1. I do not agree with the case Georgia v. the Cherokee Nation because I feel it is not fair for Cherokees. This case just give us its purpose without any reason why those nation must move out and immigrate to new settlements in west, “[t]he full moon of May is already on the wane; and before another shall have passed away, every Cherokee man, woman and child in those states must be in motion to join their brethren in the far West.” It also forces that nation to obey by the treaty and troops. For examples, “[b]y the treaty, the emigration was to have been completed on or before the 23rd of this month…” and “[r]eceive [troops] and confide in them as such. Obey them when they tell you that your can remain no longer in this country.”
2.1 In General Winfield Scott’s argument, Scott reports the main point of the treaty about the emigration, “[t]his solemn address shall reach your distant settlements, the emigration must be commenced in haste, but I hope without disorder.” And he also warns some Cherokees, who will try to defy the treaty, “Chiefs, head-men and warriors! Will you then, by resistance, compel us to resort to arms? God forbid! Or will you, by flight, seek to hid yourselves in mountains and forests, and thus oblige us to hunt you down?”
…show more content…
2.2 In Andrew Jackson’s argument, Jackson addresses his opinions about the treaty and Cherokees that let us know the main purpose of this treaty, “[i]t seems now to be an established fact that [Cherokees] can not live in contact with a civilized community and prosper.” And he also explains the new settlements and those people’s lives, “…the Indians are removed at the expense of the United States, and with certain supplies of clothing, arms, ammunition, and other indispensable articles; they are also furnished gratuitously with provisions for the period of a year after their arrival at their new