Chief John Ross: An Argument Against The 1835 Treaty Of New Echota

Improved Essays
Chief John Ross had a valid and undeniably strong argument against the 1835 Treaty of New Echota. He argues that treaty “is a fraud upon the government of the United States and an act of oppression on the Cherokee people” (John Ross’s Letter). He states that the Cherokee people, which was over 15,000 people, would never had agreed to the treaty and the treaty was made wrongfully. He argues that there should be another meeting and the Cherokee people should be equally consulted.

John Ross uses a valid piece of evidence to support his argument. The piece of evidence that proves the treaty was made wrongfully was that the people representing the Cherokee in the meeting were not chosen by the Cherokee and, also had no authority to do so. John Ross explains this and then states, “therefore said instrument is null and void, and can never in justice be enforced upon the nation” (John Ross’s Letter). It does not make sense that a treaty affecting thousands of people's lives was made without the acknowledgment of the people it was affecting. This treaty drastically changed the Cherokees lives, and it was determined by people who were not chosen by the Cherokee, or given permission to do so. This proves that the treaty was made in an unjust way and helps justify John
…show more content…
They should not have had to oblige to something so extreme without having a say in it. The Cherokee felt as if they were not being treated equally, to the extreme that John Ross signed his letter “your obedient, humble servants”(John Ross’s Letter). John Ross also did not accept the treaty because the interests of the Cherokee were not important in the treaty. It was clear that the treaty was made to fully benefit the United States and they wanted the Cherokee to go along with it. John Ross wanted what was best for the Cherokee people and believed the treaty was not

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Indian Removal Dbq

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages

    John Ross, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation of Indians, and the “Memorial and Protest of the Cherokee Nation” had similar issues with the removal policy, in that the New Echota treaty was viewed as fraudulent. Ross did state that they would not object to becoming citizens and conforming to the country’s laws. This conformation would require the protection and the privileges of the country’s laws, as well (p.137). The “Memorial and Protest of the Cherokee Nation” vehemently disagreed with the policy. They found the New Echota treaty to be fraudulent, as it was signed by unauthorized individuals (p.138).…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The proclamation was created to keep the colonists safe from the Indians but they perceived it the wrong way and thought that the king was taking their liberty away. The colonists blamed the king for two events that would never have happened when it were actually the colonists’ faults, making the charges leveled against the king…

    • 1007 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    When the conflict between England and the colonies initially began, the colonists urged the Native Americans to stay out of it, saying it was a “family quarrel.” They told them that it had nothing to do with their tribes. This is obviously completely false, as a lot would be changing for them as well if the colonists were to set free from England. The Native Americans formed a relatively good relationship with England. England protected them from the colonists who were pressing upon them and their land. Without England as the governing body, they lost this protection.…

    • 1011 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While the Constitution does not give full power to the feds, it did one big thing: killed and The Articles, and made the state governments peons to the federal govt., which was the only reason for the Constitution. That is the reason why ‘they,’ federal politicians wanted to kill The Articles, as that would be the only way to destroy 1776, reverse America becoming “of, by and for the people” and government being subservient to “of, by and for the people” But still that lack of full power was needed as 1776 was still fresh in minds, and the federal politicians would have been tarred and feathered if they had tried to grab more power. But that not having full power was an ulcerous grating on those federal politicians, and soon they came to hate the Constitution…

    • 1031 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I believe this because by removing the Indians, Congress is going against the very treaties they have created which leaves no trust to say the exact same thing won’t happen again. I believe morally, to uproot an entire people from the land that they believe was given to them by their creator, is worse than anything the new nation fought with the British for…

    • 1088 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Some may regard Indian Removal Policy as a moral and benevolent action. However, it was not benevolent. The U.S. dishonored treaties and they just hated the Indians by showing serious authority to do whatever they wanted to Indians. As I say one more time, Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policy was not benevolent at all, I think. It was reasonable and understandable that this policy was a period of expansion to the westward, but he overlooked a supreme court and took responsibility by relocating a lot of Native Americans are not justifiable.…

    • 372 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Native Americans were rehomed many times and their way of life forever changed by the invasion of European people. Relations between the two peoples could have been adverted by simple talks and diplomacy but religious ideology and fear of the unknown prevented it. In the long run the Native American people have endured great strife and persecution to the extent of certain tribes being totally wiped out and some being assimilated into other…

    • 957 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “Henry Knox decided that any land that would be purchased from the Indians had to be done through a treaty and he would take steps to “civilizing”the Indians” (Green & Perdue, 10-11). The Cherokees had a lot of pressure upon them about leaving the land. “The idea of Cherokees being civilized was not going to happen fully because of the new pattern of racist thought” (Green & Perdue, 15). The Cherokees were the most civilized Indian tribe, so they did not understand why they were being justified for removal for the American citizens. Andrew Jackson said “making treaties with the Indians was absurd, so the best way to get the land from the Cherokees was to just take the land” (Green & Perdue,…

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    During his presidency, Andrew Jackson no doubt planned the removal of Indians for the benefit of the US. However, when he misled the Indians into thinking he did it for their sakes, he went against his own promises of peaceful relations and respect for the Native Americans. Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in the Worcester vs Georgia case where the Cherokees’ sovereignty was established, and continued to badger them into moving without acknowledging their rights. In dealing with the Indians, Jackson neglected the Treaty of Tellico, a treaty established in 1805 that set clear boundaries between the US and Cherokees, and pushed them out of their own lands. Therefore, because of his unlawful actions in dealing with the Native…

    • 1311 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Dbq Indian Removal Act

    • 1355 Words
    • 5 Pages

    This Act stated that members of certain Native American tribes would have to move from the southern land they had lived on for decades to new western land, or lose most of their rights and their land. This was a very controversial act, and both supporters and opponents of the act argued viciously for their preferred outcome. The Indian Removal Act was a bad political move because it was both unconstitutional and illegal, but was enforced regardless. Though it was meant to protect Native Americans from the threat of angry citizens, what it really did was remove many tribes from their land so that US citizens could expand into it. Many tribes rightfully protested this, and the Cherokee tribe sued the government.…

    • 1355 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays