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).
Many arguments used for the Cherokee Removal were duplicated in the justification of the Mexican-American War. For example, the argument of superior civilisation and race, as well as the proper use of land were used in both episodes. Moreover, the concept of Manifest Destiny can be identified in both events, although the term was specifically introduced by John O’Sullivan.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the main difference between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War was that governmental policies, political decisions and negotiations pushed the Cherokee Removal into effect. On the other hand, force and warfare were the means to conquest and expansion in the latter situation.
The most significant difference between the Cherokee and Mexican expansions was the ways in which Americans perceived their "opponents." The Cherokee where considered by many as infantile and in need of nurturing (subjugation and subsequent removal). Latin Americans were also considered racially inferior, and although many pseudo-scientists considered them to be effeminate and lazy, their culture was undoubtedly the product of prior colonization efforts by the Aztec and Spanish empires. This complicated efforts to control Mexican territories and thus the language for expansion became a sexually inspired mission of annexing or dominating the land, in the same way an explorer might dominate a senorita, as opposed to the paternal methods used to coax the Cherokee from their lands.
ReplyDeleteCherokee removal and the Mexican-American war can be described as an example of some political steps to actually brand the US imperial future. The ever increasing population, demand for natural resources (e.g., particularly land), and a special mission of spreading freedom, liberty, and truth over other nations are the driving forces behind “removals”. Both of them were justified in terms of the race stating that Latin Americans and Indians were of inferior race and were uncivilised, in other words, no matter how Americans acquire the lands (by purchase or war), it should happen; as there is no place for uncivilised people in civilised America.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, in order to support the inferiority of corresponding races, they used scientific explanation (e.g, smaller heads, brains). Moreover, Cherokee removal can be considered as a precedent for Mexican “removal”. The case with Georgia clearly demonstrated that by any means, America should expand its boundaries. Although, in the speech of President James Polk one might find other explanations: “acquisition of the territory once her own” thus diminishing the chances of war and opening up new markets.
Overall, biopolitics was used as a justification for both removals, but no matter how you justify the war or removals, money and power are nearly all the time the goals of the nation.
Maria S. (22504079).
In many ways the "justifications" used to remove the Cherokee were not dissimilar to those which led to the Mexican-American war. In both cases, perceptions of the "other" race's cultural inferiority and effeminate nature were supported by the science of the time, which also dictated that as European-Americans had greater "manhood" they should treat native cultures with aggression. In both cases, the argument was made that seizing control of new regions would be a better use of land, and would endow greater peace, security and prosperity to the region. Additionally, the concept of Manifest Destiny was a driving force in both actions.
ReplyDeleteWhile one of the actions was imposed by law and the other by conflict, the removal of the Cherokee may be seen as a spiritual precursor of sorts to the Mexican-American war as they both represent America's attempts to assert dominance and widen it's influence. Additionally, as William E. Channing predicted, both events foreshadow spiritually-similar actions later taken by the United States. -
In many ways, although each conflict consisted of differing political aspects, the rationalisations on behalf of Americans for both going ahead with Cherokee removal and initiating the Mexican-American War were comparable. Tellingly, one of the primary justifications for the removal of Cherokees to west of the Mississippi River (predominantly from the state of Georgia) was the belief that the Native Americans were not exploiting the desirable land to its full potential, and were therefore undeserving of the territory. Similar reasoning was also given when a dispute broke out over the contested territory of Texas, with Latin Americans perceived as "lazy" and incapable of improving the land as most of the United States held the view that Anglo-Saxons were far superior to other races.
ReplyDeleteDominic Gallichio
22653392
When looking at the American justification of both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War, there are both similarities and differences. They viewed both the Cherokees and the Mexicans as less superior than themselves, therefore believed it would be okay (likely even their job) to take the land and ‘educate’ the lower races. A justification used for both was that neither group was utilising the land they occupied correctly, and therefore it was being wasted.
ReplyDeleteOne clear difference is the means that were used to ‘extract’ the Cherokees and Mexicans: the Cherokees were offered financial aid by the US government to relocate west, and the process was much more protracted as the Cherokees were allowed several years to come to a decision about the move. In contrast, the Mexicans were forced to give up over half their territory through military means after losing the war.
The Cherokee Removal can be seen as precedent for the Mexican ‘removal’, as similar beliefs and justifications were used in both (especially in relation to land and racial superiority).
Both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War was justified by the American government through racial inferiority, the concepts of “proper use of Land” and American expansion. The Cherokee removal set a precedent for the latter Mexican-American War in terms of politics, economics and race.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Cherokee removal differed in that there was no bloodshed and the land was sold and negotiated, aspects of the manifest destiny can be seen in both events as well as Americans views of superiority over the Cherokees and the Mexicans. These two groups were seen as ignorant and uncivilized, unparalleled to the American Society and thus were undeserving of the land they kept. The Mexican and Cherokee land were seen as undeveloped and misused, which gave the Americans ‘right’ to utilize the land for proper use
Whilst it was evident that the Cherokees were able to adapt into American Society (e.g., John Ross) Perhaps, the American government were concerned with their growing capacity, as they would no longer be seen as inferior and further the government would lose control over the Cherokee natives?
The arguments used to justify the Mexican-American War and the Cherokee Removal were in many ways the same, such as their supposed racial and cultural inferiority. Both were intended to secure greater areas of land and more natural resources for the growing population of the United States, and were based on the belief that the land being occupied by the groups was not being used properly, or to its full potential. The Cherokee Removal established a pattern of perceived racial inferiority leading to and justifying land deprivation that was seen again in the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications for Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War hold several similarities as they both occurred with the interest of American expansion. Both events were justified by the argument that the natives were not utilising the land to its full potential. Moreover, in both cases this justification was fueled by the belief of white racial superiority that consequently led to the assumption that white Americans were more deserving of the land and would make far more productive occupants. It is, however, crucial to acknowledge that the Cherokee Removal was administered through contracts and then force whereas the Mexican-American War was ignited through violence. Despite this, both events utilised similar rationalisations to justify American expansion and thus, the Cherokee Removal can be seen as a precedent for the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteSimilarities with the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War include the intentions and justification of both populations being of an inferior race and the view of vital productive yet wasted land. A perspective of differences attained included the Cherokee as savages yet the Mexicans of Spanish descent were seen at a slightly higher social class, although still labelled by scientists as lazy and ‘impotent.’ Interestingly the expansion into Mexican territories took on sexual connotations including a focus on the sexualised and lustful women. The warfare seen in Mexico was different in comparison to government policy and treaties along with paternalistic techniques used on the Cherokee people. I think the Cherokee removal was a precedent for Mexican ‘removal’ yet there were many differences including the attempt to ‘civilise’ and assimilate the natives while a vocal concern was raised in regards to the absorption of the Mexican population into American society. +
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal arose from the demands of Southern Farmers and Landowners whose desires of enterprise and economic progress were being hindered by the Indians. In economic terms, demand for fertile land was greater than its supply, and the land occupied by the Cherokees, was both fertile and frustratingly close for the Georgians. Attempts at assimilation did not solve the land issue for the Georgians, so, backed by a bullying Andrew Jackson, the Cherokee’s were moved west of the Mississippi. The removal, paraded as a caring gesture and the greatest opportunity for Indians to assimilate to the American way of life, set a precedent that encouraged Americans to believe that they had a duty to claim these lands and repurpose them more effectively. It was their manifest destiny to possess the continent, an “experiment of liberty,” and the Mexican removal was the second step in a process of greedy expansion.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee removal and the Mexican- American war were both justified on the concept of racial inferiority and the desire for American expansion. Both ‘removals’ highlight the inherent racism present within American society at the time, with the Cherokee’s and Mexicans seen as ‘inferior’ and ‘incapable’ in comparison to the far superior White American. This ‘White superiority’ was only further used to explain why the land was to be taken away from the Cherokee’s and the Mexican’s, as they were not using the land to its full potential.
ReplyDeleteWhilst the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican American war, were also justified on somewhat philanthropic terms, there are also key differences. The Cherokee removal was initially sought on policies, such as the policy of civilization and then later forceful removal, where as the removal of the Mexicans was initiated under violence and force of war. Despite the differences it is the similarities that these ‘removals’ share, such as the justification of racial inferiority, that shows that the Cherokee removal was a precedent for the Mexican- American war.
Similar reasoning was used to justify the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. American territory expansion is one such driving force that is present in both cases and was regarded by the government as necessary in order to accommodate an increasing population and growing industry. Also used as justification were American attitudes of superiority over the Cherokee and Mexican peoples, which they deemed to be uneducated, uncivilised and unworthy of residing in land desired by America. Furthering this notion, the American view that these inferior populations were not making proper use of the land contributed to the feeling that they deserved the land more than the Cherokee and Mexican occupiers.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal seemed to amplify the American desire to increase their territory, influence and supremacy, and America appeared to use the experience and the motivations and reasonings behind it in the Mexican-American War, despite the differing political situations and policies between the two cases.
Many of the justifications for Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were based on very similar ideals. Primarily, the justifications were based on racial inferiority toward the Cherokee and the Mexicans. President James Polk, labeled the Mexicans lazy, uneducated, ignorant and savage among other descriptions. The Cherokee were not necessarily labeled lazy, however the Americans certainly considered them to be uneducated and savage. The idea of properly using the land is also important in both instances. The American government believed that neither the Cherokee nor the Mexicans were properly using the land. The idea of manifest destiny also played an important role as many Americans believed they’re actions could ultimately benefit the Cherokee and the Mexicans.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were based on extremely similar ideals. These were predominantly racial and territorial. Exceptionalism has always been a key attribute of the US. This is seen in both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War through the racial superiority in which they base their right to intervene. I believe that the other key justification lies in their desire for the expansion of their land. The land of the Cherokees was rich in soil and also had capacity to be a large gold mine. The US also expressed interest in the ports and fertile land of Texas which would have improved their trade route and hence increase their power overall. The ideals from which the justifications have been based upon has defined the US as a nation. With these ideals changing so little between conflicts, it can be said that the Cherokee Removal can be seen as a precedent of the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteA number of the key justifications used for the Cherokee Removal were also used to justify the Mexican-American War, such as the superiority of the American race compared to both the Cherokee and the Mexicans, the perception that the land held by both the Cherokee and Mexicans was not being used properly or effectively, and the notion of Manifest Destiny. However, there were also a number of differences in the way the American’s acted during the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War including their initial attempt to civilise the Cherokee and educate them in order to integrate them into American society. The Mexicans were not met with this level of acceptance, with some Americans claiming that integrating them into their society would lower their racial quality. Similarly, the mode of removal and acquisition of land by the Americans during the Cherokee removal was an example of ‘soft power’ and more civilised than the Mexican-American war, which was achieved through ‘hard power’ and military action. Therefore, while the Cherokee Removal may have given the Americans more confidence in the reach of their power and their ability to achieve expansion, it was not necessarily a precedent for the Mexican-American War since their ‘victories’ were achieved in different ways.
ReplyDeleteThe ways that the US justified the removal of the Cherokee and the mexican-american war were very similar, with the wasted land argument, as well as superiority of race and cultural superiority played in both. There were however many differences, the religious aspect in relations between the two in the mexican-american war played a key role, as well other notions such as effeminate culture and laziness on behalf of the mexicans perceived to be a race of more superiority than the cherokee, but still unworthy of the land.
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.
ReplyDeleteOne major difference between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war was how the Americans acted in order to achieve their goal of 'expanding America'. Unlike the Cherokee Removal, controlled through policies, the Mexican American war involved violence and military force. However, there were also many similarities. In both cases, Manifest Destiny was the driving force. Cherokees and Mexicans were both seen as racially inferior and not as intelligent as the Americans.
ReplyDelete