4.10 Westward Expansion
In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed. A culmination of the process of restricting defeated native tribal nations to reservation lands by moving them to much more distant lands for the process of forced assimilation, this law ultimately allowed Native Americans east of the Mississippi to be forced to surrender their lands in that vast expanse of the United States and then be forcibly removed to territories west of the Mississippi. Most of these tribal nations would end up in American Indian Territory, the future state of Oklahoma, as well as Kansas and other neighboring areas. While the presentation of the process was of an exchange of lands and the US government providing the material support for the relocating tribes, the process itself was effectively “ethnic cleansing” through the use of brutality – and a dramatic expansion of the devastating reservation system and forced cultural colonization.
The Removal policy, almost always enforced despite the resistance of native peoples and their governments, had many terrible effects on Native Americans. Those who had acculturated, like the Cherokee, to the lifeways of their white neighbors – including, unfortunately, the Cherokee ownership of African-American slaves – found their reliance on American property rights destroyed and their economic foundations liquidated. Those further north that had gone into business with their American neighbors or moved to cultivate their lands in the white fashion faced the same economic devastation. Those native peoples who had managed to salvage or defend large swaths of their traditional lifestyles would find themselves in entirely different terrain and biospheres without even the basic knowledge of plants and animals upon which the survival of their people would depend.
As described above, the removal process failed dramatically to provide for the Native Americans forced to walk across thousands of miles of nearly complete wilderness, often in the worst of weather. Stripped of their possessions and in alien terrain, forced to move despite the needs of children, the elderly, and the disabled, they were also denied the basic provision of food, clean water, medical resources, and basic protection against the elements. Infants, children, the elderly, the sick and the disabled, died of privation as the supplies they had been promised by American governments were never sent – or stolen and resold in a form of corruption rarely addressed. Others, and healthy adults, died of the same privation – or of violence. Thousands died in each tribe, with the Cherokee calling this nightmarish borderline genocide the Trail of Tears, and the Potawatomi calling theirs the Trail of Death. Tribal populations crashed, in many cases to fractions of what they had been – or worse.
This policy also had dramatic impacts on the United States as a whole. Few legal holdings of tribal governments exist east of the removal lines today. And although clearly many native peoples, often of mixed race, remained behind in acculturated lives outside of their tribes, the majority of those identified or identifying as native or members of tribal nations were pushed out the most densely settled areas of America. This presaged a constant of American governance and society until late in the 20th century, the concept that non-white peoples should be removed or separate from white Americans. This concept was impossible to entirely enforce, but effective at creating inequality, hardship, violence, and also at supporting racism. It would eventually largely fall as a legal concept under the impact of facets of the Civil Rights Movements of the later 20th century. The social, cultural, economic, and political impacts of this discrimination, inequality, and denigration remain to this day.
Some Native American clans, bands, and nations were impossible to remove until much later in the 19th century. This came from a combination of factors, including political and military power in places distant from the concentrations of American infrastructure before the better developed railroad systems of the west, balancing of borderlands powers, and brilliant use of limited resources – like water in the deserts of northern Mexico and, eventually, the American Southwest – whose locations were known to native peoples far more than to the arriving Americans. While this resistance eventually fell to American advancements in the technologies of war and infrastructure and American population expansion, these peoples maintained their hold on their homelands longer than almost any others.
An example of this process comes from the Comanche. The Comanche rose to power in the Southern Plains region of what is now the southwestern United States. By adapting to the horse culture first introduced by the Spanish, the Comanche transitioned from a foraging economy into a mixed hunting and pastoral society. After 1821, the new nation-state of Mexico – formerly New Spain – held the territory as its northern frontier, but could enforce little control outside of the Pacific coast and a narrow strip running alone the “Royal Road” through what is now El Paso and central New Mexico. In fact, this region would have more accurately been depicted on maps of the time as in the hands of numerous native nations, including the Comanche – who controlled the economy of the Southern Plains, exercising dominance over other native groups and often settlers from Mexico and, eventually, America.
In the 1830s, the Comanche launched raids into northern Mexico, ending what had been an unprofitable but peaceful diplomatic relationship with Mexico. At the same time, they forged new trading relationships with Anglo-American traders in Texas. Throughout this period, the Comanche and several other independent Native groups, particularly the Kiowa, Apache, and Navajo, engaged in thousands of violent encounters with northern Mexicans. Collectively, these encounters comprised ongoing warfare during the 1830s and 1840s as tribal nations vied for power and wealth. By the 1840s, Comanche power peaked with an empire that controlled a vast territory in the trans-Mississippi west. By trading in Texas and raiding in northern Mexico, the Comanche controlled the flow of commodities, including captives, livestock, and trade goods. They practiced a fluid system of captivity and captive trading, rather than a rigid chattel slavery system, though its effect on its victims was still extremely deleterious. The Comanche used captives for economic exploitation but also often adopted captives into kinship networks. This multi-party conflict in the region had sweeping consequences on both Mexican and American politics. The U.S.-Mexican War emerged from these conflicts, the collective process having been called “The War of a Thousand Deserts” by Bran DeLay.
In the Great Basin region, Mexican independence created changes that escalated patterns of violence. This region, on the periphery of the Spanish empire, was nonetheless somewhat integrated in the commercial trading network of the West. Mexican officials and American traders entered the region with their own imperial designs. New forms of violence spread into the homelands of the Paiute and Western Shoshone. Traders, settlers, and Latter Day Saint religious refugees, often referred to as “Mormons,” aided by U.S. officials and soldiers, committed daily acts of violence and laid the groundwork for violent conquest. This expansion of the American state into the Great Basin meant groups known to Americans by the names Ute, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe had to compete over land, resources, captives, and trade relations with Americans. Eventually, white incursion and ongoing American Indian wars resulted in traumatic dispossession of land and the struggle for subsistence.
The US federal government’s cultural colonization efforts, described above, continued as policies to “civilize” Native Americans. These were intertwined with forced removal, the ideas of Manifest Destiny and “Americanization,” and treated native peoples as virtual children subjected to a brutal idea of “paternal” care. Yet even those who truly sought, in their own ways, to improve the condition of conquered and colonized native peoples still insisted on forced cultural changes, either as a matter of religious faith, belief in ranked tiers of “civilization,” or a resigned acceptance of the racism that awaited the Native Americans they still wanted to strip from their tribes and inject in the individualist, atomized American ideal. Chief among the allies of Native Americans seeking to survive the worst of the violence were missionaries, who despite their insistence on destroying the religious and often linguistic and cultural aspects of native ways of life, worked tirelessly and often with great sacrifices to preserve the lives and existence of native peoples. This seeming dichotomy arose from the passionate belief of many missionaries that those Native Americans who died without conversion would suffer eternally in conceptions of a negative afterlife within the missionaries’ religion, and the resulting commitment to keeping native people alive until they could convert and escaped that fate.
American Indian Removal and Life in the West
After the War of 1812, Americans settled the Great Lakes region rapidly thanks in part to aggressive land sales by the federal government.1 Missouri’s admission as a slave state presented the first major crisis over westward migration and American expansion in the antebellum period. Farther north, lead and iron ore mining spurred development in Wisconsin.2 By the 1830s and 1840s, increasing numbers of German and Scandinavian immigrants joined easterners in settling the Upper Mississippi watershed.3 Little settlement occurred west of Missouri as migrants viewed the Great Plains as a barrier to farming. Farther west, the Rocky Mountains loomed as undesirable to all but fur traders, and all American Indians west of the Mississippi appeared too powerful to allow for white expansion.
“Do not lounge in the cities!” commanded publisher Horace Greeley in 1841, “There is room and health in the country, away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are fitted for no life but that of the factory.”4 The New York Tribune often argued that American exceptionalism required the United States to benevolently conquer the continent as the prime means of spreading American capitalism and American democracy. However, the vast West was not empty. American Indians controlled much of the land east of the Mississippi River and almost all of the West. Expansion hinged on a federal policy of American Indian removal.
The harassment and dispossession of American Indians—whether driven by official U.S. government policy or the actions of individual Americans and their communities—depended on the belief in manifest destiny. Of course, a fair bit of racism was part of the equation as well. The political and legal processes of expansion always hinged on the belief that white Americans could best use new lands and opportunities. This belief rested on the idea that only Americans embodied the democratic ideals of yeoman agriculturalism extolled by Thomas Jefferson and expanded under Jacksonian democracy.
Florida was an early test case for the Americanization of new lands. The territory held strategic value for the young nation’s growing economic and military interests in the Caribbean. The most important factors that led to the annexation of Florida included anxieties over runaway slaves, Spanish neglect of the region, and the desired defeat of Native American tribes who controlled large portions of lucrative farm territory.
During the early nineteenth century, Spain wanted to increase productivity in Florida and encouraged migration of mostly southern slave owners. By the second decade of the 1800s, Anglo settlers occupied plantations along the St. Johns River, from the border with Georgia to Lake George a hundred miles upstream. Spain began to lose control as the area quickly became a haven for slave smugglers bringing illicit human cargo into the United States for lucrative sale to Georgia planters. Plantation owners grew apprehensive about the growing numbers of slaves running to the swamps and American Indian-controlled areas of Florida. American slave owners pressured the U.S. government to confront the Spanish authorities. Southern slave owners refused to quietly accept the continued presence of armed black men in Florida. During the War of 1812, a ragtag assortment of Georgia slave owners joined by a plethora of armed opportunists raided Spanish and British-owned plantations along the St. Johns River. These private citizens received U.S. government help on July 27, 1816, when U.S. army regulars attacked the Negro Fort (established as an armed outpost during the war by the British and located about sixty miles south of the Georgia border). The raid killed 270 of the fort’s inhabitants as a result of a direct hit on the fort’s gunpowder stores. This conflict set the stage for General Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Florida in 1817 and the beginning of the First Seminole War.5
Americans also held that Creek and Seminole American Indians, occupying the area from the Apalachicola River to the wet prairies and hammock islands of central Florida, were dangers in their own right. These tribes, known to the Americans collectively as Seminoles, migrated into the region over the course of the eighteenth century and established settlements, tilled fields, and tended herds of cattle in the rich floodplains and grasslands that dominated the northern third of the Florida peninsula. Envious eyes looked upon these lands. After bitter conflict that often pitted Americans against a collection of Native Americans and former slaves, Spain eventually agreed to transfer the territory to the United States. The resulting Adams-Onís Treaty exchanged Florida for $5 million and other territorial concessions elsewhere.6
After the purchase, planters from the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia entered Florida. However, the influx of settlers into the Florida territory was temporarily halted in the mid-1830s by the outbreak of the Second Seminole War (1835–1842). Free black men and women and escaped slaves also occupied the Seminole district, a situation that deeply troubled slave owners. Indeed, General Thomas Sidney Jesup, U.S. commander during the early stages of the Second Seminole War, labeled that conflict “a negro, not an Indian War,” fearful as he was that if the revolt “was not speedily put down, the South will feel the effect of it on their slave population before the end of the next season.”7 Florida became a state in 1845 and settlement expanded into the former American Indian lands.
American action in Florida seized American Indians’ eastern lands, reduced lands available for runaway slaves, and killed entirely or removed American Indian peoples farther west. This became the template for future action. Presidents, since at least Thomas Jefferson, had long discussed removal, but President Andrew Jackson took the most dramatic action. Jackson believed, “It [speedy removal] will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters.”8 Desires to remove American Indians from valuable farmland motivated state and federal governments to cease trying to assimilate American Indians and instead plan for forced removal.
Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, thereby granting the president authority to begin treaty negotiations that would give American Indians land in the West in exchange for their lands east of the Mississippi. Many advocates of removal, including President Jackson, paternalistically claimed that it would protect American Indian communities from outside influences that jeopardized their chances of becoming “civilized” farmers. Jackson emphasized this paternalism—the belief that the government was acting in the best interest of Native peoples—in his 1830 State of the Union Address. “It [removal] will separate the American Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites . . . and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.”9
The experience of the Cherokee was particularly brutal. Despite many tribal members adopting some Euro-American ways, including intensified agriculture, slave ownership, and Christianity, state and federal governments pressured the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee Nations to sign treaties and surrender land. Many of these tribal nations used the law in hopes of protecting their lands. Most notable among these efforts was the Cherokee Nation’s attempt to sue the state of Georgia.
Beginning in 1826, Georgian officials asked the federal government to negotiate with the Cherokee to secure lucrative lands. The Adams administration resisted the state’s request, but harassment from local settlers against the Cherokee forced the Adams and Jackson administrations to begin serious negotiations with the Cherokee. Georgia grew impatient with the process of negotiation and abolished existing state agreements with the Cherokee that had guaranteed rights of movement and jurisdiction of tribal law. Andrew Jackson penned a letter soon after taking office that encouraged the Cherokee, among others, to voluntarily relocate to the West. The discovery of gold in Georgia in the fall of 1829 further antagonized the situation.
The Cherokee defended themselves against Georgia’s laws by citing treaties signed with the United States that guaranteed the Cherokee Nation both their land and independence. The Cherokee appealed to the Supreme Court against Georgia to prevent dispossession. The Court, while sympathizing with the Cherokee’s plight, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia [1831]). In an associated case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia laws did not apply within Cherokee territory.10 Regardless of these rulings, the state government ignored the Supreme Court and did little to prevent conflict between settlers and the Cherokee.
Jackson wanted a solution that might preserve peace and his reputation. He sent secretary of war Lewis Cass to offer title to western lands and the promise of tribal governance in exchange for relinquishing of the Cherokee’s eastern lands. These negotiations opened a rift within the Cherokee Nation. Cherokee leader John Ridge believed removal was inevitable and pushed for a treaty that would give the best terms. Others, called nationalists and led by John Ross, refused to consider removal in negotiations. The Jackson administration refused any deal that fell short of large-scale removal of the Cherokee from Georgia, thereby fueling a devastating and violent intratribal battle between the two factions. Eventually tensions grew to the point that several treaty advocates were assassinated by members of the national faction.11
In 1835, a portion of the Cherokee Nation led by John Ridge, hoping to prevent further tribal bloodshed, signed the Treaty of New Echota. This treaty ceded lands in Georgia for $5 million and, the signatories hoped, limiting future conflicts between the Cherokee and white settlers. However, most of the tribe refused to adhere to the terms, viewing the treaty as illegitimately negotiated. In response, John Ross pointed out the U.S. government’s hypocrisy. “You asked us to throw off the hunter and warrior state: We did so—you asked us to form a republican government: We did so. Adopting your own as our model. You asked us to cultivate the earth, and learn the mechanic arts. We did so. You asked us to learn to read. We did so. You asked us to cast away our idols and worship your god. We did so. Now you demand we cede to you our lands. That we will not do.”12
President Martin van Buren, in 1838, decided to press the issue beyond negotiation and court rulings and used the New Echota Treaty provisions to order the army to forcibly remove those Cherokee not obeying the treaty’s cession of territory. Harsh weather, poor planning, and difficult travel compounded the tragedy of what became known as the Trail of Tears. Sixteen thousand Cherokee embarked on the journey; only ten thousand completed it.13 Not every instance was of removal was as treacherous or demographically disastrous as the Cherokee example, while, on the other hand, some tribes violently resisted removal. Regardless, over sixty thousand American Indians were forced west prior to the Civil War.14
The allure of manifest destiny encouraged expansion regardless of terrain or locale, and American Indian removal also took place, to a lesser degree, in northern lands. In the Old Northwest, Odawa and Ojibwe communities in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota resisted removal as many lived on land north of desirable farming land. Moreover, some Ojibwe and Odawa individuals purchased land independently. They formed successful alliances with missionaries to help advocate against removal, as well as with some traders and merchants who depended on trade with Native peoples. Yet American Indian removal occurred in the North as well—the Black Hawk War in 1832, for instance, led to the removal of many Sauk to Kansas.15
Despite the disaster of removal, tribal nations slowly rebuilt their cultures and in some cases even achieved prosperity in American Indian Territory. Tribal nations blended traditional cultural practices, including common land systems, with western practices including constitutional governments, common school systems, and creating an elite slaveholding class.
Some American Indian groups remained too powerful to remove. Beginning in the late eighteenth century, the Comanche rose to power in the Southern Plains region of what is now the southwestern United States. By quickly adapting to the horse culture first introduced by the Spanish, the Comanche transitioned from a foraging economy into a mixed hunting and pastoral society. After 1821, the new Mexican nation-state claimed the region as part of the northern Mexican frontier, but they had little control. Instead, the Comanche remained in power and controlled the economy of the Southern Plains. A flexible political structure allowed the Comanche to dominate other American Indian groups as well as Mexican and American settlers.
In the 1830s, the Comanche launched raids into northern Mexico, ending what had been an unprofitable but peaceful diplomatic relationship with Mexico. At the same time, they forged new trading relationships with Anglo-American traders in Texas. Throughout this period, the Comanche and several other independent Native groups, particularly the Kiowa, Apache, and Navajo, engaged in thousands of violent encounters with northern Mexicans. Collectively, these encounters comprised an ongoing war during the 1830s and 1840s as tribal nations vied for power and wealth. By the 1840s, Comanche power peaked with an empire that controlled a vast territory in the trans-Mississippi west known as Comancheria. By trading in Texas and raiding in northern Mexico, the Comanche controlled the flow of commodities, including captives, livestock, and trade goods. They practiced a fluid system of captivity and captive trading, rather than a rigid chattel system. The Comanche used captives for economic exploitation but also adopted captives into kinship networks. This allowed for the assimilation of diverse peoples in the region into the empire. The ongoing conflict in the region had sweeping consequences on both Mexican and American politics. The U.S.-Mexican War, beginning in 1846, can be seen as a culmination of this violence.16
In the Great Basin region, Mexican independence also escalated patterns of violence. This region, on the periphery of the Spanish empire, was nonetheless integrated in the vast commercial trading network of the West. Mexican officials and Anglo-American traders entered the region with their own imperial designs. New forms of violence spread into the homelands of the Paiute and Western Shoshone. Traders, settlers, and Mormon religious refugees, aided by U.S. officials and soldiers, committed daily acts of violence and laid the groundwork for violent conquest. This expansion of the American state into the Great Basin meant groups such as the Ute, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe had to compete over land, resources, captives, and trade relations with Anglo-Americans. Eventually, white incursion and ongoing American Indian wars resulted in traumatic dispossession of land and the struggle for subsistence.
The federal government attempted more than relocation of American Indians. Policies to “civilize” American Indians coexisted along with forced removal and served an important “Americanizing” vision of expansion that brought an ever-increasing population under the American flag and sought to balance aggression with the uplift of paternal care. Thomas L. McKenney, superintendent of American Indian trade from 1816 to 1822 and the Superintendent of American Indian Affairs from 1824 to 1830, served as the main architect of the civilization policy. He asserted that American Indians were morally and intellectually equal to whites. He sought to establish a national American Indian school system.
Congress rejected McKenney’s plan but instead passed the Civilization Fund Act in 1819. This act offered $10,000 annually to be allocated toward societies that funded missionaries to establish schools among American Indian tribes. However, providing schooling for American Indians under the auspices of the civilization program also allowed the federal government to justify taking more land. Treaties, such as the 1820 Treaty of Doak’s Stand made with the Choctaw nation, often included land cessions as requirements for education provisions. Removal and Americanization reinforced Americans’ sense of cultural dominance.17
After removal in the 1830s, the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw began to collaborate with missionaries to build school systems of their own. Leaders hoped education would help ensuing generations to protect political sovereignty. In 1841, the Cherokee Nation opened a public school system that within two years included eighteen schools. By 1852, the system expanded to twenty-one schools with a national enrollment of 1,100 pupils.18 Many of the students educated in these tribally controlled schools later served their nations as teachers, lawyers, physicians, bureaucrats, and politicians.
Notes
- Edmund Jefferson Danziger, Great Lakes Indian Accommodation and Resistance During the Early Reservation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009), 11–13.
- Malcolm J. Rohrbough, Trans-Appalachian Frontier, Third Edition: People, Societies, and Institutions, 1775–1850 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 474–479.
- Mark Wyman, Immigrants in the Valley: Irish, Germans, and Americans in the Upper Mississippi Country, 1830–1860 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2016), 128, 148–149.
- Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, 1841. Although the phrase “Go west, young man,” is often attributed to Greeley, the exhortation was most likely only popularized by the newspaper editor in numerous speeches, letters, and editorials and always in the larger context of the comparable and superior health, wealth, and advantages to be had in the West.
- Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Empire, 1767–1821 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), 344–355.
- Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America Compiled and Edited Under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1909).
- Thomas Sidney Jesup, quoted in Kenneth Wiggins Porter, “Negroes and the Seminole War, 1835–1842,” Journal of Southern History 30, no. 4 (November 1964): 427.
- “President Andrew Jackson’s Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’ (1830),” Our Documents.gov, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=25&page=transcript, accessed May 26, 2015.
- Ibid.
- Tim A. Garrison, “Worcester v. Georgia (1832),” New Georgia Encyclopedia, http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832.
- Fay A. Yarbrough, Race and the Cherokee Nation: Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 15–21.
- John Ross, quoted in Brian Hicks, Toward the Setting Sun: John Ross, the Cherokees, and the Trail of Tears (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2011), 210.
- Russell Thornton, The Cherokees: A Population History (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 76.
- Senate Document #512, 23 Cong., 1 Sess. Vol. IV, p. x, https://books.google.com/books?id=KSTlvxxCOkcC&dq=60,000+removal+indian&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
- John P. Bowes, Land Too Good for Indians: Northern Indian Removal (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2016).
- Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008).
- Samuel J. Wells, “Federal Indian Policy: From Accommodation to Removal,” in Carolyn Reeves, ed., The Choctaw Before Removal (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 181–211.
- William C. Sturtevant, Handbook of North American Indians: History of Indian-White Relations, Vol. 4 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1988), 289.
