Pros And Cons Of The Indian Removal Act Of 1790

Native Americans who emigrated from Europe perceived the Indians as a friendly society with whom they dwelt with in harmony. While Native Americans were largely intensive agriculturalists and entrepreneurial in nature, the Indians were hunters and gatherers who earned a livelihood predominantly as nomads. By the 19th century, irrefutable territories i.e. the areas around River Mississippi were under exclusive occupation by the Indians. At the time, different Indian tribes such as the Chickasaws, Creeks, and Cherokees had adapted a sedentary lifestyle and practiced small-scale agriculture. According to the proponents of removal, the Indians were to move westwards into forested lands in order to generate additional space for development through agricultural production (Memorial of the Cherokee Indians). The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the

The arguments were based majorly on legal and moral considerations. The legal arguments, which opponents advanced, were stronger than those of proponents of the Act. Morally, the arguments seemed to be equally strong. However, upon consideration of the entire arguments, numerical strength favored those of opponents. Also, all the arguments by proponents, except one, were objectively controvertible while those of opponents were not. As such, opponents had stronger