The Indian removal became federal law in 1830. Congress passed it. It authorized the forced removal of native American tribes from their ancestral land in the United States, west of the Mississippi river. The law permitted the president to give public lands to the Indians living in the east in exchange for their lands in the west (Foreman, 1953). The Indian removal act was headed by president Andrew Jackson who believed it was necessary to relocate Indians to land for economic development. He viewed the native Americans as an obstacle to the expansion and success of the united states. He also believed that Native Americans could not coexist with the white settlers.
The government provided them with lads in southeastern America, currently called Oklahoma. They were relocated with a promise of government support and peaceful eviction and relocation but in reality. The process was brutal and traumatic. Even though many Indians obliged and left their ancestral lands peacefully, the Cherokee tribe did not go without a fight. This caused the death of thousands of them in what was labeled the trail of tears (Stuirgis, 2007).
One of the strongest arguments that the author has presented on the removal of the Indian act was the notion that it was necessary to protect the white settlers who were moving into the native American lands. The more the white settlers arrived at the lands, the more the conflict would erupt between the groups. It was wise for the government to remove the Indians from the lands and resettle them elsewhere to avoid bloodshed. Even though this removal could have been seen as traumatic and brutal, it was for the betterment of the nation’s future. As the say goes, the nation is bigger than an individual. The native Americans were sitting on productive lands, but they were not making maximum use of it. The white settlers had plans to maximize land use to boost production and help grow the country’s GDP. The settlers planned to set up factories and cultivate the lands on a large-scale basis.
However, removing the Indians’ acts had more flaws than strengths. One of the major flaws is that the removal of the Indians was based on the assumption that the community was inferior and could not use their ancestral lands. They were viewed as individuals incapable of adapting to the changes in the world during the period. This assumption was demeaning, offensive, and deeply racist. It led to the death and suffering of several native americans. Many suffered as the land the government gave them was unproductive, leading to hunger. Many were unable to adapt to their new home. Every human can adapt to the changes in the world given the opportunity and resources necessary.
Another flaw of the argument in the removal of the Indians’ reading was the nature at which they were evacuated from their ancestral home. Most of them were dragged out of their homes at gunpoint. The scenes were inhumane and traumatizing to the community. Many Indians died during the relocation due to the brutal nature of their eviction. Additionally, they were given cheap land to theirs, and the government never offered them much support.
I am afraid I have to disagree with the way the Indians were removed from the lands they have lived in for centuries. The racism involved in the eviction and the way they were deemed inferior was an obstacle to the nation’s development. The government should have looked for an alternative approach to removing the Indians, such as seeking peaceful negotiations on how the Indians could peacefully coexist with the white settlers. The settlers could have set up factories and farms and employed the Indians to provide labor; that could have been a win-win situation for both, and nobody could have died or suffered.
Foreman, G. (1953). Indian removal: The emigration of the five civilized tribes of Indians (Vol. 2). University of Oklahoma Press.
Sturgis, A. H. (2007). The trail of tears and Indian removal. Greenwood Publishing Group.