Andrew Jackson is known for his cruelty towards the Cherokee, as well as the fact that he exterminated them and evicted them. Nevertheless, the president himself had arguments in defense of his worldview. He believed that the eviction of the Indians would benefit from several criteria at once (Cates, 2019). First, it will contribute to the development and strengthening of national security, since clashes often occurred between Americans and indigenous peoples. Second, American citizens needed more space to produce and eat (Cates, 2019). From his point of view, otherwise citizens and society would not be able to develop normally and effectively (Cates, 2019). Finally, Jackson’s third argument was that it was necessary to create a barrier from the indigenous population that would protect against potential threats from Britain and Spain. Together with all of the above, Jackson argued that it would benefit both sides of such a relationship. In other words, the Indians can benefit from the resettlement in such a way that they find new ones that have not been touched before this place. In addition, reservations predispose to the preservation of Indian society and the traditions established there. Thus, according to the president, the indigenous people did not lose anything, but got a chance to improve the quality of life. Separately, the emergence of opportunities for adopting the European way of life as more modern is emphasized.
However, John Ross, the leader of the tribe, strongly opposed the resettlement. He had several arguments as to why this had a negative effect on the indigenous people. First, unexpected travels without proper preparation brought epidemics of pneumonia, fever, and starvation (Cates, 2019). Secondly, the leader understood that such a resettlement leads to the poverty of the people, while gold was discovered in the native land of the Indians (Cates, 2019). Thirdly, Ross knew that Jackson was only taking a temporary measure (Cates, 2019). He had information about the killings of indigenous people and the genocide, respectively, he assumed that the resettlement would not be the final stage, and the people would live in exile.
Reference
Cates, H. H. (2019). Oklahoma’s Atticus. An innocent man and the lawyer who fought for him. University of Nebraska Press.