Cól-lee, a Band Chief (Cherokee), painted by George Catlin (1834)
Below please find this week’s web questions written by your classmate, Nicky Bangs. He wrote quite a few questions, but you need to respond to just one or two in your comments.
1) Why does Wallace claim that white inhabitants of the South feared the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” more than the “savage Indians?”
2) Wallace puts forth the claim that not all white men of the early nineteenth century felt Indians were inferior; many saw them as untutored men with equal reasoning abilities to white men. But were there any whites who truly had no prejudice? Doesn’t the notion of “civilizing” another group of people suggest prejudice in itself?
3) What methods–either intentional or unintentional–other than conquest were used to drive natives from their land?
4) Is there any merit to Cass’s “hunter state” theory? What are its pitfalls? What aspects of Native American culture does it neglect to acknowledge?
5) How did white Northerners and Southerners differ in their perceptions of and interactions with the neighboring Indian tribes?
6) Was the U.S. breaking any laws in executing the Indian removals? If so, which ones? Do you think that the fact that the Cherokee wrote their own constitution as a sovereign nation had any effect on the morality of the removals?
AMERICA TO 1877 
1) I feel that it is no wonder at all that the white settlers feared the Civilized tribes more than the wild savages. The savages were only an danger if you ventured in to their territory which if you were a rich plantation owner you were not going to do but if you have an Indian plantion owner trying too undercut your business you worry about it because that affects your living and the well to do was not going to stand for that so they deemed them the biggest threat so they set about getting rid of them becasue they felt they were supior and did not want to be beatean by people they see as inferior to them this is why they were the bigger threat. People like John Ross showed how that the indians could prove aviable ciclization on america and challenged the idea of white supiortiy.
2. In response to question number 2, I’d have to say that the notion that the native americans needed to be “civilized” is in itself prejudice. When a person decides to categorize another as uncivilized it is prejudice. It means that the other persons way of life is inferior to that of your own. The white settlers did feel that the native americans were uncivilized and backwards because they had different customs and lifestyles than the European settlers and in the settlers eyes different=uncivilized
I agree with Justin but I also would like to add the fact that at first the Native Americans if anything were superior over the settlers because they knew the ways of living and helped the settlers from the beginning to start out. I believe there was definite prejudice because everyone has their own culture and standards, for another human being to come and dub them as uncivilized and to try and “civilize” them is prejudice within itself but they are just sugar coating the word prejudice with “civilized”.
Yes it is true that many believed Native Americans were inferior. So to change that, many Europeans encouraged Native Americans to convert to Christianity. Also one of the people that thought Native Americans were equal to whites was Thomas Jefferson, but he still wanted them to move up from Mississippi, because he believed they had no future. Nevertheless, he believed they can learn the “white way” of farming. I guess he was in between of being prejudice and not not prejudice, whatever that means.
6. The US wasn’t breaking any laws that it had on the books at the time. And frankly, aren’t the same people that would be prosecuting American’s for forcefully removing Indians from their homes the same people that benefit from the move? IE: More space in town, more taxable monies to flow into the thriving economy, etc.?
I don’t see the corollary between the Cherokee’s constitution and the morality of the removals. Morals are based on where you’re standing. From the viewpoint of the Indians, it was amoral, independent of the presence or absence of a constitution. According to Americans, it was “manifest destiny;” and behind that principle, everything they did to fulfill it is justifiable. The irony is that that’s Islam’s stance:
That it’s coming and that it was foretold to come. That’s why they’re willing to die for the cause. Because it’s all to make this inevitability come along a bit faster. We call them terrorists, but call our ancestors here “colonists.”
Zane is correct, there were no laws in place that were being violated at the time. The Indian Removal Act was legal since it was signed and passed into law by Jackson. Morality was definitely not a hindrance to America’s in regards to forcing the Native Americans to move. The Cherokee did all of the proper leg work and were still disrespectfully turned out by Jackson. The US viewed the land as their country and the Natives as a dying breed that would not fit in it.
#2 Wallace may think that it’s not prejudice for a settler to say that the Native Americans have the capability to reason as the whites but that is a form of prejudice. I do see the side of Wallace. You can make the argument that there were whites who thought the Native Americans had no potential at all which is worse than saying they do have the potential. The whites who thought Native Americans had potential were prejudice in the sense that they believed their customs were more righteous and civilized than the Native Americans. The ones who didn’t believe in the Native American potential to meet up to their standards saw the Native Americans as savages and not human. These men didn’t realize that their customs had to be learned and Native Americans were humans just like them.
If we are viewing the differentiation between the mentality of the northerners and southerners in regards to the removal of the Indian settlement westward, then we are viewing this differentiation in an economic and political differences. As Wallace states the hunger of land for the slave owners in the south demanded the removal of the Indians further west. The obtaining of land and creation of a new formed states with increasing population and revenue was the main goal for the north. I think either way the removal of Indians was not viewed as much of a moral issue as slavery. I think that the start of the civil war probably emerged as a cause of the westward movement. When analyzing the events, it seems that things occur one after the other, first the removal of Indians, the creation of new states then the argument of policies that should be made. It seems that we hate using the word “genocide” because it creates a sense of immoral behavior, but wouldn’t killing of the buffaloes(the most sacred animals to Indians), the Battle of Wounded Knee, and assimilation or death be considered immoral behavior. Morals are irrelevant when it stands in he assumption that there are benefits to gain in certain situation.
The white inhibitors feared the five civilized tribes more then the wild savages because the five civilized tribes were out to prove a point and did it with violence. According to the text, the whites experienced losing family members, had to flee the the residency and when they returned the livestock was slaughtered, and many had family members or friends with similiar losses. Even though what the whites did was far worse, the whites still were fearful of the five civilized tribes. As far as the savages go, it was sort of as long as you don’t bother us we won’t bother you relationship. The whites of the south had everything they needed already and there was no need to go into the wild savages territory
#4 The fact that Cass uses this statement (“Hunter State”) to describe the conditions of the native Americans lets you know exactly what his perception of native american culture was. The fact that survival was a way of live for the native american tribes was not considered negative. The changes that occurred in the tribes in reference to contact with the Europeans was inevitable.Constant trade and war with the Europeans introduced the tribes to whiskey and as a result native Americans were subjected to reservations with the most deplorable conditions. However Cass’s statement has no merit because he neglects to acknowledge the advance agricultural abilities of the native american. They were self sufficient in fishing, and implementing what was called horticulture which was the cultivation of corn, squash, and beans.These were the staple foods of the native american diet.
3) What methods–either intentional or unintentional–other than conquest were used to drive natives from their land?
As we discussed in class about Vattel’s theory of removing the Native Americans would be a way of saving their civilization and culture. His views were intentional because he believed the “right of the agriculturist to acquire land for expansion was superior to the claim of the primitive hunter.” Therefore Vattel believe that Native Americans should leave their land since they were “hunters” and not people of the agriculture, but Americans were, since they had better ways of farming or more advanced ways.
#1 – Why does Wallace claim that white inhabitants of the South feared the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” more than the “savage Indians?”
The “five civilized tribes” of the South were considered much more dangerous than the savage Indians for one particular reason. These civilized tribes proved that Indians could assimilate. As for those who believed in such theories as Cass’ Hunger games, it proved that Indians could over come their “flaws” and live like the white man. The danger in overcoming such a thing at least for white in the south is competition. As wallace points out they did not want the Indians to “beat them at their own game.” It was easy to put the savage indian at the front of an argument for hatred; but what do you say about your Indian neighbor who is educated and who’s land is more prosperous than yours? This was the white man’s fear in the south Indians taking over and becoming “better” than the white man.
In response to question two I would completely disagree with Wallace’s claim that not all white men of the early nineteenth century felt Indians were inferior. I would make the even more radical claim and say that since the founding of Jamestown all white men who came to the new world felt that Indians were inferior.Even after the war of independence the views of Indians remained the same if not grow stronger as Americans expanded west. As Wallace further states many white men viewed Indians as untutored men with equal reasoning abilities to white men. I view the world “untutored” as a comment on one group feeling superior to another. This comment within itself also implies that whites are more educated and will serve as the educators for those who are “untutored”. In what way will the Indians be educated? Will they be educated to better their way of living while not eliminating their traditions and cultures? or Will the Indians be educated to live a life from a white mans perspective? I see a hypocrisy here as well as prejudice. To implement the notion of “civilizing” another group should not translate as providing a better way of life. Who”s to say that these “untutored” and “uncivilized” Indians need any or want any assistance from white men. The only other agenda that I can conclude that would have not suggested any prejudice is to peacefully coexist with Indians and learn to understand their culture and way of life.