"All is fair in love and war", is a significant phrase that has been known to man since the beginning of time. For centuries, land and power is a right that is given to those who are capable of getting it, regardless of origin and upbringing; if there is capability than the possibilities are endless. There are countries to be gained while others are taken in times of war, and that has never been a surprise. The fall of the Roman Empire, the establishments of Russia, and the changing of powers in Vietnam are all examples of people gaining and losing land and power. War and power are both a game, one that tests the skills of the fittest and most capable; if you win, you gain riches and power, but if you lose then you are risking it all. If these are facts of life, then why are there oppositions to Jackson's Indian Removal Bill? The bill was created by a civilized, compassionate government that breathed a new light onto the topic of expanding the country and the justified way of going about it. Although there are understandable oppositions to the Indian Removal Bill, Jackson was fair in his creation of the bill and it's a part of survival of the fittest with a ton of justice. With the expansion of the Americas, Jackson proposed a bill to transport the Indians into a "permanent" home beyond the Mississippi River. Since their arrival to the Americas, the government has implemented the policy of introducing a more civilized lifestyle to the Native Americans, but over the years the government has contradicted its policy by gradually taking more and more of their land. Although the ideals of civilizing and settling Native Americans are undeniable, people have also lost no opportunity to purchase their lands and push them further into the wilderness, provoking their innate wandering state and coming off as unjust and hypocritical. Jackson is able to realize the country's mistakes and has made effort to correct the hypocrisy. The Indian Removal Bill sets apart an ample...