For the sake of making things interesting i chose the

This preview shows page 21 - 23 out of 42 pages.

For the sake of making things interesting, I chose the arguments presented by my group,congressmen who supported the Indian Removal Act, and the arguments made by the Nativesthemselves. I say that this combination is interesting because I felt it was unfair to solely presentthe ideas of one side. I think these ideas are the most persuasive arguments made by each sideand they seem to show different ends of the emotional spectrum from bureaucratic apathy topleading for empathy.Well, let’s remove the bandage as quick as possible and discuss the ideas presented bythe congressmen who supported the Indian Removal Act. The congressmen’s ideas werepersuasive because their course of action felt almost justifiable. They were at their wit’s endbecause the natives would turn their nose up at every other idea put forth. The congressmenhad tried to allow the natives to assimilate, but realized that assimilation wouldn’t help thosenative tribes located in the South. Additionally, the plan seems further justifiable due to the factthat they said they would have resources and protection allocated to them so that they aren’tfully on their own. The congressmen also presented the idea that the only reason that theNatives have their tracts of land then is because the states were generous enough to abide by
HIS 315Kthose regulations when they could have easily done without them.The native perspective on the Indian Removal Act was quite the opposite though. TheNatives had a very “put yourself in our shoes” mentality and that emotion was very strong. TheNatives’ ideas were persuasive because it relied on pathos and a moralistic way of thinking. TheNatives believed that they should live, grow, procreate, and die on the same land as theirparents and it would be very amoral to deny them that right. The Natives also presented theidea that it would be difficult to transition from one area to the other. Each region has their ownsoil, biodiversity, native tribes, and climates and having to move to an entirely different areawould be profoundly difficult to adjust. In the article “Cherokee Address” made by the CherokeeNation they write that “we are not willing to remove; and if we could be brought to thisextremity, it would be not by argument, not because our judgment was satisfied, not becauseour condition will be improved; but only because we cannot endure to be deprived of ournational and individual rights and subjected to a process of intolerable oppression.” The Nativesunderstand the dehumanization of the Indian Removal Act and refuse to abide by it due to thefact that it deprives them of their rights and goes against the Constitution.In conclusion, these two points are each persuasive in their own right, but they maintaindiametrically opposed on how they hope to persuade. They’re both presented moralistically,but the congressmen present it with a bureaucratic apathy due to their inclination towards

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 42 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
VictoriaAllison

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture