ipl-logo

Persuasive Essay On Cherokee Removal

621 Words3 Pages

Any day now we will be forced of our ancestral lands that we have inhabited for centuries, all do to a treaty that holds no grounds. Although the treaty may have been signed by who you call the Treaty party, these individuals hold no actually authority for the Cherokee. They were not appointed by any council and had no authority to make a treaty even if they thought that they were doing it for the good of the Cherokee nation. Likewise because the Treaty party had no real authority to sign a treaty and materials agreed upon by the Treaty party, so any agreements made between this party and the government should hold no legal binding. However, despite this fact the treaty was still ratified and now we are going to get forced out of our homes. This removal may not seem very important to anyway outside of the Cherokee nation because they do not understand the gravity of the situation. It is not as simple as simply moving. Even if we did move the task itself would prove to be too difficult for many of our elders and children, plus the trail westward has its own dangers. Even if we did forgo this, we still do not want to leave this land for it was given to us by our gods. It is our homeland and to leave it would be leaving somewhere we our protected for a foreign land where we have no idea what to expect. Say we did entertain the …show more content…

This is not true and should not even play a part in any decision made to the Native American population. Therefore, we should not be forced of our homeland because according to the doctrine of discovery, which states that any land discovered by a government subjects is the one who owns it. However, the Cherokee and Native American as a whole were here first and own the land. The United States government cannot simply take away from us what we own, but that being said does not mean we cannot live in peace with the United

Show More
Related
181 Words | 1 Pages

Whereas twenty-one Cherokees signed away all the Cherokee land east of the Mississippi river without any of Cherokee Council having signed the document or even having taken part in the drafting of the treaty, we the Cherokee Nation Are asking for a review of the circumstances of the treaty. This Treaty of New Echota was engineered by one John Ridge and supported by John F. Schimmerhorn is not supported by the Majority of the Cherokee Peoples. The monetary offering of $4.5 million to leave Georgia peacefully however generous, will not benefit the Cherokee Nation but will most likely fill the pockets of the drafters of this treaty. I am aware of the injustice of United States policy toward my people and hold out the hope that

Read More
163 Words | 1 Pages

Dear Mr. Parker, During the 1838 Congress passed a law called the Indian Removal homes from Georgia to Indian Territory. It was a long walk 4,000 thousand of us died from the terrible weather,illness, weakness. After the devastating journey, the Cherokee Indians tried to settle in their new "desert" home. In the new territory, problems developed with the new arrivals, and Cherokees who had already come here.

Read More
303 Words | 2 Pages

Indians had lived in the same areas for many years and had become much more accustomed to being civilized and had even started schools, making laws and becoming farmers. But all of that didn’t matter, there was increasing pressure to open up the area the Indians inhabited so the white men could settle there. The Indian Removal Act stated that all Indians must move to lands west of the Mississippi River, Jackson said the Indians would receive money for the land they lost and that all expenses would be paid for. The act was supposed to be voluntary but they were pressured to go and the tribes that did not go peacefully were forced. While most tribes did go peacefully the Cherokee Indians wanted to fight the Removal Act and took it to the Supreme

Read More
661 Words | 3 Pages

why would America claim it's theirs if they’ve probably never even seen the land. According to an article written by PBS I titled “Indian Removal” it states, “In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. This was because their “right of occupancy” It's ridiculous that America wants to move something or more importantly someone that has been there for hundreds of years. If you don't understand what I mean, Think about it this way, would you want to be moved from your house after living there for live thirty years.

Read More
982 Words | 4 Pages

in earlier treaties , it was proclaimed that the indians were under the protection of the united states however jackson still tried to take the lands by encouraging congress to establish the removal act. if there was an agreement with the removal act , the native americans would give up all their land and the government would help them financially to move and would still be under the protection of the united states. the cherokee resisted the removal act and decided to settle it in court. chief justice marshall ruled in favor of the cherokee tribe however it did not stop jackson. jackson eventually obtained the cherokee chiefs signature which led to the trail of tears as shown in document g. the trial of tears led to the death of many native americans.

Read More
858 Words | 4 Pages

Evidence from the Majority Opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831, by the Supreme Court of the United States, shows that Indians were stripped of their rights to encourage them to move west so that Americans could take over their land. This evidence proves that Native Americans were mistreated and manipulated so that Americans could take their home to make it their own. It's worth noting that this source was created to discuss the Indian Removal Act, and the author's background or point of view is that Andrew Jackson wanted the Indian Removal Act. However, this source is reliable because it was written by the president at the time. Based on the Cherokee Nation of Indians' letter to Congress, it is evident that they firmly protested against a false treaty that they were tricked into.

Read More
606 Words | 3 Pages

The second case that reached the Supreme Court concerning land ownership happened on 1831 and was given the name of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. This case’s ruling expressed that Indians did not have a United States nationality, but they were not members of foreign states either, which ultimately appointed their tribes to be “domestic dependent nations.” In other words, although there was a distant relationship between the U.S. and the Indian tribes, the United States was still responsible for imparting well-being advantages, needs, and services for the natives since they were entitled over the Indian

Read More
1114 Words | 5 Pages

The “loose association” among the Seminole bands and disagreements among members within the bands gave rise to many unknowns about the intentions behind those who signed the treaty, and those Seminoles in Florida who refused to accept the authority of the chiefs who travelled to the Indian Territory. Furthermore, the African Americans among the Seminoles, including Abraham, were convinced that moving to the Indian Territory, where the Creeks occupied the land, risked re-enslavement. Like many white planters, the Creeks persisted with federal claims on escaped slaves who sought refuge among the Seminoles. The African Americans, Abraham among them, fearing this, worked hard at convincing the Seminole Indians to oppose removal.

Read More
1077 Words | 5 Pages

To begin with, in Source E, it shows the map of the Indian Territory in Oklahoma, and it describes what went on. It states "Tens of thousands of Native Americans previously living east of the Appalachian Mountains were removed from their homes and ancestral lands by the United States Army and were forced to walk hundreds of miles at gunpoint to 'Indian Territory. " This goes against everything written on those two documents because they are literally forcing tribes from east of the Appalachian to all move into one state, because they want to claim all of the land for the American people. Firstly, not all of the tribes maintain peace with each other and now they being crammed into one state all together which probably would not turn out good.

Read More
783 Words | 4 Pages

Imagine having to walk over 1200 miles because someone else wants you land. In 1820 five Native American tribes the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee, and Creek Indians were invaded by all of the white people who came to the U.S from Europe, and the white men got very settled. Ever since the white men showed up to the U.S. there was conflict with the Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act is when southern Indian tribes formed their removal of the Natives and forced them to leave all of there stuff. I believe that the Indian Removal Act is a step in the wrong direction because we were not treating the Native Americans like human beings, it went against the constitution, and jackson wanted to build a wall to separate.

Read More
580 Words | 3 Pages

In the article Worchester v Georgia from pbs.org is says in the 1820s and 1830s, Georgia conducted a relentless campaign to remove the Cherokees. Then Marshall Worcester took Georgia to court. Congress voted in favor of Worcester. So technically no one could move them off their land. Andrew Jackson didn't listen to congress and when the Indian removal act was passed, he moved them off their land.

Read More
620 Words | 3 Pages

Due to the colonists wanting the best agricultural land possible, the Natives were removed from their homes. The Natives who wanted to protect their land used American law systems in the cases Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia in an attempt to stop the unjust actions. The supreme court agreed that the native nations were “sovereign nations” and could not be affected by the Georgia laws. Jackson went against this ruling and told the Cherokee Nation to “accept their fate, cede their eastern territory and move west”. The Trail of Tears was an event where seventeen thousand Natives were relocated to the west.

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

The Cherokee had been living on the land far longer than the settlers had arrived. They built their own land and made a whole society. The Cherokee were healthy and they had all the buffalo they needed and they had herbs. Only a handful of the Cherokee leaders signed the treaty and the Supreme Court even said they could stay. It is wrong to push people out of their own home when they did nothing wrong.

Read More
810 Words | 4 Pages

In 1620 the pilgrims came to america and that's where it all went down hill for the Native Americans getting killed and having all of their land taken away. All of the things that happened to the Indians shouldn’t of happened but to pay them back we should give back their land because we have broke several treaties with them about land, because they have been here way long, and lastly we should give land back to the Indians can have their own business. One reason land should be given back to the Native Americans in America is because we have broke several treaties with the Native Americans. A quote to support that we have broken treaties with the native americans is from https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-promises-on-display-at-native-american-treaties-exhibit it states “ Also known as the Pickering Treaty, the agreement was signed in 1794 between the federal government and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, or the Six Nations, based in New York.

Read More
402 Words | 2 Pages

In the letter, the Cherokee nation addresses several reason on why they should not have to move. One reason is that the new land if foreign to them. They are being expected to pack up, leave everything they know, and move to the unknown. Another reason to add on to the above is that there are other Native American tribe already

Read More

More about Persuasive Essay On Cherokee Removal

Related Topics

Open Document