Their Actions Leading Up To And During The Nez Perce War

688 Words3 Pages

The U.S Was Justified in Their Actions Leading up to and During the Nez Perce War.

Many people learning about Native Americans believe that the settlers were unfair and cruel to the Native Americans. But what if everything they did was legal, logical, and for the good of the many? What if the Native Americans were the ones who were cruel to the settlers? In this essay, we’ll be exploring the reasons and emotions behind the Nez Perce attacks on settlers, the legalism of the settlers manifest destiny, and the Nez Perce’s rejection of the peaceful treaties. First off, the Nez Perce weren’t very peaceful to the settlers. Over 6,596 settlers were killed by Native Americans, which was around 31% of their population (wikipedia.com)! Many settlers were killed when tried to peacefully negotiate with angry tribes. Also, on the first Nez Perce reservation, 12-16 settlers were killed by 3 Nez Perce, who then fled (indian-ed.org). While it’s not 100% confirmed that the …show more content…

Since the Nez Perce refused to sign the original treaty, they got stuck with the not-as-great deal. The original treaty promised that “...it shall be lawful for (the Nez Perce) to reside upon any ground not in the actual claim and occupation of citizens of the U.S and upon any ground claimed or occupied, if with the permission of the owner or claimant…” (Nez Perce Treaty). If the Nez Perce had signed the treaty, they would have still owned some of their original land, and they would have had the freedom to live elsewhere, too. Some people might say that the treaty had other, not so great terms too. For example, “The said Nez Perce tribe of indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the country occupied or claimed by them…”. But, that was the second treaty. If they had signed the original treaty, it probably wouldn’t have included that