~Preamble~
The removal of the Five Civilized Tribes and the resulting "Trail of Tears" is regarded as one of the more shameful episodes in America's already sordid and shameful history of relations with the American Indians. Indeed, even at the time many across the country, most especially in the north, were outraged by the manifestly unjust aim and nature of the process. Perhaps wrongly, part of what caused such outrage were that these were tribes that had done everything right, submitting to and integrating with many of the mores of Euro-American society, with one major reservation: They wanted to maintain their national sovereignty on their traditional land.
This was one of the primary complaints of the states of the Deep South with regards to the Indians, that they would have to share their sovereign territory with another sovereign body. This created outrage and complication that the states wanted to be rid of. Indeed, Georgia had relinquished it's western claims over what would become Mississippi and Alabama with the understanding that eventually the Cherokee would be removed from the territory that remained to Georgia.
Beyond the question of sovereignty, there was of course the baser desire for primitive accumulation. Sovereign aboriginal ownership over the land foreclosed the land to normal development beyond what would be allowed by the nations and their treatment with the federal government. This became especially problematic as gold was discovered in Cherokee territory in North Carolina and Georgia. Similarly the territory of the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw included fertile soil desired by slaveholding planters for cash crop production. Even before the Removal, native land was being encroached upon by Euro-American squatters, and the state governments were not overly inclined to enforce the law against these and trespass them.
What some may not realize is that the nations were actually offered a choice in the process leading up to Removal: First (and the choice the majority opted for by hook or by crook), to remove themselves or be removed to the east of the Mississippi, where they would be free to exercise national sovereignty and live their way of life as they saw fit in a new country, in perpetuity (or until whites decided that Oklahoma was nice, whichever came first). The second, to cede national sovereignty, and have their tribal territory allotted up between all tribemembers, at which point all Indians would become citizens of the country and the state in which they resided. Surplus tribal land would then be sold off by the government on the open market, proceeds going to the
It's not shocking that most chose to decamp to the west of the Mississippi. Euro-American negotiators presented a stark image of what would happen if they remained east of the Mississippi, namely that they would be almagamated into the Euro-American society over time, their culture and identity lost. That made the prospect of removal to a new and suitable country seem like an attractive prospect in comparison, doubly so given various monetary and in-kind incentives provided by the Americans to encourage Removal (along with some coercion).
But some Indians (aside from the Seminole, many of whom remained and secured a Reservation rather than individual holdings), as individuals, did opt for the option of remaining on an allotment of their land, as individuals were empowered to do so under treaty terms. The biggest problem faced by these was that they were ripe for exploitation by Euro-American settlers who would trick them into sales of their land. They were also faced with official and unofficial violence. Most of those thus abused would end up eventually removing to Indian Territory anyway. But some small number did remain: Many of these would indeed end up amalgamating into the Euro-American population. Others would end up preserving their culture continuously, the most dramatic example being the Jena Band of Choctaw, a group of 10 Choctaw families who moved to Louisiana, the majority of their number remaining monolingual Choctaw speakers up until the 1930s.
~Preamble Over~
But what would have happened if the Five Civilized Tribes had, en masse and as a community, decided to opt for the second option, to dissolve their national bodies and undergo land reform, becoming citizens of their respective states? Perhaps this begins with the Choctaw. The Choctaw were the first nation to be treated with for Removal. Perhaps if they as a community had come to the conclusion that remaining and undergoing land reform was their best option, it would create a model which other tribes might be inclined to follow.
As a result, Mississippi and Alabama would find themselves with a very significant non-white, free minority. In the Florida Territory, smallholding Seminole would probably make up an outright majority of the population. And the numbers of free Cherokee in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would be nothing to sniff at either. And now, all of these would be sales-tax paying citizens of these states, able to vote and subject to normal market interaction unmediated by tribal and federal institutions.
The most likely negative impact I can foresee would be pauperization. Most of these Indians being monolingual and, in spite of the great leaps made in development by their nations, unaccustomed to the course of normal market interaction, would still end up being tricked out of their land by planters, speculators, and surveyors for pittances. There would also be the continued threat of squatters. A combination of corruption and racial antipathy at the state level could prevent the governments from intervening on the behalf of natives, citizens or no. At this point, with a population of landless and angry natives within their borders, it seems likely that the state governments would seek to have them removed anyway.
What do we think? Without any tribal government or federal protection, would it be possible for natives to coordinate to prevent massive pauperization? Would the scale of abuse end up forcing the extirpation or removal of natives, even if they end up fully assenting to American demands and becoming good liberal subjects? And, given their reasonably large population base, would it be possible for remaining Indians to increase in prosperity, enjoy the fruits of development, and maintain some kind of distinct national identity?
The removal of the Five Civilized Tribes and the resulting "Trail of Tears" is regarded as one of the more shameful episodes in America's already sordid and shameful history of relations with the American Indians. Indeed, even at the time many across the country, most especially in the north, were outraged by the manifestly unjust aim and nature of the process. Perhaps wrongly, part of what caused such outrage were that these were tribes that had done everything right, submitting to and integrating with many of the mores of Euro-American society, with one major reservation: They wanted to maintain their national sovereignty on their traditional land.
This was one of the primary complaints of the states of the Deep South with regards to the Indians, that they would have to share their sovereign territory with another sovereign body. This created outrage and complication that the states wanted to be rid of. Indeed, Georgia had relinquished it's western claims over what would become Mississippi and Alabama with the understanding that eventually the Cherokee would be removed from the territory that remained to Georgia.
Beyond the question of sovereignty, there was of course the baser desire for primitive accumulation. Sovereign aboriginal ownership over the land foreclosed the land to normal development beyond what would be allowed by the nations and their treatment with the federal government. This became especially problematic as gold was discovered in Cherokee territory in North Carolina and Georgia. Similarly the territory of the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw included fertile soil desired by slaveholding planters for cash crop production. Even before the Removal, native land was being encroached upon by Euro-American squatters, and the state governments were not overly inclined to enforce the law against these and trespass them.
What some may not realize is that the nations were actually offered a choice in the process leading up to Removal: First (and the choice the majority opted for by hook or by crook), to remove themselves or be removed to the east of the Mississippi, where they would be free to exercise national sovereignty and live their way of life as they saw fit in a new country, in perpetuity (or until whites decided that Oklahoma was nice, whichever came first). The second, to cede national sovereignty, and have their tribal territory allotted up between all tribemembers, at which point all Indians would become citizens of the country and the state in which they resided. Surplus tribal land would then be sold off by the government on the open market, proceeds going to the
It's not shocking that most chose to decamp to the west of the Mississippi. Euro-American negotiators presented a stark image of what would happen if they remained east of the Mississippi, namely that they would be almagamated into the Euro-American society over time, their culture and identity lost. That made the prospect of removal to a new and suitable country seem like an attractive prospect in comparison, doubly so given various monetary and in-kind incentives provided by the Americans to encourage Removal (along with some coercion).
But some Indians (aside from the Seminole, many of whom remained and secured a Reservation rather than individual holdings), as individuals, did opt for the option of remaining on an allotment of their land, as individuals were empowered to do so under treaty terms. The biggest problem faced by these was that they were ripe for exploitation by Euro-American settlers who would trick them into sales of their land. They were also faced with official and unofficial violence. Most of those thus abused would end up eventually removing to Indian Territory anyway. But some small number did remain: Many of these would indeed end up amalgamating into the Euro-American population. Others would end up preserving their culture continuously, the most dramatic example being the Jena Band of Choctaw, a group of 10 Choctaw families who moved to Louisiana, the majority of their number remaining monolingual Choctaw speakers up until the 1930s.
~Preamble Over~
But what would have happened if the Five Civilized Tribes had, en masse and as a community, decided to opt for the second option, to dissolve their national bodies and undergo land reform, becoming citizens of their respective states? Perhaps this begins with the Choctaw. The Choctaw were the first nation to be treated with for Removal. Perhaps if they as a community had come to the conclusion that remaining and undergoing land reform was their best option, it would create a model which other tribes might be inclined to follow.
As a result, Mississippi and Alabama would find themselves with a very significant non-white, free minority. In the Florida Territory, smallholding Seminole would probably make up an outright majority of the population. And the numbers of free Cherokee in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee would be nothing to sniff at either. And now, all of these would be sales-tax paying citizens of these states, able to vote and subject to normal market interaction unmediated by tribal and federal institutions.
The most likely negative impact I can foresee would be pauperization. Most of these Indians being monolingual and, in spite of the great leaps made in development by their nations, unaccustomed to the course of normal market interaction, would still end up being tricked out of their land by planters, speculators, and surveyors for pittances. There would also be the continued threat of squatters. A combination of corruption and racial antipathy at the state level could prevent the governments from intervening on the behalf of natives, citizens or no. At this point, with a population of landless and angry natives within their borders, it seems likely that the state governments would seek to have them removed anyway.
What do we think? Without any tribal government or federal protection, would it be possible for natives to coordinate to prevent massive pauperization? Would the scale of abuse end up forcing the extirpation or removal of natives, even if they end up fully assenting to American demands and becoming good liberal subjects? And, given their reasonably large population base, would it be possible for remaining Indians to increase in prosperity, enjoy the fruits of development, and maintain some kind of distinct national identity?
Last edited:
