Compare Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. Were
the justifications used similar or different? Can we understand Cherokee
removal as a precedent for Mexican “removal”, or were there important
differences between them? (80-100 words or so, by Friday 5pm).
Although there certainly are distinctions between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War, the significant underlying and inter-related ideologies of ‘manifest destiny’, racial categorisation and proper use of the land that drove the former can also be applied to the latter. The clearest distinction we might consider is that the Mexican-American War was sparked by the annexation of Texas and the definition of its border so it was not really simply about the removal of a people group in the name of expansion. Considering President Polk’s dubious claim that American blood had been shed on American soil, we can also say that the war was framed as a response to an invasion or incursion into independent US soil rather than the supposedly ‘humanitarian’ approach that President Jackson took towards the Cherokee. Nevertheless, it is vital to consider the idea of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon American race and their providential mission to spread their capitalist and republican values as pervasive in both cases. Both the Native American and the Latin American peoples were marginalised and degraded for their seeming inferiority and inability to use their land properly. For example, the hunting practices of Indians and the apparently inherent laziness of Latin American men wasted what White Americans saw as fertile land waiting for enterprise. The assumed superiority of the people and mission of the United States is even clearer in the face of the high level of adaptation of the Cherokee and the firmly established civilisation of the Mexicans.
ReplyDeleteThere are strong points of similarity between justifications for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War, namely in terms of race. In each instance, there were notions of American racial superiority, compared with the inferior Indians and Mexicans who were considered not to have the capacity for education, and thus were lazy, idol beings in need of an outside solution to their inferiority. Along with this was America's conception of its 'civilising' mission, to bring these inferior beings to a level adequate for citizenship, or at least second-class citizenship. There are however key differences too. The removal of the Cherokees was ultimately justified in the failure of civilisation, and although it was met with significant opposition, many also considered the Cherokee's or native Indians as a whole to be inherently incapable of being educated and 'civilised'. Thus the Cherokee removal was justified as a removal of the population as a last resort, as opposed to the potential absorption of the Mexican population for their own benefit. Another point of similarity, however, was that advocates of both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war used the doctrine of proper use of the land as a justification of annexing the land into American, industrious hands, away from those wasting it. Ultimately, both of these events were deliberately done as means to the end of American expansion, in line with its ideology and policies relating to "Manifest Destiny," and thus despite some differences it is likely the Cherokee removal can be considered a precedent for the Mexican "removal".
ReplyDeleteAmerican imperialism appears to be the key motivator and justification behind both the Mexican-American War and the Cherokee removal. America was booming as an economic and industrial power, and sought to utilize all surrounding land in order to grow its opportunities. This desire for land and resources was justified under the banner of the ‘doctrine of proper use’, whereby America claimed territory from the Cherokee due to their inability to maximize its potential. Contrastingly, America claimed that the Mexican-America war was sparked due to a border dispute. However, this minor border dispute led to the capturing of 2/3 of Mexican land, reaching far beyond Texas, highlighting America’s underlying imperialist motives. Therefore, although the justifications for each war were different, the underlying intentions of seizing land were the same. Furthermore, after witnessing the benefits of seizing the land from the Cherokee (1839), which would have brought in new opportunities and potential for growth, the allure of the Mexican owned land would have been great. Therefore, it is likely that the Cherokee removal did act as a precedent for the Mexican-American War, as it had already outlined America’s commitment to expansion and imperialism.
ReplyDeleteBoth events were justified in terms of race, but this played out in contradictory ways. Jackson’s rationale for Cherokee Removal was that the civilisation policy had not worked, and so in order to “save” the Indians they needed to be isolated from the corrosive effects of white American settlement. In contrast, proponents of the Mexican-American war appealed to the improving effect the American people and institutions would have on the local populations of Mexican territories. Arguments for the war were often framed in language which linked race, gender and religion – Mexican men were portrayed as effeminate Catholics to the dominant and manly American Protestants. This language implied natural hierarchies and contributed to the notion of the inevitability of American expansion. The ‘naturalness’ of American progress was also used to justify Cherokee Removal, and in each case the doctrine of the proper use of land was invoked. Cherokee Removal may have set a precedent for future expansionism, however perhaps it could also have supplied opponents of expansionism with strong arguments, due to the legacy of the Trail of Tears and the lasting bitterness and feelings of betrayal among the Cherokees.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Cherokee removal and the American- Mexican war evinced the culmination of an intense preoccupation with continental expansion. Both “removals” are examples of a political generation convinced by America’s “manifest destiny” and the compulsion to fulfill this. As a result, while there were notable differences between these two events, the Cherokee Removal may accurately be seen as establishing a precedent for the Mexican American War. Both “removals” share similar histories of dissent and opposition, particularly with regards to concerns about America’s increasingly aggressive imperialism. Both events agitated Northern anti-slavery causes. Such groups saw expansion as an extension of the interests of the Southern ‘planter aristocracy’, conveniently obscured by a compelling patriotic agenda. While both events were conceptualized on racial terms, the Cherokee removal was the result of a general frustration with the failure of ‘civilization’ and attempts to assimilate native Americans into white American culture. The removals dubious moral justifications evince a more blatant example of the American’s confidence of their racial superiority, and the perception that native Americans were inherently too “savage” to be acculturated. Conversely, the absorption of the Latin American population in the later war was held to be “for their own benefit”.
ReplyDeleteThere are many similarities between the justifications used for the Mexican-American War and also the Cherokee removal. The concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ provided validation for America’s claim to Cherokee land and the annexation of Texas. It was perceived as the destiny of the American people to expand across the North American continent. This notion was further strengthened through ideas of racial hierarchy. Both the Cherokee and the Mexican races were recognised as being inferior to the Americans, who were of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ decent. It was assumed that these lesser races were incapable of assimilating with the American people and becoming ‘civilised’. Furthermore, it was seen as a racial characteristic of these people to be inherently ‘lazy’ and ‘savage’, and unable to productively use the land they inhabited. Therefore, the ‘hard-working’ Americans of these areas should have claim to the lands. However, there is a clear distinction between the justifications used for these two actions. The Mexican-American War was reasoned as an attempt to reunite Texas, which had previously been a part of the US and also contained a large American population. As President Polk’s speech highlights, Texas desired to ‘come into the Union’. In comparison, the Cherokee land was forcibly taken, with the unwilling inhabitants required to move elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThinking broadly, I agree that the underlying themes mentioned in previous posts such as Manifest Destiny, racial superiority, and the proper use of land are justifications used to frame American acts of encroachment in BOTH the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. The impetus for these events was clear: If the opposing side does not give way to American interests, they will be removed. For the Cherokee, it was the refusal to sell more land to the Georgian settlers. For Santa Anna's Mexico, it was the move to consolidate central power, halt immigration and ban slavery. Therefore, the success of seizing lands from the Indian tribes provided Americans with added confidence to do as they pleased to suit their interests. The Cherokee removal can be seen as the precedent for an eventual "removal" or rather, the subjugation of the Mexicans. In this sense, Amy Greenberg’s argument of contextualising American expansion in terms of gender hierarchy seems to hold weight. America then acts as a dominant masculine man forcing himself on top of the effeminate, powerless peoples for his own pleasure and benefit.
ReplyDeleteThe key similarities between Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war were the American desire to put the land to its proper use, and the notion of American racial superiority. Many believed that the Cherokee were not putting their land to proper use. This concern was voiced by President Andrew Jackson in his second annual message to Congress. He questioned 'what good man would prefer a country ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic.' This criticism was also expressed in regard to the Central American population who, according to James Tyson, neglected their 'prolific soil.' Thus, in this sense the justifications were rather similar. Further, both groups were viewed by the Americans as racially inferior. The Mexicans were seen as uncultivated in mind and brutal in manners, and the Cherokee were seen simply as savages. As the Americans believed they had the right to spread their superior civilisation, racial superiority was a clear justification in both situations. However, the Mexican-American war appeared to be also justified in gendered terms, something which was not as apparent in the Cherokee removal. Latin American men were seen as effeminate and weak in contrast to American masculinity and power. America believed its apparent strength equated to a right to dominate and conquer and thus this was a differing justification. It is difficult to say conclusively that the Cherokee Removal was a precedent for the Mexican-American war however there are a number of striking similarities in the way both were justified.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal and Mexican-American War justifications can be seen as similar in nature, for example the reliance on racial inferiority. However, what makes the two similar is the underlying motivation behind the justifications. Anglo-Saxon American’s justified their actions particularly via racial terms in order to reaffirm their superiority. The Cherokee Removal was principally justified more so in terms of their lack of civilization/capabilities of education and the perceived ‘savagery’ of the race, whereas the Mexican-American war justifications focused on the improper cultivation of land, gender, religion and racial stereotyping. While one can deduce similarities between these justifications, what remains is obvious; both events occurred merely to reinforce American ideologies and expansion. The drive of American ideology in which all justifications used (whether similar or dissimilar between the Cherokee Removal and Mexican-American War) were to provide the drivers of said ideology with an explanation to obtain what did not inherently belong to them. Thus regardless of a few differences between the justifications, in terms of the underlying objectives Cherokee Removal can indeed be seen as a precedent for Mexican ‘‘removal.’'
ReplyDeleteA number of key, underlying rationales were behind both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War, and thus whilst there were a number of differences between the two, the former can be evaluated as a precedent for the latter. In both cases, the implementation of the “proper use of land” doctrine played a key role in justifying the actions of America. Americans believed that they could and should utilise the full potential of the land’s resources, a feat that was not being done by the “inferior” people living there. And thus the second key underlying element is evident: that of Manifest Destiny, and the spreading of a superior lifestyle and culture. Both the Mexicans and the Cherokees were characterised as inferior, inherently lazy races by the Americans, and as such were not worthy of keeping the land and stopping the spread of civilisation. And thus the success of the earlier Cherokee Removal set in place a paradigm for future annexations such as the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteThe most importance between Cherokee removal and the Mexican war was the perception of the respective groups. Cherokee were depicted as totallly racially inferior and little more than a nuisance that should be shipped out, far away from the United States. While the Mexicans were also depicted as lazy and incapable of using land properly, they were therefore also 'deserving' of having their land taken from them through force, Therefore parallels can be seen between the Mexican and Native American populations in the Americas
ReplyDeleteIn the instances of the Cherokee removal and the Mexican American war there were several similar motivations, including race and land. The idea that neither the Cherokees nor the Mexicans were using their land to its full potential was a strong motivator for the American interference, with the idea that one who does not use his land to the extent of its usability was not using the land correctly. From this also stemmed the idea of American racial superiority. Despite these similarities one must also consider the differences between the two ‘removals’. One of the main motivations of the Cherokee removal was an attempt to ‘civilize’ an otherwise ‘barbaric’ society and it is clear that Americanization of the indigenous peoples was a high priority. In the case of Mexico, there is a strong sentiment of America deciding to simply claim back what they believed to be theirs – the area that we now call Texas was in high dispute and it is in the Mexican-American war that we see a glimmer of the intense American Imperialism shining through.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War heavily relied on similar justifications in order to garner support for the forcible removal and aggression towards them. In pursuing the policy of relocation with the Cherokee’s the American’s claimed that the Cherokee’s were not properly utilising the land for its purpose which was also an argument that was claimed of the Mexicans whose ‘laziness’ prevented them from reaping the bounty of their lands. The racialisation of the Cherokees and Mexicans as inferior to the Americans created further justifications for the necessity to remove them from land that could be ‘civilised’ by the Americans. The Cherokee removal can be seen as a precedent for the Mexican ‘removal’ as they both relied upon similar beliefs and the superiority of the Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn what may have been prima facie considered a illustration of the racial fabric of the time, both the Mexican-American War and the Cherokee Removal were nonetheless driven by the motive of territorial expansion and even to promote America's economy. The two were constructively similar in their seeming promotion of the democratisation of what many contemporaries, such as Peter DeWitt, might have called an inferior race. Nevertheless, President James Polk's thesis that the annexation of Texas would be but a 'reunion' suggests that full frontal Americanisation of the Mexican populace may have been less of a priority than in the untouched depths of the Cherokee psyche. The Mexican-American war may also be distinguished from the Cherokee removal in terms of expansion, with it being an important hurdle to conquer in the expansion of the country. Conversely, the Cherokee removal might instead be viewed as, among other things, the removal of the nation, considering America had already claimed their land as their own. The steps and justifications used in the Cherokee removal almost certainly shaped the way the young nation dealt with the annexation of Texas, with its racial undertones being an important paradigm of shaping a powerful nation through the spread of Democracy and an inherent Christian faith.
ReplyDeleteThere were some similar justifications for Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War, both the Cherokee and the Latin American people were characterised as inferior to the industrious and enlightened Anglo Saxon 'race'. It was suggested that part of this inferiority was seen in the Cherokees and Mexicans not using their land properly, thereby weakening their claim to it. The idea of Manifest Destiny suggested that America was fulfilling its role as bringer of civilisation, liberty and democracy to all the continent. Proponents of this theory believed that by spreading the enlightened American civilisation across the Mexican and Cherokee lands by way of American cities and farms, the taking of these lands could be justified. Whilst Mexico was a democratic republic sharing similar characteristics to their northern neighbours, it was argued that the inferior Mexican civilisation could benefit from the benevolent influence of America. Jackson argued that Cherokee removal would be beneficial to the Native Americans, allowing them to grow their civilisation in peace, a similar argument was used by Polk who believed that by annexing Texas, its inhabitants would enjoy the benefits of being part of the greatest civilisation on the continent.
ReplyDeleteI agree that to describe Cherokee removal as a precedent for the Mexican-American war obscures their specificities, notably the humanitarian arguments used to justify removal, the fear of foreign intervention in the case of Mexico, and the escalation involved in waging war against a foreign nation. However, the linkages are compelling. Both were justified in terms of a racial and gender hierarchy which elevated “white” civilization above Cherokee/Mexican. Both were motivated by land, and the belief that it was being wasted. Both were justified as crucial steps in encouraging American growth. Whilst “precedent” is thus too strong, both events drew upon similar ideas about Manifest Destiny and the superiority of American civilization.
ReplyDeleteThere is undeniably a serious of similarities between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. Both were centred upon similar justification and motivations for economic utilisation of land 'mishandled' by 'uncivilised populations'. Further, both conflicts were underlined by a strong sense of racial superiority of white Americans against both the Native Americans and Mexicans. Both these economic and racial factors assisted policy makers to secure support for the forcible removal and aggression in the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. Notably, the belief of inherent 'laziness' amount the non-white populations was paramount as America policy and as such undermining the potential growth and profit that may be achieved from the land. The racialisation of the Cherokees and Mexicans as inferior to the Americans created further justifications for the necessity for forceful removal in order to ensure to an escalation of the civilised community. Opposition to these policies by either white Americans or 'savages' was similarly regarded as a threat to American interests, and labelled as 'hostile' people.
ReplyDeletep.s. really sorry for the late post!
While it may appear that the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War was primarily racially motivated, both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War were based on territorial expansion, economic prosperity and was validated by the belief in Manifest Destiny. The two conflicts unquestionably have similarities in that both were concerned about the ‘proper use of land’, meaning that it would be cultivated and used for agriculture adequately, and that that land would be maintained by American, capable hands, as opposed to the presumed racially inferior Cherokees or Latin American population. This concept of racial superiority is another justification used for both the Cherokee removal and Mexican ‘removal’, as white, ‘enlightened’, Anglo-Saxon Americans deemed the Cherokees savage, who could not be ‘civilized’ or assimilated, and the Mexican population was seen as inferior, emasculated and lazy. While these similarities are undeniable, to assume that the Cherokee removal was a precedent for the Mexican removal would be ignoring the specifics of both cases of removal. While both were motivated by land and were justified by the ideals of Manifest destiny, overall the reasons for removal were quite different.
ReplyDelete