How does F.P. Prunchas approach towards Jacksons Indian removal policy differ from interpretations by other authors
This essay is an attempt to investigate the approach towards Jacksons Indian removal policy offered by F.P. Prucha and to compare this approach to the interpretations of the events offered by other authors. Prucha explains his position in Andrew Jacksons Indian Policy A Reassessment published in 1969. I am going to compare his view to the concepts of of M.P. Rogin, R.N. Satz, M.E. Young and R.P. Longaker. The paper will review the position of author, and contrast them. The paper will argue that Pruchas approach is not so unique as he asserts when he writes of notable historians who adopted a devilish theory (527) of Indian removal. His main points were supported or interpreted by other authors creating a general complicated theory of Jacksons Indian policy.
Pruchas basic conclusion is that Jackson sincerely treated Indians as equal part of American nation and followed the paternalistic theory viewing Indians as unwise children who had yet to be civilized. His policy has been predefined rather by security considerations than by his anti-Indian ideas. As Prucha puts it, in assessing Jacksons Indian policy, historians must not listen too eagerly to Jacksons political opponents whose ideas continue to shape our view of the Indian removal.
Prucha offers several proofs for his arguments. He firstly examines Jacksons public statements and actions in respect of the Indians finding that Jackson distinguished peaceful Indians aiming to civilization from the hostile savage (530) tribes. The peaceful tribes could expect kind attitude and support of Jacksons administration while the barbarous tribes had to be brutally punished for any offence (528). Upon examination of Jacksons position and military career Prucha arrives to conclusion that Jackson was strongly influenced by his previous military experience including campaigns against unfriendly Indians and foreign enemies. Thus, according to Prucha, Jacksons Indian policy has been, to a great extent, predetermined by public security considerations and its ultimate goal was peace and protection for all (529).
With these assumptions Prucha puts his primary question was there a choice He answers that Jackson indeed had several options to choose from, including physical elimination of Indians, forcible displacement, removal, creation of Indian enclaves at their home territories and assimilation. Prucha argues that Jackson cant be recalled as anti-Indian President at least because he has not chosen one of the first two options. Attempts to apply the latter two options failed. Indian enclaves threatened the security of the settlers and the Indians proved to be reluctant to accept civilizational skills (532-533). Thus, the removal of Indians upon condition of government support and fair compensation appeared to be the only reasonable solution for Jackson, who observed that Indians are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the States (539). This Jacksons quote is Pruchas implied argument that Jackson planned his Indian policy with consideration of Indians interests same as interests of the whites.
The paternalistic view of Jacksons Indian policy is supported by M.P. Rogin in his Fathers and children Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian. The book offers an analysis of Jacksons personal and psychological background leading him to paternalistic attitude towards the Indians. Rogin gathered significant evidence proving that Indians were commonly treated by the whites as children of nature (114) who could hardly be civilized in the foreseeable future. At that, the colonizers viewed civilization as an absolute value and consciously took up Kiplings white mans burden. Such environment could hardly turn Jackson into advocate of Indian rights, more than that, Jackson could hardly imagine that rights and freedoms could exist outside of the civilized society.
Researching on Jacksons living experience Rogin finds out that his character has been shaped by orphanage and privation during his childhood and early youth. Later this caused Jackson to support parentless children (40). As a President Jackson spread this ttitude to the entire nation including Indians who had to obey Jacksons parental orders or leave the family. Thus the removal of Indians appears as a painful but necessary measure to avoid interfamilial conflict inside America and reconstruct paternal authority over the Indians (251). At this point Rogin has much in common with Prucha, most notably the idea that Jackson himself viewed his Indian policy as a benefaction for the Indians themselves.
This conclusion is supported by Satz in his solid treatise American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Talking on Jacksons intentions in respect of the Indians Satz notes that Old Hickorys policy toward the Indians was a natural corollary of his conception of the nature of the American Union and its needs (9), yet, the tremendous energy and perseverance Andrew Jackson expanded in Indian affairs, however, was apparently not related to any feelings or animosity toward the Indians (9). Satz examines Jacksons Indian policy as matter of cool and rational reason based on Jacksons previous experience. The development of the Indian policy, according to Satz, was a result of a choice Jackson made already before he entered the White House. Once more, this position correlates with the one of Prucha as Satz demonstrates balanced considerations standing behind Jacksons policy, including demand for new agricultural land, protection of frontiers, as well as uncareful fulfillment of than policy. According to Satz, Jacksons original plan was quite beneficial for the Indians, however, it largely failed as a result of administrative and managerial blunders.
This rational theory of Indian removal is undermined by M.E. Young in an unexpected manner. Researching on agricultural considerations behind Indian removal, especially those concerning land allotment she observes that a considerable number of Indians was already involved in farming when Jackson started implementing his policy (34). Thus, the removal of those settled and relatively peaceful Indians appears to be illogical in the light of the rational theory. Young offers an original explanation. According to her idea, American government and Jackson himself sincerely erred in their perception of Indians. The only dominating image of an Indian was brutal savage, an uncivilized son of nature whose presence prevented white farmers from utilizing the fertile lands on the Western frontier. Failure to accept the fruits of civilization was attributed to Indian chiefs, so Jackson and his administration believed that migration will offer the Indian people an opportunity to free themselves from tyranny and begin a new life in a new land (35). Combined with frequent conflicts between the Indians and white settlers this lead the government to a futile conclusion that most of the real Indians were anxious to emigrate (42). In the light of this, it can be assumed that the government simply saw that what it wanted to see and thus fanatically enforced its erroneous policy, resting assured that this policy was the most rational solution. The conclusions made by Jacksons administration were indeed rational, however, they relied in faulty assumptions.
This position has been further assured in the disputes between Jackson and US Supreme Court. Longaker points out that the idea of removal fastened in Jacksons mind after rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the cases like Kendall v. United States (353), United States v. Kendall (356), Kendall v. Stokes (356), Mississippi v. Johnson (359), and, most importantly, Cherokee v. State of Georgia (343). Those cases clarified the powers of the President, the government and the Congress concerning their powers and relations with the Indians. In the latter case Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Indian tribes cannot be viewed as separate nations, and thus the law of relations between nations is not applicable to them (354). This conclusion provided Jackson with moral and ethical grounds for the removal as well as, probably, with moral justification. At that, Jackson once again accepted only that what he wanted to accept, refusing, however, to accept Marshalls conclusion that the Indian rights are not dependent on the state authority (345) or that he had to respect for Indian rights so long as they are exercised on the western bank of the Mississippi (347). It appears thus, that Jackson attempted to utilize judiciary as an instrument to legitimize the Indian removal. This hardly corresponds to the theory of irrational hatter mentioned by Prucha, however, corresponds to the rational theory.
It can be concluded that various theories reviewed in this essay come down to a single rational choice theory. Thus, Pruchas idea is hardly outside of historiographical mainstream. Rather it is just an another interpretation of rational theory which can be called no other choice theory. The no other choice theory does not contradict Rogins paternalistic theory. It is paralleled by Satzs rational reasoning theory. Youngs good reasoning, bad premise theory complements Pruchas concept and perfectly explains the failure of Jacksons removal policy and the resulting sufferings of the Indians. And finally, Longakers notion on legitimization of the Indian removal by the Supreme Court provides additional justification to Pruchas assertion that Jackson acted in good faith during implementation of the removal policy.
Neither of the considered profound historical studies supports the primitive irrational hatter approach. In contrast, each of the scholars proves that Indian removal has been fostered by the ideas, which appeared to be noble and reasonable to Jackson. Combined together they suggest a complex theory of the Indian removal policy.
Pruchas basic conclusion is that Jackson sincerely treated Indians as equal part of American nation and followed the paternalistic theory viewing Indians as unwise children who had yet to be civilized. His policy has been predefined rather by security considerations than by his anti-Indian ideas. As Prucha puts it, in assessing Jacksons Indian policy, historians must not listen too eagerly to Jacksons political opponents whose ideas continue to shape our view of the Indian removal.
Prucha offers several proofs for his arguments. He firstly examines Jacksons public statements and actions in respect of the Indians finding that Jackson distinguished peaceful Indians aiming to civilization from the hostile savage (530) tribes. The peaceful tribes could expect kind attitude and support of Jacksons administration while the barbarous tribes had to be brutally punished for any offence (528). Upon examination of Jacksons position and military career Prucha arrives to conclusion that Jackson was strongly influenced by his previous military experience including campaigns against unfriendly Indians and foreign enemies. Thus, according to Prucha, Jacksons Indian policy has been, to a great extent, predetermined by public security considerations and its ultimate goal was peace and protection for all (529).
With these assumptions Prucha puts his primary question was there a choice He answers that Jackson indeed had several options to choose from, including physical elimination of Indians, forcible displacement, removal, creation of Indian enclaves at their home territories and assimilation. Prucha argues that Jackson cant be recalled as anti-Indian President at least because he has not chosen one of the first two options. Attempts to apply the latter two options failed. Indian enclaves threatened the security of the settlers and the Indians proved to be reluctant to accept civilizational skills (532-533). Thus, the removal of Indians upon condition of government support and fair compensation appeared to be the only reasonable solution for Jackson, who observed that Indians are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the States (539). This Jacksons quote is Pruchas implied argument that Jackson planned his Indian policy with consideration of Indians interests same as interests of the whites.
The paternalistic view of Jacksons Indian policy is supported by M.P. Rogin in his Fathers and children Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian. The book offers an analysis of Jacksons personal and psychological background leading him to paternalistic attitude towards the Indians. Rogin gathered significant evidence proving that Indians were commonly treated by the whites as children of nature (114) who could hardly be civilized in the foreseeable future. At that, the colonizers viewed civilization as an absolute value and consciously took up Kiplings white mans burden. Such environment could hardly turn Jackson into advocate of Indian rights, more than that, Jackson could hardly imagine that rights and freedoms could exist outside of the civilized society.
Researching on Jacksons living experience Rogin finds out that his character has been shaped by orphanage and privation during his childhood and early youth. Later this caused Jackson to support parentless children (40). As a President Jackson spread this ttitude to the entire nation including Indians who had to obey Jacksons parental orders or leave the family. Thus the removal of Indians appears as a painful but necessary measure to avoid interfamilial conflict inside America and reconstruct paternal authority over the Indians (251). At this point Rogin has much in common with Prucha, most notably the idea that Jackson himself viewed his Indian policy as a benefaction for the Indians themselves.
This conclusion is supported by Satz in his solid treatise American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Talking on Jacksons intentions in respect of the Indians Satz notes that Old Hickorys policy toward the Indians was a natural corollary of his conception of the nature of the American Union and its needs (9), yet, the tremendous energy and perseverance Andrew Jackson expanded in Indian affairs, however, was apparently not related to any feelings or animosity toward the Indians (9). Satz examines Jacksons Indian policy as matter of cool and rational reason based on Jacksons previous experience. The development of the Indian policy, according to Satz, was a result of a choice Jackson made already before he entered the White House. Once more, this position correlates with the one of Prucha as Satz demonstrates balanced considerations standing behind Jacksons policy, including demand for new agricultural land, protection of frontiers, as well as uncareful fulfillment of than policy. According to Satz, Jacksons original plan was quite beneficial for the Indians, however, it largely failed as a result of administrative and managerial blunders.
This rational theory of Indian removal is undermined by M.E. Young in an unexpected manner. Researching on agricultural considerations behind Indian removal, especially those concerning land allotment she observes that a considerable number of Indians was already involved in farming when Jackson started implementing his policy (34). Thus, the removal of those settled and relatively peaceful Indians appears to be illogical in the light of the rational theory. Young offers an original explanation. According to her idea, American government and Jackson himself sincerely erred in their perception of Indians. The only dominating image of an Indian was brutal savage, an uncivilized son of nature whose presence prevented white farmers from utilizing the fertile lands on the Western frontier. Failure to accept the fruits of civilization was attributed to Indian chiefs, so Jackson and his administration believed that migration will offer the Indian people an opportunity to free themselves from tyranny and begin a new life in a new land (35). Combined with frequent conflicts between the Indians and white settlers this lead the government to a futile conclusion that most of the real Indians were anxious to emigrate (42). In the light of this, it can be assumed that the government simply saw that what it wanted to see and thus fanatically enforced its erroneous policy, resting assured that this policy was the most rational solution. The conclusions made by Jacksons administration were indeed rational, however, they relied in faulty assumptions.
This position has been further assured in the disputes between Jackson and US Supreme Court. Longaker points out that the idea of removal fastened in Jacksons mind after rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the cases like Kendall v. United States (353), United States v. Kendall (356), Kendall v. Stokes (356), Mississippi v. Johnson (359), and, most importantly, Cherokee v. State of Georgia (343). Those cases clarified the powers of the President, the government and the Congress concerning their powers and relations with the Indians. In the latter case Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Indian tribes cannot be viewed as separate nations, and thus the law of relations between nations is not applicable to them (354). This conclusion provided Jackson with moral and ethical grounds for the removal as well as, probably, with moral justification. At that, Jackson once again accepted only that what he wanted to accept, refusing, however, to accept Marshalls conclusion that the Indian rights are not dependent on the state authority (345) or that he had to respect for Indian rights so long as they are exercised on the western bank of the Mississippi (347). It appears thus, that Jackson attempted to utilize judiciary as an instrument to legitimize the Indian removal. This hardly corresponds to the theory of irrational hatter mentioned by Prucha, however, corresponds to the rational theory.
It can be concluded that various theories reviewed in this essay come down to a single rational choice theory. Thus, Pruchas idea is hardly outside of historiographical mainstream. Rather it is just an another interpretation of rational theory which can be called no other choice theory. The no other choice theory does not contradict Rogins paternalistic theory. It is paralleled by Satzs rational reasoning theory. Youngs good reasoning, bad premise theory complements Pruchas concept and perfectly explains the failure of Jacksons removal policy and the resulting sufferings of the Indians. And finally, Longakers notion on legitimization of the Indian removal by the Supreme Court provides additional justification to Pruchas assertion that Jackson acted in good faith during implementation of the removal policy.
Neither of the considered profound historical studies supports the primitive irrational hatter approach. In contrast, each of the scholars proves that Indian removal has been fostered by the ideas, which appeared to be noble and reasonable to Jackson. Combined together they suggest a complex theory of the Indian removal policy.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment