17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 73:
Line 73: + + +
→Genocide: what is morally right?
::::::::RSchlafly, you are most certainly "expressing your opinion" when you choose to remove the cited contributions of others instead of adding balance to the article my making ''new'' contributions of your own. That smacks of censorship, but I'm done trying to debate the issue with someone whose only mode of contribution is with an eraser. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::RSchlafly, you are most certainly "expressing your opinion" when you choose to remove the cited contributions of others instead of adding balance to the article my making ''new'' contributions of your own. That smacks of censorship, but I'm done trying to debate the issue with someone whose only mode of contribution is with an eraser. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Hotly debated at the time indeed, but not today. The conservatives then and now, and the religious leaders denounced it as immoral. Remini compares it to the Japanese relocation which is likewise considered immoral. Even Remini considers it "one of the most disgraceful and heartrending episodes in American history." [Remini, Andrew jackson & The Course of American Democracy, p 302]. Note that Georgia was severely punishing the Christian missionaries too. How can we tolerate that? I think when in doubt Conservapedia should stand with the evangelicals and the conservatives and the missionaries, of the 1830s and today-- not with the liberals like Jackson or the moral relativists who admit they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Certainly it's unwise to erase the conservative record as if our forefathers did not stand up for what was morally right. I suggest putting back all the quotes about what the conservatives and evangelicals were doing and letting the readers decide for themselves which side to choose.
Here's some background history:
:''"At the forefront of the opposition to this Indian Removal Act were the missionaries of the American Board. The Board's secretary, Jeremiah Evarts, penned a pamphlet condemning Removal that was the most widely read political work since Thomas Paine's Common Sense. (83) Evarts was also instrumental in organizing large anti-Removal protests that led to the first national petition drive against a specific piece of legislation. (84) Petitions denouncing Jackson's policy soon came pouring into Congress from college campuses, women's groups, and town meetings with such intensity that one contemporary remarked that "[t]he tables of the members (of Congress) are covered with pamphlets devoted to the discussions of the Indian question." (85) The Board's work against the Removal Act was part of a broader fight against Jackson's plan by faith-based groups. Religious periodicals and pulpit sermons across the country attacked Removal and lionized the Cherokees. (86) The most biting comments, however, were reserved for Georgian officials and the discriminatory Cherokee Codes. One paper explained that the State's proposed annexation of tribal land "awaken[s] our indignation and lead[s] us almost to wish that the Cherokees had the power to vindicate their rights." (87) The Missionary Herald argued that "now is the time when every Christian, every philanthropist and every patriot in the United States ought to be exerting themselves to save a persecuted and defenceless [sic] people from ruin." (88) Another paper simply held that the Cherokees were "living monuments of the white man's wrongs." (89) The President and his supporters were vexed by this fierce opposition. Democrats in Congress blamed the missionaries and denounced their activities as "the wicked influence of designing men veiled in the garb of philanthropy and Christian benevolence." (90) Jackson thought that the missionaries' battle against Removal stemmed from their fear of losing federal subsidies. (91) Thus, he ordered the Secretary of War to impound all funds appropriated to the American Board and other religious groups. (92) The Secretary said this was retaliation pure and simple, because "the Government by its funds should not extend encouragement and assistance to those who ... employ their efforts to prevent removals." (93)'' [from Gerard N. Magliocca, "Cherokee Removal and the Fourteenth Amendment"''Duke Law Journal''. Volume: 53. Issue: 3. 2003. pp 875+, online at Questia] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:08, 7 December 2008 (EST)
==One-sided comments==
==One-sided comments==