The Indian removal debate has been one which has been highly contested from time memorial to date in the United State. However, to truly justify that the American removal of the Indians is morally and ethically right would be same as abetting a crime. The main theme of Indian removal is the unjustified shift which was suppressed to the Indians to vacate their lands and settle west of Mississippi (Nardo, 91). The congress feigned that after the Indians signed treaties they accepted to be governed with the laws of the state under which their civilization occupies.
The congress further in the merit of civilizing the Indians, wanted to instill the Whiteman way of civilization. This is best quoted from Andrew Jackson in his first congress address he speculated that "the government is mandated with policies which encourages the art of civilization to the Indians so that they may change from their habit of living a roaming lifestyle to a civilized one". Andrew Jackson used this quote to denote that the government interest on Indians was based on their culture, and also natural resources preservation as exemplified by Debo (p, 19).
The Indians as the historian so would acclaim was strong and civilized in their own accord. However, these natives were deemed to be ignorant and also uneducated based on their existence and cultures. The Indians attempts to resist against the oppression of the Whiteman were thwarted by the strong population and equipments of these intruders (Penn, 41).
Andrew Jackson view of the Indians was that of the slaves and he is quoted to refer the Indians as "children of the forest and savages." The United State deployed treaties which the government used to coerce the Indians as having accepted the states laws and policies. Under these treaties the Indians were viewed as citizens of the United State. However, Andrew Jackson did not think on the same line as he also called the Indians foreigners. He is quoted saying to justify the Indians removal that "no good man in his right mind would prefer a nation covered with forest also but also ranged with a thousand savages within the extensive republic, dotted with cities, thriving farms and towns occupied with over 12 million happy civilians blessed with religion, civilization and liberty." This would alter lead to reallocation after the attempt of changing the lifestyle of the Indians backfired (Wallace, 141). The Whiteman was of lifestyle did not appease the Indians and they were content with their simple lifestyle. However, the United State and some Europeans missionary tried every attempt to persuade them to adapt the new ways of living. The white man instilled policies which require that the red man give the white man land for expansion, development and farming as noted by Young (p, 31).
Inspiring Policies for Indian Removal
Among the few policies which the congress used to enact the forceful removal of the Indians, this is in majority of the states in America especially the Cherokee formerly known as Georgia were based on preservation of natural resources (Grund, 55; Gibson, 31). This is viewed conflicting to the fact that when the first congress met they speculated that they shall protect and secure the Indians land and culture. However, this was only dreams as when Andrew Jefferson become president this changed and the Indians became subject of the opposite of the treaties speculations. The U.S Supreme Court also sided with the congress and rendered that the Indians had no rightful ownership of the land they had occupied (Satz, 12).
From the appeal by the Indians to have the procession of their ancestral lands in Cherokee, the court ruled against them. The evidence the U. S. Supreme Court used was based on the treaties that the United States has issued the Indians with. This treaties translated into law authorized the president the mandate of granting to the Indians the unsettled land in west Mississippi in exchange for the ancestral of the Indians in all the existing states borders (Ross, 82; Foreman, 23). However, the treaties acclaimed that "through these treaties Indians rights will be acknowledged as different people and that all the guarantees issued shall be secured and protected." However, still the court ruled in favor of the State.
This development gave birth to creation of policies concerning land ownership. The policy robbed of the Indians ancestral land and way of life. The Indians were also subjected to the law and regulation of the new land which they were forcefully subjected to cohabit (Stewart, 88; Foreman, 188; Satz, 134). The United State government wanted the Indians to live their culture and adapt their civilized way of life. Instead, of persuasion they forcefully and brutally instilled these policies to the Indians through scheming means as noted by Debo (p, 81). The Indians would not relent and give in to the new civilized lifestyle, thus they become subject of abuse (DeRosier, 54; Seidman, 89; Nardo, 109).
According to Brinkley (p, 139) and Williams (p, 221) the faith of the Indians has been dented by the lies which are formulated within the negotiation which the congress usually addresses. The congress manipulated the faith of the Indians through formulation of treaties which would later abolish by policies which denounces the Indians of their rights of land ownership and culture. This betrayal has been the course that the Indians can never trust the congress and are deviant to the changes which the government enacts as policies of the states which the Indians dwell (Andrew, 77; Young, 101). The government of America uses the key legal excuse of that "the policy and laws of the United State can not allow formation of confederate state within another state." This is lame and also an excuse of further depleting the already existing tribe among civilized population of Georgia to move further west as noted by Jackson (p, 199).
The Indians have all the right to occupy the land which they peacefully offered to the first ancestors of the American population. However, policies and regulation have been unjustly enacted to remove the Indians and settle them further west Mississippi. The removal of Indians was unethical depicting from the treaties formed by the ancestors of both league. However, the key issue is that American is forcing the Indians to accept their way of life, not for their best interest but so as to benefit themselves (Dunn, 278). The removal from the ancestral land was inhumane and uncalled for from a nation which preaches peace. This is a very bad portrayal of dictatorship among the minority. The Indians should had been left with their ancestral land and their cultural lifestyle respected as the first native of this nation.