In the 1830’s they were many battles between the Indians and the settlers. The settlers would kick Indians out of their land in order for to plant crops for themselves. The policy in that time was called “Removal” Congress passed this lead by Andrew Jackson, the president. The law that defined this policy was the “Indian Removal Act.” The United States government thought that removing the Indians was the right thing to do because where the Indians lived the settlers wanted to plant crops right where they were planting crops so the U.S. decided to make them leave. The result of this act was the “Trail of Tears” that killed thousands of Indians when leaving home. The “Trail of Tears” goes from Tennessee to Oklahoma. This act was one of the most shameful acts in American history. This act could have had an alternative instead of thousands of Indians killed by the Trail of Tears. Congress could have had a totally different way of coexisting with the Indians. In this paper a new law of peace between settlers and Indians will be described.
Congress could have done a more peaceful ideal with the Indians if some one like Davy Crockett stood up and said things like, “Why must the Indians be removed from land that is properly theirs? We have no right to take peoples homes away after living and surviving for so long. As the great United States we must help those who need it.” Maybe the council could have been moved by words like these. They would’ve probably felt like they were using the United States powers in a very bad way. It could take another couple of hours for them to think of a new way of making Indians coexist with settlers living near them. Then eventually the government would think of a new law that made an alternative to brute force.
They could have decided that the settlers would make a deal with the Indians that part of the land would belong to the settlers for crop planting. In exchange the rest of the land would go to the Indians if the settlers would have to give up some of their weapons to Indians and tips for more success in hunting. If the Indians were to refuse the settlers’ offer the settlers would have to leave the area and leave the Indians at peace. When the settlers leave, however, the Indians will have to give the settlers plenty of food for a long journey.
This new way of cooperating with the Indians was known as the “Justice for All” policy. Some tribes would have taken the offer almost immediately, but others would have taken a while to think about it. As years would go by the Indians might have learned to make their homes more stable in order to handle difficult whether. If everything went well, the Indians would slowly have learned to interact with the settlers and both groups would have contributed to the future development of the United States.
I personally believed that if things worked out nicely no one could have been killed by plain arrogance. If this new history was real it could have taught the United States to take baby steps when trying to accomplish something peacefully not through brute force. If the U.S. would learn this way of combining interests other countries would learn to respect places like the U.S. instead of hating it for it’s arrogance and selfishness. Even more so the U.S. can learn to help those in need.