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 in the case of the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American War, justifications centred around the idea that both cultures were racially inferior to the American male. Horsman states that "... it was generally believed in the US that a superior American race was destined to shape the destiny of much of the world." Perdue and Green illustrate this idea in reference to the Cherokees, claiming that "there was no place for uncivilised people in civilised American society." Furthermore, President Jackson described the tribes as "savage hunters." This notion of racial superiority, which is linked to the notion of Manifest Destiny, can also be seen to shape the decision to re-annex Texas from Mexican control. Greenberg asserts that American men dismissed the Mexican people as inferior, citing the size of their heads and their apparent laziness and femininity. Overall, it can be argued that both the Mexican and Cherokee removal can be based on a racialist idea that the land which was currently occupied by the different cultures would be better used by the industrious American male.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly some similarities between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. When the Americans were justifying their actions, some similar sentiments were expressed such as the belief that both Indians and the Latin Americans had access to land that they were not using to its full advantage and therefore should forsake their claims to the land. Personally though, I feel the circumstances between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War as different entities. The Cherokee Removal was particularly one sided, the Euro-Americans wanted them out and forced their removal regardless of the Indians desires. The Mexican-American war broke out due to a mutual agreement made between Texas and the United States that the Mexican’s disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that while there were some similarities between the Mexican-American war and the Cherokee removal, the latter was not a direct precedent for the former. Racial superiority was cited as a justification for both conflicts, with the idea of Manifest Destiny playing a significant role- Anglo-Americans felt that they had a duty and a right to spread their influence and control over a wider area. However, the Mexican-American war was a war. It was fought between two opposing armies over contested territory. The Cherokee removal was seen as simply gaining fuller access to land that was already American.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications used for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war were both highly similar in many ways. The main justification used in both cases were racially based, in both cases the Americans saw the other group as "savage" and "racially inferior" to that of the American people. Although both were similar, the large difference between the cases is that the Mexican-American war was violent, and the Mexican people fought a war with America over the dispute of land, whereas the Cherokee Removal was largely about forcing the native Americans to move away and the American demands were met without a particularly violent backlash.
ReplyDeleteA desire for land was the motivation for both the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. Adopting the idea of Manifest Destiny, American authorities saw expansion as a way of reducing the threat of external forces, as well as enforcing what they considered to be a superior culture and lifestyle. The racial divide in both conflicts is clear, with the ultimate goal being to suppress what was considered an inferior race; be it Cherokee or Mexican. However, the means of doing this is what sets the two events apart. The violence of the Mexican-American War is startling, with the Mexicans refusing to concede their lands, whilst the Cherokee submitted without significant physical resistance.
ReplyDelete- Bec
Whilst the justifications for Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war were similar, the circumstances in which they occurred were markedly different. Both the Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war were racially motivated, however the means of achieving victory were very different. Cherokee removal was relatively peaceful, whilst the Mexican-American war was extremely violent. The two events differed in that the Americans saw Cherokee removal as simply removing populations from land that was rightfully American, whereas Mexican removal was a direct attempt at expansion.
ReplyDeleteThe Cherokee removal and the Mexican-American war shared some similar characteristics in regards to justification. Both events were centered around the idea of the use of land and who it belongs to along with the idea of racial superiority. Both the Mexicans and the Native Americans were seen as being inferior to the Anglo-American people. In addition to this, both peoples were seen to be wasting their land which could be put to better use by the Americans. However, to call the Cherokee removal a 'precedent' for the Mexican - American war would be a mistake. There were key differences such as the violence of both events, where the Mexican issue was an actual war between armies, whereas the Cherokee removal was simply a relocation with little violence occurring.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications of both the removal of the Cherokee people and the Mexican-American War are quite similar. In both cases, the people occupying the desired land were positioned as being racially inferior, which is a common occurrence in the process of expansion and colonisation (examples can also be seen in European colonisation of Africa and Australia). However, this was merely an attempt at justifying the expansion, and didn't necessarily reflect the ideologies behind the campaigns. The Americans did not want Cherokee land simply because the Cherokees were supposedly inferior, but because they saw it as a necessary acquisition in their quest to build a nation. The Mexican-American War was more politically motivated, the U.S believing that they rightfully deserved the land, which had been contested for some time. Whilst the justifications were similar, the background to both incidents, and the methods by which each were carried out, were markedly different.
ReplyDeleteMany of the justifications for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War were paralleled such as reasoning that Anglo-Americans were racially superior, claiming that both the Mexicans and Cherokee’s were not using the land to its full potential and the idea that American expansion was duty bound to the notion of Manifest Destiny and progress. However, the means by which “removal” was carried out are different in each case – the Cherokee people put up relatively little physical resistance whereas America ended up in a brutal war against the Mexican’s. I do not believe that Cherokee removal was necessarily a precedent for Mexican “removal” however; it enhanced American arrogance which arguably shaped their attitude for future land conflicts.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is clear that each of these events were tied up in racial motivations and land greed, Cherokee Removal was for the relocation and removal of Native peoples from land that American’s believed they could make better use of. In contrast the Mexican-American War was not for the relocation of peoples but rather for the removal of them and want to control the area as the superior culture and race. Therefore I would argue that while there are some similarities in the motivations for each event, the execution of each was decidedly different and as a result the Cherokee Removal was not a precedent for the Mexican-American War, but rather a continuation of the expansion of America with a further developed technique for gaining control over land and peoples.
ReplyDeleteThe justifications provided for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American war are similar in that they were based on the idea that both groups were, by default of race, inferior to the white Americans that wished to take over their land. However, it can be argued that the Cherokee Removal was further justified by Americans under the theory that they were not making proper use of the land they occupied. To an extent, we can understand the Cherokee Removal as precedent for the Mexican-American War as it is possible it increased the sense of American ownership over the land and the idea that it was easily obtainable to them by force. However, as others have stated above, the Cherokee Removal was more one-sided, with significantly less physical resistance than the Mexican-American War.
ReplyDeleteJustifications for the removal of the Cherokee and Mexican/American war are both paralleled yet the events have distinct differences. Firstly, tying in with notions of Manifest Destiny, American justified these events with racially motivated connotations that it's race was superior to those of the natives and Mexicans. However whilst their lands were justified to be not taken full advantage of, the Mexican/American war was violent with bloodshed, whilst the Cherokee was largely non-violent with limited backlash.
ReplyDeleteI believe there were many similarities between the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War. The justification for both was the notion of manifest destiny whereby the Americans held the belief that they would eventually spread civilisation across the continent for the good of humanity. This is largely due to the notion of racial superiority. The American’s believed that both the native Indians and the Mexican’s were inferior to them and as such needed to take over in order to enhance their lives as well as make proper use of the land. I believe to a large extent the Cherokee Removal set a precedent that assisted in the justification of the Mexican-American war based on these similarities.
ReplyDeleteSimilarities between the justifications for the removal of the Cherokees and the Mexican-American War show that the Cherokee removal set a precedent for the Mexican-American War. In particular, the view that both groups were of inferior races, and that neither group was utilising the land properly, show that the Americans cast these groups into the same mould of racially inferior people who could be removed at their will. While one group was removed through means of a treaty and the other through war, the end goal was the same in both instances; to remove an inferior, uncivilised race, and gain control of land seen as rightfully America’s.
ReplyDeleteBoth Native American and Mexican culture, civilisation and race were regarded as inferior to an 'Enlightened' United States; President Jackson typifies aboriginal people as "savage hunters", while continued Mexican claims over post-independence Texas are seen as Old World imperialism. Both were demonized over religion -godless for one, Catholic the other- and most importantly both were considered wasteful in terms of exploiting bountiful natural resource. Finally, both were seen as necessary to fulfill Manifest Destiny, particularly the unification of the continent into a homogenous, white, God fearing society.
ReplyDeleteComparatively, there was a strong portrayal of the Mexican national character as feminine, even emasculated, compared to the US. Also of significance, the Mexican-American war essentially begins because of a border dispute, and so the annexation of California and the western territories can be seen as both expansionist but also a punitive response to 'Mexican aggression'.
In terms of precedence, at a base level, Cherokee Removal cements in the American psyche the legitimacy of expansionism in the face of inferior, wasteful societies.
The justification for the Cherokee Removal and the Mexican-American War was indeed very similar. Both situations relied on ideas of race and gender, the idea being that the Cherokee and Mexicans were inferior to Americans both as a race and in the way they were seen in gendered terms. The idea of 'proper use of land' was also a very big part of both conflicts, with the Americans believing that they would be able to make better use of the land which the Mexicans and Cherokees either farmed or hunted on. Because of these similarities the Cherokee Removal can be seen as a precedent for the Mexican-American was as there were similar arguments and the aim in both cases was to expand the lands of the United States
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 justifications for the Cherokee Removal are very similar to the justifications for the Mexican-American War. In both instances the ideas of race, manifest destiny and the 'proper' use of land were the main reasons given to explain and justify American action. The Americans felt the other races, Cherokee and Mexican, to be inferior to them and that they as a superior and more civilised race could better use the land they were occupying. However while the Cherokee Removal was solved fairly peacefully, the Mexican-American War conflict turned into a bloody, violent war. While the means through which the conflicts were settled were different, the justifications and goals behind the two were similar enough that it could be argued the Cherokee Removal formed a vague precedent for future American conflicts over land/expansion such as the Mexican-American War. It may not have been a distinct precedent but it did impact the way they dealt with future conflicts.
ReplyDelete