Talk:Indian Removal Act of 1830

Why was the material on the Supreme Court case removed? It wasn't "false and anti-American;" it was what happened. The Supreme Court said one thing, and Jackson did another. Fishal 13:21, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The article was filled with false and ridiculous statements. Eg, it said, "Jackson ordered military action in 1838." Jackson was no longer president in 1838, and was not ordering anyone to do anything. RSchlafly 13:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

You did, however, remove some true information, to wit:

Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees when it passed the Indian Removal Act (deleted): The act did in fact violate several treaties guaranteeing the 5 Civilized Tribes their lands east of the Mississippi.

Despite its language suggesting a voluntary and fair "exchange" of lands, the act opened the door for the militias of trans-Appalachian and southern states to simply drive the Indians across the Mississippi by force— changed to: The act promised a voluntary and fair "exchange" of lands, and opened the door for the militias of trans-Appalachian and southern states to move the Indians across the Mississippi by force. The new version blurs the incongruity between the language of the act (a voluntary exchange) and the facts on the ground (forced removal). Why would you change the article to make it less clear?

...but the following year [the Court] ruled that they were indeed sovereign and immune from Georgia laws. President Jackson, famous from his "Seminole Wars" against the Indians in Georgia and Florida and an ardent defender of states' rights, nonetheless refused to heed the court's decision (deleted): The old sentence was clumsy, but why did you remove the result of the Supreme Court case? It's crucial to understanding the context of the act.

The Cherokee signing party did not represent the vast majority of Cherokees. When the followers of Principal Chief John Ross tried desperately to hold onto their land, Jackson ordered military action in 1838 (deleted): Except for Jackson's name, this is true. The Cherokees had just fought to keep their lands in the Supreme Court; only a handful agreed to leave. Jackson was no longer president; the military action was led by General Winfield Scott, under President Van Buren's authority.

Thousands died en route from the brutal conditions of the "Trail of Tears."— changed to: Thousands of resisters died en route from the brutal conditions of the "Trail of Tears." This revision ignores the many who died from the conditions of the trail and implicitly places blame on the Cherokee.

The United States government's inability and unwillingness to abide by its treaty obligations with Indian tribes was clearly related to an insatiable demand for cheap land for European settlers— changed to: The United States government's conflict with Indian tribes was clearly related to an insatiable demand for cheap land for European settlers. This is a less blatantly accusatory way of saying this, to be sure. But you deleted other references to the United States failing to uphold its promises, or else failing to stop the states and settlers from breaking the promises for it: why?

Indian society was loose, decentralized, democratic, and non-authoritarian— "democratic" removed: This seems reasonable; the deletion doesn't seem to detract from the main point of the paragraph, namely the contrast between white and Indian society.

The result was that treaties were often signed with Indian leaders who did not have the authority of the tribe— changed to: The result was that treaties were often signed with Indian leaders who did not have the backing of everyone in the tribe: No government action ever has the backing of _everyone_, but the treaties often were made on the signatures of a small faction of the tribes involved, not the authority of the leaders or the consensus of the tribe as a whole. The new version sounds like only a few malcontents were unsatisfied with the pattern of broken treaties.

Whether the system of Indian treaties were ever meant to work is a matter of debate, but in reality, most Indian treaties were broken. (deleted): This part was speculation and overgeneralization and should have been deleted. IIRC, some of the treaties were in fact made with good intentions, while others were made with the intention of breaking them eventually. It depended on the President and officials involved in the negotiation. Fishal 18:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The whole article seems to have been copied from dubious source that blames America for everything related to Indians. I deleted stuff that was biased, obviously false, or improbable.

Do you have some proof that "Congress chose to disregard Indian treaty guarantees"? That the Act was not a fair exchange of land?

That court decision had nothing to do with the matter. Neither did states's rights.

The discussion about Indian leaders having authority to sign treaties is a little silly. If the Indian were really democratic, then they had elected leaders with the proper authority. If Indian society was incapable of agreeing to treaties, then why the complaints about the treaties being broken?

The article makes repeated statements about the USA breaking treaties. Where is the proof of that? It is just anti-American propaganda. RSchlafly 19:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The United States made innumerable treaties with Native tribes. Almost every one was broken. The tribes once possessed the entire continent; now they live on laughably small reservations. Where is your proof that they were happy to make this transition? Your insinuation that they did mocks the entire race: I think that I can without hyperbole compare it to holocaust denial. Fishal 22:58, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I guess you are dropping all serious argument. See Godwin's Law. RSchlafly 23:25, 8 July 2008 (EDT)