Trail Of Tears Dbq

The Trail Of Tears was the result of the Indian Removal Act where one of America’s largest forced migrations took place. The Indians had to endure a long journey in order to move to present day Georgia and through this journey, approximately four thousand were killed. The event took place after the law was ratified by seventh president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, in 1830. The migration relocated five civilized Native American tribes consisting of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. This act was passed so Andrew Jackson could take over the land in the west that was occupied by the Indians. Andrew Jackson saw this as a beneficial opportunity for the Native Americans as well. Nonetheless, through different perspectives, that was wrong. The Indian Removal Act was not justified because the Indians did not give the United States permission to pass the law.

The Native Americans did not grant approval or consent to the law being passed.

Therefore, the Indian Removal Act was not justified. Needless to say, an agreement is only properly made when both or multiple people involved in the deal give their approval and acceptance to whatever the agreement may be. In this case, with the Native Americans, they did not give their proper consent to the agreement according to the Cherokee appeal to Congress of December 1829. The tribe states, “[This] is the land of our nativity, and the land of our…birth. We cannot consent to abandon it…” This means, the Indians, and specifically the Cherokee tribe, did not give their permission to the law being passed. Knowing this, it was not right for the US to continue with the act since it was not agreed upon. Selfishly, the act was still passed and it forced the unhappy Indians to move. Because the Indians didn’t give their permission, it was quite obvious as to why they were unhappy. This goes on to demonstrate just how unjustified the Indian Removal Act

was.
The Indian Removal Act was not justified. However, some people believe that the Indian Removal Act was justified because it was not the US’ intention to harm them. The opposing side supports the reason that the US wanted to help and did not see themselves doing anything wrong. While many agree with that, it is an incorrect and unsupportive reason because Congress representative Edward Everett stated in his Massachusetts speech of 1830, “Our friends will view this measure with sorrow, and our enemies alone with joy. And we ourselves, Sir, when the interests and passions of the day are past, shall look back upon it, I fear, with self-reproach, and a regret as bitter as unavailing…” This demonstrates that the US knew what they were doing and they knew it was not right. They knew it wasn’t right because they would regret it later but through this regret and guilt, they continued with the Act disregarding any negative feeling they had of it. However, if they truly felt sorry, they wouldn’t have continued with it and not only did they ignore their own negative feelings about it but also the Native Americans. This alone shows how unreasonable the law was. As I have noted, The Indian Removal Act was not justified because of my reasoning above.
Without a doubt, it was not right for the Indian Removal Act to be passed. It was not agreed on and only grew larger conflict. The event affected so many lives that at the time, were not cared about at all by the US. This was because they knew the Indians would suffer and they knew they were wrong in allowing such event to proceed. The event demonstrated an early case of inequality in the US and truly was unjustified.