When one article is weighed up to the next one, a very obvious contrast in style becomes clear. While Andrew Jackson tries to make his desires of moving the Indians seem very necessary and fair, the Cherokee bluntly state that they are opposed to the idea completely. Jackson goes through all of his provisions for the Indians, should they coop

After taking both articles into strong consideration, I believe that the American government was wrong in even considering removing the Cherokees and other tribes from their home land. First off, the land isn't American property to begin with. The natives had lived on the land long before America was even dreamed of. The government does not posses the power to order an independent and sovereign society of people off of their native land. A large majority the Jackson statement is simply all the "wonderful" benefits the government will provide for the Indians just so the people will think that he is right. The Cherokee memorial has a more realistic argument without all of the garbage. Last, Jackson has the audacity to add insult to injury and degrade the Indians. A civilization with strong, ingrained roots and an established culture, and Jackson not only steals their land, but kicks them while they are down?

erate, as i

Some common words found in the essay are:
Andrew Jackson, Georgia Lastly, Cherokee Indians, Rules Congress, Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Removal, provisions indians, native land, andrew jackson,
Approximate Word count = 623
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)