Phillip Tran Unit 11 Essay Was Westward Expansion Ethical?

March 29th, 2013

Go west young man (Horace Greeley,July 13, 1865) These were the words of the Liberal Republican party founder Horace Greeley, one of the greatest newspaper editors of his time, so he would know what would be right and wrong for America. It was essential for the United States to expand west, it was a do or die situation for the United States. The United States started its expansion west when we first agreed to the Louisiana Purchase back in 1803.(Tci, 2002) We then went on the purchase Florida from Spain in 1819 by signing the Florida Purchase Treaty in 1819. (Tci, 2002) After that, we took care of the natives in the south with the Indian Removal Act in 1830. (Tci, 2002) Not too long after, we started settling in Texas near the early 1830s. We then were able to annex Texas through some issues with the Mexicans, and also to buy some land south of Texas. (Tci, 2002) Now some would ask, how did we get all of this land without harming someone in the process? Well I can assure you that we got all of this land in a way that everyone equally benefitted from, or in an ethical way. The westward expansion of America was ethical because not only did it help out our economy, but it also removed threats to America at time, and in the long run, the native Americans that were removed, had improved in the long run overall. Back in the 1800s, America was just starting up so we needed a jolt in our economy. With westward expansion, came better economic opportunity for all, including people like Native Americans. Now all of our land that we purchased was very useful for us, especially land that was south of Texas as it was relatively flat.(Tci,2002) This meant that it was good land for

building things like railroads. This would help us expand west further. Some would ask if this was ethical because this was apparently Native land. The thing is that the US bought the land from the Mexicans, so the land was rightfully ours due to the fact that we bought the land from them, not the natives who were just there. Building the railroads there would also help give the Natives jobs, so in a way we are helping them by giving them opportunities to make money. Texas was also good land to farm on for cotton. This would help would economy because we used cotton for everything back then like clothes or even just string, so it was a very good export. It may seem like it was unethical to get the land, but in Texas, most of the people were already Americans and were trying to be a state of Mexico so they could run their own affairs, yet they were denied this and some fighting went down, and in the end we won and were able to annex Texas.(Tci,2002) Now not only did the US economy benefit from Texass land, but we also benefitted from lands in Florida, as it was very good land for farming cotton.(Tci,2002) We bought the land from the Spanish around 1819 with the Florida Purchase Treaty, so we already rightfully owned this land. Even with that, we decided of instead of just throwing them off the land, we offer them land to the west, this all being from the Indian Removal Act.(Congress, 1830)This is all ethical because since we bought the land from Spain, it was rightfully ours, but since we had to relocate the Natives, we decided to be nice and give them land to the west that was ours. All in all, there are many things that can be said that points to us getting this land being unethical, but with the job opportunities that opened up for not only us Americans, but also the natives, one could say that they benefited more from westward expansion then if we were not to expand. With westward expansion, not only did we benefit economically, but in the process the US eliminated threats to the US at the time. During the late 1700s and early 1800s, America

was surrounded by an abundance of foreign nations, ranging from the powerful Spanish to the south in Florida, to the Mexicans east of the Mississippi, and a constant threat to us would always be the Natives everywhere. (Tci,2002) We took care of these threats through purchases of land and treaties between all of these nations. We first took care of the Spanish in Florida by signing the Florida Purchase Treaty back in 1819. This was of course after our US army general Andrew Jackson took care of some Spanish and Natives who were causing trouble.(Tci,2002) The way we took care of them may seem like it was unethical, but to clarify, the Seminole Tribe Natives were first starting trouble in Georgia by raiding our farms there, be aware that this was in one of the first 13 colonies which the US owned.( Tci,2002) In the end, the US was merely taking care of problems on US soil which resulted in us buying Florida at the end of the conflict. In 1830, Americans were starting the settle in the Mexican territory of Texas, right next to the land that we obtained from the Louisiana Purchase. We soon started to out populate the Mexicans there, so we decided if Texas could become a state of Mexico.(Tci, 2002) This task was done by the colony leader Stephen Austin. When he asked, instead of letting us be, they threw him in jail for promoting rebellion and did not let us become a state. This lead to some violence which in the end, the United States came out on top of, and we ended up annexing Texas.(Tci,2002) Now the Mexicans took this as an invasion and started the Mexican American War.(Tci, 2002) This time, it was a lot harder to win, but in the end we won and with this victory, we made another treaty called The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which we bought land from for 15 million. These lands were south of Texas, they were nice and flat and were great to build railroads with, helping us expand west. (Tci,2002) With all of this going on, we were always facing problems with the Natives in the lands of the south like in Georgia and Florida. We dealt with them by signing an act called the Indian Removal Act. What this did was

it would move them to lands west of the Mississippi and give us the land to the south. (Tci,2002) Dont let the name fool you, this act was completely fair as Natives also signed this act in agreement, even though the government didnt sign it.(Tci,2002) This would mean that they too found this fair and complied with it fully, making this act perfectly ethical. To conclude, the United States protected itself from threats by making treaty that was fair for both sides, making them ethical for both of the sides.

In the process of westward expansion, land was gained for the United States, so it would make sense that the Natives had to lose some land, but the thing is that the way we gained their land was perfectly ethical for both parties. With the Indian Removal Act, it was promised that we would gain land in the south like Florida and have the Natives move to the west of the Mississippi. This was in exchange for protection and them keeping their lands for generations.(Tci,2002) Lets be honest, there were some natives that died in the process of moving and settling, about 4000 actually[About a quarter of their population].(Tci,2002) I mention this because even with this fact, the Natives actually re-grew their population eventually when they had moved west of the Mississippi. (PBS,2009) This is ethical because with this, it compensates for their losses with the removal and therefore is fair to the Natives in general. Another way that their lives had improved was the fact that they were able to keep their culture alive, even without their old land. (PBS,2009)Something like this justifies their transfer to west of Mississippi because this means that even without their Sacred land, they still kept their culture, so in the end it was fair because they just simply moved, retaining their culture, making their transfer to west of Mississippi ethical for both parties. Lastly, in the long run, the Natives ended up with the best public schools in America. (PBS,2009) This would make the transfer ethical because not only did the Natives get new land, but their future generations would have

the opportunity to become educated, giving them more options in their lives. To conclude, with the Natives going west of the Mississippi, they also improved in the long run, things like their population re-growing, the Natives retaining their culture, and lastly in the long run, their public schools had become the best in the country.

With westward expansion, came many controversial things that had to happen. The thing is that, even if its controversial, it doesnt mean that it isn't wrong or unethical. It is obvious that many Natives died on the trail of tears, about 4000 actually. [About a Quarter of the native population]. (Tci,2002) With that fact alone, it may seem like it automatically makes westward expansion unethical but in the actual long run, the Native population actually re-grew to where it once was so in a sense, they made up for their losses.(PBS,2009) Another misinterpretation that people have is how we obtained Texas. People usually mention how we just came in and expected that they conform to us not to them, making it seem unethical. With regards to this, by the time we were about to fight the Mexicans, there were way more Americans in Texas than Natives of the land so it would have benefited the majority of the population in Texas to do things for the Americans, like having government documents in English. (Tci,2002) Westward expansion brought so many opportunities for the US. If we were to stay put at 13 colonies, we would have never been able to uphold the freedom of America that we have today, so westward expansion was needed in order for us to have this much freedom in America.