Genocide is an act committed with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such by killing members of this group. In addition, this includes attempts to inflict grievous harm to their health, the adoption of measures designed to prevent childbearing in such a group, the forced transfer of children, and the deliberate creation of living conditions designed to completely or partially physically destroy this group (United Nations par. 4). It is important to understand that genocide is recognized by the UN as an international crime. In the history of humanity, many cases of genocide can be found, from ancient times to the present day. This is especially true for fighter wars and devastating invasions, campaigns of the conquerors, internal ethnic and religious clashes, for the formation of the colonial empires of the European colonizers. However, the given article will primarily focus on the series of events called The Trail of Tears, which was a deliberate attempt of the US to eliminate Native American tribes. It was genocide because it falls under the description of Article 2 of the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Genocide Against Indians
Genocide is an international crime, which is severely punished and persecuted by the international community. Any form of activity that intends to fully or partially destroy any religious, racial, ethnic, or national group is an act of genocide (United Nations par. 3). According to the UN’s description, genocide is:
- “Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (United Nations par. 4).
In other words, the Indian removal process was act defined in point c, where a group is intentionally put under harsh conditions, which results in physical destruction. The main immediate objective of genocide recognition and prevention should be interpreted as social relations that regulate the safe living conditions of national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups. An additional direct purpose of genocide prevention is to recognize public relations governing the safety of life of individual representatives of groups of the population indicated in the law. The latter also involves relationships regulating the health of these individuals, links ensuring their rights and freedoms, relations governing property rights, and relations regulating sexual liberty and sexual inviolability. There is also a need for the protection of families and minors, associations for the protection of the honor and dignity of the individual. Genocide victims should include only representatives of national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups.
A necessary condition that determines the possibility of committing genocide is the presence of a national, ethnic, racial, religious, or another group of people with respect to whom an intention arises or a complete or partial physical destruction is practically carried out. Nevertheless, the objectively existing national, ethnic, racial, religious, or other differences between the representatives of such groups cannot provoke genocide per se. Genocide includes such characteristic features as the presence of the organizers and performers of the genocide of material interests, the implementation of which a specific human group impedes voluntarily or involuntarily (Shaw, “What is Genocide” 116). It is possible that these individuals may have certain ideological or religious views, which provide for the destruction of representatives of such a group. In addition, there may be traditions of a hostile attitude of some groups of people to others, leading to the tension that can cause bloody consequences, one of which is genocide.
The circumstances that create fertile ground for genocide include the state of war or military conflict and the absence of international norms or their fragile application by the international community against persons guilty of genocide. In addition, there can be non-interference by state authorities in the actions of local authorities or military authorities or deliberate disregard for the committed genocide. There is a non-interference of international forces in the internal affairs of the state, in which there are cases of genocide, and a weak development of democracy in the country, and more often – its complete absence.
The semantic and textual content of international and national norms on genocide allows people to conclude that a prerequisite for qualifying a criminal act as genocide is its commission against two or more persons from among representatives of certain groups of people. However, this condition, to some extent, narrows the content of the genocide and distorts its essence. Any criminal act that forms the objective side of genocide committed against even one person can also be recognized as genocide. The approach to identifying groups whose representatives may be victims of genocide is subject to review. The essence of genocide is the desire of criminals to achieve their ultimate goal – the destruction of a community of people, isolated on certain grounds. Limiting it only to racial, ethnic, national and religious criteria not only significantly narrows the real content of genocide but also significantly reduces the possibility of the adequate response of international justice to the destruction of certain groups of people on grounds not specified in the norms on genocide (Shaw, “War and Genocide” 73). This should include other socially important criteria, for example, membership in a class, age, or other groups.
Genocide is always carefully thought out and organized and, as a rule, is committed in complicity. However, unlike the classical model of complicity, leaders or organizers, ideologists, and performers should almost always be distinguished among participants in the genocide. These are the three main criminal links of a complex subject. Taking into account the specifics of the genocide, it is also advisable to include such special entities as states, the media, public and other organizations in the circle of subjects of this crime. They are subject to the rules of civil and criminal liability for the actions of their representatives – physical persons. The definition of genocide, which has not undergone a change since its legal consolidation, needs to be adjusted, taking into account modern ideas about the nature and forms of its manifestation. Genocide is a deliberate act that entailed the complete or partial destruction of a group of people, determined on the basis of a socially significant criterion and knowingly perceived by the perpetrator as such, or creating a threat of such destruction.
Genocide has high latency due to reasons of an objective and subjective nature. The former is expressed in the impossibility to bring to justice those responsible in all cases of genocide. It is the inability of timely international or state intervention and influence on events occurring in the territory of a country or region. There is a fear of national or regional authorities and witnesses before the leaders of criminal regimes, movements, organizations. There may be a large number of direct executors of the genocide, their direct dependence on leaders, and the limited organizational, technical, and material capabilities of international institutions (Horowitz 327). The second is the result of deliberate denial, non-recognition of the facts of genocide, and even their concealment by individuals, organizations, and states.
A characteristic feature of the genocide prevention system is its two-level structure, including international and state levels. Such a structure is objectively determined since the effective preventive activity is possible only with the coordinated and consistent work of both international and national institutions. A high level of latency, the prevalence of genocide in the world, indicates the lack of effectiveness of conventional preventive measures at the present stage of the fight against genocide and the imperfection of its prevention system as a whole. Thus, the most realistic means of preventing genocide remains the use of criminal law measures, and above all, against the leaders and organizers of the genocide.
Indian Removal
The Trail of Tears is the forcible resettlement of Native Americans, the bulk of whom were five civilized tribes, from their native lands in the southeastern United States to Indian territory in the western United States. The Choctaw tribe was first resettled in 1831 (Haveman 137). On the way, the Native Americans suffered from a lack of a roof over their heads, disease, and starvation, and many died. Only for the Cherokee tribe, the estimate of the death toll on the road is from 4 to 15 thousand (Smithers 91). Together with the Native Americans, many African Americans who were enslaved, married to representatives of Indian tribes, or simply fugitives, moved to Indian territories.
By 1830, five civilized tribes, such as the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole, were autonomous entities in the southeastern United States. The process of their cultural transformation, which began by George Washington and Henry Knox, was gaining momentum. These tribes, especially the Cherokee and Choctaw, quickly adopted European technological advances and culture. President Andrew Jackson was a supporter of the removal of the Native Americans in order to give their land to the white colonists, and the Indian Removal Act was passed with his assistance. In 1831, the Choctaw tribe was removed first, and then the remaining tribes were relocated in the similar fashion. The Seminole were removed in 1832, the Creek in 1834, the Chickasaw in 1837, and the Cherokee in 1838 (Haveman 298). Therefore, five major Native American tribes were forcefully relocated to a different location, where they underwent severe hardship, which resulted in many deaths.
Creek Removal
Although the relocation process involved a number of tribes, Creek removal can be an illustration of the genocide features of the act. Initially, prior to relocation, the Creeks Confederation was located in the current states of Georgia, Alabama, and northern Florida. The territory was distinguished by beautifully cultivated arable lands, forges, built on the European model residential and office buildings. From the beginning of the 19th century, the US Congress began to pursue a policy of ousting screams from their equipped lands. So, in 1803, Thomas Jefferson, after purchasing the state of Louisiana, first put forward the idea of the eviction of five civilized tribes from their vast, forest-rich, fertile lands in a humid subtropical climate to the west, beyond the Mississippi, into the dry steppe (Smith 143). After the signing of several land transfer and sale agreements that were unsuccessful since the beginning of the 19th century, settlers began to supplant the Creeks, expanding state laws over Native American territories, intimidating and leaving them no other choice but to fight back.
By 1836, some of the cries of Georgia and Alabama had settled down and adopted American culture, but almost all property and possessions were ultimately taken away from them by whites. Forced to kill someone else’s cattle for the sake of the family and put on someone else’s clothes, simply because they no longer have their own, Creeks invaded Georgia in May 1836 (May 229). Then the state authorities turned to the government with a request to send troops and weapons, which they were denied since, at the same time, the US was already waging war in Florida with the Seminoles. Neighboring Alabama also could not help, because clashes with shouts threatened them.
A year after the outbreak of the war against the Seminoles, when the Americans never managed to win a landslide victory, more than 700 Creeks were accepted into the army for scouting and translators. They were promised a good salary, with the help of which, they hoped, they could feed their families and organize their resettlement to the West. On May 15, 1836, the first battle took place in the Second Creek War near the city of Roanoke. The Native Americans attacked the town, killed about 15 people, as well as cattle, burned farms, and plantations. The next battle occurred on June 9 of the same year, when the American army was sent to help the settlers, was taken aback by the Native Americans (May 163). If help had not arrived in the form of militias from Stuart County, the company would not have been saved.
By the beginning of 1837, Creeks did not have the strength, provisions, and weapons to fight on equal terms, even to continue to resist, therefore, in March 1837, hostilities were transferred to Florida, namely to its northwest, where screams rushed in the war in Alabama and Georgia. The nature of the clashes on this territory was rather of a point nature, where small detachments of Americans, police, and Native Americans were engaged in looting, robbery, and murder. The governor of Florida in March 1838 personally tried to establish contact with the Creeks to end the war, but his efforts failed (Smithers 112). The conflict subsided for another reason, the Native Americans suffered from hunger and could no longer fight.
However, a new wave of aggression swept the Native Americans. This began with the assassination of Mrs. Jones, a woman who made friends with Creeks and invited them to her home for dinner. There she served a spicy dish, and the Native Americans decided that she wanted to kill them, for which they killed her. The Creeks also killed the Perkins family, this event stirred up the surrounding settlers, who decided to gather a militia to repulse the Native Americans, but the authorities refused to help, explaining that the war was officially over weeks ago (May 87). Local police continued to search for killers until the end of the year, and in December, they discovered an Indian camp consisting of several people. The Americans were not expected to visit, as the Native Americans believed that the war was over, but the Americans killed them all. Even the locals, the Americans considered this a crime.
Despite the fact that formally voluntary resettlement to the West began as early as 1832 immediately after the signing of the agreement, Creeks were in no hurry to relocate. In the future, a small portion of the group moved to the West of their own free will, as, for example, the Creeks groups who left Alabama in 1834 and 1835, the rest were forcibly resettled, without any payments and support in a new place (Haveman 367). After the first rebellions, the captured Native Americans who participated in clashes with the Americans were also resettled for the Mississippi.
Discussion
Therefore, one can observe that the Creeks resisted to the last, trying to fight back and defend their land. However, initially, they had a little chance since the Americans began to approach their territories a long time ago, gradually surrounding their settlements on all sides, taking away food, clothing, houses, and livestock from the indigenous people. Despite all the admonitions and promises of protection and care, the policy of the authorities was rather hostile, and no action was taken. The government patiently waited for local Americans, driven by a thirst for profit, greed, and envy, to do everything themselves.
Part of the Creeks was deceived by local businessmen and dealers, and some later chose to leave voluntarily, while the rest were so embittered by the settlers and, at the same time weakened by hunger that they obviously could not stand up against the whites and were also deported for the Mississippi. Thus, Native American politics was aimed more at enslavement than at establishing friendly relations. In their native land, Native Americans were prosecuted for crimes they did not commit, and laws forbade them to testify in court, many Native Americans were embroiled in debt to the settlers. The former did not have any protection and patronage, unlike the latter. The federal government, led by President Jackson, was inconsistent in its judgments and actions. They welcomed Creeks as allies and brothers and promised them all kinds of protection, but didn’t take any action, only encouraged the arbitrariness of local authorities, thereby provoking the Native Americans into conflict.
The result was manifested in immense suffering and death, which was forcefully delivered through the president’s command. The Trail of Tears and the associated resistance was full of war crimes and human rights violations. However, the most distinctive aspect of the given historical tragedy is the fact that it possesses all characteristics of genocide. The president was given the right to enter into land swap agreements with the Indians; in addition, the US Congress allocated appropriations to cover expenses and protect the Indian tribes during and after the resettlement. As a result, most of the Indians moved west, mainly to the so-called Native American Territory in the modern state of Oklahoma. Over the years of Jackson’s presidency, millions of acres of land were repurchased.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Creeks and other members of civilized tribes underwent the severe ethnic cleansing process, which was a case of genocide. It falls under the category of Article 2 of the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Although the resettlement was declared voluntary, those remaining had to submit to federal laws that destroyed their tribal and personal rights and be subjected to endless harassment by white settlers. The practice of pressure and bribery was widely used to force leaders to sign land agreements with white authorities. This led to division within the tribes themselves, and the US government preferred to ignore those leaders who resisted the resettlement and deal with those who favored it. Often moving to new places took place in terrible conditions. Many Indians did not have the means for provisions and transportation and were forced to walk. Due to unsanitary conditions, harsh winters, and malnutrition, diseases began, many died of hunger. The relocation was accompanied by the looting of the property of the Indians. The federal troops, which were supposed to accompany and protect the migrants, due to disorganization, only increased their deprivation.
At the same time, preventive measures should not remain outside the general system of genocide prevention. Since genocide is often the culmination of national, racial, ethnic, religious, or other intolerance, the prevention of extremist crimes acquires an important preventive value for genocide. Effective identification of such regimes, bodies, parties, and other organizations or associations, their timely disclosure is necessary. It is important to identify, eliminate, weaken, and neutralize unfavorable factors of personality formation, especially with leadership qualities, an extremist, or other reactionary orientation. In addition, moral and legal education, personal education from an early age in the spirit of tolerance, humanity, and equality of the rights and freedoms of all people, and the development of democratic institutions and civil society are needed.
Works Cited
Haveman, Christopher D. Rivers of Sand: Creek Indian Emigration, Relocation, and Ethnic Cleansing in the American South. University of Nebraska Press, 2016.
Horowitz, I. Louis. Taking Lives: Genocide and State Power. Routledge, 2017.
May, Katja. African Americans and Native Americans in the Cherokee and Creek Nations, 1830s-1920s. Routledge, 2016.
Shaw, Martin. War and Genocide: Organised Killing in Modern Society. Wiley, 2015.
Shaw, Martin. What is Genocide? Polity, 2015.
Smith, Andrea. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. Duke University Press Books, 2015.
Smithers, Gregory D. Native Southerners: Indigenous History from Origins to Removal. University of Oklahoma Press, 2019.
United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 2020, Web.