History Revisited #004: Indian Removal Act of 1830

I apologize to the voters who may get upset with us in the following rounds. It appears to me, that my opponent and I are disagreement about morality and whom it should extend to. This may and probably will take up the rest of the debate. I also I couldn't fix the spaces in between the paragraphs. I will report this bug because I tried to fix it seven times.My Responses to the Indian Removal Act (IRA)1a) Tribal territories in eastern states were unsustainable1b) Indian Removal was motivated by security concerns1c) Integrity of Indian Territory had dubious legal standing1d) Magnitude of destruction was relatively small I disagree with Con because the tribal territories in the East were not unsustainable. As I said in Round 1, the settlers moving into the Indian territories was the main problem. This goes back to when the British governed the American colonies. Allgedly, this is why some people(notably poor farmers in the South) joined the American Revolution. These people would be able to expand West without the British stopping them. These incoming settlers caused a variety of problems which eventually led to the Indian Removal Act and the constant removal of Indians. My opponent goes on to to discuss state intervention. I won't disagree with this point because it is a fact that the states intervened. Con goes on to say that President Andrew Jackson viewed the Indians as a security threat. This may be true but Jackson had other reasons like the fact that he hated the Indians[1]. Jackson had personally fought the Indians numerous times[2]. President Jackson was not the source to show that he cared about the Indians. [1]http://history1800s.about.com... [2]https://libcom.org... My Responses to Hiroshima and Nagasaki2a)Multiple alternatives to the Bomb were available.2b)Decision makers were profoundly racist2c)Logic of the bomb was morally depravedd) The magnitude of destruction massively outweighs the IRA I respect my opponent's morals and values but I severly disgaree with them. His claim about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are soley based on the presupposition that the United States has a moral obligation to an enemy(Japan) in war. I strongly disagree with this entirely. War is an entity where people attempt to take an opponent's life. This may mean destroying villages and cities in order to stop your enemy; hence the term total war. Is it to be celebrated? Absolutely not. We must keep in mind war historically has not been civilized where people follow rules. I will quote one of my favorite military heros, William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over[3].” Let us also keep in mind, during the time when the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was no promotion of human rights and regulated wars[4]. [3]http://www.goodreads.com... War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... [4]http://www.un.org... The only document of significance to try and regulate war before World War II was an internatioanal set of laws signed at the Geneva Convention in 1929[5]. But those laws only related to prisoner treatment, not combat. I know my opponent may attempt to portray the image of innocent ciivlians being killed. But innocent civilians were killed in Dresden, London, Marseille, and Warsaw as well when bombings happened. I think it was World War II is what lead to war being "regulated." Too many innocent civilians were bombed throughout the war along with their families and residences. [5]http://www.icrc.org... My opponent said the Americans were racist. I simply reply the Japanese were prejudicded as well[6]. I will only admit that the magnitude of deaths Hiroshima and Nagasaki far surpass that of the IRA. However, I will not give my opponent this point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki at all because I don't see any reason why the United States should of not droppoed the bombs on those two cities. There was no moral obligation because Japan was an enemy in a war; a total war actually. [6]http://digitalpostercollection.com... My Responses to the Occupation of Philippines following Spanish American War3a)Occupation was motivated solely by imperialism3b)The Occupation was a stab in the back to revolutionaries who aided the U.S. in the Spanish-American War3c) Magnitude of casualties massively outweighs IRA3d)Atrocities were rampant and institutionalized3e)Institutionalized brutality is especially depraved My opponent claims that the American "occupation was motivated solely by imperialism." I simply retort, "What is wrong with imperialism?"I don't see how there is anything wrong with imperialism because every notable country engages in it. I don't know of any major country of significance or any great empire that had not tried to exert influence over their bordering countries and other foreign countries. Imperialism was not the only motivation for US entry into the Philippines[7]. There were many who specualated on whether the Philippines could even be governed by Filipinos. Geniune concern of stability was a significant reason for the Americans retaining control of the Philippines after defeating Spain. Imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas. [8]" [7]http://www.spanamwar.com... [8]http://www.merriam-webster.com... The United States did not have any moral obligation to the rebels led by Emilio Aguinaldo. There was no contract or written agreement. TThe rebels only had helped the United States against Spain. But the rebels did not have a govening body. It was a rag tag band of rebels who were unorganized on any central principal other than overthrowing the Spanish. Than many united against the United States. If the United States had acknowledged the rebels; who would of been considered the legitimate represenattion of the Philippines? There are many people who would of never tolerated Aguinaldo as the leader of the Philippines[9]. This would of only brought about decades of conflict. [9]http://masternoel.tripod.com... I don't see how the United States had a moral obligation with the rebels because there was no treaty or contract signed for such an obligation to exist. Versus the Indians under President Andrew Jackson had their treaties with the American Federal government reduced to meaning nothing[10]. [10]http://www.pbs.org... I will address the rest of my opponent's concerns in the final round.