Ryan Miller
Active member
Context
After winning a stunning election against President John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson appealed to the common man, especially in the south. At the time, the United States was divided between northerners, southerners, and even westerners. The north and the south were even different. The north was industrial while the south was reliant on cotton production and plantations. However, there was a problem for the southerners. Those who owned land in the south had trouble making a living as land was expensive. One way for Andrew Jackson to solve this was by removing the Native Americans already living in the south and resettle them to where Oklahoma is today. Jackson, along with approval from Congress, passed the Indian Removal Act. This would mean that Federal and State governments could buy land from the Native Americans and use the army to help them resettle somewhere else. However, was this action justified, or not. We'll see in today's poll.
Arguments (Yes)
The first reason as to why people would think the Indian Removal Act was justified was because Native Americans would have the chance to move away from the Americans already living in the south. Some of those Americans even wanted to kill those Native Americans just for their land. With the Indian Removal Act and money granted by the government, the Native Americans can finally move to a much more suitable location where they can't be threatened by Americans.
Another reason as to why the Indian Removal Act was justified was because the acquired land would help Americans in the south earn more from cotton trade, plantations, etc. This would mean that southerners would benefit from all the land that was being bought and finally earn more.
Oh also, I already mentioned this in the first paragraph as to why the Indian Removal Act was justified, but I'm going to say it again. The United States bought land from the Native Americans. This would at least make their journey safe for them to resettle west and made sure that the southerners would finally get the land they needed in the south.
Arguments (No)
To begin with as to why people wouldn't think that the Indian Removal Act wasn't justified was because many Native Americans died while they were resettling west. The government of the United States forced the Native Americans to move west. The Native Americans weren't even prepared for the journey as they could only bring what they could carry with them (so many of the Natives left their belongings in their previous settlements).
Not to mention that the Indian Removal Act scattered tribes apart. Resettlement was already difficult and you're having tribes being split while they are marching a heavy and enduring trail. Basically, this would separate tribes from their original group.
In addition, the United States had already made agreements with the Native Americans and granted them rights through previous Supreme Court Cases. For instance, in Johnson v. M'Intosh, the Supreme Court stated that land from the Native Americans can't be taken away from private parties unless consent from the US federal government (instead of the states having power to remove Native Americans). The Indian Removal Act would be a complete violation of this agreement and would ignore the rights that the Supreme Court has granted them.
Not to mention that the Indian Removal Act would further increase tensions between the United States and the Native Americans. This would eventually lead to many wars with the Native Americans where they would continue capturing land from them. Today, people with Native American ancestry living in the United States are struggling in the west due to the continued land acquisition from the United States way back in the 1800s due to Manifest Destiny.
Conclusion
With this in mind, do you think that the Indian Removal Act was justified because it would help southerners living in the south to earn more money because land would be cheaper or do you think it wasn't because it lead to many Native Americans dying in the Trail of Tears, splitting of tribes, violation of previous Supreme Court cases, etc.
