"The treaty in question is not the act of our Nation; it has not received the sanction (approval) of our people. The makers of the treaty hold no office nor appointment in our Nation, [and have no] authority to assume the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our common country. And we sadly declare, that the enforcement of the conditions of this treaty, against our consent, is an act of injustice and oppression" John Ross explains that the Treaty doesn't have the approval of the people, how the treaty is flawed, and how it is ill-treatment of the people. It gives a clear description of the cons of ratifying the New Echota Treaty.
The evidence supports the claim that the U.S. Senate should not have ratified the Treaty of New Echota because "The treaty in question is not the act of our Nation; it has not received the sanction (approval) of our people. The makers of the treaty hold no office nor appointment in our Nation, [and have no] authority to assume the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our common country. And we sadly declare, that the enforcement of the conditions of this treaty, against our consent, is an act of injustice and oppression" John Ross explains that the Treaty doesn't have the approval of the people, how the treaty is flawed, and how it is ill-treatment of the people. It gives a clear description of the cons of ratifying the New Echota Treaty.
Explanation:
this is the same thing as the other person just with the sentence starter
