal lives. Jackson s final point is that with the quality of the land that is to be provided and the ample amount of provisions, the Indians will be in a much better situation that their present state. The government would rather take care of what they need than continue to fight them off of their homeland.

Fighting to remain on their native land, the Cherokee insist upon being allowed to stay put. Rules of Congress and treaties with the US give these people the right to remain where they are. All they want is for these treaties to be upheld. Also, the land to which they are to be moved is foreign to all of the Cherokee. Through everything they know, the land is no better use to them than what they have in Georgia. Lastly, the sentimental value of the land must be protected. These people have inhabited the area since the age of their ancestors, and now the white men think they can just take that all away?

After taking both articles into strong consideration, I believe that the American government was wrong in even considering removing the Cherokees and other tribes from their home land. First off, the land isn t American property to begin with. The natives had lived on the land long before America was even dreamed of. The government does not posses the power to order an independent and sovereign society of people off of their native land. A large majority the Jackson statement is simply all the wonderful benefits the government will provide for the Indians just so the people will think that he is right. The Cherokee memorial has a more realistic argument without all of the garbage. Last, Jackson has the audacity to add insult to injury and degrade the Indians. A civilization with strong, ingrained roots and an established culture, and Jackson not only steals their land, but kicks them while they are down?