Question

with this evidence before me, i must be pardoned when i tell the honorable chairman mr. bell that i do not repose confidence in the information with which he has been furnished, and has presented to the house. it seems to be assumed, without evidence, that the indians are willing to remove, but are restrained by some overpowering cause. in 1827, the complaint of georgia was, that the government had neglected its duty, and, instead of adopting a course which would terminate in the removal of the indians, had pursued a policy calculated to render their residence permanent. there was no complaint then against the chiefs. it was all the fault of government. well sir, we have now a government co - operating with georgia. this ground of complaint is removed. still the indians refuse to go. some new reason must be ground for their refusal. sir, would it not be better to inquire into the fact, than to be searching for the cause of that which is only assumed to exist? it is not natural and reasonable that they should be unwilling to abandon their homes? are they not men? are they not capable of attachments? have they no ties to bind them to the land of their birth - to the soil which covers the ashes of their fathers? sir, in their view, that earth wears a deeper verdure, and the heavens pour a more unclouded radiance, than in all the world besides. it is unnatural, it is unreasonable to support that they are “anxious” to quit the scenes of their childhood, to seek a new home, far off, in the lands of the setting sun.
pause and reflect: what techniques does representative evans use here to counteract prior claims made by other representatives and members of congress?
1 2 3 4 5
in source 2, which of the following is not a reason that representative evans gives for his opposition to the indian removal act?

• the us government has always upheld the sovereignty of the cherokee in government relations.
• the cherokee do not want to leave their lands as some assume.
• approving the act would look like government cooperation with a state such as georgia.
• it is unreasonable to assume that any human would want to leave the place in which they were born.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option against the text:

1. For the option "The US government has always upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokee in government relations": The text mentions that in 1827, the government pursued a policy to make the Indians' residence permanent, but now cooperates with Georgia. This does not show the government "always" upheld Cherokee sovereignty. So this is not a reason Evans gives.

1. For "The Cherokee do not want to leave their lands as some assume": The text says "Still the Indians refuse to go" and questions the assumption of a restraining cause, showing this is a reason.

1. For "Approving the act would look like government cooperation with a state such as Georgia": The text states "we have now a Government co - operating with Georgia. This ground of complaint is removed", implying that approving the act is seen as cooperation with Georgia, so this is a reason.

1. For "It is unreasonable to assume that any human would want to leave the place in which they were born": The text asks "Sir, would it not be better to inquire into the fact, than to be searching for the cause of that which is only assumed to exist? It is not natural and reasonable that they should be unwilling to abandon their homes? Are they not men? Are they not capable of attachments? Have they no ties to bind them to the land of their birth - to the soil which covers the ashes of their fathers?" showing this is a reason.

Answer:

The US government has always upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokee in government relations