The Mexican American War Congressional Debate

A Gag on Debating the Resolution Forced a Vote in One Afternoon

Nov 1, 2009 Michael Streich

The Polk administration was determined to navigate a declaration of war against Mexico through the Congress even if it meant withholding crucial evidence.

On May 11, 1846, President James K. Polk sent a war message to the Congress declaring that “war exists…by the act of Mexico herself.” After one afternoon of “debate” in the House, during which opposition was silenced by a gag on meaningful debate, a war resolution was swiftly passed. Although the Senate took longer to approve the measure, South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun would later say that had the documents relevant to the president’s message been given proper scrutiny, less than 10% of the Congress would have voted for war.

“Hostilities May Now be considered as Commenced”

President Polk’s desire to annex Mexico’s North American provinces began with a diplomatic mission to Mexico City led by John Slidell. The Mexican leadership, however, refused to meet with Slidell. At the same time, Polk ordered Brigadier General Zachary Taylor to move his army, then stationed in Texas, across the Nueces River in January 1846.

Taylor’s troops crossed into the disputed territory, arriving at the Rio Grande. Mexicans regarded the disputed territory as theirs. Even the 1845 Annexation Resolution bringing Texas into the Union accepted the Nueces River as the proper boundary. When debate began on the war resolution, this would be a key factor for many Congressmen, including Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton who expressed his concerns to Polk at the White House hours before the crucial vote.

American troops constructed a fort on the hills overlooking the Mexican port city of Matamoros and aimed cannons at the city. At the same time, American warships were ordered to the Mexican coast off Vera Cruz. On April 24th, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and engaged American dragoons, killing three.

John Slidell returned to Washington one day before news of the military encounter reached Polk. Even before this news, Polk and the majority of his Cabinet were willing to send a war message to Congress. Zachary Taylor’s skirmish with the Mexican army made a war message all the easier.

“Forced into a Conflict with a Semi-Barbarous People”

Thus stated a passage in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Yet House Whigs, in the minority, and supported by a handful of dissident Democrats, rejected the president’s claims. 114 pages of documents sat on the Speaker’s desk yet only a select few were read in the chamber. Neither the House nor the Senate were allowed adequate time to fully review the documents. Once a gag on debate was imposed in the House, Whigs used Parliamentary Procedure to voice their arguments, most notably regarding the preamble of the war bill which made Mexico the aggressor.

Members were recognized with a “point of personal privilege” which takes parliamentary precedence in debate and is usually used to receive permission to leave the chamber. Once recognized, however, these members used their time to berate the war message and demand scrutiny of all the accompanying documents.

The Senate debate was just as short, spending only one day on the measure. As in the House, senators were not afforded the time to hold committee hearings or read all of the documents. Senator Calhoun abstained from voting while others voted taking exception to the preamble.

War Divides the Nation

The lack of public debate affected public perceptions. Writers like Emerson and Whitman supported the war while Thoreau refused to pay taxes in protest. Some Americans, agreeing with Polk, favored annexing Mexico while others were content to own “uninhabited” land ripe for expansion.

The lack of proper debate led the United States down a slippery path that still causes ill feelings between Mexico and America. Yet the past has been repeated too often in history, as Congress responded emotionally without consulting all relevant facts.

Sources:

• Polk: The Diary of a President, Allan Nevins, editor (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952)
• Seymour A. Connor and Odie B. Faulk, North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971)
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• John Edward Weems, To Conquer a Peace (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974)
• Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958)

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting or republishing in any for must be granted in writing by Michael Streich

 Why Germans Supported Hitler in 1933

The Overlooked Factor of Hyper-Nationalism and Appeal to Glory

© Michael Streich

 Nov 8, 2009

The appeal of Hitler and the Nazi Party may have had more to do with addressing the national malaise and humiliation than unemployment and Depression.

The Treaty of Versailles ending World War I is often used to explain long term German animosity to the peace and a chief reason for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Hitler skillfully reminded the German people that the uneven treaty had cost Germany much. The resultant social, political, and economic problems faced by post-war Germany contributed to the national humiliation, a prime factor in the rise of the Nazis, according to many historians. But are these conclusions truly reliable, or are there other factors that must be considered.

Dismal Conditions Exacerbate Deeper Humiliations

The Versailles Treaty demanded billions of dollars in war reparations. French troops occupied the Rhineland area of Germany to ensure compliance with the treaty. Imperial Germany was broken apart, its colonies distributed to the victors. Millions of ethnic Germans in areas like Silesia and the Sudentenland suddenly found themselves under the political jurisdictions of non-German regimes.

The German military was severely down-sized, an air force was forbidden, and the navy – the pride of Kaiser Wilhelm II, was used for target practice. Politically, Germany was torn by revolution as various factions sought control of state governments from Hamburg to Bavaria. Eventually, the Weimar constitution provided a feeble framework that would never lead to any semblance of democracy.

Lack of food and starvation, followed by Depression and high unemployment, ultimately dictated the need for decisive change. Yet the question remains as to whether the German people supported the Nazis and helped elevate Hitler to power solely on the basis of the Nazi promises and programs.

What the Nazis Provided Humiliated Germans With

Perhaps the most potent appeal of the NASDP was the focus on hyper-nationalism resurrecting the notion of Das Volk. Hitler’s speeches emphasized a greater Germany, the promise of a 1,000 year Reich. The very image of the term Reich recalled the heady days of the Second Reich when Bismarck unified Germany as well as the first Reich, identified with the formation of the Holy Roman Empire.

In one speech at Nuremberg, Hitler told the masses “German lies before us, Germany marches within us, and Germany comes after us (follows).” Hitler not only appealed to the working masses, the same group of people targeted by Social Democrats and the Communists (KPD), but received the support of the Catholic Church and, though reluctantly, the military. In many newsreels, Hitler is surrounded by generals and party cronies as well as the occasional Catholic bishop. In the jubilant crowds, nuns are seen waving.

Catholics, of course, supported Hitler because of the Nazi aversion to Communism. But beyond the many factors that propelled Hitler into power in 1933, it was the patriotic appeal to the restoration of Germany’s former glory that won the hearts and minds of Germans. This also helps to explain why non-party members enlisted in the military services once the war began in 1939.

Anti-Semitism is also used as a factor and it is true that many Germans, most notably in the south, were anti-Semitic. But Anti-Semitism was also strong in France and Poland, two countries that bore the brunt of Blitzkrieg and brutal occupation. To be sure, the Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat, blaming them for the nation’s post-war ills and equating them with Communist tendencies (several prominent Communist leaders were Jews).

Isolating the Many Factors Attributed to Hitler’s Political Success

It may be too simplistic to attribute Hitler’s success to any one cause or even a series of causes. The Nazi Party, though making impressive gains, never captured a solid parliamentary majority. Why so many Germans ultimately cast their support for the Nazis up to and through 1933 may be far more difficult to assess.

Sources:

• Klaus P. Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (New York: Continuum, 1995)
• Unpublished memoirs of Hans Guenther Streich who served in the Luftwaffe, came from a staunch Communist family, and was in the last group of POWs to be repatriated because of his extreme views.

The copyright of the article Why Germans Supported Hitler in 1933 in German History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Why Germans Supported Hitler in 1933 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Nazis Appealed to Glory and Power

 Lyndon Johnson's Acceptance Speech

Would the Great Society ever be Achieved?

Michael Streich, November 9, 2009

When Lyndon Johnson accepted his party’s nomination for the presidency on August 27^th, 1964, the United States was growing economically while confronting serious domestic problems that included the Civil Rights Movement and poverty. Johnson highlighted this when he said that the nation was “in the midst of the largest and the longest period of peace time prosperity in our history.”

 

But he also asserted that the needs of all could never be met by a “Southern Party or a Northern Party,” alluding to the Civil Rights Movement although never mentioning it by name. His speech was an affirmation of goals associated with the “Great Society” and directly addressed basic needs. Foreign policy was never mentioned in the speech as a specific. Ironically, the war in Vietnam was not even alluded to, although this would consume Johnson’s entire term as president.

 

Address the Basic Needs of All Americans

 

American novelist John Steinbeck helped Lyndon Johnson to draft the acceptance speech. Perhaps Steinbeck’s recollections of earlier poverty during the Great Depression, which inspired the 1939 Grapes of Wrath, helped to formulate the emphasis on Johnson’s “war on poverty” in the speech.

 

After citing the Old Testament passage “Thou shalt open thine hands unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy in thy land” (Deuteronomy 15:11), Johnson enumerated what he believed were the “needs and hopes” of many Americans. Significantly, he began with medical care for older citizens. No health care reform had been attempted since the administration of Harry Truman. Truman’s efforts were thwarted by a Republican Congress strongly tied to the health care industry.

 

Johnson’s other priorities included fair prices for farm products that would provide “decent incomes” for farmers. He addressed “decent” housing for all Americans and educational opportunities for all children. Johnson stated that every “man” who wants a job should have one. His other priorities were more general in nature.

 

General Goals of the Democratic Platform in Johnson’s Speech

 

Johnson declared that “Americans want victory in our war against poverty.” Although a lofty goal, such general statements are made without the expectation of fulfillment. Poverty might have been diminished, but the expectation referred more to a national mindset. It was an attempt to answer critics that deplored the growing gulf between the rich and the poor, the “haves” and the “have nots.”

 

Finally, Johnson referred to the “expanding and growing prosperity” of Americans. Consumerism had been growing along with average wages. More Americans were becoming first time homeowners in the burgeoning suburbs than ever before. A one-time “urban nation” was not a suburban nation. Yet this left many Americans, notably minorities and poor whites, unable to achieve the American Dream.

 

Civil Rights and Equal Justice

 

The Civil Rights Movement directly confronted the Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, NJ after the party’s credentials committee refused to seat a southern black delegation. Throughout the South, communities were torn by violence as segregationists resisted federal intervention in public school desegregation. Johnson promised to “carry out what the Constitution demands and justice requires – equal justice under law for all Americans.” He decried those who “create disorder” and vowed to bring to justice the offenders.

 

Foreign Affairs and the Arms Build-Up

 

Johnson’s only direct reference to foreign affairs referred to defense appropriations, begun early in the Kennedy Administration. Although later historians would criticize the massive increase in nuclear weapons, including Polaris submarines, it was important to counter the build-up of Soviet arms and to appear militarily strong in the face of Republican Party criticisms.

 

Was the Great Society a Utopia?

 

All of Johnson’s specific recommendations were achievable although costly. Had the Vietnam War been avoided, the Great Society might have had a greater, more universal impact on Americans. But by 1968, Lyndon Johnson chose not to seek reelection in the face of a nation increasingly polarized by the conflict in Southeast Asia.

 

Sources:

 

Acceptance speech of Lyndon Johnson, 1964

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism (Penguin, 1997)

Jon Margolis, The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1999)

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Any republishing in any form must be granted permission in writing by Michael Streich.

 

Stalingrad 1942-1943

Turning Point of the German Soviet War and World War II

Nov 14, 2009 Michael Streich

German defeat at Stalingrad resulted from irrational strategy devised by Adolf Hitler as well as numerous other factors including supply problems and weather.

The Battle of Stalingrad is often referred to as the “Verdun of World War II.” Historian Martin Middlebrook calls it the “decisive battle of the Second World War.” Stalingrad turned the Russian army from defensive operations to an offensive stance and after the surrender of Field Marshal Paulus’ 6th Army, the Germans began a long and bloody withdrawal all along the lines of battle. Russian expert David MacKenzie writes that Stalingrad was “the psychological and…military turning point of the German-Soviet War.”

The Russian Winter of 1942-1943

Adolf Hitler, having failed to take Leningrad and Moscow, was determined to conquer the city on the Volga River that bore the name of his nemesis. Possession of Stalingrad was key to controlling the Caucasus oil fields. The deployment of 6th Army to Stalingrad coincided with two army groups ordered into the region of Baku. Control of Stalingrad meant control of the wheat crop, manganese ore, and oil. Additionally, Russia’s largest tank factory was located in Stalingrad.

The attack on Stalingrad, however, came with the onset of a bitter winter. The 6th Army and its support troops made up of Romanian and Hungarian units deployed north of the city, was not prepared for the harsh conditions nor the arrival of fresh Russian troops from Siberia. Commanded by Marshal Zhukov, Stalin’s most brilliant general, the Soviets were able to ultimately complete a double-encirclement of the 6th Army, which was reduced to house-to-house fighting in the pursuit of conquering “Fortress Stalingrad.”

Hitler’s Irrational Decisions Sacrificed the Sixth Army

Adamantly refusing to accept the recommendations of the most senior members of the German High Command, Hitler replaced the dissenters with generals willing to accept his blundering decisions. Among those dismissed was Colonel-General Franz Halder, a talented officer who foresaw the coming German disaster in Russia due to over-extended supply lines, faltering strategy, and the growing inability to adequate resupply troops.

Some historians question Hitler’s choice of Friedrich Paulus as commander of the 6th Army, an able “thinker” who had helped design and plan Operation Barbarossa, but had never held a major command post. Paulus would follow Hitler’s orders to the letter, even after it became evident that by not breaking out of the Stalingrad ring, the army would be doomed.

Although the Battle of Stalingrad took place in November 1942, the 6th Army continued to defend their positions until February 2nd, 1943 when Paulus, sickly and worn, finally agreed to the Soviet surrender ultimatum. Hitler had promoted him to Field Marshal during the final weeks of the battle, knowing that no German Field Marshal had ever surrendered. Paulus was expected to commit suicide, but instead lived for many years afterward as a Soviet prisoner.

Final Promises and Efforts Fail to Relieve the 6th Army

There is some evidence that Hitler was finally persuaded to allow Paulus to extricate himself from Stalingrad through a northern corridor still open before the final encirclement. Additionally, Field Marshal Eric von Manstein had been ordered to create Army Group Don which was to rapidly move south to Stalingrad and relieve Paulus. But Hitler’s decision changed after Herman Goring convinced him that the Luftwaffe could keep the 6th Army supplied. As in Dunkirk in 1940, Goring’s boasts proved ineffectual.

When Paulus surrendered his army, 90,000 surviving soldiers and officers were marched to Siberia; only 6,000 ever returned to Germany after the war. Paulus was kept under house arrest in Moscow before being allowed to move to Communist Eastern Germany where he eventually died in Dresden. Military historian Walter Goerlitz referred to Stalingrad as “the second Jena,” drawing a parallel to the Prussian defeat by Napoleon. This was the turning point in Europe that turned the tide of battle for the Russians.

Sources:

• Walter Goerlitz, History of the German General Staff (London: Westview Press, 1985)
• Martin Middlebrook, “Paulus,” Hitler’s Generals, Correlli Barnett, Ed. (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989)
• Lynn Montross, War Through the Ages, 3rd Ed (New York: Harper and Row, 1960)
• Theodor Plievier, Stalingrad(Vienna: Verlag Kurt Desch, 1958)

© 2009 Michael Streich

December 2020

My maternal grandfather, Karl Piehl, was a soldier at Stalingrad. He had been drafted early in 1940 and was transferred to the Eastern Front once Germany invaded Russia. Although a very peaceful man who carried a copy of the Torah and the Bible in his Rucksak, what he saw and experienced at Stalingrad stayed with him until he died. His best friend died right next to him, making the mistake of peering over a snow bank and being shot by a Russian sniper right between the eyes. Until my grandfather passed on, he took on the role of uncle to the four children of his friend. He was shot in the leg and managed to be returned to Germany on one of the last Luftwaffe flights out of the Stalingrad area. He limped until he died.

Stalingrad was a terrible battle for all involved, especially the civilians. On my paternal side, my father's older brother, drafted and unable to complete his university studies, never returned home. War causes terrible pain to all involved and is usually the result of crazed leaders who demand ultimate loyalty. May God save us from such hell in the future.

 

World War II Reparations Compared

German and Japanese Responses to War Crimes and Atrocities

Nov 20, 2009 Michael Streich

Berlin Holocaust Memorial - Mike Streich

Germany continues a campaign of compensation and education to accept guilt for WW II atrocities while Japan follows a long policy of official denial of wrongdoing.

World War II ended in 1945. Nazi Germany surrendered first on May 8th. Imperial Japan on August 15th. Although the Allies were very familiar with specific acts of atrocity, later to be defined as war crimes, the extent of those crimes only became clear as war trials were held, documents accessed, and witnessed questioned.

In the wake of those discoveries, Germany began the long process of reparations, healing, and putting into place laws to ensure such atrocities would never again happen. The recent deportation of 89-year old John Demjanjuk to Germany to stand trial for war crimes is indicative of Germany’s continued resolve to punish the guilty. In contrast, Japan has never taken such steps and has even attempted to erase their atrocities from their history books.

The Results of German “De-Nazification”

The most vivid reminder of the Nazi period is the concentration camps, open to public visitation. They remind Germans of a very real past and act as a deterrent to any possible totalitarian notions. German students are required to visit a camp as part of their educational experience. Additionally, Germany has criminalized “Holocaust denying.” According to German government information sources, total financial compensation to the victims of the Nazi regime surpasses fifty million Euro (100 DM before the Euro conversion).

With help from the German government, historic synagogues have been restored and Holocaust memorials erected such as the recently opened Berlin memorial designed by Peter Eisenman. Any form of Anti-Semitism is rejected and public displays of Nazi symbols like the swastika are legally banned. Guilt from that terrible period has even resulted in new religious orders formed as atonement for the Holocaust, like the Evangelical Sisters of Mary headquartered in Darmstadt.

Japanese Reaction to World War II

In stark contrast, Japan continues to deny the atrocities of the past such as the notorious “rape of Nanking” or the treatment of Koreans. In 2004 Miyako Masuda, a 23-year veteran teacher, dared to teach the truth about Japan’s role in Korea in her history class; she was removed from teaching. Her actions came in response to a Tokyo politician’s public statement that “Japan never invaded Korea.”

During the Japanese occupation of Korea, however, thousands of Korean women were used as “sex slaves” by Japanese soldiers, a fact documented in many sources and poignantly discussed by Chinese-American historian Iris Chang whose study of Japanese atrocities in China are the definitive source on the subject. These Korean victims were known as “comfort women.”

When US President Ronald Reagan visited the Bitburg cemetery in Germany widespread outrage ensued because the cemetery held the graves of former SS soldiers. Yet Japanese politicians habitually visit the Shinto Yasukini shrine in which the ashes of known World War II war criminals are kept. These actions have prompted regular diplomatic protests from China and South Korea.

Human Experimentation and POW Slave Labor

The grotesque experiments of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele are well documented. Yet the experiments by Japan, often using POW’s or indigenous populations, have been denied by the Japanese government. These included bio-chemical experiments on human groups and were extensively conducted in occupied Northern China. To date, no one has ever been tried as a war criminal for any of these activities.

POW’s were used as slave laborers by Japan. Yet survivors have been unable to bring cases to court against such giants as Sony. Other suits have been attempted as class action remedies such as the 1995 suit brought by Miami-based Center for Internee Rights. Japan’s defense continues to be denial.

The United States was instrumental in rebuilding both Germany and Japan after World War II. De-Nazification worked and German compensation and reparations attempted to offer some measure of atonement. This same attitude must be adopted by Japan as well.

Sources:

• Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (Crown Publishers, Inc. 1985)
• Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (Basic Books, 1997)
• “Japan orders history books to change passages on forced World War II suicides,” Boston Herald.com, March 30, 2007
• Robert Marquand, “Tokyo teacher embattled over war history,” Christian Science Monitor, November 22, 2005

© 2009 Michael Streich

 

1950s and 1960s Main Streets Fuel Prosperity

Consumerism in Post War America Focused on Downtown Shopping

Nov 22, 2009 Michael Streich

As individual wages rose in the 1950s and products expanded, affordable consumer goods from food to clothing helped fuel a period of economic prosperity and well being.

   

In 1965 Petula Clark’s hit song “Downtown” reminded listeners to “listen to the music of the traffic in the city, linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty.” In the 1950s and 60s Main Street in most American cities represented the life and prosperity of a consumer driven society. Here shoppers bought everything from Smith-Corona typewriters made in the USA to a pair of Hagar slacks selling for $6.95. New products, often advertised as “fully automatic,” characterized a period of conformity while giving workers the opportunity to purchase consumer goods as their wages rose.

Post Depression Economic Expansion

After over a decade of national depression and four years of a world war that demanded sacrifices, the Cold War peace was a breath of fresh air for most Americans. The average national income in 1950 was $3,216 and the cost of a new house in suburbs approximately $12,400. Cold War families paid 16 cents for a gallon of gas and 3 cents to mail a letter.

The American housewife experienced dramatic changes in the kitchen. Hotpoint’s new range, introduced in the 1950s, was advertised as “super automatic” and could bake, broil, grill, barbeque (like modern rotisserie appliances), and had the ability to fry fries in a special frying unit. Changes in processed food also meant less time in the kitchen.

The Swanson “TV dinners” began a food revolution while the producers of evaporated milk proclaimed their product as a “magical marvel.” In 1957 a can of Campbell’s tomato soup cost 10 cents and for those families seeking to dine out, a chicken dinner in Topeka in 1951 was only $1.50 and included a choice of sides and dessert at Hoofer’s Dinner-House. Products were made in America, fueling an industrial and manufacturing economy.

Main Street in Every Downtown

For most urban Americans, the city “downtown” was a microcosm of the national consumer spirit. Specialty shops linked the “five-and-dime” stores like Kresge and McCrory’s along every main thoroughfare. Because many neighborhoods reflected ethnic immigrant patterns, an Italian bakery might be across the street from a Polish butcher.

Downtowns in the sprawling Northeastern communities within driving distance of New York or Philadelphia were connected by bus routes and rail transportation. In New Jersey, the Erie-Lakawanna line took passengers from Newark to Main Streets in Passaic and Patterson while buses ferried shoppers to the larger downtown avenues such as Bergenline Avenue in West New York on the Jersey side of the Hudson River.

Many downtowns across the nation featured venerable old department stories like Sterns in Newark, NJ or Belks in Charlotte, NC. Every downtown hosted a Sears store. It was the departure of these important establishments in favor of suburban malls that began the decline of Main Street in many communities. Along with malls, free-standing all-purpose stories like W.T. Grant lured shoppers away from downtowns.

Increased Mobility Added to the Demise of Downtown Shopping

By the late 1960s more Americans than ever were driving. A gallon of gas was still only 25 cents in 1959 and Detroit was producing attractive and affordable new models every year. This was also the period when America went from an urban nation a suburban one. Families traveled more and the suburban shopping mall was a new experience. In 1967, a one-night stay at a Howard Johnson’s motor lodge was only $15.50 plus tax.

As the five-and-dime stores consolidated in the 1980s or filed for bankruptcy, many downtown merchants found the decreasing interest in Main Street shopping unsustainable to their businesses. Today, communities have spent millions of dollars to “revitalize” dead downtowns but have generally been unsuccessful in bringing back meaningful merchant business. The Main Streets that helped fuel fifties and sixties prosperity remain a nostalgic memory of a bygone era.

Sources:

• Reminisce magazine and on-line site.
• Jeff Little, “A Bargain at Any Price.”
• Laura Shapiro, Something from the Oven: Reinventing Dinner in 1950s America (Viking, 2004)
• “1950s & 1960s Commercials,” The Video Beat, New Paltz, NY (VHS)
• 
  
• *The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting of any or all of this article in any format must be grated in writing by Michael Streich.

 

The Westward Movement's Effect on Indians

The American Frontier Mentality Led to the Demise of Native Cultures

Nov 23, 2009 Michael Streich

The history of America is a history of westward migration from the Colonial Era to Manifest Destiny resulting in the populating of the Great Plains after the Civil War.

The “Westward Movement” in American history may have begun during the early colonial period as the lure of land, game, and resources tempted adventurous settlers to leave the east behind. By the mid-19th century Horace Greeley supposedly said, “Go West young man and grow up with the country.” Ralph Waldo Emerson had advised readers to “Hitch your wagon to a star.” The Frontier fulfilled both challenges and in the 1890s Frederick Jackson Turner evaluated everything that was good in the American character and national mentality as relating to the frontier. The Westward Movement brought significant changes to the vast continent but in many cases these changes spelled doom for the indigenous inhabitants.

The Beginning of Western Settlement in the 19th Century

Even before the 1849 Gold Rush brought tens of thousands to California, Americans had migrated west in large numbers. Texas independence was attributed, in part, to eastern farmers enticed by cheap and fertile land. The Mormons, led by Brigham Young, trekked across the Plains by the thousands to establish their own community in Utah, out of the reach of discrimination and persecution. The Westward Movement was not slowed by the Civil War even as a Republican dominated Congress finally passed a Homestead Act in 1862.

Role of the Railroad in Westward Settlement

In 1869 the two branches of the new built Transcontinental Railroad met at Promontory, Utah, signaling the end of a stupendous undertaking linking the two American coasts. The railroad also took local Native Americans a step closer to the reservation system and the perpetual loss of tribal land. Railroad hubs funneled goods via trunk lines to growing cities like Chicago with beef cattle driven across the Plains from Texas. At the same time, railroad agents actively recruited farmers to settle on company-owned lands. Their farming would produce railroad profits through freighting fees.

Effect on Native Populations

Plains Indians were driven from traditional lands by a variety of factors but the most important one was the sheer number of pioneers and adventurers crossing the continent. 223,000 Plains Indians, including the Five Friendly tribes in Oklahoma, lived in this region. In the Northern Plains, some 30,000 Sioux vigorously fought for their lands and it was these Indians that obliterated General Custer’s command at the Little Big Horn in 1876.

Native Americans hunted buffalo, using every portion of the animal to live. White men determined to subdue native cultures began a concerted effort to rid the Plains of buffalo, driving the species into near extinction. While such actions may have been premeditated, in other cases they involved adventurers that hunted the animals purely for sporting pleasure. By 1893, fewer than 200 buffalo existed in the West.

Solving the Indian Problem

The independence of native cultures was interrupted by cattle drives, farmer’s fences, an ever expanding railroad system, and the elimination of a chief source of food. Indians as a group were viewed as vile and insolent. In an era when white society applied Charles Darwin’s principles to social models, the Indians were inferior and unfit. During his command of American forces in the Trans-Missouri West, General William T. Sherman observed that the only solution would be extermination.

By 1887 Congress passed the Dawes Severalty Act, depriving Indians of traditional tribal lands and settling them on farm allotments. The legislation, though well intentioned, failed. As more territories entered the community of states, Native Americans became more marginalized. The culmination of the Westward Movement’s effect on native cultures came in 1890 at Wounded Knee in South Dakota with the wanton massacre of Teton Sioux.

Sources:

• Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (Holt, 2001)
• Federick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1990)
• Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansion in American History (Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1958)

*The copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich. Reprinting all or part in any form must be grated by Michael Streich in writing.