human history is a story of conquest. It's not a white problem, Indian problem, black problem, whatever. All of those relocated tribes conquered other tribes and were bound to be conquered themselves. It's not like the trail of tears was some unprecedented act, but it was better than just killing them off, which most tribes would've done to their enemies instead.
What the hell, seriously? That might just be the worst, most forgeted up possible attitude towards the Trail of Tears.
"Yeah, we should commit this horrible attrocity because they're going to be conquered anyway!"
That would be like saying the Holocaust was okay because all those Jews were going to die anyway, or the Great Purge was okay because Stalin's famines were okay because those people would eventually be hungry regardless, or that it was okay for Prussia and Russia to partition Poland because they would be annexed eventually. No, actually, it's worse than that, because it's not even necessarily true that those tribes would be conquered. The tribes in the 1800s weren't in an active war against each other. And then you're going back and saying it was okay because it wasn't "unprecedented." Again, that's like saying the Holocaust was okay because it wasn't unprecedented - there was the Armenian genocide. Obviously the Trail of Tears isn't nearly as atrocious as this brown townogy, but it shows the flaw in your logic.
Sounds a lot like Social Darwinism to me.