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).
The removal of both Cherokee and Mexican residents from the United States' annexed territories bear significant similarities in their justification, but differ in implementation.
ReplyDeleteA distinct overtone of racial superiority was employed in both cases, with proponents of removal arguing that certain cultural behaviours of the locals amounted to distinct racial inferiorities. These attitudes were used to justify the superiority of both the American structural system, as well as the qualities of the individual American himself.
Where the two removals differ is their implementation; many opponents of the Mexican-American War's armed aggression may well have agreed to the Cherokee Removal some decades earlier, through the means (however unjust) of purchase and treaty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteParallels can be drawn in analysing the justifications behind the Cherokee Removal and Mexican-American War when one speculates on racial hierarchy and economic agendas. Since both Mexicans and American Indians were perceived through an Anglo-Saxon lens, the races were considered savage and childlike which validated American claims over their lands. Similarly, American expansion propagated the notion of ‘proper land use’ in both Georgia and Texas, justifying the seizure of land from undeserving foreigners.
ReplyDeleteDespite such commonalities, Cherokee removal ceases to act as the precursor for Mexican cession to some degree, for the manner in which the Mexican cession was approached proved more violent than the negotiations between the Cherokee leaders and United States government leading to the Treaty of New Echota in 1835. Moreover, the sexualisation of Latin America utilised to conceptualise and thus justify conquest differs largely from attempts to assimilate the Cherokee nation into American civilisation.
Andrea Lau.
The justifications for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were very similar. There was a definite racial element involved in both. In both cases the Americans positioned their opponents as “uncivilised”, the Cherokees and other Indian tribes were termed “savages” while the Mexicans were described as lazy, ignorant and thieves. Both the Cherokees and the Mexicans were also deemed unfit to possess the land they currently lived on.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans in both cases argued that the land was not being utilised to its full potential and in order for this to occur Americans must possess it. Many of the same justifications that had been used earlier for Cherokee removal were applied to the Mexicans and despite some differences the Cherokee removal seems to have set a precedent for acceptable American behaviour.
Jack Matthews
22647589
One of the most important parallels between the removal of the Indians and the Mexicans is that of 'racial superiority' that was in the minds of the most Americans. In the view of many white people of America, neither the Indians, nor the Mexicans made proper use of the land and this was a a major justification of their removal. Whether by being uncivilised as is the case for the Indians or simply lazy as the Mexicans were viewed, neither group were utilising the land in the way that white Americas would have used the land, perhaps due to their lack of 'education' - and therefore were inferior. This ties in with the American desire for more land - or in other words expanding their territory for the growth of White America. This in turn ties in with the theme of Manifest Destiny - in O'Sullivan's view it was the United States inevitable destiny to spread 'civilisation' across the whole continent.
ReplyDeleteThe main differences in their removal lay in military terms. The negotiations between the United States government and some Cherokee leaders was generally peaceful whereas the acquisition of Mexican land was done through warfare. However, the aftermath of the Treaty of New Echota proved to be a disaster due to the immense loss of life during the Trail of Tears. The difference lies in the acquisition and removal through purchase as opposed to warfare.
The Cherokee Removal and the displacement of Mexican residents as a result of the Mexican-American War share similarities in their justification, yet differ in their actualization.
ReplyDeletePrimarily, the notion of “Anglo-Saxon” superiority over other racial groups played a significant role in both cases of removal. Anglo-Saxon Americans believed that they had a greater claim to the lands of Native Americans and Mexicans due to their racial superiority that had brought about not only a more distinguished political system, but also a greater capacity to use the land in an effective way. Furthermore, the perceived savage and uncivilized nature of the Cherokee and Mexicans also fed into the idea that Americans had a greater claim to the land, as both groups were seen as lazy and ineffectual regarding the management of their resources.
However, whilst in many ways the Cherokee Removal was a precedent for the invasion into Mexican lands due to the racial undertones of both events, the main difference between both “removals” is in the way in which they were actualized. Most notably, the violent nature of the Mexican-American War differs greatly to the relatively peaceful negotiation process of Cherokee removal.
Jessica Cutter
As the justifications for Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were similiar, we can understand Cherokee Removal as setting a precedent for the Mexican "removal", however there were distinctive differing attitudes towards Cherokees and Mexicans and thus the Americans responded differently to each.
ReplyDeleteRacial prejudices were present in American attitudes in relation to both the Cherokee and the Mexicans. The citizens of the United States held a common belief in white superiority; their definition of race was not in skin colour but in character and consequently they viewed Anglo-Saxons as predominant and at the top of the racial hierarchy. This is evidenced in their violent reaction to Mexicans juxtaposed with the America-British control in Oregon, which resulted in negotiations with Britain, rather than war. Another similiarity which set a precedent was the strongly held belief in a 'proper use of the land' as defined by Americans. They believed that unless land was being used to its fullest potential (farming, etc) it was being wasted and they saw both the Cherokees and Mexicans doing this. There was also the ever-present fear that the land could be bought and taken over by a European superpower.
Despite these similarities, attitudes towards the Cherokee and Mexicans were different. While Americans viewed Mexicans as being slightly better than the Cherokee in terms of race, they imposed on them an effiminacy and sexualisation that in the end justified their military action. In the case of the Cherokee Removal, the States went about it in a more subtle way; justifying it with a humanistic viewpoint, that they would be better off moving to the other side of the country. Attempts of assimiliation were also present in Cherokee society, unlike that of the Mexicans. However, the main distinctive difference in the two was the way in which the States' decision to overrun each country was enacted. There is a vast contrast between the violent aggression used against the Mexicans and the acquirement of land through negotiation with the Cherokee leaders that took place. Though cruelty was eventuated in the Trail of Tears where thousands died, the warfare later implemented against the Mexicans was absent.
The justifications used in the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war had some similarities. Both were argued as an inevitable consequence of racial superiority, that the white American’s were entitle to the respective lands as a more ‘civilised’ people, as well as for economic reasons, where the same white Americans could make better use of the land, and gain more from it financially. However there are also important differences in the justifications of the two events. While the Mexican-American war was a conflict between nations, with America intent on acquiring more land, the Cherokee removal was more of a compromise (albeit an unfair one) moving the Indians supposedly to ‘protect’ them.
ReplyDeleteThe removal of the Cherokee and the Mexican’s from their respective lands have many parallels, the most obvious being the overwhelming racism from the white American population. In both situations the American population believed that the natives were far inferior and not using the land properly. They believed that both the Indians and Mexicans were savages unworthy of such fruitful lands. When the American’s removed the Cherokee’s they did set some precedence for the Mexican war (such as claiming new territory due to racial views), however the way in which the two sets of people were removed, were drastically different. The Indians were removed through tireless passive aggressiveness while the Mexicans were attacked and harassed. Channing believed that the American population was ‘destined to ... overspread North America’ and in both situations, it showed how aggressive America was willing to be, in order to expand their empire.
ReplyDeleteThe justification for the annexation of Mexican and Cheokee land was consistent with the prevalent American ideologies of the manifest destiny of white American men to rule the continent. The similarities in rationalising the two events were the racial assumptions of the inferiority of both Indians and Central Americans in their perceived lack of enterprise and their inability to properly use the land. This was a racial assumption but also an economic justification for exploiting the land for profit.
ReplyDeletePresident Jackson's justification of the Cherokee removal differed in some important ways to the proponents of the Mexican-Amercian War. Jackson and others justified the Cherokee removal in a "humanitarian" way in an attempt to have this passed through a hostile house or representatives. In contrast, Polk justified the Mexican-American War purely on nation-building grounds. The annexation of Mexico was promoted as an extension of the Confederation, whereas the removal of the Cherokees was using the land that Georgia and President Jackson in particular already considered theirs. The other major difference was the feminisation of Mexicans, an assumption that was not as common when discussing Indians. This perceived masculine superiority allowed the U.S to justify their bullying use of force in the Mexican-American War.
Campbell Bews
The Cherokee and Mexican removal were justified similarly, although implemented in contrasting methods. The blatant racism directed towards both groups was the underlying justification for removal. It was believed that both groups lacked the knowledge and capability to properly utilize their land and therefore needed to be freed from the burden of occupying it. Add to this the gold found on Cherokee land and the belief that is was their Manifest Destiny to occupy and civilize the entire American continent, and removal became entirely justifiable to Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe implementation of the removal of the Cherokee and Mexican peoples is where the differences lie. Primarily, the difference is the method of death to both populus after their lands were taken. For the Cherokee, they lost lives in the journey from their lands to the other side of the MIssissippi, as well as those executed for being signatories to the Treaty of New Echota. However, the United States believed it was their land that the Mexicans had settled on, and therefore Congress declared war after American blood had been shed on American soil.
Even though both removals were justified similarly, the relationship post-removal was different between the Cherokee/Mexicans and the Americans. The Cherokee were given funds, land and support for settlement whereas the Mexicans were given a cash payout and lost significant areas of fertile lands and were not given any more in which to settle.
Alexandra Nelson (23378182)
I think the justifications of the removal of the Cherokee and the Mexican-American War was mostly similar. The issue of the proper use of land and the superiority of the American states were in both cases the same.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference was, that before the Cherokee Removal, the American government tried to civilise and educate the Native Americans and made the attempt to integrate them into American Society whereas the Mexicans were marked stupid, ignorant and backward and the integration would have, in their opinion weakened the American Race and was therefore not possible.
The Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war were both the product of an overwhelming belief of white American superiority and the inevitability associated with Manifest Destiny. In that respect, the justifications used for each event are relatively similar. It is the attitude and arrogant execution of American forces in overtaking Texas and expelling Cherokees that carries an underlying theme of immediate ownership and entitlement. The important differences between the Cherokee removal and Mexican ‘removal’ are the ways in which they were executed. The more ‘gentle’ approach taken towards the Native Americans (including the opportunity for assimilation) was not granted to the Mexicans, whom were treated with violence and aggression.
ReplyDeleteMadeleine Mulcahy
22617256
The justification for the removal of the Cherokee and Mexican people by the United States have several similarities. The notion of racial superiority which permeated the United States was a significant in justifying the annexation and removal of the Cherokee and Mexicans from their land. The American’s identified and conveyed the Cherokees and Mexicans as savages, uncivilized and effeminate the opposite of themselves to strengthen their claim to the land by concept of right by nature. This notion of right to the land was furthered by the American’s conception of proper use of land, deeming the Mexican’s and Cherokee’s use of the land was improper and not being used to its full potential, removing their right to the land. The justification however differed on the core concepts Jackson established the motivation of Cherokee removal as a ‘Humanitarian’ effort, whereas Polk indicated the Mexican removal as an expansionist pursuit.
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that the Cherokee removal set a precedent for the Mexican removal by establishing a set of beliefs and justification for the removal of people for the land such as the notions of the proper use of land and concepts of racial superiority. However, the execution seems to indicate a precedent was not set as the Americans pursued to different approaches choosing to buy the land from the Cherokees and resettling them, while in the Mexican removal undertaking a more aggressive approach.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTwo important similarities can be identified in the justification for both the Cherokee removal and the Mexcican cession. Firstly, both were accused of improper use of the land, thus the 'inherently industrious and hard working' American was entitled to it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the Anglo-Saxon believed himself to be racially superior, to both the American Indian and the Mexican. The Indian was a 'savage,' a 'child of the forrest' and predetermined by race to be inherently uncivilised. The Mexican was both 'lazy and feminine.'
Although the practical implementation of their expansion differed greatly in the two cases, I believe that the Cherokee removal provided a precedent for the Mexican cession.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe period of Union expansion brought with it certain similarities between events. The Cherokee Removal of 1836 and Mexican American War a decade later saw similarities in the rhetoric and justifications used. The rhetoric of racial superiority was used to justify both, claiming that neither population was able to correctly use land to its full capabilities. This reasoning fed into the larger narrative of Manifest Destiny, a theory coined by John L. O’Sullivan who claimed the US was on a larger mission to save the old world and its superiority and spread was inevitable due to its belief and promotion of democracy and the word of God. To a lesser extent, both events were claimed to be a returning of what was rightfully part of the Union, the US believing the territories were theirs anyway. The difference between the two however is the execution, one resulting in conflict and the deaths of roughly 30,000 people and the other a financial arrangement.
ReplyDeleteThere are many similarities that can be drawn between the Cherokee removal and the US-Mexican War. Both acts were viewed by many Americans as a form of Manifest Destiny, that the lands possessed by the Mexicans and the Cherokees was to one day pass into the hands of the Americans, one way or another. The nature of the acquisition of these lands differed from one another quite significantly, however. Although it was clear that the Cherokees had no desire to leave their lands, they were compensated, that is to say, their lands were purchased, and they were promised lands west of the Mississippi. After failing to agree on a purchase price for Mexican lands, they were seized by force by the Americans. The justification for the seizure of lands on both parts was what Americans thought was inappropriate use of lands inhabited by Native Americans and Latin Americans. They were not considered as reaping the full benefit of the lands they possessed, therefore they were wrong to possess them. The Americans also used pseudo scientific and racial reasons to judge these two peoples as simultaneously savage, effeminate and brutish. These beliefs held by the Americans then made it easy to strip any Cherokee or Mexican form of government of its legitimacy. In a sense, the Cherokee removal formed a precedent for the US-Mexican war, as both can be understood as forms of Manifest Destiny, and the lands of both peoples were annexed against their will.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War had similar justifications and rhetoric based on both racial and gender hierarchies. Nevertheless the implementation of the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican annexation largely differ.
ReplyDeleteBoth Mexican and Cherokee peoples were perceived as inferior to the Anglo-Saxon race. The Cherokee were professed as uncivilized and the Mexican as ignorant, lazy and degrading. Further Mexicans, particularly women, were sexualized and the conflict with America was the exertion of American masculinity. Both were seen as unsuitable to fully take advantage of the land, or ‘proper land use’ as Richard Henry Dana termed it. Thus it was the right of the Anglo-American to expand and take the land for their superior use within the wider context of the Manifest Destiny.
The Cherokee removal in 1836, although resulted in thousands of deaths on the Trail of Tears, was relatively non-violent between the two parties. Further, assimilation between the Cherokee and the Anglo-American was initially attempted; for instance several Cherokee were slave-owners. In contrast, the annexation of Mexico a decade later was a violent and bloody war, with no assimilation attempted.
While the circumstances of the Mexican-American War and the Cherokee Removal were different both exhibited similar justifications from the United States. In both cases there was a clear racial element to the justification of land acquisition; the Cherokee and the Mexican’s were seen as racially inferior and considerably less civilised than the Americans. The Americans also justified the removal of the two races from their lands with the reasoning that neither culture was putting the land to good use, and instead letting it go to waste in such a way that would not occur if the United States were to populate the land. In these ways the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War share similarities of justification, but the differences of the method of removal and the differing interactions between the ‘other’ race and the United States prior to the U.S conquest of the land mean that to see the Cherokee Removal as a precedent for Mexican ‘removal’ is to simplify the issue.
ReplyDeleteThere is a strong thread running through the presidential rhetoric from Jackson to Polk when explaining the expansion of the United States. Both presidents perceived their respective acts of expansion (Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War), as another step in the process of national growth. Explanations along these lines were sufficient to justify their acts to those who were involved in the political process. While the specific circumstances differed, both events relied upon notions of racial and cultural superiority amongst white elites. Thus, while it may be going too far to claim that the removal of the Cherokee served as a “precedent” for the Mexican-American War, both events undoubtedly resulted from the same set of beliefs and assumptions about the ‘other’ inhabitants of the North American continent.
ReplyDelete