Indian Removal How Valuable Is History if

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 this essay is to discuss the removal of Native Americans from the region east of the Mississippi in the time of 1830. This essay will examine both sides of the argument and address the ethical, moral, philosophical and legal aspects to this complex and sophisticated subject. This essay will ultimately try to distinguish that the removal of these people's land, while extremely expedient and profitable, was a clear violation of the human ethic and should be remembered as a critical failure in American history and folklore.

The Argument for Indian Removal

Andrew Jackson gave two emotional speeches addressed to congress regarding the matter of Indian removal. Jackson's oratory skills appear to be very well rehearsed and manufactured giving his appeals a very compelling tone. Looking beyond the tone and phrasing of his words however are important premises that reveal the mechanistic for his stance of removal.

The first assumption or premise Jackson presented was the idea that the Native American was somehow uncivilized to the point that this race could not peacefully coexist within the new European republic of America. Jackson is merely protecting the Indians from themselves by removing them from society as benefit. Ironically, Jackson ignored the white man's own uncivilized behavior has the murder and enslavement of millions of people somehow acted as civilized.

Jackson provided a list of examples that he suggested would aided the situation: "the pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid."

Grund (1837) used another argument to support removal. He suggested since the Indians never cultivated the ground, the land could not belong to the natives. He pleaded " They never cultivated it to any extent, nor had they, individually, any distinct title to it arising from actual labor. They held it in common with the beasts of the forest, and it was useful to them only as it afforded them the means of prey. The English had as good a right to call the ocean their own, because they moved on it." Although logically flawed, this argument provided an emotional trigger to lend support to the cause, even though it is factual inaccurate.

The Argument Against Indian Removal

This argument, due to its emotional appeal, appears to have the most logic contained within its premises as well. The idea of land ownership is flawed at many different levels, yet provide a functional but unfair economic systems as well. Simple empathy dictates that removal from one's homeland is cruel and dishonest. Ross (1833) argued this eloquently when he stated "We can only plead, let equal justice be done between the red and the white man; and that so long as the faith of contracts is preserved inviolate, there will be no just cause for complaint, much less for aggressions on the right."