What Is The Trail Of Tears

On August 1838, the journey of Cherokees began in what was known to history as the Trail of Tears. The Trail of tears involved thirteen parties of the Cherokee being forced by U.S. army troop under Andrew Jackson presidency to leave their residence in the southeast and migrate to the west. The discovery of gold in northern Georgia in 1828 and compulsion for the accessibility of more land to settle the growing white population contributed to more local delirium for the Indian dismissal. With the Election of Andrew Johnson – a man known for his believe that Native Americans had no legitimate titles to their lands and should be removed from them, congress voted in 1830 the Indian removal bill. Notwithstanding, during this period, a heated debate
came to be in congress. This debate dwelled mainly on the question of who and what factors would determine the fate of the Cherokees. Were the Cherokees responsible for their own fate? Was congress the main and only influence?
The debate that existed in the 1830’s on based on the fate of the Cherokees whether or not the removal bill was the proper option or not.
The proposition calling for equal rights and political democracy of the inhabitants of America were in confutation with the principles calling for the US to follow colonial principles of the European empires that had begun to invade North America in the late 1400s. The colonies that had revolted against British rule in the late 1700s had continued the expansion of settlements and political incorporation that had been practiced since the founding of colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth. The proposal of Indian Removal debated in the US Congress was a straightforward expression of that same expansionism, which dispensed with the past policies of the US that had combined expansion with treaty negotiations that had the form of a meeting and agreements of equals, and proclamations of Indian rights and sovereignty. There was a national campaign developed in support of the Indian resistance, particularly from the Cherokee, that involved diatribes and petitions, public meetings and Congressional debates. The opposition to Removal was advancing principles that in effect called for the US to develop practical policy that was in line with its past proclamations that upheld its treaty commitments to the Indian communities. The proponents of Removal, supporting a campaign of the state of Georgia to dispossess and expel Indian, in their own view advanced
principles that favored the prerogatives of US states.
One of the main proponents of the expulsion of eastern North American Indian communities was the recently elected president Andrew Jackson.
His first annual message to congress were based on where elements of stepped up pressure against the Indian communities in the eastern US (Wheeler 187). He explained here that Indian communities are obstacle to American expansion because they practiced a form of independent government. He also induced that if the Indians wanted to remain in the limits of the states they must abide by the laws of the states. On the other hand, he stated that if they remain within the state and do not abide by these laws, a fate of persuasion by force awaits them. To Wilson Lumpkin, the situation in the 1820s was a crisis caused by the impediments to Georgia’s growth in all aspects (Wheeler 195). He believed that the needs of economic and social progress clearly could not be met while Indian communities claimed so much sovereignty over the lands they which they haven’t dwelt nor made improvements. He therefore suggested that absolute power should be made to enforce their requirements. Also, a supporter of the Indian removal was Elias Boudinot though he was Indian, argued that Indians could not exist amidst a white population, subject to laws which they were not involved in making, and which they do not understand, laws that suppresses their Cherokee government which connects them (Wheeler 202). He also asserts that the Cherokees opposed because they
expected to regain their rights as a distinct community from the efforts they are making to oppose the laws of the land and with this, that the only alternatives the Cherokees had was to either stay and be subject to the laws or leave for a different country.
As for the opposing side of this cause, Jeremiah Evarts a main opponent, was describing the pressure being applied to the Cherokee as the principle of ‘might makes right’ being used to justify injustice and oppression. He saw the dispossession of the Cherokee as a terrible policy for a young country that proclaimed principles of democracy and liberty. He criticized the US for a grave hypocrisy, giving lip service to respecting people's’ rights while proceeding to trample on the rights of the Indians (Wheeler 193). To the Committee and Council of the Cherokee Nation, they opposed their removal and also stated the reason some Cherokee’s would emigrate on their own was because they would rather flee than go to Georgia prison for six years for warning their neighbors- fellow Cherokee’s- not to betray their country. (Wheeler 200). As Boudinot stated they believed that their people can’t adhere to laws which they have no hand in making and which that they do not understand and had also had a suppression of the Cherokee Government.