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 Cherokee Removal was underpinned by the Federal Government’s inability to prevent Georgia encroaching on the Nation’s land. It was justified as a way for the Cherokees to have a new homeland which white settlers would not try to take from them. Arguments for aggression against Mexico were that Mexico had provoked the war by entering the disputed territory, and that Mexicans did not use the land properly. This latter argument was also used about the Cherokee, so there were some similarities between the two situations. However, in general the Cherokee Removal cannot be seen as a precedent for the Mexican situation: desire for the vast tracts of Mexican land mixed with the sense of Manifest Destiny were the root causes.
ReplyDeleteCherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were justified in terms of a racial hierarchy, with the Anglo-Saxon Americans at the top of this, and the improper use of the land by the Cherokees and Mexicans. The idea of a gendered hierarchy between the Mexicans and Americans served as an additional justification for the Mexican-American War. In simple terms, Cherokee Removal can be seen as a precedent for the Mexican-American War as the War was over territory perceived to belong to each nation in the same way as the Cherokees and Americans both believed they rightly possessed the Cherokee land.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons used to justify Cherokee Removal and the Mexican- American War were similar, mainly because the arguments in both examples were based upon the supposed racial inferiority of the native Indians and Latin- Americans, and the thought that both races would benefit from American intervention. One way in which they differed was that religion was specifically used as a reason to justify the Mexican- American War, as it was believed that Latin- American people could be converted from Catholicism to Protestantism. The confidence generated by the idea of “Manifest Destiny” when it was applied to the Cherokee removal established a precedent, and was carried forward to the Mexican- American war.
ReplyDeleteCherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War did use similar justification. The manifest destiny basically stated that the United State has a duty to spread freedom and democracy across America. Americans believe Indians and Mexicans due to their racial inferior were not capable of using any land properly, also Americans believed that Indians and Mexicans are barbaric and incapable to establish a civilized society. Therefore as the more superior race, it is necessary for Americans to conquer Cherokee land and territories from Mexico (Texas and California).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNotions of racial superiority and the doctrine of Proper Use of Land were justifications for both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. Furthermore, Manifest Destiny endorsed any expansionist movement. However, the commencement of the Mexican-American War was warranted by Polk’s claim that American blood had been “spilled” on their own land- a war cry. Opposing this, the Cherokee Removal operated under the guise of goodwill for the Cherokee to thrive away from White society. Given these different attitudes and spirits of each respective movement, the Cherokee Removal cannot be seen as a precedent for the Mexican-American War, but can it can be concluded that there were similar underpinning motives. (I apologise for my ineptness at blogs)
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal and Mexican ‘removal’ are both events that share loss of land ownership under Manifest Destiny inspired American expansion and displacement of those considered racially inferior. Both of these events resulted due to a desire for more land to facilitate America’s enterprises which was supported by the ‘proper use of land’ doctrine. A key difference is that the Cherokees were allegedly removed on humanitarian grounds because they could never live in racial coexistence with Americans. I think the success of Cherokee Removal provided American’s with the confidence for subsequently conquering the Mexicans. However politically and culturally, Mexico proved a tougher and more established opponent to usurp land from than expected.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were prompted by different historical circumstances, the motivation behind both events were the same. Cherokee removal provided a practical solution for the Federal Government to ongoing conflict between Georgians and the Cherokee while also establishing a permanent homeland for the Cherokee (ostensibly to allow them to flourish away from the harmful influence of settlers). The Mexican-American War was sparked by conflict over the disputed Texan border and the refusal by Mexico to sell America the land it desired. However, underpinning both these events was a desire for westward expansion, strongly advocated for by Jackson and Polk. The narrative of America’s civilizing mission was reinforced by a belief in Anglo-Saxon racial superiority, which justified Americans taking the land in the name of ‘progress’. The doctrine of proper use of land also provided a justification for removal of the Mexicans and the Cherokee. Ultimately, while the circumstances of each land seizure were different, the Cherokee removal provided a precedent for the Mexican-American War by justifying taking land in the name of American advancement.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications for the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war were similar in that they were both forefronted by the doctrine of the proper use of land but had underlying aspersions of racial hierarchy; the “enterprising” Anglo-Saxon’s ability to overcome the “backwards” indigenous population due to their more civilised outlook. In this sense the Cherokee removal can be conceived of as being a precedent as it set in motion ideas that were developed into a more concrete ideological mindset for America and adapted for the Mexican-America war. However, a key difference between the two was the idea that America was “re-claiming” Texas through its annexing of the territory, insinuating that it was America’s to begin with whereas in the case of the Cherokee removal, the land was effectively, despite the atrocious terms and pressure placed on the Cherokee, bought by America.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThose who have posted above me have done a good job of documenting the similarities and differences between Cherokee and Mexican removal, so I will try to avoid repeating what has already been said. I think it is important to note that simply because there were differences between Cherokee/Mexican removal, does not necessarily mean the former could not have served as a precedent for the latter. In both cases, what the United States was doing was fundamentally the same: claiming superiority over a piece of land, which had traditionally been occupied by a group of racial "inferiors", to spread its ideals and fulfil its "manifest destiny". Therefore, I think that privately, the precedent of Cherokee removal would have made the Mexican-American War appear more justifiable (even though the ways in which the two expansionist movements were sold to the public were different: humanitarianism vs military revenge).
ReplyDeleteThere are similarities underpinning the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war. Racial superiority was at the forefront of justifying the Cherokee removal. In this respect, it was used as precedent in justifying the Mexican war. It was argued that removal of the Cherokees would provide for them, and allow them to become ‘civilised'. This was because the Cherokees were seen as savages and lazy. This is similar to the Mexicans, who were perceived to be unproductive with their use of the land.
ReplyDeleteJohn O’Sullivan position justifies the Mexican-American war by claiming that the annexation of Texas would minimise slavery. This is similar to the reasons for the Cherokee removal, as the Americans justified their actions as ‘humanitarian’ – they were ultimately helping an inferior race.
The justifications for Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War are similar; however it is too simplistic to say that one set a precedent for the other due to the significant contextual differences. The similarities between Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War centre on the concept of Manifest Destiny, and the belief that Anglo-Saxon America is racially, culturally and religiously superior to both its neighbouring countries and indigenous population. Similarly, both events were portrayed as the necessary expansion of controlled American territory to accommodate the growing American population, and therefore greater need to access land for farming and production. The major difference between the two is the overtly expansionist nature of the War, whereas Cherokee removal occurred in territories already claimed by the US.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications used for both Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American Removal were different in nature, despite having the same overall aim. As displayed, the sense of “manifest destiny” did motivate the American government in both instances, but were justifiable in different ways. In the Cherokee context, the justification was for claiming land in Georgia boundaries for utilisation toward industry and growth. Conversely, in the Texan instance, the justification was for re-claiming land considered conceded from the earlier treaty of 1819 that allowed the annexation of Florida. However, we cannot understand the Cherokee removal as a precedent due to the unique nature of the situation. As argued by Perdue and Green, the Cherokee were surrounded as opposed to other native tribes which could quietly retreat westward. This is juxtaposed by the Texan example which was far more militant in nature and resulted in annexation as compared to compensation and removal in the Cherokee case.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee Removal that occurred in Georgia shares similar proceedings but is overall different to that of the Mexican American War which occurred in what is now the state of texas. The cherokee removal of Georgia was justified by the state as "claiming land that the state already possessed for the benefit of manufacturing and growing industry. whilst the Mexican-American War, was justified by the americans as "necessary expansion under the idea that anglo saxon america was culturally, racially and intellectually superior to that of their central american neighbours" The War for Texas was also viewed as a reclamation of land lost by the US after the treaty of 1819, the miltant nature of Mexican American War contrasts to that of the cherokee removal, as a small militia of 3000 entered what was then Tejas and established a hostile foothold in the region until the land was theirs.
ReplyDeletethe cherokee removal can't be viewed as a precedent for the Mexican American war because although the war for texas occurred later, the reasons and justifications behind them were different. They were both products of "Manifest Destiny" however they took different approaches and stances towards resolution, the american response to mexico's decision to decline compensation in return for land indicates that the land was going to fought for whether it involved a violent or peaceful resolution
To understand the Cherokee removal as a precedent for Mexican “removal” would be oversimplification. In the case of the Cherokee removal the Federal government struggled to prevent Georgia from encroaching on the Native American’s lands. The Federal government sought to remove the Cherokee for their own supposed benefit and for the agricultural expansion and pacification of Georgia. To do this the Cherokee’s government and lands rights were systematically ignored by the Federal government. By comparison the Mexican American war was a violent, expansionist, reclamation of US territory.
ReplyDeleteSimilar justifications employed include; presenting the American expansion as an inevitable force of progress (manifest destiny demonstrated in both the Jackson and Polk readings); and both Nation’s racial, religious and cultural inferiority.
Racial inferiority arguments were nuanced in that America set a precedent for the improvement of the Native American’s which the Cherokee met, as noted in many of the letters in the Cherokee Phoenix, yet President Jackson still chose to describe them as savages. In contrast the American’s could not so easily racially slander the Mexican’s because of their mixed heritage. Nevertheless they still portrayed them as promiscuous and lazy.
The justifications for both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were similar as they were each based on the American ideas of exceptionalism and expansion. The Cherokee removal was initially brought about by the American belief that their society was superior to that of the Native Americans – the exceptionalism idea – which was reinforced by the introduction of the Proper Use of Land doctrine. This was then extended into the expansion idea with that saw the United States geographically expand into the Indian territory with the intention of spreading these ‘superior’ ideals. Similarly, the American-Mexican war was justified by American Exceptionalism in that the Americans again saw their culture to be vastly superior to that of the Latin Americans. This then prompted the territorial expansion by the Americans to extend their superior social system.
ReplyDeleteWhile these events are not entirely similar in nature, the Cherokee removal can be interpreted as setting a precedent for the Mexican “removal”. Despite the differing manners in which the territory was claimed, the success of the Cherokee removal would have provided the Americans with greater confidence in the “Manifest Destiny” ideal.
The ideologies behind both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican American War shared a common denominator in the idea of American exceptionalism. In both conflicts, the United States government justified its actions towards these groups by repeatedly enforcing the concept of Manifest Destiny. It was their job, as the superior peoples of a great nation, to spread their ideal concepts of democracy and liberty to these less civilised people. Subsequently, if neither of these "uncivilised" groups could be taught to live like true Americans, then the only other option was to push them out entirely so that their "savage" ways did not mar the civilised life of everyday Americans in these areas.
ReplyDeleteAs a precedent for Mexican "removal," the expelling of the Cherokee people from their land is the logical example. They were undesirables who possessed land that was of great value to the government as so were forcibly removed. Cherokee Removal also aided propaganda efforts for the Mexican-American War, as the public had already become accustomed to hearing and agreeing with arguments for the removal of these people. Both were not using the land properly and both could not be civilised. However, where the Mexicans who were already inhabiting the Texas area were offered citizenship (provided they were "white"), Cherokee people were considered to be only slightly above the negro. Likewise, where the Cherokees were assured that their removal was for their own good and prosperity, no such promises or assurances were given to the Mexican people.
It is undeniable that Anglo-American expansion came at the expense of both the Cherokees and the Mexicans. Regardless of whether John O’Sullivan coined the term “manifest destiny” decades beyond the Cherokee removal, with the doctrine used to justify the Mexican-American conflict, it is clear that both groups were similarly affected by this idea that Anglo-American expansion was inevitable on the grounds of their supposed racial and social superiority. It would not be outrageous to suggest that Cherokee removal paved the way for Mexican removal. However, there were some differences between the motivations for the two takeovers. For instance, the earlier removal was not so much motivated by the perceived need to fend off British colonial expansion as the latter removal.
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.
ReplyDelete