BOOK GUIDES
Cherokee Nation Mock Trial
WITNESS TESTIMONIES
Prosecution Witness #1: John Ross (Cherokee Principal Chief) Attorney: Chief Ross, can you describe your efforts to resist the Indian Removal Act?
Ross: I led the Cherokee people through diplomacy and legal petitions. We adopted a constitution, created schools, and engaged in peaceful resistance. We even won in the Supreme Court, which ruled that Georgia laws had no power over Cherokee territory. Yet the government ignored its own laws and forced us from our land. Attorney: What were the consequences? Ross: Thousands of Cherokee men, women, and children suffered and died on the Trail of Tears. We lost our homeland, our homes, and countless lives. It was an act of cruelty and betrayal. Cross-examination (Defense): Chief Ross, were not some Cherokee leaders signatories to the Treaty of New Echota, agreeing to removal? Ross: That treaty was signed by a minority and opposed by the vast majority of our people. It was not valid under Cherokee law. Prosecution Witness #2: Cherokee Citizen (Fictional Character) Attorney: Can you share your experience of the Trail of Tears? Citizen: I was just a child. We were marched through snow and mud. My grandmother died of sickness, and my younger brother starved. Soldiers showed no mercy. It was a nightmare I will never forget. Attorney: How do you feel the U.S. government treated your people? Citizen: Like we were obstacles, not human beings. We were a sovereign nation, but our rights were trampled.
Prosecution Witness #3: Historian/Anthropologist Attorney: From your research, how would you describe the impact of the Indian Removal Act?
Historian: The Act directly contradicted previous treaties guaranteeing Cherokee land and sovereignty. The Cherokee had made substantial efforts to integrate and coexist. The removal shattered communities, caused widespread death, and remains a grave injustice.
Defense Witness #1: President Andrew Jackson (Actor Portrayal) Attorney: President Jackson, what was your reasoning behind signing the Indian Removal Act?
Jackson: I believed removal was the only way to protect Native tribes from extinction. As settlers expanded, conflict grew. The Act allowed for a peaceful relocation and compensation. I believed it was humane under the circumstances. Cross-examination (Prosecution): Was ignoring the Supreme Court and forcing removal humane? Jackson: The Court had no power to enforce its decision. I acted in what I believed was the nation’s best interest. Defense Witness #2: U.S. Congressman Attorney: Why did Congress pass the Indian Removal Act? Congressman: To resolve decades of conflict in the Southeast. State governments were under pressure, and settlers demanded access to land. Removal was seen as a compromise. Defense Witness #3: Georgia Official Attorney: What was the state of Georgia’s position? Official: Georgia believed it had the right to govern all land within its borders. We saw the Cherokee Nation as a barrier to state development and progress.
Page 51
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator