If the Cherokee removal was so dreadful that it was known as the Trail of Tears.......?

-Why did Van Buren feel that it had the "hapiest effects?"Martin van Buren was white at a time when white attitudes were shaped almost entirely by the attitudes of frontier settlers. On the frontiers, white settlers and indigenous Indians faced each other in a tragic clash of cultures. To the whites, written deeds for land and settled farming claims were the norm. To the Indians, this behavior was strange and generally regarded as hostile. Unfortunately, each side believed it had an absolute right to defend its way of life, by whatever means were most effective. For the Indians, that meant raids in which the Indians fought as they had done for centuries, No quarter was given, non-combatants were not recognized, and the annihilation of opponents was considered a goal to be sought. Often, the Indians would deliberately do anything to heighten white terror. White retaliation was equally draconian: tribes were often given the simple choice between removal or extermination.



From the Cherokee standpoint, removal was brutal.They were forced to leave traditional homelands, to travel hundreds of miles suffering a serious cultural dislocation, and finally settled on land that they recognized as not really their own. In addition, a combination of ineptitude and malice caused shocking numbers to die unnecessarily, especially women, children, and the elderly.



To the whites, however, this was a very successful procedure, because a powerful tribe of Indians, capable of fighting a savage and protracted war, was removed from land that the United States sought, with what the United States regarded as minimal violence.



In many ways, as people have learned a concept that Bertrand Russell dubbed "cultural imperialism," they have been forced to accept the conclusion that historian Daniel Boorstin came to in his groundbreaking trilogy "The Americans": given what whites and Indians each regarded as imperatives, points on which each side felt there could be no compromise, a clash of cultures was inevitable. Given the frenetic desire of Americans to carve individual land holdings out of the wilderness, clashes were inevitable, and given their respective mores concerning how war was to be conducted, large scale slaughter on both sides was a serious and tragic probability.



As terrible as the Cherokee removal was, and as great as the suffering along the Trail of Tears was, if the Cherokee had insisted on holding their traditional land, the result probably would have been even greater violence and suffering for the Cherokee nation.
It was illegal and unconstitutional,

America's founding fathers said in 1787 "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians;their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent;and,in their property,rights,and liberty,they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress;but laws founded in justice and humanity,shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them,and for preserving peace and friendship with them."







http://www.theamericanateam.com/timeline鈥?/a>
WRONG, it had the happiest effects on AMERICA and the American land speculators who illegally took the Cherokee land in Georgia, he did not care about the effects that it had on the Cherokee themselves.



whale
Either he was ignorant of the actual facts or he lied for political reasons.