Racial Capitalism and the Indian Removal Act

Introduction

Andrew Jacksons Second Annual Message was delivered in 1830 and served as justification, in his eyes, for the removal of the Indians from white settlements in the South.[footnoteRef:2] The idea behind the Indian Removal Act was that it would establish peace by giving the Native Americans their own territory; the problem was that territory was well on the side of the continent. Essentially, it was an act of racial capitalism, in which the US government justified its actions by arguing that it was for the victims own good. The Native Americans were simply in the way of developments that the states and federal government wanted to push throughwhich means they were in the way of capitalistic enterprise. The result of the Indian Removal Act was the Trail of Tears. And while Jackson was responsible for justifying the removal, the idea was not really his originally. In fact, idea went back to George Washington, who first proposed it. Indeed, the Choctaw and Cherokee had been removed their land over the course of the 1700s and 1800s leading up to the Act.[footnoteRef:3] The difference between Washington and Jackson, however, was that Washington did entertain the notion of entering into a treaty with the Native Americans. For Jackson, this was not an option. He fully advocated using the military to push the Native Americans off their land. Of course, his stated intention was for them to occupy the land west of the Mississippi. It was not his stated intention to force them on a death marchbut what happened cannot be disputed. Jackson stole their land and forced them to relocate under brutal conditions; after all, it was Americas manifest destiny to take the land it wanted, according to the doctrine of the times.[footnoteRef:4] [2: Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Message, 1830. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3437t.html] [3: Theda Perdue, "Both White and Red".Mixed Blood Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South (The University of Georgia Press, 2003), 45.] [4: OSullivan, John. Annexation. United States Magazine and Democratic Review, vol. 17, no. 1 (July-August 1845), 5.]

Jacksons Second Annual Message in Context

The main point of contention was whether the state of Georgia had the right to take the land belonging to and occupied by the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee actually took the matter to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee were neither a recognized nation nor subject to the state. Instead, the Court essentially described the Cherokee as orphans who subsisted on the charity of the US government. It was not a flattering depiction and the Cherokee resented it, to be sure. Essentially, the Court confirmed that the Cherokee were a conquered people who had no right to their land. The Speeches on the Indian Bill in the House of Representatives in 1830 essentially explored this topic in detail, even touching upon the rights of the Native Americans with respect...

VI.--Speeches on the Indian Bill; viz.--Of Messrs. The North American Review (1821-1940); Oct 1830; VOL. XXXI., No. LXIX.; American Periodicals Series Online pg. 396]

Some, such as Davy Crockett, sympathized with the plight of the Cherokee Nation.[footnoteRef:6] Others saw them us stubborn and unwilling to integrate and accept American values, mores and culture. The governor of Tennessee, John Sevier, had been one of these latter: he had requested permission from the Cherokee to establish a road through their territory in 1803. Sevier made condescending reference to the promotion of then-President Jefferson for interstate travel and improved transportation...

…5.]

A fourth of Cherokee Nation was killed as a result of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.[footnoteRef:12] Yet there were somea few hundred Cherokeewho remained behind and established themselves on land owned by one charitable man named William Holland Thomas, who set aside land of his own in the Smoky Mountain ranges just for them.[footnoteRef:13] This small band of Cherokee would remain in the South for generations up to the modern era of today. Tourists now go to the ranges to have an authentic Indian experiencebut, of course, the world has changed so much that the Cherokee who still live would hardly be recognizable to their ancestors. Today they are but a sign of the fact that the American people were conquerors, uninterested in sharing the great wealth and land of the continent. [12: John Ehle, Trail of tears: The rise and fall of the Cherokee Nation (Anchor, 2011), 240.] [13: Kutsche, Paul. "The Tsali legend: culture heroes and historiography."Ethnohistory10, no. 4 (1963), 329.]

Conclusion

Jacksons speech in 1830 set the stage for racial capitalism in the 19th century. It was a stage that had been a long time coming. From the days of the Founding Fathers, it had been in the airthe destiny of the Americans to fulfill. The theft of th land from under the feet of the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears that followed; the wars that continued; the surrender of Black Hawk and the deaths of many more who fought the encroaching armies of the US; it all fed into the narrative of the 19th century, of Americas dominance. Some objected, like frontiersman Davy Crockettbut in the end the outcome sought was purely business-related. After all, the business of Americans was to be in business, as President Coolidge would put it nearly a century after Jacksons own speech…