Indian Removal Act Pros And Cons

Great Essays
There were many different, but key moral and legal arguments in the discussion for the Indian Removal Act. The goal of this act was to allow the United States access to the lands East of the Mississippi river. There were many different reasons why Congress decided to pass this act, however the primary reason was because the Indians were sitting on large reserves of untouched riches and minerals. This act, however, went against the law, and was highly immoral because it was taking over lands which did not belong to the United States, and involved kicking the Indians out of their home, forcing them to move West of the Mississippi river. To start, there were many different moral arguments in regards to the Removal Act. During this time period, America was in a state of constant expansion. This required the young country to get more and more land. Instead of growing cities on the land they already owned, they continued to push to take the entire continent. Normally, this would not have been …show more content…
The act of forcefully removing Indians from their homes can easily be compared to Nazi Germany removing innocent families from their homes after taking the territories they lived in order to forcefully expand their claim. The act of this is incredibly immoral, even if it is all done through politics. It is incredibly immoral to believe that because the United States is a civilized country if we are going to run around stealing the land of other individuals. Because the Indians had a different social structure than the United States, we as a people are not in any way, shape or form, somehow better than they are, and deserve the right to take their land. Sometimes, politics mixed with power hungry people can cause major problems for the people around us, even if it means for the ones who are not necessarily as advanced, as the United

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    The US could have used a different tactic in these lands and made accomplices with the people, but they went and claimed the land in a destructive and demeaning way. The countries that they annexed, some thousands miles away, no longer have respect for the United States because their actions to gain power were so horrible. The US was unjustified in annexing countries without their…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Expansion of the west definitely impacted the Native Americans in plenty of ways, it changed their culture and way of life. Native Americans were forced to adjust to the American way of life, although not all Native Americans wanted to such as Chief Sitting Bull but others took the change peacefully like Chief Black Kettle. What caused the expansion to the west was the transcontinental railroad which linked the nation. In order to build the railroad and allow settlers to move in along it the US government took a lot of Native American land, going against the treaty they had in place with the Natives ( Doc 3) . This forced Native Americans to live alongside American settlers.…

    • 666 Words
    • 3 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
  • Great Essays

    Any law that contradicts the fundamental human rights, such as the Nazi laws, South Africa during the apartheid era and the fugitive slave act never ought to be obeyed. Not all these unjust laws have been as obvious or as extreme as the Nazi-enacted genocide. For example, segregation laws in the United States are another example of morally unjustified laws that unmistakably violate basic human rights and freedoms by discriminations against people with certain skin colors. Having laws that do not permit individuals to eat in the same places as others or ride the same buses because of their skin color only increased the discrimination, harm and injustice caused by citizens who obeyed them. By obeying manmade laws that break more important laws that manage more long-lasting, abstract rights such as basic…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Richard Overy Murders

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Overy has avoided making the book seem like a tale of victory behind the what seems to be a foolproof plan by the British. To just bomb indiscriminately on the German population to cause social unrest. The book does a good job to talk about the sinister and questionable themes by the British to even attack the civilian populations so in theory could lose trust in their own Government. Winston Churchill himself described the Nazi regime like the Huns conquering lands like savages. An average citizen cannot do anything to protect themselves from the bombs.…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    (Reubens) The Phillisburgh Manor was taken away from them just because of their beliefs, taking their right of liberty away. Americans fought for separation from tyrannical leaders to live a life of freedom and liberty, but those rights were exactly what they took from the Phllipsburgh Manor. Yet their biggest act of absolute power was not towards their own people but against the people they stole land from, the Native Americans. In a letter from three Seneca Indian leaders, to George Washington, it says ”You told us you could crush us…. as if our want of strength had destroyed our rights….Were the terms dictated to us by your commissioners…

    • 1262 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Just like Jackson, the southern states were greedy for land expansion. They wanted the Indian territories and would do whatever it took to get them. Many of these white settlers in the southern states viewed the Native American peoples as a “savage” group that had no chance of being civilized. If the people had no respect or intent of compromise with the Indians, it was quite apparent that the state officials would act in the same manner. With Georgia being the guiding leader, several of the southern states passed laws that restricted the authority and rights of the Indian nations over their own territories.…

    • 1297 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The United States’ decision to enter World War I was initially met with negative public opinion. The sheer diversity of the U.S. population made it impossible to support the effort. President Woodrow Wilson, who also wanted to be “neutral in fact as well as in name”, originally hoped to influence the postwar arrangements between the belligerents. However, he was compelled by German attacks on American people and the country’s integrity, leading him to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. The Germans had dishonored previous agreements and they had provoked the United States with threats to take away land the country had rightfully gained.…

    • 1194 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    There have been wars, attacks, and vengeful acts between both parties. However, with this being said, Natives were acting in response to the way settlers imposed themselves on the land, that was not for sale. It is true indigenous people did have open arms at the start, but when betrayed, had to defend against the enemy. Europeans colonized different parts of America that was not free to do so. Red Jacket says, “You have got our country, but are not satisfied..”( Jacket 230) Europeans selfishly took what was not given and became tremendously greedy.…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Europeans saw the Native people as savages, and took the opportunity to oppress their superiority on them. Upon their arrival, they sought out the Native Americans and essentially colonized their land without permission. In North Dakota, the establishment of the pipeline wasn’t allowed by the actual people that live and thrive off of the land. Thus, protests are being held.These conflicts are synonymous, the only remarkable difference is that fortunately the Dakota Pipeline hasn’t resulted in thousands of Native American…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays