Indian Removal Act
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a heated topic in Congress. Defend the passage or rejection of the Act with reference to the moral, political, constitutional and practical concerns of a congressman.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was at the time, thought to be justified and acceptable. There were two groups, the people who wanted the Indian’s gone, and the people who believed they should be allowed to stay. I believe forcing the Indians out of their territory was immoral, had no effect on the state of Georgia, and it was an abuse of power. When the Indians were being removed from their territory, they were lead out at gunpoint by our military. It’s immoral because there were 17,000 Indians and 4,000 died due to dehydration, starvation, and disease. The Cherokee had rights given to them. “They were granted their separate existence, as a political community, undisturbed possession and full enjoyment of their lands, within certain boundaries, which are duly defined and fully described and the protection of the United States against all in interference with, or encroachments upon, their rights, by any people, State, or nation,” argues a Maine Senator. The Indian Removal Act disregards every set of promises we have given to them.
"What is the population of Georgia, where there is no room for these few Indians? It is less than seven to the square mile. We, Sir, in Massachusetts, have seventy-four to the square mile, and space for a great many more,” states a Congressman. The occupation of Indians in Georgia had little effect on the society or development of it. Georgia wanted to “consolidate their society” but they weren’t going to strengthen their community by kicking people out.
President Andrew Jackson and President James Monroe, both were for the Indian Removal Act. President Jackson asks, “What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive republic?” The Constitution of 1789 gave Congress the
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was at the time, thought to be justified and acceptable. There were two groups, the people who wanted the Indian’s gone, and the people who believed they should be allowed to stay. I believe forcing the Indians out of their territory was immoral, had no effect on the state of Georgia, and it was an abuse of power. When the Indians were being removed from their territory, they were lead out at gunpoint by our military. It’s immoral because there were 17,000 Indians and 4,000 died due to dehydration, starvation, and disease. The Cherokee had rights given to them. “They were granted their separate existence, as a political community, undisturbed possession and full enjoyment of their lands, within certain boundaries, which are duly defined and fully described and the protection of the United States against all in interference with, or encroachments upon, their rights, by any people, State, or nation,” argues a Maine Senator. The Indian Removal Act disregards every set of promises we have given to them.
"What is the population of Georgia, where there is no room for these few Indians? It is less than seven to the square mile. We, Sir, in Massachusetts, have seventy-four to the square mile, and space for a great many more,” states a Congressman. The occupation of Indians in Georgia had little effect on the society or development of it. Georgia wanted to “consolidate their society” but they weren’t going to strengthen their community by kicking people out.
President Andrew Jackson and President James Monroe, both were for the Indian Removal Act. President Jackson asks, “What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive republic?” The Constitution of 1789 gave Congress the