History Revisited #004: Indian Removal Act of 1830

I as Pro have to argue that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was the most morally depraved act in American foreign policy history. The standard of morality I will be using to measure what is "morally depraved" is Christianity since it is the dominant religion in the United States. The burden of proof is shared if Con wants to show an act or event that was more morally depraved. The burden of proof is on me exclusively if Con decides to argue that Indian Removal Act of 1830 was not morally depraved at all. The following are a list of reasons why the Indian Removal Act is the most morally depraved act in American foreign policy history.1. Removal vs. AssimilationThe administration's that preceded President Jackson's adopted generally one or two policies towards Indian tribes. The reason for these policies was because of settlers who moved into Indian territories in mass. Previously under the British the attempt to stop the settlers from moving into Indian territory resulted in events like Bacon's Rebellion. The American administrations were not going to attempt to stop the settlers from moving into Indian territories so they adopted one or two of the policies which I am going to explain below. Indian removal was a policy of moving the Indians who resided on certain lands. The removal was supposed to be voluntary[1]. Indian assimilation was the idea of getting Indians to assimilate to the ways of the Americans. This would include assimilation in attire, behavior, religion, and etc. Both assimilation and removal were supposed to be voluntary but in practice, force was used often. [1]. http://www.pbs.org...The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was the largest Indian removal in American history. Indian tribes and nations in the Midwest and the South would be moved to places farther west. Previously, Indian tribes would be removed from parts of states but that would be too minor compared to the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Many tribes were removed from various states to regions they were unfamiliar with.2. The Implementation of the Indian Removal Act of 1830The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was to be used to "negotiate" allegedly[1]. But such "negotiations" included threats and force on occasion. But on other occasions, one faction or one leader of a tribe would sign a treaty. Then the tribe would be expected to follow the treaty. This was manipulative and deceitful tactic on the part of the Americans would be considered illegitimate by the Indian tribe or nation[3]. On other occasions, Americans were aloof to whom the legitimate leader was of a tribe so they thought they had a legitimate treaty. The "negotiations" with Indian tribes and Indian nations would ultimately have horrific results for the Indians as I explain later in point #4. [2]. http://www.uintahbasintah.org...[3]http://www.pbs.org...If tribes would not voluntarily vacate their lands, federal troops would be used to force them to vacate. I describe this in further detail in point #3B.3. The Betrayal 3A. Treaties The creation of the Indian Removal Act was a betrayal of treaties that previously existed between Indian tribes/nations and the Federal government. A treaty consisted of territorial protections and obligations of the participating parties. For example, the Five Civilized Tribes had their own laws and ways of governing[4]. the Federal government was originally supposed to respect that. The decision not to respect Indian laws any longer came about as a result of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia Supreme Court ruling[5]. The Supreme Court established the Indian nations who had their own formal laws and way of governing to be illegitimate because they were considered to be dependents on the United States. [4]. http://www.jstor.org...[5]http://kids.laws.com... 3B. WarsI mentioned in point #2 that if Indian tribes/nations who refused to move voluntarily would be forced to leave by the Federal troops. The threat of force from Federal troops was not enough to convince some tribes/nations to leave their lands. A war would ensue in order for the Federal troops to uproot the Indian tribes/nations from their lands. These wars to remove Indians would take place in the North and the South. For example, Abraham Lincoln received his only military experience during the Black Hawk War of 1832[6]. The Federal troops annihilated the Sac and Fox Indians in the war giving them five hundred or more casualties. While the Americans only had over seventy casualties. Similar wars would break out in the 1830s as a result of the Indian Removal Act. [6]. http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu...4. The RemovalThe cost of the Indian Removal Act is very well known in American history. The "Trail of Tears" would be the main cost. The "Trail of Tears" was the forced march of Indian nations in the southeast westward toward modern day Oklahoma. The Five Civilized Tribes(Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) combined would have over five thousand deaths[7]. People would die of starvation and illness while being marched westward. The actual death count is unattainable since many people were not even buried or listed as being dead. [7]. http://www.powersource.com...5. The Results 5A. Displacement of tribesTribes would now had to adapt to their new environment. If a tribe were previously planters; they would have to adapt to the surviving on the Plains. Hunter/gather tribes would have to learn to hunt new game. Essentially, the tribes/nations that were placed in these new lands had to learn how to survive in an unfamiliar place. I would say without hesitation that the Indian Removal Act is the most morally depraved act in American foreign policy history.