Comment from one of our readers

This comment was sent to us from a reader. What do you think, do you agree? (Discuss!)

"In response to your COMM project:

Republican Democracy vs. Indians
In Jefferson’s republican civilization, homogeneity and thus Christian-based virtue was valued above all else. While it may have been the Native American’s land that put them in the path of white imperialism, it was ultimately their otherness that made their very existence irreconcilable with the society created by our founding fathers. Because Jefferson’s government was a republican democracy, heterogeneity threatened to impede the advancement of public interest. Laws and values have to be universally applicable to all members of a society; therefore, the culturally different Indians were simply barred from this society all together. This outcome significantly differed from the one that befell blacks, for whom whites felt a sense of paternalism. The blacks could be integrated into society, albeit as second-class citizen, due in great part to their lack of sovereignty. Native Americans, on the other hand, had their own modes of law and order that were completely different from the European and American models. Therefore, they posed a threat to republican democracy of early America.

The extemporary reason for the clash between the Native Americans and white settlers was land disputes. With the invention of the cotton gin, plantations began to engulf the frontier lands surrounding them. As expansion continued, the Indians were pushed further and further west. This explanation, however, fails to address the question of integration. The answer to this is simple; Indians are too different (or at least perceived as such). The Indians were seen as uncivilized savages who knew nothing of Republican Virtue. Under this code of conduct, individuals were expected to be sober and productive members of society. They were expected to behave like civilized, proper folk. Republican Virtue was essential to the success of Jefferson’s democracy. Jefferson believed that the biggest threat to any republic is licentiousness. In this way he drew from the Greek and Roman models of effective governing. For Jefferson this virtue was embodied by the image of the yeoman farmer. Yeomen were hardworking non-slave holding farmers. They were the cornerstones of Jefferson’s democracy. Native Americans, on the other hand, had their own value system that was rooted behind centuries of tradition. Jefferson’s society looked contemptuously upon the Pagan practices of Native Americans. The introduction of the savage Indians threatened to undermine the values that the society was built on. The only way to reconcile Native Americans with the ways of the Yeoman would be for them to give up their culture and act “civilized”. Putting aside the issue of cultural clashes, the very structure of a republican democracy favors homogeneity.

In a republican democracy the entire population is represented by a much smaller subsection of society. For this form of rule to be effective, the interests of the aggregate have to be represented by members of the government. If the population is too diverse, a government risks one of two outcomes. Firstly, if there are groups not being represented, a government risks rebellion and dissent. The second outcome is a smoke screen of political ideals. In the second outcome, the interests of minority groups sideline the interests of the majority. Furthermore, the constitution purports the goal of universal equality. The terms of citizenship are universally applicable to citizens. However, it is never implied that anyone can be a citizen. In order to ensure that laws and values can be universal, the population must be homogenous. In the case of Native Americans, the ideals of the constitution would not serve their interests. If integrated as they were, Native Americans would either threaten the very fabric of the constitution or be ignored by its representation. Although many minority groups were abandoned by the constitution, the Native Americans were in a class of their own. Their history in the US significantly differed from that of the blacks. White Americans felt a sense of paternalism towards black Americans. Being black was seen as an affliction that individuals should not be blamed for. In addition, the blacks were introduced to Americas as slaves; thus, they lacked sovereignty. This made it easy to integrate them into the republican civilization, albeit as second-class citizens. Blacks could be impressed with the Republican Values of their masters. In this way the idea of equality for all citizens was quickly warped into the concept of making all citizens the same. For these reasons, Indians as Indians could not be integrated into society. But what if the image and economic ideals of Native American’s changed?

As is evident in our modern society, different cultural groups can cohabitate as long as their goals and interests are aligned. In Jefferson’s era the biggest impediment to cohabitation was the perceived otherness of the Indians. If Indians were to become a part of the nation, their public image must be changed. While his society regarded Indians as inherently different, Jefferson himself publicly attempted to change popular opinion. He waged a campaign to “publicize the image of the Indian hunter as the forerunner of the yeoman republican.” If society viewed Native Americans as virtuous and hard working, they could be tolerated in the new democracy of America. Jefferson also touted his plan to educate Native Americans on republican and economic values in return for agricultural training. Despite the public claims of Jefferson, however, his administration never had more than fifteen thousand dollars devoted to Native American matters. In addition, his rebranding of Indians as forerunners of the yeomen did little to change public sentiment. Effectively, the public message of Jefferson provided a curtain, behind which speculators and settlers could continue to expel Native Americans over minor disputes. In this way Jefferson’s republican dispensation, “not to destroy but to fulfill,” was never fully applied to Indians. It is unclear whether Jefferson believed in his own public rebranding of Indians, or if it was merely for show.

In a government in which the interests of the many are represented by the few, homogeneity in the population is essential. This was the case in Jefferson’s fledgling democracy. However, the existence of Indians posed a threat to this homogeny. They were simply too different at the time from the rest of the American population. They governed themselves in a completely foreign way from the colonial settlers. In addition, their savage image directly contrasted with the values that were emphasized by Jefferson. Given the stark contrast between the Indians and the American settlers, it seems unlikely that they could live peacefully in a republican democracy. However, if the Indians changed their cultural and economic values they may have been able to integrate into American society."