The relationship between the Native Americans and the United States government was a very difficult one because, there were people that were in favor of removing the Indians while there were others against the idea of Indian removal. There was a long discussion on the removal of the Native Americans from the East side of Mississippi. President, Andrew Jackson was a part of the Indian Removal, he got to decide certain situations out on his own. There was five different Indian tribes being at the time, including the Choctaws, the Muskogee, the Chickasaws, the Cherokees, and the Seminoles. These five Indian tribes all lived on their own land that they owned. President Andrew Jackson wanted White settlers from the South side to go out and expand
…show more content…
All the Indian tribes going against the removal made them stronger as individuals and they prospered together uniting as one. Their argument was very well thought out and explained many different aspects as to why they do deserve the land, not only that but they brought up the past and proposed new ideas as to how they could together find a new better solution. In their argument they added lots of feeling that might have helped persuade and change the house of representative’s mind sets. They begin to question them saying“Permit us to ask, what better right can a people have to a country, than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession” ("Memorial of the Cherokee Indians," Niles' Weekly Register vol. 38 no. 3, pp 53-54). The Native Americans are explaining to them that the United States has freedom, so how are they any different from Whites, in that they are not allowed to keep land they have inherited and not taken from anyone else. Chief Ross from the Cherokee County, Jeremiah Evarts, and Peleg Sprague all worked hardly and endlessly in expressing how the United States honored many commitments from the past but now they are taking a turn in getting rid of all the Indian communities. All three men together tried to develop a plan in an argument against a reversal of the United States Indian
All the Indian tribes going against the removal made them stronger as individuals and they prospered together uniting as one. Their argument was very well thought out and explained many different aspects as to why they do deserve the land, not only that but they brought up the past and proposed new ideas as to how they could together find a new better solution. In their argument they added lots of feeling that might have helped persuade and change the house of representative’s mind sets. They begin to question them saying“Permit us to ask, what better right can a people have to a country, than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession” ("Memorial of the Cherokee Indians," Niles' Weekly Register vol. 38 no. 3, pp 53-54). The Native Americans are explaining to them that the United States has freedom, so how are they any different from Whites, in that they are not allowed to keep land they have inherited and not taken from anyone else. Chief Ross from the Cherokee County, Jeremiah Evarts, and Peleg Sprague all worked hardly and endlessly in expressing how the United States honored many commitments from the past but now they are taking a turn in getting rid of all the Indian communities. All three men together tried to develop a plan in an argument against a reversal of the United States Indian