Why be pro-American Foreign Policy?

Current Events
41

Relocating tribes after it proved impossible to coexist with them is not genocide.  Waging war against tribes that launched vicious attacks on settlements is not murder.

In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing “vicious attacks on settlements.” The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes. The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson’s forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen. They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them. The “Trail of Tears” was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved. The State of Georgia’s attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832. President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure. So much for the rule of law.

42

In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing “vicious attacks on settlements.”  The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes.  The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson’s forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen.  They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them.  The “Trail of Tears” was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved.  The State of Georgia’s attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832.  President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure.  So much for the rule of law.

Provide detailed sources for this mis-information or withdraw it.

43

(besides equating the pro-american foreign policy advocated by most Objectivists with universal support for Bush, which is a big mistake)

See, let me clarify. I have yet to see an Objectivist who is Pro “American foreign policy.” Most of them I see are “Pro-American” foreign policy advocates.

So really, this whole thread is just a misunderstanding.

44

Provide detailed sources for this mis-information or withdraw it.

Alas, I could find no sources for “misinformation.” On the other hand, the information mentioned in my post can be found in Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, Eds., The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1995). You can find a précis of the book here. On the peaceful, property-oriented nature of the Cherokee and the economic rather than defense motives behind the Indian Removal Act of 1830, see Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

45

Alas,  I could find no sources for “misinformation.”  On the other hand, the information mentioned in my post can be found in Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, Eds., The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1995).  You can find a précis of the book here.  On the peaceful, property-oriented nature of the Cherokee and the economic rather than defense motives behind the Indian Removal Act of 1830, see Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

I just glanced at you first “source” very quickly(all that was needed) and found this about half-way down the page-- Main trade: deerskins + war captives for slavery (italics mine)-- case closed. Find me a source that is not an evil leftist version of a historian and I might begin to take your non-sense seriously.

46

So really, this whole thread is just a misunderstanding.

Not essentially: the poster does have a problem with the kind of foreign policy Objectivists advocate. His failure to distinguish between America’s current foreign policy and the one advocated by Objectivists has no bearing on his opposition to the latter; what’s more, it highlights how far his position is from both.

If I want to go to Seattle and someone asks me “Why go to Washington instead of Moscow?” it doesn’t matter if in the course of the discussion it turns out that he thinks I want to go to D.C. The fact that he sees no difference between the East Coast and the West Coast only shows how far to the east his preferred destination is from both.

47

I just glanced at you first “source” very quickly(all that was needed) and found this about half-way down the page-- Main trade: deerskins + war captives for slavery (italics mine)-- case closed. Find me a source that is not an evil leftist version of a historian and I might begin to take your non-sense seriously.

If you had read carefully, you would have seen that the trade in war captives is listed under the heading, “Early contact with British about 1700”-- a mere century before Jackson’s death march to the west. You would have also read, “By mid-century [1750] slave trade declined, but fur trade continued.” Yes, some Cherokees did engage in slavery. And so did the white men who also occupied the Southeastern U.S. in the 1830s. Now what is your point? That it was moral to remove thousands of men, women and children because some of them owned slaves? Then what of the white men who took over the government-seized Cherokee lands and established plantations with slave labor on a far greater scale? How were they any more entitled to that real estate?

And what is the basis for your claim that Perdue and Green are “an evil leftist version of a historian [sic].” That they made no attempt to hide the fact that some Cherokees engaged in slave-holding?

48

Not essentially: the poster does have a problem with the kind of foreign policy Objectivists advocate. His failure to distinguish between America’s current foreign policy and the one advocated by Objectivists has no bearing on his opposition to the latter; what’s more, it highlights how far his position is from both.

If I want to go to Seattle and someone asks me “Why go to Washington instead of Moscow?” it doesn’t matter if in the course of the discussion it turns out that he thinks I want to go to D.C. The fact that he sees no difference between the East Coast and the West Coast only shows how far to the east his preferred destination is from both.

Yes, I would agree with your, more accurate, evaluation. :lol:

49

Provide detailed sources for this mis-information or withdraw it.

See Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

50

Repeat post. Sorry.

51

In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing “vicious attacks on settlements.”  The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes.  The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson’s forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen.  They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them.  The “Trail of Tears” was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved.  The State of Georgia’s attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832.  President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure.  So much for the rule of law.

In the first place, the Worcester vs Gerogia suit did not apply to the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It applied to the State of Georgia’s attempt to make state laws applicable to Indian “territory”.

The decision acknowledges the Federal government’s jurisdiction in these matters as follows:

The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.

The act of the State of Georgia under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted is consequently void, and the judgement a nullity. . . . The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, the regulation of which according to the settled principles of our Constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the Union.

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Andrew Jackson ignored the court. The court said nothing about the Removal Act of 1830.

The very notion of a tribe that controls a portion of a state and enforces laws contrary to the state’s laws is improper. The Indians should have been required to comply with state and federal law like everyone else. The existence of the various territories and treaties is a result of the fact the Indians would not respect the law.

Today, of course, the image of the Indian has received the same post-modern cleansing as that of the Palestinians and a whole new legend has been created. Like so much post-modern revisionism, it has been taken up and repeated by countless college professors, leftists and America-hating activists until it is accepted as fact. The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip – at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone – now becomes a “genocide“, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an “ethnic cleansing” .

This ignores the fact that the simplest “ethnic cleansing” would have been to allow the local white settlers to “locally genocide” the Indians and be done with it, which, of course, did not happen. Instead we are asked to believe that the President and Congress engaged in a conspiracy with the state of Georgia to pass bogus legislation for purposes of conducting a long, drawn out, mass murder across the span of the nation. Ignore the fact that this was a woefully ineffective genocide and one that involved the participation of thousands of witnesses – just accept the fact that it happened, common sense to the contrary notwithstanding.

The fact is had the Indians indeed been as peaceful and law-abiding as they are now described, there would have been no need for Indian territories and treaties, and the white man would have had no reason to want them removed.

I have no doubt that in some cases, the rights of Indians were violated and that racism was rampant. I also have no doubt that by and large the Indians neither understood nor recognized the concept of rights and were also guilty of racism.

52

In the first place, the Worcester vs Gerogia suit did not apply to the Indian Removal Act of 1830.  It applied to the State of Georgia’s attempt to make state laws applicable to Indian “territory”.

The decision acknowledges the Federal government’s jurisdiction in these matters as follows:  

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Andrew Jackson ignored the court.  The court said nothing about the Removal Act of 1830.

The very notion of a tribe that controls a portion of a state and enforces laws contrary to the state’s laws is improper.  The Indians should have been required to comply with state and federal law like everyone else.  The existence of the various territories and treaties is a result of the fact the Indians would not respect the law.

In fact, many Cherokees who were living within white communities were forcibly removed. Furthermore, prior to removal, state courts and officials in Georgia regularly enforced state laws on Cherokees. So your claim that the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law has no more merit than your previous claim that removal was prompted by the fact that it was “impossible to coexist with them” or that they waged “vicious attacks on settlements.”

Today, of course, the image of the Indian has received the same post-modern cleansing as that of the Palestinians and a whole new legend has been created.  Like so much post-modern revisionism, it has been taken up and repeated by countless college professors, leftists and America-hating activists until it is accepted as fact.  The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip – at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone – now becomes a “genocide“, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an “ethnic cleansing” .

This ignores the fact that the simplest “ethnic cleansing” would have been to allow the local white settlers to “locally genocide” the Indians and be done with it, which, of course, did not happen.  Instead we are asked to believe that the President and Congress engaged in a conspiracy with the state of Georgia to pass bogus legislation for purposes of conducting a long, drawn out, mass murder across the span of the nation.  Ignore the fact that this was a woefully ineffective genocide and one that involved the participation of thousands of witnesses – just accept the fact that it happened, common sense to the contrary notwithstanding.

I never used the word “genocide” to describe the removal of the Cherokees. Nor is it my claim that the intention of Congress was mass murder. I have already made clear what the goal was: to seize land. The fact that thousands died on the road to the west was purely incidental.

The fact is had the Indians indeed been as peaceful and law-abiding as they are now described, there would have been no need for Indian territories and treaties, and the white man would have had no reason to want them removed.

You might as well say, that if blacks had been peaceful and law-abiding, there would have been no need for Jim Crow laws. Please! Why not read Leonard Carlson’s Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 http://www.eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Carlson.pdf

I have no doubt that in some cases, the rights of Indians were violated and that racism was rampant.  I also have no doubt that by and large the Indians neither understood nor recognized the concept of rights and were also guilty of racism.

Then you are misinformed. The Cherokee nation, long before the ethnic cleansing began, had moved to a system of individual property ownership. Furthermore, what is the point in raising the question of racism by the Indians? Should racism be punished by removal to the frontier?

53

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

In the first place, the Worcester vs Gerogia suit did not apply to the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It applied to the State of Georgia’s attempt to make state laws applicable to Indian “territory”.

The decision acknowledges the Federal government’s jurisdiction in these matters as follows:

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Andrew Jackson ignored the court. The court said nothing about the Removal Act of 1830.

The very notion of a tribe that controls a portion of a state and enforces laws contrary to the state’s laws is improper. The Indians should have been required to comply with state and federal law like everyone else. The existence of the various territories and treaties is a result of the fact the Indians would not respect the law.

In fact, many Cherokees who were living within white communities were forcibly removed.  Furthermore, prior to removal, state courts and officials in Georgia regularly enforced state laws on Cherokees.

Perhaps, but the whole point of Worcester vs. Georgia was an attempt to prevent the state of Georgia from applying state law to Indian “territory”.

So your claim that the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law has no more merit than your previous claim that removal was prompted by the fact that it was “impossible to coexist with them” or that they waged “vicious attacks on settlements.”

You should read what I write before you post. I have made no claim to the effect that “the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law”. According to Jackson’s statements, the Removal Act was necessary only after the failure of years of efforts to co-exist. If you wish to believe that this was a lie, and the whole thing instead was a conspiracy to seize land, you are free to attempt to prove such a thing.

In any event, it is irrelevant to the central issue of whether the U.S. government is the moral equivalent of the terrorists. Even the most extreme of these claims does not rise to that level.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

Today, of course, the image of the Indian has received the same post-modern cleansing as that of the Palestinians and a whole new legend has been created. Like so much post-modern revisionism, it has been taken up and repeated by countless college professors, leftists and America-hating activists until it is accepted as fact. The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip – at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone – now becomes a “genocide“, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an “ethnic cleansing” .

This ignores the fact that the simplest “ethnic cleansing” would have been to allow the local white settlers to “locally genocide” the Indians and be done with it, which, of course, did not happen. Instead we are asked to believe that the President and Congress engaged in a conspiracy with the state of Georgia to pass bogus legislation for purposes of conducting a long, drawn out, mass murder across the span of the nation. Ignore the fact that this was a woefully ineffective genocide and one that involved the participation of thousands of witnesses – just accept the fact that it happened, common sense to the contrary notwithstanding.

I never used the word “genocide” to describe the removal of the Cherokees. Nor is it my claim that the intention of Congress was mass murder.

I did not say that you said anything. Skywalker used the term genocide . You did, however, describe it as an ethnic cleansing.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

The fact is had the Indians indeed been as peaceful and law-abiding as they are now described, there would have been no need for Indian territories and treaties, and the white man would have had no reason to want them removed.

You might as well say, that if blacks had been peaceful and law-abiding, there would have been no need for Jim Crow laws. Please!

I fail to see the analogy here. The Jim Crow laws were enacted to prevent private businesses from serving blacks in the same facilities as whites. For example, a Louisiana railroad was prevented from allowing blacks to ride with whites in the same car. This was not done at the request of the railroad. They had no qualms about the behavior of blacks. How does this situation relate to the Indian problem?

Why not read Leonard Carlson’s Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 http://www.eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Carlson.pdf

I read it. It notes that the Removal Act called for voluntary agreements and authorized federal spending for that purpose. It asserts, without offering any proof, that the treaty under which the Cherokees agreed to move was “fraudulent”.

The fact that slave owners were more likely to vote for the Removal Act than non-slave owners establishes a correlation, but it doesn’t tell us why there was a correlation. Carlson infers a land-grab motivation. However, it can just as easily be explained by the fact that the Indians to be removed – the one’s still creating problems at that point – were primarily in the slave states.

In any event, if the motive was, as you claim:

I have already made clear what the goal was: to seize land.

Why wasn’t the Removal Act mandatory, instead of voluntary? If the purpose was to “seize” land, why not just do so?

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

I have no doubt that in some cases, the rights of Indians were violated and that racism was rampant. I also have no doubt that by and large the Indians neither understood nor recognized the concept of rights and were also guilty of racism.

Then you are misinformed. The Cherokee nation, long before the ethnic cleansing began, had moved to a system of individual property ownership.

Yes, and what they claimed to own was an enormous area that they had merely wandered over for decades. Map 3 in the link you provided shows that as of 1820, the Indians claimed to “own” half the state of Georgia!

Furthermore, what is the point in raising the question of racism by the Indians?

To point out that the racism was not a unilateral phenomena.

Should racism be punished by removal to the frontier?

No.

54

I have nothing to say accept I agree with AisA’s statements. Even if all of this stuff is true it still in no way puts the U.S. government in any way in an analogous moral position of the modern terroists which seems to be the point of this. It’s simply false. Our government still possesses the full moral right to kill any person at any time that supports or engages in terrorism against us anywhere in the world. Up to the level of killing whole populations of illegitimate nations if need be. Which is what I really think is analogous to the “genocide” of Indians. Of which blood I also have coursing through my veins.

When I say I want to see evidence, I don’t mean someones, anyones, interpretation of these events. I want to see directives from our government at the time these events took place, I want to see first hand reports of the major particpants, if any. And maybe newspaper articles circa from that era dealing with this issue. I don’t want to see modern interpretations that could have formed by biased individuals whose whole purpose could have been to find “evidence” of past government impropriety for the sole purpose of attempting to negate America’s modern day moral standing, which is being attempted here in this very thread by people who “claim” to be Objectivists. This type of “evidence” can properly be discarded without consideration for the exact say reasons “evidence” of global catastrophe’s, etc., can instantly be discarded without further consideration when offered by environmentalists.

55

I’m mildly curious where you people are getting your history from, since the entire academic and mainstream fields seem to be filled with evil leftist nonsense.

56

I’m mildly curious where you people are getting your history from, since the entire academic and mainstream fields seem to be filled with evil leftist nonsense.

Exactly!

57

Perhaps, but the whole point of Worcester vs. Georgia was an attempt to prevent the state of Georgia from applying state law to Indian “territory”.

Is it your view that state law may usurp laws enacted by Congress?

You should read what I write before you post.  I have made no claim to the effect that “the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law”.  According to Jackson’s statements, the Removal Act was necessary only after the failure of years of efforts to co-exist.  If you wish to believe that this was a lie, and the whole thing instead was a conspiracy to seize land, you are free to attempt to prove such a thing.

I have cited two works, one available complete online, in support of that position.

In any event, it is irrelevant to the central issue of whether the U.S. government is the moral equivalent of the terrorists.  Even the most extreme of these claims does not rise to that level.

I have no desire to argue that point. My presence on this thread was prompted by your statement, “Waging war against tribes that launched vicious attacks on settlements is not murder,” which incorrectly implies that the Trail of Tears was a legitimate act of self-defense.

I did not say that you said anything.  Skywalker used the term genocide .  You did, however, describe it as an ethnic cleansing.

In response to one of my posts, you wrote, “The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip – at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone – now becomes a ‘genocide’, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an ‘ethnic cleansing’ .”

Now if you were addressing your remarks to the Internet audience in general and not to me in particular, then there is no need to explain myself further.

I fail to see the analogy here.  The Jim Crow laws were enacted to prevent private businesses from serving blacks in the same facilities as whites.  For example, a Louisiana  railroad was prevented from allowing blacks to ride with whites in the same car.  This was not done at the request of the railroad.  They had no qualms about the behavior of blacks.  How does this situation relate to the Indian problem?

Both were actions by a government elected by a racial majority to forcibly segregate a racial minority and economically and socially marginalize them. The more important point, though, is that the vast majority of Indians removed had committed no moral or legal infractions yet were subjected to legalized kidnapping and murder for the “crime” of being of the wrong blood.

I read it.  It notes that the Removal Act called for voluntary agreements and authorized federal spending for that purpose. It asserts, without offering any proof, that the treaty under which the Cherokees agreed to move was “fraudulent”.

Unless one accepts the collectivist notion that an ethnic “leader” has the moral authority to sign away the property of all members of his tribe, then there was nothing voluntary about the military forcing the individual Cherokees out of their houses and off their farms. In any case, there was hardly unanimity among Cherokee elders about the wisdom of migration.

The fact that slave owners were more likely to vote for the Removal Act than non-slave owners establishes a correlation, but it doesn’t tell us why there was a correlation.  Carlson infers a land-grab motivation.  However, it can just as easily be explained by the fact that the Indians to be removed – the one’s still creating problems at that point – were primarily in the slave states.

What problems? The only “problem” posed by the Cherokee is that he occupied land that politicians, speculators and developers wanted without having to acquire in a free market exchange.

In any event, if the motive was, as you claim:

Why wasn’t the Removal Act mandatory, instead of voluntary?  If the purpose was to “seize” land, why not just do so?

It wasn’t voluntary. It was enforced at the points of guns and bayonets. From the journal of Private John G. Burnett: “I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at bayonet point into stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into six hundred and forty-five wagons and started toward the west.” http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_…val/burnett.cfm

Yes, and what they claimed to own was an enormous area that they had merely wandered over for decades.  Map 3 in the link you provided shows that as of 1820, the Indians claimed to “own” half the state of Georgia!

Agreed, those claims may not have been entirely legitimate. But the Indian Removal Act essentially nullified all Cherokee property, including all lands that had been tilled, all livestock that had been raised, all homes and villages that had been built. You don’t respond to someone’s unjustified claim by legally canceling every property title that person holds!

58

Lol @ Dominique. I understand your motive…you were like “Chill out. No need to trip.” I get it.

No problem Tryp, can I call you Tryp? We’re cool B)

Oh, but you haven’t rebuked me for it either, so you’re obviously part of the conspiracy! :stuck_out_tongue:

:lol: :lol:

:smiley: shhhhh

59

I’d like to point out that all this discussions concerning past atrocities committed by the US government is totally irrelevant to the war on terror and does not in any way make this war less moral or even immoral on the same level as the terrorists who seek to destroy us. No individual (and therefore no group of individuals) is morally responsible for the actions of his ancestors; likewise, the current Administration is not morally culpable for Jackson’s forced relocation of the Indians, Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese, or any other Administration’s purportedly immoral actions. Americans have every moral right–and bear no moral culpability for the atrocities of their ancestors–to eradicate the terrorists and their supporting regimes, all the while standing on the moral high ground because theirs is the moral cause, the cause for individual rights.

Even the West German government would have had the moral right to wage a war of self-defense against Soviet Russia despite the fact that its predecessor was Nazi Germany.

60

^ Tom made the exact point I’ve been trying to make the whole time here, with limited success. Good job. :smiley: