Question for Reading and Discussion 1. For Ross, what did the principle "endure and forbear" suggest the Cherokees should do? In what sense did Ross believe argument was a "weapon"? The principle to "endure and forbear" suggests that the Cherokees prevent apprehensions such as those presented in the unjust resolution to all Cherokee-American disputes. John Ross states that this "Treaty" was signed by unauthorized delegates at Washington and protested against and for those reasons it will never be regarded as a Treaty by the Cherokee people. Additionally, John Ross viewed argument as a weapon (and the only weapon to use to stop their inevitable demise in relocation). The power that argument gave the Cherokee people was to show the American people how little it would cost them to be just in the decision over Cherokee Indian removal. On that note John Ross was positive that the American people would be true to themselves and act in good faith toward them. 2. What was Ross's view of the "principles of white men"? How did they differ from the principles of Cherokee? John Ross stated that he had taught the men of his tribe the principles of white men, implying that they are respected among the Cherokee but with the premise that the principles respected are those which give America Liberty and greatness, not the principles of the men talking to them about this treaty. These principles differ from those of the Cherokee in the way that Americans use treachery and unfairness at an advantage to manipulate others of their kind. 3. According to Boudinot , why was removal "the only course left"? Why was the "moral condition" of the Cherokees an inducement for removal? Elias Boudinot said that with Americas countrymen gaining interest in a change of policy, Indian tribes had to submit due to the simple fact that they are a superior power. Additionally, Boudinot says that the morals of the white Americans consist of the deep attachment to money