Indian Removal

The Cherokee Removal: Comparison and contrast of John Ross and Elias Boudinot’s views When Andrew Jackson became president his drive of Indian removal started a discussion among all Americans. This controversial discussion was not only between Americans and the Cherokee Indians, but also controversial within the Cherokee people. Some Cherokee saw this conflict in different ways and with different possible outcomes. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 Made these discussions a real part of the Cherokee’s life. With the act Andrew Jackson planned on exchanging lands west of the Mississippi river for Cherokee’s land and only after they agreed to. Jackson also added that the new land would always be protected and that land exchange was fair for both parties. A small group of Cherokee’s saw removal as the only outcome and safest solution to this conflict and signed the Treaty of New Echota. This Act, Treaty, and these promises are what brought about the contrasting views of John Ross and Elias Boudinot. The contrasting views between, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, illustrates tow completely different ideas within the Cherokees. John Ross was the principal chief of the Cherokees and did not believe the Treaty of Echota was valid because he wasn’t present during the signing. Ross was the Cherokee’s elected chief and felt that “The Cherokee people are not, my people, I am only one of their agents and their elected chief: It is I who serve under them, not they under me (Perdue, Green, pg158). This belief is what made Ross feel the treaty was invalid because without his the small treaty party did not represent a consensus of the Cherokee’s. What Ross found wrong with the treaty was that the advantages listed in it were, to him, very fake. One point Ross makes is how it is not possible to be secured in the new home promised to the Cherokee. Ross writes, “Here is the great mystification”. “If we really had the security you and others suppose we have, we would not thus complain”