And it takes wisdom to know the difference.
Very nice, Lib. I haven’t even bothered to open the thread that evidently inspired this. I can tell from the title alone that I’d be possessed to respond with inappropriately harsh language, so I’ve made the sanity-preserving choice to avoid it. I hope that the thread-in-question’s creator ultimately sees his horrifying error.
Gee whiz, Lib. If you’re gonna start a thread to badmouth me, you ought to at least have the courtesy to let me know about it.
Cervaise, I encourage you and everyone else to read the other thread in its entirety. I think you’ll find it balanced. I don’t want to re-hash all of the debate here, though.
Lib I know you’re upset, and I genuinely didn’t mean to hurt your feelings (or anyone else’s). On the other hand, hurt feelings do not excuse bad history.
Gonna have to break that one down.
The Cherokee were rounded up in May/June 1838. By the end of June they were all in stockades.
The Treaty of New Echota, which provided for removal of the Cherokee to Oklahoma, had been ratified in May, 1836. The treaty provided a two-year grace period for the Cherokee to make their way west. That treaty was obtained by bribery and fraud, without a doubt. Nevertheless, the Cherokee could not have been surprised when, after the two years had expired and they had not moved, the soldiers showed up. It was wrong, and it was evil, but it was not a surprise.
Andrew Jackson was no longer President when the removal occurred. So the soldiers were not under his direct order, or even indirect order. Martin Van Buren was President at the time. That doesn’t excuse Jackson’s earlier actions, but your statement is inaccurate.
Sort of, but not exactly. The Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee were a sovereign nation. That ruling rendered the Indian Removal Act ineffective, and meant that removal would have to be negotiated by treaty in order to be legal. The Treaty of New Echota was negotiated in 1835, and ratified in 1836. As noted above, that treaty was obtained by bribery and fraud, but it was at least facially legal and in keeping with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Correct. And awful.
Not at the time of the roundup. The Cherokee were first taken to stockades. The first group of Cherokee began the journey west, under military guard, in June. That was a disaster. Many died from disease, overcrowding, heat and starvation.
Chief John Ross asked General Winfield Scott, who was in charge of the operation, to let him (Ross) coordinate the removal of remaining Cherokee. Scott (who did not want the Cherokee to die) agreed. Ross split the Cherokee into smaller groups, which would allow them to forage more effectively along the way. This did effectively reduce the casualty rate.
The Cherokee who piled into wagons in October did so under the supervision of Ross. (Albeit with a military escort.)
Leaving in October was not a good thing. (I doubt Ross had any choice in the matter.) By the time this group arrived in Oklahoma, it was the middle of the brutal winter of 1838-39.
The whole thing was an undeniable tragedy. However, I disagree with the characterization of the removal as a “holocaust.” “Holocaust” implies an intent to exterminate a people. As I said in the main thread, Jackson was not Hitler. While he wanted the Cherokee land, he certainly did not want to exterminate the Cherokee. In fact, the Cherokee were given the option of remaining in the east, becoming US citizens, and receiving 160 acres of land per household. Not the kind of proposal you’d offer to a people you were looking to wipe out.
The Trail of Tears was cruel. It was criminally negligent. But it did not amount to intentional extermination.
Lib, what I am trying to do in the other thread is to put Jackson’s actions in historical context, so we can understand why he did what he did. That doesn’t excuse his actions, or make them right. On the other hand, Jackson was not operating in a vacuum, and he was not the cartoonish embodiment of evil you seem to imagine.
What I am also trying in the other thread is to address the question of whether the Removal, cruel as it was, had the paradoxical effect of preserving Cherokee culture. (Please let that word “paradoxical” sink in.)
I am not trying to rehabilitate Jackson. He was a hard man, and he dealt with the Indians cruelly.
In other threads, I have argued that Jackson should be replaced on our currency by Davy Crockett, a frontiersman who sacrificed his political career by his vocal opposition to removal of the Cherokee.
Lib, I want to tell you that I respect you for staying civil in that thread and, when you said you’d had enough of it, not coming back to argue more. This clearly means more to you than anything does to me, and it’s hard to wrap my mind around that.
(Posting this from the hometown of General Custer–complete with a fucking huge equestrian statue looming over the intersection of two main drags. You want to talk whitewashing of history, come visit our school system for a few days. Eeech.)
To All Who Expressed Sympathy and Empathy
Thank you for the kindness of your compassion, and for your resolute determination that cruelty not be justified by convenience.
Nocturne
Tsi-tsa-la-gi.
To The Moderators
I request now that this thread be closed before it is further defiled by another egomaniac who thinks it is about him.