Stay and Development

Student Name: Xue peng

Course: American Encounter

Date: 02/04/2012

Stay and development

Cherokee removal is one of the biggest removals that American Government did to American Indian people in the history. The result of this act did not turn out as well as planned, Cherokee was forced to move to west America, and thousands of people died during the removal. The debate to this removal continues to exist until now, and people argue whether Cherokee should move or not, whether American made a mistake or not. With full consideration of the political, cultural, legal and social conditions in 1830s, I think Cherokee should not remove, but stayed to keep the land, and tried to cooperate with American under the laws of the relevant states.

First of all, it was an unwise decision to give up the land which inherit from their ancestors and move to another unknown area in social-economic aspects. For example, as local Cherokee women said in their Petition, "We have raised all of you on the land which we now have, which God gave us to inhabit and raise provision" (Washington, P131). The land was where Cherokee lives as the gift from their forefather, the reward from their God spirit. The Cherokee had been living here for hundred years. They already established deep feelings and relations for the land. Also, from their law about prohibiting land selling and buying, we can have another understand about how valuable the land was to them. So, remove and leave the land would against their religions and beliefs, and Cherokee people would live with guilt for a lifetime. Some people may consider that economic condition made them accept the removal action because the land was no longer rich, and the forest was out of deer. Cherokee people would have the treaty of New Echota, and could start a new life in West without the limitation from American if they agreed to remove. However, when compared with the benefits of stay, this argument showed more risks. Since the undeveloped economy and immature lifestyle such as men who were only focus on hunting, Cherokee economy turned out to be more and more severe. But move to another area would not help change the economic system about made them step into another recession circle. If stayed and submitted the existing social system from America would be more beneficial. As the Perdue and Green explained in the book, America was experiencing the economic revolution, and wanted to expand the economy, to meet the increasing population and civilization (Perdue and Green, P7). If Cherokee people could catch this opportunity and cooperate under their policy, the new economic system would undoubtedly help Cherokee's economy increase and develop. The goodness of this action had already shown in the documents about "civilization" program to Cherokee. Early civilized Cherokee, who responded the "civilization" policy at the beginning, had become wealthy businessmen and planters. They changed their quality of life from food shortage to be involved in leading the Cherokee government (Perdue and Green, P13). Stay might have the opportunity to get the advantages from American economic development, while removal means starting over under a helpless situation.

Secondly, legally, Cherokee people had the right to refuse removal and if they stayed, they would receive protect from laws as well. As the Worcester case illustrated, "A tribe came to the treaty table with full sovereignty, surrendered certain specified attributes of sovereignty in exchange for particular benefits, and held on to all the sovereign rights and powers it did not agree to give up", Georgia had no right to enter Cherokee areas since Cherokee hold their sovereignty, and "Georgia, in relation to the Cherokee nation, was confined to its extra-territorial operation, the objection, through complete, so far as respected