Chelsea Engel
Mr. Johnson
HIST170-85086
14 October 2016
Moral and Legal Components of Indian Removal
While considering different moral and legal viewpoints, my question is: when is it okay for a new, power-hungry nation to come to a continent and take over the land and people that were already there? People such as Andrew Jackson and Francis J. Grund thought the Natives of the land they were taking over didn’t have a legal right or sentimental tie to the land. However, John Ross and William Penn argued that the Native Americans were not only guaranteed the land by treaties signed by Congress, but the land had been passed down from many generations and the whites had no right to take it. Although both sides of the argument agreed that Indians …show more content…
The arguments made for Indian removal were very heartless and mostly economically or politically oriented. They talk about how unprofitable the land is in the hands of the Indians and how “one nation must perish to make room for another”. The arguments made against Indian removal are quite opposite; they mostly made points stating that Indians are humans just like the whites and that it is because of the treaties made with Congress that they have come to “dearly love” their lands. However opposite the arguments may seem, both sides agreed that the Indians were improving. The Natives were not only attempting to create their own government, their people went to school and attended places of Christian worship. They had begun conforming to the ways of the Americans by cultivation their lands and civilizing their villages. The Indian population was often more successful when surrounded by whites. I believe the arguments against Indian removal are far superior on a moral and legal level than those for Indian removal. 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
Mr. Johnson
HIST170-85086
14 October 2016
Moral and Legal Components of Indian Removal
While considering different moral and legal viewpoints, my question is: when is it okay for a new, power-hungry nation to come to a continent and take over the land and people that were already there? People such as Andrew Jackson and Francis J. Grund thought the Natives of the land they were taking over didn’t have a legal right or sentimental tie to the land. However, John Ross and William Penn argued that the Native Americans were not only guaranteed the land by treaties signed by Congress, but the land had been passed down from many generations and the whites had no right to take it. Although both sides of the argument agreed that Indians …show more content…
The arguments made for Indian removal were very heartless and mostly economically or politically oriented. They talk about how unprofitable the land is in the hands of the Indians and how “one nation must perish to make room for another”. The arguments made against Indian removal are quite opposite; they mostly made points stating that Indians are humans just like the whites and that it is because of the treaties made with Congress that they have come to “dearly love” their lands. However opposite the arguments may seem, both sides agreed that the Indians were improving. The Natives were not only attempting to create their own government, their people went to school and attended places of Christian worship. They had begun conforming to the ways of the Americans by cultivation their lands and civilizing their villages. The Indian population was often more successful when surrounded by whites. I believe the arguments against Indian removal are far superior on a moral and legal level than those for Indian removal. 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