What were the arguments for and against Indian removal

2 answers:

8 0

The argument for:
The fact that someone wanted the land they were on. They were making very good use to it prior to their removal. But some whites wanted land because they couldn't make a profit from it.

argument against:

They were their first and had a prior claim.

stich3 [128]3 years ago

5 0

First, they argued that the white Americans (and their black slaves) needed the land and could make better use of it. They argued that Americans could make the land more economically productive than the Indians had been able to. Second, the proponents argued from the idea of white superiority. They argued that the Indians were inferior and that it was not necessary to treat them fairly.

You might be interested in

What was one goal of the American colonization society?

zloy xaker [14]

to free people of color in the US

The American Colonization Society (ACS), also known as the American Society for Colonizing the Free People of Color in the United States, emerged in 1816 as a national organization dedicated to promoting the manumission of the enslaved and the settlement of free blacks in West Africa

5 0

4 years ago

Who was the third president of the United States

emmasim [6.3K]

Thomas Jefferson, hope this helps

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Between which 2 dates was Rome a powerful empire

PSYCHO15rus [73]

27 B.C.E to 476 C.E are the dates between which Rome was a powerful Empire.

The Ancient Empire known as the Roman Empire centered on the city of Rome established in 27 B.C.E following the demise of Roman Republic. The period between Augustus and Diocletian is known as the High Empire. Augusts established a form of government called a Principate, which was a combination of elements from the Republic with the traditional power of the monarchy. He transformed Rome from a Republic to an Empire. He put all his efforts to secure power in the province and established a system of census and assessment that integrated the empire’s furthest reaches. To strengthen his empire he extended the Roman network of roads, began the Postal Service, and transformed Rome with both grand and practical gestures.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Drag the following events that contributed to the rise of totalitarianism in Germany in

Kisachek [45]

On January 30, 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg names Adolf Hitler, leader or führer of the National Socialist German Workers Party (or Nazi Party), as chancellor of Germany.

Use this information to answer your question.

Hindenburg, intimidated by Hitler’s growing popularity and the thuggish nature of his cadre of supporters, the SA (or Brownshirts), initially refused to make him chancellor. Instead, he appointed General Kurt von Schleicher, who attempted to steal Hitler’s thunder by negotiating with a dissident Nazi faction led by Gregor Strasser. At the next round of elections in November, the Nazis lost ground—but the Communists gained it, a paradoxical effect of Schleicher’s efforts that made right-wing forces in Germany even more determined to get Hitler into power. In a series of complicated negotiations, ex-Chancellor Franz von Papen, backed by prominent German businessmen and the conservative German National People’s Party (DNVP), convinced Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor, with the understanding that von Papen as vice-chancellor and other non-Nazis in key government positions would contain and temper Hitler’s more brutal tendencies.

Hitler’s emergence as chancellor on January 30, 1933, marked a crucial turning point for Germany and, ultimately, for the world. His plan, embraced by much of the German population, was to do away with politics and make Germany a powerful, unified one-party state. He began immediately, ordering a rapid expansion of the state police, the Gestapo, and putting Hermann Goering in charge of a new security force, composed entirely of Nazis and dedicated to stamping out whatever opposition to his party might arise. From that moment on, Nazi Germany was off and running, and there was little Hindenburg or von Papen—or anyone—could do to stop it. Purred largely by the German people’s frustration with dismal economic

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which group opposed the bill of rights because it was believed the constitution adequately protected basic rights?

almond37 [142]

The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states.

8 0

4 years ago