It’s important to approach the history of removal as a period of “many removals” because it gives some due respect to the individual people and communities that were undergoing removals at different times, in different places. Saying “many removals” not only emphasizes that the Native communities being removed were not a conglomerate, acknowledging their varying differences in goals, culture, and many other aspects, but also provides a greater look at the parties responsible for each removal and the violence that occurred with them—the Native people suffering should not be reduced to one single group of people, and neither should the people who caused the suffering in the first place. Additionally, “many removals” shows just how great the timespan of removal truly was. Some of the people affected include the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole communities, as well as Black enslaved peoples.
The extension of slavery into Western territories and the removal of Native communities are deeply intertwined historical issues. It isn’t that the things we do commonly learn about slavery and the Native removals are not valuable, but there is definitely much, more more to be known than what is usually taught; I certainly never knew about Native enslavers until now. It’s not only incredibly important to include more of the (very real and significant) presence of Native people in conversations about U.S. history and the history of slavery, but, in my opinion, it also sheds light on how modern conversation simplifies Native people and history. To treat each other as equals is to acknowledge that every person is complex, and has the ability to do both “right” and “wrong” things—anything else would be dehumanizing.
As stated in the “Inseparable Separations” podcast, “You can’t teach the history of the American South and of the domestic slave trade without also talking about native history and native participation.” (56:41) The expansion of slavery in the American South could not have happened without the period of many Native removals, and vice versa. It’s very interesting that during this time is also when the Marshall Trilogy (1823-1832) was occurring, because many new policies were being discussed at the same time as Andrew Jackson establishing the Indian Removal Act (1830), which was ruled unconstitutional. The Marshall Trilogy decided a number of things, including the power of the federal government regarding Native nations over state governments, all over individual actions. These decisions and the Indian Removal Act were made, ultimately, to solely benefit settler ideals, some more immediately obvious than others.