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).
Ideas of racial superiority were an underlying feature of both campaigns that highlighted America’s belief in its own exceptionalism. Denying the Cherokee the right to sovereignty and land ownership demonstrated American belief in the superiority of their own civilization and a refusal to recognise the legitimacy of others they considered inferior. Similar ‘justificatory racism’ carried through into the Mexican-American war where an image of the superior American civilization spreading across the continent and encountering numerous inferior races who were “doomed to permanent subordination or extinction” was pervasive. This campaign was depicted as the continuation of the greater American journey to spread civilization across the continent, which first came into full fruition during the Cherokee Removal.
ReplyDeleteCentral to the American belief in their own exceptionalism, were the key themes of racial superiority and commercial necessity, during the removal of the Cherokee and the Mexican-American War. The expression of Manifest Destiny in the eastward expansion for the Americans was a guise for the pervasive racial superiority that underlined and featured in the American psyche. Similarly, the Mexican-American War showcased the need to "guide" the Latin Americans to the apparent 'superior' method adopted by the Americans, suggesting that they were as a race unable to guide themselves. Moreover, both situations demonstrated an American requirement to feature their economical and commercial dominance in the region, as land and territory were pivotal to a booming economy.
ReplyDeleteAmerican belief in racial superiority justifying removal and annexation of the Cherokee and of Mexico have been well addressed by both Laura and Sean. However, a significant difference in position arises in the consideration of national sovereignty. Cherokee sovereignty was, at best, a contested issue; Mexican sovereignty was not, in fact, it was even acknowledged. Sean asserts that the concept of Manifest Destiny was a guise for the belief of racial superiority. Instead, the firm belief that it was their destiny to spread across the continent, validated by their success against the Cherokee could have acted to legitimise their disregard for national sovereignty and commitment to a war of aggression and greed, clothed as it may have been in statements of gender and race.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to find similarities in in the American justifications for the American-Mexican War with those used to implement the pogrom that was Cherokee Removal. President Polk and his pro-war contemporaries use a rhetoric of racial degradation against the Mexican people and the Spanish-Mexican and Indian cultures long established in the south west. This had very much been the case for the Cherokee subjected to Jacksonian policy just a decade earlier. Polk himself was considered Jacksonian in political nature and the Cherokee precedent would resonate in his thinking. Mexicans, as the Cherokee before them, were accused not using the land effectively, undeserving of places like California, and social inferiority to American modern and masculine society.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Native American Cherokee and Latin-American Mexican people were seen by “Anglo-Americans” to be racially and culturally inferior. The Cherokee people were considered primitive and savage, and incapable of ever assimilating with American society and republican ideals, while the Mexicans were considered effeminate and lazy. Both groups were accused of not taking proper advantage of the bountiful land they had been given, and as such the American nation felt justified in taking it. The great difference between the two conflicts, however, was what was done with the people whose land was taken by the U.S. While the Cherokee were sent as far away from American society as possible, the Mexicans of Texas and California were admitted to the United States, at least theoretically, as free and equal citizens.
ReplyDeleteWhat could be gathered when comparing the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War is that the similarities are a lot more obvious. The central notions used to justify both these events could be deduced upon ideas of racial superiority, the concept of Manifest Destiny, the need for land - to fulfil Manifest Destiny and that the ‘savages’ had no rights to the land because they were not using land ‘properly’. Similarly, both events are similar in that they contributed to the American project of westward expansion and that America gain land that they required for commercial necessity In both events, America portrays itself as the ‘dominant,’ ‘masculine’ country exercising power over the ‘submissive,’ ‘feminine’ race (which classifies both the Native Indians and Mexicans). However I do agree with what Vanessa stated above in that the American government treated both groups differently: one was invited into citizenship whereas the other was pushed away as far as possible.
ReplyDeleteAmerican justifications for Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were centralised around beliefs of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. It was commonly agreed that American Indian populations could never become 'civilised' and that they willingly remained ‘uncivilised’. A consensus was drawn that due to this nature they were unable to integrate into society as well as ineffectively use land productively. Similarly Central and Southern American native populations were viewed as lazy, ambitionless and almost savage in nature. They too were seen to be ineffective in cultivating the land, striving for prosperity or seeking civilised existence. Therefore to an extent we can understand the Cherokee removal as a precedent for Mexican removal. However the difference exists in the fact that the US did not recognise American Indian sovereignty on any of its territory, however with the American Mexican war there were clear geographical borders which the US sought to expand to continue its own westward expansion.
ReplyDeleteWhen Looking at both Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War similarities in justifications can be found Both were justified by a belief in the racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxon American race over both the Cherokee and the Mexicans. In both cases the whites were seen as dominant masculine and superior to the effeminate and submissive Cherokee and Mexican peoples. Another similarity was the justification that American expansion would bring civilisation to the new area that while not under American control, were controlled by savage races. The claiming of the land by the United States would also ensure that there was proper use of the land by their definition, and that while the inferior races remained on the land it was being wasted.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, the primary justification provided by the American authorities for both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War was Anglo-American racial superiority, which gave them the right to remove them from their lands so that they could be occupied by the new nation. However, it is too simple to suggest that both groups were necessarily viewed as the submissive ‘other’ to the same degree because one removal was undertaken in a largely peaceful relocation, whereas the other a full-scale conflict. It is interesting to note that it was the Cherokees who the authorities approached with caution and removed with a certain degree of respect, while the Latin Americans, who they viewed as lazy and unproductive, were confronted with violence without negotiation.
ReplyDeleteAmerica’s belief in Manifest Destiny and doctrine of “proper use of land” underpinned both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war. As Ronald Satz suggests, the Cherokee Removal was motivated by the desire for the growth, unity, and security of white America, which saw itself as racially superior to the primitive Cherokee people. Similarly, the Mexicans were perceived as innately inferior due to their apparent laziness and lack of masculinity, traits that stood in stark contrast to the enterprising white America. Ultimately, both campaigns were characterised by America’s belief that its own Anglo-Saxon people were destined and entitled to possess the continent, as their superior character positioned them better than the Cherokees or Mexicans to develop the fanciful ‘great experiment of liberty’.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal and Mexican-American War can both be understood through the idea of "Manifest Destiny", fuelled and justified through racial grounds. However, while the two conflicts have similarities, there are important differences in their foundation. Mexican-American War was started due to what was a border conflict following the annexation of Texas. In contrast, the Cherokee Removal was more based around the concept of removing Native Americans from the United States themselves. This is not something that the US did with Mexican natives in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War. The similarities are there, but there are fundamental differences between the two conflicts, as they are much more detailed issues than a simple racial superiority belief.
ReplyDeleteAmerican policies driving westward expansion in the mid-19th century reflected their societal organisation. A white, wealthy and male-centric body politic viewed the Native Americans and Mexicans as second-class citizens as they were of an inferior civilisation. Products of the Enlightenment period and subscribers to a degree of Lockean political philosophies, (typically North-Eastern) Americans dismissed the ways in which these two groups made use of their land. To them, claims to land were most salient when they were being farmed, or put to productive use in other ways. Such thinking, along with racial and gender subordination, show the similarities between these two campaigns.
ReplyDelete(Michael Kendra)
The superiority of the US was the underlying factor in their decision to engage in war with Mexico and remove the peoples of the Cherokee nation during the nineteenth century. As Horsman states, “it was generally believed in the US that a superior American race was destined to shape the destiny of much of the world”, that because they were more dominant and more advanced they were entitled to displace people of other races and cultures. In both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War, numerous references were made to the effeminate nature of these people, they were considered lazy and soft, savage and childlike and this validated American claims over their lands. They saw that in both cases the land was not being utilised to its full potential and in order for this to occur Americans must possess it.
ReplyDeleteIn both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican American war, notions of racial - and thus cultural -superiority were integral to the Justification of America’s actions. The idea of the ‘Anglo-American’ character as hardworking and entrepreneurial was used to support claims that the ‘inferior’ races were incapable of making proper use of the land. However, the portrayal of the ‘character’ of the Cherokee and Mexicans show some notable differences. While the Indians are conceptualised to as ‘children’, the Mexicans are presented as effeminate adults. Due to this, the Cherokee were judged to be unsuitable as citizens, as they lacked cultural maturity. In contrast, the Mexicans were granted citizenship, as their culture was marginally better, and simply needed to be exposed to the masculinity of American civilisation in order to be corrected.
ReplyDeleteThe forceful removal of the Cherokee peoples from their land and the further expansion of American territory through violence in the Mexican-American War can be seen as separate events which had the same end result, but were undertaken through different means. Seeing the West as an avenue for the growth of their burgeoning nation, both the Cherokee and Mexicans were victims of an American land grab for natural resources and territory to sustain a growing population; an expansion which was regarded as possible and even natural by the widely held attitudes on nation and race which pervaded into policy making at the time. In this way, though the Mexican territory was taken by armed forces and the Cherokee removed ‘peacefully’ (although still forcefully), both expansions were made possible by the perceived superiority of the American people’s race, religion, culture, political system and overall way of life, and justified through the rhetoric of ‘Manifest Destiny’ and exceptionalism.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe conduct of Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were justified similarly. Considered racially inferior, it was the American exceptionalist mentality that primarily motivated these events. As well as this, it was very much the mentality of Americans at the time that they should spread their civilisation and culture across the continent. It was believed that neither the native Indians or the Mexicans were utilising their land fruitfully, therefore Americans were entitled to exhibit their economic prowess in the region instead. Both events most significantly illustrate the economic advancements that the Americans were making at the time, and their perceived need for greater and greater expansion.
ReplyDelete