Matt Walsh

Well, every aspect of that narrative is false.

The first lie is that 4,000 Indians died.

That figure comes from a letter written by Dr. Eliza Butler, a member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, who was hired by the Cherokees to embed on the relocation.

He admitted later that the number, quote, was based on hearsay and guesswork.

The actual figure is likely 10% of what we were taught in school.

Although it's true that the Cherokees' chief, John Ross, opposed the treaty, it's also true that he was extensively involved in negotiations.

And though he opposed the version of the treaty that got finalized, it didn't stop him from enriching his family from it.

When the government started enforcing the treaty in 1838, they allowed Cherokee to conduct their own removal.

13 of the 16 groups that went to oklahoma were managed by the cherokee not the army and the contract to handle removal logistics went to chief ross's brother lewis ross he made about 65 dollars per person which totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars and was meant to make the journey more humane the money was intended for wagons food medical care provisions it was to ensure that there wouldn't be much of a death toll

And that brings us to another lie that the Indians were ripped off.

Well, in fact, the U.S.

federal government paid the Indians $5 million or roughly $184 million in 2025 dollars for 7 million acres.

That is a far better price per acre than Russia received for selling Alaska to the United States in 1867.

or that the French received in exchange for selling the Louisiana Purchase, the Indians received something like 70 cents an acre, while Napoleon received just 3 cents an acre, and Russia received 2 cents per acre.

In the words of Andrew Jackson, quote, How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions?

If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

So what are the odds that a central tenet of anti-American history just suddenly popped up in the 1960s, just as left-wing radicals seized control of American universities?

Very high, it turns out.

As a matter of fact, one thing that left-wing academics know very well is that historical narratives matter.

Who your people look up to matters.