The Pros And Cons Of Indian Removal

467 Words2 Pages

The white men were trying to force the Cherokee out of their own land. The white men made the Indian removal act to force the Indians out no matter what. The historical question means, should the Cherokee leave or stay and if they stay they will lose all their ways but if they leave they could have their own land. People might disagree because they feel the Cherokee owned the land before any white man would have even known that land existed. My answer to the question is for the Cherokee to leave and just not bother with the men trying to make them change their ways. The Cherokee tribe say if they stay that the laws they would have to live under would ruin the Cherokee people. In the text written by the Cherokee they say, “even though we love the land of our fathers, we believe that moving will be far better than giving into the laws of the states. If we stay we will witness the ruin of the Cherokee people.” this means that even though the Cherokee loved their land they would rather leave than stay and be under the laws of the United States. The Cherokee nation cannot be re-established in the middle of the white men. In the text written by the Cherokee they say, “We believe that this nation cannot be re-established in its present location”. Therefore we ask this question, is it better to stay or go? It is …show more content…

The land was passed down to them from their ancestors and their fathers are buried on that land. In the Cherokee letter, it says “Our fathers passed down this land to us. They have possessed this land since before people can remember. It was a gift from our common father in heaven.” This means that the Cherokee love the land they have. It is sacred to them because their ancestors gave it to them. This is a good reason to want to keep their land, but the Cherokee has even said before that they would leave the land they love rather than live under the laws of the United