Unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. From the nations capitol to wherever you are this is what democracy looks like. Cspan powered by cable. Our topic today were going to start with discussion of native americans won two different discussions we arere having. Want to make clear that is going to be a couple weeks but are going to use that as a way to link our focus is kind of around them. We are thinking more legal policy and issues. We think about this in the broad 19th century way. I will keep things to deal with. The second halfon of our semestr one of the questions we are picking up on is what is it mean to be an american . Who could claim to be an american to take us through the end of our semester as we deal for 19th century. And her upcoming weeks well talk about immigrants. Were going to talkbo about progressive era this is a good start point to think about who is claiming american status and what does that mean . We are going to build from some of the ideas with manifest destiny for the discussion of Political Violence and build into these otherer things. A couple key concepts we need to deal first of all settler colonialism. Have you heard that phrase before . I see a couple yeses and a couple of nose and heads and bobbing every which way. Its a general definition here. We are talking about colonialism that seeks to replace the original population. Colonialismig seeks to replace e original population with new settlers hence settler colonialism. This is done in a couple of different ways. One way is through depopulation in an effort to remove physically take them to another place remove or to exterminate. W depopulation for the secular this functions is through assimilation. Getting the previous and populan to transition into membership in the new population. Recognition of the population as a unit within this new organization. We are not going to see that nearly as much. We are going to see the first two more in our discussion today. Second big thing we need to think about is the frontier. How does it function were going to Frederick Jackson turner. As a historic the university of wisconsin delivered about the frontier. Census bureau 1890 said theres no longer a frontier. One of things turner wanted to talk about was what the frontier had meant in American History. We argued america does not exist without a frontier. Its directly tied to the notions of a frontier but what is a frontier is a fantastic question. An interns construction of this basically the frontier in American History is functioned as a colony. The semi overseas colonies function for european powers this is how they function for the United States. It is a place for Raw Materials to be produced. Dedicated market to finish goods. But more importantly was a safety belt. People disgruntled at home will move to the colonies. In the same way people are disgruntled on the east coast would move to the front tier read that process reproduced what it meant to be america. You have a. Contiguous that lead ledup close to it. What makese the american frontir different than these other colonies as there is a constant integration of the front tier into the mother country itself. That is an important distinction. They dont see the frontier purely positive lysis it as an important space for the re creation of what it means to be american. Want to quote a piece from him that says the democracy born of free land by this he means the front tears of space bar no one has claimed this land. Which is not true but that is the conception. Democracy born a free land strong and selfishness and individualism, and tyrant of administrative experience and education on pressing individual liberty beyond its proper balance has dangers as well as its benefits. So from turners perspective the front tier is an important location and is necessary for defining the american character. Its also a place that is generated a very unique vision of what it means to be american. One that is very much tied to the brutal and violent realities. So that is important for us in terms of thinking about native e americans and that connection. Because again in turners of the frontier its free land its open space space conceptualizing without people already there. The ideas in the 19th century about social development. For that were going to turn to Lewis H Morgan who wrote a book in 1877 called ancient society that title is a 19th century books of the title forever long we just called ancient society. And it basically, what he is talking about through studying kinship relationships and such is that all societies move through a uniform an identifiable path into civilization from savagery, to barbarism, to civilization. In his savagery he identifies as that hunter gatherer of lowest rudimentary level of technology. Little in terms of hierarchical search organizations. On his mind the most primitive. We moving to barbarism to bronze age technology, the use of smelting technology to create first about iron tools and then into bronze and more intricate social organizations. More sedentary. His vision of how this works is based on technology but also an sedentary life or hunter gatherers to more permanent societies. Ultimately what he defines as civilization breaks up into ancient, medieval, and modern. Until we understand the western world. And of course, america to the pinnacle its the topics most modern of all places its the most civilized. Okay, great. So if you take this a notion he talks about mono genesis. Are you familiar with this term mono genesis . That all people come from one singular creation. Sir, do you have a question . [inaudible] collected morgan view it like the early colonists who were technically british colonists as savages . No, no, no. They are still part of civilized world. Again morgans vision is anglo saxon america. Anglo saxon vision. The british, even the french you would throw in kind of a western european conceptions are the height of civilization per click the set includes all the western world . Yes. Brandon . [inaudible] civilize into American Society . Lexi would have put them somewhere in that space between barbarism and civilized. They are not there yet. That is my understanding but i have not Read Everything that morgan wrote so i do not know one 100 . He fits most native americans in a barbarism or savagery into barbers and thats how he sees native americans but i dont know if he would necessary classified i think youd say all right may not necessarily be civilized. Good questions you these are fantastic questions. It morgan as i was see not the only person out there and his ideas are not the only ideas. There are representative of a notion, a set of ideas this idea that native americans are not necessarily civilized or they are on the edge of civilization. That is one of the things that could be done is to help progress them into the civilized era, into the modern world. The civilizing mission. We actually talked a lot about as we do for the rest of the semester this notion of what later individuals would call the white mans burden weho will tak about that for those type of meideas theres the idea native americans are in impediment to progress. Because they are stuck in barbarism. And so i if they are stuck in a barbarism there is no way to bring them into the modern world what you do then . These conception of who was modern, who is not whether or not progress can happen. You tie that to the idea of the front tier and notion of settler colonialism for it you get the intellectual framework for understanding what is going to happen throughout the 19th century. Were not going to talk about the cwars, well talk about a coupe weeks everything short of war here we are going to talk about in terms of settler colonialism and connections, does not make sense it questions before we move on . Fantastic. It all right trail of tears. All of you have heard that before i assume, yes . Okay how many have heard about the gold georgia gold rush . Okay so couple of you have. In 1828 in northern georgia the appalachian portions of georgia they find gold. Hence the gold rush. But people press you into this area, increasing population in 18308 seconds in vain is going to be found this is going to be in the land claimed by the cherokee. Its not going to stop the miners from going into that territory. And the cherokee are like please, please dont. Please get out. Its the great intrusion. What aer wonderfully kind of victorian, intrusion, this is an invasion of minors into cherokee lands. And because of that there is a desire to take those lands out of the hands of the cherokee. The gold rush does not lead to the indian act i want to make that clear. I want to make it clear that this did not create that but it made it easier for people to support the indian removal act theres gold in them there hills . Okay. They had already been a push to remove some of this land is what we refer to as the five civilized tribes, the cherokee, the muscogee creek, the seminole, the choctaw and the chickasaw. Thats oh five, right . Well okay attic is bad for me. Theres already the movement going there in 1830 Congress Passes the indian removal act which empowers the federal government to send out negotiators. You send up these negotiators to create treaties to Exchange Lands in the southeast for lance landsand what is designated indn territory. The portion of the Louisiana Purchase territory west of arkansas. The very first of these treaty is the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek with the choctaw in 1831. So they signed this agreement to move from basically georgia to indian territory. They did it in three waves between 1831 and ultimately 801833. Not all of the choctaw we are talking0 about 15000 out of a population just shy of 20000. So the vast majority. The thing is, the first wave hits a blizzard. The second wave is going to be decimated by cholera. All three waves are going to face significant supply shortages and general incompetence on the part of the federal individuals who are leading this process. S so that all said indent two 4000 people are going to die in the process of moving. This choctaw removal is the first time people use the phrase trail of tears. That is the start point. There is an effort to get a treaty with the seminole in 1832. The gauche identity seminole this seminar and like were not sure how we feel about this land in oklahoma. Can we sense a people check it out . Until they do. They go to oklahoma and come back. There is this report that supposedly these seminole leaders signed aslant is terrific and wonderful and amazing except none of them actually signed it. Until the seminole sable than we are not with the u. S. Government says yes you are. You haveea too. Its going to lead to the second seminole war in83 1835. But again thats at. Couple wees from now it will talk about that. Some people are going to fighta back against removal. What iss interesting that cherokee response to this whole process is perhaps they had at some level assimilated parts of white culture. Theyak have taken bits and piecs city for going to make us do this, lets do this. Youre like noaa. Clugston they also have white supporters . That benefited them . Llalexa cherokee had a number of people on their side in this process. The early 1800s0s georgia seedea large portion of the western land claims. Thats an alabama and mississippi. And in that process georgia gets up but that cherokee do not give up their land claim in 1825 they basically create a newat capitol in 1827 ready constitution. Ofil the whole point is native americans into a simile into white culture elected cherokee have done exactly what they said do and it does not seem to matter seems to be a big deal for a pass on 1828 think any member of the Cherokee Nation that signs some sort of removal agreement or land claim agreement without the approval of the council has committed treason against the Cherokee Nation. They have got this figured out. Vaso when the indian removal act comes along they are set and ready to go. The problem is georgia has looked to the u. S. Government saying hey, you promised us, when you sent you this land would help us remove portions of native americans living in our territory and you are not doing that. He Georgia StateLegislature Just passed a series of laws giving them the power to basically do whatever they wanted. Cherokee sued in 1831 i go to the u. S. Supreme court at which point the Supreme Court says we are not going to hear your case. Which i have always loved i left the u. S. Supreme court saying no, thanks me understand this is a huge concern has major ramifications but we are going to have tea that day. The next year, 1832 another suit ermakes his way to the Supreme Court this is going to hear thee case versus the state of georgia by the Supreme Court sides with the jerky in this. At least at some level the ruling here is at the state of georgia does not have the right to pass these laws. That affect the cherokee because the constitution is quite clear when it comes to the phrase indian affairsor only federal government has that authority. So attempts to control the cherokee violate the constitution. Now president jacksons response to this is basically cool, dont care. The famous thing with the ideas had marshals made ath decision o what youre going to ask brandon . Wasnt that his response to it . Or seems to be no evidence that shows him actually saying this. O now, could he have said it out loud andye no one wrote it down . Yes, entirely possible we do not have a documented evidence as far as i can find that says he said that specifically. But the sentiment is there. The sentiment of basically i dont care. On some level its not some shes going to enforce the ruling he is not going to side with a cherokee. The Supreme Court is cited with the cherokee you cannot remove us in this way. But there is still the indian removal act that jackson supported so doesnt have a problem. It gets kind of interesting in 1832 jackson basically declared war on southth carolina. It is a busy year for him. But ultimately ends up happening is in 1830 5a treaty is signed with a faction of the cherokee the whole thing as the decision from the Supreme Court seems like they have one. But it doesnt look like the federal government is going to care. Our rift begins to develop amongst leadership of the cherokee. El some say it iss inevitable they are going to force us to leave so lets get the best terms we canth now. Another group sink we are not leaving under any circumstance. What happens to the group that is ultimately in favor of leaving on the best terms they can get signed a treaty in 1835. That would technically be an act of treasonst under the cherokee constitution. Under their law the u. S. Government says no, you signed this treaty, off you go. About three different waves they are forced to. Some voluntarily move. There are some that are literally drug kicking and screaming. Its about 16000 herself. Two 4000 are going to die along the way you would think after thousands of people have died in the process of forced removal the federal government would say lets not do that again. You would be wrong because in 1864 theyre going to do it again. In 1864 they went to do it again. Some of this has to do with the civil war itself. In 1861 large chunks of the u. S. Army were drunk off the great plains and sent back east to fight. Which means which are going to end up having is mostly territorial militia. Thats going to be a bit of an issue. Even with the u. S. Army there thats not a guarantee that trees will be upheld and things like that. Butth now because of the civil r there are some native american tribes and nations that will side with the confederacy. Canot necessary they agree with the confederacy but the confederacy has promised them land, a recognition of land, did you have a question . Yes. Does tensions when they agreed with the confederates were the tensions between tribal members at that time too . It is internal tribal conflict whether or not to side. There is always tension that we are going to see. The cherokee at one point before they were forced into indian territory there are some that owned slaves themselves they had adopted the nation of african slavery. Some of them would have consorted the very last confederate general to surrender is going to be a cherokee general. Stan will edi believe his name was, that sounds right in my head. This going to be some that will fight for the confederacy because they believe on the ideas of the confederacy some are going to support the confederacy because the devil that promised me the best is the devil i go with. Because of this t internal tensions it is hard to know who is with who. And then of course you got the u. S. Army not overly concerned about identifying clearly who is with who. It is all kind of a muddled problem to begin with. I did not claim the new mexico territory supporting the confederacy. In some groups do. Many dont. What happens in the late 1863 there is this fear the navajo on the border between arizona and new mexico territory they are supportive of the confederacy bread there is no evidence for this but in january of 1864 the u. S. Army since kit carson the famous mountain man out with a unit to basically bring the navajo in. To bringew them from the arizona new mexico border. Bring them to fort sumner in the eastern part of new mexico, several hundred miles. And so between eight and 9000 navajo are going to be forced at gunpoint to march, has anyone actually been to mexico . Move into the western part of new mexico, youve been w there . Youre going through the to thes that are fairly dry. Kind of desert like. Eighteen days, several hundred miles, i want you to imagine that march. I dont want to march anywhere im going to tell you that right now. Like i dont want to do this. They could actually get to to the area. They put into camps, for all intents and purposes internment camps. Overcrowded and undersupplied theyre going to stay there for about fourye years. Forced to live in these conditionsns are going to die on the march. Several hundred more are going toin die in eastern new mexico. Eventually in 1868s, u. S. Governments going to sign a treaty with the navajo insight you can go home. Its not a reservation and you cannot leave it. But off you go. So this forced a movement of populations is still ongoing. We can make an argument about the internment of the o japanese americans during world war ii and linking those. Is outside our time range you can make some sort of connections there. All right, questions about the tra