History Revisited #004: Indian Removal Act of 1830

Moral Framework: Moral Framework (FW) is a PRIOR ISSUE to evaluating the resolution- a moral framework is required to evaluate the resolution. What this means is that Judges ought to FIRST evaluate which side has better argued FW and THEN evaluate who has better argued their case using whichever FW is better supported. Thus, if I win FW, judges ought to evaluate who has won the debate using my broad conception of virtue ethics as a standard of moral depravity. a) Pro has no unique right to define “morally depraved” – it wasn’t defined in terms and conditions (R1), thus the matter is up for debate. b) Pro’s standard of “Christianity” is hopelessly ambiguous. Christians disagree on all sorts of moral issues and Pro gives no way to use this standard to evaluate this debate. As an example, Pro says there is NO moral obligation to the enemy in war- this principle directly contradicts the Catholic doctrine of “Just War Theory.” c) Pro is internally inconsistent. He argues that imperialism is ok because everyone does it and war crimes were ok before post-WWII human rights campaigns. Pro is using relativistic principles while claiming “Christianity” is his standard. d) My standard best accounts for moral intuition- right actions are done for the sake of and result in human flourishing. This excludes lying and torture while affirming loyalty and courage. Prefer my FW because it is the only clear and consistent standard. Case: I took the time to organize my arguments in R2, if Pro could stick with my organization it will make the debate more focused and easier to follow. IRA 1a) Tribal territories in eastern states were unsustainable Pro agrees that the main problem was “settlers moving into the Indian territories” and explains that this has deep historical roots. This is EXACTLY MY POINT. Conflict with the Indians was inevitable due to Western expansion. The only way to prevent dissolution of the territory would be to halt the growth of the U.S. - an impossibility. The same societal forces that caused the IRA caused the many policies before and after the IRA that virtually erased the Indians in North America. This lessens the moral depravity by narrowing the scope of available action and by shifting the moral responsibility of the effects of the act. 1b) Indian Removal was motivated by security concerns Pro does not refute that Indian Removal was motivated by security concerns. 1a) and 1b) show that even if the effects of the IRA were bad, they had morally acceptable motivations. 1c) Integrity of Indian Territory had dubious legal standing Pro doesn’t refute that the legal status of Indian Territory was uncertain- Pro has the burden of proof to show that the U.S. acted illegally in passing the IRA. Recall that existing Supreme Court cases supported the primacy of the federal government over Indian Territory. 1d) Magnitude of destruction was relatively small This point was conceded. 1e) Jackson did not hate the Indians Jackson did fight against Indians, but he also fought alongside them in the Seminole War. Jackson vehemently condemned as “base, cowardly” Georgia militiamen who attacked the village of his Chechaw allies “whilst the warriors of that village were with me, fighting the battles of our country.” [p. 50, Meacham]. Jackson also called the Indians his “Red Children.” In fact, Jackson believed the Indians he fought against in the Seminole War were aided and incited by the Spanish. This underscores the fact that the IRA was motivated by security concerns. 2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2a) Multiple alternatives to the Bomb were available. My opponent doesn’t dispute that the Bomb was unnecessary and that ethical alternative existed. This means that use of the bomb was unjustified. The unjustified use of a weapon of mass destruction is morally depraved. 2b)Decision makers were profoundly racist Pro concedes that key decision makers were racist. The entrenched racism of key decision makers makes ethical motivation impossible, adding to the depravity of the policy. 2c) Logic of the bomb was morally depraved Pro ignores this. My 2c) shows that even if the Bomb COULD be justified, the actual motivations and decision procedure were profoundly immoral. The logic of the bomb is antithetical to human flourishing, as it detaches ethical consideration from war and conduct in general. 2d) The magnitude of destruction massively outweighs the IRA Pro explicitly concedes this. Killing thousands of people is evil. 2e) Total War, and by extension Pro’s FW, is morally depraved First, my entire 2) argument demonstrates why Total War is an evil concept. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, and children died unnecessarily. Total War justifies destruction for the sake of destruction, violence without consideration or calculation of the costs to humanity. My FW allows for war but requires that all action in war be done for the sake of humanity and advance the cause toward that goal. It is irrelevant that Human Rights (HR) weren’t considered in international law prior to WWII. Plenty of people working on the bomb strongly objected to its use- James Franck, a lead scientist at Met Lab, argued that the bomb would elicit “loss of confidence and [a] wave of horror and repulsion.” A petition circulated Met Lab opposing use of the bomb on “moral grounds.” These efforts were not considered because the logic of the bomb left no room for moral decision making- the petition was never even seen by Truman or other top officials. 3. Occupation of Philippines 3a) Imperialist Motivations If imperialism is immoral, it is irrelevant that other countries engage in it. Pro makes no argument that imperialism is moral. I argue that imperialism is inherently exploitative- the imperial country attempts to extract wealth at the expense of indigenous peoples. The Philippines bear out this assessment, as the U.S. brutally repressed the locals. Pro asserts that the U.S. took control over the Philippines out of concern that Filipinos did not govern. First, his source doesn’t support this claim. His source says McKinley didn’t want the Philippines; he only wanted Luzon but then was forced to take the Philippines in entirety. This SUPPORTS MY POINT. My R2 source indicates that were it not for the coal and natural resources of Luzon, the US would have made no claim to the Philippines. The motivation for the occupation was extraction of natural resources- any justification for seizing control from the Filipinos was an after the fact matter of how to manage US property. The occupation was motivated by imperialist designs but entailed consideration of how best to manage the local population.Additionally, even if occupation of the totality of the Philippines was in fact motivated by concern that the Filipino's could self govern, the U.S. explicitly wanted to keep Luzon for economic purposes. Luzon is the richest and largest island in the Philippines, so the US was fine with occupying the most important parts of the Philippines for profit. Moreover, the belief that the Filipino’s could not self–govern was based solely on hearsay. My R2 evidence shows this assessment was based on clipped telegrams and rumors from U.S. admirals. The US made no attempt to discern whether or not Aguinaldo’s Filipino government was stable. Rather than reach out to Aguinaldo to establish a stable government, McKinley made is proclamation of Benevolent Assimilation and kicked off another war. 3b) Betrayal of Filipinos While there was no written agreement, the US certainly had a “gentleman’s agreement” that the Filipinos could self-govern. The Filipinos had been revolting against Spanish rule prior to the Spanish-American War and would not have allied with the Americans unless they believed it would result in independence. The Filipino leader Aguinaldo used rhetoric that clearly indicated his belief that he was fighting for independence, the Americans knew that was Aguinaldo’s understanding. The Americans betrayed their allies. This is morally depraved regardless of whether an agreement existed in writing. The Filipino was in fact stable. Pro’s source about domestic opposition to Aguinaldo talks about events that happened before Aguinaldo’s election as president and before the Spanish American War even began. My R2 source indicates that Aguinaldo had an established central government in Luzon, and was able to coordinate his navy throughout the Philippines and manage the cessation of territory by the Spanish. 3c) Magnitude of casualties massively outweighs IRA 3d) Atrocities were rampant and institutionalized 3e) Institutionalized brutality is especially depraved All points conceded by Pro. Even if the US was totally justified in occupying the Philippines, the atrocities committed during the occupation are independently depraved. The Institutionalization of torture, brutality, and mass destruction outweigh the casualties caused by the IRA. Again, compare the hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths caused by the occupation to the 6,000 dead due to the IRA.