What arguments did the us government use to justify building railroads despite the damage to native cultures? how did such damage outweigh the benefits? how could the government have handled the situation differently?

Explanation:

I believe they used the phrase "Manifest Destiny." In other words, they believed that it was their destiny to have the land and to build upon it.

The damage outweighed the benefits to the American people because it meant they got to "have more." In other words, more money.

The government could have made an agreement with the natives and possibly allowed them to continue living on the land, perhaps, that would have caused less wars or battles in the end.

pepin the short[a] (german: pippin der kurze, french: pépin le bref, c. 714 – 24 september 768) was the king of the franks from 751 until his death. he was the first of the carolingians to become king.[b][2]

the younger son of the frankish prince charles martel and his wife rotrude, pepin's upbringing was distinguished by the ecclesiastical education he had received from the monks of st. denis. succeeding his father as the mayor of the palace in 741, pepin reigned over francia jointly with his elder brother carloman. pepin ruled in neustria, burgundy, and provence, while his brother carloman established himself in austrasia, alemannia and thuringia. the brothers were active in suppressing revolts led by the bavarians, aquitanians, saxons, and the alemanni in the early years of their reign. in 743, they ended the frankish interregnum by choosing childeric iii, who was to be the last merovingian monarch, as figurehead king of the franks.

freedom of speech is also protected by the 1 amendment.

explanation:

here is pretty much what the 1st amendment says:

congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.