Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
The Trail of Tears, a U.S. Army-guided forcible removal of the native Americans from the southeast to west of the Mississippi, began in 1838, and thousands of Cherokee were displaced; thousands died along the way.
The realities of these actions was a much different thing than the ideals of the United States. A nation that was built with tolerance and freedom as its precepts was not only forcibly expelling inhabitants from land they had settled, but was attempting to fundamentally change the culture of the Cherokee nation. Instead of protecting a vulnerable minority, as the original settlers of the U.S. had been in England, the government exploited the minority of Cherokee, taking their land, mining its gold, and removing the Cherokee culture from their landscape. This behavior was and is incompatible with the U.S. ideals of morality and justice; the manner in which the Cherokee were treated goes against the grain of United States values such as democracy, equality, and fair treatment.
White defenders of the Cherokee were vocal in their objections to these unjust acts which were counter to the values of the United States. One Senator decried the land-grabs, asking facetiously, "do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin?" Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that the maltreatment of the Indian nations would cause "the name of this nation, hitherto the sweet omen of religion and liberty, [to] stink to the world." In a nation that claimed to value toleration and justice, the answer should have been an unequivocal no. But the push for industrialization, gold prospecting and "progress," as defined by the United States, rendered these concepts of justice and equality meaningless, even trite.
The Cherokee nation appealed to what the United States had heralded as its commitment to justice and morality; in an address regarding the Trail of Tears' forcible expulsion, Cherokee leaders entreated:
Do unto others as ye would that others do unto you. We pray them to remember that, for the sake of principle, their forefathers were compelled to leave...and that the winds of persecution wafted them over the great waters and landed them on the shores of the new world, when the Indian was the sole lord and proprietor of these extensive domains. Let them remember in what way they were received
Had the American government and citizens, prominently Andrew Jackson but all the way down to the individual gold prospectors who encouraged the forcible removal of the Cherokee from Georgia, abided by the precepts by which the United States was founded, perhaps a more fair and hospitable compromise could have been reached.
Unfortunately, the United States' desire for land, gold, and a homogenous culture outweighed the principles of morality, justice, and protection of a minority. The Jacksonian era and its aftermath were a disgrace to these ideals, having forsaken them in favor of manifest destiny, industrialization, and "progress." In light of these arguments, I believe that the quote cited above is misguided and false, and that the "higher use" of the land by "civilized" Americans was no better than the "primitive" lifestyles of the Cherokee.
West, Elliott, "I Will Fight No More Forever," in McPherson, James, Brinkley, Alan, and Rubel, David, eds. Days of Destiny. DK Adult, 2001.
Perdue, Theda and Green, Michael. The Cherokee Removal. Bedford: St. Martin's, 1995.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins, 2003.
Zinn, Howard. The People Speak: American Voices, New York: Harper Collins, 2004.
Perdue, Theda and Green, Michael. The Cherokee Removal. Bedford: St. Martin's, 1995, p. 25.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins, 2003, p. 137
Jackson spoke often of the need to populate the U.S. with "civilized" and "interesting" inhabitants; one can only assume that by civilized he was referring to industrialized and urban, not the traditional culture of the Indian nations with its emphasis on nature and preservation. See Zinn 139-140.
Zinn, 138. Quoting Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey.
Zinn, Howard. The People Speak: American Voices, New York: Harper Collins, 2004,…[continue]
"Removal Of The Cherokee The" (2005, September 13) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/removal-of-the-cherokee-68389
"Removal Of The Cherokee The" 13 September 2005. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/removal-of-the-cherokee-68389>
"Removal Of The Cherokee The", 13 September 2005, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/removal-of-the-cherokee-68389
The Congress eventually followed suit by enacting the Indian Removal Act which was greeted by the newly elected President Andrew Jackson. Americans should feel no regret for the disappearance of Indians from the face of the earth, Jackson argued. "Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers," he said to Congress in his State of the Union
For examples, "In Oklahoma the Cherokee live both on and off the reservation scattered in urban centers and in isolated rural regions." (Cherokee) This also refers to the influence of contemporary industrial society, which has often been referred to as a central cause for the cultural breakdown of religious traditions in the culture. One also has to bear in mind political events and factors in the 1800s, such as the
It was on May 4, 1730 that Cumming and the seven Cherokee began their trip to England, where they arrived on June 5. They were all headquartered in the house of James Crowe. Cuming's correspondence during this period is quite rich and we will mention some of it further below. The meeting with King George II occurred on July 18, 1730 and it is an excellent and somewhat amusing sample of
but, those same laws were immediately enacted by the Federal government and from that origin, became immediately binding - the Cherokee would be held to be covered by Federal but not state law. Those members of Congress who supported the removal policies became instrumental in the build-up toward the Trail of Tears. American aggressive expansionism was what drove the forced removal from their land. Whites had expanded to the edges
However, our continuing humanitarian obligation to the Indians cannot allow these primitive peoples to stand in the way of national progress. They must be removed and granted only a reasonable amount of territory. Editorial Against Indian Removal I regret to say that our potentially great nation is being sullied by the way that it has approached the question of Indian removal from the Great Desert. Largely to escape the oppression of
He was viewing them as little children who required guidance. He tended to believe that the policy of removal had great benefits to the Indians. Majority of the white Americans were thinking that United States was not capable of extending past Mississippi. The removal was capable of saving the Indian nationals from the white's depredations (Foreman 1932). The removal could make them to govern themselves peacefully It was assumed that the
Indian Removal How valuable is history if it is truly written by the victors of war? What remains of the historical account are only tiny fragments of what the true and whole story encapsulated. What we are left with are scraps of stories that are fragmented and skewed to the current power structures that run the institutions. Understanding this skeptical attitude is extremely important when judging an historical account. The purpose of