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

876 Words 4 Pages
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