Indian Removal Act Justified Essay

487 Words2 Pages
John Ross once said "Brothers: The tradition of our Fathers . . . tells us that this great and extensive Continent was once the sole and exclusive abode of our race. . . . Ever since [the whites came] we have been made to drink of the bitter cup of humiliation; treated like dogs . . . our country and the graves of our Fathers torn from us . . . through a period of upwards of 200 years, rolled back, nation upon nation [until] we find ourselves fugitives, vagrants and strangers in our own country. . . .” (1830). In may of 1830 the Indian Removal act was passed, From then on indian life was never the same. Removing the indians from their land was unconstitutional and was not justified. Indian Removal violates many aspects of the Constitution. For example in the Preamble of the Constitution it states “Promote the general welfare” (1789) and in the trail of tears (which was a direct result of Indian Removal) nearly 4,000 people died.Which shows that Indian Removal violate the Preamble of the Constitution by not “promoting the General Welfare” (1789). Also in the Preamble of the Constitution it says “Establish justice“ (1789). In enacting the Indian removal act, The government ignored the Worcester v Georgia decision.This shows that Andrew Jackson did not establish justice which means he violated the Constitution. Also The government…show more content…
Congress passed the treaty in order to relocate the Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands in the west. Although, the act did not order the removal of the Indians, it did allow the president to negotiate land by exchanging treaties with tribes living within the boundaries of the states ” (2008-2015). This shows that the government did not have the right to do what they

More about Indian Removal Act Justified Essay

Open Document