Indian Removal Act
There was a new debate in Congress about an act that would make the Native Americans move out of their homeland and into west America. It stirred many questions.
The Indian Removal Act of 1 830 was at the time, thought to be justified and acceptable. There were two groups, the people who wanted the Indian’s gone, and the people who believed they should be allowed to stay. The Indian Removal Act of 1 830 that forced the Indians out of their territory was immoral, had no effect on the state of Georgia, and it increased conflict twine the Native American tribes.When the Indians were being removed from their territory, they were lead out at gunpoint by the American military. It was immoral because there were 1 7,000 Indians and 4,000 died due to dehydration, starvation, and disease. The Cherokee had rights given to them. ‘They Were granted their separate existence, as a political community, undisturbed possession and full enjoyment of their lands, within certain boundaries, which are duly defined and fully described and the protection of the United States against all in interference with, or encroachments upon, their rights, by any people, State, or nation,” argues a Maine Senator.
Only $13.90 / page
As a result, it was truly unethical to kick the Indians out of their territory where they lived peacefully and under the rules. The Indian Removal Act disregards every set of promises that America had given to them. “What is the population of Georgia, where there is no room for these few Indians? It is less than seven to the square mile. We, Sir, in Massachusetts, have seventy-four to the square mile, and space for a great many more,” states a Massachusetts Congressman. The occupation of Indians in Georgia had little effect on the society or development of it.Georgia wanted to “consolidate their society’ but they weren’t going to strengthen their community by kicking people out. Therefore, there was no reason for Georgia to kick out the Cherokees because they had done no harm.
Lastly, if the Cherokee get moved to Indian Territory there will be increased tension and conflict between the Cherokee and the other tribes. For example, Cherokee leaders explain how the relocation into Indian Territory will cause he tribes to “regard us as intruders, and look upon us with a evil eye” which will eventually result into conflict (Doc. ). This shows that relocation would cause conflict between the various tribes which will make the U. S get involved to restore peace and spend a lot of money on troops and weapons. In addition, this would be a practical issue that Congress will have to face to control their spending on troops in order to maintain peace in the Indian Territory which would not have happened if they let the Cherokee stay in their homeland. In conclusion, the Indian Removal Act heated up debates in Congress and led to many disagreements.
The views from the Northeast were determined in the fact that the law was unconstitutional and morally wrong. Whereas in the South, many representatives refuted saying they need more land for the rising population. In the end, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 should not have been passed because the natives had not effected Georgia, it increase conflict between the various tribes in the Indian Territory, and it was morally incorrect to kick the Indians out of their land.