HELPP I WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST IF RIGHT

Should the U.S. Senate have ratified (passed into law) the Treaty of New Echota?
Background: John Ross was the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. He was the son of a Scottish Immigrant and a Cherokee mother. He wrote this letter to Congress in response to the New Echota Treaty being approved and before the Trail of Tears began.
“The treaty in question is not the act of our Nation; it has not received the sanction (approval) of our people. The makers of the treaty hold no office nor appointment in our Nation, [and have no] authority to assume the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our common country. And we sadly declare, that the enforcement of the conditions of this treaty, against our consent, is an act of injustice and oppression …
And, therefore, we, the parties to be affected by the result, appeal with confidence to the justice, the magnanimity, the compassion, of your honorable bodies, against the enforcement, on us, this treaty,, in the formation of which we have had no say.”

Claim - The U.S. Senate should not have ratified the Treaty of New Echota.
Evidence

Cite evidence from the document that supports your claim
Reasoning

Explain how the evidence supports your claim

"The treaty in question is not the act of our Nation; it has not received the sanction (approval) of our people. The makers of the treaty hold no office nor appointment in our Nation, [and have no] authority to assume the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our common country. And we sadly declare, that the enforcement of the conditions of this treaty, against our consent, is an act of injustice and oppression" John Ross explains that the Treaty doesn't have the approval of the people, how the treaty is flawed, and how it is ill-treatment of the people. It gives a clear description of the cons of ratifying the New Echota Treaty.

Аноним Аноним · Answer 2 · 2021-02-27T22:55:53+01:00

Answer:

The evidence supports the claim that the U.S. Senate should not have ratified the Treaty of New Echota because "The treaty in question is not the act of our Nation; it has not received the sanction (approval) of our people. The makers of the treaty hold no office nor appointment in our Nation, [and have no] authority to assume the reins of Government, and to make bargain and sale of our rights, our possessions, and our common country. And we sadly declare, that the enforcement of the conditions of this treaty, against our consent, is an act of injustice and oppression" John Ross explains that the Treaty doesn't have the approval of the people, how the treaty is flawed, and how it is ill-treatment of the people. It gives a clear description of the cons of ratifying the New Echota Treaty.

Explanation:

this is the same thing as the other person just with the sentence starter