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).
Both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were in part justified by the concept of ‘best use’ – the idea that land could be appropriated from inferior races if its resources were not being utilised for their maximum benefit. President Jackson in his address speaks of a universal ‘philanthropy’ that is achieved from supplanting the Native Americans. This is because the Natives merely maintain the land as a vast “forest” whilst the Americans create “cities, towns and prosperous farms” with the space. Similarly, the perception of Mexicans as listless served to justify the occupation of their territory. Described as “beggars on gold stools,” Americans believed that innate laziness made it impossible for Mexicans to convert their ample resources into any kind of successful civilization. As such, these squandered assets could be justly seized by the Americans, as long as they were put to a better use.
ReplyDeleteThe 'proper use of the land' argument is prominent in both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War; which is largely based on racial characteristics that Americans deemed inferior, fixed and generalised to their respective populations. The idea that 'civilisation' could not be learned by these groups was a major justification for both expansions. The Cherokee removal can be considered a precedent to an extent, however, Mexico was (and is) an established sovereign republic at the time this occurred whereas the Cherokee's lands were never universally accepted as belonging to the Cherokees.
ReplyDeleteIn both the Mexican-American War and Cherokee Removal, notions of racial inferiority and hence the doctrine of ‘proper use of the land’ were used to justify America’s actions. ‘Proper use of the land’ suggested that as Mexicans and Cherokees were uncivilised and savage, they could not possibly put the land to such good use as the enterprising, Anglo-Saxon Americans, and thus America deserved those lands. Manifest Destiny, the belief that it was America’s fate to expand westward across the entire continent, also played a role in both situations. However, there are significant differences. The Cherokees removal was promoted as resulting in less contact between them and Americans; the Mexican-American War, on the contrary, raised questions about having to absorb a ‘lesser’ race and concerns about America being corrupted by it. Furthermore, the fact that Mexico was recognised as a fellow republic by the US, thus requiring a trigger and a war to take the lands, whereas Cherokee claims to their own nation and constitution were rejected by the state of Georgia in 1827, seems to suggest that though some justifications were similar the Cherokee removal was not really a precedent.
ReplyDeleteAmerica's territorial gain in Louisianna and parts of Texas and California were similarly justified by the government because leading government officials considered the ‘Anglo Saxon’ Americans as a superior race to both the Cherokees and Mexicans. By superior race many Americans' believed that their culture promoted industrious workers and efficient users of land, and a race that was smarter and more advanced in arts, science and technology. On the other hand the Cherokees and Mexicans were considered as uncivilized, lazy, unproductive farmers/users of their land, and generally less intelligent. I think the Cherokee Removal certainly paved the way for future acquisition of land by making it a less radical or new idea for future decision makers to use racial justification. However the difference in the land acquisition was that the Cherokees’ land was taken more humanely and peacefully than the Mexican. Subsequently the ‘size’ of the moral and verbal backlash from these acquisitions reflected the manner in which they were acquired. (written by Austin Van Strijp)
ReplyDeleteThe comparison of Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War is predominately based on the idea of race and the superiority in which American Anglo-Saxon males viewed themselves over other ‘inferior’ races. The grounds in which Americans made their claims for removal of the Cherokee was not limited to race alone, Americans also claimed that the Cherokee did not make ‘proper use of the land’ thus confirming Americas claims to expansion. This argument of ‘proper use of land’ can be understood as a precedent for Mexican “removal” as it further justified the Mexican-American war as legitimate as America pursued greater expansion.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War revolve around the idea of masculine superiority that the American Anglo-Saxon population held. In their eyes, the Mexicans were effeminate savages- simply beneath the Americans. As such, the territorial gain from the Cherokees in Louisiana, and Texas from the Mexicans was justified as necessary in order to ensure the proper use of the land.
ReplyDeleteIt can certainly be said that the successful removal of the Cherokees from their land inflamed the sense of American superiority, and played a role in the idea of 'manifest destiny'- the idea that America was destined to expand westward across the whole content.
There are some important distinctions between the two conflicts. The Cherokees were partly removed to ensure there was less contact between them and the Americans. The Cherokees were not recognised as a nation. On the other hand, the Mexicans were an established sovereign state. This resulted in a war between the two nations over parts of Texas.
Justifications for both the Cherokee removal and Mexican-American War were based upon notions of perceived superiority in race and culture, centered around the ability to put land to good use. These arguments also reflected the principles of Manifest Destiny: that the United States was predestined to expand across the American continent. In 1830 President Andrew Jackson evoked the imagery of an expanding and progressive Anglo-Saxon republic, gaining the full potential of the land, to justify the removal of the Cherokee, mere ‘savage hunters’. Similarly in 1845 President Polk justified the acquisition of Texas by stating that expansion, a right of the United States, would inevitably strengthen the Union through the ‘triumphs of industry’ of her peoples. Pseudo-scientific racist attitudes towards Latin Americans, considered lazy and effeminate, informed and strengthened the cause for war.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican American War were justified in terms of racial, social and cultural superiority. American Indians were seen as inferior because they did not cultivate their land as Anglo Saxon Americans did, and thus were removed on the pretext that they did not legally own the land or use it to its full and proper potential. Similarly, many Mexicans were seen as “lazy” and “violent”, and did not make full use of Mexico’s rich resources. In this sense both the Indians and Mexicans were viewed as “uncivilised”, and thus had less right to their land than the industrious Americans. However whereas the Texans were invited to join the Union, the American Indians were deliberately excluded both socially and politically, and this marks an important difference in the way each group were viewed. As such Cherokee removal can only be considered a precedent for Mexican “Removal” in light of the racial prejudices held against both by the Americans-ultimately the Indians were denied their land, whereas the Mexicans were allowed to remain on theirs.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments used to justify both Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War are similar in that both seemed to revolve around the racial inferiority of the ‘removed’ culture and consequently the ‘proper use of land’. The Anglo-Saxon Americans believed both the Cherokees and the Mexicans to be lazy and less intelligent than themselves and that they were not making proper use of the land that they occupied. As a result, Americans believed themselves entitled to their lands.
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent Cherokee Removal can be seen as a precedent for the Mexican-American War. Arguments put forward for the seizing of Cherokee land seem to have been effective and these same arguments were later applied to the Mexicans. However, there were also were significant differences between the two situations. The Cherokees were not recognised as having a legitimate claim to their land while Mexico was recognised as a sovereign republic. Additionally, the manner through which land was acquired also differed.
I believe that the American Government’s attitudes to both Cherokees and Mexicans were based on 19th century ideas of white superiority, and also on the superiority of American republicanism in comparison with other forms of government. The reasons behind both were explained in different terms, but they are still built on these two ideas. The American Government justified Cherokee removal through its belief that Cherokees, being a supposedly ‘inferior’ race, could not adapt to a Western lifestyle, and they would therefore be better off somewhere far away from white settlement. Meanwhile, John L. O’Sullivan justified war against a Mexico because it “never can exert any real governmental authority over [itself]”.
ReplyDeleteThere are clearly drawn similarities between the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war. In both instances, the justification for interfering with the land and lifestyle of other cultures, the people living in territories America felt it could lay claim to, can be attributed to the idea of Americans as a superior race, who knew how to utilise the land better. However, the Cherokee Removal may not completely be seen as a precedent for the Mexican-American War, as the removal of Cherokees was initially through policies and legislation, whereas the initiation of the Mexican-American War was through military tactics. However, the attitude the American people held towards those they were conflicting with traces it's core belief to racial discrimination.
ReplyDeleteBoth racial inferiority and the concept of making ‘best use’ of the land motivated the Mexican-American War and the Cherokee Removal. The racial hierarchy that as used to racially demean those of Mexican descent reflects the racial element that drove the Mexican-American war. This is most apparent given that despite America’s differences with Britain, matters subsequent to the Revolution were resolved with compromise and discussion, as opposed the war with the Mexicans. Furthermore, the derogatory stereotypes that were attached to the Mexicans were used to validate the idea they the Mexicans were unable to make as effective use of the land as the ‘superior’ Anglo-Saxons. These same issues pervade the issue with the Cherokee people who were deemed ‘savage’ and unable to civilise the land. Moreover, through these criticisms about the inability of the Cherokee to make effective use of the land, the reoccurring racial factor that motivated the removal of the Indians is also evident.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments made to support Cherokee removal and the Mexican American war for the land of Texas were similar in nature and purpose. The ideas of racial hierarchy are clearly present in both instances, and in both cases the Americans see themselves as culturally and agriculturally superior to the opposing side, using this as a justification for taking ownership of the land so they can realise its full potential with their advanced farming techniques and culture. I do not believe that Cherokee removal is as much a precedent for the Mexican-American war as much as it is simply an early stage of the same process, that being the American expansion and the removal or destruction of the peoples that occupied the lands into which they wished to expand.
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.
ReplyDeleteI know this is a bit late but I will still comment. Both the Mexican American War and the Cherokee removal were driven by America's need to expand westward. Saying that the Mexican American War was the precedent for the Cherokee Removal is a stretch because the war didn't necessarily directly impact the Cherokee Removal. It was more that these two events just happened one after another. Something they did have in common, though, was the idea of American superiority over these other preoccupied races. Americans thought they could use the land more efficiently than the natives so they rationed it already belonged to them.
ReplyDelete