The statement itself does not represent the totality of the situation. There are elements missing that
present fuller picture. I would rewrite the statement as follows:
In preparing for the Cherokee removal,
state and federal officials were motivated by President Jackson’s refusal to enforce the US Supreme Court
ruling that favored the Cherokee people and his desire to keep his promise to the white settlers by
removing Native Americans from the land.
In doing so, this allowed white settlers to move in leading to the achievement of Manifest Destiny
through the pursuit of Indian removal. With the signing of the Treaty of New Echota which traded all
Cherokee land east of the Mississippi for $5 million in relocation assistance and compensation for lost
property. (History.Com Editors, 2020) The issue with this was it was done by people who didn’t represent
the Cherokee tribal leadership or anyone else. The government saw this treat as being final which led to
the Cherokee people being forced into stockades as white settlers looted the homes and belongings of
the Cherokee people. As far as my own research paper on Boston school desegregation & busing, I
believe the thesis statement needs to be strong as it will set up what I am attempting to prove to the
audience.
I can also compare the President’s choice to ignore a ruling by the US Supreme Court to the decision to
ignore the ruling that racial segregation was unlawful from Brown v. The Board of Education. Both were
made law, yet neither was enforced. The similarities are too obvious to ignore. The comparisons can help
me to improve upon my thesis. Using the connections would provide a better understanding to create a
stronger thesis statement.
References
History.Com Editors. (2020). Trail of Tears. https://www.history.com/topics/nativeamerican-
history/trail-of-tears
North Georgia. (n.d.). Cherokee Trail of Tears.
https://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Cherokee_Trail_of_Tears
