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).
There were similarities and differences between the Cherokee and Mexian removal. Both groups were characterized as 'other' seen as feminine, barbaric and foreign. Both groups were also critisized for the 'innappropriate' use of valuable land. Ideas of 'manifest destiny' also played an important role in justifying their removal. However there were also differences, the Cherokee had begun to assimilate to American life, mimicking their legal system, using their legal system, recording the bible and changing from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one, this made it legally more difficult to remove them, as they were seen as owners of the land. Mexicans were seen as both lazy and cruel, they were catholic (which linked up with the laziness) and seemed to have less rights to the land. (Jessica Cody 22631739)
ReplyDeleteThere are marked similarities between the two processes. Both appeared to justify the annexation of land through venerating the power, virtue and governmental systems employed by the white American male. “On general principles, Americans are bound to the diffusion of our own system of government over every enslaved people.” While this applied to freeing Mexican Catholics from the yoke of Rome, it could equally apply to freeing Native American’s from their ‘barbarity’. From this belief came a paired attitude of taking over land so that it could be used for the good of humanity and (a seemingly secondary priority) paternalistically guiding the removed people’s toward the American way. - Casimir Zichy-Woinarski 22034897
ReplyDeleteBetween the Cherokee and Mexican removals, there were several corresponding justifications used. Americans justified their 'land grab' by appealing to the notion of 'proper use of land'. The Cherokee and particularly the Mexicans were portrayed as being lazy. The Americans believed they would properly use the land by cultivating prosperous farming estate and building cities. Furthermore, both groups were depicted as naturally submissive in terms of race and gender, mere obstacles to overwhelming manifest destiny. The glaring difference was that the Cherokee had set up their own republic that had initially been vested the protection of the U.S government, while the Mexicans had no formal rights to Texas since its independence.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons for Cherokee removal and war on Mexico were ultimately the same: Americans in Georgia wanted bountiful land containing gold owned by the Cherokee, and portions of Mexican influence were desirable for the same reasons. While there are important differences between Mexico and the Cherokee Nation, these were not important to Americans when rationalizing their procurement of their land. Whether it be Cherokee barbarism and lack of civilization, or Mexican laziness and absence of enterprise, Americans were distancing others from themselves; the superior race, who had the right to take what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely similarities between the two events. The Americans, feeling that it was their “Manifest Destiny” to settle the lands occupied by the Cherokee and Mexicans, amongst others, justified their expansionism by claiming that the lands were being underutilised . In both the case of the Cherokee and that of the Mexicans, the Americans asserted that their right to the land they were taking had always existed, and that the westward expansion of the United States was divine providence. In both cases, some commentators expressed the hope that the conquered people would be “civilised” by the presence of the Anglo-Saxon whites.
ReplyDeletehttp://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/internet-memes-the-toilet-of-tears1.jpg
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that the justifications used by the Americans were invariably the same on both occasions, as the Cherokees and Mexicans were annexed from their own land in similar fashion. The Americans claimed that the land, which these two somewhat uncivilized groups originally occupied, was not being utilised and cultivated to the extent to which it should be. The underlying motives of the Americans seemingly became more prevalent through the idea of 'manifest destiny' and expansionism as they endeavoured to assert cultural and racial dominance over what they argued to be a race less superior to themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA common suffering is seen across the Removal of the Cherokee Indians and the experience of Mexicans surrounding the time of the Mexican-American war. Both suffered exponentially due to the belief on the part of many influential figures in the Union that the Anglo-Saxons (a.k.a. ‘Nativists’) were racially superior to the Cherokee and Mexicans.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the experiences share common features (e.g. the Union’s desire for territorial expansion in both instances) but it seems what is most striking is how the experiences differ as compared to what similarities they share. This can be seen in the markedly contrasting reasons (justifications) offered for action on the Union’s part (e.g. Cherokee failed to ‘civilize’ whereas ‘independence of Texas was complete and absolute’) that suggests the Removal of the Cherokee was while similar nevertheless not a clear precedent for the Union’s actions in the Mexican-American war.
Edmund Kennedy
Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War were justified by Americans for very similar reasons. At the core, both the Cherokees and the Mexicans alike were viewed as inferior races, whose lazy, boorish culture was at odds with the inherent American belief in the 'manifest destiny.' The rationale that America was a far more superior nation formed the basis of American appropriation of Cherokee and Mexican lands, resulting in the taking of under-cultivated and improperly used lands. I don't think Cherokee removal set a precedent for the Mexican-American in the true sense of the word, but was rather another manifestation of the Union's understanding of itself as a superior nation who had the intrinsic right to do what it pleased, when it pleased, for the 'greater good.'
ReplyDeleteImportantly the two events present very different narratives making it problematic to claim that the Cherokee removal of the 1830s served as a precedent or as a model for the annexation of Mexican lands in 1846. Cherokee removal manifested a deliberate Federal policy to relocate Indians to attain land before white settlement while the Mexican American War represented a hostile engagement with Mexico in areas already occupied by white, northern settlers (around 30,000 North American emigrants settled in Tejas by 1835). Interestingly justifications for both removal and the Mexican American War stemmed from notions that the incumbent populations (be they Indian or Latino) were not effectively utilizing the land. However racial and gendered justifications for conquest were not solidly developed until after the Mexican American War. The perceived effeminacy of Latin Americans was reinforced by the relative ease of victory U.S. forces had over Mexico despite inferior U.S. numbers. Victory in 1846 helped cement notions of superior masculinity in the American psyche. This is reflected in the later decades of the 19th Century. Americans did not seek to “remove” the Indians from the Great Plains (as they had in the 1830s) instead American masculinity was cemented throughout the expansion of the frontier and would become a culture of justification that saw the U.S. engage in actual war with the Indians rather than attempt to brush them aside.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson justified Cherokee removal in 1830 on the grounds of it being an inevitable process, where it is in the interest of the uncivilised Indians to accept the ‘opportunity’ to move West:
ReplyDelete“The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward…send (the tribes) to a land where their existence may be prolonged and made perpetual.”
Whilst the removal of the natives could be justified on the grounds of US ‘divine destiny’, The war with Mexico nearly two decades later highlights inherent incompatibilities concerning such a belief. It was seen as a natural and unavoidable process to further expand the US, however to annex Mexico could not be justified as being in the interests of the annexed Mexicans. Certainly not on humanitarian grounds such as with the displaced ‘savages’. The Mexican War and subsequent annexation polarised US politicians; this quarrel serving as a catalyst for the Civil War.
It is possible that Jackson, Polk and others may have used the notion of manifest destiny simply as a pretext for aggressive expansion. However, taking into account racial segregation against blacks in the 19th and 20th centuries as well as events such as the Zoot Suit Riots of 1943, suggest that beliefs of superiority of white Americans over Blacks, Natives and Mexicans were not just a cover for more pragmatic actions and policy.
There is no true evidence that the Cherokee removal acted as a precedent for Mexican ‘removal’, despite the similarities between these two events. Both instances of American expansion occurred through the ideological lens of racial superiority and ‘manifest destiny’. Nevertheless, the Unions’ justifications for these removals are significantly different. Whilst in the case of the Cherokees a failure to ‘civilize’ was at the core of this justification, in the case of the Mexicans it was held that no formal rights entitled them to the land of Texas. On first glance, these rationales are similar however it is necessary to recognize that this difference is substantial to our recognition of the Cherokee removal as a precedent to the Mexican ‘removal’.
ReplyDelete(Romy Ladowsky - 21543925)
American justification for the removal of the Cherokee, and in turn the removal of the Mexicans, was essentially the same. Though each culture seemed no match for the “manifest destiny” of the white Americans, they were still perceived as a threat to the ever-expanding ‘Anglo-Saxon force’, and therefore must be removed.
ReplyDeleteWe can certainly see the similarities between the rationalisations of the Cherokee removal and Mexican “removal”. Both, the Americans claimed, were lazy, dishonest, thieving, unenterprising and didn’t utilise the land to its full extent. Their justification also included the belief that this could not have been the first time civilisations were wiped out because of a stronger power – they saw it as Natural Order. In this regard, the Cherokee removal can be seem a precedence for the Mexican “removal”.
Despite this however, White Americans seemed to make a concerted effort to “respect” – even if in a small way – the land rights of the Native American Cherokee. Creating a deliberate Federal policy to relocate usurped Indian populations before land acquisition. This was not the case when it came to the conflict with the Mexicans. Americans entered the region looking for conflict. Although there was argument that they need not use force, and that land and peace could be brought about merely through education and patience, the infiltrating American expansionists and indeed most of America, – contrary to how they initially acted with the Cherokee – were instilled with a certain righteousness and a firm belief in their “Manifest Destiny” to take the land, that the humanitarian approach sometimes shown to the Indians was lost among the cavalier White American population.
(Georgia Cleeland - 23385987)
It is apparent that there are several similarities between the Mexican- American War and the Cherokee Removal. Firstly, both the Mexicans and the Indians were seen as “barbaric”; in the sense that neither had made proper use of their land, but rather maintained their own “foreign” and somewhat “feminine” customs. Secondly both the Indian’s and Mexican’s were seen as less inferior in terms of race and gender. Thus it was a common American belief that it was their “Manifest Destiny” to seize the land and use it fully to their advantage. However a major difference between the two events was that the Cherokee had somewhat adopted to the American system, not only by mimicking their court system, but by converting to Christianity in hope of becoming useful and necessary in a “civilised society”. In contrast, the Mexican people did not assimilate to American culture or faith, but rather held on to their Catholic beliefs and way of life.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications for the removal of the Cherokee and the removal of the Mexicans were quite similar.Both removals were essentially a way of expanding Americas 'manifest destiny'of becoming the most powerful nation spreading their ideals of peace and democracy to the world.Although they considered both the Cherokee and the Mexicans to be in many ways inferior and no match to their civilisation, they did perceive them as a threat; those who would get in the way of their desire to 'utilise the land properly'. The Anglo-Saxon Americans believed that both the Cherokee and the Mexicans were lazy and had no drive to build cities and towns as the 'should' be doing.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee removal could indeed be seen as the precedence for the Mexican removal, as the order of history would show that the strong rule the weak. However the Cherokee removal was done with some respect towards the people with an organised relocation program before land acquisition; but the Americans went looking for war with the Mexicans and had no plans to help remunerate them for their loss.
(Sarah Booth-22701907)
The justifications for Cherokee Removal and for the Mexican-American War were very similar. The Cherokee Removal was as a result of the refusal of the Cherokee to move from the lands the Americans wanted. The main justifications for this removal was the desire to expand. As quoted in the lecture, the reason for the Mexican-American war was because of American foreign policy. However many justifications were used similarly to the Cherokee Removal. These included Americans believing the Mexicans were not using the land properly. The way I understand it, Mexican removal was bound to happen because of America’s interest in the land and strengthening its nation.
ReplyDeleteThough there were similarities in Cherokee and Mexican removals there were also considerable disparities. The Cherokees appeared more passive and open to assimilation whilst the Mexicans were hostile to the idea of giving up land and moving on. The important American ideal of 'manifest destiny' meant that in a sense WASP Americans took a generic approach to both groups in both how they were understood and to be treated. Either way both the Mexican and Cherokee populations and their rights were marginalised in favour of the desires of the white American people. America was looking to expand and whomever was in their way would be forced to be removed.
ReplyDelete