At the time of the debate on the passage of the Indian Removal Act, there was a problem with white settlers encroaching on Indian land and social life. The policy threatened to exacerbate state policies as well. During the time, the United States was on a path of destruction had it decided to tear down the international agreements with the Native Indians (Littlefield and Parins 270). Thus, the administration had to honor its promises in the treaty commitments, and it needed to protect the native Indians from white settlers as well as meet its financial obligations to the Native Indians. Failing to meet the commitments would be seen as tyranny and a mockery of revolution ideals. Indians were people with rights, humanity, and a history. Respecting these ideals was more important than the expansion of the U.S. For President Jackson, it was an abuse of power in failing to honor the treaties as he had personally negotiated some of the truces.
The Cherokee had the right to remain on their land as they wished. All they required was the United States to honor the agreements that they had pursued with them. However, the area that the administration suggested that the Cherokee should move to already had occupants. Therefore, they would seem as intruders if they relocated to those lands. Consequently, the U.S. was asking the Cherokee community to leave the land they had formerly possessed and become emigrants in an area that loomed with an air of war. The Cherokee community deserved to be respected, and the U.S. had no right to apply the pirate's code of discovery because it was a democracy. Ultimately, the effect of the passage of the Indian Removal Act had a destructive effect on the development of Indian populations.
Work Cited
Littlefield, Daniel F, and James W. Parins. Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2011. Print.
