Historian A: Charles A. Eastman – Economic Perspective "Eastman argues that the Indian Removal Act was primarily driven by economic interests. He emphasizes that the removal opened land for American settlers and facilitated economic expansion, especially in agriculture and resource extraction. Eastman suggests that the government prioritized economic development over the rights of Native Americans, viewing their displacement as a necessary step for national progress. He highlights how economic motives influenced policy decisions and justified the forced relocations, including the Trail of Tears. Overall, he presents the removals as a pragmatic, economically motivated policy that benefited the broader American economy."

Historian B: Sarah M. Johnson – Social Perspective "Johnson contends that the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears were rooted in social attitudes of racial superiority and cultural intolerance. She argues that the policy was designed to eliminate Native American cultures and assimilate or eradicate their communities. Johnson emphasizes the human suffering caused by the forced relocations, highlighting the cruelty and injustice inflicted upon Native peoples. She criticizes the policy as a manifestation of social prejudice and racial discrimination, which disregarded Native Americans' rights and humanity. Johnson’s interpretation underscores the social injustice and cultural destruction inherent in the removal process."