1

Christina Elfring
Sederholm
Hist 1700-035
Signature Paper
Rhetorical Analysis of the Trail of Tears
PART A
Three men played a big part in the removal of the Indians in the 1830s. U.S. citizen
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Chief John Ross, and Congressman Davy Crockett wrote letters in hopes
of persuading the U.S. Government to abolish the action to move forward with the removal.
These three letters show different points of view for the opposed side at different times during
those 10 or so years. Although the government went through with the removal, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, John Ross, and Davy Crockett tried to use rhetoric to convince them to do otherwise.
Ralph Waldo Emerson writes a letter to President Martin Van Buren about the rumors
going around that there was a treaty signed by both the United States Government and the
Cherokee Nation that would force all Cherokees to move from their lands into new territory out
west. In his letter Emerson tries to convince the President to toss his thoughts about the decision
to move forward with the treaty. He uses ethos, pathos, and logos to form a deep message that
he hoped would be enough to change his mind.
In his letter, Emerson starts off by putting President Martin Van Burens position into
perspective. He writes, The seat you fill places you in a relation of credit and nearness to every
citizen. And that, By right and natural position, every citizen is your friend. He kindly
asserts that the president listen up. Emerson uses ethos to introduce himself to the president. His
credibility for the president to read his letter is that he is a citizen, and every citizen is a friend of
the president.
Emerson uses pathos a great deal in his letter to tug on some emotional strings that the
president might have. He explains that the United States has taken a great interest in the
Cherokee tribes, as the Cherokees have done with the United States. ... civility has arrived.
Emerson writes. We have learned with joy their improvement in the social arts. He mentions
that the Cherokee have grown to take in the United Statess customs and culture. They learned
to implement these characteristics it into their own culture.

Emerson goes on telling Van Buren that if the rumors are true, then he knows that there
are fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty-eight out of eighteen thousand people that are opposed
to this, So-called treaty. Much of the northern Americans didnt fully trust the government
either. He tells Van Buren that ten years ago the old counselors would not have been able to go
through with this removal because the rest of the country would have shunned it.
Throughout his letter Emerson makes it a point that the government should not be doing
this because it goes against the law of the United States of America. His letter puts into
perspective the dignity of the American people. I feel that he did a great job using rhetoric, and
it was convincing enough to change my mind. Though, Emerson didnt end up convincing them.
Chief John Ross also wrote a powerful letter about what was happening during their
troubled times. There was to be a conference between the General Council of the Cherokee
Nation and the Government of the United States about squashing the problems that the Cherokee
Nation were facing around that time. This meeting was to happen on October 23rd, 1835, but
John Ross writes that they could not get in contact with the United States commissioner to
arrange the meeting. Instead they were told to go to Washington City to negotiate a treaty.
On December 29th, 1835 a treaty was signed in New Echota, Georgia. John Ross states
that this was, A spurious Delegation, in violation of a special injunction of the general council
of the nation. His emotions are high, and he writes with heavy devastation throughout his letter.
He states that they are denationalized and deprived. He points out that the Indian men who were
apart of signing the supposed treaty werent men who had the right authority to sign treaties into
law. The makers of it sustain no office nor appointment in our Nation, under the Designation of
Chiefs, Head men, or any other title, by which they hold, or could acquire, authority to assume
the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our
common country.
Although Chief John Ross wrote with a very well-defined vocabulary, his letter to the
president wasnt as planned out as Emersons letter. Emerson gave strong logic and handled the
situation in a calm state of mind. Throughout John Rosss letter he states the obvious and sounds
a bit confused on why this could happen. There is no rhetoric or convincing enough information
for someone to be moved by this letter.

Congressman David Davy Crockett was furious about news of the removal. In his
letter to Charles Schultz, Davy Crockett complains about President Andrew Jackson probably
going to get his way. He has always opposed the political decisions that President Andrew
Jackson made. In a way he seems a bit biased in his opinion. Another person he complains about
is Vice President Van Buren. He states that, I have gone so far as to declare that if he Martin
Van Buren is elected that I will leave the United States for I never will live under his kingdom.
Mr. Crockett casually writes to Mr. Schultz about this transfer of power. In his letter it doesnt
seem like he has much logic or sense behind what he is thinking. It seems more of a complaint
or a letter to vent on rather than a persuasive or informative letter. He has a lot to say, but he
doesnt have any convincing evidence to back it up.
Reading through all three documents I feel like Ralph Waldo Emerson had the most
convincing piece of work. He gave purpose to his paper and structured his argument in a way
that would cover logical information, emotional connection, and credibility. I can tell he took his
time thinking about what he wanted his letter to sound like when he was done.
Chief John Ross on the other hand had nothing planned out. In his letter he seemed to be
passionately begging for his life, for he is only human just like the rest. Although it tugs on the
emotional strings, John Ross isnt convincing enough for any change to happen. In his case, the
U.S. Government has the upper hand and they arent going to give it up to a man that is begging
for mercy, just because they feel bad. The problem was that they didnt feel bad enough, only
because they had greed in their eyes.
Congressman Davy Crocketts letter wasnt convincing either. He seems to have a bad
history with President Andrew Jackson that is leading him to sound biased against Jackson and
Van Burens decisions. It seems as if hes writing a colleague and wants to put in his two cents
about how he feels about these men.
As I was reading through each document I can tell that every man was sincere about what
he was writing about. They all had a great deal of passion and were truly against the removal. I
can also tell that these men were confused about what was going on. Nothing in the new U.S.
history went down this way because it would have never passed with the majority opposing
civilians.
PART B

Regardless of the many concerned letters that the U.S. Government received during the
time of the removal, the Government went ahead with the removal of the Indians and basically
committed genocide on top of that. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren were at
the head of the removal of native populations into new Indian Territory. A big reason for the
Indian Removal was the discovery of gold in northern Georgia. The white men were turned on
to Gold Fever. They wanted more land so they can receive more profit in their pockets.
Major General Winfield Scott arrives at a town in northern Georgia where there are
many Cherokees that still remain. He gives an address to the people stating that they need to
leave Georgia now and move west past the Mississippi River. He says, Unhappily, the two
years which were allowed for the purpose, you have suffered to pass away without following,
and without making any preparation to follow. Basically saying they had two years to leave
and now another minute can not pass. Major General Scott holds a firm voice throughout the
announcement, making him slightly intimidating. He lets his audience know that his troops are
standing ready for when the time comes to enforce the law. He goes on telling them that they
need to obey the orders of the troops. Though, he doesnt want there to be chaos, he tells his
audience, All those troops, regular and militia, are your friends. He mentions that if some
were to result to resistance then there could be an all out war. Major General Winfield Scotts
address to the Cherokees was very firm yet kind. He wanted the Indians to know that they come
in peace, but only for a short time.
Private John G. Burnetts story of the Trail of Tears takes place during 1838 to 1839. He
grew up as a young man alone in the wilderness teaching himself to hunt and survive. He
learned to live with different groups of Cherokees from time to time, spoke their language, ate
their food, and took in their culture. One day in the fall of 1829 he went out hunting for some
game. He came across a young Cherokee that was shot by a group of hunters and was hiding
himself under a rock. John Burnett took it upon himself to nurse this young man back to health
until he could hold his own again. When the boy healed, he decided to take Burnett back to his
home and thank him for all that he had done for him. Burnett stayed with this tribe for quite a
while. He became an expert rifleman and a great archer and trapper. In 1838 he became a
Private soldier in the American Army and was sent to the Smoky Mountain Country as an

interpreter in May of 1838. There he witnessed horrible traumatic actions executed by the
Americans. The Cherokees were forced from their homes and loaded into wagons like livestock.
In his 80th birthday letter, John G. Burnett speaks of the tragedies that happened during
his ride west on the Trail of Tears. Through the many experiences that he had with the Cherokee
Indians, there was only one Indian that he ever had a problem with. Seeing the terrible
conditions that the Cherokees had to go through during the move west, made Burnett feel so
terrible for what the U.S. has done to those people. He closes his letter with some touching
words.
Murder is murder, and somebody must answer. Somebody must explain the streams of
blood that flowed in the Indian country in the summer of 1838. Somebody must explain
the 4000 silent graves that mark the trail of the Cherokees to their exile. I wish I could
forget it all, but the picture of 645 wagons lumbering over the frozen ground with their
cargo of suffering humanity still lingers in my memory.
In the end the Trail of Tears was another form of genocide. The removal of Cherokee Indians
was a devastating time in history. Both parties had to come to the realization that the Cherokees
were the problem and they needed to be dealt with. It caused fury between the two nations, but
they both knew only one could come out on top. And thats the beginning of American greed.