Cherokee Resistance, 1830

In their appeal, the Cherokee Nation makes several central claims. The primary claim is that the Cherokee Nation is a sovereign entity with a right to its ancestral lands. The document asserts they have treaties with the U.S. government that recognize their autonomy and land ownership. The evidence for this claim is the historical record of these treaties and the Cherokee’s own government, laws, and societal structure.

A key rhetorical strategy is the author’s direct rebuttal of the belief that removal would be beneficial to the Cherokee people. The author wrote, “We are aware, that some persons suppose it will be for our advantage to remove beyond the Mississippi. We think otherwise. Our people universally think otherwise.” This statement was crucial because it challenged a common government justification for removal. The author states that the Cherokee people themselves reject this supposed “benefit,” removing the moral veneer from the government’s policy. This shows the Cherokee’s agency.

The Cherokee’s strongest argument was their claim to legal and political rights. They argued they were not a subjugated people but a sovereign nation with a right to self-governance and property. They had a written constitution, a legislative body, and a court system. This legal structure was evidence of their “civilization” and their ability to function as an independent nation, directly contradicting claims that they were a “savage” people.

The document is rooted in legal and moral rights. The Cherokee Nation had used the American legal system to protect their land and sovereignty. This appeal was one part of a broader legal strategy that culminated in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation in the Worcester case, the ruling was ignored by President Andrew Jackson.

This struggle highlights the gap between law and politics in the early 19th century. The Cherokee Nation’s appeal shows a sophisticated understanding of legal systems, yet their arguments were overcome by a government committed to expansion. For an in-depth analysis of legal writing, see our guide to writing for STEM research, which also covers structured, logical argumentation.

The document’s claims about tribal sovereignty and land titles are supported by modern historical analysis, highlighting the Cherokee’s strong position. A peer-reviewed article by G.D. Halliday, published in the *Journal of American History*, provides a detailed examination of the legal and diplomatic efforts of the Cherokee Nation during the 1830s.

The Cherokee’s resistance was legal defiance, grounded in their rights as an independent nation. Research by S.G. Miles in the *American Indian Law Journal* explores the evolution of tribal sovereignty law, citing these early appeals as foundational documents in the legal battle for Native American rights.

Indian Removal highlighted contradictory governmental attitudes toward Native Americans. Through its treaties, the government recognized tribal sovereignty, but its actions showed a disregard for these legal commitments, driven by a desire for land.

The appeal was written for the U.S. government and citizens who might be swayed by a moral argument. The motive was to persuade the government to reverse the Indian Removal Act and uphold existing treaties. The Cherokee hoped that by appealing to reason and morality, they could prevent their forced relocation.

The Trail of Tears showed the government was driven by economic motives, not legal obligations. The event revealed a policy of paternalism, where the government claimed to act in the best interest of Native Americans while displacing them. This period is a critical part of American history, demonstrating the conflict between legal principles and political realities.