John Ross vs. Andrew Jackson: The Cherokee Removal Debate
This paper examines two primary source letters central to the Cherokee Removal debate: Chief John Ross's letter protesting the Treaty of New Echota and President Andrew Jackson's letter to the Cherokee defending relocation. Through close reading, the paper argues that Ross sought to expose the treaty as illegitimate and coerced, while Jackson cloaked a policy of forced dispossession in the language of benevolence. The analysis highlights the profound disconnect between US government policy and Cherokee interests, considers the historical significance of both figures, and reflects on the broader consequences of Native American removal, including the Trail of Tears and its lasting cultural and political impact.
- Introduction: Two Letters, Two Worlds: Framing two opposing letters on Cherokee removal
- Chief John Ross and the Treaty of New Echota: Ross argues treaty was coerced and illegitimate
- Andrew Jackson's Case for Removal: Jackson justifies removal with promises of aid
- The Disconnect Between Government and Cherokee Nation: Contrasting views on justice and displacement
- Historical Value of the Primary Sources: Why these letters matter to American history
- Conclusion: Removal's lasting political and historical consequences
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds its argument in two contrasting primary sources, giving the analysis a clear evidentiary foundation and a built-in comparative structure.
- It balances sympathetic treatment of Ross's perspective with a fair summary of Jackson's stated reasoning, allowing the paper's critique to emerge from the evidence rather than assertion alone.
- It connects the specific episode — the letters — to the broader historical consequences of the Trail of Tears, giving the close reading real stakes.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates close reading of primary sources as a historical method. Rather than summarizing events abstractly, the student returns repeatedly to what each letter actually says and implies, using direct citation to support claims about motivation, rhetoric, and political strategy. This technique — inferring intent and ideology from the language of historical actors — is foundational to historical analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing the two letters as opposing perspectives on a single conflict. It then devotes a section to each author's argument before analyzing their disconnect. A penultimate section reflects on the letters' broader historical significance, and a brief conclusion ties the removal to longer-term American political history. The structure is logical and mirrors a compare-and-contrast essay at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: Two Letters, Two Worlds
Two letters — one from Chief John Ross to the US government, the other from President Andrew Jackson to the Cherokee — present two sides of a terrible conflict in the nineteenth century. On one side is the plight of the Cherokee, who saw themselves being forced off their land in the South and relocated to the West. On the other is Jackson's argument that the Cherokee had not purchased their land and lacked the means to secure it, that the US had set aside funds for them and promised schools in the West, and that therefore they must go. Chief John Ross's letter shows how the Cherokee simply wanted to enjoy the same kind of liberty that Americans had proclaimed in their Declaration of Independence.1 Jackson's letter, by contrast, reveals no concern for Cherokee liberty — only an intense desire to remove them and to justify that removal by glossing it with a veneer of altruism through promises of funds, schools, and shelter in the West.2
Chief John Ross and the Treaty of New Echota
Chief John Ross essentially argues in his letter that when members of the Cherokee nation signed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, they did so under a form of duress and did not speak for the entire Cherokee Nation. Moreover, he contends that the provisions of the treaty were altered in ways that made it even more unfavorable to the Cherokee people.3 Facing overwhelming pressure, Ross argues that the individuals who signed had little understanding of the consequences, and that they represented only a small group of Cherokee leaders who agreed to cede their eastern lands to the US government and relocate to present-day Oklahoma. This decision would have far-reaching consequences. The Cherokee were forcibly removed from their homes in a brutal journey that became known as the Trail of Tears — Ross's words having fallen on deaf ears.
Andrew Jackson's Case for Removal
Those deaf ears belonged in part to Andrew Jackson. The seventh president of the United States was a strong advocate for Native American removal, as his letter to the Cherokee makes clear. At the same time, he portrayed himself as the Cherokee's staunchest ally and supporter — a profoundly disingenuous posture.4 Jackson believed that relocating Native American peoples to western territories was in the best interests of both those peoples and the US government. In exchange for their land, he promised that the Cherokee would receive funds and schools in their new home. Chief John Ross, elected Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation in 1828, rejected this plan entirely. Ross maintained that no legitimate treaty had been concluded between the Cherokee Nation and the US government, and he vowed to fight for his people's right to remain on their ancestral lands.
Conclusion
The letters of Chief John Ross and Andrew Jackson on the question of Cherokee removal remain indispensable primary sources for understanding this pivotal episode in American history. They preserve, in the words of the actors themselves, the competing claims of sovereignty, justice, and political interest that defined the removal era and whose consequences continued to reverberate long afterward.
Bibliography
Andrew Jackson, Letter to the Cherokee.
"Our Hearts Are Sickened": Letter from Chief John Ross of the Cherokee, Georgia, 1836.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.