In the early 19th century. an baby America was increasing in population and spread outing in the South until colonists were faced with the quandary of the Native Americans. Anglo-Americans had two really distinguishable stances on how to cover with southern Indian folks. peculiarly the Cherokee. One side was eager for land and developed the thought that Indians were both racially and culturally inferior and a hinderance to American advancement. while on the other manus. some Americans believed that the Cherokee folk was a crowned head. independent state and that moral duty required the United States to protect them.
Pro-removal Americans rallied behind leaders such as. Andrew Jackson and William Cass. Jackson’s sponsoring attitude toward Native Americans was. based on his political orientation that Native Americans were kids in demand of counsel. Jackson besides advocated that the remotion policy was good to the Indians. Cass believed the Native Americans were unworldly and white colonists were racially superior. In his essay. Removal of the Indians. Cass depicts. “We uncertainty there is. upon the face of the Earth. a more deplorable race than the Cherokees. every bit good as the other southern folks. present… . The Cherokee Removal. pg. 117 ) . ”
Cass alluded to the underlying racism that piloted the statement for ejection of the Cherokee. Many white colonists concurred with the belief that Indians were racial inferior and hence white colonists and Native Americans could non populate together. Cass besides asserted in the same essay “A brutal people. depending for subsistence upon the holiness and unstable supplies furnished by the pursuit. can non populate in contact with a civilized community ( The Cherokee Removal. pg. 116 ) . Some Americans supported this because they deemed anything different than them as incorrect. The pro-removal statement was justified thru the belief that race determined character.
For some Anglo-americans race made Native Americans humble and disposable. Americans against remotion united behind the thought that the Native Americans were born on this land and should be left in peace. Jeremiah Evarts under the pen name. William Penn. in A Brief View of the Present Relations between the Government and People of the United States and the Indians within Our National Limits. said. “Those Indian folk and states. which have remained under their ain signifier of authorities. upon their ain dirt. and have ne’er submitted themselves to the authorities of the Whites. have a perfect right to retain their original signifier of authorities. or to change it. harmonizing to their ain positions of convenience and belongings ( The Cherokee Removal. pg. 106 ) . ”Evarts’ resistance to remotion was based on the fact the Indians were born on the land and therefore it was truly theirs.
He besides pointed out. “For one hundred and 50 old ages. countless pacts were made between the English settlers and the Indians. upon the footing of the Indians being independent states. and holding a perfect right to their state and their signifier of authorities ( The Cherokee Removal. pg. 106 ) . ” Evarts’ statement was that white colonists lawfully could non ignore pacts made with Native Americans for 100s of old ages. Some Anglo-Americans knew remotion of the Cherokee was unconstitutional and to renegue on on understandings made throughout history was morally unqualified.
Catherine Beecher besides advocated against Indian remotion. composing. “Nor are we to believe of these people merely as bare and mobile barbarians. The assorted classs of mind and refinement exist among them every bit among as ( The Cherokee Removal. pg. 112 ) . ” Beecher and other Americans opposed remotion because they did non believe it was morally righteous to degrade Indians because of race. they considered them people excessively. and respected the differences in both race and civilization.
Evarts and Anglo-americans against remotion foresaw the inhumaneness of remotion. Evarts stated. “The remotion of any state of Indians from their state by force would be an case of gross and barbarous subjugation. ( The Cherokee Removal. pg. 107 ) . ” Both positions on Indian remotion had a few commonalties. Some people such as John Knox believed that. “the cardinal premiss of which was that United States Indian policy should do enlargement possible without hurt to the Indians ( The Cherokee Removal pg. 10 ) .
The lone consistent understanding nevertheless was that the white settlers’ civilization and Native American civilizations would ne’er successfully co-inhabit. Americans realized that the differences in civilization would merely go on to do jobs. However the differences was some believed the Indians should be forced west and others believed they should be left in peace. There was an understanding that the Cherokee were barbarian and to some. even worse non Christian. Again there was another divide on the solution for the crudeness of the Cherokee. Some sought assimilation and of class. remotion.
In my concluding analysis. the Cherokee remotion statement ne’er reached a consensus. and like most political affairs. was won by the most power hungry side. Due to a burgeoning population. racial dogmatism. and the deficiency of centralised authorities enforcement of the eighteenth century the Cherokee were forced to go forth their places. The effect was a forced disruptive. cross-country walk. where they faced disease. hungriness. and fatigue now known as the Trail of Tears. Thousands died. and the remotion of the Cherokee had lasting affects on them. every bit good as all Native Americans.