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).
Analogies could be drawn between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War given that both involved the government sanctioned removal of the existing inhabitants for the purpose of US expansion. Many of the justifications utilised in the Cherokee Removal were again reiterated in the Mexican-American war, for instance the notion of the United States’ racial superiority. Both Jackson and O’Sullivan’s speeches alluded to the same determinist justification that it is only natural that one race will supersede the inferior race and, as the superior race, they were merely following the natural process. The inhabitants’ unproductive use of the land was also used in both events to justify US acquisition. However, in justifying the acquisition of Mexico as ‘taking back’ what the US had surrendered in the 1818 treaty, this sense of entitlement to the land distinguished the Mexican acquisition from the Cherokee Removal.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications used for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were in many ways similar. In both events the notion that the United States was a superior race of peoples was used to support the expansion. For instance, the American Indians were portrayed as barbaric and uncivilised, whereas the Mexicans were depicted as uneducated, backward and feminine. The expansions were also justified on the basis that neither the American Indians or the Mexicans were making proper use of fertile lands. Furthermore, both events evince a clear desire to expand the United States' territory and a belief that such a move would help the spread the values of civilisation and freedom. As such, the Cherokee removal can be viewed as a precedent for the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteSignificant similarities can be seen in the justifications used in the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. Justifications for both the former and the latter were underpinned by the ideology of American superiority above the inferior races of both the Indians and the Mexicans. This perceived inferiority is linked to the notion of the ‘proper’ use of the land. Both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War were partially justified by this concept that land could be acquired if it was not being utilised in the most beneficial way possible. The Indians were seen as ‘savages’ who were inherently incapable of civilisation, and thus the acquisition of their land by the Americans could be justified in their journey to spread civilisation westward in the name of ‘Manifest Destiny’. A similar justification was used in regards to the Mexicans, who were labelled as incapable of the proper use of the land due to their perceived laziness. Thus the Cherokee removal can be understood as a precedent for Mexican removal.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans displayed a similar mentality in both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war; in accordance with the notion of manifest destiny, they saw themselves as racial superiors who were destined to prosper ahead of inferior groups. This mindset allowed them to easily find justifications for invasion which might otherwise appear dubious. They viewed the subsistence lifestyles of both the Cherokees and the Mexicans as slothful and lazy, failing to realise the full potential of the land they inhabited. So while the two conflicts were different in terms of the nature of the fighting, and the motivation for fighting (i.e. removal of locals vs reclamation of former territory), the the justifications used for the initiation of conflict were similar.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee were encouraged to civilize, to farm and become educated. This would apparently justify their existence as a state and the holding of land on the American continent. Many supporters of Cherokee removal deemed the Cherokees unable to do this and thus they did not deserve the land. They were racially inferior and were unable to match the productivity and civilization of the American citizens, thus the land by rights should be handed over to those who would use it best.
ReplyDeleteA similar argument is put forward when discussing war with Mexico. Latin Americans are shown by primary sources to be perceived as racially inferior. They are seen to be lazy and unproductive. The land, if it were to remain in their possession, would be wasted. This is a very similar argument and shows continuity from the justification for Cherokee removal.
If not directly used as a precedent, it was a well tried argument that was first used to justify Cherokee removal and then the Mexican War.
Many similarities in justifying these two events can be drawn from both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war. Although the Cherokee’s were presented as much more savage and animal-like, the Mexicans had been characterized by the US in an analogous manner, as uneducated, uncivilized and lazy. This was based on 'Manifest Destiny', the idea that the United States were superior a race. These notions pressed expansion of the American civilisation and the justifications used in the Cherokee removal created a perfect precedent for the 'removal' of the Mexican people.
ReplyDeleteThe ‘improper use of land’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon racial-character superiority’ (as mentioned in above posts) were both major justifications for the US expansion into Cherokee and Mexican territory. I would like to add that the Cherokee Removal was very much carried out with the pretenses of ‘humanitarianism’ and ‘legality’, whereas it appears that the Mexican territory takeover was much more assertive and hostile, in line with the developing masculine/dominant identity of the States. I would suggest that the Cherokee Removal was indeed a precedent, if somewhat more tentative, for the Mexican removal and for the increasingly aggressive march towards ‘Manifest Destiny’.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments supporting the Mexican-American War and the Cherokee Removal are quite similar in so much as they are a mixture of Social Darwinism and paternalism towards those peoples considered inferior. Andrew Jackson argued that the removal of the Cherokees would give them a chance to become a “civilized and Christian community”, while John L. O’Sullivan thought that the annexation of Texas would lead to a decline in slavery. Mixed in with these humanitarian-sounding views was a belief that certain races would be “exterminated” and that countries like Mexico had only “artificial” autonomy. By treating Native Americans as uncivilized savages unworthy of rights, it was quite easy for the US to do the same to Mexico.
ReplyDeleteSince both Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were essentially pursued with the expansionist intention of seizing land for the Union’s growing population, it seems apt that both were couched in terms of manifest destiny and the Americans’ racial superiority. The Anglo-Saxon Americans were the enlightened race, destined to bring civilisation to the Americas; the Cherokees and Mexicans were brandished as backward and barbaric peoples, incapable of properly cultivating the fertile land they occupied. Interestingly, Cherokee removal was often presented as a benevolent policy, providing the uncivilised Cherokees a higher chance of survival. While the Monroe Doctrine encouraged America to ‘mother’ the hapless South Americans, the pro-War arguments were comparatively more hostile in tone. Writings legitimising the War were completely dismissive of Latin American manhood, their political government, and even fed off of America’s anti-Catholic hysteria by contrasting the Protestant, Anglo-Saxon work ethic with the laziness of the Catholic Mexicans. This aggression had a political reasoning. For many Americans, Texas rightfully belonged to the Union, and the unwillingness of the Mexicans to recognise this justified the use of force against them.
ReplyDeleteThere are various similarities that can be drawn from the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. America believed that Mexicans and Indians lacked ambition to cultivate the land, which gave them justification to take it from them in order to make better use of it. The two moments in American history are also similar because America perceived the two different races as inferior to Anglo-Saxon, which gave them more motivation to take the land off the natives as they felt it was justified through their race superiority. Their feeling towards race superiority is evident as they identify the Indians as "savage" and Mexicans as lazy, ignorant and feminine. These similar justifications were all reasons that justified American expansion and their "Manifest Destiny."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey were different wolves in the same clothing. The policy of Cherokee removal was regarded by its strongest proponents as a humanitarian process aside from their perceived 'manifest destiny'. Retaliation to a threat of sovereignty was ultimately the US justification for the war in Mexico, albeit a specious one. Yet - both policies were implemented with the intent to satisfy the US's appetite for expansion. Both policies were symptomatic of attitudes of racial superiority and the justification for them was enabled by bringing in gender arguments that denigrated and disenfranchised the local population.
DeleteThe state sanctioned actions against the Cherokee and Mexican populations were both justified primarily through the use of gender and racial hierarchies. Through the labelling of the Cherokee as ‘savages’, the American government were able to frame their actions in a humanitarian fashion, as acting for the benefit of a population incapable of making such a decision. Similarly in Mexico, the reduction of the population to merely labels of brute strength, and lustful women, implied a lack of intelligence and of decision-making capabilities.
ReplyDeleteThese events similarly highlight the widely held belief in American ‘manifest destiny’, and regard for the ‘proper use of the land’, that American had the inherent right to expand into land that was not being used to the standards they established. In this way, the Cherokee Removal can be interpreted as a precedent for the Mexican-American War, where the successful manipulation of national beliefs and racial hierarchies were used to undermine a foreign population, and enable the primary goal of U.S. expansion.
There were numerous similarities in the justifications behind Americas Cherokee Removal policiy, and its entering into the Mexican-U.S War. Firstly, America saw itself as racial superior to both the Mexicans and the Native Americans. Their claim was based on the belief that those of Anglo-Germanic ancestry were inherently superior to any others, especially those of non-European descent. The gave evidence to this in the form of Americans having a large head size than the Indians or Mexicans, which they believed proved superiority. Furthermore, America believed itself more civilized and masculin than the Indians and Mexicans. They justification behind the Cherokee Removal stated that the Inidans lacked the motivation to cultivate their land, and thus this land would be better utilized in the hands of Americans.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to the justification they gave to the Mexican-U.S war in which America believed that Mexico was such a naturally abundant country, that it provided everything a man would ever need to survuve. As such they claimed that Mexican peoples were lazy and effeminate, and lacked the strength that taming harsh land brought. Furthermore Americans believe that they were once again racially superior to the Mexican people, and that Mexico had no right to stand in the way of America's supposed 'Manifest Destiny'.
These methods of diminishing the Indians and Mexicans to 'uncivilized savages' gave the American government enough justification to seize the ancestral land of the Cherokee, and to (through war) annex over a third of the Mexican Territory, and to pave the way for further U.S expansion into the West.
There 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