Part 1

Yes, the Trail of Tears was very much an act of genocide.

I've discussed in the past the social context around this subject that influences public perception of this event as well as the feelings of one of the main perpetrators of this event, Andrew Jackson,^1 two factors that help us determine the build up and results of the Trail of Tears.

But what about all the items in between? There is a need to sufficiently establish this event in history as an act of genocide because the idea that it was primarily an act of "removal" has led to notions of denialism about the conduct brought against American Indians, something that has very real implication for our current day. Before we can begin to consider the conduct displayed during the Trail of Tears, though, it is useful to start by defining and explaining the the term "genocide" and its applicability to the situation at hand.

##Applicability of the Term "Genocide"

As previously discussed here, genocide is regularly used within the context of international law. For historians, however, there is a need to separate this attached context and consider the term conceptually. Borrowing a passage from the cited post, we note:

Naimark (2017) comments that “the definition of genocide proffered by Lemkin in his 1944 book and elaborated upon in the 1948 Convention remains to this day the fundamental definition accepted by scholars and the international courts” (p. 3), but that the definition has evolved over the course of time through application from tribunal courts (p. 4). This evolving of the term demonstrates its dynamic nature, meaning a multitude of examples can be analyzed with parameters that are still within accepted applications of the term. Naimark (2017) supports this statement by noting “genocide is a worldwide historical phenomenon that originates with the beginning of human society. Cases of genocide need to be examined, as they occur over time and in a variety of settings” (p. 5). Madley (2016) also states that “many scholars have employed genocide as a concept with which to evaluate the past, including events that took place in the nineteenth century” (p. 6). He then provides examples of genocide studies concerning the history of California. Twenty-five years after the formulation of the new international legal treat, scholars began reexamining the nineteenth-century conquest and colonization of California under US rule. In 1968, author Theodora Kroeber and anthropologist Robert F. Heizer wrote a brief but pathbreaking description of “the genocide of Californians.” In 1977, William Coffer mentioned “Genocide among the California Indians,” and two years later, ethnic studies scholar Jack Norton argued that according to the Genocide Convention, certain northwestern California Indians suffered genocide under US rule (p. 7).

Thus, what we have here is an actualization of the concept of genocide versus a strict definition of the term. However, as mentioned, the United Nations framework is often utilized by scholars as a legitimized standard recognized internationally. This gives us a useful tool to apply the term in a retrospective sense (exemption for the legality of cases) and gives us a way to put past events into perspective without necessarily moralizing such events into a case of presentism.

Hello.

That is a very important question that I hope to provide an answer. I recently graduated with a Master's Degree in Holocaust and Genocide Studies with my research focus being the destruction of the indigenous peoples of the Americas so I will provide my take on this topic for you. I will provide proof of those credentials to the mods if they so desire.

Well, first of all, we need to understand what the term "genocide" actually means. If you go into this question without understanding that, you throw everything off moving forward. I solely reply on Raphael Lemkin's original definition of genocide that was defined first in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development...Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accompanied by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves (79).

I can dig further into how Lemkin laid out genocide in terms of strategies and examples but that is how he defined it. But that is a different question entirely.

In terms of the historiography, I can provide a few examples of what the scholarship says on this matter. Prolific genocide scholar Adam Jones refers to the Trail of Tears as followed.

Forced relocations of Indian populations often took the form of genocidal death marches, most infamously the "Trails of Tears" of the Cherokee nation or the "Long Walk" of the Navajo, which killed between 20 and 40 percent of the targeted population en route. The "tribal reservations" to which survivors were cosigned exacted their own toll through malnutrition and disease (160).

In his magnum opus and one of the most important texts of the genocide studies canon, in my opinion, American Holocaust, David Stannard clearly defined the Trail of Tears as a genocide against the victimized tribes. He quotes Andrew Jackson's own writings with "the whole Cherokee Nation ought to be scurged." There is a well documented history, that Stannard provided, of Jackson's genocidal ideology against the indigenous of the United States. The crimes against the Cherokee and other tribes such as the Chickasaw, the Choctaw and the Creek in this instance was not an aberration.

Long story short, Georgia claimed a massive part of Cherokee land using fraudulent means immediately upon Jackson's inauguration. The case was brought to the Supreme Court and the tribes won their case but not before massive numbers of white settlers entered their land. Those numbers only grew upon the discovery of gold. Despite their victory at the highest court in the land, President Jackson defied the Native Americans and proceeded with his plans. The famous line, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," is essentially the "Carthage must be destroyed" for the tribes in the southeast and display an illegal urge to commit mass murder. What followed was the U.S. jailing influential tribal leaders and shutting down the tribes printed word while they 'negotiated' with a collaborating minority to get a pen to paper authorizing tribal consent for their own removal. The military rounded up 17,000 Indians and placed them in detainment camps for months before they were forced west. Stannard also referred to this deportation as a "death march".

The death march drove the indigenous through regions plagued with epidemics, through the cold elements, and fed them low-quality rancid food all the way. Ultimately, over 8,000 men, women and children died as a result of the Trail (121-124).

The historical record speaks for itself. The Trial of Tears was yet another example of a tribe put upon by an colonial force on the American continent and driven to the brink as a result. There is no other term to describe it other than "genocide" in accordance to the Lemkinian definition.

I'll answer any follow up questions if I can.

~ ~ ~ Sources

Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress Second Edition (Clark: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2008).

Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction Third Edition (London: Routledge, 2017).

David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).

Additional Reading

Here is some more texts on the Trail of Tears explicitly as well as other texts that cover the destruction of Native American tribes that I believe could be considered genocidal.

Stanley Hoig, Night of the Cruel Moon: Cherokee Removal and the Trail of Tears (New York: Facts On File, inc., 1996.)

Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents Second Edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005).

John Ehle, Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation (New York: Anchor Books, 1989).

Steve Inskeep, Jacksonland: President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and a Great American Land Grab (New York: Penguin Books, 2016).

Dee Brown, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee: An American History of the American West (New York: Owl Books, 2007).

Stan Hoig, The Sand Creek Massacre (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961).

Alfred A. Cave, The Pequot War (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996).

Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005).

Brendan C. Lindsay, Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012).

Mary Stockwell, The Other Trail of Tears: The Removal of the Ohio Indians (Yardley: Westholme, 2016).

Paul Andrew Hutton, The Apache Wars: The Hunt for Geronimo, The Apache Kid, and the Captive Boy who Started the Longest War in American History (New York: Crown, 2016).