The events that transpired under the efforts at Indian removal in the United States during the nineteenth century have created a variety of topics and sources of study for historians of all kinds. The nature of Indian removal has allowed us to examine a variety of potential causes that fall under a variety of broad categories ranging from economic to political and even societal-based reasons. This controversial era has prompted historians to take up many different opinions and claims that pertain to different aspects of the entire process of Indian removal, through the use of various types of evidence. This essay will analyze and decipher the works of a number of these historians who have contributed to the historiography of Indian removal, and will assess which factors have enabled historians to perceive the events of Indian removal the way they have over the years.
In my work I have crafted a unique understanding of not only the topic of Indian removal itself, but of the research and contributions that have been made to the general understanding of the topic as well. For the work the historians I will discuss, I have narrowed the scope of how Indian removal is understood into several subtopics: observing Indian Removal policy and how the political atmosphere of the country contributed to its development; a societal understanding of why Indian Removal came to be, most notably (though not only) through the lense of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the role of Indians in America’s society; and an economic understanding based heavily upon the ideas of manifest destiny, westward expansion, etc.
Indian removal policy was comprised of a variety of legislative acts and allowances that not only enabled the forced removal of large Native American populations from their native lands, but even provided the means to facilitate their migrations into new territories. Historian Ethan Davis examines the wrongs of Indian removal legislation in a number of ways, but
Muniz 1
provides a perhaps less mentioned detail as to how this policy was passed and enacted. The early stages of judicial review during the time of the Indian Removal Act (1830), enabled the legislation that president Andrew Jackson proposed pertaining to Indian removal to pass with relative ease. Davis’ focus on the impact of weak judicial review during the time of the Indian Removal Act provides a unique historiographical contribution. His clear stance that this played a major role in the development of Indian removal policy is supported through his commentary explaining examples of legislation in the near future that faced the earliest impeding abilities of judicial review, unlike the lack of regulation that Indian removal policy encountered. In doing so he uses evidence from political histories which testify to judicial reviews lack of power at the time, both in Indian removal and in general. With this lack of evaluation on legislation, many interesting details now surround the policy that sparked Indian removal, details which have become a topic of scrutiny and debate for other historians ever since. As Davis’ article continues, he explains how the debate and drafting of the bill itself had little discussion concerning the physical process of removal or how to respond to discrepancies with displacing the huge populations. He argues that the efforts at negotiating treaties or peaceful alternatives with any of the Native Americans in the wording of the Indian Removal Act have been widely accepted as weak and showing little true sentiment to not forcibly relocate Indians without remorse. This perception of the policy is shared not only by Davis, but other well regarded historians in the field of Native American relations as well.1
1 Ethan Davis, "An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal," In The American Journal of Legal History (Oxford University Press, 2008), 57.
Muniz 2
The ease with which the policy surrounding Indian removal can be connected to social strife within the United States is another direction in which Davis’ work might lead us. This concept can perhaps testify to several factors, the most important being the atmosphere of the country at that time pertaining to the Native Americans. The examination of policy that Davis provides does as much to explain the role that legislation had in directly influencing Indian removal, as it does to demonstrate how policy might have impacted public opinion as well. He backs this examination by referencing what specific effects the Indian removal act had on Native Americans with documents from this time period that describe poor treatment and negative attitudes toward the Native Americans. Upon reading the rest of Davis’ article I observed many similarities between the social atmosphere that policy was able to influence, and how influence on the public was observed through the lense of prominent individuals in politics; a concept that will be discussed later in this essay. Davis undoubtedly establishes his interpretation of the role that politics played in Indian removal while still maintaining a clear understanding of the impact that Indian removal had among all levels of American society.
Before continuing into other realms of influence on public opinion, I felt that continuing to examine the specific historiographic approach of the role of judicial review in Indian removal policy is worth further assessment. By delving into the role of legislation in Indian removal and how it created policy, Davis opened up an interesting way in which we might not only further examine the topic of Indian removal, but other topics in American history around the era of the Supreme Court case between Marbury v Madison (1803) from which judicial review was established. Davis does this effectively by employing the knowledge of historical policy from legislative historians in his article, and explaining their research on judicial reviews limitations in
Muniz 3
halting policy despite it’s establishment years before. When we give more respect to the way judicial review has changed (or not changed) the creation of legislation in the US, we might interpret past laws with a more critical view and do more to understand what might have been different if the process of evaluating and approving laws was more well developed at the time.2 The impact which the early stages of judicial review had in allowing Indian removal to formulate the way it did is a notable contribution that not many other historians have focused their research on. However, I observed that while the topic and how it contributes to Indian removal may not have been addressed by other historians to the same extent, similar political approaches have been used in interpreting Indian removal. One of the earlier examples of this heavily political lense into which we can make sense of Indian removal is demonstrated by the historian Wilcomb E Washburn, who’s historiographical approach focuses heavily on the policy and political atmosphere of America at the time outside of the of Indian Removal Act, but still explaining how it perpetuated the events of Indian removal by establishing a time of political unrest and desire for effective policy in any form.3 Washburn’s commentary in his work does address how this policy directly affected the development of Indian Removal Act like Davis, though he also asserts that the political nature of the United States under Jackson had become a catalyst for uncensored policy in all aspects of society. Also like Davis, Washburn accomplishes this in his book by referencing direct quotes from well known political figures that show their take on the present state of legislation in America dealing with Indian removal, and the other issues with this quickly forming nation. With America’s recent success in the War of 1812, he explains that the