History Revisited #004: Indian Removal Act of 1830

Moral Framework: I will be using a broad conception of virtue ethics to determine if an act was morally depraved: a right action is conducive to human flourishing and is done for this purpose. A right action must be done for the right reason and done in the right way. 1) Indian Removal Act (IRA) I will not defend that the IRA was moral, but I will present several factors that mitigate its immorality, i.e. make it “less bad” than other policies of the US. a) Tribal territories in eastern states were unsustainable First, the historical record of European seizure of Indian land and of conflict and violence created societal momentum for Indian removal or the seizure of lands by some other means. The expansion of the U.S. made coexistence of the two societies impossible. This is proven by the historical clashes between the two societies and by the conflict that would carry on throughout the end of the century. The IRA was just one stepping stone in a larger narrative of societal conflict. Second, independent action by states such as Georgia and Alabama was forcing federal intervention. Georgia independently acted to seize Cherokee lands and strip Cherokee citizens of rights guaranteed by state law. [1] Jackson was already engaged in heated issues of state’s rights which would eventually lead to the “nullification crisis.” A hard stand against actions by Southern states to seize Indian Territory would have enflamed resentment against the federal government and would have been difficult to enforce. b) Indian Removal was motivated by security concerns President Jackson viewed the presence of large Indian territories in the southern US as a security risk to both the US and Indian tribes. He feared cross border violence, as well is the territorial integrity of the US in time of war. The historical legacy of violence between Native Americans and European settlers posed a threat to both parties. Jackson was concerned that should the US be attacked, the presence of Indian Territory would make fortification of borders impossible. He also feared Indian tribes could ally with foreign nations. c) Integrity of Indian Territory had dubious legal standing The status of many treaties with Indians in the East and the independence and sovereignty of those tribes was an unresolved legal question. For example, and 1823 Supreme Court ruling affirmed the supremacy of US issued chain-of-title over those of Indian tribes [2]. d) Magnitude of destruction was relatively small About 46k Native Americans were relocated, approximately 6k died as a result of relocation. While the forced relocation was terrible, it pales in comparison to the results of other U.S. policies. [1] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki I maintain that the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more morally depraved than Indian Removal. a) Multiple alternatives to the Bomb were available. President and General Eisenhower famously said that he believed the dropping of the bomb was totally unnecessary, in part because he believed the Japanese were defeated at that point in the war. Several alternatives to the bomb were available: i) The U.S. could have set up a public demonstration of the bomb’s capabilities as a threat and show of force. That the U.S. used the most powerful weapon in human history, a weapon capable of destroying cities, without warning and even without giving the enemy the chance to back away from the destruction is profoundly immoral. ii) The U.S. could have backed away from the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender or allowed for the preservation of the imperial system in Japan. iii) The U.S. could have waited for intervention from the Soviet Union on the Eastern front to end the war. iv) The U.S. could simply have continued with conventional warfare by blockading and raiding the main Japanese cities. b) Decision makers were profoundly racist Top generals were profoundly racist, making any fair decision about the necessity of atomic weaponry impossible. President Truman frequently referred to the Japanese as “beasts” and “Savages.” c) Logic of the bomb was morally depraved The most morally depraved aspect of the dropping of the atomic bomb was the lack of any sort of decision making or consideration of consequences. Multiple decision makers later explained that the decision to use the bomb was a foregone conclusion. Doubt and criticism of the plan to use the bomb was ignored by decision makers because the bureaucratic momentum behind its use rendered debate irrelevant. Roosevelt had started the program to develop the bomb, and when the bomb was completed after Roosevelt’s death, Truman viewed the decision to drop the bomb as already made. An aide to Truman later said “Truman made no decision because there was no decision to be made…he could no more have stopped it than a train moving down the track.” This means that decision to annihilate two cities was made years before the moment came by individuals with no knowledge of the geopolitical conditions at the moment of detonation. The moral depravity of the bomb comes from the fact that it was a manifestation of destruction for the sake of destruction. The use of a weapon of mass destruction was detached from any sort of human goals and critical decision making. Some scientists feared that if the bomb wasn’t put to use, the program would be viewed as a waste of money. Governmental bureaucracy trucked along with the decision to use the bomb ASAP. Despite the fact that the bomb was intended for the unique evil of Nazi Germany, once Nazism had been defeated the bomb simply shifted target. This illustrates the depravity of the program- the accomplishment of the goal the bomb had been built for was irrelevant to the use of the bomb. d) The magnitude of destruction massively outweighs the IRA The use of atomic weapons by the US killed between 150,000 and 250,000 people, most of which were civilians, wiped out two cities, and altered the course and psychological state of history. Thousands died excruciating deaths due to the effects of radiation poisoning. 3) Occupation of Philippines following Spanish American War a) Occupation was motivated solely by imperialism The U.S. hoped to gain economic power through expanded access to Asian markets and to expand its global influence by becoming an imperial power. Negotiations by the U.S. at the end of the Spanish American war explicitly pursued goals of economic expansion; this was what led to the U.S. pressing for Spain to hand over the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris. [3] The occupation was thus motivated purely by goals of imperial exploitation. b) The Occupation was a stab in the back to revolutionaries who aided the U.S. in the Spanish-American War The U.S. led revolutionary leadership to believe that the U.S. was fighting the Spanish-American War in an effort to liberate Cuba and the Philippines from Spanish colonialism [4]. Filipino revolutionaries fought in the war and coordinated with American forces. After fighting for their independence, the Philippines issued a declaration of Independence that was promptly ignored by the U.S. As the U.S. set up a colonial government and ignored the leadership of the revolutionaries, the Philippines turned against the U.S., starting the U.S.-Philippine war. The same Filipino leaders that fought alongside the U.S. as liberators fought against the U.S. as oppressors. c) Magnitude of casualties massively outweighs IRA In addition to the 12k-20k combatant casualties, about 200,000 civilians died as a result of the conflict between the U.S. and the Philippines. d) Atrocities were rampant and institutionalized Not only were war crimes and atrocities rampant, they were ordered as official policy. War Secretary Elihu Root was shown to have knowledge of these atrocities and to have done nothing, and possibly encouraged them [4]. i) Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos were forced to live in concentration camps. Discipline and order was enforced by wanton violence. ii) Villages were burned to the ground to set an example to the local population. One U.S. Major issued the order: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn: the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me…make Samar a howling wilderness.” iii) Torture was routinely used as a means of interrogation. e) Institutionalized brutality is especially depraved i) It normalizes cruelty as a means of controlling populations. Institutionalization crystallizes cruelty into repeatable and expected behavior ii) It is more difficult to eradicate than localized instances. Institutionalization protects those who practice cruelty and creates bureaucratic inertia to changing cruel practices. iii) It forces those who would not engage in brutality to commit crimes against humanity. Institutionalization corrupts the moral constitution of all who fall under its power. This is visible in the letters sent home from U.S. troops serving in the Philippines: “Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a finish. About 1,000 men, women and children were reported killed. I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger” [3] http://www.gutenberg.org... [4] http://www.worldfuturefund.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... General Sources: American Lion, Jon Meacham Hiroshima: The World’s Bomb, Andrew J. Rotter The Imperial Curse, James Bradley Truman, David McCullough