What are three reasons why the Cherokee should not have been removed from their land?

If we have to identify three reasons why the Cherokee should not have been removed from their land in the “Indian Removal” of the 1830s, we can say that the reasons are A) that the Cherokee were “civilized,” B) that the treaty that allowed them to be moved was invalid, and C) that it was immoral to remove them regardless of either of the other two factors.

White settlers often argued that they ought to have the Indians’ land because the Indians did not use the land in the way whites did.  Indians typically roamed nomadically rather than settling down in towns.  To the whites, this meant the land was empty.  This was not true of the Cherokee.  They had become “civilized,” owning farms and even slaves.  Therefore, there was no good rationale for removing them.

The removal of the Cherokee was supposedly legal because the Cherokee had signed a treaty allowing themselves to be moved.  However, the government did not make the treaty with the main Cherokee government, headed by John Ross.  Instead, they made the treaty with a small group of Cherokee who claimed to represent the nation.  This treaty should not have been valid so the removal should not have been legal.

Finally, we can simply argue that removing people from their land just because another group wants that land is immoral.  If some big developer wants the land my house is on so that they can build a shopping mall, the government should not be able to kick me off my land and give it to them.  Just because the US had the power to remove the Cherokee by force did not mean that they had the right to do so.  Removing the Cherokee was an immoral action that can only be justified by the idea that “might makes right.”